HomeMy WebLinkAboutBritannia Cove at Oyster Point DSEIR 4-2013 DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
fog BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN
State Clearinghouse # 1996092081
,,,.,,, ra✓ a �i iii � r � � o' � V!l � .,�
r
1 � y
1
i
f�
wa
I
� m 0
III III II II tils111111 II
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN
State Clearinghouse # 1996092081
PREPARED FOR:
City of South San Francisco Planning Division,
Department of Economic Development
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
PREPARED BY:
URS
1333 Broadway Street, Suite 800
Oakland, California 94612
April 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................I-1
A. Introduction...............................................................................................................I-1
B. Purpose of the Draft Subsequent EIR.......................................................................I-1
C. Type of EIR...............................................................................................................I-3
D. Draft Subsequent EIR Review Process.....................................................................I-4
E. Intended Uses of the Subsequent EIR.......................................................................I-5
F. Organization of the Draft Subsequent EIR...............................................................I-7
G. Levels Of Significance..............................................................................................I-8
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................II-1
A. Introduction..............................................................................................................II-1
B. Proposed Project......................................................................................................II-1
C. Project Objectives....................................................................................................II-2
D. Significant Effects....................................................................................................II-2
D. Areas of Controversy...............................................................................................II-2
F. Alternatives..............................................................................................................II-3
G. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................II-3
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................III-1
A. Overview of the Environmental Setting.................................................................III-1
B. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point("Project")............................................................III-9
C. Project Characteristics............................................................................................III-9
D. Project Objectives.................................................................................................III-20
E. Discretionary Actions...........................................................................................III-20
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................IV.A-1
A. Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant.....................................................IV.A-I
Agricultural Resources.......................................................................................IV.A-1
MineralResources..............................................................................................IV.A-2
Recreation...........................................................................................................I V.A-2
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
B. Aesthetics........................................................................................................... IV.B-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.13-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.B-2
Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.13-18
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.13-25
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.13-26
C. Air Quality ......................................................................................................... IV.0-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.0-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.0-3
Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.0-23
CumulativeImpacts.......................................................................................... IV.0-45
Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ IV.0-45
D. Biological Resources .........................................................................................IV.D-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.D-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.D-2
Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.D-9
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.D-13
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.D-13
E. Cultural Resources..............................................................................................IV.E-1
Introduction.........................................................................................................IV.E-I
Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.E-3
Environmental Impacts........................................................................................IV.E-7
CumulativeImpacts...........................................................................................IV.E-12
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..............................................................IV.E-13
F. Geology/Soils......................................................................................................IV.F-1
Introduction.........................................................................................................IV.F-I
Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.F-3
Environmental Impacts......................................................................................IV.F-15
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
CumulativeImpacts...........................................................................................IV.F-23
Level of Significance after Mitigation ..............................................................IV.F-23
G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials............................................................................IV.G-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.G-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.G-3
Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.G-8
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.G-17
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.G-18
H. Hydrology/Water Quality ..................................................................................IV.H-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.H-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.H-3
Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.H-13
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.H-25
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.H-25
I. Land Use and Planning........................................................................................IV.I-1
Introduction......................................................................................................... IV.I-1
Environmental Setting......................................................................................... IV.I-3
Environmental Impacts...................................................................................... IV.I-18
CumulativeImpacts........................................................................................... IV.I-23
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................. IV.I-24
J. Noise ................................................................................................................... IV.J-1
Introduction......................................................................................................... IV.J-1
Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.J-2
Environmental Impacts........................................................................................ IV.J-8
CumulativeImpacts........................................................................................... IV.J-19
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................. IV.J-19
K. Population and Housing.....................................................................................IV.K-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.K-1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.K-3
Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.K-7
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.K-10
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.K-11
L. Public Services....................................................................................................IV.L-1
Introduction........................................................................................................ IV.L-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................ IV.L-4
Environmental Impacts....................................................................................... IV.L-8
CumulativeImpacts.......................................................................................... IV.L-13
Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................. IV.L-13
M. Transportation and Circulation ......................................................................... IV.M-1
Introduction....................................................................................................... IV.M-1
Setting................................................................................................................ IV.M-4
Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... IV.M-51
ImpactAnalysis............................................................................................... IV.M-65
Existing"With Project" Impacts..................................................................... IV.M-66
N. Utilities/Service Systems ...................................................................................IV.N-1
Introduction........................................................................................................IV.N-1
Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.N-5
Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.N-18
CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.N-29
Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.N-30
V. GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES............................................................................ V-1
A. Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................... V-1
B. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project................................................. V-1
C. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.................................................... V-3
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT...................................................VI-1
A. Purpose..................................................................................................................VI-1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
B. Project Objectives.................................................................................................VI-1
C. Methodology.........................................................................................................VI-2
D. Selected Alternatives ............................................................................................VI-3
E. Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................VI-5
F. Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................................VI-18
VII. PREPARERS OF THE EIR AND PERSONS CONSULTED.....................................VII-1
LeadAgency......................................................................................................... VII-1
Subsuquent EIR Consultant.................................................................................. VII-I
Subsequent EIR Subconsultants........................................................................... VII-I
VIII. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... VIII-1
General References..............................................................................................VIII-1
Aesthetics ............................................................................................................VIII-1
AirQuality...........................................................................................................VIII-1
Biological Resources...........................................................................................VIII-3
CulturalResources ..............................................................................................VIII-3
Geologyand Soils ...............................................................................................VIII-3
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................VIII-4
Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................VIII-5
Land Use and Planning........................................................................................VIII-6
Noise ...................................................................................................................VIII-7
Population and Housing ......................................................................................VIII-7
PublicServices....................................................................................................VIII-7
Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................................VIII-8
Utilities and Service Systems..............................................................................VIII-8
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP), Revised NOP, and Responses to the NOPs
Appendix B: Development Application
Appendix C: Bioretention Area
Appendix D: Transportation Information
Appendix E: Geotechnical Report
Appendix F: Air Quality Data
Appendix G: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix H: Sewer System Master Plan
Appendix L Noise Data
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure III-1: Regional and Project Site Location.......................................................................III-2
Figure III-2: Existing Prcjec t Area Land Uses.........................................................................III-3
Figure III-3: Views of Project Site, Views 1-4..........................................................................III-4
Figure III-4: Planning Sub-Areas...............................................................................................III-6
Figure III-5: General Plan Designations Governing the Project Area.......................................III-7
Figure III-6: Views of Surrounding Uses Views 5-8.................................................................III-8
Figure III-7: Project Site Plan..................................................................................................III-12
Figure IV.B-l: Photo Location Map...................................................................................... IV.B-6
Figure IV.B-2: View of the Project Site, Views 1-4.............................................................. IV.B-7
Figure IV.B-3: Views of the Project Site, Views 5-8 ............................................................ IV.B-8
Figure IV.B-4: Views of the Project Site, Views 9-12.......................................................... IV.13-9
Figure IV.F-l: Project Site Geology.......................................................................................IV.F-9
Figure IV.H-1: Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan.........................................................IV.H-18
Figure IV.I-1: Project Site General Plan Designations............................................................IV.I-9
Figure IV.I-2: Project Site Zoning Designations...................................................................IV.I-11
Figure IV.J-1: Noise Measurement Locations........................................................................ IV.J-4
FigureIV.M-l: Area Map..................................................................................................... IV.M-2
Figure IV.M-2: Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ................................... IV.M-3
Figure IV.M-3: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes............................................................... IV.M-7
Figure IV.M-4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................... IV.M-8
Figure IV.M-5: Existing AM& PM Peak Hour Volumes, Veterans Blvd........................... IV.M-9
Figure IV.M-6: Transit and Shuttle Routes ........................................................................ IV.M-22
Figure IV.M-7: Year 2017 W/O project AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................... IV.M-28
Figure IV.M-8: Year 2017 W/O project PM Peak Hour Volumes..................................... IV.M-29
Figure IV.M-9: Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control.............................. IV.M-33
Figure IV.M-10: Oyster Point/Gateway & Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd Configurations... IV.M-34
Figure IV.M-11: Year 2035 W/O Project AM Peak Hour Volumes.................................. IV.M-40
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page vii
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Page
Figure IV.M-12: Year 2035 W/O Project PM Peak Hour Volumes................................... IV.M-41
Figure IV.M-13: Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control............................ IV.M-43
Figure IV.M-14: Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Project Increment................................. IV.M-51
Figure IV.M-15: Project Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Project Increment.................................. IV.M-52
Figure IV.M-16: Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Project Increment................................ IV.M-53
Figure IV.M-17: Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Project Increment................................ IV.M-54
Figure IV.M-18: Existing W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................... IV.M-55
Figure IV.M-19: Existing W/Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Volumes........................... IV.M-56
Figure IV.M-20: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Volumes......................... IV.M-57
Figure IV.M-21: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes ......................... IV.M-58
Figure IV.M-22: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes....................... IV.M-59
Figure IV.M-23: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes...................... IV.M-60
Figure IV.M-24: Year 2017 W/Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations .......... IV.M-67
Figure IV.M-25: Year 2035 W/Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations .......... IV.M-74
Figure IV.M-26: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes,
VeteransBlvd ......................................................................................... IV.M-83
Figure IV.M-27: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes,
VeteransBlvd ......................................................................................... IV.M-84
Figure IV.N-l: Project Utility Plan......................................................................................IV.N-22
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table II-1 Summary of Impacts/Mitigation Measures......................................................II-5
Table III-1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout.......................................III-11
Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I
(Project site).................................................................................................III-14
Table III-3 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code
Changes........................................................................................................III-15
Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Development Statistics ................................................................................III-16
Table III-5 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures..........................................III-19
Table IV.B-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary ...................................................................................... IV.B-2
Table IV.B-2 Bay West Cove Specific Plan Setback Requirements ............................. IV.B-17
Table IV.0-1 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary......... IV.0-3
Table IV.0-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards......................... IV.0-11
Table IV.0-3 2010 Estimated Average Daily Regional Emissions............................... IV.0-13
Table IV.0-4 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco-
Arkansas Street Station............................................................................ IV.0-13
Table IV.0-5 Thresholds of Significance for Construction-Related Activities............. IV.0-24
Table IV.0-6 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities............... IV.0-25
Table IV.0-7 Construction Phases................................................................................. IV.0-28
Table IV.0-8 Off-road Construction Equipment........................................................... IV.0-28
Table IV.0-7 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities............... IV.0-30
Table IV.0-9 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)............... IV.C-37
Table IV.0-10 Average Daily Mitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)................... IV.C-37
Table IV.0-11. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Updated
Operational Emissions (tons/year)........................................................... IV.C-38
Table IV.0-12 Operational Emissions (tons/year)........................................................... IV.C-39
Table IV.0-13 Existing Day Care Facilities Cancer Risk................................................ IV.0-41
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page ix
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Page
Table IV.C-14 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1
Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) ..................................... IV.0-43
Table IV.0-15 Construction GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year).................................... IV.0-43
Table IV.0-16 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) ..................................... IV.0-44
Table IV.D-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.D-2
Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species...............IV.D-4
Table IV.E-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary....................................IV.E-2
Table IV.F-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary .......................................................................................IV.F-2
Table IV.G-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary...................................IV.G-2
Table IV.H-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary...................................IV.H-2
Table IV.H-2 Comparison of Projected Run Off...........................................................IV.H-20
Table IV.I-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary ........................................................................................IV.I-2
Table IV.I-2 Setback Requirements................................................................................IV.I-12
Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and
Local Plan Policies.....................................................................................IV.I-15
Table VLI4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code
Changes......................................................................................................IV.I-21
Table IV.J-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary.................................... IV.J-2
Table IV. J-2 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results.................................................... IV.J-5
Table IV.J-3 CNEL Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Locations .............................. IV.J-6
Table IV.J-4 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas............................................. IV.J-7
Table IV.J-5 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels.......................................................... IV.J-8
Table IV.J-6 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project....................................... IV.J-11
Table IV.J-7 Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses.................................... IV.J-13
Table IV.J-8 Vibration Levels at Nearby Receivers...................................................... IV.J-17
Table IV.J-9 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases ......................................................... IV.J-19
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page x
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Page
Table IV.K-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.K-2
Table IV.K-2 Current and Future Population, Employment and Housing South
San Francisco and San Mateo County.......................................................IV.K-3
Table IV.K-3 Population Projections: South San Francisco and Neighboring
Communities 2005 to 2020........................................................................IV.K-4
Table IV.K-4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project Projected Employees...................IV.K-9
Table IV.L-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary....................................IV.L-2
Table IV.M-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria................................... IV.M-10
Table IV.M-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria............................... IV.M-11
Table IV.M-3 Intersection Level of Service Existing&Existing +Project.................. IV.M-14
Table IV.M-4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Existing& Existing +Project.............. IV.M-15
Table IV.M-5 Off-Ramp Queuing Back to U.S.101 Mainline...................................... IV.M-17
Table IV.M-6 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035
Without&With Project.......................................................................... IV.M-18
Table IV.M-7 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035
Without&With Project.......................................................................... IV.M-19
Table IV.M-8 Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operations............................... IV.M-20
Table IV.M-9 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Existing& Existing +Project...... IV.M-20
Table IV.M-10 Public Transportation Service................................................................. IV.M-23
Table IV.M-11 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service .............................................................. IV.M-24
Table IV.M-12 Year 2017 Without Project Trip Generation........................................... IV.M-30
Table IV.M-13 Intersection Level of Service—Year 2017 Without&With Project...... IV.M-35
Table IV.M-14 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2017 Without&With Project..... IV.M-36
Table IV.M-15 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2017 Without&With
Project..................................................................................................... IV.M-38
Table IV.M-16 Year 2035 Without Project Trip Generation........................................... IV.M-42
Table IV.M-17 Intersection Level of Service Year 2035 Without& With Project......... IV.M-44
Table IV.M-18 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2035 Without&With Project..... IV.M-45
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page xi
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Page
Table IV.M-19 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2035 Without&With
Project..................................................................................................... IV.M-48
Table IV.M-20 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................... IV.M-61
Table IV.M-21 Project Trip Distribution......................................................................... IV.M-61
Table IV.M-22 2017 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service....................................... IV.M-68
Table IV.M-23 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service....................................... IV.M-75
Table IV.N-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact
FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.N-2
Table IV.N-2 South San Francisco District Actual and Projected Water Demand
(AF)*..........................................................................................................IV.N-8
Table IV.N-3 South San Francisco District Available Water Supplies (AF)*...............IV.N-24
Table IV.N-4 South San Francisco District and Proposed Project Projected Water
Demand (AF)* .........................................................................................IV.N-25
Table VI-1 Project Alternative Scenarios.........................................................................VI-4
Table VI-2 Alternative B: Transportation Impacts ........................................................VI-11
Table VI-3 Alternative C: Transportation Impacts ........................................................VI-17
Table VI-4 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project...................................VI-19
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents
Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page zii
I. INTRODUCTION
A. INTRODUCTION
The subject of this Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR) is the
Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) located Nvithin the Cit_T of South San Francisco. The
proposed project (Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan) consists of the development of an
approximately 20.1 acre Office/Research and Development(R&D) business park, located Nvithin the Bay
West Cove Specific Plan, Nvhich is referred to as the `Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan." The
project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, an amendment to the BaY West
Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, a Precise Plan, adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative
subdivision map approval, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and a Sign Application
approval. The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clariA- the aggregation of
floor area ratio (FAR) across Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to
another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for an aggregated
FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1.
The lead agency for this project is the City of South San Francisco, located at Department of Economic
and Community Development, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, 94083. A detailed
description of the proposed project is contained in Section III (Project Description) of this Draft
Subsequent EIR.
Because the proposed project Nvill require approval of certain discretionan- actions by the Cit T of South
San Francisco and other governmental agencies, the proposed project is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City determined that the proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment and that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared.
B. PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
The City has prepared this Draft Subsequent EIR for the folloNving purposes:
• To satisA- the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21178) and the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 14, Sections 15000-15387).
• To inform the general public,the local community, and responsible and interested public agencies
of the nature of the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Specific Plan, the possible environmental
effects,possible measures to mitigate those effects,and alternatives to the proposed project.
• To enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding Nvhether to approve
development of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan.
• To provide a basis for preparation of future environmental documents (if required).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page I-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• To serve as a source document for information needed by several regulatory agencies to issue
permits and approvals for the proposed development of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan.
• To evaluate potential significant environmental effects of the project.
The determination that the City of South San Francisco (City) is the "lead agency"is made in accordance
Nvith Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the lead agency as the public
agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Draft Subsequent
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City regarding the potential environmental impacts, the
level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and the mitigation measures
proposed to reduce impacts.
As described in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged Nvith the duty to avoid or
substantialIv lessen significant environmental impacts, where feasible. In discharging this duty*, a public
agency* has an obligation to balance the project's significant impacts on the environment Nvith other
conditions,including economic, social,technological,legal and other benefits. This Draft Subsequent EIR
is an informational document, the purpose of which is to identifv the potentially* significant impacts of the
proposed project on the environment and to indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be
avoided or significantly*lessened; to identifv any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot
be mitigated; and to identifv reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that Nvould
eliminate any* significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant
level.
The lead agency*is required to consider the information in the Draft Subsequent EIR, along Nvith any other
relevant information, in making its decision on the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. Although
the Draft Subsequent EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that Nvill be made regarding
implementation of the project, CEQA requires the City to consider the information in the Draft
Subsequent EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
The City* is responsible for certifving that the Subsequent EIR for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan satisfies the requirements of CEQA. Once certified, the Subsequent EIR Nvill serve as the
base environmental document for Britannia Cove at ON-ster Point Precise Plan and Nvill be used as a basis
for decisions on site development. Other agencies may also use this Subsequent EIR in their review and
approval process.
This Draft Subsequent EIR Nvas prepared in accordance Nvith Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines
which defines the standards for EIR adequacy*:
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers
with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account
of environmental consequences An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed
project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a
good faith effort at full disclosure. "
C. TYPE OF EIR
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point EIR is a Subsequent EIR. As defined in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent EIR shall be prepared Nvhere
substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions of the previous EIR;
substantial changes occur Nvith respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
requiring major revisions of the previous EIR; or new information of substantial importance, which Nvas
not knoNsn and could not have been knovm, at the time the previous EIR Nvas certified as complete shows
new or more severe environmental impacts.
The project site Nvas originally part of the Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area, established by the
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Beginning in 1997, the approximately 55 acre (on-
shore portion) Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area (170 acres, 118 located offshore) has been
redeveloped in phases. The project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project. The
original site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe fabrication facilities,
ship repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of the original site are
located offshore and are not subject to development.
The on-shore area of the site has been redeveloped in phases. In December 1997,the City certified an EIR
for the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, a proposed mixed use commercial project. The 1997
Bav West Cove Commercial project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith each planning area
proposing a different development scenario. The project area Nvas defined as Planning Area 1 in the 1997
Bav West Cove Precise Plan. One planning area (Planning Area 5) Nvas located offshore in the San
Francisco Bav and the only proposed project for Planning Area 5 Nvas to create tidal Nvetland, as required
by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup Order. By 2000, only Planning Area 4 had
been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan.
In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2,
and 3. The development application included a subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific
Plan dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub-planning areas: la and lb. The City certified a Supplemental
EIR for the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently Planning Areas 2 and 3
Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D uses. The project Nvould develop Planning Area 1 and Nvould
complete the development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove Precise Plan in 1997.
This Subsequent EIR specifically considers Nvhether the 2013 proposed project Nvould result in new
significant impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or if
the project Nvould cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant
impacts. This Subsequent EIR also discusses any pertinent new information or changes in circumstances
that could result in new significant impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnren tal Impact Report Page I-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
Previously imposed mitigation measures from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR are identified and, where appropriate, are clarified, refined, revised, or deleted. This
Subsequent EIR also identifies whether or not new mitigation measures are required. The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Nvas Nvider in scope and covered a larger area than the proposed project in this
Subsequent EIR. The proposed project covers only Planning Area 1 of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
D. DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR REVIEW PROCESS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) Nvas prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies,
responsible agencies, and other interested parties on December 14, 2012. The City circulated the NOP for
a 30-day review period for the public and agencies to identIA- environmental issues that should be
addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15205(b)(2), the Draft Subsequent EIR Nvill be submitted to the
State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies. Submittal of the Draft Subsequent EIR to the State
Clearinghouse Nvill commence the 45-day review period. During the review period, copies of the Draft
Subsequent EIR Nvill be available for review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division,
Economic and Community Development Department and at the South San Francisco Main and Branch
Libraries during normal business hours. The folloNving are the addresses for the City of South San
Francisco Planning Division and the South San Francisco Main and Branch Libraries:
Citv of South San Francisco
Planning Division
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
South San Francisco Main Library
840 West Orange Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080-3125
Grand Avenue Branch Library
306 Walnut Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Written comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR may be sent via U.S.mail and addressed to:
Gera*Beaudin,Principal Planner
Citv of South San Francisco
Planning Division, Economic and Community Development Department
P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page 1-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
FolloNving a public hearing and after the close of the written public comment period on the Draft
Subsequent EIR, responses to written and recorded comments Nvill be prepared and published. The Final
Subsequent EIR Nvill consist of the comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR, written responses to those
comments, anv text changes needed on the Draft Subsequent EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (MMP).
To consider approval of the proposed project, Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to
certifv that:
• The Final Subsequent EIR has been completed in compliance Nvith CEQA
• The Final Subsequent EIR Nvas presented to the City, and that the City revieNved and
considered the information contained in the Final Subsequent EIR prior to approving the
project
• The Final Subsequent EIR reflects the Citv's independent judgment and analysis
In conjunction Nvith the City s certification of the Final Subsequent EIR, the City must also adopt written
findings that address each significant environmental effect identified in the Final Subsequent EIR,
consistent Nvith Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must also adopt the MMP to ensure
implementation of mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid
significant effects during project construction and/or operation.
If feasible mitigations and/or alternatives are not available to reduce significant environmental impacts to
a less-than significant level, those impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If the City elects to
approve the proposed project, and the proposed project Nvould have significant unavoidable impacts, the
City Nvill also be required to identIA- the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the
Subsequent EIR and any other information in the public record. This "Statement of Overriding Final
Considerations" Nvould be incorporated into the Findings and Nvould explain the specific reasons whN- the
benefits of implementation of the proposed project override the unavoidable environmental effects that
Nvould result from project implementation.
E. INTENDED USES OF THE SUBSEQUENT EIR
This document serves three purposes. The City Nvill use this Subsequent EIR to evaluate the
environmental implications of adopting and approving the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan.
LastIv, this document may be used as a source of information by responsible agencies Nvith permitting or
approval authority over the project.
As defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency is the public agency Nvith the principal responsibility for carrying
out or approving a project. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for approval of the
project. Upon completion of the Subsequent EIR process, the City Nvill cert*A-the Subsequent EIR for the
Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page 1-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The project Nvould require the folloNving actions or approvals:
• Certification of the Subsequent EIR
• Specific Plan Amendments to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area, FAR,
and Land Use Components
• Zoning Text Amendment to South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 20.210 to
accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area and proposed FAR
• Approval of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map
• Adoption of a TDM Plan
• Approval of Master Sign Program
• All future developments that are not othenvise covered by the proposed project may be subject to
a separate permit or precise plan approval that may be subject to subsequent CEQA review in
accordance Nvith Public Resources Code section 21166 and SSFMC Chapter 20.210.001
The folloNving is a list of City agencies and their responsibilities in approving the proposed project.
• Department of Economic and Community Development
• Building Division:
■ Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy
• Planning Division:
• Specific Plan amendments
• Precise Plan
• Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design
Review, CEQA Review
• Engineering Division:
o Grading Permits, Subdivision Approvals, Encroachment Permits,Plan Check
• Police Department:
o Citv's Security Issues Compliance
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Fire Department:
o Fire Code Compliance
In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that may have
discretionary authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to,
the folloNving:
• Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) — Issuance of a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing
more than 1 acre and permit for deNvatering during construction, and approval of operational
stormwater treatment
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Ensure compliance Nvith all traffic
related standards relative to state highways.
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) — Ensure that all applicable federal
and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained
• San Mateo County Flood Control District—Design approval for on-site flood control.
• San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance Nvith
regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans.
• Federal Aviation Administration — Establishes height limits and noise contours relative to the
operation of the San Francisco International Airport.
• GCAG Airport Land Use Committee — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to
the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan.
• BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission — Review pportions of the project
that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction.
F. ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
This Draft Subsequent EIR is organized into eight sections as follows:
Section I (Introduction): This section provides an introduction and a description of the intended uses of
the Subsequent EIR and the review and certification process.
Section II (Executive Summary): This section includes a summary of the project description,
environmental impacts that Nvould result from implementation of the proposed project, proposed
mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact before and after mitigation.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Section III (Project Description): This section presents a complete description of the proposed project
including project location, project characteristics, and project objectives. This section also provides an
overview of the study area's environmental setting including a description of existing and surrounding
land uses, history and background of the project and project site, and a discussion of related construction
phases to be analyzed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis): This section is the primary focus of this Draft
Subsequent EIR. Each environmental issue contains a discussion of existing conditions for the project
area including the regulatory setting, analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, an assessment and
discussion of the significance of impacts associated Nvith the proposed project, proposed mitigation
measures, cumulative impacts, and level of impact significance after mitigation.
Section V (General Impact Categories): This section provides a discussion of the potential growth
inducement of the proposed project as Nvell as a summary of any significant unavoidable impacts
associated Nvith the proposed project.
Section VI (Alternatives to the Proposed Project): This section includes an analysis of a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project to provide informed decision making in accordance Nvith
Section 15126(f) of the CEQA Guidelines. The range of alternatives selected is based on their ability to
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project.
Section VII (Preparers of the EIR and Persons Consulted): This section presents a list of lead agency,
other agencies and consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Draft Subsequent
EIR. This section also identifies persons consulted during preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Section VIII (References): This section provides full references of sources cited in the Draft Subsequent
EIR.
G. LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
This Draft Subsequent EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse
impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. The folloNving are definitions of terms
used in this Draft Subsequent EIR:
• Less than significant impact: Impacts that are adverse, but that do not exceed the specified
standards of significance.
• Potentially significant impact: Significant impacts that may ultimately be determined to be
less than significant; the level of significance may be reduced in the future through further
definition of the project detail. Potentially significant impacts may also be impacts about
which there is not enough information to draw a final conclusion; however,for the purpose of
this EIR, they are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to significant impacts
and require the identification of feasible mitigation measures.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Significant impact: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that can be
eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures.
• Significant and unavoidable impact: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of
significance and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through
the implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page I-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank.
Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page I-10
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
This summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the
proposed project as required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines. The summary includes a brief
description of the project, the project objectives, areas of controversy/issues to be resolved, and a
summary of alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, this chapter provides a table summarizing:
(1) potential environmental impacts that Nvould occur as a result of the proposed project; (2) the level of
significance of the environmental impacts prior to implementation of any applicable mitigation measures;
(3) the recommended mitigation measures and/or project requirements that avoid or reduce significant
environmental impacts; and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented (refer
to Table II-1, Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures at the
end of this chapter).
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
The project is development of the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. The project
consists of the development of an approximately 20.1 acre Office/Research & Development (R&D)
business park, located on a parcel in the Sheanvater Redevelopment Plan Area. The proposed project
consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings including 884,344 square feet of Office/R&D use; up to
a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space;
and a 9 story parking structure. Business/commercial development on the site Nvould total 1,030,344
square feet. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the project Nvould be constructed in three
phases, starting in 2013 and ending in 2019.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, namely Planning Area 1.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344
square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms
(from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per
1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Project buildings Nvould be consistent in character, Nvith simple geometry. Exterior building colors ma--
differ to create visual interest and building identity on the project site. Building forms Nvould vary in
capacity, height, and shapes to create architectural variety and individual building identity, while at the
same time maintaining a unified campus characters. The buildings Nvould be situated near the perimeter of
the site thereby creating large areas to accommodate open space, landscaping and surface parking.
Landscaping Nvould be installed between the buildings and Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards.
Pedestrian facilities Nvould be provided along Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards,where appropriate.
The project proposes a reduced parking ratio of 2.83 spaces/1,000 square feet, Nvith the exception of retail
and hotel uses which propose 3.3 spaces/1,000 square feet and 1 space/room ratios, respectively. Parking
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sul nrary
Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
supply Nvould be phased over the project construction phases. The project Nvould ultimately include 2,670
parking stalls, Nvhich Nvould meet the Municipal Code required parking for Office/R&D (2,503 stalls),
retail (67 stalls), and hotel (200 stalls), Nvith 100 stalls shared beN,-een Office/R&D and hotel uses at full
buildout. Of the total number of parking stalls, 52 Nvould be sized for handicap parking. Parking ratios
Nvould vary for new development projects Nvithin the 20.1 acre site during the phased incremental
development.
The project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the Ba_T West
Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, adoption of
Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, Transportation Demand Management
Plan (TDM), and a Sign Application approval. The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text
amendments to clariA-the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one
Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for
an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1.
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the project are as follows:
• Develop the site Nvith high-quality Office/R&D, and retail/hotel uses to serve the project's
employees,visitors, and the City of South San Francisco.
• Construct a cohesive Nvorking campus environment Nvith a clear organization of buildings,
structured parking, and pedestrian circulation and open space.
• Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements that
are in line Nvith the East of 101 Area guidelines.
• Create an open space and pedestrian path network that incorporates parks and landscaping for
passive recreational use.
• Emphasize the pedestrian environment Nvith Nvell-designated and useful landscaping that respond
to the climate of the Citv.
• Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and Ferry
service.
• Provide connection from the Bav Trail, bordering the project site,to bicycle network.
D. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
CEQA requires a discussion of potentially significant environmental changes that could result from the
project. The project would result in significant impacts to noise and transportation resource areas. See
Table II-1 for a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures.
E. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
This Subsequent EIR addresses environmental issues that are knoN-,n or Nvere raised during the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) public review period. Comment letters Nvere received regarding the project from the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sunrnrary
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County*, and
San Francisco International Airport. No other agencies or private parties submitted comments on the
project. Although no areas of controversy* Nvere raised during the NOP public review process, the City
anticipates that air quality*,noise, and traffic may be areas of concern for the project.
F. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives Nvere analyzed that Nvould avoid or substantially* lessen some of the significant effects
of the project. These alternatives include the folloNving:
• Alternative A: No Project Buildout Under Existing Approved Development. Under Alternative
A, the project site Nvould be developed Nvith Office/R&D, hotel, and/or retail uses previously*
approved for the project site.
• Alternative B: Reduced Intensity 0.75 FAR. Development at a 0.75 FAR reduced intensity*
(assuming a 40/60 split for office/R&D respectively*) on the portion of the site that is currently*
undeveloped. The overall FAR Nvould be approximately* 0.67 across the combined planning area
(Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and Britannia Oyster Point).
• Alternative C. Reduced Intensity 0.5 FAR. Development at a 0.5 FAR reduced intensity*
(assuming a 40/60 split for office/R&D respectively*) on the portion of the site that is currently*
undeveloped. The overall FAR Nvould be approximately* 0.55 across the combined planning area
(Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and Britannia Oyster Point).
G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table II-1 summarizes the various environmental impacts associated Nvith the project; includes the
mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid the environmental impacts; and identifies the level
of impact significance after mitigation.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sunrnrary
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank.
Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Summary
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-4
N .+��•' U cz cz U U ti
O
O G� bA bA bA
cz
o ^= bA c
ct
lun
u cz
U "O cz 'C OU U c� bA� ��• p O
bA U 7s =
Nct U O p �tj) bA'C cz C) b�A
Ln
N ct 0 N
S, by— P� bA � U U O +� �" � �" U
m �'� cz cz cz '� 'c� bA U G' ct U O U
U U U 'C cA f—
cz
cz tj) O .0 _O
rA F-1
00 cz s CZ 4: A U
a�
c o ro ro
cz
u a° vA
cz
U cz
c U U V
O
U U U O U
Ct
O ui +6 TEL
cz
ILI
cz
cn
o W 00 + 00 o
00 cz 00 rA 00 rA 00
� k
C/1 W
ti
N N
O
� •� N N � O N � � .
At
ct
O
ct IX y =p '� �� O �C c`ry �- O-o p v �� U o P.
0, n cC, cz cC N �, O .In ;� O ,� �"'.. .O �„ N N
m CC O 'r CZ 0
� O ct
U bA bA 0 0 P. �. a rbA 'C S� +�
Cl s-i O O C 1. N O O N ,S��" ,sy.' c� N U c�
't r�� O 0 °G ¢�'C 4.1
ct
cz
tl
P. L=. w cC V] s. a� L. cC
¢� 0 O ,
9.
C
V
U � W QI O
00 O U r
4. U CC
O U O bA
U
O
�i
I U
� O
00 ti
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
M cz cz cz ti
At
Ct
a
ti
:o o
'
o o ° cz o ° o .0 > 0 a"
o •� o ai ro C7 W ' ° o �'
cz
on ct ; .O ° cz ° cz U
cz 0 u cz
cz
oneo � ° � oUn Sao 00
° ° � �, Ct 5w � aa
c cz
cz 0
0 U U
c °
�- a c
�
Ct -° cz
o d o � 'o 0 0 � o
cz
cz
71 � ¢ o
ti
° t °
cz
cz cz 'U CZ O
r--� N O U O
cn
`n
00 00 00
O
a.•o a.•o a .o
cz cz cz cz
N U U U U
At U U
ti
O U
U �
N
U �
o
Ste. c O
� ° U
o U °
o "'.
ct
Ln
cz cz cz cz cz
cz °
w o 0 0 0 0
C U cz to to to
cz e+C 4?
U
�--I U S.
ICI
c 0 U U U
0 0 W 0
cz
s-' N on N * N O r O
u cz
cz cz 0 cz u
cz
U cz
cz U
cz u U0 u
ch cz cz cz u
cz
cn
°
U w s 00 A 00 cz 0
y cz
N +�. U ti
0
At
� � k
ti
O O a a'd U U
cz
o c1 1 0
0 0
p o
o
14
to U
ct a
U 0 '- U
p Z
cz cz cz
'^ 5 o U
Cwt co)
IC OMo
o ro ro ro c o cr to o 0
CZ p
cz
n
� cz V] V]
" U S.
CC O
00 =
E W Q O
00
Ct
� O U
fd c�
U o OC�ol !Ti o .U�. a cz
U "C C O
im, O
eC cC 'C U � O � � U �. � � � � p„ � ¢• U U '� �
cz
p �" �., U p CZ W U-I
W M cz N �b G cz O 0 -C iU O
cd cz
A_
A � � =
.y
O cz cn
cd bA c� c� a 00 O_ O
fd
cz
4 cz
00 u 00 0 00 cz
cz
N +�. U ~
p V O b4
7 At
� U W
ti
7s N 7 0 o .o cz
�U. cz Q' O o o U cz o U ,sU.' bA w -C U
�, ' U
p' d N O U O. O. U �, O ' � °
o U ° o o o *� O O ro ° o rA
C �o U o 2 S.U. °�' U Z ° ai o v v °�' ° v to.0 cz �. cC 0
SOU. O U iU•' O cC O O N N `+may
cz �. �.
U on'o cz u
U
cz cn y.y O s•. U O�, �A U c� '- '� �"" a .U.
cz
c U cz O U N W O O.4. 'C �. o ° O O
s. O. a O O O O. O p U cC
U cz O U ," ° N U CZ
s.. U O �.� U O s. s, s� O p c� U c� U cz
v� cd .s�- cd ' �. O U U y cd U o U cz O d �. c U _cz N C
C C o U
cz ai U o C: cz s O U O �"'••� •.. cd O •..
o o ^' 'C O O C9.
r O cUi cUi U U cC U ~ — U U U
N 'n � �, N•� •�'C O
P. cz 0
'C V� U P.w cz
" U S.
� O U
a �
� CZ
U O v')
0 0
~ ¢ ��
cn
U 0 �"'•• O. � 0
° cn
00 o o
U
00 cz cz Q
N cz
p V O b4
At
� O W
ti
U u p cz -
cz q N
U d O 0 O U c�L :
N U O U cz
cz
00
� a •� w U cUi 'cz co U O ° ct
cz 'u, U = v ,bA Pa ° w ro ° ° �!
o `° o o = U o E o ° ° `� ° °
U u yU,i U Fr u cz O r-
p Ln L ° o u W ct °
b�A a O a 0 cz 'C G cz U s0. � �. v = C
� o ro E cz cz
cz U cC O U c In Ln
cz 0 cz 0
� •.. 0 o ° ° ° o �
a o o v o u.� .o ° `z cz 0
P iti
CC O
fd
� O U
7 �
cz a .�
� o
U �
N" O
ILI
p IZ
W •� � o o~
o �
o cz CZ
U A q
*� ti
+••, b�A b�A b�A � �
ti
N u � c ct
cz
cC
cz
p CZ
cz
° �� a. � =° CZ U
C � ro v v
cz
O O
00 = U U
E
Ct
c
fd
CC
ct
�i" � ° U U 0 •b�A
21
ct
Z o
cz
o o cz o °�' u U °� u
o
U ° ° a o
° 0 0 O •un
W 0 ri O bA S. N U 0 U OU
F� ° w ? `� o
PI! C,
o
o ' �" o ors ° o
n
LIL 11
w O O cz
O
7 At
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
ti
,�. �" `+'� L" � .� c� N ,-O � � U � N � � ^' ¢r.O ,fir" c� �" •�� � ,r"-i
NO s0 0 u s0.' O. cz 'C 0 'C U
o ' o �° o o °' �° ct 0 � o °
c -o
u u 0 a i O on '
on" t x CZ� ono � � � o
W N cC 'cd NBC O 'c� . `,�--� ''� N �. �'. �--' "C c� a+ cd
Cl
eC Q + u cd o Ln o U U 0 o 0 p O * o Ln
p cz
cun
Ln
cz
° Ln o H Ln
U
"
U
S.
00 CC O
00
U � W QI O
00 O U r
CSC 4. U CC
O U O bA
U
eC
". cr
O
�i
� U
� O
00 ti
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
N +
At
cz
° o c>C U U on U U o U .° C ct
U O o V s•: , "�'. O U i i•-, ,r"., Fr �.�, Fr N -0 = U O M 'C cC cz
�"'•. "~ p O cn O. O O r--� �"'-. U U cC c� U S-'. "O U
•� O O U cz �.� � `'�� � � � � � O � c� U cz
U O u r--� O V] cC O U O 8
N tip O " .�" U U v' ,�•, 1 En c�Cd Oy.., U N "�.' p O O ct
cz
C, bA O U N C� ¢r U .6 b y O
,
U ' U � 5 cC O s cd 'C
O N
�
� o .o0 u .� �' a. ° � ; � ° p er o
C
84 '� ro 0. 0 0 o o .� 0 Ln
Z 'n CC O
00
fd
� O U
7 �
0 ti
cn
U
00 Q
z
N
At
7
° w
a z �
i U a cz �, 0
cz o °a. one cz u 'R a. ° u °' on o
zn) �" N � �. O N � CZ
C v
Ste. 0 •bA � CZ cC +��' `-' 4-. O '� O
CZ In u
°�' �=° off ? aopo '° � cz o
u 'n 'n cz o cz O 4" C
L" s s- '0 c
W) ~ O O ti) N O p ccz ccz 0 U 0 �. U ,�-� �-' u cz
a� a O N p cC cz U
o o � wa . 0 C,
°'
'� cz O
o °
a� ro O on oA ° cz '0 O o cz
.,
cz
'"
cz
0 cz
0~
00 =U cz
W a O
f d
cz
� O �
O
O ct O
� "C 'P � O
O U ct � U �
o
IZ
u cz
cz 5
¢ o cz ¢ .°
� � H ,� H � � �,o N F" � •� :� � W
cz u � u =o
00 00
O
7 At
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
ti
a O Li U U U i•" � U c��
0 N CC U = = W N c CC
C
CZ
U ,�
cz
rA cC r--� U U cC
CZ CZ U
my �c�• p C , U
C
N o U sN-
U U U U U Cc)
W) U 4? N o p U
U cz C U
U U U — C U
ct
O
'C cn yamy.y., O c�C U cOC cC O °
° � 5 - � ° mo=o ¢ cz
c� O �, w U cz
Ln
° U � ° ro° C, w °
-0 o o 0 � � CZ
on a a
o ° U o a CZ
ct
� Ln
eC O bn U U eC � bn U O O i•„
N a :O p �" ° U O O 'C U U +U N O cz
ct
� H cz ,�. cn O
CC O
O U O bA
eC
". cr
O
�i
I U
� O
Z
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
ti
At
cz
cz
cz
U CZ
u a ° cz o °cz
� 'o o ° o -o ° ° °
� -o ° 0 ° o ro
cz
U O. C
�' N �' ' c� N 0 c�
°O c� O r O = tip ct y :C cC
0 w u M �° .� pUp O a a' '� c b 05., °� u b�A p
� o cz cz ° one �' �, � �, � � o p � .a� 5n � o
o U p o ro `z ° one o u o
=u = 0
CZ
o o �7 o . � o ° 0 3 °
� cz 0 u -o ° � a a
cz ct cap o u 8 'C a o p bA u
• 0 U.' ,0 � ° 'C 'p � pip� O � U � '� � � � � � U p ��CZ
CC O
00
oo O U r
CSC 4. U CC
O U O bA
U
eC
O
�i
� U
� O
00 ti
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
ti
cz cz cz
AF
a
ti
• cz N '�
Nc}y
L. ct ) ¢• cz U 0 O
ct
CZ
U �' v v U
ocz m ,}�-� O y0.� d
a .a ct
ro '" 0 ' ' '" � o ° cz cz cz
In u
cz C) ° •o 0 0
Ln
Ln
0 cz
ct ct
cz Ln
cz 0 bJl s.. � � U a� O � � 'C f� � cd � cC � � � � � ¢•
ICI
U U U
cz
E� Ct .
sue. a .fd
cz
Ea�n Ln L
ct U U -0 ° °
cz Ln
Ln
O
75 cz U "C O ,s.; O (y'
m s CZ Ln p
Ln
N Ln O
Ln
Ln
•O .U. U O �'sue.' ° � �" ,U,.,., �"
U � U O cC c O 0 Ln
W cC �r •�
cn
U Ln
cz u
'�
'u cz
an
cz
U
U
•U Ln Ln ^~ O O cn
cz
00 cz 0 00 00
M �-- �-- �-- �-- �-- 0\
cz cz cz cz cz
ti
Sy U +' bA bA bA bA bA
cz cz cz cz cz cz
ti
S.
cz cz cz cz cz cz
O O O O O O
CC
V �
�--I U S.
ICI
IC U U U U
c ° w
� � o
cz "C bJA a� �' U U to U
112n C C
° .�
cz CZ �
cut
cz cz
U ct °� o u ° °
cz
�1 ccz .O s.. 0 C2 0
.y r- N Ct
ci
O o
cz u
cz u 61
CA
cz ct
N H u ct to •�' cz U
cz
Ln cz
cz U
Ln ed
p O U eC O O eC eC ? eC O O eC cz
N .+��•' U cz U U
ti
O
cz cz
cz
to cz cz cz
cz u
Cl
Ste, ° '�C U w y"i O �"•' N•r, cz " U U
p O
cz to G .~. a� cz v y N
U / bA N i O O N ti)00
m 0 O 0 - U ct bA v ct �
a� an a O •� ° o . ° ro n u O
o 4
a ° o U
cz U ti)to cp
c o o
ct
o oc 8 o U
or) 0 0 0 cz -o ° It • -o 1 ° � °�' °' U o
~
cz 0 CZ
cz cz j u
ICI = U
ICI O U
fd
E
° O . o .
C o
o °
o o o p u ro 0
U O N
cd
cz Cl cd cz
U U
U � U p
•� bA cz UN1, •� tp c cz
° �y N � C
s o
O U
0 ti
to
71 tj)
O is p O •� O 0 O O
all
CZ
cz
cz cz
Ln
cz
cz cz
Ln
'n
o cz cz cz °
O ° spy et , ° spy o
U bA 0 L OU 0 En
N •+++�•' U cz U O '�
*� ti
+••, b�A b�A � O
At
U cz on
a. 'o ° ° o
o � 00Ln o � o � CZ =o
cp
u cz
ct° H app U
o cz ° u ° ro 0 U o °
U bA
It
� 0 U � tea.
cz
O � 'rte'-� •� 'C O N
s. c� y C O O O •.� "C
cz cz U
cz
cz
cz U
~ U
ICI
ICI
O
fd
ro o o
cn
cz
yam.., O U �' S-'. � U O �
U O r-- O cC r-- ° O 0 CZ
p O
� o N U U N ° O p
W cz
cz
ct
W cz U O p� O '� N ry O O
ct
ct
=o ° ° cn
•� cz o Ct o
00 00 b cz 00 U
z aN
rA ``�' o
At
an x
Z a Z
m �
cz
s, p o p p O U) 0 � � � °� °� � � p °o �
� s-. � d? � .�' O N cC
n � ct °� cz ° U U b � O N N O O O N N N
p a� ro p o p ro o v Ct
U cz
Ln cz
cz cz u
U CZ
ct
0 cz cz
cz
cz p
P.U d ° a.•� on ° a ° a.� a . °a. °�' °�' row° � . ° Z Z Z
cz~ U
ICI
ICI O U
O O
[� 7 COC
Ski � Ud •�•
O a
O O O O N s-. O 00 •Z
¢
`Z
U O ct °
cz U
ti) o p o
o •Ln o ~ cz o
z ° ¢ o
z ' im, o°n= � °' ~
o W a N cz o M cz
`z o 0
cz
°' 00 o
cn
o A u0 u4 -0 L7. CZ fd
00 U aaO °� a ¢" oO � q
At
® � § ._ R
3 \
2 \
%
(
�
2
2
\
9 f
2
2
2 .\
§ �
U $
§ 3
2 �
�
�
\
- / t
k � /
� / s
% ƒ \ \
2 t \ \
*� ti
cz cz
At
C%1 a a W
�, ti
C, " "" 4-i •.�i U N om". "~" ° cz
U Cd
ct
•p �'' ��'' O ,� '� �" O 7s
cd � v4 N cam ..
cC cz
CZ
cz u U CZ
cz
cz
n C C N 7 .0�. u ° 0
00 U cz U
4.
CC N N O O O p ° O O
N cz cC O 0
cz
U
0 U U
�- a c
Ct c ° �
E a°n
:C 'C � 'C v
o ' o
CZ
_o 'n ° o 7:$ ro °
v ct � ° c -0 �:
71 u cz p - O bA U cc O U
o ?. o . 0'o
Ucz
cz �
o .° o U
U � � a.� o � o
U o ° � a� � ti
o d ?
i =ova.> � = ° �? W
0 W
W H a ' o O o H a o ff H IZ
Ln cz
cn
4 C)O cz `0 u
0
O ° 0 CZ
� � O +�
Ll e, 11 - U 7F, 00 U 0 P. 00
U Ct
cz cz
ti z N
N
'In cz
p V O b4
� U W
ti
U �
N �"U. z 0 O c�
U
° o °„ cz u C U --' ro p ° �- c0i
m eC U O U O CZ ° U , w OC U
U 4, U s. a� O a ° d
bA U O U .� S-" "'C O O U
.U. °�". ¢" sU-� ,,rte., Z O �. OU 0 bUA�. N �bA 4 O CO)
t b U U cz U 0 bA O U U U O
C�. CC :O r�-
bJJ O O O
U " U O cz U O O
U
CC O
00
00
fd
� O U
7 �
cz a .�
c
cz
Li U O U
ICI
•.U. cn
U cC 00 rA °G Q
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
ti
At
cC � U U
C) U cz
o0 on U .� ° cz ° n 0 U 0
s, U bA U U cC ' �. O -O s .Ct
to CC O U U 0 .� �O oO ct O u '
� O O ,��• U cC
o � ¢' U � ° 0 o ° UU � 0 u � � c�cz
s. O U O 0 U u .0 .0 0 U O ° cz 4, 0
u cz O u O .� u '� CZ � °s. �7S ° •�. u
cz
ct
cz
Cl 0
O
U _ ro •gin U 0 a�, 0 °�' 'o v a •o v 0
�, to 0 o •.. 0 0 cz . °' ro o 4, U o ° '0
O C� a..i W Q ,��' w O ,r-'i N .r, a..i a..i ,r-'i U cz cn
00 CC O
00
CSC y U CC
O U O bA
U
O
�i
� U
� O
00 ti
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
M
O G�
•F U
U � W
ti
c p „UU„ O, O ar"., N N , "C
U �, U ,� U O �' 6'
OU U ,r"., S".. ,� "C O cz U U p •�
o U U o 4, i� o f o on.o oA .
ct
rA
CZ 0
CZ
chi u o o •�" b chi o ° o o u ° °� ct o
U 'C •- a °A
cn
°�. ° o U °" sue. 'C U i u o ' ro
°'. ct ° °' U o o ' w° o ��- � w � � � � � �
.-. C U
U 0 r U cUi U vO v � 0 'v
U U bA U w o
�U
EA cz
cz
U Ui " U U At r-- U o w "C O
r-- U
u ° O ro
cz cl U p U b°A OUte .
a.
G H O w D O D w U
•--I U S.
00 CC O
00
� O U
7 �
U
U U
00
ono
o o ° ILI
In
° cn
U 0 u
z a�
rA o
At 0
° .
o = o , =cz
b ro
o - o
oa� *
O
cz
° a cz u a cz ° l o o 0
5 y ° . U U C U _
5 r5 o °a{ ° w
CZ
4.1 '
cc o r 0 Maur ro n U
cz cz
cz
° � � °
�„" �'. O yd? S-" S-. �. � rte, � �� O � ,�•, ''� � � U N U O� O O
cz
~ c 0 U
ICI
ICI O U r.. b�A
U U
cn
O bA O O
0 cz
A N O N O
O i." s•. O ,r�•I N ¢,.�-' a
•c ° cad ° r
h o ° h ° u °
' � ' °
°
o
L ° cz � o 0 cz Ln
Ln
M �-- �-- �-- �-- �-- O\
N .+��•' U U U U U ti
ti
ti
S.
cz cz cz cz cz cz cz cz
O O O O O O O
CC
V �
�--I U S.
ICI
IC = U U U U U
E 1. a c
00 ° w
Cd
cz �
cz
00 00
1 cN O U O �.' O O O y0., p O ° a
Ln
W E-i . H U O '�" � ors �' •�, a �
oo
cn
� bA � � p N N •� � � �-i r-- � N � O �
�4
v U ' u ° u ° °' cz
�
a a � a as a. a, ° a, � a. � • ° a. � ° ° � a. � � a� :� `�
+�+ U U cz U U cz U ti
C%1 W
W W W W W
�syy c� ti
,-z U
N �• cz
cz •� t . =. O
bA oc O �:) U U U O
W o CZ P. -p U U P.
81 C't
m P-� UU N r U U cC CZ ct cz
ct
cz
-pW i o � � W
C �
SU. " • U s- U •.. U �
O O
cz O ' ¢" G O� cd O U ~ �] •.� cd cd
¢, O 4-i P- P-i bA bA
cz
C" b�A ct" U N N O O c�
U +� L Ln
V
�--I U S.
ICI
cz U U U
0
Ct
fd
o i o f
P� cz
bA'C 'C co Ln bA U U U
Ln
CZ cz
U O
pU cz cz
U
u u U O�
O U U U U !-'-� �" v'� U cz U
U Pi"'- �' a ¢" a ,rU.' ,rbAI O •0 O P�. cC ^' P�" .ILI„
5
C-t cz "U cut O r ct
cz
3 U bA s. cn cn
_ u "
U W
00 00 � O o 0 s 00 cz 00 q
M
O
ti
U N .. c u
cz O sO''
o p ro ° �ro CZ `� � co
C C) U
to ,
O c0 U
Ole cz o =ff ° tea; u � U � � � � � ° ^�
U o U cz U o U
s.
c W) ro U CA ro a� CZ •.. p
y on �° [� o % =cz
o on oA. o 44 ° v
cz
CZ
CZ u
� c o � � �' � w � � � � � c � � o � H �" chi' °��' ,� •� � � � a� � ,� � �
N "" U �. O ~ v -AAA
bA ct O O U ° � �-� cz ° �+ U bA
¢" N 0 O '—+ b��A "��' .+". U. ¢" U ~ 'C^' b��Ai sOy r3 •�.
/ H C • Q / H w U C 0 • Q —U
� O U
E a�n
vz
0 0
U
u w p o o Ct cz U
U . °
o E
44 CZ 0
0 0
U c
7�L w O
U U X0.1 � �.•� 0.1 � �. c�C � '� � Q
ti z M
N
O V O b4
ti
N 0 cz N cz
N U a? U U C C Li
c O ° C cz
P.� �to � p O Cl
CZ ct '
cz
cz
cz
o ° v � ° ° cz � cz CZ u
cz u ° v
c °
to
scn
cz
�'"°r ..y �, '� '+-i .,��. , fir' c� U ,-; o �, '� •b in w , ,� ° ''C as
� � � .S-'�' ;-p�,�r-'� '��'" � U '0 O � � N N �j � ;-p�+ � "~�' � N •p ° sV-i s�-i ,�""-i �'. U � �.�
CC O
00
CSC O U
a �
U ro ro
y� cd
° N bA c
o ct o
cz a °
W c i0r � W
0
0
At
cz ?
O �
� ct w
a, Cz -Z� o on � aa� � ° . °
`� ° o o ° ro 7s cz
t "C
cz
cz
° cz O ° *" u o
; o CZ ° u
cz
cz
N N N
CC O
00
fd
� O U
7 �
o
� o C-1
cz
00
O
0 ct O U U cn
U NCI
cz
G_
U PS 00 4. 0
N .+��•' U cz cz U U
cz
Q' ?
0 cz
oc Er cz u Coll
� '�" � �--' �--' �--' U •� Off"" U
ti
oc O ,�—� bA = U �" O CZ !+- U
� c "C ,� r
N 0 O '� N app c�C s.
.. U
U O O ,d? O U icy' N cC cz O
n 'C U P.
CC U cz � O D U �� y p •.� S. 0
"C "C C cC U U c/
cz
.� ro Ln �O o
Ln
m Ln Ln U +� 44
cz cz cz u u
o o
°'
eC O U eC p U U o _ O cZ
cz
C 0 o O cun
cz
00 U U
fd
CC
Ln Ln
cr b�A
Ln Ln U Sn' �.
�N 0 E
O S•. O O c
an, -o � � U i � o im,
7s U
ct
�.y p ct
4; cz C) U o °'
�
cz u
U / $".
rl cz
cn
U 0 p L: cz U O
U
O � U U U S•. U � U � � .,,
U 'C 00 00 �.
O �
� O ct M
sn' CZ
cz cz U U on cd cz
�
U 0. 0 w ° U
U 'C cC � 'C U U U O U
0 0 U o ° R o
oP� 0 o ro U p o u U U cz
O
� � l �•„ O � cd W � � � � a `� � �
y„i ,� •� � s.•
cC W o a z CZ ° o °
� � � � � x o moo . O � .� p � � -o �. •� • � O -o ..r
cz +, o C j 0. cz
ct ct roa o '� ' row W) cz o one o
o Uo o o arm o
U °3 O w U �; � o -, �; � = ' � wp '
A„i a � /-� L" O N �C'' s••i ? �--, N
7 P� U U O L U cd � U
NU �'' O "C O �+ 0 .� O F" .U. U o c�CZ
kr) �y
ism'_, s••i O '~ O � cn U � ,r- O --i � O � O � � ,r- ,�,,. � s-i , �•,,ct
w Cd O E a 2
" U S.
CC O
fd
� O U
7 �
cz a .�
a �
c U O O CZ c
_ U U ar
CC U U U U U U U Sy
U U
U a�
�L cz U ��
Wa tj)
cn
U � a. o s U P•r P•r a�r� � q
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
At
ti
cz
cz N N •,��. '� 'U V� O�
C
O CZ �bA� -0 0 v a�
a cd i O r O bA p 0 O � � bOA O4 �
on e o ° ° �c � U o
• 0 0 .0�. p 0 5 u O O O O cz O
,�- O �O a0"� � N cz
O � •�
¢ �n U � a -� o o °oz' s 0 ct cz
to cz
cz
O U O 0 O ct ct p '�ct
cC ,�- , N ,r-I N ,mss'"-. bA cz
c O Us- 0 c O
c N N
�C a�
U p � �p-- •� Pa k,
O N 6 W � N o—
U
CC O
00 O U r
CSC y U CC
O U O bA
eC
O
�i
I U
� O
00 ti
IZ
W �
O
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
c ?
O �
ti
0 oc U U CCU cz ¢"
Z bA z
U cz
o U d °
v �' s- rC � P P cz a� 7s ° cz ° p � rC '^ + U
o cz to o o `er
°�° ❑� o o � •u y�y ��- o`r to¢"� U �y cad
N
to
Ct CZ
cd �n 'C
cC � � N
sue. � 'O N '� O pp bA r iU. cUy N O �� °' ° M U N c
�n a ° °� ° o ro ° °� E� cd ° ° cv o o cz cz
C` °erg-' � z c7 ro � E ' ° v� o 2 � ct
� �' a" U a" 6 a" a�mss ' ,� o ° �L" 0 cz o N �, "C '
O O -0 6
w
N O
U 'U V] cz p N � O
L" bA U cC M �.' O
cn �' cC 0 O o O ±. �., .� •,r�� N
�--' O
^U' N ¢" ¢"�"" ��y'" U N N " �O �.' �.' O N O N cz
� � � P-i o w P-i a' ,^� `3 � O � � a' cOC".o '�." /-� H '� � 'C •� � � � °U °U � a' � a' � a �
U �
CC O
00
fd
� O U
7 �
0
ono
v�
ti
U Cam'' rA ct
cz
cn
U U
U P.u tom. q
O �
o O o
cz
o 0
o �-.. 4. Q oUc
cz
cz
Ct
�. U
P.
O � ' �U U 0�.
" zi $ P. U ccd U .O .
cd O cd U O c U u O ,^�
cz
O O
O t,., W yU•i � O +o.
bA ,z O P. O Ct U ,�., a.
U Pa U U P-.-0 Ln w w w .� !=.� p � U � � u � F
� ' O 'C U U
c`z r-- U �' O U Z O O U U
pC u �, cC
O p O O . . U N U U
ct �, r+ �I ,�. 'u
91. SO 7s ll
oo
� O U
u ct
� U
o
U O �
btA U O
0 O p v') cn cn
O e,C � O s•• � �
U 0 � q
M
O
7 At
7s u cz 7s
U U ++ ?
� k
C/1 W
ti
N U O O �•' O '��N � � � � sU-� O. � �' .O V � O �
O. n ti) N �s� p ��O p O. O ptp,5 O. a
s, cC ... cC ... cz
W U
o U cz °�' ° 0 u `� p o o u 0 ° cz
O0. +, 0 • ¢ ' U ro
a awn P o 0.01 0 0 cz �° u o
ct
o 0 0 0 0 �� u "+ o U cz 0 O o
u ID
cz
ct cC N � S"„ ,F�" U !"-� '� '� •.� ,�„ ,��. U fir' '� U
V \
CC O
00 O U r
CSC y U CC
O U O bA
eC
O
�i
� U
� O
00 ti
W �
O �
cn
O �
O �
U � Q
:O :O
•� O •� O U
b�A
tog to 9 k
cr W
ti
N �
ct
N 0 O U N N cd O N g "C a cd
to U° u O o - ro U O o U ° °� ro U 'ct
cz U °
to
z 44 ' o Z cz
U
" cz u
7s o cz 'z O 0
cd
41-. p y U O N ? O
cz
" goo cz u � -o o � o cz
O N 0 O cC V] O y 0.•i O 4-i �. O '+
cz
oc
ct
U
CC O
00
fd
� O U
7 �
cz
E a�n
O ° O
o � o
e1ti
CZ U o
00 00
O
cz cz cz
7 At
ti
bAU
v U W cz U U ro
U
OU U �_ C cz U N " ^ bA c O
U U bA U U O CC bA
cv o U P. i cz
U O °'
U �C cC +� r" a� U c� °;,' o cz n W cz
U v NLn o a� N o� U cz ❑ c N
to
O O W O U O O U O O •p•�' U �. 'C O
O
U U U bA Cd U +
cz
u cz N �� rU rU- +�U N s�
cz
J U OCR
00 CC O
00
Ct
lcnz cz
U U N 'O
00
U ..
p
cz
�
N
to U
a�3 � a � •� � aU � `�
U
00 00 s 00 cz � q
N .+��•� U U cz U
7 At U
O W
4; cz boa'
cz U
U C,
O Fr 7s U O ~
u 7s 'Inn
U U U V •0 U �--� � �" �U �--�
i- c-
�
cz
o _ 'n k cz cz CZ Ln
CZ
ors U P� cz
U U
O bA y C cz p S. s- Pa Ln � S.
� � O U cz cz
' ct "— � C
CZ
~ U
ICI
ICI
4.
U
� � o
o� �UOO z 0
cz
c 0 cz U O
Ln b.
ct
bA x o o U „ c
cz U O �' O ,�-'� U O
� � a acct
.°
ot� U cz d
U W
cz bA �,•^i " O U U O Ln
u ct
CZ U
O U U O 00 U "C ct U O
00 00
O
V U U cz U CZ
UN 5
cct O 8 N p U s. :O UU U �� �� .U. U O .
ACC ��", a••� a 0 �' ¢-' cd �¢'' N � O U t�•" U O 0 cyd C/� C/� U .'~,�•cz
Cd sU *O" 'C pA N bA U Cd N -- 'n 4 U N ❑�. N U p �-
�° = = o .¢ `a ° o U U O a ro
o o CO) ° o
Ct
C on o ono � 4, O "
U o
cz O °' U- P.
U ro on H
w a.
ct
/-� • • • • /-� N R 'U cz H w
" U S.
CC O
oo
fd
� O U
7 �
cz
a �76 a U)
U cz U U 0 U
cC O cad O N
e,C D O im, O O
�
CA
cz
cz
c� bA U O
cz
cz CC � � U Cd � � �
N cz
At U
� � k
O W
� Z
ti
cz
°n j ° U o
ct
P. cz Ln C° , b Q H a s
ro
� N. o o
cz
� o .�
0.5
O P.
a� an
� •° w .� U p w° cz cz
eC ° o v-) U
0 ro C7 o o ro a. f) o
U U P U P P.
U :;
~
ICI = U
E W a p 9
ICI
Ski � U" •�• �
° ro -° W
U �
N ccz
�. 0
O i." 0 •V cn
cn
p �. .' cz
CZ w
U Z ?
^C > � O cn
cz
U -0 ccz 0
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR provides a brief overview of the proposed project site's existing
regional and local setting. Additional descriptions of the environmental setting as it relates to each of the
environmental issues analyzed in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this Draft Subsequent
EIR are included in the environmental setting discussions contained Nvithin Sections IV.B through IV.N.
This section also compares key elements of the proposed project Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
Regional and Local Setting
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) project site is located in the City of South San
Francisco (the Citv), approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and
approximately 10 miles south of doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco. South San Francisco, built upon the San
Francisco Bay plain and northern foothills of the coastal range, is located along major transportation
corridors and hubs. These include U.S. 101, Interstate-280 (I-280), Interstate-380 (I-380), BART,
Caltrain, and the Union Pacific Railroad main line (formerly knoNsn as the Southern Pacific Railroad).
The project site is located at the northNvest corner of Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard in
the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District of South San Francisco. Local access to the Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point(the Cove)project area is currently provided from Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards and
regional access is primarily provided by U.S. 101. The project site is not directIv accessible to transit;
hoNvever, the South San Francisco Caltrain and San Bruno BART Stations are located approximately half
a mile miles and approximately 3.1 miles southNvest of the project site, respectively, and the South San
Francisco Ferry Terminal is less than one mile east of the project site. These transit stations are served by
shuttles provided by area companies and the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Alliance.
Figure III-1 illustrates the regional and project site location. An aerial photograph of the project site and
surrounding land uses are shoNsn in Figure III-2,Nvhile Figure III-3 shows views of the project site.
Project Site
The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the
exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNver pump station located in the northern portion of the site. The
project site is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, the Caltrain railroad tracks to the Nvest,
Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco Bav to the north, and commercial properties and research and
development buildings to the east.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description
Draft, subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-1
Basemap:Esri 2033 �r sEb�rtt Er„E � 6� �
s4a ,
A, 0 500 1,000 2,000 '+
NFeet r r ,;�v°eg M;; f' r/f �a °
taa
asr �� ✓✓
adcY'Sand
San J
Franoi ou
P
ro�e¢t A
✓ � w;
i✓� l�F � ;�
�RSb BPfawd»
ntE 4uE 4t;t qr
q
Project Site
boundary
�''� ✓a �� �t��� �u�°.SdyW a'ahuun9 M!:!4tlwd
" ta Ers ”
41 qVO 1,11,
Al
V t��� any �a..�.,✓ r f�,~x"� ra "�
j
V t.
say
.P6a99k' raaEx7a a 4aa�aE
as
sf
"Ono A rD
av, " �I E iGr ail"I Ave C,✓ry
"a,�a#✓a
"d✓ E.ay sry - ds"°rtw
E G�and Ave
<4 a"da
9,^YA It aam e
�i ro
r°
,
EEuNa:@aeapkbra, ��'>cnceAve � E Jzmm�e t
fi
M
Fli
.✓ Sw
IylVjr
auk;
�a�0 a'raa�a5t
✓ 1,
44 °° City of South San Francisco
Britrunfia Couc(it Oyster Point
Figure 111-1
Regional and Project Location
I ,
f���r'�//' �//� �///I/�1��/'� irp�i��yr,;/ ��_�'/ �� �klm✓r"i'�Viu"^wl�� '
N�° %�' //// /ifw/�I�j/�' f �( � P '�;'� l"a/✓iii/ �� // ���� '
m y �
// mum11 ! roN��m'mra
i��/ � % �� pn // N11NN IIWWWWWllwV
/
a I
�e t J1"NJSi1U II�11 ? 9wmn �wrnmJN l f '
%� prNis�mwW�mawm
/ I
I r
r II
II f
r -
y
m ,
,
Im Im City of South San Francisco
II
II III � Br,trunria Cosa'(it Oyster Point Figure 111-2
Existiri;Projcct Arai Land Uscs
r
f
. f
View 1 View 2
Looking west towards Highway 101 from Looking south at the existing onsite sewage
Veterans Boulevard pump infrastructure from Veterans Boulevard
View 3 View 4
View of pedestrian sidewalk and chain link fence View from Veterans Boulevard of eastern border
project site
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o iSBrrtrunzia Co.0 OyStcr Point
Figure HIS
Views of the Project Site, Views 1-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Existing Land Use Regulations
The proposed project site is governed by the C*tv of South San Francisco General Plan and the C*tv s
Zoning Code. Under the General Plan, the project site is located in the East of 101 Area Plan area and the
ONTster Point Planning Sub-Area (see Figure III-4). As shown in Figure III-5, the City of South San
Francisco General Plan (General Plan) designates the proposed project site as Business Commercial. The
project site is zoned Bay West Cove Specific Plan District.
Bay West Cove Specific Plan District
The Bay West Cove Specific Plan serves to refine and to implement the General Plan Nvith respect to the
Specific Plan Area and to combine the concepts, procedures, and regulations of the General Plan, former
redevelopment plan, zoning ordinance, and certain aspects of the subdivision ordinance. The Bay West
Cove Specific Plan District is further divided into five planning areas. The project site falls Nvithin
Planning Area la and lb.
Uses permitted in the District include, but are not limited to, office buildings for professional or business
purposes,research and development(Planning Area la), day care centers,public park/recreation facilities,
eating and drinking establishments, convenience markets, hotels/motels (Planning Area lb), maintenance
and repair services, personal services, and retail. Office/R&D (Research and Development) use may be
permitted in Planning Area lb only if it is proven that a full service hotel project is not viable on site. The
maximum FAR in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels, and 0.5 for all other uses.
Higher FAR Nvould be alloNved Nvith a request to grant a bonus for the inclusion of TDM measures, off-
site improvements, and specific design standards.
The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District also includes regulations related to maximum building heights,
setbacks, architectural guidelines, landscaping, open space, parking and loading, transportation and
circulation, transportation demand management, public improvements and infrastructure, public services,
signs, and implementation.
Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the project site are mostly limited to office, R&D, commercial(including childcare
facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and park and recreation. The Caltrain tracks are located adjacent to
the northNvest of the site, Nvith US 101 located adjacent to the tracks. The Oyster Point Marina is located
due east and includes marina slips, pier, park, and other marine facilities as Nvell as the South San
Francisco Ferry Terminal,Nvhich opened in June 2012.
The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is located Nvithin a half mile from the project site. Shuttles run
from the South San Francisco Caltrain station to the Utah-Grand Avenue area and Ouster Point area office
buildings during commute hours. Land uses surrounding the project area are shown in Figure III-6.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-5
r A, o aoo i,000 - 2,0 00
•� ��� �r� ra,i�r//°`i�ir�rrrma/�� � d/a"!iiO/iii»> �,,r,rei�rr��a�i,�l;
1i
yvii/
1),jj pry ea,4ur y�;, irl.�P/aG/rylPm.
v„ fF `I
°rgiiaio��irar�r�raryaayrrriii��r ri���
���a r�rl {.•'' �rrrrrvir�2rr9ory r�arorrr�n�r,�i��
a_
w� tio
o°1412,
..
r
t
ri
r
,.
f
lJWNWAnIWWAI,�r ��rr rrr�jrarr�aiaai�araiaaaaiiara%rr���roirornrry/rrra0pwooirmrrP�
San Bruno Canal
------------------------
111 �
r
X, W, �f
r W, f
5"
San
Francisco
�� �� y Uy /i0 "011M,rrrniio
frf % / / ///Oirr/ p
" %vlrr /D/%///%% D
�ira,oq%iDirlrrll,rr,�rd�gelvrl liU///!,O///��///�OUrl o„f� of
G
� J
141 141 City of South San Francisco
Br,trunzia con,(it Oyster Point
Figure 111-4
Planning Sub-Areas
1 o aoo 1,000 2,000
� 4
ax NFeet
Olk
rn �
a
P���� V, Dy '" '� °'° + �i�rt�`� ♦aaA°� � ""� � . ���� � V�@tya-Atn,�,
OR/"
Ir, i 9
viii 01 tlm m A �a
w'ir .." �:+Fr'nv� � J ...:...:.:....
Oo
NO
0i�ah�n°` rrw9u"0r0Umu�Nr
Y r •nriw�-�.
4 D
+1
G�
� I�pyu��,ru
a?r tFP � ub " �� '✓�� apu � pr� u ry. � P
�
ts n w aw
w � �'BaP 'Yw IIIIN4":Ig' W d V
� m NY ,
lary t "q
p� �
ti0
a b r a
' tion "�"� �r
,
ti
fR5a1M�i4�;+rt�t'p'm ta`a aq
u 1L
M
r�
�_� ,� �mman�mras aa0mt"Cw�rNttnur9ar kmw�'� —__ f� � � ��.
Per
E ans'paacmad(in cell ter
d�
Lott Oveday District � 0",
`i
f
� aAA
Existing�t,Yi�ndaatlA�Lrq��aWL eltect!nm � � �A �
ed Street
O"WZU Prop
� V ,
InzteTchauurge0mtx n sectuaxrcn Study k,ea p
71 cl
• �m 0B I� � aa��
ray r W�°v i
xr ;. � its*
f
�VB9
44 °° City of South San Francisco
Br,tru
n Figure 111-5
nria con,(it Oyster Point
General Plan Designations GovcYnin'a the Project Area
View 5 View 6
R&D land uses, east side of Veterans Boulevard Eastern boundary looking south towards
Oyster Point Boulevard
i
0
v
i y ifs
Qk
' !a
7r l/,i ✓/n // I�/�j�/ i ����ii� : ii/l�
ol � %?✓jF'1rf j%l� i��/�f���l/%�i%fi���f%/�i/�I��',!,�%lf%Jn�/����������lrii�� //: ���
— �/� ✓i� /�/i�i�//�i��r�� f�i"� i�� %/ii FYi/l���il�yi�yr itrfJrryl� o-/i r/� /l �/ ��ao
/% ! //�F��/ 1�p /%/%��ff/I✓f�/fi%f�/�/r i/l�Fii%����%/%����/�y�0��1!Y/��f�rl�'��r/tr i/ i1
r�i���.,�/�i/��;i,�i��/(i�f����/"i/}l�l i�s111��/ily�l�7��/.r��y�,rty��1�/�'%l.D��✓f(/�'1r7.���,j����I�I���Ji,���l�i�j�
View 7 View 8
San Francisco Bay border to the north Looking southeast towards Oyster Point
Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard intersection
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o iSBrrtrunzia Con,rat OyStcr Point
Figure III-6
Views of the Surrounding Land Uses, Views 5-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
B. BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT ("PROJECT")
Planning History
The project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project. The original 172 acre project
site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe fabrication facilities, ship
repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of the original project site are
located offshore and are not subject to development.
The on-shore area, 55.4 acres, of the original project site has been redeveloped in phases. In December
1997, the City certified an EIR for Bay West Cove, a proposed mixed use commercial project. The Bay
West Cove project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith a different development scenario
proposed for each planning area. The current project site Nvas defined as Planning Area 1 in the 1997 Bay
West Cove Specific Plan. One planning area(Planning Area 5) Nvas located offshore in the San Francisco
Bay and Nvas envisioned as tidal Nvetland, as required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board
Cleanup Order. By 2000, only Planning Area 4 had been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under
the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan.
In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2,
and 3 (the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project). The development application included a
subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub-
planning areas: la and lb. Land uses permitted in Planning Area la included office/R&D, Nvhile hotel
uses Nvere permitted in Planning Area lb. The City certified a Supplemental EIR for the Bay West Cove
Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently, Planning Areas 2 and 3 Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D
uses using the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
The proposed project is the last phase of development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove
Specific Plan in 1997. By developing Planning Area 1, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan is
intended to complete development of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project is the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. The project Nvould implement the
development of an approximately 20.1 acre Office/R&D business park,located Nvithin the Bay West Cove
Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings including 884,344
square feet of Office/R&D use;up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant;
20,000 square feet of retail space; and a parking structure. Business/commercial development on the
project site would total 1,030,344 square feet. The proposed project Nvould also enhance accessibility to
the Bay Trail located on the northern side of the project site,near the San Francisco Bay.
Although the proposed project Nvould not include improvements to the Bay Trail it Nvould improve
pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the project area. The proposed project Nvould also include the
relocation of the 48-inch storm Nvater drain line and other on-site project utility infrastructure, as Nvell as
implementation of a Project Utility Plan. Further, the proposed project's design Nvould include the use
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
and maintenance of bioretention areas and other onsite storm Nvater treatment facilities, which are
described in Section IV.H-Hydrology and Water and detailed in Appendix C. The project site plan is
shoN-,n in Figure 111-7.
The project Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes
an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of
office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses,
decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at
the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project. Table III-2 outlines the differences in proposed development between the proposed project, the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould be constructed in three phases. Under the conceptual phasing program, Phase 1 Nvould
consist of the development of two Office/R&D buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project
site roadways, site utilities, lighting, and landscaping. Phase 2 Nvould consist of the development of two
additional office/R&D buildings, a 3-story parking structure, a restaurant, retail space, and site utilities,
lighting, and landscaping. Surface parking Nvould be reconfigured on the site. Phase 3 Nvould consist of the
development of three additional office/R&D buildings, expansion of the parking structure from 3-stories
to 8 or 9-stories,installation of additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting, and reconfiguration of surface
parking on the site. Conceptual project phasing and buildout is shoNsn in Table III. The project
Development Application,including phasing plans,is shoNsn in Appendix B of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
The project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the BaY West
Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, adoption of
Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, a Development Agreement,
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), and a Sign Application approval. The Specific Plan
Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clarIA- the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1,
and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and
Britannia ONTster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate
sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1. Table III-3 outlines the development standards in the City's
Zoning Code and any changes that Nvould occur under the proposed project. See Appendix C for the full
text of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code changes.
As stated previously, the project applicant is seeking a blended FAR from one Planning Area to another
across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR. The
Britannia ONTster Point site is developed at an FAR of 0.58. The project proposes the transfer of FAR from
the Britannia ONTster Point site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) to the project site (Planning Area 1) for a
combined FAR of 0.86. Buildout and FAR for the project and Britannia Oyster Point, both individually
and combined,is shoNsn in Table III-4.
Although construction of the project Nvould be phased to accommodate market forces, it is assumed that
Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Each phase of the project
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Nvould require from approximately 21 to 24 months for design and construction. The project Nvould
require the use of pile driving equipment during construction. Impervious surfaces and landscaping Nvould
constitute approximately 632,000 and 242,000 square feet, respectively, for a total development of
1,030,344 square feet on the site.
Table III-1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout
Building
Square Height
Phase Buildings FAR Footage Floors (feet) Parking Spaces
1 B3 132,034 4 82
(2016) B4 120,559 5 96 60
Hotel(200 rooms) 126,000 9 105
Surface Parking 732
Total–Phase 1 .43 378,593 792
2 B1 102,737 4 82
(2017) B2 102,737 4 82
Retail 20,000
Parking Structure — 3 25.5 498
Surface Parking* 122
Total–Phase 2 .26 225,474 — — 620
Total Phase 1 & 2 604,067 — — 1,412
3 B5 137,425 5 96
(2019) B6 130,802 5 96 225 (aggregate
B7 158,050 6 113 spaces-B5,B6,
B7)
Parking Structure — 8 78 1,300
Surface Parking* (459)
Total–Phase 3 .49 426,277 — — 1,066
Total Phase],2, &3** 1.18 1,030,344 — — 2,478
Total Phase] 2, &3*** 1.18 1,030,344 — — 2,670
*Reconz f figured
**Ratio at 2.5'1000 for R&D, Podium parking 285 spaces, Parking Structure 1,798 spaces,
Sur face.Parking 395 spaces
***Ratio at 2.83'1000 for R&D, Parkilig Structure 1,990 spaces
Source:DESArchitects, Britannia Cove at Oyster Point,Design Guideline Submittal, and February
20, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Protect Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-11
r �%%� / /% /' / i -' Nom- a � °��✓� 1 � �+
r '
-,�� / :.� ....._„�":I IV III 01('•
/
NP
r �v�
///'i/. ',
/l,' %/ /
_._
1
LU
i, �! .�/
%� U all
9 `r
/ I M
/ii C1w
d
uj
/ f
// "
I r,
c
/r I
� U
i, /io, �' /
/ir//�i/i prop "'�;, ^" �°" �` ✓ N�pe "-", P i '.
111117 1
/—%ir / /% ,. "a 1u1 __rte r r:
i
`"'/'"
egl
/for � /i ''i /6 % r� � ✓//i x�,
r/
IN
„ r
///
%�/� //�/ i luulluullllll
' luuuuuul
/
Pxw LNULN uuld'jis Z ern6ldA d,N\lui,d ,IsAo 1,IA13 w.a 1.9A] fordA� 1eerg'9
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
Building Framework and Character
Building frameNvork and characteristics have been updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project,to represent a more cohesive campus style environment that Nyould be pedestrian friendly.
Project buildings Nyould be consistent in character, Nyith simple geometry. Exterior building colors ma--
differ to create visual interest and building identity on the project site. Building forms Nyould van- in
capacity, height, and shapes to create architectural variety and individual building identity, Nyhile at the
same time maintaining a unified campus character. The buildings Nyould be situated near the perimeter of
the site thereby creating large areas to accommodate open space, landscaping and surface parking.
Landscaping Nyould be installed betNyeen the buildings and Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards.
Pedestrian facilities Nyould be provided along Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards, N-,-here appropriate.
The building design Nyould incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and
aluminum metal panels. The building base of each building Nyould have a contrasting design and
articulation Nyith the rest of the building, and Nyould be sensitive to the pedestrian scale. Building rooflines
Nyould have enclosures to screen mechanical systems.
Open Space Network
The open space netNyork is a complete update since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. It is
designed to alloNy for building and project site connectivity Nyith recreational opportunities.
The parking structure location and building placement Nyould alloNy for interior site and exterior frontage
open space areas. The open space areas Nyould contain outdoor amenities, gathering spaces, and passive
use areas. An amphitheater, along Nyith a bocce court, sports court, and outdoor dining areas Nyould create
the center of the open space netvyork, for a total landscaped area of 242,289 square feet. Site furnishings
Nyould be provided for tenant and visitor use. Open spaces in entrance locations Nyould be determined
during campus design and according to tenant's needs Nyith a focus on connecting the site to Oyster Point
Boulevard, Veterans Boulevard, and the Bav Trail.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-13
('to)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table III-2
Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I(project site)
Parking
Site Ratio
Area (per
Use Building Area(sf) (sf) FAR 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan(proposed project)
R&D/Office 884344 2.83 2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant 126,000 1/room 200'
Retail 20,000 3.33 67
Total 1,030,344 874,344 1.18 2,670
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
R&D 620,000 2.83 1,698
Hotel 296,000 0.75 225
Retail 10,000 5.5 50
Restaurant 10,000 5.5 50
Child Care(100 children minimum)' —
Total 916,000 874,344 0.58 2,023
1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Auto Display Showroom 23,866 N/A
Seib-ice/Reception 24,570 N/A
Car Wash 1,716 N/A
Customer Parking — N/A 280
Seixice and Handicap Parldng — N/A 82
Additional Parking — N/A L459
Totae 50,152 874,344 N/A 1,821
r 100 of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D bzrddings and area also included in total R&D
par king count(?1'4,242,above.
Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay best Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was
assumed it would be part of offiee'R&D sgzrare footage in eitherPlannbrgArea 1 orPlannbrgArea 2/3.
3 The r°enraining sgzrare footage of the 1997 Bay M est Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area I would be covered
with car display lots.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III ProfectDescription
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-14
00)of South San Francisco April 201;
Table III-3
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes
Existing Bay West Cove Specific Proposed Bay West Cove Specific
Plan and Municipal Code Zoning Plan and Municipal Code Zoning
District District
Building Limitations Life-Science/Office/R&D FAR is 1.0 FAR may be blended across Planning
Gross FAR and the Hotel FAR is 2.0.Hotel will Areas within the Bay West Cove
not be counted against the 1.0 Specific Plan District provided that
Office/R&D FAR and the Life the maximum development allowed
Science/Office/R&D FAR will not be for the Bay West Cove specified in
applied against the hotel FAR. the Bay West Cove Specific Plan is
not exceeded.
Planning Area 1 Divides Planning Area 1 into la and Planning Area 1 would be amended
lb. to(1)eliminate the alternatives
considered for Planning Area 1 in the
prior 2000 Bay West Cove Specific
Plan(2)consolidate Planning Areas
la and lb, (3)allow for the
development of both Life
Sciences/Office/R&D uses and Hotel
uses within Planning Area I.and(4)
allow for FARto be transferred from
Planning Area 2 within the Bay West
Cove Specific Plan to Planning Area
1.
Lead Agency City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
Redevelopment Department
Source:Bay Nest Cove Spec(fic Plan,Jzrly 26, 2012.
Pedestrian Circulation and Amenities
The project proposes a new pedestrian circulation system and new pedestrian amenities compared Nvith
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The new pedestrian circulation and amenities provided
Nvould emphasize connectivity and project area access and it is discussed below.
The project Nvould incorporate a pedestrian-oriented environment Nvhere employees and visitors Nvould be
able to connect to the entire system of buildings and outdoor spaces Nvith a comfortable and easy-to-
navigate circulation network after arriving via transit, car or bicycle. This network Nvould include
connections between buildings, parking structures, transit stops, open spaces, the Bay Trail, and public
sideNvallcs.
Landscaping
The project proposed a new landscaping plan compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project. The new plan is presented below and it is meant to reflect the new project site plan and City
requirements.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page 111-1.5
('to)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Landscaping on the project site Nvould emphasize a natural and informal landscape using simple plant
materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants Nvould be chosen considering the
climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 area and Nvould be combined Nvith variations in
landform and circulation routes to create a series of Nvind-protected spaces rather than being large
expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants Nvould vary, but could include Afghan Pine, Cajeput Tree,
European Hornbeam, Lombardy Popular, New Zealand Christmas Tree, Purple Leaf Plum, Purple Leaf
Acacia, Ornamental Pear, Red FloNvering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf Tristania, and Timber Bamboo.
Preliminary landscape and site materials are shoNsn in Appendix B.
Table III-4
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics
Parking
Ratio
Building (per 1,000 Parking
Use Area(sf) Site Area(sf) FAR sf) Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point(proposed project)
R&D/Office 884344 2.83 2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant 126,000 1/room 200'
Retail 20,000 3.33 67
Total 1,030,344 874,344 1.18 2,670
Britannia Oyster Point(Planning Areas 2 and 3)
R&D 560,825 3.1 L739
Retail(required under 10,000 3.33 33
current entitlements)'
Restaurant(required
under current
entitlements)3
Child Care- 8,000 3 24
Total 578,825 974,527 0.58 1,763
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
R&D/Office L445J69 294 4,242
Retail 20,000 3.33 67
Hotel 126,000 1.59 200'
Child Care 8,000 3 24
Total 1,599,169 1,848,871 0.86 1 4,433
1100 of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also
included in total R&D parking count of 4,242,above.
'Retail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the
Britannia Cove at OysterPoint proposed development plan.
3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay ll est Cove Commercial Project was not
provided. Itwas asszmzed itwozdd be part of ofee'R�D sgzarre footage in eitherPlannbrgArea 1
or Planning Area 2 3.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III ProfectDescription
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Signage
Although the Signage Program may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, it Nvill be redesigned to accommodate the new project site and design
standards. The new Signage Plan is discussed below.
The project Nvould include the development of a unified Signage Program for the entire project site,
developed to achieve project site branding, vehicular and pedestrian Nva--finding, facility/occupant
identification, and regulatory circulation support for traffic, fire and safety. Signage Nvill assist day-to-day
users, couriers and visitors to navigate safely and efficiently to the project site and to their destinations
throughout the project site. The unified Signage Program Nvill identiA- elements that Nvill serve as a
consistent design style throughout the campus reflective of the design character of the business center as a
N-,-hole.
Lighting
Although the Lighting Plan may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, it Nvill be redesigned to accommodate the new project site and design
standards. The new Lighting Plan is discussed below.
Project site and architectural lighting systems Nvould be installed to provide illumination levels
recommended for safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Lighting Nvould be designed to appropriately
illuminate signage and Nvayfinding system components to make information clearly legible at night.
Lighting on the exterior of the buildings Nvill be incorporated into the overall building and landscape
design to be compatible Nvith the overall campus architecture and consistent Nvith SSFMC Title 20.
Vehicular Circulation
Although vehicular circulation may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould implement a new redesigned system to
accommodate the new project site plan and design standards. The main commonalities between the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the proposed project are the locations of main access points on
Ouster and Veterans Boulevards. The new vehicular circulation system is described below.
The employee/visitor system would be served by the primary entrances and the access lane that leads to
the parking structures and the arrival to the internal project site buildings, as seen in Figure III-5. Project
accesses Nvould consist of two primary entrances, one each on ONTster Point Boulevard and Veterans
Boulevard; two secondary entrances on Veterans Boulevard; and three supplemental/service accesses.
Circulation through the campus Nvould be achieved by creating one internal access lane along the interior
edge of the office buildings and one access lane along the Nvestern border to the project site, adjacent to
the Caltrain tracks.
This access lane Nvould be served by two primary entrances: one on ONTster Point Boulevard, and one at
approximately 1100 Veterans Boulevard. The access lane Nvould be served by secondary entrances that
link to the parking structure. The secondary entrances Nvould primarily serve the hotel. Supplemental
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
access points would also exist along Veterans Boulevard to provide limited access to buildings but not
directIv to the internal access lane. Project site users Nvould also use a supplemental access point from
Veterans Boulevard to reach podium parking associated Nvith the office buildings located at
approximately 1140 Veterans Boulevard. Service/delivery Nvould be served by the secondary entrances
and the access lane or by the supplemental access points. Service and delivery vehicles Nvill be limited in
usage of the primary entrances. Emergency vehicles Nvould utilize all entries and supplemental access
points as necessary to reach the access lane and central pedestrian spine. Internal access roads Nvould be
lined Nvith open space parking stalls,landscaping, and Nvould include passenger drop off areas.
Parking and Transportation Demand Management
Parking
The project proposes a parking ratio of 2.83/1,000, Nvith the exception of retail and hotel uses which
propose 3.3/1,000 and 1 space/room ratios, respectively, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project. Parking supply Nvould be phased over the project construction phases. The project Nvould
ultimately include 2,670 parking stalls, which Nvould meet the required parking for Office/R&D (2,503
stalls), retail (67 stalls), and hotel (200 stalls) Nvith 100 stalls shared between R&D and Hotel and Nvould
be an increase from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project that proposed 2,023 total spaces. The
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project proposed a ratio of 0.75 spaces per room.
Of the total number of parking stalls, 52 Nvould be sized for handicap parking. Parking ratios Nvould vary
for new development projects Nvithin the 20.1 acre project site during its phased incremental development.
Total parking counts for the campus during phased development Nvould be an aggregate of new structured
parking, below grade parking, new interim surface parking (if necessary), and existing surface parking.
To accommodate more landscaping and the added green space the proposed project Nvould have a loNver
amount of surface parking than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. This Nvould also loNver the
amount of impervious areas on site and maximize green space available to employees and visitors.
Transit
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site is not directly served by rail or public bus transit services;
hoNvever, three transit agencies (Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans) provide commuter rail and bus service
in the vicinity. The East of 101 Area relies on supplementary shuttle services to connect employees Nvith
the BART and Caltrain stations. Shuttle services are operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief
Alliance and include the Utah-Grand and ONTster Point Ferrv, Caltrain, and BART shuttles. Shuttle service
has improved and expanded since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Nvith a new shuttle stop
across the street from the proposed project.
The proposed relocation of the South San Francisco Caltrain station Nvill include a bicycle/pedestrian
under-pass of the railroad tracks to allow for better pedestrian accessibility to and from the East of 101
Area. A new San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ferry terminal at the ONTster Point
Marina services South San Francisco and connects to the East Bay. The South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal opened in June 2012, since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-18
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Program
The project Nvould propose a new TDM based on new project site plans, parking and TDM standards.
Although the new plan Nvill have similar elements to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project TDM,
it incorporates updated City and State requirements regarding parking supply and alternative modes of
transit.
Chapter 20.400 ("Transportation Demand Management") of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
outlines the TDM goals for the City and outlines policies aimed at reducing drive-alone commute trips by
more efficiently using existing transportation facilities. The purpose of the TDM plan is to develop a set
of strategies,measures and incentives to encourage future employees of Britannia Cove at Oyster Point to
Nvalk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool, or use other alternatives to driving alone when traveling
to and from Nvork. The TDM Program elements for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point include on-site
amenities that encourage the use of alternative transportation. Table III-5 lists the proposed Britannia
Cove at Ouster Point TDM Measures.
Table III-5
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures
TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures
Reduced Parking Supply Promotional Programs—Tenant and Employee Outreach
Carpool and Vanpool Parking Allocation Transportation Management Association(TMA)
Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking Space Bicycle Commuter Resources
Placement
Motorcycle and Scooter Parking Placement Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home Program
Passenger Loading Zones Association for Commuter Transportation(ACT)
Membership
Transportation and Commute Information Kiosks Commuter Amenities(Onsite and nearby)
Bicycle Connections Parking Programs—Free Carpool and Vanpool Parking
Bicycle Parking—Long-Term(Class I) Zipcar and/or Enterprise WeCar—Car Sharing
Bicycle Parking—Short-Term(Class II) Alliance Shuttle Programs(Caltrain,BART,and Water
Fern-)
Showers and Clothes Lockers Downtown Dasher—Middav Seixice
Pedestrian Connections Commuter Choice—Pre-Tax Options(Transit,Vanpool,
and Bicycle)
Direct Route to Transit/Public Transportation Access Employer Commute Subsidies/Allowances and Parking
Cash Out
Designated Employer Contact Transit and Trip Planning
Tenant Training and TDM Resource Representative Free Try Transit Program
Campus Transportation Coordinator/Commuter Regional 511 Carpool and Vanpool Ride-matching
Assistance Seixices
The Cove Commute Webpage and Resources Flextime Infrastructure
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-19
('io)gfSouth S'anFrancisco April 201;
Table III-5
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures
TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures
e-Concierge Commuter Seixices Teleworking/Telecommuting Infrastructure
Employee Transportation and Commuter Brochure Compressed Work Week Infrastructure
Annual Campus Spare the Air Transportation Fair New Facility Kick-off Event(at 50 percent occupancy)
Source:Britannia Cove at TD_llPlan,November 5, 2012.
D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
• The overall goal of the project is to complete the development of the Sheanvater Redevelopment
Project Area and the Bay West Cove Specific Plan through the orderly and systematic
redevelopment of the project site into a regionally-oriented office/R&D, retail, and hotel
development compatible Nvith the office, R&D, life science campus and hotel uses in the
surrounding vicinity. The objectives of the project are as follows: Develop the project site Nvith
high-quality Office/R&D, and retail/hotel uses to serve the project's employees, visitors, and the
Citv of South San Francisco.
• Construct a cohesive Nvorking campus environment Nvith a clear organization of buildings,
structured parking, and pedestrian circulation and open space.
• Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements that
are in line Nvith the East of 101 Area guidelines.
• Create an open space and pedestrian path network that incorporates parks and landscaping for
passive recreational use.
• Emphasize the pedestrian environment Nvith Nvell-designed and useful landscaping that respond to
the climate of the City.
• Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and Ferry
service.
E. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
As defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency is the public agency Nvith the principal responsibility for carrying
out or approving a project. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for approval of the
project. Upon completion of the EIR process, the City Nvill cert*A- the Final EIR for the Specific Plan
Amendment and project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The folloNving approvals Nvould be required by the City for the project:
• Certification of the Subsequent EIR
• Specific Plan Amendments to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area, FAR,
and Land Use Components
• Zoning Text Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.210to accommodate changes to descriptions of
the Planning Area and proposed FAR
• Approval of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map
• Adoption of TDM Plan
• Approval of Master Sign Program
• All future developments that are not othenvise covered by the proposed project may be subject to
a separate permit or precise plan approval that may be subject to subsequent CEQA review in
accordance Nvith Public Resources Code section 21166 and SSFMC Chapter 20.210.001
In addition, the folloNving is a list of City agencies and their responsibilities in approving or
recommending approval of the proposed project.
• Department of Economic and Community Development
0 Building Division:
■ Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy
0 Planning Division:
• Specific Plan Amendments
• Precise Plan
• Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design Review,
CEQA Review
0 Engineering Division:
■ Grading Permits, Subdivision Approvals, Encroachment Permits,Plan Check
• Police Department:
0 Citv's Security Issues Compliance
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-21
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Fire Department:
0 Fire Code Compliance
In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that have
discretionary or ministerial authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are
not limited to,the folloNving:
• Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) — Issuance of a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing
more than 1 acre and permit for deNvatering during construction, and approval of operational
stormwater treatment
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Ensure compliance Nvith all traffic
related standards relative to state highways
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) — ensure that all applicable federal
and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained.
• San Mateo County Flood Control District—Design approval for on-site flood control.
• San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance Nvith
regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans.
• Federal Aviation Administration — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the
operation of the San Francisco International Airport.
• GCAG Airport Land Use Committee — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to
the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan.
• BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission — Review portions of the project
that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-22
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is located in an urban area and is not located on agricultural lands or in an area of mineral
resources. Additionally, the project does not propose any residential uses and Nvould not directly increase
the number of residents in the City resulting to impacts to recreation. As alloNved under Section 15128 of
the CEQA Guidelines, this section discusses whN- impacts to these environmental topics Nvere determined
to be less than significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Impacts to agricultural and mineral resources Nvere not analyzed in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Draft EIR or the 2000 Ba_T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impacts to
recreational resources Nvere less than significant in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Draft
EIR and the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The project would not result in the conversion ofstate-designated agricultural land from agricultural use
to another non-agricultural use. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP),
the project site is designated as urban or built-up land and does not contain prime farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland of stateNvide importance.' Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould
not result in any impacts related to the conversion of important farmland. No significant impact Nvould
occur.
The project would not result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson
Act contract from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. No lands on the project site are zoned for
agricultural use nor is the site subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, development of the
proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No
significant impacts Nvould occur.
The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland Production. No lands on the project site are zoned for forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, development of the proposed project
Nvould not conflict Nvith zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
No significant impacts Nvould occur.
The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use. As
stated above, no forest lands are present on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed site
Nvould not convert forest land to non-forest use.No significant impacts Nvould occur.
The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland and forest land to non-agricultural or non- orest use. As
C ahforrzia Division of Larzd Resource Protection, Farnrlarzd llappirzg arid Alorzitorirzg Program Overview,
website:http: innj,.consrv.ca.gov'dlrp F_DIP overview survey area map.htm,Accessed August 21, 2008.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:A.Impacts Fourzd To Be Less Tharz S'igrzificarzt
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:A-1
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
stated above, development of the proposed project Nvould not convert anY Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland or Farmland of StateNvide Importance, or forest land to a non-agricultural use. Therefore,
development of the proposed project Nvould not result in any impacts to agricultural resources as related to
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.No significant impacts Nvould occur.
MINERAL RESOURCES
The Protect would not result in the loss ofavailability ofa known mineral resource that would be ofvalue
to the region and the residents of the state nor would it result in the loss of availability ofa locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan. The project site is not designated by the State, the South San Francisco General Plan, or East of
101 Area Plan as an area of mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould not result in the loss
of availability of a knoNsn mineral resource that Nvould be of value to the region and the residents of the
State. Furthermore, as the site is currentIv in a developed area, the project Nvould not alter its status Nvith
respect to the availability of mineral resources. No significant impact Nvould occur and no additional
analysis of this issue is Nvarranted in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
RECREATION
The protect would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The
proposed project does not include the development of residential land uses. Employees associated Nvith
the project Nvould likely visit parks and recreational facilities near their places of residency and not their
place of employment. Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not result in substantial
physical deterioration of existing nearby recreational facilities, and no impact Nvould occur.
The protect does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The project would
include an amphitheater, along Nvith a bocce court, sports court, and outdoor dining areas in the center of
the open space network of the project. The project does not include the construction of any publicly-
ovmed recreational facilities. The recreational amenities Nvould be available to Britannia Cove at Ouster
Point Project employees and hotel and restaurant visitors. Therefore, the project Nvould not require the
expansion or construction of new off-site recreational facilities in the City of South San Francisco.
The project Nvould also provide public access to the Bay Trail, thus improving bicycle and pedestrian
network and accessibility in the City. Impacts associated Nvith construction of recreational facilities are
discussed in Section IV.B Aesthetics, IV.I Land Use, and IV.H. Hydrology and Water Quality.
Additionally, employees generated by the development of the proposed project Nvould likely utilize parks
and recreational facilities near their places of residency and not their place of employment. Therefore, the
project Nvould not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities Nvhich might have an adverse effect on the environment.No significant impacts Nvould occur.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:A.Impacts Found To Be Less Than Sigrzificarzt
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:A-2
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
B. AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing aesthetic and visual resources in the project
area, which includes the project site and neighboring properties, and evaluates the potential for aesthetic
and visual impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on visual resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new
significant visual resource impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,
the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant visual resources impacts or substantial
changes in the severity of the previously identified visual resource impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project, mitigation measures Nvere presented to avoid potential damage to visual
resources. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
Descriptions of existing visual characteristics in the project area are presented and potential project-
related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light and glare, or impacts to scenic
views, are evaluated based on analysis of photographs, site reconnaissance, and project plans. A
regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations
related to the aesthetic treatment of the proposed project.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San
Francisco General Plan (1999); Section 20.210 (Bay West Cove Specific Plan) of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC); and site photographs taken by Katrina Hardt-Holoch, URS.
No comment letters related to aesthetics Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of
Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent
EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on visual resources. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create no significant visual impacts and five less
than significant impacts.
Table IV.B-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact(5.2.2)No Significant View Obstruction or No mitigation measures were required.
Negative Aesthetic Effect.The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that
the project will alter views to the bay. It found that
existing distant views from public streets in the vicinity
of the project area would be blocked by proposed
landscaping and parking facilities:while proposed
buildings would be visible from U.S. 101 over existing
storage facilities.Further,the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that views
of the bav would be blocked from U.S. 101 and Oyster
Point Boulevard. The impact was found to be less than
significant due to the poor scenic quality of the views
and the viewer's relative distance from the Bay.
Impact(5.2.3)Minor Light and Glare Impacts.The No mitigation measures were required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR found that due to the absence of sensitive receptors,
such as housing,and the preparation of a lighting and
landscaping plans in compliance with East of 101 Area
Plan,Design Element Policy DE-29,the project was
found to have a less than significant impact on lighting
and glare.Further,the SSFMC does not regulate
maximum levels of outdoor glare,and specifies only a
minimum level for parking lots near areas with heavy
night time vehicular traffic,thus the impact would be
less than significant.
Impact(5.2.4)Consistency with Design Element No mitigation measures were required.
Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan.The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
is found to be consistent with the Design Element
policies in the East of the 101 Area Plan related to the
principal visual features of the Project and therefore no
significant impacts,thus the impact would be less than
significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Visual Character
The regional visual character of the project area has remained the same as the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:B.Aesthetics
Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-2
00)of S'outli Sari Francisco April 2013
The project is located in the City of South San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco (see Figures
III-1 and III-2 in Section III, Project Description). The project site is located near the Nvestern shore of the
central San Francisco Bay in the eastern portion of the City. The project site is bounded by the San
Francisco Bav to the north, ONTster Point Boulevard on the south, Veterans Boulevard on the east, and
U.S. 101 to the Nvest.
South San Francisco is located on the Nvest shore of the San Francisco Bav, in northern San Mateo
County. The City is built upon the bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is
strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and
Interstate 280, the Union Pacific Railroad (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad), and the San Francisco
International Airport.
South San Francisco has been transforming for the past 30 Nears. Steel production and other heavy
industries have largely been replaced by Nvarehousing, research, development, and biotechnology uses.
With some exceptions, land use in the City since the 1960s has stemmed from internal change rather than
outright expansion. Infill development has occurred along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S.
101. Major expansions in the Westborough area and the East of 101 Area have been enabled respectively
by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill activities at the Ouster and Sierra Points. Aesthetic
differences are noticeable Nvhere high-technology businesses have moved into older industrial areas (e.g.,
business centers have higher landscape standards than those of Nvarehousing and industrial areas).
Local Visual Character
Although the overall character of the project area has remained the same as the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, several new developments, discussed below, have improved the overall local visual
character. The local visual character is presented below.
As discussed in Section IV.I Land Use and Planning, the City of South San Francisco General Plan
separates the City into fourteen sub-areas, Nvhich have been collectively derived from analysis of land use
and urban design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. The project site is
located in the East of 101 Area,which is defined by the East 101 Area Plan as follows:
The East of 101 Area represents an important economic resource to the City of S'oizth San
Francisco and San Mateo County. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land in the City of
South San Francisco east ofHighway 101,from the City's northern border with Brisbane to the
southern border adfacent to San Francisco International Airport
Land uses in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office, research &development,
commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light industrial uses. The San
Francisco Bay is located to the north of the project site. The Oyster Point Marina is located to the
northeast of the project site and includes marina slips, pier, park, and other marine facilities. The San
Francisco Bav Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) operates a new ferry service between South San
Francisco and the East Bav, Nvith a terminal at the ONTster Point Marina, since the 2000 Bav West Cove
Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequent Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Topography in the area ranges from sub-zero to approximately 180 feet at San Bruno Point Hill. Other
major topographic features include a steep embankment around the Sanrio/See's building and the UPS
facility, bluffs on the Marine Magnesium property betvyeen Point San Bruno and the Haskins property, a
small ridge extending from the Cost Plus property to the Rouse's Gatevyay Office Park, and a cliff
delineating the Hilltop Business Center betvyeen Grandvievy Drive and Forbes Boulevard. These
topographic features create visual interest, alloNy for vieNys to the bay, and make some areas on slopes and
high points visually prominent.
Major landmarks in the East of 101 Area include San Francisco Bay. The East of 101 Area currently does
not have a large number of attractive building landmarks. This can make it difficult to orient oneself in
the area.
There is no dominant building character or streetscape pattern in the East of 101 Area. The scale of the
built environment ranges from one to seven stories, Nvith some larger ten- to twelve-story hotels and
buildings in the area. The condition of the structures varies from dilapidated to virtually neNy.
The local visual quality has improved since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvith the
Nyidening of Oyster Point Boulevard and the development of Oyster Point Cove Business Park, on
Veterans Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard noNy includes a landscaped median, Nyhile the neNy
development has consistent massing,height, colors and materials, as Nyell as landscaping.
Overall, the visual character of the surrounding area can be described as Nyide-ranging, non-descript, and
lacking a cohesive visual identity. The visual experience of the area is dominated by expansive parking
lots and the conspicuous contrast betvyeen shorter and taller buildings scattered throughout the area.
Project Site Visual Character
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the project site is approximately 20.1 acres in
size and it is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNyer pump
located in the northern portion of the site. Although vieNys of the site have not changed since the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, neNy developments are in place in the East of 101
Area and thus changing vieNys from Nvithin the project site, as presented beloNy. VieNys of the project site
from on-site and off-site vantage points are as follovys (see Figure IV.B-1 for a map of the locations
Nyhere photographs Nyere taken):
• Oyster Point Boulevard Entrance. As shoNyn in VieNys 1 and 2 in Figure IV.B-2 (VieNys of the
Project Site: VieNys 1-4), the most prominent characteristic of the site for vieNyers from Oyster
Point Boulevard are of the vacant, undeveloped lot. Distant vieNys of the hotel complex north of
the site are available from this viev,-point, as Nyell as neNy business commercial development along
Veterans Boulevard. Centennial ToNyer is visible to the north-Nyest, a neNy addition since the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Due to landscaping and distance, the San Francisco Bay is
only briefly visible to Nvestbound motorists from Oyster Point Boulevard as vehicles exit the
southbound U.S. 101 ramp. VieNy 3 and 4 in Figure IV.B-2 shoNys the pedestrian sideNyalk flanked
by the chain link fence and vieNys of the vacant project site.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Northern Boundary View and Interior. Views 5 and 6 in Figure IV.13-3 (Views of the Project
Site: Views 5-8) show views from the interior of the project site facing north toNvards and awa-T
from the bay. Views of the hotel complex north of the site are more available from this viewpoint,
as Nvell as Centennial ToNver, a new addition since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
• U.S. 101 View (Western Boundary View). View 7 in Figure IV.13-3 (Views of the Project Site:
Views 5-8) shows the view along U.S. 101 and the Nvestern boundary of the project site. The
project site is not readily visible from the freeway, as there are storage buildings separating the
freeway from the project site. Views of the San Francisco Bay from U.S. 101 are limited because
of the distance between the highway and the Bay, and intervening landscaping along the highway.
View 8 shows the interior view of the project site facing east toNvards Veterans Boulevard. It is
mostly characterized by an industrial/vacant lot character, Nvith views of Britannia Oyster Point
development in the distance, Nvhich Nvas part of the initial 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR as Planning Areas 2/3/.
• Offsite. View 9 in Figure IV.134 (Views of the Project Site: Views 9-12) shows distant views of
the site from ONTster Point Boulevard, the vacant lot surrounded by landscaping and bounded to
the east and north east by taller buildings and the highways to the Nvest. View 10 (Views of the
Project Site: Views 9-12) shows the Britannia Oyster Point development on the Veterans
Boulevard boundary, a new development since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Views 11 and 12 show the view from Oyster Boulevard immediately south of the project site and
from a parking lot located across Gateway Boulevard.
As shoN-,n by the photographs included in Figures IV.13-2, IV.13-3, and IV.134, the existing visual
character of the project site from on- and off-site vantage points in the area can generally be described as
vacant and surrounded by business parks and other commercial uses. Development in the area is
composed of multi-storied buildings Nvith landscaping and parking lots, and has changed since the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvith addition of new office parks.
Overall, the visual character of the East of 101 Area is one of commercial, light industrial, office, and R
&D uses developed over the last 50 years in a variety of styles and density depending on the time period
that the buildings Nvere constructed and the use of the structures (warehousing or light industrial versus
office or R&D), and is similar Nvith the overall visual character of the project area in the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Lighting
"Light spill" is typically defined as the presence of unNvanted and/or misdirected light on properties
adjacent to the property being illuminated. Light spill can emanate from the interior of structures through
Nvindows or from exterior sources, such as street lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Due to
the lack of development on the project site there is no existing lighting Nvithin the project boundan-itself,
similar with the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Light sources Nvithin the project site include
light spill from the Britannia Oyster Point development,Nvhich is a new addition since the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project, and U.S. 101 as Nvell as street lighting along Oyster Point Boulevard. Lighting
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-5
r
/r
1 '
��� IVVIp�I„III
1
VVVlluuuul
r � r
r�
y !
�V � //% /�t'�Itly"���' •�l/�� ��� r Gtr rj� ,,mm1V!k�!�'�o
thyme
11 ll�'s%
i�” 6.II oVV ir^my
I�IU4� /fuVlVaa 1/Gi����� �u �41 `Q, („ fY�l, e� yriwr«�`IUmE f wmrrmiyml,a„ 1 f '
I
wNm�m�Ww�mw,GmuffGfiu /
v 4�0
f
y « /
Ilf ff
0
m
'
Im Im City of South San Francisco
II
u III � Brrtrunria Cork(it Oyster Point Figure IV.B-1
Photo Location Map
l
View 1 View 2
Looking north from Oyster Point Boulevard Looking north at the Intersection of Oyster
Point and Gateway Boulevard
i
View 3 View 4
View of pedestrian sidewalk and chain link fence View from Veterans Boulevard of eastern border
project site
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o iSBrrtrunzia Co.rat OyStcr Point
Figure IV.B-2
View of the Project Site, Views 1-4
/
View 5 View 6
Looking north towards San Francisco Bay Looking west towards Highway 101 and
storage facilities
Ol /
i
/
i
/loll
View 7 View 8
Looking west towards Highway 101 from Looking east toward Veterans Boulevard
interior of the project site
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Con,rat OyStcr Point
Figure IV.B-3
View of the Project Site, Views 5-8
trJJ,'fN�i�rti
View 9 View 10
View from Oyster Point Boulevard View of Britannia Oyster Point development
on Veterans Boulevard
"NIMMIYA,
r�
sl°i 'a0 p
View 11 View 12
Looking south towards Oyster Point Boulevard View from Gateway Boulevard parking lot
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Con,(it OyStcr Point
Figure IV.B-4
View of the Project Site, Views 9-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
in the area is made up of interior lighting Nvithin each surrounding building, vehicle headlights, and
nighttime security lighting at building entries, courtyards, and spaced along pathways and circulation
areas. There are no light-sensitive land uses near the project site, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
Perceived glare is the wiNvanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person when
looking directly into the light source of a luminaire fixture. Glare also results from sunlight reflection off
flat building surfaces, Nvith glass typically contributing the highest degree of reflectivity. Daytime sources
of glare in the surrounding area include reflections off of light-colored surfaces, Nvindows, and metal
details on cars parked in project site parking lots and traveling on nearby roadways, similar to the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Regulatory Setting
No new regulation have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Federal
There are no federal statutes or regulations related to aesthetics that Nvould apply to the proposed project.
State
There are no state statutes or regulations related to aesthetics that Nvould apply to the proposed project.
Local
Aesthetic and visual resource regulations must be identified on a project-by-project basis. Pertinent local
aesthetic policies currently in place are listed below under their respective plan or ordinance.
South San Francisco General Plan (1999)
The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future grov'th and
development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of
development Nvithin the East of 101 Area, including the project site. The City of South San Francisco
General Plan designates the project site as Business Commercial. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are listed
below:
2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high
community design standards,not to circumvent development intensity standards.
2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1)
2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve
the community orientation of new development.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page II B-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect
the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
East of US 101 Area
3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of
101 Area.
3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development
uses.
3.5-I-4 Unless othenvise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101
area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
3.5-I-7 Prepare signage and streetscape plan for the areas designated as Business Commercial
and Business and Technology Park on the General Plan Diagram, treating the entire area
as one large campus, Nvith unified signage and orchestrated streetscapes that make
Nvayflnding easy and pleasant.
East of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994)
The project site is also located Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan, a detailed implementation guide for the
area. The East of 101 Area Plan principally provides direction related to design and certain other facets of
development in the area not othenvise covered in the General Plan or other City plans. The City Nvill use
consistenev Nvith these policies in evaluating proposals for new development. Policies pertinent to
aesthetics are listed below:
Land Use
LU-2
• New land uses that are similar to or compatible Nvith surrounding development are
encouraged.
• New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the
East of 101 Area.
LU-23
Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established
by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria.
Edges
DE-2
Projects in the vicinit-,T of US 101 should be designed Nvith the freeway in mind.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page II B-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Visual Landmarks
DE-5
Developments in the East of 101 Area should be designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco
Bay and Point San Bruno Hill Nvith its "Windehime". Wherever possible, open space areas should be
designed to provide views of these areas, and any new roadways should be laid out to provide vistas of
them as Nvell.
DE-6
Within each development a landmark building should be encouraged to mark the project approach for
visitors coming to it. Such landmarks shall not include signs.
Entries
DE-7
The principal roadway entries into the East of 101 Area should receive special attention and enhanced
entry treatment, including special planting, signage, and paving. A master plan of entry improvements
should be developed by the City,Nvith special attention on the folloNving entries:
• Oyster Point Boulevard. Treatments on Oyster Point Boulevard just east of the U.S.101 ramps
could include monuments on the sides of the roadway and in the median, as Nvell as enhanced
landscaping.
[Additional entries Nvithin this guideline are omitted because they are not located near the project site]
Entry landscape treatments should utilize elements such as plant materials, earth berms, low Nvalls or
fences, lighting, paving, sculpture, and signage, to create distinctive, high quality gateways to the area, as
shoN-,n on page 93 of the East of 101 Area Plan. The plantings should be dense enough and distinctive
enough to clearly distinguish the entry from surrounding landscaping. Native plant species and other
species that have low maintenance and Nvater consumption characteristics should be favored in these
treatments to reduce long term maintenance costs. Vertical elements, such as trees, and color, both floNver
and foliage, should be used to highlight the entry treatment. Signs identifi-ing the City of South San
Francisco and the East of 101 Area should be simple, made of durable high quality materials, and
attractively designed.
Parkinz,Loading, andAccess Desizn
DE-15
Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by separating parking areas into
relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings Nvhenever possible. The standard
practice of placing the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should
be avoided when possible, as shoN-,n in Figure B of the East of 101 Area Plan.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
DE-16
All loading and service areas shall be designed so that the maneuvering of vehicles can be accomplished
on-site without special effort and Nvithout disrupting on-site circulation.
DE-17
In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks and service areas should be located at the
rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas.
DE-20
Projects should be designed to minimize drivewa-Ts and vehicular circulation areas, while maximizing
outdoor public spaces. For example, ovmers of adjacent properties could develop shared facilities such as
driveNvays,pedestrian plazas and Nvallcways.
Site Design and Open Space
DE-21
Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the land
use category, as shoN-,n in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element of the East of 101
Area Plan.
DE-22
Developments in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories should
include on-site open space as a unifi-ing element and as areas for employee use. Open space should be
continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites, especially in campus-like developments, as
shoN-,n in Figure B. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference
rooms.
DE-23
Open space should be located and designed Nvith consideration for sun exposure and Nvind protection.
Where possible, open space should offer seating areas Nvith views of San Francisco Bay and Point San
Bruno Hill.
Landscaping and Lighting
DE-28
Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the
extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the
design of the development.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
DE-29
Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape
design. Security and entry lights should align Nvith, be centered on, or othenvise coordinate Nvith the
building elements.
Buildinz Design
DE-30
Utilities shall be underground unless the City finds it to be in-feasible.
DE-38
The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials, and the selection of
landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the project and promote the
development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 Area.
DE-39
All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated Nvith relief
elements and changes in plane. Architectural elements used to provide relief could include avming
projections, trellises, built in planters, integrated plazas, colonnades or arcades, expression of structural
elements, Nvall/Nvindow recesses and/or projections, changes in materials and textures or
elements/treatments that create patterns of shade/shadow. Blank Nvalls should be avoided.
In addition to the specific policies mentioned above, the East of 101 Area Plan also lists guiding policies
to control the design of individual buildings, sites, and streetscape, including policies related to parking,
loading, and access design; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; open space; and
signage.
DE--l1
Building facades should- be constructed of durable materials such as those already used in the area,
including stucco, Nvell-detailed tilt-up concrete or metal panels, and decorative masonry. Within a limited
range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one material or texture. Highly reflective materials
are discouraged. Building materials shall be chosen to Nveather the salt air in the area, and shall be subject
to review by the Design Review Board and the approval of the Chief Planner. Additional policies for the
Light Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories are included in Section D of this Design Element.
DE--l2
Building color pallets shall be as approved by the applicable City body Nvith the advice of the Design
Review Board. Building colors may include earth tones and appropriate pastels. Bright colors and simple
primary colors should be avoided, except as accents. Within a limited range, building surfaces should
incorporate more than one color.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-14
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
DE--l3
Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Landmark design elements
should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of the
ALUC, as outlined in Polio*LV-23. Additional restrictions on building height in the Coastal Commercial
category are included in Section D of this Design Element. Exceptions to this policy may be made if
warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller building heights are included in an approved Master
Plan.
Buildinz and Dei�elopment Siznaze
DE--l5
Shopping and business center signage should be designed as an integral part of the overall center, and
should be attached to buildings and other architectural elements wherever possible, as shoN-,n in Figure A.
No sign should be taller than the building it serves.
DE--l6
Each center or development shall have a unified signage program for the entire development, which
should be reviewed and approved by the City. Miscellaneous signage shall be designed into the sign
program for each site such that is Nvill be coordinated Nvith the major signage for the site and the building.
DE--l7
Shopping center or development identity should be denoted through signs or logos integrated into the
design of the buildings,rather than through freestanding signs.
DE--l8
Tenants Nvithin shopping and business centers should have signs that are integrated into the centers' signs,
or which are mounted on buildings. For building mounting, individual letters are preferred, and unified
"can" signs shall not be alloNved. Lettering on buildings shall be individual letters painted or applied to the
building or individually illuminated metal channel letters (8 minimally sized racewa-,T painted to match the
building shall be permitted for internal illumination). No background shall be permitted other than the
building material itself.
DE--l9
Freestanding signs are discouraged, but may be installed as monument signs no more than 12 feet tall, as
shoN-,n in Figure B on the previous page. Pole signs, as shoN-,n in Figure C on the previous page, and signs
over 12 feet tall, are not alloNved.
DE-50
Illuminated signs shall be designed so that they do not create glare.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-1 5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
DE-5 I
Directional and informational signage Nvithin a center should be designed in a consistent style that reflects
the design character of the shopping or business center as a whole.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
DE-52
Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as
pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low toNvers, as shoNsn in Figure A. If screening from all
significant public viev,-points is not possible due to changes in grade, then the equipment should also be
enclosed in a housing that is compatible Nvith the design of the main building.
DE-53
Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the, color of the roof where it is located.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
Bay West Co>>e Specific Plan
The project site is zoned as Ba-T West Cove Specific Plan. The Ba-T West Cove Specific Plan Zoning
designation establishes permitted uses, development standards, and architectural guidelines and divides
the district into six planning areas. Uses permitted in this district include, but are not limited to, office
buildings for professional or business purposes, research and development, office/sales/service and
lodging. Not all uses are permitted in the planning areas. The Zoning Code also establishes landscaping
standards and open space standards. No development is allowed in Planning Area 5, while in Planning
Area 4 oniv two hotels are allowed as development. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are listed:
Development Standards (20.210.004)
A. The maximum floor area in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and .5 for all
other uses unless the Redevelopment Agency grants an FAR bonus in accordance Nvith the folloNving:
• 0.4 for Hotels and Motels and 0.2 for all other uses for the incorporation of Transportation
Demand Management(TDM)measures.
• 0.2 for the provision of off-site improvements.
• 0.2 for Hotels and Motels and 0.1 for all other uses for projects meeting specified design
standards.
B. Building Height. Maximum building height, shall not exceed the maximum height limit established by
the San Mateo County airport land use commission based on Federal Aviation Administration Regulation
Part 77.
C. Setbacks shall be provided in accordance Nvith the folloNving table:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.B-2
Bay West Cove Specific Plan Setback Requirements
cSetback-Fe[dure, Min a nut Building Minitnum Landscaped' - Alinintunt Parking
:S`etback (r) � Setbaelt(�) � Setback(ft)(Y
Oyster Point Boulevard 20 20 20
Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent 20 20 10
to freeway overpass structure
West property line 20 10 10
East property line 20 6 15
Veterans Boulevard 20 20 20
Bay shoreline and marsh See Note 2 35 100
Surface parking Average of 20,minimum 15 n/a 10
,rotes:
I Activities permitted within building and parking setback areas include landscaping,pedestrian walkways,gathering areas,
driveways,and utilities.
2.Bay Conservation and Development Conrnrission(BC.'DC)jra°isdicfional area developnrentwill comply with regrrirenrents
established by the BC.'DC pertaining to the BC.'DC jra°isdictional area. The BC.'DC jra°isdicfional area is located within one
hzrndred feet of the mean high fide line.Conrnrercial inrprovenrents located within the shoreline band are permitted by BC.'DC on
a case-by-case basis. The City nray similarly permit inrprovenrents within the shoreline band and as permitted by the East(?/'101
Area Plan.
Architectural Standards (20.210.000
The architectural standards dictate a need for building orientation in a manner that Nvould take advantage
of view corridors, complimentary architectural style to create a cohesive look throughout the Bay West
Cove Project Area, development of a pedestrian scale, use of materials to convey quality and permanence
and discouraging highly reflective materials. The architectural standards also contain policies for parking
structures, roof top mounted mechanical equipment, service equipment, refuse or storage enclosures and
energy conservation.
Landscape Standards (20.210.000)
A minimum of 25 percent of the area Nvithin property lines of the development site shall be devoted to
landscape materials, inclusive of required landscaped setbacks. This landscaping shall be evenly
distributed throughout the site.
Parking and Loading Standards (20.210.008)
Lighting and Illumination Parking lots, driveNvays, circulation areas, aisles, passageNvays, recesses and
ground contiguous buildings shall be provided Nvith high-intensity discharge lighting Nvith sufficient
Nvattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about
the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe secure environment for all persons, property
and vehicles on the site. Such lighting shall be equipped Nvith vandal-resistant covers. The folloNving
minimum levels of illumination shall be achieved:
1. Open parking lots: One to t�vo foot-candles at ground level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentalImpactReport Page If:B-17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
2. Pedestrian path/bike path: One-half to one foot-candle at ground level.
3. Covered parking: Five foot-candles at ground level.
Signs (20.210.013)
Sign permits are required for all new signs and changes of sign face for existing signs. A sign permit
application must be filed Nvith the Planning Division and must be signed by both the business owner or
authorized agent and the property oNsner or authorized agent. All signs shall comply Nvith the Bay West
Cove Master Sign Program. In cases not covered by the master sign program, Chapter 20360 ("Signs")
and East of 101 Area Plan shall apply. (Ord. 1432 § 2, 20 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
The analysis of changes to the project site Nvas based on a site visit and photographs of the project site
taken in 2012 and 2013, therefore after the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Potential project-
related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light and glare, or impacts to scenic
views, are evaluated based on analysis of photographs, site reconnaissance, and project plans, Nvhich have
been updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts to visual quality and aesthetics if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the
folloN ing:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare Nvhich Nvould adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
The CEQA Guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are
different than those used in this Draft Subsequent EIR. This document uses the updated 2013 CEQA
Guidelines that reflect more stringent standards and regulations Nvhen compared Nvith the ones used in the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For example, the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not identifiT impacts on scenic resources.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-18
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant visual resources impacts or a substantial increase in
the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Due to new lighting standards in the BaY
West Cove Specific Plan new mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts due to light
or glare in the project area. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below
discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove
Commercial Project.
Impact IV.B-1: The proposed project would not ha>>e a substantial adverse ef'f'ect on a scenic i4stu
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 BaY West Cove
Commercial Project Nvould alter views to the bav, and that distant views of the BaY from U.S. 1010 and
ONTster Point Boulevard Nvould be blocked by the development of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
Scenic vistas may generally be described as either panoramic views (views of a large geographic area) or
short-range views (views of a particular object, scene, or feature). Panoramic views typically include
views of mountains, valleys, bodies of Nvater, and urban skylines. The proposed project Nvould result in a
significant impact if it Nvould have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, as seen from a public
vieNving point.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, there are no scenic vistas identified in the
General Plan or the East of 101 Area Plan. HoNvever, the East of 101 Area Plan describes the San
Francisco Bav as a major visual landmark. Views of an inlet of the San Francisco Bav near Veterans
Boulevard are visible from the northern boundary of the project site, particularly the vacant areas near the
northNvestern corner; but not from the southern boundary due to distance and landscaping, similar to the
project site conditions in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
The project would result in the phased construction of three 4-stony buildings,three 5-stony buildings, one
6-stony building and one 9-stony building. The project Nvould also result in the construction of one 8 to 9
stony parking garage located on the southNvest corner near U.S. 101, which as previously mentioned is an
increase in density compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Construction of the
project Nvould occur over three phases and changes to views available from surrounding areas Nvould
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-19
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
change Nvith completion of each phase, similar to the similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
Upon completion of construction of all phases,the project Nvould block distant views of the San Francisco
Bav available from ONTster Point Boulevard; however, the Bav is on1v minimallv visible from this view
point and the impact Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR. Views of the Bay from the freev,ay Nvould generally be blocked by the new
office buildings and parking structures constructed in Phase 2. Views of the Bav from along Veterans
Boulevard and public sideNvalks around the project site on the northern boundary Nvould still be available
to public vieNvers. CEQA defines impacts to scenic vistas based on public views, and the project Nvould
not have a substantial adverse effect on distant views of the Bay from public vievs-points.
Additionally, in keeping Nvith Policy DE-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan, the buildings and open space
areas Nvould be oriented to emphasize views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill. Occupants
of the northern side of buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, as Nvell as users of the open space areas Nvould
have views of the Bay. Therefore, overall impacts to scenic vista from implementation of the project
Nvould be less than significant Nvith no mitigation warranted, similar Nvith the findings of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Impact IV.B-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction and operation on scenic resources. This impact
discussion is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines requirements.
There are no designated state scenic highNvays located in the project area. Therefore, there Nvould be no
impact to resources Nvithin a scenic highwa-,T and no mitigation is warranted.
Impact IV.B-3: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing isual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Ba-T West Cove
Commercial Project Nvould not have a negative aesthetic effect on the visual character of the project site
or its surroundings. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould alter views of the
area,the poor scenic quality of the area Nvould lessen any impact to a less than significant level.
The proposed project Nvould result in a significant impact if it Nvould significantly degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in
size and it is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the exception of a Cit-,T-oNsned sanitary seNver pump
station located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bound by a chain link fence along
ONTster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard, the San Francisco Bav to the north, a similar
development to the east and train tracks and storage spaces to the Nvest. The project would result in the
phased construction of three 4-story buildings, three 5-story buildings, one 6-story building and one 9-
story building. The project Nvould also result in the construction of one 8 to 9 story parking garage located
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
on the southNvest corner near U.S. 101. As previously mentioned this is an increase in density from the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Although construction phases are different between the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and the
proposed project, the visual character of the project site Nvould change throughout the project phases in a
similar manner. Phase 1 Nvould include the construction of two office/R&D buildings, the hotel, and
surface parking. Undeveloped areas Nvould be fenced and hydro-seeded, but Nvould remain vacant.
Construction of Phase 2 Nvould develop the vacant portion of the project site, Nvhile construction of Phase
3 would develop the surface parking area adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard. Demolition and
construction activities may overlap as one phase begins and another phase is finishing.
During construction, four basic types of activities would be expected, Nvhich are similar in scope Nvith the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction phases. First, the sites Nvould be prepared,
excavated, and graded to accommodate the new building foundations. Next, new buildings and associated
landscaping and project site improvements Nvould be developed. Visual impacts associated Nvith
construction activities Nvould be temporary in nature as they Nvould oniv exist for the duration of
construction activities. Such temporary impacts Nvould include exposed pads and staging areas for
grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located on
the project site during various stages of construction, within material storage areas, or associated Nvith
construction debris piles. While these activities Nvould take place exclusively Nvithin the project site, these
visual impacts could affect surrounding land uses to the north, south, and Nvest of the project site, Nvhich is
comprised of office, R&D, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and
light industrial uses. In addition, automobiles traveling along Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point
Boulevard, and U.S. 101 Nvould have short-term views of the project site during construction. Pedestrians
and bievelists along the Bay Trail may also have short-term views of construction activity occurring on
the northern side of the project site. However, this visual condition Nvould be a temporan- visual
distraction typically associated Nvith construction activities and equipment.
A Landscape Master Plan, Sign Plan, and Master Circulation Plan Nvould be implemented as part of the
proposed project. Project site entrances Nvould be landscaped and properly signed Nvith distinctive
landscape at project entries, to create a feeling of cohesiveness and to match the existing visual character
of the surrounding areas. Landscaping on the project site Nvould emphasize a natural and informal
landscape using simple plant materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants
Nvould be chosen considering the climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 Area and Nvould be
combined Nvith variations in landform and circulation routes to create a series of Nvind-protected spaces
rather than being large expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants Nvould van-, but could include
Afghan Pine, Cajeput Tree, European Hornbeam, Lombardy Popular, New Zealand Christmas Tree,
Purple Leaf Plum, Purple Leaf Acacia, Ornamental Pear, Red FloNvering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf
Tristania, and Timber Bamboo. Landscaping of the site Nvould be in keeping Nvith the character of the East
of 101 Area, and Nvould enhance the color, texture and form of ONTster Point Boulevard. Therefore, the
project Nvould enhance the visual character of the area by replacing the vacant lot and chain link fence
Nvith a cohesive business commercial campus that fits the East of 101 Area, similar to the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-21
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Compared Nvith existing conditions, the visual quality of the project site's open space and pedestrian-
oriented areas Nvould improve since the project Nvould create a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment
Nvhere employees and visitors Nvould be able to connect to the entire system of buildings and outdoor
spaces, and the San Francisco Bay on the north border. The project Nvould result in the removal of the
chain link fence,the addition of landscaping, and contribute to an overall feeling of increased open space.
The overall visual characterization of the site Nvould not degrade because the proposed project Nvould
enhance the visual character of the area, by removing the empty- lot feel. Because it completes the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the Sheanvater Development, the overall quality of the site and
its surrounding Nvould improve Nvith the proposed project. Further, the project Nvould add cohesiveness to
the East of 101 Area, by completing the proposed project, Nvhich fits in Nvith the vision of the East of 101
Area Plan and recent development in the area. The new development Nvould, at project completion, be
surrounded by more open space and landscaped areas, and Nvould allow for public use and access to the
San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the project Nvould not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site
and impacts related to visual character or quality Nvould be less than significant Nvith no mitigation
Nvarranted, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR finding 5.2.2.
Impact IV.B-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversety af'f'ect day or nighttime>>iews in the area.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that light and glare impacts from
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Nvould not be significant due to the lack of sensitive
receptors in the East of 101 Area. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
required the implementation of a lighting and landscaping plan, similar to this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of the proposed project Nvould
create new sources of light from exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation
paths. There are no residential land uses on-site or Nvithin the project vicinity in the East of 101 Area that
Nvould be adversely affected by these new light sources, similar Nvith the conditions of the 2000 Bav West
Cove Commercial Project. Lighting Nvould be designed to appropriately illuminate signage and Nvav
finding system components to make information clearly legible at night.
The project Nvould follow the lighting levels as recommended by the Engineering Society of North
America for all pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, as Nvell as levels set in the Bay West Cove
Specific Plan. This Nvould maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries, Nvalkvmys, courtyards,
parking lots, and private roads at night consistent Nvith minimum levels required by building codes.
Nighttime security lighting Nvould not be expected to substantially increase current conditions in the East
of 101 Area. Lighting Nvould be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and Nvould
be characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas.
Preparation of a Lighting Design Plan, Nvith the elements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.B-1 below,
Nvill establish policies required to reduce light and glare impacts, Nvill be required for project
implementation. Overall, lighting Nvould be designed to avoid unnecessary light pollution by use of"cut-
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-22
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
off'fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light where appropriate and to consider ambient light
generated by buildings in the design of site lighting systems to help prevent over lighting.
Additional lighting Nvould not have the potential to create "spillage" onto sensitive land uses, as none
exist Nvithin the project area. As the proposed project calls for development on a vacant lot, nighttime
light Nvould substantially increase if inappropriate levels of light are used or inappropriate lighting plans
are implemented. HoNvever,the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the guidelines in the Design Element
of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to lighting, specifically Guidelines DE-29 and DE-
50, and of the Bav West Cove Specific Plan. Impact related to substantial glare Nvould be less than
significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Implementation of the proposed project could create new sources of glare from reflective building
surfaces, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. No residential uses are located Nvithin
or near the project site and residential uses are not permitted Nvithin the entire East of 101 Area. Land uses
in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office, R&D, commercial (including
childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light industrial uses. HoNvever, the project site Nvould
be visible from U.S. 101. As the proposed project calls for an increase in development at the site from
vacant to visible four- to nine-story buildings, daytime glare Nvould increase if reflective materials Nvere
used, which could adversely affect views by distant land uses, such as motorists traveling along U.S. 101
looking towards the project site.
The building design Nvould incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and
aluminum metal panels. This mixture of materials Nvould not create large blocks of glass or reflective
materials that Nvould create excessive glare. Additionally, the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the
guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to building design,
specificallY Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42, and Title 24 requirements. Therefore the impacts related to
daytime glare Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.1 Lighting
The folloNving mitigation serves to clarIA- the elements necessary that shall be included in the proposed
project's Lighting Plan.
In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by project site lighting, the applicant shall specify
fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkway-s, courtyards,
parking lots and private roads at night consistent Nvith minimum levels detailed in the City s building
codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting,
thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution.
Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings constructed for the proposed project for each building
phase, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Planning Division. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the folloNving:
• The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources Nvith the types of lighting
and their locations.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-23
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Typical lighting shall include low mounted, doN-,award casting and shielded lights that do not
cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection systems Nvhere
applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to the folloNving styles, as feasible:
• Parking lots and roads—provide round fixtures on 22' poles on raised concrete footings
not to exceed 25' total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal.
• SideNvallcs, pathways, and plazas—provide round hardtop on post top fixtures not to
exceed 15'total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal.
• Accent pedestrian lighting—provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed 42"total height,
appropriately finished black, or approved equal.
• No flood lights shall be utilized.
• Lighting shall not"Wash out" structures or any portions of the site.
• Lighting shall be limited to the areas that Nvould be in operation during nighttime hours.
• Low intensity,indirect light sources shall be encouraged.
• On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged.
• Mercurv, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted except
Nvhere their need is specifically approved and their source of light is restricted.
• All light sources shall be fully shielded from off-site view.
• All buildings and structures shall consist of non-reflecting material or be painted Nvith non-
reflective paint.
• Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of the property and should shut
off automatically when the use is not operating. Security lighting visible from the highway
shall be motion-sensor activated.
• Use "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary
light pollution Nvhere appropriate.
• All lighting shall be installed in accordance Nvith the building codes and the approved lighting
plan during construction.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.13-1 and compliance Nvith local regulations, impacts
related to a substantial increase in light Nvould be less than significant, similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project. Although the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did
not require the implementation of a mitigation measure, it did require the development of a Lighting
Design Plan. Mitigation Measure IV.13-1 supplements measures in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR as it lays out standards for the Lighting Design Plan.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-24
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project,in conjunction Nvith other
development Nvithin the vicinity of the project in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco.
The East of 101 Area is an appropriate geographic context for cumulative impacts on visual quality
because this area is a distinct development area, isolated from the rest of the City by U.S. 101 to the Nvest
and bounded by the Bav to the east.
The buildings, although van-ing in height, Nvould be subject to the maximum height limits of Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 77. Development in the East of 101 Area is subject to varying height limits,
depending on the proximity of the area to San Francisco International flight paths. The project is the final
phase of the Britannia at Oyster Point Development. All future development of land uses in the vicinity
Nvould need to be consistent Nvith the City s General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, and Nvould be subject
to the City s Zoning Ordinance and review by the Design Review Board. Considering combined visual
impacts from the cumulative projects and the proposed project, cumulative impacts on scenic vistas
Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR.
As described in Impact IV.13-3, the proposed project Nvould not result in a significant impact on the visual
character or quality of the existing site. The regulating policies and development standards pertaining to
the design and aesthetics of the East of 101 Area Plan and policies of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan
District Nvould ensure that the project Nvould enhance the visual character and quality of the area.
Additional development proposed in the East of 101 Area includes primarily office and R&D land uses.
The Zoning Code promotes development consistent Nvith its surroundings, in terms of design, massing,
and building heights. Each project in the East of 101 Area Nvould be subject to extensive design oversight
as part of the Citv's entitlement process. Consequently, changes in land use that Nvould substantially
degrade the area Nvould generally not be permitted to occur, thereby protecting the visual character of the
East of 101 Area. Consequently, cumulative impacts on the visual character and quality of the East of 101
Area Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR.
Construction of new development as part of implementation of the proposed project Nvould result in short-
term impacts on visual character during the construction period. Other development in the East of 101
Area could result in significant impacts on visual character during the construction period. The significant
impacts on the visual character or quality of the site and vicinity due to project construction (e.g.,
construction equipment, fencing, and debris) could exacerbate construction period visual character
impacts of other projects. HoNvever,this visual condition Nvould be a temporary visual distraction typically
associated Nvith construction activities and equipment. Therefore, the cumulative impact from
implementation of the proposed project Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 BaY West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
The East of 101 Area is high1v urbanized and nearby built out and contains numerous existing sources of
daytime glare and nighttime lighting. Residential land uses are not permitted Nvithin the East of 101 Area,
and therefore sensitive land uses are not at risk by the potential accumulation of light and glare. As
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-25
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
described under Impact IV.13-4, the proposed project Nvould not create a significant impact by increasing
daytime glare in a location visible from U.S. 101 as the building design Nvould incorporate a mixture of
materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and aluminum metal sheets. This mixture of materials
Nvould not create large blocks of glass or reflective materials that Nvould create excessive glare.
Additionallv,the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of
101 Area Plan, including those related to building design, specifically Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42, and
the Bav West Cove Plan Zoning Code. Cumulative development Nvithin the surrounding areas Nvould be
subject to the East of 101 Area Plan design policies and compliance Nvith development standards of the
City's Zoning Code, as Nvell, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Development Nvithin the areas adjacent to the proposed project site could result in the creation of new
sources of light that could create nighttime glare. As described in Impact IV.13-4, the proposed project
could impact distant views by increasing nighttime lighting that could contribute to a diminishment in
nighttime sky. Cumulative development in the East of 101 Area could result in some diminishment in
nighttime sky. HoNvever, all uses in the East of 101 Area Nvould be subject to East of 101 Area Plan
design policies and compliance Nvith development standards of the Citv's Zoning Code. Therefore,
cumulative impacts associated Nvith nighttime lighting Nvould not be cumulatively considerable and Nvould
be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.13-4.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all
potential impacts related to aesthetics. These impacts Nvould also be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-26
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
C. AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing air quality in the project area, Nvhich includes
the project site and other properties in the vicinity, and evaluates the potential for air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise
Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new significant air
quality impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a
substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts. The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include any significance statements regarding
greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, since the analysis of GHGs Nvere not required at that time.
An analysis based on the project description for the same planning area used in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project has been conducted in order to give an indication of how the GHG emissions and
significance conclusions Nvould compare to the current project analysis.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes change in building development for Planning
Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. This is characterized as an increase
in office space and a decrease in the size of the hotel. The changes also correspond to changes in the trip
generation rates and effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program. There has
been significant advancement in the state of the science of estimating air quality and greenhouse gases
since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. In addition, there have been
numerous air quality regulations that have been implemented since 2000 that brings further reductions to
air quality emissions. This includes reductions in the amount of emissions from construction equipment,
on-road vehicles, and architectural coatings. The proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant
air quality impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts.
New and supplemental mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised air quality analysis
Nvhich considers the current project plan and current state-of-the-art emission estimates. For a summary of
impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis
section.
No comment letters related to air quality Nvere received in response to December 14, 2012 Notice of
Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent
EIR.
Information Sources
The section has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality
impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV-I
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Quality Guidelines,most recently updated in May 2012.' The air quality assessment considers "criteria air
pollutants" (pollutants for Nvhich state and federal ambient standards exist), "toxic air contaminants"
(pollutants that pose human health risks), and greenhouse gases.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on air quality as identified in Table IV.0-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould
result in two significant adverse air quality impacts and one less than significant impact. With mitigation,
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR determined that all but one of the
significant impacts Nvould be reduced to less than significant. The operation of the project Nvas determined
to have a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air pollution emissions and a cumulative
significant impact.
Although the BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to
judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD's Revised Draft Options
and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD
recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD
recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
1 R140-11D. 2012. C'alif'ornia Erivirorimerital Qualio)Aet:Air Qualio)Guidelines. t pdated_llay 2012.
The BAAQMD's adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the
Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with
CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under
CEQA and ordered the BAAQMD to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the
euviromnent under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds
are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate
ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had
complied with CEQA. The court's order permits the BAAQMD to develop and disseminate these CEQA
Guidelines,as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-2
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-1
2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 7.2.2—Potential Impacts Due to Mitigation Measure 7.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove
Construction.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
Project Supplemental EIR identified project construction Mitigation Measure 7.2.2.which implements several
generation of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust as a dust control measures for the construction site to reduce
potentially significant impact because it could affect the fiigitive dust emissions,the impact would be reduced
local air quality during construction of the project. The to a less than significant level.
fugitive and exhaust emissions constitutes a potentially
significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
Impact 7.2.3—Increase in Regional Air Pollution Mitigation Measure 7.2.3—The 2000 Bay West Cove
Emissions from Traffic.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified an Mitigation Measure 7.2.3 which implements a
increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from project Transportation Demand Management(TDM)designed
traffic during operation that would exceed the thresholds to achieve a substantial reduction in vehicular hips.
established by BAAQMD. This constitutes as This mitigation was not sufficient to reduce the
significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove emissions below the thresholds. Therefore the impact
Commercial Project to the regional air quality. remains significant and unavoidable_
Impact 7.2.3—Cumulative Impact on Air Quality. Mitigation Measure 7.2.3—The 2000 Bay West Cove
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
Supplemental EIR identified a cumulative significant Mitigation Measure 7.2.3 which implements a
impact on air quality since the project is significant. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)designed
to achieve a substantial reduction in vehicular hips.
Feasible mitigation measures cannot further mitigate
impact. Therefore the cumulative impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 7.3.1—Local Carbon Monoxide Impacts. The No mitigation measures required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR evaluated the potential of substantial changes in
carbon monoxide levels due to traffic on the local street
network. The analvsis showed that this would not
increase emissions above the ambient air quality
standards and would be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background
Air pollutant emissions Nvithin the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) are generated by
stationary*and mobile sources. Stationary* sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and
area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated Nvith manufacturing
and industry*. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat.
Area sources are Nvidely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include
residential and commercial Nvater heaters, painting operations, laNsn moNvers, agricultural fields, landfills,
and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions
from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-3
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadvmys and highvmys. Off-road sources include
aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the
majority of the air pollutant emissions within the SFBAAB. Air pollutants can also be generated by the
natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in
the air during high Nvinds.
Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor
concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) have been set at levels Nvhere
concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and Nvelfare, and to protect the most sensitive
persons from illness or discomfort Nvith a margin of safety.
The air pollutants for Nvhich national and state standards have been promulgated and Nvhich are most
relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Bay Area are knoNsn as criteria pollutants and
include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PM,()), fine particulate matter
(PM2 5), sulfur dioxide (SOA and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gases (GHGs)
are of concern. Each of these is briefiv described below.
• Ozone (O�) or smog is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when reactive
organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOS) undergo slow photochemical reactions in
the presence of sunlight. The main sources of NOS and ROG, often referred to as ozone
precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) the evaporation of
solvents, paints, and fuels, and biogenic sources Ozone concentrations are generalIv highest
during the summer months when direct sunlight, light Nvind, and Nvarm temperature
conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion
of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or Nvood. CO concentrations tend to be the
highest during the Nvinter morning, when little to no Nvind and surface-based inversions trap
the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion
engines, unlike ozone,motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO
in the SFBAAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested
transportation corridors and intersections. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile
are loNvest at about 45 mph for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin to increase
again at higher speeds.
• Respirable Particulate Matter(PM,()) and Fine Particulate Matter(PM2 5) consist of extremely
small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter,
respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen are naturally occurring. In the
SFBAAB most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading,
demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are currently
responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and
stoves is another large source of fine particulates.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-4
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a nitrogen oxide compound that is produced by the combustion of
fossil fuels, such as in internal combustion engines (both gasoline and diesel poNvered), as
Nvell as point sources, especially poNver plants. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide
compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2
are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher
concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors.
• Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere
as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from
chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When S02 oxidizes in the
atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur
oxides (SOS).
• Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline
is the primary source of airborne Pb in the SFBAAB. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer
permitted for on-road motor vehicles, so the majorit-,T of such combustion emissions are
associated Nvith off-road vehicles such as race cars. HoNvever, because it Nvas emitted in large
amounts from vehicles when leaded gasoline Nvas used for on-road motor vehicles, Pb is
present in many soils and can get resuspended in the air. Other sources of Pb include the
manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and the use of
secondary Pb smelters.
• Toxic Air Contaminants JAC) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that are capable of
causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse
effects on human health including cancer. They include both organic and inorganic chemical
substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations,
motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and
teaching facilities. TACs are different than "criteria" pollutants in that ambient air quality
standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics
and their effects on health tend to be felt on a local scale rather than on a regional basis.
• Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) refer to a group of compounds that are believed to affect global
climate conditions. GHGs include carbon dioxide (COA methane (CH,), nitrous oxide
(N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFA
Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. Other GHGs are less abundant, but have higher
global Nvarming potential than COz. These gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, Nvhich are
often referred to as GHGs, are necessary to life, because they keep the planet's surface
Nvarmer than it othenvise Nvould be. This is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect.
• Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes,landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for
power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG
emissions. There appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures. A number of scientists believe that the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere has increased at a rapid rate due to the
use of machines poNvered by fossil fuels and that these gases are increasing global
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-5
City of South San Francisco April 2013
temperatures. Among the potential implications of global Nvarming are rising sea levels, and
adverse impacts to Nvater supply, Nvater quality, agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition,
global Nvarming may increase electricity demand for cooling, decrease the availability of
hydroelectric poNver, and affect regional air quality and public health.'
State standards have been promulgated for other air pollutants, including SO4, hydrogen sulfide, and
visibility reducing particles. The state also recognizes vinyl chloride as a TAC Nvith an undetermined
threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects. Vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulfide emissions are
generally generated from mining, milling, refining, smelting, landfills, seNver plants, cement
manufacturing, or the manufacturing or decomposition of organic matter. The state standards for sulfate
and visibility reducing particles are not exceeded any,vvhere in the SFBAAB.
Pb is typically only emitted during demolition of structures containing Pb-based paint and materials.
HoNvever, the project applicant Nvould be required to follow federal and state regulations that govern the
renovation and demolition of structures Nvhere materials containing Pb are present. Further discussion on
the presence and removal of Pb-based materials is included in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Ozone
Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people Nvith preexisting lung disease such as asthma and
chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects.
Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours)to ozone at levels typically observed in areas of high ozone
can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to
infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Besides causing shortness
of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.
Elevated ozone levels are associated Nvith increased school absences. In recent Nears, a correlation
between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as Nvell as
mortality, has also been reported. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung
tissue.
Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the above mentioned
observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that include
ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes
observed after a single exposure diminish Nvith repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes
appear to persist,which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes.
bitergovernnierztal Parzel on Chmate Change. Climate C harzge 2007 The Physical,S'cierzce Basis, Sunmrary for
Pohcyniakers, 2007.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-6
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Carbon Monoxide
Individuals Nvith a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO
exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain Nvith exercise, and electrocardiograph
changes indicative of Nvorsening oxygen supply to the heart.
Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering Nvith
oxygen transport and competing Nvith oxygen to combine Nvith hemoglobin present in the blood to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions Nvith an increased demand for oxygen supply can be
adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients Nvith diseases involving
heart and blood vessels,fetuses, and patients Nvith chronic hypoxemia(oxygen deficiency) as seen in high
altitudes.
Reduction in birth Nveight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals
chronically exposed to CO,resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies
have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes Nvith exposure to elevated CO levels. These include
pre-term births and heart abnormalities.
Particulate Matter
A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM,() and PM2 5) levels and an
increase in mortality rates, respirator* infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number
of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around
the Nvorld. In recent Nears, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air
pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased
mortality from lung cancer.
Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respirator* disease. PM,() is of
concern because it bypasses the body s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles, and can
lodge deep in the lungs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) revised their PM standards several Nears ago to apply only to these fine particles. PMz;
poses an increased health risk because the particles can deposit deep in the lungs and contain substances
that are particularly harmful to human health. Daily fluctuations in PM2; concentration levels have also
been related to hospital admissions for acute respirator*conditions in children,to school and kindergarten
absences, to a decrease in respirator*lung volumes in normal children and to increased medication use in
children and adults Nvith asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced Nvith
long-term exposure to particulate matter.
The elderly,people Nvith pre-existing respirator*or cardiovascular disease and children appear to be more
susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM,o and PM2 5.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and
respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated Nvith long-term exposures to NOz at levels
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-7
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
found in homes Nvith gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels. Increase in resistance to air flow
and ainvav contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NOz in healthy subjects. Larger decreases
in lung functions are observed in individuals Nvith asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g.,
chronic bronchitis, emphysema) rather than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of
these sub-groups.
In animals, exposure to levels of NOz considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in
increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in
maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated Nvith high levels of ozone
exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NOz.
Sulfur Dioxide
A few minutes exposure to low levels of SOz can result in ainvav constriction in some asthmatics, all of
whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as Nvell as reduction in
breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SOz. In
contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher
concentrations of SOz.
Animal studies suggest that despite SOz being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung
injury at ambient concentrations. HoNvever, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid
accumulation),lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract.
Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated Nvith fine
particles show a similar association Nvith ambient SOz levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the
effects of SOz from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear Nvhether the two
pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor.
Lead
Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure.
Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous
system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and loNver
intelligence quotient. In adults,increased Pb levels are associated Nvith increased blood pressure.
Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death, although it appears that there are no direct
effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental
exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy,
hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdovm
of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous
environmental Pb exposure of their mothers.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-8
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e.,
severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic
chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations,
motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching
facilities. Manv TACs are confirmed or suspected carcinogens, or are known or suspected to cause birth
defects or neurological damage. Secondly,many TACs can be toxic at very low concentrations. For some
chemicals, such as carcinogens, there are no thresholds below which exposure can be considered risk-
free.
Existing Conditions
Topography and Meteorology
The SFBAAB regional meteorological conditions are cool and dry in the summers and mild and
moderately Nvet in the Nvinters. A dad-mime sea breeze provides fresh air to the Bay Area, but also tends to
cause temperature inversions, or the positioning of cool surface air underneath Nvarmer upper air.
Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e., the
vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air
pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions.
The project site lies Nvithin the City of South San Francisco in the southern peninsula region. The Santa
Cruz Mountains run up the center of the peninsula, Nvith elevations exceeding 2000 feet at the southern
end, decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco. Cities in the southeastern peninsula experience
Nvarmer temperatures and feNver foggy days because the marine laver is blocked by the ridgeline to the
Nvest.
The blocking effect of the Santa Cruz Mountains results in variations in summertime maximum
temperatures in different parts of the peninsula. For example,in coastal areas and San Francisco the mean
maximum summer temperatures are in the mid-60's, while in Redwood City the mean maximum summer
temperatures are in the low-80's. Mean minimum temperatures during the Nvinter months are in the high-
Ws to low-40's on the eastern side of the Peninsula and in the low 40's on the coast.
Two important gaps in the Santa Cruz Mountains occur on the peninsula. The larger of the two is the San
Bruno Gap, extending from Fort Funston on the ocean to the San Francisco Airport. Because the gap is
oriented in the same northwest to southeast direction as the prevailing Nvinds, and because the elevations
along the gap are less than 200 feet,marine air is easily able to penetrate into the bay. The other gap is the
Crystal Springs Gap, between Half Moon Bay and San Carlos. As the sea breeze strengthens on summer
afternoons, the gap permits maritime air to pass across the mountains, and its cooling effect is commonly
seen from San Mateo to Redwood City.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-9
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Annual average Nvind speeds range from 5 to 10 mph throughout the peninsula, Nvith higher Nvind speeds
usually found along the coast. Winds on the eastern side of the peninsula are often high in certain areas,
such as near the San Bruno Gap and the Crystal Springs Gap.
Air pollution potential is highest along the southeastern portion of the peninsula. This is the area most
protected from the high Nvinds and fog of the marine layer. Pollutant transport from upwind sites is
common. In the southeastern portion of the peninsula, air pollutant emissions are relatively high due to
motor vehicle traffic as Nvell as stationary sources. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can
build up in "urban canyons". Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants avmy before they can
accumulate.
Existing Regional Air Ouality
There have been changes in regional air quality since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project due to
continued development and implementation of air quality regulations in addition to changes in the
ambient air quality standards and attainment designations. These changes are reflected in this section.
Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants are used by the EPA and CARB to
assess and classIA- the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area.
The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data Nvith NAAQS and CAAQS, which
are presented in Table IV.0-2. If a pollutant concentration in an area is loNver than the standard,the area is
classified as being in "attainment." If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a
"nonattainment" area. Areas that Nvere previousIv classified as nonattainment, but now meet attainment
criteria are classified as "maintenance" areas. If there are not enough data available to determine Nvhether
the standard is exceeded in an area,the area is designated"unclassified."
Air quality in the SFBAAB is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),
which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the federal and state
standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. The
Bav Area Basin is considered "nonattainment" for ozone and PMz; federal standards, and is considered
"nonattainment"for state standards for ozone and respirable and fine particulate matter(PM,() and PM2 A
It is in "attainment" for the federal standard for PMio, and in "attainment" for both the federal and state
ambient air quality standards for SOz, Pb, and NOz. The region is considered "maintenance" for the CO
federal standard. The summary for the attainment status of the SFBAAB is presented in Table IV.0-2.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-10
City of S'oitth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-2
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Standards Federal Standards
Attainment Attainment
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Status Concentration3 Status
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm N N/A —
(180 ttg/m)
8 hour 0.07 ppm N 0.075 ppm N
(137 ttg/m) (147 ttg/m)
Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A
(23 mg/m) (40 mg/m)
8 hour 9 ppm A 9 ppm A
(10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide4 1 hour 0.18 ppm A 0.10 ppm U
(339 ttg/m3)
Annual 0.030 ppm N/A 0.053 ppm A
aritlnnetic mean (57 ttg/m3) (100 ttg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxides 1 hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A
(655 ttg/m3) (196 ttg/m)
24 hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A
(105 ttg/m) (365 mg/m)
Amoral N/A — 0.03 ppm A
aritlnnetic mean (80 mg/m)
Particulate Matter(PMio) 24 hour 50 ttg/m3 N 150 ttg/m3 U
Annual 20 ttg/m3 N N/A —
aritlnnetic mean
Fine Particulate Matter 24 hour N/A — 35 ttg/m3 N
(PM-s) Annual 12 ttg/m3 N 12 ttg/m3 U
aritlnnetic mean
Sulfates 24 hour 25 ttg/m3 A N/A —
Lead6 30 day average 1.5 ttg/m3 — N/A A
Calendar quarter N/A — 1.5 ttg/m3 A
Rolling 3 month N/A — 0.15 ttg/m3 A
average
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm U N/A —
(42 ttg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride6 24 hour 0.01 ppm — N/A —
(26 ttg/m3)
Source:C4RB2012..4nrbient.4irQuatit))Standards..4vailabletit t7,datedJ ume
7, 2012.
,rotes:
Cal(fornia standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, szrlfzrr dioxide (I and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter
(P_vlj , P_vh;, and visibilii)) reducing particles), are valises that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or
exceeded. California ambient air gzralit))standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the
Cal(fornia Code ofRegurlations.
lational standards (other than ozone,particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded
more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in till
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-11
City of S'oitth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-2
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Standards Federal Standards
Attainment Attainment
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Status Concentration3 I Status
year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For RVIro, the 24 hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hozrr average concentration above ISOµg'm3 is equal to or less than one.
ForRVI,51 the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to
or less than the standard.
Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a
reference tenzperatia°e of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 tors°.,host measm°enrents of air gzralitj�are to be corrected to a
reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressza°e(?1'760 torn;ppnz in this table refers to ppnz by volzmze, or nticronzoles of
rolFurtant per mole of gas.
To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-.year average of the annzral 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site nrurst not exceed 100 ppb.Note that the national I-hoza°standard is in units of parts per billion(ppb).
On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO,standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annzral primary standards were
revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-.year average of the annzral 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO,national standards (24-hozrr and annzral) remain in eff"ect
until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainnrent for the 1971
standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are
approved.
C4RB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants'with no threshold level of expos°urre for adverse health
effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations
speeyied for these polFurtants.
The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5
gm 3 as a gzrarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that it
areas designated nonattatrnzentfor the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain
or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
4 =attainment, l-=nonattainment; U=unclassified;X.4 =not applicable or no applicable standard;—=not indicated or no
information available
C4RB=C'al(fornia Air Resources Board
µg/nr3=micrograms per cubic meter
mg nr3=milligrams per cubic meter
P_VIro=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns it diameter
P_VII;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
ppb=parts per billion
rpm=parts per million
SFB 44B =Scuz Francisco Bcry Area Air Basin
SIP=State Implementation Plan
SO,=sudfm°dioxide
EPA=U.S.EniranmentalProtectianAgency
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft S'izbsegiient Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-12
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Existing Local Air Quality
The average daily emissions inventory for the entire SFBAAB and San Mateo County is summarized in
Table IV.0-3. In the Bay Area motor vehicles generate the majoriti<r of ROG, NOS, and CO emissions;
stationary sources generate the most SO.,_ area-Nvide sources generate the most airborne particulate.
Table IV.0-3
2010 Estimated Average Daily Regional Emissions
Emissions in Tons Per Day
Emissions Source ROG CO NOa SOa PMIO PM2s
SFBAAB
Stationary (Point) Sources 107.1 45.2 51.3 47.1 16.6 12.4
Area-Wide Sources 89.1 163.2 17.2 0.6 179.3 53.6
Mobile Sources 163.1 1,387.4 345.6 14.4 19.8 15.7
Natural(non-anthropogenic) Sources 106.5 49.4 1.6 0.5 5.1 4.3
Total Emissions 465.7 1,645.1 415.8 62.7 220.8 859
San Mateo County
Stationary (Point) Sources 7.4 2.1 1.7 0.1 1.0 0.8
Area-Wide Sources 8.8 11.0 19 0.1 17.0 4.2
Mobile Sources 17.2 145.1 52.6 8.5 3.0 2.5
Natural(non-anthropogenic) Sources 6.9 -- -- -- -- --
Total Emissions 40.3 158.3 56.2 8.6 209 7.6
Source:C.4RB 2013a.A1matrac Emission Projection Data.Available at:website:
http: app ernsilw ernssnrncot.iLhp. Vt)dated 2009.Accessed Febrrtatj)2013
,rote:
--=data not available.
To identiA- ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates about 30 air
quality monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. While no monitoring station is located in South San
Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco,
approximately 10 miles from the project site. Table IV.0-4 identifies the ambient pollutant concentrations
that have been measured at the Arkansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station through the period of
2009 to 2011. Monitoring Nvas not conducted at this station for SOz. Therefore, no site-specific data is
available for those emission levels.
Table IV.0-4
Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station
Year
Emissions Source 2009 2010 2011
Ozone
Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.113 ppm 0.150 ppm 0.115 ppm
Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 11 8 5
Maximum 8-hour concentration 0.094 ppm 0.097 ppm 0.084 ppm
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-13
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-4
Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station
Year
Emissions Source 2009 2010 2011
Days exceeding national 8-hour standard 8 9 4
Days exceeding State 8-hour standard 13 11 10
Respirable Particulate Matter(PMIO)
Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 51.7 µg/m3 69.1 µg/m3 69.6 µg/m3
Days exceeding national 24-hour standard 0 0 0
Days exceeding State 24-hour standard 1 1 1
Maximum annual concentration measured 19.5 µg/m3 20.3 µg/m3 19.7 µg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter(PMz,;)
Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 45.7,ug/m3 46.5 jig/m3 54.2,ug/m3
Days exceeding national 24-hour standard 11 6 8
Maximum annual concentration measured 10.8 µg/m3 9.1 µg/m3 99 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide(CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 4.3 ppm 1.8 ppm 1.8 ppm
Days exceeding national 1-hour standard 0 0 0
Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 2.86 ppm 2.19 ppm 2.65 ppm
Days exceeding national&State 8-hour standard 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide(NOz)
Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.069 ppm 0.093 ppm 0.093 ppm
Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 0 0 0
Maximum annual concentration measured 0.012 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm
Source:C.4RB 2013b.1lonitored AnibientAir Orralio)Concentrations.Available at:
http: 7r7ni%ar~h.ca.gov udarrr tol)Four~tol)onrl.yhp.Accessed Febn tmy 2013
Note:
1. C'oncentr°ations in bold representvalzres that exceed the national standard
CO=carbon monoxide
,10,=nitrogen dioxide
R IJO=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
R II;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
ppm=parts per million by volume
pg/nr3=micrograms per cubic meter
Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs
Nvell against state standards for criteria air pollutants. Ambient ozone and PM,() concentrations have
violated the state standards on occasion at the Arkansas Street station. PMro in the atmosphere is the result
of many dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources
(such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROGs and NOS. For carbon
monoxide, a product of incomplete combustion, the air in South San Francisco meets state and federal
standards; hoNvever, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersections and highway segments
Nvould potentially be higher than the monitoring data indicates. Ambient ozone and PMz 5 concentrations
have violated the federal standards at the Arkansas Street station through 2009 to 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-14
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Sensitive Receptors
Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as
"facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects
of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people Nyith illnesses. Examples include schools,
hospitals and residential areas."Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors as Nyell because people
in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants
for extended periods. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the
emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. The area around the project consists of
commercial developments, and there is a planned day care center across the street. There are also four
existing day care centers in the commercial area near the project site.
• The Early Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue;
• Genentech 2nd Generation!d Allerton located at 444 Allerton Avenue;
• Genentech's 2nd Generation located at 850 Gatevmv Boulevard; and
• Gatevmv Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatevmv Boulevard
Regulatory Setting
NeNy and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and
are reflected in this section.
Air quality Nsithin the SFBAAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and
local government agencies. These agencies Nyork jointly, as Nyell as individually, to improve air quality
through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The
agencies responsible for improving the air quality Nyithin the SFBAAB are discussed beloNy.
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) governs air quality in the United States and is administered by the
EPA. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for atmospheric pollutants, which are
presented in Table IV.0-2. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the
federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The EPA also has jurisdiction over
emissions sources outside state Nyaters (outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions
standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the
EPA requires each state Nyith nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state,
and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a
combination of performance standards and market-based programs Nyithin the timeframe identified in the
SIP.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-1 S
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Climate Change
The EPA does not currently regulate GHGs, a category that includes carbon dioxide and other pollutants
that contribute significantly to climate change. HoNvever, in the 2007 case, Massachusetts v. The
Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Supreme Court held that the EPA has a mandatory
duty to enact rules regulating mobile GHG emissions pursuant to the FCCA. The court held that GHGs fit
the definition of an air pollutant that causes and contributes to air pollution and may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or Nvelfare. FolloNving the Court's decision, President Bush signed
Executive Order 13432 on Mav 14, 2007, directing the EPA, along Nvith the Departments of
Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme
Court's decision. The order requires the EPA to coordinate closely Nvith other federal agencies and to
consider the president's Twenty-in-Ten plan in this process. The Twenty-in-Ten plan Nvould establish a
new alternative fuel standard that Nvould require the use of 35 billion gallons of alternative and reneNvable
fuels by 2017. The EPA has recentIv Nvorked closely Nvith the Department of Transportation to develop
new automotive efficienev standards.
State
California Clean Air Act
California had already established its own air quality standards (CAAQS) when federal standards Nvere
established, and because of the unique meteorological problems in California, there is considerable
diversity between the State and national ambient air quality standards. The California CAA, as amended
in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS, Nvhich are
presented in Table IV.0-2. The CAAQS are generally equal to or more stringent than the corresponding
Federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and
visibility reducing particles.
CARB
The CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination
and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs Nvithin California. In this
capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested
control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CARB establishes
emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol
paints, and barbecue lighter fluid) and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel
specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. To address diesel particulate and other TAC
emissions, the CARB finalized an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of TACs and
reduce exposures to proximate populations. Furthermore, the CARB also oversees the functions of local
air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, Nvhich in turn administer air quality
activities at the regional and county level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-16
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
The CARB is the lead agency for implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act adopted by the Legislature in 2006. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan
containing the main strategies that Nvill be used to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California.
After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Proposed Scoping Plan released in June 2008,
CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008 and adopted the Plan on
December 12, 2008. In August 2011,the Scoping Plan Nvas reapproved and includes the Final Supplement
to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. This plan contains an outline of the State's
strategies to achieve the 2020 GHG emission limits. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include the
folloNving recommendations:
1. Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as Nvell as building and
appliance standards;
2. Achieving a stateNvide reneNvables energy mix of 33 percent;
3. Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links Nvith other Western Climate
Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system,
4. Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout
California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
5. Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies,
including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low
Carbon Fuel standard;
6. Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on Nvater use, fees on high global
warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state's long-
term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the State's emissions are subject to a cap-and-trade
program Nvhere covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap. Emissions reductions Nvill be
achieved through regulatory requirements and the option to reduce emissions further or purchase
alloNvances to cover compliance obligations. It is expected that emission reduction from this cap-and trade
program will account for a large portion of the reductions required by AB 32. ARB is currently Nvorking
to prepare an update to the Scoping Plan to suggest additional measures that can be implemented.
Senate Bill 97
In August 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), requiring the California Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. OPR submitted its
proposed guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-17
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Agency undertook the formal rulemaking process to certIA-and adopt the amendments as part of the state
regulations implementing CEQA and adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on December 30, 2009.
The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The CEQA Guideline Amendments do not
specIA- a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do the Guidelines prescribe assessment
methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to
consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but rely on the lead agencies to make their own
determinations based upon substantial evidence. The CEQA amendments also encourage public agencies
to use programmatic mitigation plans and programs from Nyhich to tier N-,-hen they perform individual
project analyses.
Executive Order S-03-05
In 2005, Governor SchNyarzenegger issued Executive Order S-03-05, calling for stateNvide reductions to
2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent beloNy 1990 levels by 2050. The Executive
Order also called for the creation of a state "Climate Action Team," vyhich Nyould report to the Governor
every two Nears on progress toward meeting the targets and the effects of GHG emissions on the state.
Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 enhances California's ability to reach
its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning Nyith the goal of more sustainable communities. Sustainable
Communities requires CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for
each region covered by one of the states 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control throughout the
SFBAAB. To that end, BAAQMD Nyorks directly Nyith the Association of Bay Area Governments, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and local governments and cooperates actively Nyith all federal
and state government agencies. The BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting
requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through
educational programs or fines,N-,-hen necessary.
The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile,
and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Ozone Attainment
Plans and Clean Air Plans (Air Plans) that comply Nyith the FCCA and the California Clean Air Act,
accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meet federal and state ambient air
quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local
economy.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-18
City of South San Francisco April 2013
The BAAQMD 1999 CEQA Guidelines applied to the 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan SEIR. Since
that time, the BAAQMD has replaced its former guidelines' by issuing the new CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, including Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance, in June 2010-'and updating them in
Mav 2011' Nvith new risk and hazard thresholds for sensitive receptors. The guidelines include new
thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in determining when potential air quality impacts Nvould
be considered significant under CEQA. These guidelines include recommendations for analytical
methodologies to determine air quality impacts and identiA-mitigation measures that can be used to avoid
or reduce air quality impacts.
BAAQMD's guidelines include procedures for evaluating Nvhether a project's construction and
operational criteria pollutant emissions Nvould result in a significant air quality impact, along Nvith
mitigation to reduce or eliminate any significant air impacts. BAAQMD's guidelines also include
procedures for evaluating toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts resulting from project construction and
operation. These procedures consist of a step-by-step approach for determining Nvhether a project's TAC
emissions Nvould result in significant acute, chronic, or carcinogenic health risks. The 2011 BAAQMD
Guidelines Nvere set aside pending the BAAQMD's preparation of necessary CEQA analysis for the
Guidelines. HoNvever, as noted previously, the City of South San Francisco has determined that
BAAQMD's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provides substantial
evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco
has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The latest Clean Air Plan, Nyhich Nvas adopted in September 20106, is an update to the Bay Area 2005
Ozone Strategy'. The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes comprehensive strategies to reduce ozone, particulate
matter, air toxics and GHGs from stationary, mobile and transportation sources. The plan builds on the
main objective of the 2005 Ozone Strategy Nyhich Nvas to comply Nvith state air quality planning
requirements as mandated by the California Clean Air Act. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is the BAAQMD's
first ever multi-pollutant plan designed to protect public health and the climate. It defines control
3 BAA()_jID 1999. C EOA Guidelnres, Assessing the Air Qualio) Impacts of Projects arid Plarzs. Available at:
httU: 7r7r7r.boo6�mclloti��inedioF'ile,ti Plarrrrirrl°o20arrd°o20ResearclrPlarr,tiC.EO,�°o20(nridecec�a luide.as�.
December 1999.Accessed February 2013
a B 40-1IT) 2010a, updated allay 2010. CEO t: Air Oualio) Guidelines. Available at:
htt): 7r7r7rAlmlmcllov-inedia Files Plarrrrirry°o20arr(I°o20Re,searcli CEQ4 Draft I3 4011D CE0A (nridehrres
1Iow_2010 Finol aslrs?lo=err.Accessed February 2013
B- 401IT) 2011, updated -flay 2011. CEOA: Air Oualio) Guidelines. Available at:
httU: 7r7r7r.boo6�rncllov�inedio F'ile,ti Plorrnirrl°o20orrd°o20ReseorclaC.EO,�I3�.�O1ID°o20C.E0,�°o20(nridehrres
Akw 0202011 .5 3 1 Lo,slrs.Accessed February 2013
6 R140-IID 2010b, adopted September 15, 2010. Bay Area 2010 ('learn Air Plarz. Available at:
IrttU: 7i,7i,7i.boo6�rucllov Divisions Plorrrrirrz-ond I�e,tieorclr I'IorrsC.'Ieorr.fir-Plorr,5.osp�.Accessed February 2013
BA40-11D 2006, adopted January 4, 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Available at:
httU: uuu.boo6�mcllov�inedio F'ile,tiPlonninl°o20ond°o20Reseorclr Plorrs200.5°o200zone°o20.Sb°otel� odo ted i
mil volLoslrs.Accessed February 2013
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-19
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
measures that the BAAQMD, in collaboration Nvith other regional agencies, Nvill implement to accomplish
three main purposes: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2)
safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, Nvith an
emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce GHG
emissions to protect the climate.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BCDC)
The San Francisco Bav Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) updated the San Francisco
Bav Plan in October 2011 to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. The
new and revised Bay Plan policies are summarized below:
• Risk Assessments. Sea level rise risk assessments are required when planning shoreline areas or
designing larger shoreline projects to ensure the project is designed to cope Nvith flood levels
expected by mid-century or end of century if the project Nvill remain in place longer than mid-
centurv. Risk assessments are only required Nvithin BCDC's jurisdiction and projects located only
in the shoreline band need on1v address risks to public access. Furthermore, risk assessments are
not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase
risks to public safety, and infill projects Nvithin existing urbanized areas.
• Sea Level Rise Projections. Risk assessments must be based on the best estimates of future sea
level rise. The California Climate Action Team's sea level rise projections, ranging from 10-17
inches at mid-century and 31-69 inches at the end of the century, currently provide the best
available sea level rise projections for the West Coast. However, scientific uncertainty remains
regarding the pace and amount of future sea level rise, and project applicants ma_- use other sea
level rise projections if they provide an explanation.
• Protecting Existing and Planned Development. Fill may be placed in the Bay to protect
existing and planned development from flooding as Nvell as erosion. New projects on fill that are
likely to be affected by future sea level rise and storm activity during the life of the project must
be set back far enough from the shoreline to avoid flooding, be elevated above expected flood
levels, be designed to tolerate flooding, or employ other means of addressing flood risks.
• Designing Shoreline Protection. Shoreline protection projects, such as levees and seaNvalls,must
be designed to Nvithstand the effects of projected sea level rise and to be integrated Nvith adjacent
shoreline protection. Whenever feasible, projects must integrate hard shoreline protection
structures Nvith natural features that enhance the Bay ecosystem, e.g., by including marsh or
upland vegetation in the design.
• Preserving Public Access. Public access must be designed and maintained to avoid flood
damage due to sea level rise and storms. Any public access provided as a condition of
development must either remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or
equivalent access consistent Nvith the project must be provided nearby
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-20
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
• Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. Where feasible, ecosystem restoration projects must be
designed to provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises.
• Encouraging Resilient Development. The policies encourage projects if their regional benefits,
such as reducing carbon emissions by locating jobs and housing near public transportation,
outweigh the risk from flooding. Projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not
increase risks to public safety, such as repairs, small and interim projects, and parks, are also
encouraged.
• Preserving Undeveloped Areas. The policies encourage preservation and habitat enhancement
in undeveloped areas that are vulnerable to future flooding and contain significant habitats or
species, or are especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement.
• Regional Strategy. The policies call on the Commission, Nvorking Nvith other agencies and the
general public, to develop a regional strategy for protecting critical developed areas along the
shoreline from flooding, enhancing the natural resources of the Bay by preserving existing habitat
and identiA-ing areas where tidal Nvetlands can migrate landNvard, and improving the ability of
communities to adapt to sea level rise in Nvays that advance economic prosperity, social equity
and environmental protection.
South San Francisco General Plan
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to
reduce air pollution through its police poNver and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is
responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The
City of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures
as outlined in the Air Plans. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy efficient streetlights,
and svnchronized traffic signals.
City of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies recognize community goals for air quality.
Chapter 73 of the South San Francisco General Plan' identifies goals and policies that help the City
contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts, and are consistent Nvith the Air Plans. These are
outlined as follows:
• Continue to Nvork toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and state ambient air
quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile
sources,where feasible.
• Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the
automobile for transportation,including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
C't� q, S'ozIt/1 S'an Francisco 2013. General Plan. Chaptcr 7.3: Air Oualio> Available at.
httU: 7r7r7r.s,tiFnetl)ocunzentC'enter Honze`T ie7r 602.Accessed February 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-21
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
• Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them
from one another.
• Cooperate Nvith the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants
and their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PMio, by implementation of air pollution
control measures as required by federal and state statutes.
• Use the Citv's development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and
mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.
• Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines.
• Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning
fireplaces and Nvood stoves.
• In cooperation Nvith local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management
program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones.
In accordance Nvith CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality
impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts by
conditioning discretionary permits and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The
City does not, hoNvever, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to
ensure that air quality Nvithin the City and region Nvill meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City
relies on the expertise of the BAAQMD and utilizes the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as the guidance
document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals Nvithin its jurisdiction.
The goals and policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan are generally
consistent Nvith the General Plan, as Nvell as the Air Plans. The goals and policies detailed in the East of
101 Area Plan further refine some of the generalized policies contained in the General Plan and Clean Air
Plans. These specific refined policies focus on improving air quality through enhanced transportation
strategies,Nvater and energy conservation, and urban forestry. The specific refined strategies include:
• Encourage and support transportation modes other than single occupancy automobiles
including ridesharing bicycling Nvalking and transit
• The City of South San Francisco shall support transportation demand management TDM and
transportation system management TSM programs in coordination Nvith the Multicity
Transportation System Management Agency or any other applicable transportation
management agencies
• Promote Nvater and energy conservation in all new development
• New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping
to meet the City specifications for their frontages
• Parking lots should be shaded Nvith trees and should also include shrubs in most cases.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-22
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the
exception of a City--oNsned sanitary seNver pump located in the northern portion of the site. The project site
is bounded by ONTster Point Boulevard to the south, the Caltrain railroad tracks to the Nvest, Veterans
Boulevard and the San Francisco Bav to the north, and commercial properties and laboratories to the east.
This analysis assumes the project Nvould be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 Nvould consist of two
office buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project site roadvmys, site utilities, lighting, and
landscaping, and Nvould be constructed by 2016. A child care center that Nvould serve employees of both
the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area Nvould be constructed either late in
Phase 1 or in Phase 2. This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of
Phase 1. Phase 2 Nvould include two additional office buildings, a 3-story parking structure, a restaurant,
retail space, and site utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and is assumed to be constructed by 2017. Phase
2 Nvould also reconfigure surface parking on the site. In Phase 3, the project Nvould consist of three
additional office buildings, expand the parking structure from 3-story to 8 or 9-story,install additional site
utilities/landscaping/lighting, and reconfigure surface parking on the site. Phase 3 is assumed to be
constructed by 2019.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft SEIR,implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant
impacts to air quality if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
• Conflict Nvith or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for Nvhich the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions Nvhich exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors such as ROGs and NOX).
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; or
• Conflict Nvith an applicable plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-23
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
Although the BAAQMD has advised that air quality analyses should not rely upon the 2011 BAAQMD
Guidelines, as noted previously, the City of South San Francisco has determined that substantial evidence
exists to supports the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco
has determined the BAAQMD thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
Construction
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if daily average emissions of construction-related criteria
air pollutants or precursors Nvould exceed any applicable threshold of significance listed below in Table
IV.0-5,the project Nvould result in a significant impact.
Table IV.0-_5
Thresholds of Significance for Construction-Related Activities
Pollutant Daily Average Emissions(lbs/day)
ROG 54
NO 54
PM10 82
PM,5 54
Source:13 40.IID 2011, ugpdated_clay 2011. CEQ4:Air Ouualio Guidelines.Available at:
http: 'wwwAtagnud.gov -media Files Planning oo20andoo20Reseau°eh'C.'EO_4 BA4O_V1D°o20C.'E
040020Guuidelines �Vlay%202011 5 3 11.ashx.Accessed Februualy 2013
rote:
NOx=nitrogen oxides
R 110=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
RVII;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG=reactive organic gases
The BAAQMD recommends implementation of best management practices for fugitive dust emissions
from construction sites.
The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR utilized the 1999 guidelines Nvhich did not have quantitative mass
emission thresholds for construction. The 1999 guidelines recommended implementation of best
management practices for construction projects.
Operational
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if daily average or maximum annual emissions of
operational-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable threshold of
significance listed below in Table IV.0-6,the project Nvould result in a significant impact.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-24
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-6
Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities
Maximum Annual Emission Daily Average Emissions
Pollutant (tons/year) (lbs/day)
ROG 10 54
NO 10 54
PM1 o 15 82
PM,5 10 54
Source:B_140.VID 2011, utpdated flay 2011. C.'EO4:Air Ou alio)Guidelines.Available at:
hap: iwwwAtagmd.govt -media FilesPlrnrlrilrg°o20alyd°o20Reseae°eh"C.'EO__4B_SAO__l1D°o20CEO4Yc,20Gitidelilres_
�lay%202011 5 3 ll.ashx.Accessed Februtaul�2013
,rote:
NOx=nitrogen oxides
RV110=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
R II;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG=reactive organic gases
The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR utilized the 1999 guidelines which used 15 tons per Near for ROG and
NOx. PM,o remained the same while PMz 5 did not exist in the 1999 guidelines.
Local CO Concentrations
CO emissions are considered significant if they contribute to a violation of the State standards for CO (9
ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). CO emissions are localized, and typically analyzed
in terms of their impacts to specific roadvmy segments or intersections. These exhaust emissions are
included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans.
The BAAQMD has also provided screening criteria to determine Nvhether there Nvould be less than
significant CO impacts:
1. Project is consistent Nvith an applicable congestion management program established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highvmys, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
2. The project traffic Nvould not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The project traffic Nvould not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon,
below-grade roadvmy).
The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR had the same ambient are concentration thresholds, but did not include
the screening criteria provided above.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-25
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
ToxicAir Contaminants(TACs)
Projects that have the potential to emit TACs could also result in significant air quality impacts. As stated
in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that emits TACs and exceeds the folloNving criteria is
considered to have a significant air quality impact:
• Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one
million;" or
• Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs Nvould result in a hazard index greater
than one (1)for the MEL10
Greenhouse Gases(GHGs)
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines'include thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions from projects and
plans and developed guidelines for assessing these impacts for direct and indirect operational emissions.
These thresholds include a bright line emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons of COz equivalent(COze)
per Near or an emission efficiency metric of 4.6 tons of COze per Near per service population. Service
population is the sum of new residents and full time Nvorkers. The BAAQMD has not adopted any
thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions from construction activities.
Cumulative Impacts
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air
quality impact would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact. For a project that does not
individualIv have a significant air quality impact, the BAAQMD requires that a determination of
cumulative impacts be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project Nvith the local
General Plan and of the General Plan Nvith the regional air quality plan. The appropriate regional air
quality plan for this analysis is the 2010 Clean Air Plan. If a project is proposed in a city or county Nvith a
General Plan that is consistent Nvith the Clean Air Plan, and the project is consistent Nvith that General
Plan, the project Nvould not have a significant cumulative impact. If the cit-T or county General Plan is not
consistent Nvith the Clean Air Plan, or the project is not consistent Nvith the General Plan, quantitative
analysis is required to determine Nvhether the impact is significant.
" An 11EI is a hypothetical off-site persoli, usually at or near the site boundary, who would receive the maximum
exposure from a facilio)'s operations.
10 A hazard index measures the potential for lion-cancer health effects. It is the ratio of the estimated exposure
level to the Reference Exposure Level, which is the level at or below which rzo adverse health effects are
anticipated
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-26
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Methodology
Construction Emissions
Emissions for the construction of the project Nyere estimated using the California Emission Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) version 2011.1.1. CalEEMod is a stateNvide land use project emissions model
designed as a uniform platform to quantiA- potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated Nyith construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as residential and
commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes basic land use information to estimate default construction
equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. The construction emissions Nyere calculated using 3
different CalEEMod runs to estimate the emissions from each Project Phase (1-3). The folloNving
conservative inputs into the model Nyere utilized:
• Location is San Francisco Air Basin.
• Project Near is 2017 for Phase 1 and 2035 for Buildout.
• Climate Zone is 5.
• Utility is Pacific Gas &Electric.
• Land Use for Phase 1 Nyould include 252,593 square feet of office/R&D space, a 200 room hotel,
and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 Nyould include 205,474 square feet of office/R&D space, 20,000
square feet of retail, 122 additional surface parking spaces, and 498 parking spaces in a parking
structure. Phase 3 Nyould include426,277 square feet of office/R&D space, a reduction of 459
surface parking spaces, 225 podium parking spaces and 1,300 additional parking spaces in a
parking structure. At build-out the project Nyould include884,344 square feet of office/R&D
space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail, 395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium
parking spaces and 1798 parking spaces in a parking structure.
• Construction phases are shoNsn in Table IV.0-7. Start date for Phase 1 Nyas assumed to
conservatively be 1/1/2014,Phase 2 start date Nyas 1/1/2015, and Phase 3 start date Nyas 1/1/2016.
• Off-road equipment is shoNsn in Table IV.0-8.
• Amount of material hauled off-site Nyas assumed to be zero.
• The default trip lengths for Nyorker(12.4 miles) and vendor(73 miles)Nyas used.
• Default number of Nyorker vehicle commuting trips Nyas assumed.
• Default horsepoNver for construction equipment Nyas utilized.
• Load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the maximum rated load) Nyere
modified to reflect current load factors recommended by ARB Nyhich is a 33%reduction from the
model defaults.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-27
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-7
Construction Phases
Construction Phases Phase Type Number of Days
Site Preparation 10
Grading 30
Phase 1 Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 20
Site Preparation 10
Grading 30
Phase 2 Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 20
Site Preparation 10
Grading 30
Phase 3 Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 20
Table IV.0-8
Off-road Construction Equipment
Construction Phases Phase Type Equipment Number Hours per Day
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Phase 1 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Welders 1 8
Pavers 2 8
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-28
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-8
Off-road Construction Equipment
Construction Phases Phase Type Equipment Number Hours per Day
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Phase 2 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Welders 1 8
Pavers 2 8
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Phase 3 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Building Construction
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Building Construction Welders 1 8
Pavers 2 8
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6
Operational Emissions
The project Nvould result in operational emissions from mobile sources of Nvorkers and customers utilizing
the new buildings, area sources associated Nvith architectural coatings and landscaping equipment, direct
and indirect emissions associated Nvith building energy use, indirect emissions associated Nvith Nvater use
and solid Nvaste generation. These sources could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and their
precursors, GHGs, TACs, and PM. CEQA Cnzidelines', if daily average or maximum annual emissions of
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-29
City of South San Francisco April 2013
operational-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable threshold of
significance listed belov, in Table IV.0-7,the project N ould result in a significant impact.
Table IV.0-7
Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities
Maximum Annual Emission Daily Average Emissions
Pollutant (tons/year) (lbs/day)
ROG 10 54
NO 10 54
PMi o 15 82
PM,5 10 54
Sofa°ce: B.140.IID 2011, updated _flay 2011. CEO : Air Ouali6 Guidelines. Available at:
hap: www.baagmd.govt -media Fil esPlrnrlrilrg°o20alyd°o20Reseae°eh"C.'EO__4B_SAO__l1D°o20(EO4Yc,20Grridelilres_
allay%202011 5 3 ll.ashx.Accessed Febrrrarl�2013
,rote:
NOx=nitrogen oxides
PMW=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
PMz 5 =particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG=reactive organic gases
The operational emissions for Phase 1 and full project build-out were estimated using CalEEMod. The
Phase 1 utilized emission factors from 2017 and full build-out utilized emission factors from 2035. The
CTG traffic study" N as used to estimate total annual daily trip rates for the project along N ith estimates
of trip reductions anticipated from the TDM program as quantifiable using CalEEMod12. The N ater use
for the project reported in the utility section N as also incorporated to utilize a site specific N ater use
estimate. Default estimates N ere used for all other inputs into the model.
" CTG 2012. Britarzrua Cove Traffic Studj>.December 2012
CalEE_11od lias incorporated the methodologies described in CAPC OA's Ouaritib)irig Greenhouse. Gas_Mitigation
Measures into the program to quarztzb)many of the mitigation measure including irz this document.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-30
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
ToxicAir Contaminants(TACs)
It is unlikely that there Nvill be operational sources onsite that Nvill emit TAC emissions, since there are no
diesel sources anticipated and gasoline related TACs Nvhich are emitted in smaller quantities and have
lower toxicity compared to DPM are not anticipated to cause any impact to health impacts.
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions could be emitted from the construction equipment. Because
there are existing daycare facilities in the area and a daycare facility is included in the project and could
be completed prior to the completion of project construction, a quantitative health risk assessment Nvas
conducted to estimate the potential health risks to day care children during project construction.
Health Risk Assessment
The construction equipment Nvould emit diesel particulate matter that is classified as a TAC. Gasoline-
fueled vehicles emit various TACs in much smaller quantities and health toxicity compared to DPM.
Thus, gasoline fueled emission sources have not been included further in this health risk assessment. The
emissions of DPM sources are used in the health risk assessment(HRA) Nvhich is based on the emissions
from the off-road equipment category for exhaust PM,()emissions reported by CalEEMod. The maximum
daily pounds per day for each construction phase Nvas multiplied by the number of days in the
construction phase and amortized over a Near to determine the annual average emission rate.
In order to evaluate the impacts of DPM on nearby sensitive receptors, a HRA Nvas conducted consistent
Nvith OEHHA (OEHHA 2012, 2003) and BAAQMD guidelines (BAAQMD 2011) for determining local
community risks and hazards. The HRA is a process folloNved to evaluate the health risks associated Nvith
the project. The HRA evaluated project emissions associated Nvith construction equipment. The detailed
information on the methodology and data used to conduct the HRA since air dispersion modeling Nvas
required is summarized below.
The dispersion of emissions Nvas simulated using the US EPA regulatory approved model called
AERMOD. The model inputs and assumptions are summarized below.
Meteorological Data: AERMOD requires meteorological data as an input into the model. This is typically
processed using AERMET, a pre-processor to AERMOD. AERMET requires surface meteorological
data, upper air meteorological data and surface parameter data. For this Project the data for San Francisco
Airport Nvas utilized since it is one of the closest surface meteorological stations Nvith hourly data
available. Upper air data Nvas obtained from Oakland International Airport since this is the closest upper
air meteorological station Nvith data available. Five Nears of meteorological data from 2008 through 2012
Nvere utilized.
Surface parameters: AERMOD requires estimate of the surface roughness, albedo, and BoNven ratio for
use in AERMET. The US EPA has a surface parameter analysis model, AERSURFACE, that estimates
these parameters based on the 1992 National Land Use Land Cover Dataset and other information about
the project area. The details of the surface parameters utilized in AERMET can be found in Appendix F.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-31
City of Saiith San Francisco April 2013
Terrain: Terrain Nvas incorporated by using AERMAP to import the elevation of the project vicinity using
data from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) Nvith a resolution of 1/3 aresecond. Receptors Nvere
modeled using a Cartesian grid Nvith 25 meter by 25 meter spacing as Nvell as several discrete receptors.
Receptors Nvere modeled at a height of 1.8 meters.
Source Parameters: Volume sources Nvere utilized to model the construction Nvork areas. The Nvork area
Nvas divided into adjacent volume sources Nvith a release height of 5 meters. Details of source parameters
are available in Appendix F.
Time of Day adjustment: The model utilized emission rates that assumed an 8-hour Nvork day and
othenvise the emissions Nvere set to zero for the rest of the day.
Exposure Factors:
Potential sensitive receptors Nvere characterized as day care children. The maximally exposed day care
receptor located at each of the existing and proposed day care center off of the project site is reported.
The exposure parameters used for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic non-cancer Hazard
Index (HI) for all potentially exposed populations Nvere obtained using risk assessment guidelines from
OEHHA.
The inhalation dose is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical. The
dose can be calculated as follows:
0"7,6"
Where:
Dose = Dose of chemical(mg/kg-day)
Cone = Chemical concentration in air(µg/m)
TAF = Time Adjustment Factor13 (unitless)
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)
ET = Exposure Time(hours/day)
EF = Exposure Frequency(days/Near)
ED = Exposure Duration (Nears)
AT = Averaging Time (days)
CF = Conversion Factor(m3/L and mg/ µg)
The TAF utilized is 1.2 to represent an adjustment in the modeling output from a 7 day a Nveek schedule
to a 5 day a Nveek schedule. The 8-hour Nvorkdav Nvas already accounted for in the air dispersion model.
The DBR Nvas set to the 95 percentile for 0-2 Nears as recommended by OEHHA. The exposure frequency
13 This adjustts the coizceiztratioiz to account for overlap iii time of sources aizd receptors. This is used for the
daycare receptors.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-32
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Nvas 250 days per Near consistent Nvith a child being at daycare the same exposure frequency as assumed
for a typical Nvorker. The averaging time is based 70-Nears.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature
and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. For purposes of calculating
exposure criteria to be used in risk assessments, adverse health effects are classified into two broad
categories: cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values used to estimate the likelihood of adverse
effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment
component of a risk assessment.
In this HRA, diesel exhaust, a complex mixture that includes hundreds of individual constituents and is
identified by the State as a knoNsn carcinogen is the only chemical of potential concern quantified. Under
California regulatory guidelines, DPM is used as a surrogate measure of carcinogen exposure for the
mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a Nvhole.
The estimated excess lifetime cancer risk for daveare child Nvas adjusted using the age sensitivity factors
(ASFs) recommended by OEHHA (OEHHA 2009). This approach accounts for an "anticipated special
sensitivity to carcinogens" of infants and children. Cancer risk estimates are Nveighted by a factor of 10
for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to two Nears of age and by a factor of three
for exposures that occur from two Nears through 15 Nears of age. No Nveighting factor(i.e. an ASF of one,
Nvhich is equivalent to no adjustment)is applied to ages 16 to 70 Nears.
Risk Characterization
Excess lifetime cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual
Nvill develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated
risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by
multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-
specific cancer potency factor(CPF).
The equation used to calculate the potential excess lifetime cancer risk for the inhalation pathvmy is as
follovys:
Where:
Risk, = Cancer Risk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a
result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen(unitless)
Dose = Dose of chemical(mg/kg-day)
CPF, = Cancer Potenev Factor for Chemical I(mg chemical/kg body Nveight-day)-'
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor(unitless)
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-33
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
The potential for exposure to result in chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated
annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air concentration) to the
chemical-specific non-cancer chronic reference exposure levels (RELs). When calculated for a single
chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient (HQ). To evaluate the potential for
adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for
all chemicals are summed, yielding an HL For evaluation of the Project, DPM is the only pollutant
evaluated for chronic non-cancer risks;therefore the HQ for DPM is the same as the overall HI.
The equations used to calculate the chemical-specific HQs and the overall HI are:
CW1,Cy71fC'S1
Where:
Chronic HQ, = Chronic Hazard Quotient for Chemical, (unitless)
Chronic HI = Hazard Index(unitless)
Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical, (pghn)
REL, = Chronic Non-cancer Reference Exposure Level for Chemical, (pghn)
No acute non-cancer impacts Nvere estimated since there is no acute reference exposure level for DPM.
Odors
Odors Nvould be considered significant if the project Nvould result in a frequent exposure of members of
the public to objectionable odors Nvhich is typically defined as five or more confirmed complaints per Near
averaged over three Nears. According to the BAAQMD, typical uses that may result in significant odor
impacts include NvasteNvater treatment plant, sanitary landfill, transfer station, composting facility,
petroleum refinery, asphalt batch plant, chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing,
painting/coating operations,rendering plant, and coffee roasters.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction and operational GHG emissions Nvere estimated using CalEEMod as previously described.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-34
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant air quality impacts or substantial increase in severity
of air quality impacts after mitigation. This Draft Subsequent EIR provides new mitigation measures
consistent Nvith the revised air quality analysis. These equally effective mitigation measures replace or
supplement those provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For a
summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and
compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.0-1: Construction and operation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan.
Construction
Criteria pollutants Nvould be emitted during project construction through the operation of construction
equipment, earthmoving activities, architectural coatings and Nvorker vehicles. As previously discussed,
Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 Nvould be constructed by 2017, and Phase 3 Nvould be
constructed by 2019. Project construction Nvould generate fugitive dust(including PM,()and PM2 5) during
various earthmoving activities. Other criteria pollutants would be generated from the exhaust emissions of
construction equipment and vehicles.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project SEIR did not quantitatively estimate the construction
emissions but made a qualitative assessment and implementation of fugitive dust mitigation measures to
result in a less than significant impact. The analysis presented here performs a quantitative analysis of the
construction activities for the construction equipment exhaust emissions and compares them to a new
quantitative emissions threshold. Fugitive emissions are evaluated in the same method by implementation
of best management practices.
For all proposed construction projects, BAAQMD recommends implementing the Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-1 of the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidance to meet the Best
Management Practice (BMP) threshold for fugitive dust, for impacts from fugitive dust to be less than
significant. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco Nvould require as part of the project approval that
the project proponent require that the construction contractor implement the folloNving BMPs:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads)Nvill be Nvatered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site Nvill be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads Nvill be removed using Nvet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry poNver sweeping Nvill be
prohibited.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-35
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads Nvill be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadvmvs, drivevmvs, and sideNvalks to be paved Nvill be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads Nvill be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times Nvill be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage Nvill be
provided for construction Nvorkers at all access points.
• All construction equipment Nvill be maintained and properly tuned in accordance Nvith
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment Nvill be checked by a certified visible emissions
evaluator.
A publicly visible sign Nvill be posted Nvith the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints. This person Nvill respond and take corrective action Nvithin 48 hours. The Air
District's phone number Nvill also be visible to ensure compliance Nvith applicable regulations. The
proposed project's emissions during construction activities are presented in Table IV.0-9, and are
compared to the daily construction significance thresholds. The average daily construction emissions
Nvould be greater than the BAAQMD CEQA threshold for ROG due mainly to architectural coatings
applied during construction and this impact Nvould be significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1: Use of Certified Low-VOCPaint
To reduce the average daily ROG emissions to less than the BAAQMD ROG CEQA thresholds during
the application of architectural coatings, the City of South San Francisco Nvould require the construction
contractor to use a certified low VOC paint Nvith a maximum ROG content of 50 grams/liter.
This mitigation measure Nvould reduce ROG emissions from architectural coatings by 80 percent. The
proposed project's mitigated emissions during construction activities are presented in Table IV.0-10.
With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the project's average daily construction emissions
Nvould not exceed the significance thresholds, and its construction emissions Nvould not conflict Nvith or
obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, project construction impacts
Nvould be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-36
O
U
QI H N N N � QI H N N N
a W O O O h a W 0 O O h
^ O O
•'� O CC O
O �
•� O O O
I��-II � � M � •� ~ � � M �
U O
YE O N v'� U S"•• O �O CO
O
r-� 1 r-� 1
ti
cC cC cC p-0 cC cC cC p-0 ?
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Operations
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR evaluated only the traffic emissions. It concluded
that the regional pollutants ROG, NOx, and PMio Nvere significant and unavoidable. The local analysis of
CO emissions concluded that emissions Nvere less than significant. The current analysis evaluates only a
portion of the Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Planning Area 1, but Nvith an increased building
development for commercial uses but a decrease in hotel rooms. With the new trip generation estimates
conducted for the revised Planning Area 1,there is a net decrease in trips projected for Planning Area 1.
The analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR includes estimates of air emissions from area sources and
energy use in addition to the traffic. The air quality analysis conducted for this Draft Subsequent EIR also
includes an update to the emissions estimation methodologies including reflection of regulations that have
significantly reduced the emissions from motor vehicles. Using equivalent methodologies the 2000 SEIR
the air emissions Nvould be anticipated to be those shoNsn in Table IV.C-11. This Nvould show a less than
significant impact for all pollutants except ROG. The ROG emissions Nvould be significant only under the
reduced mass emission threshold and similar mitigation to implement low VOC paint Nvould reduce these
emissions.
Table IV.0-11.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Updated Operational
Emissions (tons/year)
PM10 PM2.5
ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust Exhaust
Build-out Opening Year(2035)
Area 9.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.13 1.21 1.02 0.01 0.09 0.09
Mobile 3.57 6.21 2790 0.12 0.50 0.44
Total 13.30 7.42 2892 0.13 0.59 0.53
Operational emissions typically represent most of a project's air quality impacts. After a project is built,
operational emissions, including mobile and area sources, are anticipated to occur continuously
throughout the project's lifetime. CO emissions are localized, and typically analyzed in terms of their
impacts to specific roadway segments or intersections. HoNvever, these exhaust emissions are included in
the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and are not expected to impede
attainment and maintenance of ozone and CO standards in the Bay Area. Furthermore, since none of the
intersections Nvould have traffic volumes greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour there Nvould be no impacts
associated Nvith CO.
The proposed project Nvould result in area source and indirect mobile source exhaust emissions.
Operational emissions are presented in Table IV.0-12. Both opening year and build-out year Nvould be
loNver than BAAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants,Nvith the exception of ROG.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page 38
City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-12
Operational Emissions (tons/year)
PM10 PM2.5
ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust Exhaust
Phase 1 Opening Year(2017)
Area 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.05 0.48 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile 1.78 3.38 15.78 0.03 0.14 0.05
Total 4.91 3.86 16.18 0.03 0.14 0.09
Significance Thresholds 10 10 NA NA 15 15
Build-out Opening Year(2035)
Area 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.12 1.09 091 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile 1.94 3.33 15.32 0.07 0.28 0.11
Total 11.61 4.42 16.23 0.08 0.36 0.19
Significance Thresholds 10 10 NA NA 15 15
HoNvever, even after the building is constructed it Nvould continue to emit ROG from architectural
coatings over the area of the building. These emissions Nvould contribute ROG in excess of the BAAQMD
significance thresholds, a significant impact.
To reduce the impacts of ROG, Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1 is required. After mitigation, the ROG
emissions Nvould be 9.86 tons per year Nvhich is less than the BAAQMD significance threshold. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1,the project's operational emissions Nvould not exceed the
significance thresholds, and its operational emissions Nvould not conflict Nvith or obstruct implementation
of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, project operation impacts Nvould be less than significant
Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-1.1.
In all cases the project results in a decrease in the estimated emissions for Planning Area 1 compared to
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1.
Impact IV.0-2: Construction and operation of the project would not violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction
As stated above, the proposed project's construction emissions Nvould be below the significance
thresholds Nvith the implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. These significance thresholds
Nvere designed to prevent the violation of air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation. Therefore, the proposed project's construction emissions Nvould not lead to violations of
any air quality standards, and the impact Nvould be less than significant Nvith mitigation.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-39
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Operations
As described above, the proposed project's operational emissions Nvould be below the significance
thresholds Nvith implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Since none of the intersections Nvill
have traffic volumes greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour there Nvill be no significant impacts associated
Nvith CO based on the BAAQMD thresholds. These significance thresholds Nvere designed to prevent the
violation of air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore,
the project Nvould not lead to violations of any air quality standards, and the impacts Nvould be less than
significant Nvith mitigation.
This is consistent Nvith the conclusion reached in the 2000 West Bav Cove Commercial Project SEIR.
Impact IV.0-3: Construction and operation of the project would not result in a cumulativety
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal, state, or regional ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for
which a project's individual emissions Nvould be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the
identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in
significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions.
Construction
As described in the section above, the project's construction emissions Nvould be below the daily
significance thresholds Nvith the implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Emissions below the
thresholds of significance Nvould not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, even if the project's
emissions are combined Nvith other projects that occur at the same time as the proposed project's
construction emissions, the project Nvould not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria
pollutant emissions. Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant.
Operations
As described above, the proposed project's operational emissions Nvould be below the significance
thresholds Nvith implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Emissions below the thresholds of
significance Nvould not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, even if the project's emissions are
combined Nvith the emissions from other land uses in the area, the proposed project's operational
emissions Nvould not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutant emissions.
Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that cumulative impacts
Nvere significant since the project emissions Nvere significant consistent Nvith BAAQMD significance
thresholds. The conclusion is different for this Draft Subsequent EIR for Planning Area 1 since Nvith the
revised analvsis,the project is no longer significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-40
City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.0-4: Construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations resulting in cancer and noncancer risks.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an analysis of this
impact. The construction of the project Nvould produce diesel particulate matter that could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting in health impacts. A health risk
assessment Nvas conducted to evaluate the increased incremental cancer risk to a daveare child located
adjacent to the project site sometime after Phase 1 of the project is complete and to existing daycare
facilities located in the project vicinity for the entire project construction. The cancer risk for a daycare
child from Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction activities Nvas estimated to be 35 in a million located at UTM
coordinates 553550, 4168600 meters (NAD 83 Zone 10), Nvhich Nvould be significant because it Nvould
exceed the significance threshold of 10 in one million.
There are several existing daycare facilities in the project vicinity. These Nvould be potentially impacted
by all three phases of the construction activities. The cancer risk for these facilities is shoNsn in Table
IV.0-13 and indicates that emissions Nvould be less than the significance threshold of 10 in amillion.
Table IV.0-13
Existing Day Care Facilities Cancer Risk
Unmitigated Mitigated
Cancer Risk Cancer Risk
Day Care Facility (in a million) (in a million)
The Earlv Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue 0.5 0.1
Genentech 2"a Generation !d Allerton located at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 0.1
Genentech's 2"a Generation located at 850 Gatewav Boulevard 5.1 0.7
Gatewav Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatewav Boulevard 1.7 0.2
Mitigation Measure IV.0-4.1: Construction Equipment Filters
All diesel fueled off-road construction equipment must use diesel particulate filters Nvith an 85%reduction
in diesel particulate matter compared to Tier 2 engines.
With mitigation, the impact to the future daycare child can be reduced to 5 in one million Nvhich is less
than the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in a million. Therefore the impact to sensitive receptors
Nvould be less than significant after mitigation.
There are no significant sources of diesel particulate matter associated Nvith project operation. Therefore
the impact to sensitive receptors Nvould be less than significant.
Impact IV.0-5: Operation or construction of the project would not create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-41
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project SEIR did not evaluate odor emissions and related impacts.
Construction equipment and material hauling vehicles using diesel fuel may emit objectionable odors
associated Nvith combustion of the diesel fuel. HoNvever, these emissions Nvould be temporary. Therefore,
odor impacts associated Nvith diesel combustion during construction activities Nvould be less than
significant.
The operational activities are associated Nvith building operation and Nvorkers commuting to the project
site. The Nvorker vehicles are not expected to increase the amount of odors associated Nvith traffic along
roads in the project area. Therefore, odor impacts associated Nvith operational activities Nvould be less
than significant.
Impact IV.0-6: Construction and operation of the project would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate GHG emissions and related impacts. The
current analysis evaluates only a portion of the Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Planning Area 1, but
Nvith an increased building development for commercial uses but a decrease in hotel rooms. With the new
trip generation estimates conducted for the revised Planning Area 1, there is a net decrease in trips
projected for Planning Area 1.
Construction emissions for the Bav West Cove Planning Area 1 Nvould not be anticipated to be different
than those estimated for the project since the same general area is being developed and construction
equipment Nvould be anticipated to be similar and follow a similar time schedule. They Nvould therefore
be less than significant on the same basis used below.
The analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR includes estimates of GHG emissions from mobile, energy use,
Nvater use, and waste generation. Using equivalent methodologies the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR the air emissions Nvould be anticipated to be those shoNsn in Table IV.0-14.
This Nvould show a significant impact for GHG emissions using the same methodology and significance
threshold. This is primarily due to the additional mobile source emissions associated Nvith the hotel.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-42
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-14
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Operational
GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year)
Phase Source Category CO2e
Build-out Mobile 7,921
Energy 4,694
Water 73
Waste 400
Total 13,088
Efficiency Metric-(Service Population=2,656) 4.9
,rotes:
The service population is based on the following employee breakdown:
Bzrdd-ozrt:2,000 from conznzercialR&D;592 fi°onz hotel;alyd 6d from retail.
The construction activities associated Nvith off-road equipment and Nvorkers commuting to the site would
emit GHG emissions. Table IV.0-15 shows the GHG emissions associated Nvith project construction. The
construction GHG emissions are amortized over a 40-year project life which results in amortized GHG
emissions of 104 metric tons per year. This is less than the bright line threshold of 1,100 metric tons per
year. Therefore the construction GHG emissions result in a less than significant impact on GHG
emissions.
Table IV.0-1_5
Construction GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year)
Construction Phase CO2e
Phase 1 1,229
Phase 2 1,041
Phase 3 1,874
Total 4J44
Amortized over 40 year Project Life 104
The project operation Nvould result in both direct and indirect GHG emissions associated Nvith traffic to
and from the project, energy use of the buildings, Nvater use of the buildings, and solid Nvaste generation.
The project operational GHG emissions are shoNsn in Table IV.0-16.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-43
City of S'oirth S'an Francisco April 2013
Table IV.0-16
Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year)
Phase Source Category CO2e
Phase I Mobile 1495
Energy 1,891
Water 157
Waste 119
Total 4,663
Efficiency Metric-(Service Population'=1,401) 3.3
Build-out Mobile 4,473
Energy 5212
Water 33
Waste 434
Total 10,151
Efficiency Metric-(Service Population'=2,595) 39
rotes:
The service population is based on the following employee breakdown:
Phase 1:1,221.1rom conmzerciallR&D;180.1rom hotel
Bzrdd-out:2,358.1rom conmzercialR&D;180.1rom hotel;and 57.1rom retail.
The GHG emissions are divided by the anticipated service population, which is the number of employees
plus residents. For this project the service population is 2,595. '4 This results in an efficiency metric of 3.9
metric tons GHG per service population per year. For the Phase 1 portion of the project the efficiency
metric is 33 metric tons GHG per service population per year based on a service population of 1,401.
This is below BAAQMD's significance threshold of 4.6 for both Phase 1 and full build-out of the project.
Therefore the project results in a less than significant impact.
Compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1, the project in this Draft
Subsequent EIR results in a decrease in emissions and changes the significance from significant to less
than significant.
Impact IV.0-7: Construction and operational emissions associated with the project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
Phase I service population is based orz 1,221 employees associated with offce,R&D arzd 180 employees
associated with the hotel. Full build-out service population is based orz 2,385 employees associated with
office-R&D, 180 employees associated with the hotel, arid 57 employees associated with the retail. The
following land use size metrics to employees was utilized: office-R&D is 375 square feet per employee, hotel is
0.9 employees per room, arid retail is 350 square feet per employee. The hotel arid retail employee density was
based orz Table C-1 corztairzed irz Trarzsportatiorz Impact Analysis Guidelines for Erzvirorznierztal Review which
represents data front a cio)wide travel survey conducted iii the nearby cio)of,1a1z Francisco.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-44
City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013
The state has implemented AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions as Nvell as SB 375. The project does not pose
anv conflict Nvith the recent list of CARB's earIv action strategies nor is it considered one of the sectors at
Nvhich measures are targeted because it does not have a significant amount of GHG emissions that can
easily be regulated beyond improvements in vehicle emissions and low carbon energy. The project is not
one that Nvould be required to report emissions to CARB since it is not an industrial source listed in the
regulations. Therefore the specific emissions from this project Nvould not be expected to have a substantial
impact on global climate change. The project Nvould comply Nvith BAAQMD required mitigation
measures for construction and operational emissions, Nvhich Nvould reduce GHGs. In addition, the project
includes a TDM program designed to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled.
The project is an inflll project Nvhich helps to mitigate traffic in the region by placing the project near
related and complementary land uses. Although the project is consistent Nvith the South San Francisco
General Plan, the area does not yet have a Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) to determine if the
project Nvould be consistent Nvith the land use planning for the region; hoNvever, as stated earlier the
project is an infill project Nvhich is consistent Nvith the purpose and goals of SB 375 and SCS. Given that
the project does not conflict Nvith AB 32 or SB 375,the impact Nvould be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would not have a significant air quality
impact individuall�T would also not have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Since the proposed
project Nvould not exceed the BAAQMD-recommended emissions thresholds for individual projects, the
cumulative air quality impacts are also considered less than significant.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.0-1.1 through IV.0-4.1 Nvould adequately mitigate potential
impacts related to air quality. These impacts Nvould also be reduced to a less than significant level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-45
City of Sauth San Francisco April 2013
This page intentionally left blank
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-4 6
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing biological resources on the project site and
evaluates the potential for biological resource impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed
project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on biological resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new
significant biological resources impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed (discussed in Section
IVT Geologv and Soils) since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould
not result in anv new significant biological resources impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the
previously identified biological resources impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project mitigation measures are not necessary for biological resources impacts. For a summan- of impacts
from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
No comment letters related to biological resources Nvere received in response to December 14, 2012
Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft
Subsequent EIR.
Information Sources
URS Corporation conducted a reconnaissance level site survey for sensitive biological resources Nvithin
the project site on Februan- 8, 2013. The descriptions of biological resources on the project site and the
project impact analysis Nvere determined from the site survey, a review of Nvetland permitting and
remediation that occurred previously on the project site', and a desktop review of the California Natural
Josselyn, -ll 2011. Teclniical Alenroran(lrair Srnirrirar) of if'etlancl Per^nittirig aril Cap I'er^ficatiori. Tf'ildlif,
Research Associates, Sari Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:D-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Diversity Database (CNDDB)2 and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on biological resources as identified in Table IV.D-1. The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create no significant
biological impacts.
Table IV.D-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 12.2.2—Minor Disturbance of Wildlife Foraging No mitigation measures were required.
and Nesting Activities Due to Daily Human Activities
along the Shoreline. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that
the project could cause a potential impact to wildlife
which may become established in the revegetated
sloping embankment that has been built along most of
the shoreline and slot.Birds and small mammals that
become established in the shoreline bank may be
disturbed by people and pets entering the area from the
asphalt path along the top of bank adjacent to the bay.
Lighting from adjacent commercial areas may disturb
habitats at night. The impact is less than sigrzificarzt
because the project is subject to East of 101 Area Plan
Policy CON-7,which includes requirements to protect
wildlife and General Plan requirements to control
invasive species along the Bayfront Linear Park.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR are due to
activities undertaken to maintain the cap, as described in Section IVY Geology and Soils, which include
fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction.
California Department of Fish and if'ildlife (CT)Fif). 2013. Observation clata for USGS 7.5 minute quacls "Sari
Francisco South," ",San Francisco Vorth," "Horztara Hourztairz,"arid "Hunters Poirzt."Accessed February 4,
2013.
Califc)rriia lative. Plant Soeieo) (C'1PS). 2013. Iriveritory ofRare grid Eridarigered Plants (online edition, v8-01a).
Accessed February 4, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
The project site consists of filled upland inhabited by sparse ruderal vegetation and is bounded entirely by
chain-link fencing. This habitat consists of mostly Nveedy non-native forbs and grasses. There are no trees
onsite. Outside of the fence, the project site is bordered by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, Veterans
Boulevard to the east and north, and Caltrain tracks and U.S. 101 to the north and Nvest. San Francisco
Bav borders Veterans Boulevard on the northeast side, and is visible from the project site.
The project site is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to natural areas. It provides
generally poor Nldlife habitat, due to lack of cover and proximity to human activity. Species observed
during the 2013 project site visit Nvere limited to the folloNving common urban species: Canada goose
(Branta canadensis), Nvestern meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), BreNver's blackbird (Eizphagus
cyanocephalus), European starling (Stumus vulgaris), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and black-
tailed jackrabbit(Lepus californicus).
No Nvatenvays occur onsite, and no Nvetlands Nvere found onsite during the 2013 site visit. A potential
jurisdictional feature is present just outside of the Nvestern project site boundan-Nvithin the Caltrain right-
of-Nvay. This feature is a partially concrete-lined drainage ditch. The southernmost portion of the drainage
ditch, approximately 285 feet, does not fall under Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction. The majoritA- of this
area is flat and littered Nvith debris and contains moderate amounts of gravel (.
Special Status Species
State and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Nvith amechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of
plant and animal species native to the state (see Regulatory FrameNvork below). A sizable number of
native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and
federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "candidates" for such listing. Still
others have been designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFW. Collectively, these plants and
animals are referred to as "special status species."
Special status plant and animal species, and their potential to occur on the project site, are listed in Table
IV.D-2. A search of four U.S. Geological Society (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (San Francisco South,
San Francisco North, Montara Mountain, and Hunters Point) Nvas conducted using the CNDDB and
CNPS on-line databases. The occurrence records for special status species Nvithin these quadrangles Nvere
used to develop a list of 35 special status plants and Nvildlife that have the potential to occur on the project
site. To determine the potential for any of these species to occur on the project site, the folloNving criteria
Nvere applied:
• Habitat for the species has been identified Nvithin the vicinity.
• The proposed project has potential to affect special status species on or adjacent to the project
site.
Josselyn, -ll 2011. Teclniical Alemoran(1tair Stnirrirar) of Tfetlarid Permitting acid Cap I'erificatiori. Tf'ildlif,
Research Associates, Sari Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:D-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Application of the above criteria to the list of 35 special status species reveals that habitat on the project
site is not suitable for any of these species.
Table IV.D-2
Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species
Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Plants
Arctostaphylos 1B.1 Coastal scrub with serpentine soil. No potential. Species is
franciscana presumed extirpated from the
Franciscan manzanita project area.
Arctostaphylos montana FE, SE, Seipentinite outcrops in chaparral, -Vo potential. Species only
ssp. ravenii 1B.1 coastal prairie,coastal scrub. occurs in the Presidio in San
Presidio manzanita Francisco:presumed extirpated
from the project area.
Arctostaphylos Pacifica SE, Chaparral,coastal scrub. -Vo potential. Species is only
1B.2 known to occur on San Bruno
Pacific manzanita Mountain.
Centromadia parryi ssp. 1B.2 Chaparral,coastal prairie,meadows -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
parryi and seeps,coastal salt marsh and not present on the project site.
pappose tarplant swamps,valley and foothill
grassland(vernally mesic). Alkaline
soil.
Chloropyron maritimum 1B.2 Coastal salt marshes and swamps. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
ssp.palustre not present on the project site.
Point Reties bird's-beak
Cirsium andrewsii 1B.2 Coastal scrub,coastal prairie,coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
bluff scrub,broadleaf upland forest. not present on the project site.
Franciscan thistle Mesic or serpentine soil.
Clarkia franciscana FE, SE, Coastal scrub,valley and foothill -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Presidio clarkia 1B.1 with serpentine soil. not present on the project site.
Collinsia multicolor 1B.2 Coastal scrub,coniferous forest in -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
San Francisco collinsia serpentine soil. not present on the project site.
Dirca occidentalis 1B.2 Mesic broadleaf upland forest. No potential. Suitable habitat is
Western leatherwood coniferous forest,chaparral, not present on the project site.
cismontane woodland,riparian
forest/woodland.
Erioplhyllum latilobum FE, SE, Cismontane woodland in serpentine -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
San Mateo woolly_ 1B.1 soil. not present on the project site.
sunflower
Helianthella castanea 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest,chaparral, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Diablo helianthelia cismontane woodland,coastal scrub, not present on the project site.
riparian woodland,valley and
foothill grassland.
Hesperolinon FT. ST. Valley and foothill grassland in -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
congestum 1B.1 serpentine soil. not present on the project site.
Marin western flax
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.D-2
Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species
Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Horkelia cuneata var. 113.1 Coniferous forest,maritime -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
sericea chaparral,coastal dunes and scrub,in not present on the project site.
Kellogg's horkelia sandy or gravel substrate.
Leptosiphon croceus 113.1 Coastal bluff scrub,coastal prairie. No potential. Suitable habitat is
Coast vellow not present on the project site.
leptosiphon
Lessingia germanorum FE, SE, This species occurs only in remnant -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
San Francisco lessingia 113.1 patches of native vegetation in the not present on the project site.
San Francisco dunes.
Malacothamnus arcuatus 113.2 Chaparral,cismontane woodland. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Arcuate bush-mallow not present on the project site.
Plagiobotluys 113.2 Mesic chaparral,coastal prairie, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
chorisianus var. coastal scrub. not present on the project site.
chorisianus
Choris'popcorn flower
Potentilla hickmanii FE, SE Coastal bluff scrub,coniferous -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Hickman's cinquefoil 113.1 forest,meadows.marshes,and not present on the project site.
swamps.
Silene verecunda ssp. 113.2 Sandy coastal bluff/scrub,chaparral, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
verecunda coastal prairie,valley and foothill not present on the project site.
San Francisco campion grassland.
Triphysaria floribunda 113.2 Serpentinite coastal prairie,coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
San Francisco owl's- scrub,valley and foothill grassland. not present on the project site.
clover
Triquetrella californica 113.2 Coastal bluff and scrub. No potential. Suitable habitat is
Coastal triquetrella not present on the project site.
Invertebrates
Callopluys mossii FE Rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
bayensis scrub. not present on the project site.
San Bruno elfin
butterf1v
Plebejus icarioides FE Forest clearings and edges,prairie. No potential. Suitable habitat is
missionensis sagebrush,chaparral,and coastal dunes not present on the project site.
Mission blue butterf1v where the host plant(lupine)occurs.
Speyeria callippe FE Sagebrush,chaparral,diy woodland, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
callippe and prairie hill habitat. Restricted to not present on the project site.
Callippe silverspot areas where I Iola pedurzculata grows.
butterf1v
Speyeria zerene FE Grasslands, sand dunes,chaparral,and -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
myr[eae coniferous forest. Only known from not present on the project site.
Myrtle's silverspot four populations in northwestern Marin
County-and southwestern Sonoma
County.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.D-2
Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species
Species I Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians and Reptiles
Emys marmorata SSC Calm freshwater streams or pools with -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Western pond turtle vegetated banks.May utilize upland not present on the project site.
habitat up to 0.5 km from water body
for nesting and wet season refugia.
Rana draytonii FT. SSC Humid forests,woodlands,grasslands. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
California red-legged and stream sides with plant cover.Most not present on the project site.
frog common in lowlands or foothills.
Breeding habitat is in permanent eater
sources:lakes,ponds,reserti-oirs, sloe
streams,marshes,bogs,and swamps.
Thanmophis sirtalis FE, SE Grasslands or wetlands near ponds, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
tetrataenia marshes and sloughs. not present on the project site.
San Francisco garter
snake
Fish
Oncorhynchus mykiss FT Cold freshwater rivers and streams. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
irideus Although they can be found in cold not present on the project site.
Steelhead-central lakes,they require moderate-to-fast
California coast distinct flowing,well-oxygenated eaters for
population segment breeding.
Birds
Geothlypis trichas SSC Salt marshes,nests in thick herbaceous -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
sinuosa vegetation. not present on the project site.
Saltmarsh common
v ellow throat
Rallus longirostris FE, SE Salt marshes dominated by pickleweed -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
obsoletus (Sahcomia virgirzica)and Pacific not present on the project site.
California clapper rail cordgrass(,S'partzrza fohosa).
Riparia riparia ST Steep sand,dirt,or graN-el banks,where -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Bank swallow it nests in burrows near the top of the not present on the project site.
bank.
Mammals
Corynorhinus SSC CaN-es,mixed conifer and pine forests, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
townsendii desert scrub. not present on the project site.
Townsend's big-eared
bat
Lasimus blossevillii SSC Riparian woodlands,agricultural areas. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
Western red bat not present on the project site.
Neotoma fuscipes SSC Evergreen forests with live oaks and -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is
armectens other thick-leaved trees and shrubs. not present on the project site.
San Francisco duskAy
footed w oodrat
Status Designations:
FE=Federally Endangered
FT=Federally-Threatened
SE= State Endangered
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.D-2
Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species
Species I Status Habitat Potential to Occur
ST= State Threatened
SSC= State Species of Special Concern
1B=CNPS List 1B—Plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere.
(1 =seriously endangered in CA, .2=fairly endangered in CA)
Sources:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). 2013. CNDDB obserti-ation data for USGS 7.5 minute quads
"San Francisco South,""San Francisco North,""Montana Mountain,"and"Hunters Point."Accessed Febnaan-4,
2013.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. I iventory of Rare and Endangered Plants(online edition,v8-01a).
Accessed February-4,2013.
Regulatory Setting
The folloyving discussion identifies environmental regulations that serve to protect sensitive resources
relevant to the California Environmental Quality-* Act (CEQA) revieyv process. Neyv and updated
regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this
section.
California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and
enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.
To align yvith the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), CESA created the categories of"threatened"
and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare"animals into the CESA as threatened species, but did not
do so for rare plants. Thus,these lay-,-s provide the legal frameyvork for protection of California-listed rare,
threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its
Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains the CNDDB, a computerized inventory* of
information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural
communities. During the CEQA revieyv process, CDFW also serves as a trustee agency and may
comment on the potential of the project to affect listed plants and animals.
Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern
The classification of"fully protected" yvas the CDFW's initial effort to identIA- and provide additional
protection to those animals that yvere rare or faced possible extinction. Lists yvere created for fish,
amphibian and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been
listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (fish at §5515, amphibian and
reptiles at §5050, birds at §3511, and mammals at §4700) dealing yvith "fully protected" species states
that these species "...may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species,"
although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the "fully
protected" designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the "take" of these species. In 2003,
the code sections dealing Nvith fully protected species Nvere amended to allow the CDFW to authorize take
resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species.
Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which
are nonetheless of concern to the CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing or
historicalIv occurred in low numbers and knoNsn threats to their persistence currentIv exist. This
designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers,
consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need
for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be
required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the
biology, distribution, and status of poorly knoNsn at-risk species, and focus research and management
attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special
consideration under CEQA during project review.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 &3513
According to Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code it is unlawful to take, possess, or
needlessIv destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and
European starlings (Stumus vu garis)). Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders
Falcomformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps Nvith the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory non-game bird.
Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "take" by the
CDFW.
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS publishes and maintains an Inventon-of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California in
both hard copy and electronic version (http://Ns-Nsw.rareplants.enps.org/). The Inventon- assigns plants to
the folloNving categories:
IA—Presumed extinct in California
IB—Rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
2—Rare,threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
3 —Plants for Nvhich more information is needed
4—Plants of limited distribution
Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each taxa as follows:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree of
immediacy of threat).
2—Fairly endangered in California(20-80 percent occurrences threatened).
3 — Not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats
lcnovm).
Plants on Lists IA, 113, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualifiT for listing, and are
given special consideration under CEQA during project review. Although plants on List 3 and 4 have
little or no protection under CEQA,they are usually included in the project review for completeness.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan(1999)—Open Space and Conservation Element
The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future grov th and
development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of
development Nvithin the East of 101 Area, including the project site. The City of South San Francisco
General Plan designates the project site as Business Commercial. Policies pertinent to biological
resources are listed below and included in Chapter 7.1. The Implementing Policies apply to the Project
site shoreline at the mouth of the "slot"extending east along the shoreline band (as shoN-,n in General Plan
Figure 7-2):
7.1-G-2 Protect and Nvhere reasonable and feasible,restore saltmarshes and Nvetlands.
7.1-1-2 As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing
program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Bayfront Linear
Park and other City-ovried open space.
7.1-1-3 As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat ... require
institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment to the invasive species and
restore the native species.
7.1-1-4 Require development on the Nvetlands to complete assessments of biological resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
Multiple sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the biological resources of the project site. A
new reconnaissance level site survey for sensitive biological resources Nvithin the project site was
conducted on February 8, 2013 by URS Corporation. The survey Nvas conducted to update information
contained in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-9
00)ofSoutbi Sari Francisco April 2013
The descriptions of biological resources on the project site and the project impact analysis Nvere
determined from the site survey, a review of Nvetland permitting and remediation that occurred previously
on the project site,' and a desktop review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)6 and
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants'.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts on biological resources if the proposed project Nvould:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Nvetlands as defined by Section 404
of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means;
• Interfere substantialIv Nvith the movement of anv native resident or migratory fish and
Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory Nvildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native Nvildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict Nvith any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict Nvith the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar thresholds of significance
as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR. These thresholds differ from the 2013 CEQA
Guidelines. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR standards of significance
did not include questions relating to federally protected Nvetlands and only included a discussion of
disturbance to Nvildlife.
' Josselyn, -ll 2011. Tecbniical Hemoran(1ran Srnnrnar) of iTetlarid Permitting acid Cap I'erificatiori. Tf'ildlif,
Researcli Associates, ';all Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011.
6 California Department ofFisb and Tf'ildlif, (C:DFT ). 2013. Observation data for USGS 7.5 minute. quads "Sari
Francisco Soutlr," "San Francisco Vortlz," "Alorztara 1Iourztairz,"arid "Hunters Poirzt."Accessed February 4,
2013.
Califc)rriia lative. Plant Soeieo) (C1PS). 2013. Iriveritory ofRare acid Eridarigered Plants (online edition, v8-01a).
Accessed February 4, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant biological resources impacts or a substantial increase
in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, no mitigation measures are necessary, as the project does not have any significant
impacts on biological resources. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below
discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove
Commercial Project.
Impact IV.D-1: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
Of the 35 special status species that Nvere revieNved for their potential to occur on the project site, based on
the lack of suitable habitat and a review of occurrence records, none of the special status species Nvere
found to have the potential to occur. Because the project site is dominated by non-native vegetation and
the surrounding areas are highly disturbed, the site is not expected to be utilized by special-status species.
Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to special status species as a result of the proposed project. No
mitigation measures are required.
Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not directly analyze the
impacts on sensitive or special status species, it did state that the only potential impact relating to
biological impacts Nvould be on Nvildlife foraging. Therefore, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove
Commercial Project there Nvould be no impact on sensitive and special status species.
Impact IV.D-2: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site conditions, no riparian habitat is present on
the project site; therefore, the project Nvould not result in any adverse effects to riparian areas.
Additionally, no sensitive natural communities occur on-site and no sensitive communities Nvould be
adversely affected as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, there Nvould be no impact to any riparian habitat, or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
CDFW, or the USFWS as a result of the proposed project.No mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.D-3: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
Nvetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal etc.),through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze impacts on Nvetlands.
This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
No federally protected Nvetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal habitat) are present on the project site. No Nvetlands or Nvaters of the
U.S. or Nvaters of the State occur on the project site. The proposed project does not involve any grading or
development Nvithin the bed, bank or channel of the drainage ditch located Nvithin the Caltrain right-of-
Nvav, as shown in Figure III-7 of Section III Project Description. Consequently, no jurisdictional features
would be impacted at off-site locations due to construction of the project. Therefore, there Nvould be no
impact to federally protected Nvetlands or Nvaters of the U.S. and RWQCB jurisdictional features as a
result of the proposed project.No mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.D-4: The proposed project Nvould not interfere substantially Nvith the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native Nvildlife nurser*sites.
Habitat loss and associated species loss are primarily a result of the acceleration of land-use change.
Habitat loss involves reducing the size of habitat and may result in the breaking habitat into patches; the
latter process is referred to as fragmentation. The project site is surrounded by urban development and has
no connectivity to natural areas. Consequently, no Nvildlife corridors Nvill be adversely affected by the
proposed project. The site does not offer native resident or migratory fish or Nvildlife species Nvith
regionally significant habitat and the habitat onsite is of poor quality.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that impacts to wildlife foraging
and nesting activities due to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould be less than significant.
Based on the 2013 project site visit and the new project site conditions (as discussed in Section IVY
Geology and Soils), there Nvould be no impact to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory Nvildlife corridors or impede the use of
native Nvildlife nurser* sites, as a result of the proposed project. This represents a decrease in impact
significance compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,Nvhich found this impact less than
significant.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, no mitigation measures are required for the
proposed project.
Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There are no trees on the project site.
Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to biological resources protected under local policies or ordinances
as a result of the proposed project. As Nvith the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR,no mitigation measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological resources impacts consists of San Mateo
County. All future development that may occur in this geographic region Nvould be subject to existing
federal, state and local regulations. The proposed project site is surrounded by a highly-developed urban
landscape. The site is dominated by non-native species, and does not contain any special-status species or
sensitive natural communities, or provide any connectivity to other natural areas. For these reasons, land
uses and development consistent Nvith the proposed project Nvould not result in a significant loss of
populations and/or essential habitat for special-status plant and animal species, loss of sensitive natural
communities, or wildlife habitat or result in the obstruction of Nvildlife movement opportunities.
Therefore, similar to the cumulative impact finding in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project Nvould be less than significant.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, because no impacts related to biological
resources have been identified,no mitigation measures are required or recommended.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:D-14
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes historic and cultural resources Nvithin the project site
and whether implementation of the project Nvould cause a substantial adverse effect on cultural resources
from implementation of the proposed project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on cultural resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new
significant cultural resource impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba-T
West Cove Commercial Project, as discussed in Section IVT Geology and Soils, the proposed project
Nvould not result in anv new significant cultural resources impacts or substantial changes in the severity of
the previously identified cultural resource impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project mitigation measures Nvere presented to avoid potential damage to cultural resources. For a
summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior
Analvsis section.
Descriptions of existing cultural resources, both on and in the vicinity of the project site are presented and
potential project-related impacts to cultural resources are evaluated based on previous archival research,
and project plans. A regulator-frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies
and regulations related to the historic and cultural resources of the proposed project.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San
Francisco General Plan (1999); information contained in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
EIR and 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR prepared for development on the
project site, and a review of technical inventon- reports prepared for the previous planning documents
covering the project site.
No comment letters related to cultural resources Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012
Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project as Nvell as the environmental impacts on cultural resources. The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Project Nvould
result in one potentially significant impact to cultural resources and one less than significant impact.
Table IV.E-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 13.2.2—Potential to Damage Unknown Sites Mitigation Measure 13.2.2 Potential to Damage
and Artifacts during Project Construction.The 2000 Unknown Sites and Artifacts during Project
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Construction-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
concluded that there is the potential that unknown Project Supplemental EIR identified Mitigation Measure
cultural resources could be encountered and damaged 13.2.2,which required the following for the applicant to
during project development.Prehistoric resources accomplish this mitigation,as summarized below.
include chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points, . A potential resource find should be immediately
mortars and pestles,and dark friable soils containing evaluated by a cultural resource consultant. If the
shell and bone dietary debris,heat-affected rock or find is determined to be an important cultural
human burials. The potential to encounter such resource,work shall cease in the vicinity- of the
resources,however unlikely,creates the potentially site,pursuant to C EOA Guidelines, Supplementary
significant adverse impact. Document J.Archaeological Impacts.Project
personnel shall not collect cultural resources.
• In accordance with. General Plan Implementing
Policy 7.5-1-5 requires preparation of a mitigation
plan and monitoring program by a qualified
archaeologist in the event archaeological resources
are uncovered.
• In the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains,the developer shall immediately
cease work and notify the county coroner. If the
remains appear to be of Native American origin,
the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
notified and other measures to protect the remains
pursuant to CEQA shall be undertaken.
The impact would be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.2.2.
Impact 13.3.1-No Cumulative Cultural Impacts.The No mitigation measures were required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR identified the potential to damage cultural resources
during construction of the project,when considered with
potential disruption to other known or unknown cultural
sites in the vicinity-would not result in a cumulative
impact,thus the impact would be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical Setting
The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR are due to
activities undertaken to maintain the cap, Nvhich include fill soil importation, surface grading, and
compaction.
As previously discussed, the project site is Planning Area 1 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site is located in the East of the 101 Area Plan, in the
City of South San Francisco. The East of 101 area is contained on the U.S. Geological Survey "San
Francisco South" 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, and is in ToN-,reship 3 South, Range 5 West (Mt.
Diablo M&B). The project site contains four parcels generally at 159 Oyster Point Boulevard. Access to
the project site is from Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard.
All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt
roadways, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/lcnovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs
Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. These various impacts over recent history have
significantly reduced the archaeological potential of the project site; see discussion below.
Topographic Features
The project site is located on Nvhat Nvas once a near-island in San Francisco Bay. In the 1800s the East of
101 Area Nvas a hilly peninsula. Point San Bruno, Nvith elevations reaching over 150 feet, surrounded by
Bay marshlands at the northNvest, southNvest and south, and by open Bay Nvaters to the east, connected to
the Peninsula by a narrow neck of dry land (Bache 1854; Hoffman 1873; Anonymous 1895-98; USGS
1897). The low marshy areas are now almost entirely filled and on the south side have been developed for
over a century. The project site still has the generally northNvest aspect of the aboriginal landform, rising
gently from south to north and east to Nvest; elevation is less than 30 feet msl along Oyster Point
Boulevard.
Any natural contours have been entirely altered by development. The project site is currently vacant and
graded on a regular basis to maintain the soil cap. The project site consists of filled upland inhabited by
sparse ruderal vegetation and is bounded entirely by chain-link fencing. This habitat consists of mostly
Nveedy non-native forbs and grasses. There are no trees onsite.
Geologic Features
The original topography Nvas extensively altered beginning in the late nineteenth century, the upper soils,
indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction and for use as bay fill (Anonymous
1895-98). In 1930 the project site had been extensively graded and filled and Nvas occupied by several
heavy industries (Mark Group 1989).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Historic Development and Resources
Uses of the East of 101 Area have changed through time. The East of 101 Area Nvas initially the location
of large meat processing and packing houses in the 1890s, folloNved by various other heavy and light
industries (steel, ship building, paint factories) and succeeded by other uses, the latest being most notably
biotech and information technology.
For much of the 20"' century, the general area that includes the proposed project development site Nvas
highly industrialized. Industrial facilities included a major steel production and fabrication facility
operated by Bethlehem Steel and steel fabrication plants operated by Edwards Wire Rope and the
American Bridge Division of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation). The Bethlehem
and Edwards Wire Rope facilities Nvere located immediately south of the project site on property now
knoN-,n as Gateway Center.
United States Steel (American Bridge Division) reportedly operated at the project site from 1938 to 1978.
Buildings knoN-,n to have existed on site include a main pipe and steel fabrication building, paint and fuel
storage buildings, a blacksmith shop, machine shop, a dip kettle structure, and electrical substations. A
ship launch basin, sometimes referred to as the slot, is located in the center of the site and Nvas used for
material loading and for a brief time during World War II as a cargo ship repair facility. A number of
above ground and below ground oil storage tanks Nvere also present on site.
All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt
roadways, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/knovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs
Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. Areas of the site have been re-graded to
various degrees and several tens of thousands cubic yards of construction debris (predominantly concrete
and brick) have been placed on the site. Recently, clean imported fill material has been stockpiled in
selected areas of the site. The extensive Nvork at the site reduces the potential for historical and
archeological resources to be present on the project site.
Results of Records Search and Historic Resources Survey
Records Search
There have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR
and 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR; therefore this assessment is based on
the records and archival search for the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Record searches Nvere conducted at the Northwest
Information Center, CA Historical Resources Information Systems and Sonoma State University, Rohnert
Park CA.
Numerous South San Francisco historic resources are recorded at various levels (Office of Historic
Preservation Directorv, California Inventorv, State Points of Historical Interest, California Historical
Resources Information Society (CHRIS) records, California Register of Historic Resources, National
Register of Historic Places, County and City historic resources listings, etc.); however none are recorded
inside or Nvithin 500 meters of the project site.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The searches have shoNsn that there are no recorded Native American resources on the project site that are
listed. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR concluded that the shoreline characteristics of the East of 101 Area
Nvould be favorable for Native American inhabitance, as a whole. HoNvever the CHRIS found that the
extensive fill and modification of the shoreline on the project site Nvould make it unlikely that Native
American sites Nvould be found in the project site.
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and
are reflected in this section.
Federal
National Register ofHistorical Places
Primarily Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 governs federal
regulations for cultural resources. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council's implementing
regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are
determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), . the nation's master
inventory of knoNsn historic resources. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service. The
NRHP includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic,
architectural, engineering,archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
Resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over fifty years of age can be listed on the
NRHP. HoNvever, properties under fifty years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors
to a district can also be included on the NRHP. A resource can be considered significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Once a resource has been identified as
significant and potentially eligible for the NRHP, its historic integrity must be evaluated. When
nominating a resource to the NRHP,the significance of that resource must be clearly evaluated and stated.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
Historical Architectural Resources
Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource (including both built
environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) is presumed significant if the structure is listed on
the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing
by the State Historical Resources Commission. A historical resource may also be considered significant if
the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for
inclusion in the CRHR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequentEnvironnnentallmpactReport Page IT:E-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Archaeological Resources
Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not othenvise determined
to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearIv demonstrated that Nvithout merely adding to the current body of lcnoNvledge,
and it meets the criteria for inclusion. A non-unique archaeological resource means an archaeological
artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Non-unique archaeological resources receive
no further consideration under CEQA.
Human Remains
According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are provided
under Public Resources Code Section 5097.
Paleontological Resources
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect if it Nvould
directIv or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
California Historic Register
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR). The CRHR is the State's authoritative guide to significant California historical and
archeological resources. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) has designed this program
for use by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identiA-, evaluate, register and protect
California's historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of
resources of architectural,historical, archeological and cultural significance,identifies historical resources
for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding,
and affords certain protections under CEQA.
Tapes of resources eligible for nomination for listing in the CRHR are buildings, sites, structures, objects,
or historic districts. All resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the NRHP are eligible for
the CRHR. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or
more of the criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 3, Chapter
11.5, Section 4850. The CRHR criteria are similar to NRHP criteria. Anv resource that meets the CRHR
criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA.
Local
Planning Commission
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The City s Planning Commission designates historic resources, reviews applications for altering or
demolishing historic structures, disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and
areas deemed Nvorthy of preservation, and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for
encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. The City of South San Francisco's
Planning Commission also maintains a Historic Resources Survey (1986), which focuses on historic
buildings, architecture, and sites of significance in the City. The Historic Resources Survey does not list
any resources in or near the project site,nor any in the entire East of 101 Area.
South San Francisco General Plan
The South San Francisco General Plan serves as an outline for the City of South San Francisco's long-
range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the
community. The General Plan provides a detailed analysis of key issues in South San Francisco, and sets
policies specifically designed to guide development Nvithin the City. The Open Space and Conservation
Element establishes the goals, policies, programs, and guidelines to protect, manage and conserve natural
and community resources. The folloNving are policies related to cultural resources:
7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archeological resources for the aesthetic, educational,
economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identitA- and
quality of life.
7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San
Francisco's historic, cultural, and archeological resources.
7.5-I-4 Ensure the protection of knoNsn archeological resources in the city by requiring a records
review for any development proposed in areas of knoNsn resources.
7.5-I-5 In accordance Nvith State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and
monitoring program by a qualified archeologist in the event that archeological resources
are uncovered.
East of 101 Area Plan
Policy LU-28 The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
The methodology used in this Draft Subsequent EIR is similar to that used in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Supplemental EIR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Historic Resources
PotentialIv adverse effects on historic structures or features are evaluated by determining the presence or
absence of historic status Nvith respect to the feature in question, and then determining the potential for the
project to affect the structure or feature if it possesses historic status.
Archaeological Resources (including human remains)
This analysis is based on the possibility that an archaeological resource or human burial Nvould be affected
by activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface,including grading or excavation.
Paleontological Resources
This analysis is based on professional knowledge that paleontological resources could be affected by
activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface, including grading or excavation. For the purposes
of this Draft Subsequent EIR, impacts on paleontological resources are assessed in terms of significance
based upon whether these resources meet the definition of a "unique paleontological resource" found in
Section 21083.2(g) of the PRC.
Thresholds of Significance
In accordance Nvith Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project Nvould have a
significant impact related to cultural resources if it Nvould:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5;
• DirectIv or indirectIv destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
or
• Disturb an-,T human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
The CEQA Guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included
thresholds of significance similar to the 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant cultural resources impacts or a substantial increase in
the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, mitigation measures are necessar_- to reduce potential impacts to unknoN-,n historic,
cultural, or archaeological resources, and unknoN-,n human remains. For a summary of impacts and
mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis
section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the
impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
There have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR
and 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR; therefore this assessment is based on
the records and archival search for the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Ba-T
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
As discussed in the 2000 SEIR,the project site does not contain any recorded historic resources. This area
Nvas not part of the historic development either of the residential/commercial portion of the City (Nvest of
U.S. 101), nor of the earliest industrial development east of U.S. 101. In addition, this area has been
developed and redeveloped more than once in the twentieth century, processes that have virtually
completely removed potential for and make the property quite unlikely to contain significant historic
resources that Nvould be impacted by the proposed project. Further, a cap maintenance and soil
remediation program Nvas in place for the site, which entailed removal of contaminated soil and
replacement Nvith cap and fill.
Although no historic resources Nvere found in the project site, the entire project site Nvould be subject to
ground disturbance through various phases of the project and it is possible that subsurface deposits may
exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and
could be uncovered during construction of the proposed project. Historic resources are protected from
unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be
made aware of the possibility*, however low, of encountering historic materials in this location. Historic
materials older than 45 Nears—bottles, artifacts, privy* and disposal pits, structural remains, etc.—may- also
have scientific and cultural significance and should be more readily*identified.
Therefore, although the potential to impact historic resources is unlikely*, mitigation measures to reduce
this impact are required, similar to the findings of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The
mitigation measure would require the construction contractor to halt surrounding excavation activities if
evidence of historic or cultural resources is discovered and bring a qualified archaeologist to the site to
investigate further,thereby*reducing the possibility*of destroying historic resources.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or Cultural Resources
In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural resources,if during the proposed construction of
the project, any evidence of historic or cultural resources is uncovered or encountered, all excavations
Nvithin 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. In order to protect these resources from damage,
a qualified archaeologist approved by the City shall determine Nvhether this resource is a "unique
archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource,"
the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA
Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume .upon
the completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource,
Nvork can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the
California Historic Resources Information Svstem NorthNvest Information Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan,
folloNving accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the
California Historic Resources Information Svstem NorthNvest Information Center.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1.1, this impact Nvould be less than significant. This
mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR.
Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Other than cap maintenance activities, there have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project EIR and 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site Nvas not found to contain any recorded archaeological
resources. Although no archaeological resources Nvere found in the project site, it is possible that
subsurface deposits may exist on the project site or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by
more recent natural or cultural factors and Nvould be uncovered during construction of the project since
ultimately the entire site Nvould be subject to ground disturbance, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
Archaeological resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and
construction personnel should therefore be made aNvare of the possibility, however low, of encountering
archaeological materials in this location. In this area, the most common and recognizable evidence of
prehistoric archaeological resources are deposits of shell and/or bones, usually in fragments, and usually
in a darker fine-grained soil (midden); chert, obsidian and other stone flakes left from manufacturing
stone tools, or the tools themselves or ground stone (mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, arrowheads and
spear points), other artifacts (shell beads, bone tools, etc.), and human burials, often as dislocated bones.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Nevertheless, since archaeological resources could be located in the subsurface, and impacts to these
resources Nvould be unknoN-,n until encountered during excavation, impacts to such resources Nvould be
potentially significant. The mitigation measure below Nvould require the construction contractor to halt
surrounding excavation activities if evidence of archaeological resources is discovered and bring a
qualified archaeologist to the site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying
unique archaeological resources, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown Archaeological Resources
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the project all excavations
Nvithin 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. A qualified archaeologist approved by the
project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to identiA- the presence of archaeological
resources in the area surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian
survey, auguring, and monitoring construction activities as Nvell as other common methods used to
identify the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area.
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during any phases of construction, a qualified
archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a "unique
archaeological resource"under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section
21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource," the
archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA
Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume upon
the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource,
Nvork Nvill resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan,
folloNving accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-2.1 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than
significant. This mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Impact IV.E-3: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate potential impacts to unique paleontological
resources or sites or unique geologic features. The project site is located in an area underlain by sheared
rock of the Franciscan Complex,which is a very common geological feature. As described previously, the
original topography of the project site has been extensively altered and the project site is primarily
overlain by fill derived from Colma Formation materials that have been replaced Nvith construction and
demolition activities on the site. The original topography Nvas extensively altered beginning in the late
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
nineteenth century, the upper soils, indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction
and for use as bay fill. According to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History (LRCM), no vertebrate
fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique
geologic features are anticipated to exist within the project site and this impact Nvould be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.E--4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
While there is no evidence that human remains are present on the project site, there is still the potential
that the construction of the proposed project could encounter human remains,Nvhich in turn could result in
a potentially significant cultural resource impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
The mitigation below Nvould require the construction contractor to halt ground-disturbing activities if
human remains are discovered so that the Countv's Medical Examiner can investigate; thereby reducing
the possibility of destroying cultural resources or Native American remains.
Mitigation Measure IV.E--4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains
In the event of the discovery of a burial,human bone, or suspected human bone during construction of the
proposed project, all excavation or grading Nvithin 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area of
the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notiA- the San Mateo County
Coroner of the find and comply Nvith the provisions of PRC Section 5097 Nvith respect to Native American
involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary. Work may resume once the area is protected or
the body is removed.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-4.1 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than
significant. This mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts related to historical resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The
City of South San Francisco requires applicants subject to CEQA to assess, determine, and mitigate any
potential impacts related to historical resources that could occur as a result of development, as necessary.
Through compliance Nvith the existing laws and the mitigation measures listed previously, project impacts
associated Nvith historic resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic
features, and human remains Nvould be less than significant.
The occurrence of these less than significant impacts Nvould be limited to the project site and Nvould not
contribute to any potentially significant cultural resources impacts that could occur at the sites of future
development subject to CEQA. As such, the proposed project Nvould not contribute to any potential
cumulative impacts related to cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural
resources Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR finding.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2.1 through IV.E-4.1 identified in this section Nvould
adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to cultural resources. These impacts Nvould be reduced to
less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank
Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-14
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
F. GEOLOGY/SOILS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes geology and soils in the project area, Nvhich includes
the project site and properties in the vicinity, and evaluates the potential for geology and soil impacts
associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. A regulator- frameNvork is also provided in this
section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to the geology and soils.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on geology and soils of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new
significant geology and soils impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba_T
West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant geology and
soils impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts.
New and supplemental mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised geotechnical report
Nvhich considers the current conditions on the project site. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) the City of South
San Francisco General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, and the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning
Code, (2) Geotechnical reports completed by Treadwell & Rollo; (3) Review of US Department of the
Interior USGS Preliminary Geological Map of The San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of
Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle (USGS, 1998); (4) Review of Official California Geologic Survey (CGS)
(formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)) Maps, including the South San
Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California
(2010); (5) Review of government Nvebsites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's
(ABAG) Nvebsite (v,-v,w.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic
landsliding; (6) Review of Project Description; Review of the California Geological Surveys
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment; (7) Review of the 2007 Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2, USGS Open-File
Report 2007-1437; and (8) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as
Nvell as all other applicable ordinances and regulations.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
No comment letters related to geology and soils Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012
Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on geological and soil resources as identified in Table IV.F-1. The 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Nvould result in three significant adverse geological/geotechnical impacts and two less than
significant impacts. With mitigation, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
determined that all of the significant impacts Nvould be reduced to less than significant levels.
Table IV.F-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 9.2.2—Potential Instability of Fill Soil.The Mitigation Measure 9.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
EIR identified project construction on fill or debris as a Mitigation Measure 9.2.2.which required compliance
potentially significant impact because fill is subject to with Geoteclmical Safety Element policies GEO-1. GEO-
settlement when buildings or other loads are placed on 1 GEO-3, GEO-6.and GEO-12 of the East of 101 Area
it. The inconsistency and instability of fill constitutes a Plan,to reduce the impact to a less than significant
potentially significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West level.
Cove Commercial Project.
Impact 9.2.3-Lateral Spreading Potential. The 2000 Mitigation Measure 9.2.3 -The 2000 Bay West Cove
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
identified lateral spreading as a potentially significant Mitigation Measure 9.2.3,which required compliance
impact that may be triggered by strong ground shaking with Policies GEO-7, GEO-8, GEO-9, GEO-10 and GEO-
or by liquefaction caused by strong ground shaking,due 11.to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
to presence of Young Bay Mud.
Impact 9.2.4—Liquefaction Potential.The 2000 Bay Mitigation 9.2.4-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Project Supplemental EIR identified Mitigation Measure
found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project 9.2.4.which required examination of the liquefaction
site could be susceptible to liquefaction during an potential for individual buildings,and compliance with
earthquake,undermining structures and resulting in a policies GEO-10 and GEO-I I.to reduce the impact to a
potentially significant impact. less than significant level.
Impact 9.3.1—Minor Potential for Damage due to No mitigation measures were required.
Ground Shaking.The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that
historic earthquakes have caused ground shaking at the
Bay West Cove site:therefore ground shaking should be
expected.Ho ever,the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that
compliance -ith the Uniform Building Code would
reduce the potential for damage,and the impact would
be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geology),';oils
Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:F-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.F-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 9.3.2-Minor Health and Safety Impacts due No mitigation measures were required.
to Dewatering during Construction.The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
identified that shallow groundwater is expected to be
present at the Bay West Cove site,and below grade
excavations would encounter groundwater and
necessitate dewatering.Ho ever,implementation of
Policy GEO-1 was found to address any potential
impacts,therefore the impact was determined to be less
than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Seismicity
There have been no changes in regional seismicity* since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California, on the
east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The nort iNvest trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity,
including the Santa.Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the
boundary beN,-een the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area
faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, Nvith lesser dip-slip (vertical)
components of displacement. Within 15 miles of the project site there are three major active faults that
display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas Fault, the San Gregorio Fault, and the
Havvmrd Fault.
The nearest knoN-,n active fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 3.5 miles (6 km)
southNvest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hay-ward Fault located 15 miles (24 km)
northeast, and the San Gregorio Fault (a.k.a. the Seal Cove Fault) located approximately 11 miles to the
southNvest. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside Fault, the trace of Nvhich passes
approximately 3 miles the southern portion of the project site. HoNvever, this fault is buried beneath
Holocene age hillslope deposits and Pleistocene age alluvium that have not been offset by fault
movements,therefore is not subject to development restrictions under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act.
Seismicity of the project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period,
including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake,the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently,the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake. According to ABAG, violent ground shaking, Modified Mercalli Intensity
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:F-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
(MMI) IX is possible in response to a large earthquake along the nearby San Andreas Fault. A major
rupture of the Hayward Fault is expected to produce strong ground shaking,MMI VIL'
Regional Geology
There have been no changes in regional geology since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The
site is located near the Nvestern margin of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast
Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northNvest trending mountain ranges and valleys
oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Tertian*
strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, Nvhich is composed of
Nveakly to strongly metamorphosed gre«vacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and
chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic)
deposits added onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of tectonic
processes. Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits overlay these deposits. Deposits of these
rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the project vicinity. Little metamorphosed,
high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there
are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix
Nvhich reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan.
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, Nvhich traverses the
Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City. Several northNvest trending and
structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula. During the Quaternary Period of rising
and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation these valleys Nvere repeatedly incised and
then backfilled Nvith sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the
Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene `Bay Mud" deposited during
the past 11,000 years, during Nvhich time the Bay has filled Nvith seaNvater, can be found, as Nvell as marsh
deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore.
Site History and Environmental Issues
For much of the 20"' century, the general area that includes the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
development site Nvas highly industrialized. Industrial facilities included a major steel production and
fabrication facility operated by Bethlehem Steel and steel fabrication plants operated by EdNvards Wire
Rope and the American Bridge Division of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation). The
Bethlehem and EdNvards Wire Rope facilities Nvere located immediately south of the project site on
property now knoN-,n as Gateway Center.
United States Steel (American Bridge Division) reportedly operated at the site from 1938 to 1978.
Buildings knoN-,n to have existed on site include a main pipe and steel fabrication building, paint and fuel
storage buildings, a blacksmith shop, machine shop, a dip kettle structure, and electrical substations. A
ship launch basin, sometimes referred to as the slot, is located in the center of the site and Nvas used for
'Association ofBayArea Governments(ABAG)Shabng Interzsio)flap for Future Earthquake Scenarios
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorzmerztallmpactReport Page IT:F-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
material loading and for a brief time during World War II as a cargo ship repair facility. A number of
above ground and below ground oil storage tanks Nvere also present on site.
All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt
roadwa-,Ts, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/knovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs
Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. HoNvever, if pile foundations Nvere used, there
may be remnants. Areas of the site have been re-graded to various degrees and several tens of thousands
cubic yards of construction debris (predominantly concrete and brick) have been placed on the site.
Recently, clean imported fill material has been stockpiled in selected areas of the site.
Site Subsurface Conditions
A geotechnical report Nvas prepared to reflect current site conditions, which have changed since the 1997
Bav West Cove Commercial Project, and specifically to address the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan project. The information in this section reflects the new information and changes in
circumstances since the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial ProjectEIR.
Treadwell & Rollo performed a geotechnical investigation for grading, surcharging and paving for this
site as Nvell as other parcels to the northeast in 2011.2 A total of 26 borings Nvere drilled at or near this site,
at the approximate locations. Of these, 19 Nvere drilled by Treadwell & Rollo using rotary-Nvash drilling
equipment and Nvere advanced to depths of about 9 to 60 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs),
respectively.
The borings indicate that the site is underlain by about 2 to 9 feet of fill although the fill may be thicker
due to grading operations after the borings Nvere drilled. The fill is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of
loose to medium dense sand and silt,Nvith some clay and gravel and occasional rubble. In 1997, as part of
remedial activities, soil Nvith hydrocarbon and lead concentrations above remediation levels Nvere
excavated and removed to several containment areas in the southern half of the project site. The lead
affected soil Nvas stabilized Nvith Portland Cement and placed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction. The soil contaminated Nvith hydrocarbons Nvas placed and compacted to 90 percent relative
compaction. In addition, several thousand cubic yards of imported crushed concrete Nvas placed in the
containment areas adjacent to the hydrocarbon-affected soil.
Plans called for concrete pieces to be less than 12 inches in size and Nvere mixed Nvith soil as they Nvere
placed. The thickness of the concrete layer Nvas approximately 2 feet. The fill is underlain by up to 12 feet
of soft, compressible marine clay knoN-,n localIv as Bav Mud. The thickness of the Bav Mud generally
thickens toward the northeast(in the direction toNvards the San Francisco Bay). Beneath the Bay Mud are
lavers of medium dense to very dense sand Nvith varying amounts of silt and clay and medium stiff to hard
clay, sandy clay and gravelly clay. GroundNvater Nvas measured at depths ranging from 1 to 6 feet bgs in
the borings discussed above. HoNvever, these depths Nvere measured during drilling and do not represent
stabilized ground Nvater levels. The full report is included as Appendix E.
Treadwell&Rollo, Geotechrzical Investigatiorz for Feasibilio)Evaluatiorz, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:F-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Due to on-site remediation of hazardous materials started in 1997, under cleanup orders issued by the
Regional Water Control Board in 1996, and the implementation of a Cap Maintenance
Program, the project site soil conditions have changed compared to the conditions analyzed in the 1997
Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR. As described above, the site undenvent cleanup to criteria suitable for commercial/industrial
development. The cleanup order Nvas rescinded in 2009 when the RWQCB concluded that no further
action at the site Nvas necessary pursuant to post cleanup groundNvater monitoring that demonstrated there
Nvere no significant groundwater impacts at the site.' In light of these changes to the project site
conditions since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the impact analysis and mitigation
measures for geology and soils are based on the current project site conditions.
Site Geology and Soils
As discussed above,the soils on the project site Nvere remediated after 1997. In addition,the project site is
subject to ongoing maintenance activities related to the soil cap. Therefore, although the project site
geology has not changed,the conditions of soils on the project site have changed since the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project.
According to a map of bedrock geology, Holocene/Quaternary aged deposits are located throughout out
the site.a The Quaternary Artificial (Qaf/tf) fill over tidal flat formation, characterized by clay, silt, sand,
rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris over tidal flats, cover the northern portion of the
project area, near the San Francisco Bay. The area in the middle portion of the project area is
characterized by artificial fill (Qaf), which is made up of Clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter,
and man—made debris, as described above. The southern portion of the project area is covered by Colma
Formation soils (Qc),which are characterized by friable Nvell sorted fine to medium sand containing a few
beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel. Project site and vicinity geology and soils are shoN-,n in Figure IV.F-1.
The exposed and surficial bedrock in the area is generally Cretaceous sandstone and shale of the
Franciscan Complete,Nvith some serpentine present.
Geotechnical studies in the area have shoN-,n that project area is largely constructed of fill soil that Nvas
placed during filling of the Bay during the last 150 years. Fill of unlcnoN-,n origin Nvas placed directly on
Bay Mud,in Nvetlands and other depressions, and sometimes directly on rock. The quality of the fill varies
considerably, as does the thickness although site-specific explorations of this and other sites have
provided some data. The reports by Treadwell & Rollo specific to this site describe less than 2 foot to
about 9 feet of fill consisting of sandy gravel that is medium dense to dense in consistency to clayey and
silty sand that is very loose to loose. Approximately 2 feet of contaminated soil near the area called the
slot(San Francisco Bay) Nvas removed to higher ground and the entire site Nvas capped Nvith 2 to 5 feet of
3 Treadwell&Rollo, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Cove. 2011.
Bonilla, -ll G. Preliminary Geologic Alap of the Sari Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle acid part of the Hnaiter's
Point 7.5'Quadrangle Sari Francisco Bay Area, California. Plot derived from USGS Open-File Report 98-354.
1998
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequent Environnien tal Impact Report Page If:F-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
clean fill. These reports also indicate that some of the fill Nvas placed recently and may have been spread
from mounds of fill dumped on site.'
Landsliding and Slope Stability
Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and
bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of
Nvealc soil and/or bedrock. The site is relatively flat, ranging in elevation from 6 feet above mean sea level
near the slot to 10 to 14 feet near the southwest corner of the site; therefore landslide risk at the project
site is low, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site conditions.
Expansive Soils
As described above, soil conditions on the project site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project. Soil expansion is a phenomenon in which clay and silt soils expand in volume as a
result of an increase in moisture content, and shrink in volume upon drying. Changes in soil volume as a
result of moisture fluctuations, including seasonal fluctuations, can cause damage to concrete slabs,
foundations and pavements. Expansive soils are generally identified by use of soil tests. According to
Treadwell &Rollo 2011 geotechnical assessment,the site is underlain by about 2 to 9 feet of fill although
the fill may be thicker due to grading operations after the geotech borings Nvere drilled. The fill is
heterogeneous, consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silt, Nvith some clay and gravel
and occasional rubble. Therefore, expansive soils are of minor concern on the site.
Primary Seismic Hazards— Surface Fault Rupture
There have been no changes in primary seismic hazards since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Nvas evaluated. A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region.
According to criteria of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface
rupture Nvithin the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults Nvith displacement
Nvithin Quaternary time — the last 1.6 million years). According to the program, active faults must be
zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones investigated to establish the location
and age of any faulting across the development site. Active and potentially active faults along the San
Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results
from many of these studies to quantiA- the potential impact to certain areas, while the California
Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries. According to these maps,
the proposed development is not located Nvithin an EFZ.
The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest of the site.
The Hillside Fault is mapped as passing through the southern portion of the site (See Figure IV.F-1).
HoNvever, this fault has not shoN-,n evidence of rupture in at least the last 2 million years, and is not
Treadwell arzdRolo, 1990a,19901).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
considered at risk of surface rupture, therefore the risk of ground rupture Nvithin the project boundaries is
considered very low.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Ground Shaking
Although there have been no changes to ground shaking potential in the vicinity of the project site since
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, new information regarding shaking potential and
probability Nvas published by ABAG and is analyzed in this document. The San Francisco Bay Area is a
seismically active region. The project site and region Nvill likely be subjected to strong to violent
seismically induced ground shaking Nvithin the design life of the development.
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
(WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 63
percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater Nvill strike between 2007 and
2037. 6
The intensity of ground shaking Nvill vary Nvith the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the
ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site Nvould be a
Modified Mercalli Intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of equivalent magnitude to
the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas Fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Ha---Nvard
fault Nvould be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to Modified Mercalli Intensity VII.'
6 The Unzifornn C'alif)niia Earthquake Rupture Forecast, I-ersion 2, 2007 TTorking Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities, 2008. obtained fronn http: pubs.usgs.gov'of 2007'1437'
Association ofBayArea Governnnents, u�u�u�.aha�.cayov, 2005.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft,SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page IT:F-8
Qaf Qm 0 500 ,000 2,000
c-
Feet
1
G UCJ\\\ \ / I _ Qaf
Qaf
1
Q !�\\„ --- Qaf
uU
tf
. .
Qaf
Qm z \ KJsk
j � � d �sk af/
Q
i � ,�lpf/� ,^a Qaf/fit — -
aft/�
Qsr
r s Qa
� � 1 C � � ♦ �Q � � Raf Qsr
Qsr
QC
a\"
V
y Qsr _ Qaf
J
/Q_, -
G = Qaf
a ,..
Qsr af/tf_��tl i�J , �..i ;y Q
\
of
QC
KJu
Jr
1 c � `v \
Qa
Qaf
y 9 KJS �� �� {Us-
`wu
^^" �` ."✓ '""_."^�"���"'*,,. -. - � {�. Qsr
yf Geology _]Qc Colma Formation
In northwest and central parts of area
of Water friable well sorted fine to medium sand
containing a few beds of sandy silt,clay,
�\q /, \ QUATERIARYHolocene and gravel.In southeast part of area,mostly
Qaf:Artificial fill sandy clay and silty sand;yellowish orange to gray.
—Clay,silt,sand,rock fragments,organic matter, CRETACEOUS AND JURASSIC Franciscan Complex and associated rocks
° and man-made debris.
\ - Q
KJu:Sheared rocks:Franciscan Complex
af/tf:Artificial fill overtidal flat
Small to large fragments of hard rock in matrix
Qsr Clay,silt,sand,rock fragments,organic matter, of sheared rock.Matrix generally coherent and
and man-made debris,placed overtidal flats. firm,but soft in places,especially where weathered.
e * Qafs:Artificial fill,Native American shellmound Dark gray where fresh,yellowish brown where
Dark silty to sandy soil containing shell fragments weathered.Derived mostly from shale and sandstone
and rare intact shells. of Franciscan Complexand serpentine.
a - Qal:Alluvium KJc:Chert:Franciscan Complex
Mostly sand and silt but locally contains clay,gravel, Hard chert interbedded with firm shale;
\ or boulders;generally gray to brown. chert layers generally two or three inches
° thick,shale layers less than one inch thick;
Qb:Beach deposits generally grayish red.
Predominantly well sorted medium-grained loose gray sand;
locally consists of sand,gravel and cobbles. KJs:Sandstone and shale:Franciscan complex
Interbedded sandstone and shale,hard where
\ QI:Landslide deposits fresh and intact,soft where weathered or sheared.
Composition and structure depend on the geologic Commonly medium dark gray where fresh,olive gray
Qaf/tf formation involved and type of landslide. to yellowish brown where moderately weathered,
Qm:Bay mud and yellowish orange to yellowish gray where highly weathered.
Soft(moist)to firm(dry)clay and silt;locally contains sp:Chert:Franciscan Complex
shell fragments,plant remains,and thin beds of sand. Hard to soft,generally greenish gray;
Pleistocene contains small bodies of grabbro and diabase.
KJsk:Sandstone and shale:Franciscan Complex
Qaf/tf tt Qsr:Slope debris and ravine fill Sandstone generally containing more than two percent
/ Stony silty to sandy clay;locally silty to clayey sand potassium feldspar.
m
Qaf or gravel;yellowish-orange to medium gray,
unstratified or poorly stratified.Where it overlies KJg:Cheat:Franciscan Complex
the Merced or Colma Formation it is commonly a silty to clayey sand,or gravel Altered volcanic rocks,fine grained,mostly basalt;
qaf/tf hard where fresh,butweathered and firm to soft in
Source:Bonilla,1998,Geologic Map of the South San Francisco7.5' most exposures;commonly grayish olive to moderate
Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5'Quadrangle,US Geological. olive gray where moderately weathered,dark yellowish
f/tf•r'-e "" :-w..., orange to light brown where highly weathered.
m ° Im Im City of South San Francisco
I I Figure IV.F-1
u Ip I Britannia Coua�at Oilstcr Point
Projcct Sitc Gcohoay
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Peale ground accelerations for the site Nvith a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-Near period
are approximately 59 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (g).$ Actual ground motions resulting from
ground acceleration may be amplified or dampened depending on the underlying geologic materials. Deep
soft soils tend to ampliA- Nvaves whereas shallow soils overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking
intensity. With relatively dense soils at the project site,no amplification of seismic waves is anticipated.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
There have been no changes in soil liquefaction and lateral spreading potential at the site since the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project, although new information regarding these conditions has been
published by ABAG and is analyzed in this document.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences a temporary loss
of strength during strong cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by earthquakes. Soil types most
susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, and uniformly graded, fine-grained sand and non-
plastic silt. The consequences of liquefaction include ground surface settlement, sand boils, and lateral
spreading. Previous test borings encountered isolated zones of loose, potentially liquefiable sand at the
site. The loose sand is generally Nvithin 10 feet of the ground surface. According to ABAG liquefaction
potential at the site is very high on the northeaster portion of the project site, adjacent to the Bay and
Veterans Boulevard, low in the center portion of the site, and very low for the southern portion of the site
adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard.
Lateral spreading is a failure Nvithin a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction), Nvhich
causes the overlying soil mass to move toNvard a free face or doN-,n a gentle slope. According to Treadwell
&Rollo, because the potentially liquefiable sand lavers are generally thin and discontinuous, the potential
for lateral spreading is low.'°
Differential Compaction
Due to placement of fill soil at the site as part of soil remediation activities, the potential for differential
settlement at the project site is likely different that that analyzed for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project. During an earthquake compaction settlement can occur in loose and medium-dense sand and
gravel. Compaction settlement occurs when non-saturated sand is densified by earthquake vibrations.
Sand above the Nvater table at the project site is loose to dense and may undergo minor densification
during a major earthquake.
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground
shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
s C alif)niia Geologic Survey, htt): CGS i°llun.I)shrnnal) UShanzain.htnzl.
9 Association ofBayArea Governnrerzts, u�u�u�.aha�.cayov, 2005
10 Treadwell&Rollo, Geoteclnzical Irrvestigatiorz for Feasibilio)Evaluation, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:F--10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Commercial Project, the likelihood of landslides at the project site is relatively small due to the flat
topography of the site.
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and
are reflected in this section.
Federal
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I (General Construction Activity
Stormwater Permit)
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance Nvith an NPDES Permit
describes the project site, erosion and sediment controls, runoff Nvater quality monitoring,means of Nvaste
disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion
control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non stormwater management controls.
Dischargers are required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify stormwater
discharge from construction activity, and to identIA-and implement controls Nvhere necessary.
State
California Buildin6 Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also lcnoN-,n as the California Building Standards Code,
sets minimum requirements for building design and construction. The 2010 version of the California
Building Standards Code are effective as of January 1, 2011. The California Building Standards Code is a
compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building
standards contained in national model codes;
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code
standards to meet California conditions; and
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive
additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular
California concerns."
In the context of earthquake hazards, the California Building Standards Code's design standards have a
primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and
maintaining function during and folloNving seismic events. The 2010 version of the California Building
Standards Code differs significantly from the previous versions of the code. The 2010 code assigns a
seismic design category (SDC) to each structure. The SDC is assigned as a means of capturing both the
" California Building Standards Commission��ebsite athtt�:`inni%bsc.ca.yov title 2-1 defardt.httn
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IT:F--11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
seismic hazard, in terms of mapped acceleration parameters (spectral values), site class (defining the soil
profile), and the occupancy category (based on its importance or hazardous material contents). The SDC
affects design and detailing requirements as Nvell as the structural system that may be used and its height.
The previous versions of the code captured these requirements simply based on the location's seismic
zone and proximity to active faults.12
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 to mitigate the
hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. 13 The Act's main purpose is to prevent the
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act
addresses oniv the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toNvard other earthquake hazards.
Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before
a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the city or county Nvith
jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings Nvould not be
constructed across active or potentially active faults.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2690-
2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically
induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may
Nvithhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and
mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated Nvith seismicity and unstable
soils. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act became effective in 1991 to identify and map seismic hazard
zones for the purpose of assisting cities and counties in preparing the safety elements of their general
plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations that reduce seismic hazards. The
intent of this Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction,
landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, the California Geological
Survey's Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects
in designated zones of required investigations.
Local
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction
Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California
Bonneville, David -ew Building Code Provisions and Their Inrphcatiorzs for Design arzd Corzstructiorz ill
Calif)ni is (abstract), 2007, ob tairzed front
httU.' cls smij docti senzirrar.SAIIP07 Pages Paper12 Borureville.asjxy
13 California Division of-Wines arid Geology, 1997 revision, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, DlIG
Special Publication 42.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:F--12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San Francisco. The
California Building Code Vol. I and 2, 2010 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2010
Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the
amendments, additions and deletions set forth in Title 15 Nvas adopted by reference as the building code of
the City of South San Francisco on January 1, 2011.
City of South San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City by resolution 65-2006, on August 16,
2006, and annexed in 2010. The HMP has been designed to identifv the areas Nvhere people or structures
may have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, Nvildland fires, and other natural hazards. The Plan
identifies policies and actions that may be implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of life
and property damage in these areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes,floods,Nvildland
fires and landslides in terms of frequency,intensity,location,history, and damage effects. The Plan serves
as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of natural hazards.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Update
The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic
Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San
Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update Nvas completed in October 1999.
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Health and Safety Element contains policies designed to
minimize the risks associated Nvith development in areas of seismic hazards. As such, the South San
Francisco General Plan, Health and Safety Element, has set forth specific guidelines Nvith respect to site
treatment and building design and the unique geological hazards of the area. The South San Francisco
General Plan,Health and Safety Element,policies are as follows:
Policy 8.1-I-1: Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools and other
structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in
areas identified in Figure 8-2.
Polio* 8.1-I-2: Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their
natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the
greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum.
Implementing Policies 8.1-I-1 and 8.1-I-2 refer to Figure 8-2 (General Plan Policies for Seismically
Sensitive Lands), of the South San Francisco General Plan,Health and Safety Element.
East of 101 Area Plan
In 1994 the City of South San Francisco adopted the East of 101 Plan Nvith the overall goal of recognizing
the unique character of the East of 101 Area and to guide and regulate development in a manner which
protects and enhances the area's physical, economic and natural resources, while also encouraging
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
appropriate development in the area. As such, the East of 101Area Plan Chapter 10, Geotechnical Safety
Element, has set forth specific policies Nvith respect to site treatment and building design and the unique
geological hazards of the area. The East of 101 Area Geotechnical Safety Element policies are as follows:
GEO-1 The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on a project-by
project basis on sites in areas of fill shoN-,n on Figure 17 (of the East of 101 Area
Plan), and shall require such investigations Nvhere needed.
GEO-2 Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design
and construct appropriate foundations.
GEO-3 Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and Nvaste disposal purposes,
investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs
shall be conducted by project developers to determine if landfills exist under the
project site prior to construction.
GEO-4 Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal
safely Nvith gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic
soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of
existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried
garbage.
GEO-5 If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered it shall be
appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material
shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. HoNvever, other uses may
be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if the fill has a high organic
content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be
properly disposed off-site.
GEO-6 Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers
shall design and construct appropriate foundations.
GEO-7 New slopes greater then 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or
created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and
should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional
load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe
of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration
shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer.
GEO-8 The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the
likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be
protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative
cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved or other parts of the
slope shall be directed away from the slope.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--14
00)of S'out/Sari Francisco April 201;
GEO-9 Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural
state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the
greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum.
GEO-10 In fill areas mapped on Figure 17 (of the East of 101 Area Plan), a geotechnical
investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the
possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer
before development.
GEO-11 Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated Nvith liquefaction.
GEO-12 Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to
the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice, which
specIA- procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on
structures.
GEO-13 Development Nvithin the preliminary boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area,
as depicted on Figure 15 (of the East of 101 Area Plan), shall be revieNved by a
geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual
development sites Nvhere feasible and determined necessary by the engineer. No
structure for human occupancy shall occur Nvithin 50 feet of identified active
faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active
branches of that fault underlie the surface.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
As described in the introduction section, sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the local
geology and geologic risks on the project site included City of South San Francisco plans and policies,
geotechnical reports for property conducted in 2011 by Treadwell & Rollo, USGS Maps, review of
government Nvebsites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) website.'-' A new
geotechnical report Nvas prepared to identIA- and analyze site specific geology and soils risk associated
Nvith the project compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. As outlined in the Site
Subsurface Conditions section, the project site has changed since preparation of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The project site changes are reflected in the new geotechnical
report, cap maintenance reports, and a Phase I environmental assessment. In addition, updated
information regarding earthquake risks developed by ABAG has been provided.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is a
significant adverse impact. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of impacts is Nvhether construction
of the project Nvill create, or be founded, on unstable geologic conditions that Nvould last beyond the short-
term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is primarily based on the degree to Nvhich the
14
-----.abal.lov
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--1 5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
site geology could produce hazards to people, structures, and the environment from earthquakes, fault
rupture,landslides, soil creep, expansion and settlement or other geologic events.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant
impacts from geology and soils if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
0 Rupture of a knoNsn earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a knoNsn fault.
0 Strong seismic ground shaking.
0 Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction and landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that Nvould become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property.
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternate waste Nvater
disposal systems where seNvers are not available for the disposal of Nvaste Nvater.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance
as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR, Nvhich differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR standards of significance included questions
regarding deNvatering and ground Nvater quality-, Nvhich are now discussed in Section IV.H Hydrology and
Water Quality of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Further, the 2013 Draft Subsequent EIR includes discussion
of soil erosion, expansive soils and septic tanks that Nvere not included in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geology))Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant geology and soils impacts or a substantial increase in
the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. This Draft Subsequent
EIR provides new mitigation measures consistent Nvith the revised geotechnical report; these equally
effective mitigation measures replace those provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts
from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.F-1: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death in>>oh ing rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map.
Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate impacts related to the Alquist-
Priolo Zone, it did state that no active faults traverse the Bav West Cove site; therefore, the impact of the
proposed project Nvould be similar to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and according to the latest available fault maps,
the site is not contained Nvithin an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic
maps show the Hillside Fault near project site; however this fault shows no evidence of activity for at
least the past 2 million Nears. Therefore rupture of a knoN-,n earthquake fault has no impact on the project
and no mitigation measures are required.
The proposed project Nvould not result in an increase in the severity of impacts related to active faults
compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.F--2: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse ef'f'ects, including the risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh�ing exposure to strong seismic ground
shaking.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR noted that the Ba-T West Cove Project
area is subject to periodic, strong seismic ground shaking, similar to the findings of this document. The
proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and there is a high
probability that the proposed development Nvould be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from
an earthquake during its design life,which is considered a potentially significant impact.
HoNvever,the City requires that all plans for buildings on the project site adhere to the requirements of the
California Building Code provisions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. In
addition, the City requires that all foundation engineering and construction performed during all
construction phases shall be in accordance Nvith the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or
Civil Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural
engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the
East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. As development occurs on the project site over
Phases 1 through 3, the City of South San Francisco Building Division Nvould inspect construction during
development to ensure it meets the current requirements existing at each phase of the project.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, due to existing City codes and regulations, this
impact Nvould be less than significant and the project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or
an increase in the severity of impacts related to ground shaking.
Impact IV.F-3: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death in>>oh ing potential seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the potential for seismically
induced liquefaction and landslides at the Bav West Cove Project site. According to the geotechnical
report prepared by Treadwell &Rollo for the proposed project in 2011, the likelihood of liquefaction and
landslides at the project site is considered to be low. ABAG found the potential of liquefaction on the
northern side of the project site, bordered by the Bay, to be ven- high Nvith the rest of the site at low risk.
The fill underlying the site is anticipated to be erratic in nature, and erratic settlement of shallow
foundations bearing in the fill has the potential occur. Therefore, additional settlement resulting from
liquefaction could occur on the project site during a major earthquake. Landsliding unrelated to lateral
spreading is not likely at this project site because of the level topography.
As stated in the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the risk of additional settlement resulting
from liquefaction Nvould be reduced by the use of a deep foundation system consisting of driven piles or
auger cast displacement piles, such as driven precast, prestressed, 14-inch-square concrete piles and
proprietary piles such as auger-cast displacement piles (ACDPs). The City Nvould require that building
plans for all phases of the project adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report and Nvould
review all plans for compliance Nvith the requirements of the California Building Code provisions as
adopted by the City of South San Francisco, prior to project approval. Due to existing Cit_T codes and
regulations,the impact from seismic ground failure Nvould be less than significant.
This impact Nvas considered significant for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The mitigation
provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included compliance Nvith
City General Plan policies requiring the preparation of a Geotechnical Report and implementation of
recommended measures. These actions are incorporated into the current project description;therefore,this
impact is less than significant and the project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an
increase in the severity of impacts identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR for this impact are no longer required.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--18
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.F-4: The proposed project would not be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or (?11-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The likelihood of landslides at this project site is relatively small because of the flat topography, which
has not changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Landslides are
also unlikely here because the area appears to be underlain by bedrock that is part of the ridge extending
from San Bruno Mountain. The applicant may propose to construct a high retaining Nvall adjacent to the
proposed parking garage. Landslides are not likely in any fill slopes to be constructed as part of the
project because no high fills are planned.
Differential Settlement
Changes in subsurface conditions have taken place at the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Nvas evaluated. Based on reviews of the available subsurface information, as provided
in the 2011 geotechnical report, it is anticipated that primary consolidation of the Bay Mud layer beneath
the site is essentially complete. HoNvever, ground surface settlement is still expected to occur under the
existing loads due to secondary compression of the Bay Mud layer. Treadwell & Rollo estimate
secondary compression settlement over the next 50 Nears could range from about '/4 to %inch Nvhere the
Bav Mud laver is 5 to 10 feet thick respectively. Secondary compression Nvould occur even if no new fill
is added to the site. Further, placement of new fill at the site Nvould begin a new cycle of consolidation
settlement in the Bav Mud. The amount of differential settlement that Nvould occur at the site due to new
fill loads Nvould depend on the differences in thickness of new fill and the Bay Mud layer and the
properties of the Bay Mud.
Differential settlement is also expected to occur due to liquefaction-induced settlement. If grades are
raised, the ground surface around the perimeter of the buildings may settle several inches relative to
buildings supported on deep foundations due to consolidation of the underlying Bay Mud. Liquefaction-
induced settlement after an earthquake Nvould add to this subsidence. Therefore the impact of differential
settlement could be potentially significant at the site.
The City requires that all foundation engineering and construction performed during all construction
phases shall be in accordance Nvith the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil
Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer
experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Further, the City
Nvould review plans for buildings for Phases 1 through 3 to adhere to the requirements of the California
Building Code provisions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California.
Further, Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2 govern placement of structures on fill soils. These policies call for
geotechnical investigations specific to the proposed construction, foundation design specific to fill
conditions, and structural requirements for buildings to be constructed on fill. The City requires that these
policies be met for each structure on the site and construction phase; the remediation site borings and
studies done for the Conceptual Remedial Action Plan (2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--19
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Supplemental EIR) do not remove the requirement to conduct site specific geotechnical reports, therefore
site specific investigations Nvould have to be performed.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project's potential for differential settlement
is apotentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV. F-4.1 Construction measures for differential settlement
The project applicant shall implement the folloNving mitigation measures during project design. The City
shall review plans for all project phases for compliance Nvith these measures, prior to issuance of building
permits.
Building
Building floor slabs shall be structurally supported (span between deep foundations) and entry Nvalk Nvays
shall be hinge slabs to reduce the potential for differential movement at the building entries. Flexible
connections shall be used for utilities Nvhere they connect to buildings. Within the building footprint, it
Nvould likely be necessary to hang the utilities from the structural slab. Away from the building, the
design of gravity-floNv utility lines would take the potential for future settlement into account. Periodic
maintenance Nvould be required to raise site grades and/or re-level the slabs and replace flexible
connections for utilities over the life of the buildings.
Sanitary SeNver and Storm Svstem
The thickness of Bav Mud varies beneath the existing sanitary seNver and storm drain lines that cross the
site. If grades are raised, differential settlement Nvould likely be induced across the alignment. HoNvever,
the impact of these settlements is unknoN-,n at this time, and Nvould be evaluated at the time of site specific
geotechnical studies. Therefore, the project applicant shall submit an evaluation by a Civil Engineer that
recommends measures to ensure that the existing sanitary seNver and storm drain lines Nvould not be
impacted by the project construction. Measures Nvould be tailored for submittal after site specific
evaluations.
Foundations
A deep foundation system consisting of driven piles or auger cast displacement piles are the most
appropriate method for support of the proposed buildings and floor slabs. Piles should gain support
primarily in end bearing in dense sand and below the Bay Mud. The pile types considered for this project
are driven precast, prestressed, 14-inch-square concrete piles and proprietary piles such as auger-cast
displacement piles (ACDPs).
Floor Slab
Because of the potential settlements associated Nvith consolidation of the Bay Mud, building floor slab
shall be structurally supported beN,-een grade beams and piles caps. Although the ground is expected to
settle, it Nvould be in contact Nvith the floor slab for some time. If Nvater vapor transmission through the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
floor slab is undesirable (e.g., Nvhere floor covering Nvould be placed), a capillary moisture break and a
Nvater vapor retarder may be installed beneath the floor. A capillary moisture break shall consist of at least
four inches of clean, free-draining gravel or crushed rock.
Before the floor covering is placed, the contractor shall check that the concrete surface and the moisture
emission levels (if emission testing is required)meet the manufacturer's requirements. If over-excavation
is required to install the capillary moisture break, but over-excavation is undesirable because of the
presence of contaminated soil, then a Nvaterproofing membrane could be used in lieu of a capillary
moisture break.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 and adherence to state and City codes outlined
above (Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2, CA Building Code)the potential impact of differential settlement due
to unstable soil and seismic hazards Nvould be substantialIv loNvered and this impact Nvould be less than
significant.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1
Nvould reduce all impacts to a less than significant level, and the project Nvould not result in any new
significant impacts or an increase in severitY of impacts. Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 Nvould replace
Mitigation Measures 9.2.2, 9.23 and 9.2.4, which Nvere identified for the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, and the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR mitigation
measures are no longer necessary as they are now part of the project design.
Impact IV.F--5: The proposed project would result in soil erosion.
All construction phases of the project Nvould involve mass grading in an ecologically sensitive area near
the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading Nvould disturb soil and displace any topsoil that
could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and Nvould eventually impact the Bay. This Nvould be a
potentially significant impact during site construction activities for undeveloped areas during Phase 1 and
during construction of Phase 2 and 3. The project applicant Nvould ensure that dust, erosion, and pollution
control measures including soil stabilization techniques and other best management practices would be
folloNved during construction activities to reduce the potential for loose soils impacting nearby drainages.
The City requires an Erosion Control Plan be submitted in conjunction Nvith the Grading Permit
Application for all phases of the project. The Plan is required to include winterization, dust, erosion and
pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures, Nvith sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan is required to
describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control
pollution resulting from both storm and construction Nvater runoff. Further, along Nvith the Grading Plan a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required as part of the application process. The
SWPPP is required to include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required
to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated Nvith Construction
Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Project impacts on soil erosion could be potentially
significant due to construction activities at the site. These impacts Nvould be not be any greater than under
the 2000 Bav West Cove Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--21
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.1 Soil Erosion
A Soils Management Plan (SMP) Nvas prepared for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site
(Geologica, 2000). This SNIP covers the previous development plan proposed as part of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Specific Plan. The SNIP shall be modified to correspond Nvith the proposed project and the
new soil conditions on site. Prior to commencement of the proposed project grading, the project applicant
shall submit to the City and the all other responsible agencies an updated or new SNIP to accommodate
the new development. These modifications Nvould be subject to review and approval by the SF Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The updated or new SNIP Nvill address the folloNving elements
associated Nvith the proposed project:
• the order of building construction and staging of soil;
• soil management in areas of proposed grading and development of the project site;
• soil volumes generated by the proposed project;
• confirmation of Nvhether the originally proposed contaminated soil placement area in the
southNvest corner of the project site (below the parking garage) can be accommodated based on
final site grades; and
• revised monitoring methods to address small particulate monitoring which may be required in
accordance Nvith Section IV. C, Air Quality.
Adherence to existing City codes and implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.17-5.1 Nvould ensure that
soils disturbed during construction would not be mobilized by either storm- or construction-related
runoff,reducing the impact of soil erosion to a level of less than significant.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of
expansive soils, and as described previously, soil conditions on the project site have changed since 2000.
This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
Impact IV.F--6: The proposed project would be located on expansive soils.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of
expansive soils, and as described previously, soil conditions on the project site have changed since 2000.
This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 (-'EQA Guidelines.
The geotechnical investigation performed by Treadwell and Rollo did not identify expansive material in
the sand and sand Nvith clay native site soils. HoNvever,the report identified fill material in the project area
that may have expansive properties. This impact Nvould be mitigated through adherence to foundation,
pavement and slabs on grade design recommendations put forth in the Geotechnical Reports prepared for
each phase of the project as well as adherence to City policies and adopted building codes, as discussed in
Impacts IV.F-1 through F-5. Incorporation of the measures as specified in the Geotechnical Report Nvould
reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--22
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.F--7: The proposed project is not located in an area where soils are incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternate waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
aiwilable for the disposal of waste water:
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of septic
systems, but the prior project Nvas also expected to connect to the sanitary seNver system. This impact is
analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
The project Nvould be connected to the existing sanitary seNver system and alternate waste Nvater disposal
systems Nvould be unnecessary. Therefore,there is no impact and no mitigation measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Geotechnical impacts related to future development in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco Nvould involve hazards associated Nvith site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground-
shaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site Nvould be specific to that site and its users and
Nvould not be common or contribute to (or be shared Nvith, in an additive sense)the impacts on other sites.
In addition, development on each site Nvould be subject to uniform site development and construction
standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, similar to the cumulative impact finding in
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, cumulative geology and soils impacts
Nvould be less than significant.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.F-
4.1 and IV.17-5.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to
geology and soils to a less than significant level and there Nvould be no new significant impacts or
increase in severity of impacts as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--23
00)of S'out/Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank.
2072184.1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geology))Soils
Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:F--24
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
G. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes the potential adverse impacts on human health and the
environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions that could be encountered as a result of
implementation of the proposed project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on hazardous materials of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new
significant hazardous material impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba_T
West Cove Commercial Project, due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap, the proposed project
Nvould not result in any new significant hazardous materials or substantial changes in the severity of the
previously identified impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
the proposed project Nvould result in one potentially significant impact, Nvhich after mitigation Nvould
become less than significant. A new mitigation measure is designed as part of the proposed project to
account for the more stringent 2013 CEQA Guidelines and the new site conditions and supersedes the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures. For a summary of impacts from the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
For the purposes of this analysis, hazardous materials include inorganic and organic chemicals and
products containing such substances as defined by California laws and regulations. Potential effects
include those associated Nvith contaminated sites and the potential exposure to hazardous materials used,
stored,transported, or disposed of during construction activities or project operations. Potential impacts to
Nvater quality from construction-related surface Nvater runoff that could contain hazardous materials and/or
from groundNvater deNvatering during construction or operation of the proposed project are discussed in
Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to toxic air contaminants that could be emitted during
operation of the project are discussed in Section IV.0 Air Quality. Seismic activit�T that poses a potential
hazard to the project site is discussed in Section IVT Geology and Soils. A regulatory frameNvork is also
provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) information
provided by the project applicants; (2) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project site, dated
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft SubsequentEnvironnzentallnzpactReport Page IT:G-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
March 3, 2011, prepared by Treadwell & Rollo; (3) Deed Restriction for the project site; (4) Cap
Maintenance Plan for the Cove Property (project site), dated December 3, 2007, prepared by Iris
Environmental; (5) an Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Radius Map Report Nvith GeoCheck of
hazardous materials sites located Nvithin a half-mile of the project site; (6) Geotechnical reports completed
by Treadwell &Rollo,2011.
A comment letter regarding hazards Nvas received from the San Francisco International Airport in
response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The letter
found that the project is compatible Nvith the San Francisco International Land Use Plan, and that FAA
notification is required for a No Hazards Determination. The NOP and comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the hazardous materials and
hazard-related impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create one significant
adverse impact to human health and two less than significant impacts. The significant impact to human
health Nvould be reduced to a less than significant impact if it Nvere to comply Nvith the recommended
mitigation measures.
Table IV.G-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact(10.2.2)Exposure of Sensitive Receptors, Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 Exposure of Sensitive
Including Construction Workers.The 2000 Bay West Receptors,Including Construction Workers -The
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
that based on the 2000 environmental conditions at the EIR identified Mitigation Measure 10.2.2.which
site,the only significant adverse impact will be from required the implementation of a Soil Management Plan,
potential exposure to the lead contaminated soil in which shall include a section dedicated to Health and
Planning Area 1 during the construction activities related Safety that will address,as appropriate to this project,
to the project development.Upon completion of the issues related to the project to reduce the exposure of
construction activities,the project will no longer have a humans to hazardous materials. The impact would be
significant impact as the entire site will be capped.The reduced to less than significant with implementation of
potential to encounter lead during construction phases Mitigation Measure 10.2.2.
creates the potentially significant adverse impact.
Impact 10.3.1-Minor Hazard Associated with No mitigation measures were required.
Handling of Contaminated Groundwater.The 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
identified that if construction dewatering is required for
site development,contaminated groundwater would
have to be appropriately handled and discharged to
minimize adverse effects to construction workers and the
euviromnent. This would not be a significant impact
because the project would have to comply with the site-
specific Health and Safety requirements in the Soil
Management Pl,thus the impact would be less than
significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If G. Hazards Hazardous1aterials
Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:G-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.G-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 10.3.2-Minor Potential Contamination No mitigation measures were required.
Associated with Pile Driving.The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Pile found
that pile support is required for certain project structures
located in areas where soil contamination remains. The
potential for downward migration of contaminants is
considered a less than significant impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Site History
As described in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the project site Nyas historically used for industrial purposes,
which resulted in total lead and hydrocarbon soil contamination issues. As a result of these contamination
issues,the RWQCB issued a cleanup order in 1996 and established cleanup requirements for the site. The
cleanup order did not require groundwater remediation because very* few contaminants Nvere detected in
the groundwater prior to issuance of the cleanup order. HoNvever, the Order did require post-remediation
groundwater monitoring.
In response to the 1996 cleanup order issued by the RWQCB, subsurface conditions Nvere characterized
and a cleanup Nyas conducted at the project site in 1997. The RWQCB found that subsurface groundwater
conditions, based on eight quarters of post-remediation groundwater monitoring at the project site,
indicated no significant groundwater quality impacts and concluded that no further action Nvas required.'
In addition, the RWQCB oversaw the cleanup to ensure it Nyas conducted to criteria suitable for
commercial/industrial uses and rescinded the order in 2009.2 The project site cleanup included placing
soil containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and total lead, and crushed concrete at
the project site and covering them Nvith two feet of clean soil cover. The hydrocarbon placement areas and
the lead placement area are located in the southwest area of the project site.
As part of a Deed Restriction placed on the project site, land uses on the site are restricted to commercial
and industrial uses and must adhere to a Soil Management Plan. In addition, the Deed Restriction requires
ongoing inspections and maintenance of the two feet of clean soil cover as described in the Site Cap
Maintenance Plan for the site.' A Soil Management Plan that includes the project site Nvas prepared in
Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,Sari Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011.
Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011.
3 Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1Iaterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
2000 and approved by the RWQCB in February 2001. In 2007, a Cap Maintenance Plan for the project
site Nvas developed to formalize the repair and subsequent periodic monitoring for the clean soil cover
("cap") at the project site until redevelopment of the site occurs. The project site currently is vacant and
undeveloped Nvith the exception of the sanitary seNver pump station.
The project site is not listed on any of the hazardous material release site databases, including those
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List), searched through an
Environmental Data Resources Inc. records search.
Site Subsurface Conditions
The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR are due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap in 2007, which included fill soil importation,
surface grading, and compaction. The site subsurface condition discussion is based on the new
geotechnical investigation conducted by Treadwell &Rollo in 2011.
Treadwell &Rollo previously performed a geotechnical investigation for grading, surcharging and paving
for this site as Nvell as other parcels to the northeast.' The borings indicate that the site is underlain by
about 2 to 9 feet of fill although the fill may be thicker due to grading operations after the borings Nvere
drilled. The fill is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silt, Nvith some
clay and gravel and occasional rubble. In 1997 as part of remedial activities, soil and hydrocarbon and
lead concentrations above remediation levels Nvere excavated and removed to several containment areas in
the southern half of the site. The lead affected soil Nvas stabilized Nvith Portland Cement and placed and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The soil contaminated Nvith hydrocarbons Nvas
placed and compacted to 90 percent. In addition, several thousand cubic yards of imported crushed
concrete Nvas placed in the containment areas adjacent to the hydrocarbon-affected soil. Plans called for
concrete pieces to be less than 12 inches in size and Nvere mixed Nvith soil as they Nvere placed. The
thickness of the concrete layer Nvas approximately 2 feet.
Groundwater Nvas measured at depths ranging from 1 to 6 feet bgs in the borings discussed above.
HoNvever, these depths Nvere measured during drilling and do not represent stabilized ground Nvater levels.
The full geotechnical report is included as Appendix E.
Vicinity Hazardous Material Sites
There are numerous hazardous materials sites throughout the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco,
reflecting the long and intense industrial history of the area. The Phasel Environmental Site Assessment
prepared for the project site includes information for hazardous materials historically associated Nvith the
Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project site and, as typical for a Phase 1, a records review of
sites in the vicinity of the project site. The direction of groundNvater flows is northerly toNvards San
Francisco Bay; therefore, areas directly to the south of the project site across Oyster Point Boulevard are
Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California Alarch 3, 2011.
Treadwell&Rollo, Geotecluzical Investigation for FeasibiliO)Evaluation, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:G-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
upgradient of the site. The three sites that Nvere historically associated Nvith the Bay West Cove
Commercial Development Project site, which included the current project site, Nvere: 103, 105, and 159
Oyster Point Boulevard. The 103 Oyster Point Boulevard site had two underground storage tanks (USTs)
that Nvere located approximately 60-feet south of the project site under the Nvidened Oyster Point
Boulevard and have since been removed.
The 105 Oyster Point Boulevard site Nvas listed in the StateNvide Environmental Evaluation and Planning
System (SWEEPS) UST, EnviroStor database, the California Facility Inventory Database, the Historic
Cortese list, and the San Mateo County Business Inventory databases. HoNvever, three USTs located at
105 Oyster Point Boulevard Nvere removed in approximately 1990 and Nvere hydraulically cross gradient
to the project site. At the 159 Oyster Point Boulevard location, three USTs Nvere removed and the
RWQCB issued a no further action letter for this site in 2008.
The Phase 1 report prepared for the project indicates that all nearby database listings of the project site
had no violations, Nvere closed by the regulatory agency, Nvere hydrologically crossgradient or doN-,n-
gradient, or Nvere determined to be a significant distance (greater than a'/4 mile) from the project site. The
project site's extensive soil and groundwater characterization did not identIA- any impacts resulting from
off-site sources, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR findings. As a
result, these off-site database listings are not expected to pose a significant environmental risk to the
project site and are not further discussed.
Regulatory Setting
Summaries of federal and state laws and regulations related to hazardous materials management are
presented below. California law allows for certain hazardous materials regulatory programs, including
those pertaining to USTs, hazardous materials storage, and hazardous materials management, to be
delegated to local agencies. New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section.
Federal
Federal and state laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled,
used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or
to mitigate injun-to health or the environment. Primal*federal agencies Nvith responsibility for hazardous
materials management include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor
(Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA]), Department of Transportation (DOT),
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Major federal laws and issue areas include the folloNving
statutes (and regulations promulgated hereunder):
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)
• Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act(HSWA)
6 Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South Sari Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,Sari Francisco, California Alarch 3, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnien tal Impact Report Page If:G-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA)
• Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA)
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know(SARA Title III)
State
Primary state agencies Nvith jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Other state agencies involved in hazardous materials management are Cal/OSHA, the
Department of Industrial Relations (State OSHA implementation), California Emergency Management
Agency (Cal EMA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Air Resources
Board (CARB), California Highwa-,T Patrol (CHP), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment(OEHHA—Proposition 65 implementation) and Ca1Recycle.
Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the folloNving
statutes (and regulations promulgated there under):
• Hazardous Waste Control Law
• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ("Proposition 65")
• Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act
• Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting ("Tanner Act")
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act)
• California Medical Waste Management Act
Local
The primary local agency, knoN-,n as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), Nvith responsibility
for implementing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials management is
San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. The Unified Program is the
consolidation of six state environmental regulatory programs into one program under the authority of a
CUPA. A CUPA is a local agency that has been certified by Cal EPA to implement the six state
environmental programs Nvithin the local agency's jurisdiction. This program Nvas established under the
amendments to the California Health and Safetv Code made by SB 1082 in 1994. The six consolidated
programs are:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory (Business Plans)
• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)Program
• Underground Storage Tank Program
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
• Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting)
Programs
• California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous
Material Inventory Statements'
As the CUPA for the County of San Mateo, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental
Health Division maintains the records regarding location and status of hazardous materials sites in the
county and administers programs that regulate and enforce the transport, use, storage,manufacturing, and
remediation of hazardous materials. By designating a CUPA, San Mateo County has accurate and
adequate information to plan for emergencies and/or disasters and to plan for public and firefighter safety.
A Participating Agency (PA) is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer
one or more Unified Programs Nvithin their jurisdiction on behalf of the CUPA. The City of South San
Francisco Fire Department maintains a special program that regulates hazardous materials through
disclosure and risk management plans as Nvell as above ground storage tank referral in cooperation Nvith
the County of San Mateo. Thus, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is a PA Nvith the San
Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division as the CUPA.
Regulations
Operational and Disposal Regulations
Worker Safety
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration are the agencies responsible for ensuring Nvorker safety in the handling
and use of chemicals in the Nvorkplace. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for
developing and enforcing standards for safe Nvorkplaces and Nvork practices.
Hazardous Waste Handling
Cal-EPA and DTSC regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
Nvaste under RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose "cradle-to-
grave" regulatory systems for handling hazardous Nvaste in a manner designed to protect human health
and the environment.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
The USDOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including
requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers who transport hazardous Nvaste on
public roads.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. t,'niified Program Fact Sheet. Alarch 2012. Available.:
hap: iwwwxalepa.ca.gov cupa.Accessed:February 12, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Emerzency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by
federal, state, and local government and private entities. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one
component of this plan. The State Office of Emergency Services administers the plan, which coordinates
the responses of other agencies, including Cal-EPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Game, the
RWQCB, and the Radiologic Health Branch of the DHS.
In 2011, the County of San Mateo updated its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The County's EOP
describes at a high level what the County s actions Nvill be during a response to an emergency. Additional
appendices and annexes to this plan are being prepared to describe in more detail response actions and
hazards specific to the county. As such, the plan Nvill be a living document Nvith existing departmental
plans and hazard specific annexes remaining in effect until the updated appendices and annexes are
completed. The EOP describes the Emergency Operations Center's role and the coordination that occurs
between the county EOC, cities,toNsns, and other agencies in San Mateo County in an emergency.$
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
The analysis in this section considers the use, generation, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials,
the potential of accidental release of hazardous materials, and exposure of people to hazardous materials.
As discussed in the introduction, the analysis in this document is based on newly released information
since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, like the 2011 Treadvvell & Rollo Geotechnical
Report, and the 2008 Cap Maintenance Report.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 (-'EQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials if the project Nvould result in any of the
folloN ing:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
San Mateo Coulio) Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services and Homeland SecuritJ>. Snn Mateo CountJ>
"Operational Area"Emergency Operations Plarz.January 28, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, Nvould it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment.
• For a project located Nvithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, Nvithin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Nvould the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or Nvorking in the project area.
• For a project Nvithin the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or Nvorking in the project area.
• Impair implementation of or physical interference Nvith an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Nvildland
fires, including where Nvildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed Nvith Nvildlands.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a hazards and hazardous
materials discussion section. The impacts analyzed in this section correspond Nvith the Human Health
Section of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Further, the CEQA
Guidelines used in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Nvere different than
the 2013 CEQA Guidelines used in this Draft Subsequent EIR.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of handling
hazardous materials near sensitive uses, impact of the project on airport land use plans, private air strips
or emergency response plans, and Nvildland fires. With the enactment of new federal, state and local laws
the 2013 CEQA Guidelines are more stringent than the guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The project impacts discussion below represents these updates.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential
impacts to due to construction activities on the project site. These new mitigation measures supersede the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Mitigation Measure 10.2.2. For a summary of impacts and
Mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis
section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the
impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.G-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
en>>ironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould develop the project
site Nvith office/R&D and hotel uses and Nvould not involve the routine transport, use, or storage of large
quantities of hazardous materials. Further, all transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous Nvaste
to and from the site shall be in accordance Nvith Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other identIA-ing information. These regulations shall be folloNved during
the construction of all phases and operation of the proposed project to ensure the safe transport of
hazardous materials and Nvaste to and from the site.
Construction Activities Impacts
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial construction activities, employees and visitors could be
exposed to hazardous materials at the project site during construction activities and potentially experience
adverse health effects due to improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes,
particularly by untrained personnel. Comparing the proposed project site plan Nvith draNvings of previously
conducted cleanup operations, it is apparent that construction activities Nvould take place over previously
contaminated areas. Although the placement of buildings on the site may vary, the development area for
the proposed project and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project are the same. This impact finding
is similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR impact finding 10.2.2.
Although a 1997 soil cleanup plan actions, as Nvell as a Soil Maintenance Plan and a Cap Maintenance
Plan Nvere implemented at the project site, construction activities such as excavation and soil handling on
or near sites that are potentially contaminated or contain hazardous materials increase the risk that
Nvorkers and the public may be exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Nvorkers or the public may be
exposed to hazardous materials if knoN-,n or unknoN-,n contaminants are encountered or an accidental spill
or release of hazardous materials occurs during construction activities.
As previously discussed the project site Nvas historically used for industrial purposes, which resulted in
total lead and hydrocarbon soil contamination issues. As a result of these contamination issues, the
RWQCB issued a cleanup order in 1996 and established cleanup requirements for the site. The project
site Nvent through multiple rounds of cleanup, and the clean-up order Nvas rescinded in 2009, after the
publication of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, when RWQCB found
that the project site Nvent through a clean-up process suitable for commercial/industrial uses development.
A Cap Maintenance Program has been in place, Nvith the latest cap performance inspection in 2012.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
During the 2012 cap performance inspection the cap Nyas found to be in good condition, and it did not
exhibit signs of degradation,penetration or erosion.
Due to soil conditions at the project site, as discussed in Section IV.F Geology and Soils, development
activities that may expose soil Nyith elevated lead and hydrocarbons include:
• Removal of buried obstructions and foundation elements.
• Predrilling at pile locations, as needed.
• Excavations for neNy pile caps.
• Excavations for utility trenches.
• Excavations for belovy-grade pits Nyithin the building areas.
A Soil Management Plan and a Cap Maintenance Plan are in place for the project site. Prior to
development of each phase of the project, the City requires that an Erosion Control Plan be submitted in
conjunction Nyith the Grading Permit Application for the proposed project. The Plan is required to include
winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Nyith sediment basin design calculations. The
Erosion Control Plan is required to describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during
and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction Nyater runoff.
Further, along Nyith the Grading Plan a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required as
part of the application process. The SWPPP is required to include specific best management practices to
reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated Nyith Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Implementation of a Soil Management Plan, Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP at each phase of the
project Nyould minimize impacts from fugitive dust during construction.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the potential exposure of
sensitive receptors, including construction Nyorkers, to previously contaminated soil and contaminants is
considered apotentially significant impact.
Operational Impacts
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, upon completion of construction activities, the
project site soil Nyould not have a significant impact as the entire site Nyould be covered. Operational
impacts due to future uses of the proposed office buildings Nyere not considered in the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. This impact is analyzed consistently Nyith 2013 CEQA
Guidelines
The proposed project Nyould include construction of office uses, a hotel Nyith a restaurant, retail space,
parking structure, and research and development facilities in three phases. Depending upon the nature of
research planned at the proposed facilities, for Nyhich detailed information has not yet been provided,
future businesses at the project site are required to check the state and federal lists of regulated substances
9 Roux Associates. 2011. C.'ap Per fornzarzce Irzspectiorz Fall 2011. The Cove Site.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the
list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are
highly toxic, flammable or explosive. If handling of hazardous materials Nvould be required during the
research and development process businesses are required to determine which list to use in consultation
Nvith the SMCEHD and to apply for all applicable permits and comply Nvith all applicable state and local
regulations. Further, in the event that hazardous materials Nvould be used during research and
development activities, registration in the San Mateo County Environmental Health Hazardous Material
Business Plan Program Nvould help to ensure safe and responsible handling of hazardous materials by site
tenants.
The City requires that building space thorough all phases of the project are designed to handle the
intended office use, Nvith sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance
Nvith the guidelines laid out in Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
Compliance Nvith state and local regulations Nvould ensure that buildings are equipped Nvith safety
measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous
materials. The City further requires that at the end of construction of each proposed project building,
occupancy is not alloNved until a final inspection is made by the Fire Department for conformance of all
building systems Nvith the Fire Code and NFPA Requirements. The inspection will include a review of the
emergency evacuation plans. Finally, compliance Nvith DOT regulations Nvould ensure that all necessary
safety precautions would be taken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project.
Therefore,this impact Nvould be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.1 Health and Safety Plan
The current Soils Management Plan (SMP) includes a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) as further
discussed in Section IV. F Geology and Soils. The HASP shall be modified and updated to address the
proposed project. The HASP hall be prepared for the proposed project prior to initiation of construction
activities. The Plan shall describe the practices and procedures to protect the public and all Nvorkers in the
construction area in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials (for example, fuels or
solvents during construction) or if hazardous materials are encountered during construction. The Plan
shall include items such as spill containment and Nvill help protect the public and Nvorkers by providing
procedures and contingencies that Nvill help reduce the exposure to hazardous materials.
This mitigation measure replaces the HASP requirement of Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project as it represents updated Cal-OSHA requirements for HASP plans.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 Inspect, Test and Remo>>e Potentially Contaminated Soils and
Groundwater
During excavation at all construction areas during each phase of the project, the contractor shall inspect
the exposed soil for visual evidence of contamination, particularly near the areas identified during site
reconnaissance. If contamination indicators (e.g., obvious soil staining, odors, etc.) are encountered
during excavation or grading activities outside of the lead or petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas, all
Nvork in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verIA- the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
presence and extent of contamination at the site. Results shall be revieNved and approved by the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site clean up) before
construction is alloNved to begin again.
The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantiA-ing contaminant
levels Nvithin the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall
determine the appropriate Nvorker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures.
Areas Nvith soil and groundNvater determined to be hazardous Nvaste outside of the lead and petroleum
hydrocarbon placement areas shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the OSHA-
recommended 40-hour safety program (29 CFR 1910.120) Nvith an approved plan for groundNvater
extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site
treatment.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.3 Soil Management Plan Update
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall review and, as necessary,
update the existing Soil Management Plan to ensure compliance Nvith the most current BAAQMD and
OSHA standards, including but not limited to standards related to dust control and air quality monitoring
as discussed in Section IV. C, Air Quality. Modifications to the Soil Management Plan Nvill include:
• Updating and/or identIA-ing new specific mitigation measures designed to protect human
health and the environment.
• Requiring site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPS) to be prepared by all contractors
N-,-ho may come into contact Nvith groundwater or subsurface soil at the project site. This
includes a HASP for all grading and excavation on the site, as Nvell as for future subsurface
maintenance Nvork. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal
protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP Nvill
be revieNved and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Updating and/or describing protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development,
including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction
Nvorkers and future users of the site.
• Updating and/or requiring site-specific construction techniques that Nvould minimize exposure
to anv subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal
measures for anv contaminated groundNvater removed from excavations, trenches, and
deNvatering systems in accordance Nvith San Francisco Bay RWQCB guidelines.
• RevieNving, updating, and/or producing a sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to
determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• IdentIA-ing restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface
by residents and visitors to the proposed development.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The updated Plan shall be revieNyed and approved by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and submitted to
the City prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits for the project.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project this impact Nyould be less than significant Nyith
implementation of the neNy mitigation measures and compliance Nyith state and local regulations. The
mitigation measures presented in this Draft Subsequent EIR replace Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, as they reflect updated regulations and standards.
Impact IV.G-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
en>>ironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions in>>oh ing the release of
hazardous materials into the en>>ironmenz
As described in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the project site contains
a lead stabilization area and a hydrocarbon containment area. The foundations of the proposed project's
buildings Nyould be located Nyithin the lead stabilization area and the hydrocarbon containment area.
Similar to finding 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, during
construction for the proposed project, hazardous materials could be released as contaminated dust during
construction of each phase, Nyhich could affect the health of construction Nyorkers. Although a Soil
Management Plan Nyas prepared for the project site in 2000, the Plan Nyould need to be updated Nyith the
current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and OSHA standards to protect Nyorker
health and safety, minimize exposures of contaminated soils, and reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 listed above, this
impact Nyould be less than significant. The mitigation measures identified in this Draft Subsequent EIR
supersede Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR,
as outlined in the Prior Analvsis and Conclusion section, and the 2000 mitigation measure Nyould not be
necessary.
Impact IV.G-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not discuss impacts related to
schools near the project site. This impact is analyzed consistent Nyith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
There are four existing day care centers in the commercial area near the project site.
• The Early Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue;
• Genentech 2"a Generation located at 444 Allerton Avenue;
• Genentech 2"a Generation located at 850 Gatevmv Boulevard; and
• Gatevmv Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatevmv Boulevard
In addition, a proposed daveare Nyould be established as early as Phase 1 of the proposed project. Phase 2
and 3 of construction Nyould consist of the development of additional office buildings, reconfiguration of
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-14
00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013
above ground parking and expansion of the parking structure from 3-stories to 8 or 9-stories, and
installation of additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting. The project currently contains buried
hazardous materials that could be released during site grading activities through construction related dust.
Therefore,the proposed daycare Nvould be in existence during construction of Phase 2 and 3 of the project
and could be exposed to construction dust, along Nvith the other identified childcare centers in the area.
Section IV.0 Air Quality further discusses the impacts on schools and child care facilities in the project
area.
Implementation of the mitigation measures previously discussed Nvould incorporate management
procedures related to hazardous materials, like soil erosion and fugitive dust control measures, during the
construction and operation phases of the project, thereby minimizing the potential for the emission of
hazardous materials to nearby school facilities. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 listed above,this impact Nvould be less than significant.
Impact IV.G-4: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Goi ernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the eni ironment.
The project site is not included on the "Cortese List," similar to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR finding.1' However, portions of the project site contain knoNsn hazardous
materials (lead and hydrocarbons), which could present a potentially significant hazard to the public or
the environment if they Nvere disturbed during project construction, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project. An updated site Soil Management Plan Nvould ensure that residual contamination is
not mobilized by site grading activities, and thus protect exposure of sensitive receptors.
Implementation of an updated site HASP Nvould ensure Nvorker protection, decreasing Impact IV.G-4 to a
level of less than significant. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through
13 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Impact IV.G-5: The proposed project is located within an airport land use plan area, but would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards
related to airport land use plans. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
The proposed project Nvould be located Nvithin the jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (Airport Land Use Plan)."
10 Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Erzvironnierztal Site Assessment- The Cove South Sari Francisco, California.
Prepared for:Pr(oject-IIanagenierztAdvisors,Irzc. South Sari Francisco, California Alar^ch 3, 2011.
00)Courzo)Association ofGovernnierzis ofSari Mateo Count). 2012.('oniprehensiveAirportLarzd Use
Conipatibilio)Plaii for the Erzvirorzs of Sari Francisco Inteniatiorial Airport. October 2012.Prepared by:
Ricorzdo &Associates Ili association with:Jacobs Corzsultarzcy, Clarion Associates.Accessed:February 7,
2013.Available:http: 'www.ccag.ca.gov plans reports.htnil.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:G-15
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
According to Policy LU-23 in the East of 101 Area Plan' maximum heights of buildings in the East of
101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based
on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAA). The FAA establishes building height limits in the project
area between 120 and 140 feet surface above ground (AGL). Buildings heights in the Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Project are limited to 113 AGL and 128 above mean sea level. As such, building heights
Nvould not exceed the maximum height for the project area. Nonetheless, the project applicant Nvould be
required to notiA- the FAA prior to project construction. A Determination of No Hazards from the FAA
Nvould be obtained prior to project construction approvals by the City
The San Francisco International Airport, in response to the December 14, 2012 NOP (included in
Appendix A), found that the proposed project Nvould not be incompatible Nvith respect to airspace
protection, noise or safety. Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed
building heights Nvould not penetrate critical airspace surfaces, Nvhich are at approximately 5000 feet
above the project site.
The project Nvill comply Nvith all FAA requirements, therefore the impact of the project on an airport land
use plan is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.G-6: The proposed project is not located within the>>icinity of a private airstrip and would
not result in a safety hazard.for people residing or working in the project area.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards
related to private air strips. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
Review of area maps shows that the project site is not located Nvithin the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, implementing the project Nvould not result in a safety hazard for people residing or Nvorking in
the project area as it relates to aviation issues. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no mitigation is
required.
Impact IV.G-7. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ei�acuation plan.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards
related to emergency access plans. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
Construction-related employee vehicle trips and truck trips for the project Nvould potentially increase
traffic on U.S. 101, ONTster Point Boulevard, Veterans Boulevard, and Gateway- Boulevard during the
construction of the project phases. In addition, construction of the six access entrances to the project site
may cause temporary traffic disruptions on Oyster Point or Veterans Boulevards during construction of
the phases. An increase in traffic or roadway construction activities has the potential to impair emergency
responders. Emergency access to and from the site Nvould be available at all times during construction.
00)of South Sari Francisco. 1994. East(?f101 Area Plan.Available.:littp: ca-
southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com i1idez.aspi?SID=366.Accessed:February 5, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Traffic impacts Nvould be temporary and Nvould not significantly interfere Nvith an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan.
FolloNving the completion of construction activities, the project's operation-related traffic Nvould increase
local traffic levels from existing conditions, as described in Section IV.M Traffic. Impact on public
services, including fire and police, are discussed in Section IV.L Public Services. HoNvever, traffic is
required to yield Nvay to emergency vehicles, and traffic congestion and delay does not normally affect
their ability to respond to emergencies. The project site Nvould include adequate access entrances, one
main entrance located on ONTster Point Boulevard, and four additional access points located on Veterans
Boulevard, to the project site during all phases of the project to allow for emergency response or
evacuation. Therefore, the project Nvould have a less than significant impact relating to an adopted
emergency response plan and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.G-8: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death in>>oh ing wild land fires,Tres, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wild lands.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards
related to Nvildland fires. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
The project site is generally bordered by urban land uses, including U.S. 101 and Caltrain tracks, which
do not contain vegetation conducive to Nvildland fires. The San Bruno Mountain range, located
approximately 700 feet to the northNvest of the project site, is the nearest Nvildland area and is designated
as a high fire severity zone.' HoNvever, given the distance between the mountains and project site, the
relatively unvegetated nature of the project site, and the urbanized features (i.e., U.S. 101 and Caltrain
tracks) separating them,the project Nvould not be exposed to a significant Nvildland fire risk.
The project site is vacant and covered by ruderal or grassy vegetation. The area is urbanized and there are
no Nvildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The
project site is bordered on all sides by urban land uses, Nvhich do not contain vegetation conducive to
Nvildland fires. Use of the project's construction equipment in vegetated areas Nvould present a potential
ignition source and fire hazard. HoNvever, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the PRC
requirements for construction activities at sites Nvith forest-, brush-, or grass-covered land described
above, which Nvould minimize the project's potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk
involving Nvildland fires. Therefore, this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project Nvould be one of numerous sites, some of which are also existing hazardous
materials sites, which are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The project
13 California Departnrerzt of Forestry arid Fire Protection. 2007. ,San Mateo C.'oulio)Fire Hazard Severio)Zorzes irz
,SRA (State Resporzsibilio) Areas). Adopted l ovenrber 7, 2007. Accessed: February 5, 2013. Available:
hap: ii,>>,ii,.fnre.ca.govfre_preventiorz,fhsz maps sannrateo.php.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
could contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, depending
on future research and development activities, both in the vicinity in general as Nvell as near a school or
child-care facility, and Nvould result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential
for exposure to and/or accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations,
similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Accidental hazardous materials release during use and transport during construction may have a slight
cumulative impact in that because there Nvould be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially
hazardous materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City, there is a
potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials could occur from
accidents during use or the transportation of hazardous materials through the City. HoNvever, compliance
Nvith state and local regulations and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1
through IV.G-1.3 Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
Other sites under redevelopment Nvithin the project area have demolition requirements and future uses of
hazardous materials. This could create a potential cumulative impact. HoNvever, compliance Nvith state and
local regulations and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3
Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
The project site is an existing hazardous materials site. The project development Nvould include exposure
to potentially contaminated soil during project site development and construction through construction
related dust. Releases of hazardous materials could occur during construction if not properly executed;
this could have a cumulative effect on the surrounding area, Nvhich contains a number of hazardous
materials sites. HoNvever, compliance Nvith state and local regulations and implementation of the identified
Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through 1.4 Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
The increase in cumulative impacts associated Nvith hazardous materials is expected to be slight and
identified project-specific mitigation measures Nvould reduce this impact to a less than significant level
Nvith no additional mitigation required, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 identified in this section Nvould
adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. These impacts Nvould
also be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-18
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
H. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing flood and inundation hazards, including dam
and levee failure, and tsunami- or seismically-induced flooding, Nvithin the project site and describes
whether implementation of the proposed project Nvould cause a substantial change in the characteristics of
local flood and inundation hazards. In addition, this section discusses surface Nvater drainage, Nvater
quality, and other Nvater resource issues, including storm drain system deficiencies in the project area,
which includes the project site and neighboring properties. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in
this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to hydrology and Nvater quality.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on hydrology/Nvater quality of the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new
significant hydrology and Nvater quality impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant
impacts.
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project increases
development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project. The proposed project Nvould result in one new potentiall�T significant impact relating
to potential flooding due to tsunamis and project site runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.H-4 and IV.H-10 these impacts Nvould be less than significant. New mitigation measures are provided
consistent Nvith the revised 2013 CEQA Guidelines and the current conditions on the project site. For a
summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior
Analvsis section.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) the City of South
San Francisco's Standard Development Conditions (2009), (2) Preliminary project drainage plans; (3)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality
Limited Segments; (4) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Hazard Maps; (5) Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of South San
Francisco; (6) The Western Regional Climate Center Nvebsite; (7) San Mateo County-vide Water Pollution
Prevention Program's (SMCWPPP's) C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance document; and (8) City of
South San Francisco's Municipal Code.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H.Hydrology Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
One comment letter related to flood and inundation hazards from the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission Nvas received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP
and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project as Nvell as the environmental impacts on hydrology and Nvater quality. The
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Nvould have two potentially significant adverse drainage and Nvater quality impacts
and two less than significant drainage and flooding impacts.
Table IV.H-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 11.2.2-Potential Water Degradation during Mitigation Measure 11.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove
the Operational Phase of the Project.The 2000 Bay Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measure 11.2.2.which required compliance
found that development of the 2000 Bay West Cove with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Commercial Project would substantially increase the (NPDES)standards and implementation of a Storm
amount of storm water runoff from the project site. This Water Pollution Prevention Plan(S WPPP),to reduce the
additional runoff could also increase the discharge of impact to a less than significant level.
non-point source pollutants into San Francisco Bay,
causing a small but significant degradation of water
quality and would constitute a potentially significant
adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
Impact 11.2.3-Potential Water Quality Degradation Mitigation Measure 11.2.3-The 2000 Bay West Cove
during the Construction Phase of the Project. The Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental Mitigation Measure 9.2.3,which required compliance
EIR identified that during project construction there with NPDES,the implementation of a Soil Management
would be an increased likelihood of soil erosion and Plan and other project—specific measures,to reduce the
sedimentation in San Francisco Bay.Erosion would be impact to a less than significant level.
expected to increase as on-site soils are excavated,
stockpiled and regraded,exposing them to wind and
water erosion.Excavated soils could include buried
hazardous materials. There would be risks of fuel oil
spills. This would constitute a potentially significant
impact of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact 11.3.1-Minor Cumulative Water Quality No mitigation measures were required.
Impacts.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project site could cause significant
degradation of water quality. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project plus other related projects or
conditions in the vicinity should not cause cumulative
impacts,because measures to control runoff through the
site will also mitigate for any cumulative impacts
resulting in a less than significant impact.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If H. Hydrology Water Oualio)
Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:H-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.14-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact(11.3.2)Minor Potential Change in Existing The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Flood Hazard Conditions.The 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR recommended that that the Project
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that sponsors prepare an application for a Letter of Map
Federal regulations require local goverrunents to notify Revision. This application,which must be submitted to
FEMA of any changes in flooding conditions within FEMA by the City,would describe the physical
their borders so that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps can conditions(ground surface modified through fill
be updated to reflect actual flood hazards. This placement)that now protect all Project building
notification also provides a mechanism for the removal improvements from flooding during a 100 year storm or
of flood hazard designations from individual properties. high tide event Upon receipt of a completed application..
The 2000 filling of the project site represents a change in FEMA would issue a final Letter of Map Revision.
flooding conditions and should trigger the City's removing the entire site from the flood zone.
responsibility for FEMA notification;and the impact
would be less than significant.
Environmental Setting
Similar to the project site conditions analyzed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, the project site is undeveloped and unpaved. The only changes on the project site
since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are due to activities undertaken to
maintain the cap,which include fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction.
Climate and Topography
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the project site is located near the eastern
shoreline of the City overlying artificial fill and Bay mud. The East of 101 Area generally slopes
doN-,award to the east, toNvard San Francisco Bay. The project site is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith
the exception of a City-oN-,ned sanitary sewer pump located in the northern portion of the site. The
topography of the project site is relatively flat Nvith elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD 29) along the northern boundary* of the site to approximately
19 feet NGVD29 in the southeast area of the site.
The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry,mild summers
and moist, cool Nvinters. Average annual precipitation is approximately 20.9 inches per year Nvith the most
precipitation received between November and April.'
Regional Hydrology
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project regional hydrology, the project site is located
Nvithin the Colma Creek Nvatershed, which is located in the southern portion of the East of 101 Area.2 The
il'esterrz Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Irzformatiorz, 2008 Local Climate Data,SUnmraries for the
TFestern U.S., Sari Francisco Irzternatiorzal Airport, website: http: www.wrcc.tJri.etJu suniniarys/o.ca.litint,
Accessed February 1, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Colma Creek Nvatershed is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the Nvest by the ridge
traced by Skvline Boulevard.' The Nvatershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as Nvell as
urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of Colma Creek is channelized
and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The creek is a flood control channel
maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works that discharges into the San Francisco
Bav south of the project site and north of the San Francisco International Airport.
Runoff in the hills of the Colma Creek Nvatershed is relatively rapid because of the steep slopes, and is
slower in the flat lowland areas. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the Nvatershed is
largely developed Nvith a high proportion of impermeable surfaces, runoff is relatively high. Runoff
throughout the City of South San Francisco is collected in the Citv's storm drainage system, which
discharges to Colma Creek or directly to the San Francisco Bay.
Site Hvdrolo6v and Storm Water Draina6e
Storm Nvater runoff from the project site begins as overland sheet flow and either infiltrates into the site's
pervious surfaces, flows overland toward the Bay, or is captured in the site's existing 48-inch storm drain
that conveys runoff eastward to the City s storm drainage infrastructure, similar to the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project site conditions. The City s storm drainage s�Tstem in the project vicinity
consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations. The
pipes are reinforced concrete pipe or high-density polyethylene. The City of South San Francisco does not
have a storm Nvater master plan and does not have information regarding the existing runoff flows or the
existing capacities of the storm Nvater infrastructure near the project site.4 Currently there is a 48 inch
culvert traversing the project site, but information is not available regarding the remaining capacity of the
existing storm line for accommodating additional runoff flows. There are no creeks or natural surface
drainages in the project site.
Groundwater
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on
geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site overlies the Visitacion Valley
Groundwater Basin, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. This basin consists of
bedrock and unconsolidated materials. The primary Nvater-bearing strata in the basin are the
"' Givler, R.TF., Sowers, J 1l, arzd I'orster, P., 2006. Creek& iiatershed flap of Daly 00) & I zcirut,>. Oaldarzd
Aluseuni of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. Available: http: 'museunica.wy creeks'1590-
RescC.'olnia.htnilu.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013.
3 Givler, R.TF., Sowers, J.11., arid I-oyster, P., 2006. Creek& iiatershed flap of Daly 00) & I icillio—. Oakland
Aluseuni of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. Available: http: 'museunica.wy creeks'1590-
RescC.'olnia.htnilu.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013.
Chuck, Dennis, ,S'erzior Civil Engineer, 00) of South Sari Francisco. 2013. Personal Coniniunicatiorz via
telephone with Alegari Giglini of URS Cor^poratiori on February 12, 2013 regarding the absence of a 00)storm
grater piaster plan arid urzcertailio) about the existing capacities of or runoff flogs to the existing storm grater
irz frastructure.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-4
City of South Sari Francisco April 2013
unconsolidated materials comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, Bay Mud, and fill materials.'
Groundwater levels in the basin have remained relatively stable and typically occur Nvithin a few feet of
the surface in the project site. Typical groundNvater quality impairments in the basin are generally elevated
nitrate and chloride concentrations. However, as discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, extensive groundwater quality monitoring of the project site indicated no significant
groundNvater quality impacts.6
Floodin6 and Tsunami Inundation
Although a portion of the project site Nvas located Nvithin the 100-year flood hazard zone of the San
Francisco Bay as delineated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMS) for the City of South San Francisco, CA in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, a Letter of Map Change (LOMCs) Nvas issued to the City changing the status of the
project site The letter for case number 07-09-1035 V revalidated the determination that removes the
project site from the 100 year flood zone. The letter is included as Appendix XX.
The northern area of the project site is also located within a tsunami inundation zone.' [
Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is subject to several laws and regulations that aim to protect surface Nvater resources.
In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases,
state and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section
summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations Nvith respect to hydrology and Nvater
quality and how they relate to the proposed project.
New and updated regulations have been enacted the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are
reflected in this section.
(ahforrzia DeparrInerzt of fT ater Resources. 2004. California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Sari Francisco Bay
Hydrologic Region, I'isitacion Groundwater Basiri (2-32). Ljvlate. February 27, 2004. Available.:
hap: ivww.water.ea.gov grourzchvater%bulletirz118 sari frarzeiseo_bay.efni.Accessed:February 12, 2013.
6 (ahforrzia DeparrInerzt of fTater Resources. 2004. California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Sari Francisco Bay
Hydrologic Region, I'isitacion Groundwater Basiri (2-32). Ljvlate. February 27, 2004. Available.:
hap: ivww.water.ea.gov grourzchvater%bulletirz118 sari frarzeiseo_bay.efni.Accessed:February 12, 2013.
Federal Emergency _llariagemerit Agency. 2013. _llappirig Iriformatiori Pla(fc)rrir. Available.:
haps: liazards.fenra.gov feriraportal iipsportal.lutp ci 04 O
FGcLA2cjdir-llrnr>>,ADK�4DKR2LKnrxrDifHrT gfZlil8 TIB4HcT)TO9 PIzO3I j9SP_1Lscii,xSLABGZKZEigenrJy
plSBboRBlkmol T)u1T1 f9 dl-3 d3'LOIJS7dna21Dt,'I EliL1;9JRGpB()t;'150t;JFt,7clKRIFiiLZR(7R2dzbzBTI diiph0
Z,7B0iT'9JO,SEhLzdf_llDgyTT�3t,FlT)ODBD�Ilkc>>Qjh(_)lT)�>>_11I)�>>_11I)�v�110i 2RH_l1-1�11I)�3�11DE>>1j�9z��S'
52aT17 3=uc3IlbT170TUT v--7 082-1167PS(80('2GOB8P40000000.Accessed:February 21, 2013.
s (ah f ornia Ener g erzc) Alarza�yenerzt A erzc) arid Courto) o Sari Alateo. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Ala pf r
Eniergerzcy Planning Sari Francisco South Ouadrangle (Sari Francisco Bay). Julie 15, 2009. Available:
http: ivww.corzservatiorz.ca.gov cgcgeologic hazards Tsunami Inurzdatiorz AlapcPages;Statewide_Alaps.aspz.
Accessed:February 6, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))hater Oualit)>
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Nvas enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating Nvater quality in the United States, and forms the basis
for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate Nvater
pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal Nvaters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal
laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as Nvell as set minimum Nvater quality standards for all Nvaters
of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural
pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of Nvater quality laws, rules, and regulations,
in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related federally mandated Nvater quality
requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws,
rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed the Federal requirements.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identIA- waters that Nvill not achieve Nvater quality
standards after application of effluent limits. For each Nvater and pollutant, the state is required to propose
a priority for development of load-based (as opposed to concentration-based)limits called total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs). The TMDL determines how much of a given pollutant can be discharged from a
particular source Nvithout causing Nvater quality standards to be violated. Priorities for development of
TMDLs are set by the state, based on the severity of the pollution and uses of the Nvaters.
The San Francisco Bav and Colma Creek are listed on the 2010 CWA 303(d) list as impaired Nvater
bodies. The various pollutants and stressors listed as impairing the LoNver and Central San Francisco Bay
are chlordane, dichloro-diphenN-1-trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds, furan compounds,
invasive species, mercury, mercury (sediment), polveyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium. Causes contributing to impairment
include urban runoff, other non-point sources, atmospheric deposition, ballast Nvater (exotic species),
municipal point sources, industrial point sources, and resource extraction (mercury). Colma Creek is
impaired for trash caused by illegal dumping, and urban runoff/storm seNvers.�
National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on US Army
Corps of Engineers studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the FIRMS, Nvhich are used in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). San Mateo County participates in the NFIP. FIRMS identIA-
the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-Near and 500-Near floodplain. Federal
v Uliited States Erivirolunerital Protection Agency (USER t), 2010 C'alif'ornia 303(4) List of iT ater Oualit>
Limited S'egrnents, Category j, Central Bashi, Sari Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower), website:
http: ii,irin.ii,aterboards.ca.gov water issues programs r1ndl'2010state it reports'category�5 report.shtnrl.
Aaccessed February 7, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology hater Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
regulations governing development in a Zone A and AE (100-Near) floodplain are set forth in Title 44,
Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Nyhich enables FEMA to require municipalities that
participate in the NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and
development Nvithin floodplains. MudflOwS are also covered under the NFIP in Nyhich San Mateo County
participates.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal
state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling Nvater quality in California.
The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and
enforcing Nvater quality control plans (Basin Plans), Nvhich set forth the state's Nvater quality standards
(i.e., beneficial uses of surface Nvaters and groundNvater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect
those beneficial uses. The NPDES permit must be consistent Nvith the Basin Plan for the site region.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master
policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of Nvater
quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface
Nvaters and groundNvater within its region and specifies Nvater quality objectives to maintain the continued
beneficial uses of these Nvaters. The proposed project is required to adhere to all Nvater quality objectives
identified in the Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface Nvaters and groundwater in its corresponding
jurisdiction. According to the 2011 Basin Plan, South San Francisco falls under the South Bay Basin,
Nvhich includes Colma Creels. Beneficial uses of South Bav Basin, to Nvhich the project site ultimately
discharges, include municipal and domestic Nvater supply, freshNvater replenishment, cold freshNvater
habitat, estuarine habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spav'rang,
Nvarm freshNvater habitat, Nvildlife habitat, Nvater contact recreation, non-contact Nvater recreation, and
navigation Nvater for shipping, travel, or other transportation.1) Colma Creek's beneficial uses, Nvithin San
Mateo County,include Nvarm freshNvater habitat,Nvildlife habitat, and contact and non-contact recreational
uses.
10 C'ahforrzia Regional iititer Qualio) C.'orztrol Board ,Sari Francisco Bay Region, 2011. hater Qualio) C.'orztrol
Plarz (Basin Plan), Table 2-1. December 31, 2011. Available:
hap: iwww.sij,rcb.ca.gov sarzfrarzciscobay basin_planning.shtml.Accessed:February 19, 2013.
C'ahforrzia Regional hater Qualio) C.'orztrol Board ,Sari Francisco Bay Region, 2011. hater Qualio) C.'orztrol
Plarz (Basin Plan), Table 2-1. December 31, 2011. Available:
hap: iwww.sij,rcb.ca.gov sarzfrarzciscobay basin_planning.shtml.Accessed:February 19, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology hater Qualio)
Draft SubsequerztErzvironmerztallmpactReport Page If:H-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
The existing beneficial uses of groundNvater in the Visitacion GroundNvater Basin include industrial
process supply and industrial supply. Potential uses of the groundNvater basin include municipal and
domestic supply, and agricultural suppIv.12
NPDES Permit Requirements
The NPDES permit system Nvas established in the CWA to regulate both point source discharges and non-
point source discharges to surface waters of the US from municipal separate storm seNver systems (MS4s),
and from deNvatering, construction, and industrial activities. For point source discharges, each NPDES
permit contains limits on alloNvable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the
discharge. For non-point source discharges,the NPDES program establishes a comprehensive storm Nvater
quality program to manage urban storm Nvater and minimize pollution of the environment to the
maximum extent practicable. As permitted under the CWA, authority for issuing NPDES permits has
been delegated by the EPA to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted an NPDES deNvatering permit (Order No. R2-2012-0060,
NPDES No. CAG912004) that is applicable to three discharge categories, including long-term structural
deNvatering resulting in greater than 10,000 gallons per day and requiring treatment before discharging. It
is not anticipated that this deNvatering permit Nvould be applicable to the project. HoNvever, the MS4
permitting program is applicable to the City of South San Francisco and Nvould be applicable to the
project. In addition,the General Construction NPDES permit Nvould be applicable to the proposed project.
Municipal Permit
EPA adopted rules in 1990, Nvhich established Phase I of the NPDES storm Nvater program. This program
requires NPDES permits to be adopted for cities and other institutions because storm Nvater discharges
from these urbanized areas are considered sources of pollution. To comply Nvith the Phase I NPDES
regulations, the RWQCBs adopted Phase I storm Nvater permits for medium (serving between 100,000
and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 people) municipalities.13 Most of the Phase I permits are
issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area.
The SFRWQCB issued the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit (MRP) (Order
R2-2009-0074, NPDES No. CAS612008) for the discharge of storm Nvater runoff from the MS4s of
numerous entities. San Mateo County, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the 20 cities and
toN-,ns Nvithin the County, including the City of South San Francisco, are some of the jurisdictions and
entities that are joint permit holders responsible for implementing the MRP. The MRP identifies
discharge prohibitions, receiving Nvater limitations, and a variety of control measures to comply Nvith the
identified prohibitions and limitations. Although individual permit holders are responsible for complying
C,'rided States Erivirolunerital Protection Agency (USER t), 2010 Califc)rnia 303(4) List of iT ater Oualit>
Limited Segments, Category j, Central Bashi, Sari Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower), website:
http: ii,irin.ii,aterboards.ca.gov water issuesprograms r1ndl'2010state it reports'category�5 report.shtml.
Accessed February 7, 2013.
13 State hater Resources C.'orztrol Board 2013. Storm iT ater Program _1I1,11ucipal Program. Available:
hap: iwww.sj,rcb.ca.gov water issues programs storm water Inurzicipal.shtml.Accessed:February 21, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology hater Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Nvith and implementing the MRP, the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
(SMCWPPP) Nvas formed to assist MRP permit holders Nvithin San Mateo County to collaborate on
count---Nvide initiatives that benefit all members, as described further below.
General Construction Permit
The NPDES General Construction Permit requirements apply to clearing,grading, and disturbances to the
ground such as excavation for construction activities that disturb more than 1 acre of land. The project
applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) Nvith the SWRCB's Division of Water Quality.
The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that Nvill occur on the site.
The applicant Nvill also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the SWPPP for construction
activities. The SWPPP Nvill include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to
obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
,Van Francisco Bay Conservation and Dei�elopment Commission (BCDO
BCDC updated in 2011 its San Francisco Bay Plan to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change
in San Francisco Bay. Sea level rise risk assessments are required Nvhen planning shoreline areas or
designing larger shoreline projects that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction. If sea level rise and storms that are
expected to occur during the life of the project Nvould result in public safet-T risks, the project must be
designed to cope Nvith flood levels expected by mid-century. If it is likely that the project Nvill remain in
place longer than mid-century, the applicant must have a plan to address the flood risks expected at the
end of the century. The new plan provides best practice guidelines for developing Nvithin BDCD
jurisdiction and preparing for climate change induced sea level rise.'
Local
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
The SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each
incorporated city and toNsn in the county, and the County of San Mateo. The SMCWPPP includes the
folloN ing:
• Provisions for a model ordinance
• Identification of BMPs, including street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill clean-up, and
annual catch basin maintenance
• Measures for extensive public education and public awareness
• Pollutant source identification and Nvater quality measurement, and elimination of illicit
discharges
BC'DC website. htt): plattrtirtl chnzate change.S'LRfact.Slreet.slrtnzl.Accessed April 12, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
• Structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for
industrial facilities
• Controls for new development and construction sites and other elements
In addition, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance document is a BMP plan meant to
assist developers, builders, and project sponsors include post-construction storm Nvater controls in their
projects, in order to meet local municipal requirements and the post-construction storm Nvater control
requirements under Provision C.3 of the MRP.15
San Mateo County Flood Control District
The San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) is a county-vide special district that Nvas
created by state legislation in order to provide a mechanism to finance flood control projects. The
legislation requires that a flood control zone be formed over an entire Nvatershed and a proposed funding
source is determined before a flood control project is undertaken. Proposition 218 requires an election if a
flood control zone is to be financed Nvith property assessments or taxes. There are currently three active
flood control zones: Colma Creek, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisquito Creek. The project site is
outside of the San Mateo Countv Flood Control Distriets.16
City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant
The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of Storm
Nvater Pollutants for issuance of an NPDES permit, including methods for managing pollution sources.
Applicable control measures include storm Nvater pollution prevention devices, management of refuse
areas, reduced pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping, use of treatment devices for interior level
parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm drains.
City of South San Francisco Standard Development Conditions
The City Engineering Division's Standard Development Conditions (2009) document provides design and
construction guidance for all new commercial, residential, and industrial developments Nvithin the City.
Requirements identified in the Conditions document are related to utilities (storm Nvater, sewers, etc.),
street improvements, grading, site improvements, slope stability, fire protection, soils reporting, frontage
improvements, and development fees."
S'IICiTPPP. 2013. C.3 Storm T Ater Technical Guidance.. Available.:
hap: iwww.jlowstobay.org'bs riewtIevelopnierztphp.Accessed:February 21, 2013.
16 Sanchez, America. 2013. Associate Erzgirzeer, Public iT arks azd Parks Departnierzt, San Alateo CoulioJ> Phone
corzversatiorz with Megan Giglirzi, tiRS Corporation, regarding the project sites location outside of arty coulio)
flood control districts.
00) of South Sari Francisco. 2009. Standard Development Corzditiorzs. January 2009. Available:
littp: 'ssf..riet iridex.aspx?llD-470.Accessed:February 13, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The City s General Plan contains policies designed to protect people and development from damage
associated Nvith flooding. Policies applicable to the project are as follows.
Open Space and Conseri�ation Element: Water Ouality
7.2-G-1 Comply Nvith the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface
Nvater and groundNvater resources.
7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface Nvater resources and prevent their contamination.
7.2-G-3 Discourage the use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances
Nvithin the city.
Health and Safety Element: Flooding
8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco.
8.2-I-2 Use the City s development review process to ensure that proposed development
subject to the 100-Near flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in
areas identified in Figure 8-3.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 14.04(Storm Water Manazement and Discharze Controls)
Chapter 14.04 Nvas created to ensure the future health, safety, and general Nvelfare of the City and to
protect and enhance Nvater quality pursuant to the CWA. The controls include measures to eliminate non-
storm Nvater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; control discharges to the municipal storm
sewer from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm Nvater; protect watercourses from
modifications to natural flow; and reduce pollutants in storm Nvater discharges to the maximum extent
practicable.
Chapter 15.08(California Buildinz Code)
Under Chapter 15.08, the City adopts and modifies the 2001 California Building Code for application to
developments Nvithin the City. This chapter contains construction standards for Nveather protection,
foundations, drainage, and grading. Grading activities require a permit from the City Engineer. To obtain
the grading permit, a soils engineering report and engineering geology report must be approved by the
City Engineer. Recommendations in these reports must be incorporated in the grading plans or
specifications. Under Section 15.08.170, construction Nvork is restricted during the rain* season
(November 1 to May 1) so as to minimize erosion.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Chapter 15.56(Flood Damaze Prei�ention)
The purpose of Chapter 15.56 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code
(SSFMC)" is to promote the public health, safety and general Nvelfare, and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions
to:
• Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to Nvater or
erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or
velocities.
• Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities that serve such uses, be protected
against flood damage at the time of initial construction.
• Control the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and natural protective barriers,
which help accommodate or channel floodwaters.
• Control filling,grading, dredging, and other development that may increase flood damage.
• Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which Nvill unnaturally divert
floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
The provisions contained in SSFMC Chapter 15.56 are applicable only to development in special flood
hazard areas as identified by FEMA.
East of 101 Area Plan
The project site is within the East of 101 Area. With respect to hydrology and Nvater quality, the East of
101 Area Plan (1994) aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine
drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of Nvater quality by
minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that projects comply Nvith NPDES permit
requirements.'
The Public Facilities Element of the East of 101 Area Plan includes the folloNving policies applicable to
the project:
Polio*PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated
individually to determine drainage and flood protection requirements.
Polio*PF-9 All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply Nvith the NPDES discharge
program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm Nvater discharge
18 00) of,South Sari Francisco. 2013. ,South Sari Francisco Alurucipal Code ,South Sari Francisco, California
Available:litty s,sfriet hide .aspi?lID=220.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013.
19 00) of South Sari Francisco. 1994., East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. Available.: litty 'ca-
southsarzfrarzcisco.civicplus.coni i1zdez.aspi?SID=366.Accessed:February 5, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
permit from the NPDES, Nvhich may require inclusion of on-site treatment of
storm Nvater from parking areas.
Polio*PF-10 During the rain*season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion
control devices, such as silt fences, hav bales, etc. during construction activities
to minimize the amount of silt directIv entering the Bay or other Nvetlands.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant
impacts on hydrology and Nvater quality if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
• Violate any Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements.
• Substantially deplete groundNvater supplies or interfere substantially Nvith groundNvater
recharge such that there Nvould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loNvering of the local
groundNvater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby Nvells Nvould drop to a
level Nvhich Nvould not support existing land uses or planned uses for Nvhich permits have been
granted).
• SubstantialIv alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which Nvould result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site.
• SubstantialIv alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantialIv increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner,which Nvould result in flooding on-or off-site.
• Create or contribute runoff Nvater, Nvhich Nvould exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm Nvater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
• Substantially degrade Nvater quality.
• Place housing Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
• Place Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area structures Nvhich Nvould impede or redirect flood
flov'-s.
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
• Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow.
The CEQA Guidelines have been revised and updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR. For example, although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
EIR studied potential project site run off and potential on site flooding, federal, state and local regulation
updates impose more stringent requirements. Therefore, the analyses for the proposed project reflect the
more stringent thresholds of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. Further, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR did not study the project site's vulnerability to tsunami, seiche, mudflow or
flooding due to failure of a levee or dam or sea level rise.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould result in two new significant hydrology and Nvater quality impacts due to the potential
for tsunami flooding and project site run off. The impacts Nvould be mitigated to a less than significant
level Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-4 and IV.H-10, outlined below. There are no other
increases in the severity of the previously identified hydrology and Nvater quality impacts in the 1997 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the
proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality
impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the
project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. For a
summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the proposed
project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.H--1: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not i4olate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project's construction activities could
potentially affect the Nvater quality of the surrounding and receiving Nvater bodies. Grading and excavation
activities Nvould disturb soils and remove vegetation. These activities Nvould increase the potential for the
site's soils to erode and be transported via storm Nvater runoff to Colma Creek or the San Francisco Bay.
Although a cap maintenance program is in place for the project site, left unmitigated, construction
activities could also expose the onsite hazardous soils thereby alloNving for the transport of soils
contaminated Nvith lead and petroleum hydrocarbons to local Nvater bodies (see Section IV.G,Hazards and
Hazardous Materials for further discussion and mitigation measures). The use and maintenance of
construction equipment for the project Nvould require the onsite use and storage of hazardous materials
(fuels, lubricating oil, grease, and/or hydraulic fluid). Similar to construction conditions of the 2000 Bay
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-14
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
West Cove Commercial Project, accidental spills or improper use, storage, or disposal of these hazardous
materials onsite could result in the transport, particularly during storm events, of hazardous materials to
the San Francisco Bay and subsequent environmental effects. Construction Nvorkers could generate trash
that,if improperly disposed of, could be transported to the local Nvater bodies.
HoNvever, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project would be required to
comply Nvith the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code Ordinance, the MRP, the City s
Standard Development Conditions, and the City s Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls
Ordinance. In addition, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the NPDES General Construction
Permit because the project's construction activities Nvould disturb more than one acre of land. Similar to
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, compliance Nvith these regulations and permits Nvould
require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, including spill prevention and control measures,
an erosion control plan, a grading plan, and a storm Nvater management plan for the project.
These plans Nvould collectively require the project to implement BMPs during the construction period to
prevent and control the transport of pollutants, including sediments, trash, pathogens, sanitary waste, and
hazardous materials. Implementation of these plans and their BMPs Nvould ensure that the project's
construction activities Nvould not violate any Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements. In
addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.1, Soil Management Plan Update in Section IV.G
Hazards and Hazardous Materials,Nvould include measures to contain hazardous soils onsite.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, development of the project Nvould intenslA- the
site's land uses and increase the site's impermeable surfaces, Nvhich Nvould potentially increase non-point
source (NPS)pollution to receiving Nvaters.NPS pollutants are Nvashed by rainNvater from roofs,landscape
areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical new development NPS pollutants
include sediments, nutrients, metals, bacteria and viruses, organics, pesticides, and trash (floatables). The
proposed project's design Nvould include the use and maintenance of bioretention areas and other onsite
storm Nvater treatment facilities,which are discussed below in Impact IV.H-6 and detailed in Appendix C.
The mitigation provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included
compliance Nvith the NPDES general construction permit policies requiring the preparation of SWPPP and
implementation of recommended BMPs. In addition, the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the MRP,
the SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, and the City s Standard Development Conditions. These
actions and the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR proposed mitigation
measures are incorporated into the current project description; therefore, the project's construction and
operation Nvould not violate the Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements associated Nvith
the MRP and this impact Nvould be less than significant.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts
identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The mitigation measures
identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR for this impact are no
longer required and no new or additional mitigation measures would be required as these measures are
now part of the project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-1 5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.H--2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer>>olume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table lei�el (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a lei�el which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
hai,e been granted).
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction and operation on groundwater levels. This impact
discussion is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines requirements.
Due to the shallow nature of groundwater at the project site, dewatering ma_- be required during certain
construction activities. The volume and length of time of deNvatering necessary Nvould be established
during subsequent geotechnical borings for the development. Nonetheless, deNvatering for the
construction activities Nvould be temporary and Nvould have a very low potential to adversely affect the
Basin's volume or levels because Nvater levels have remained relatively constant since 1990 due to higher
than average rainfall and operation of Nvells at less than 60% of total capacity T.20 Any lowering of
groundwater levels Nvould be limited to a localized area (Nvithin an approximately 100-foot radius) near
the excavation activities. Thus, potential effects on groundwater levels Nvould be temporary and
groundwater levels Nvould return to the existing levels folloNving completion of the deNvatering activities.
Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and
recharge, and no mitigation measures are required.
FolloNving project construction, dewatering may be required for below-grade elevator pits, utility lines
and other localized excavations.2 1 DeNvatered groundwater Nvould be collected and discharged in
accordance Nvith the Soil Management Plan that Nvould be prepared for the site as part of Mitigation
Measure IV.G-2.1 Soil Management Plan Update,in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
GroundNvater recharge opportunities at the project site would potentially be reduced as a result of the
impermeable surfaces associated Nvith the proposed project's buildings, roads, and parking areas.
HoNvever, the project site is capped and measures are taken to maintain the cap and reduce the potential
for seepage of Nvater from the surface into the capped area. Therefore, the project site is not currently
contributing to any recharge of groundwater, a condition that Nvould not change Nvith construction of the
project. In addition, the proposed project's operation Nvould not include any groundwater Nvells and the
pumping that may be required for project operation is negligible. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould
have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and recharge and not mitigation measures
are required.
'0 SB 610 Britaruzia Cove Oyster PoirztProject,March 6"" 2013, Fame&Associates.
'I Treadwell&Rollo, Geotechrzical bivestigatiorz for Feasibility Evaluatiorz, 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.H--3: The proposed project would not substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included mitigation measures related to
erosion and sedimentation. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is
designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially
significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures
have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts
Nvould be avoided.
There are no existing Nvater bodies or drainages on the project site and the project site is flat. Therefore,
surface elevations on project site Nvould only be minimally altered to accommodate construction of the
project. HoNvever, the proposed project's construction activities, including grading and relocation of the
site's existing 48-inch storm drain Nvithin the 20-acre project site, Nvould be required and Nvould
potentially result in soil erosion or siltation. The project Nvould comply Nvith the MRP, the NPDES
General Construction Permit, the City s Standard Development Conditions, and the Citv's Storm Water
Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance. Compliance Nvith these regulations and permits Nvould
restrict construction activities during the rain*season and require the preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP, an erosion control plan, a grading plan, and a storm Nvater management plan for the project.
Implementation of the erosion control and grading plan Nvould minimize the potential for the project's
construction activities to alter the existing drainage pattern during the construction period such that it
Nvould result in substantial erosion or siltation.
Onsite storm Nvater infrastructure for the proposed project folloNving construction would capture runoff
flows and direct them to the relocated 48-inch onsite storm drain, in the new location shoN-,n in Figure
IV.H-1, and the City of South San Francisco's storm drain network. The project's storm Nvater
infrastructure Nvould be designed, constructed, and maintained in compliance Nvith the MRP, the
SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code
Ordinance, and the Citv's Standard Development Conditions.
Due to existing City codes and regulations and compliance Nvith state regulations, the existing drainage
pattern during construction or operational activities Nvould not be substantially altered in a manner that
Nvould result in substantial erosion or siltation either on- or off-site. Therefore, this is a less than
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-17
�===a_seWOOOOo
i
VII
I
f
/r p
.o
iµ1
e " t —
s
0
e
r
Py
o 1
m
°j
\\,��. .........
'3
9
o
,
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Coua�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.H-1
Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.H-4: The proposed project would not substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off=
site.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an impact conclusion
regarding alteration of existing drainage patterns creating project site runoff and impacts to existing City
runoff infrastructure. The impact discussion in this Draft Subsequent EIR is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA
Guidelines requirements.
The project site is flat, and there are no streams or rivers on the project site. Impacts from runoff during
project operation are discussed in Impact IV.H-5. Similar to Impact IV.H-5 Nvith implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 the impact Nvould be less than significant.
Impact IV.H--S: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or pro>>ide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR assumed that the 2000 BaY West Cove
Commercial Project projected runoff Nvould be conveyed to the existing main line storm drain system and
discharged into the temporary outfall in the slot, or to the future, permanent City outfall at the edge of the
San Francisco Bay. At the time of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, a
drainage plan Nvas not completed; therefore for the purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR analysis, it Nvas
assumed that the designed drainage system Nvould connect to the main line storm drain that Nvould allow
for an inflow to accommodate a 25 Near storm event. Regarding Nvater quality, the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included mitigation measures related to source control and
treatment programs. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is
designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially
significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures
have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts
Nvould be avoided.
Buildings, parking areas, and driveNvays associated Nvith the proposed project Nvould substantially increase
the project site's impervious surface area by 636,910 square feet when compared to existing conditions,
thereby potentially increasing project site runoff by 15,621 gpm. In comparison, development of the
Parcel 1 of the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Nvould increase impervious areas by 643,942
square feet, Nvith a projected increased runoff of 15,755gpm. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have
a loNver projected run off than the 1997 BaY West Cove Commercial Project as applied to Parcel 1. The
analysis below reflects the projected change in runoff.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-19
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.H-2
Comparison of Projected Run Off
Description CxA Cxa L30 Q9 Q
(per) (imp) (cfs) (gpm)
1997 Auto Nation Project,Planning Area 1 1.32 13.30 2.40 35.10 15,755
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan 1.34 13.15 2.40 34.91 15,621
Source: Wilsey Hani, 2013.
Notes:
Rational Method Q=CiA
C-values(pervious)C=0.25
C-values(impervious)C=090
Storm Frequency 30 year
Ranifall Duration(min) 10 minutes
Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)2.4 in/hr
As shoN-,n in Figure IV.H-1, runoff from the proposed development site Nvould be captured in onsite
infrastructure, including bioretention areas. Runoff is normally* infiltrated into the ground from
bioretention areas. HoNvever, due to the existing conditions on the site that must be maintained (the soil
cap), runoff Nvould be captured, treated, and directed to the City of South San Francisco's offsite storm
drainage infrastructure. As discussed above, the proposed project's storm Nvater infrastructure Nvould be
designed, constructed, and maintained to comply* Nvith the MRP, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical
Guidance, the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code Ordinance, and the City's
Standard Development Conditions. Compliance Nvith these regulations Nvould ensure that the proposed
project Nvould not result in onsite flooding.
The project proposed bioretention areas would be built to accommodate or exceed the standards of the
SMCWPPP. By regulation, areas draining to the bioretention area cannot exceed 2 acres, areas draining to
the bioretention area shall not contain a significant source of soil erosion, areas immediately* adjacent to
bioretention area shall have slopes more than 0.5%for pavement and more than 1%for vegetated areas,
and bioretention areas may* be sized to 4%of the impervious surface area on the project site. A complete
list of requirements is included as Appendix C. The proposed project bioretention areas Nvould be
designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the SMCWPPP.
Although rates and amounts of surface runoff resulting from the project have been calculated and the
sizing of bioretention areas are within the limits prescribed by the SMCWPPP; runoff Nvould be released
to City storm drains in the area. The capacity*of the existing City storm drainage infrastructure in the area
has not been determined, due to the unavailability* of a City Nvide StormNvater Study.22 Thus, based on
Chuck, Dennis: Senior Civil Engineer, 00) of South Sari Francisco. 2013. Personal Coniniunicatiorz via
telephone with-llegari Giglirii of URS Cor^poratiori on February 12, 2013 regartlirig the absence of a 00)storm
grater piaster plan arid urzcertailio) about the es-istzrzg capacities of or runoff flows to the existing storm water
irz frastructure.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
final design findings the project's impervious surfaces and onsite storm drainage infrastructure may
require offsite improvements to the City s storm drainage infrastructure to accommodate the project's
increased runoff contribution.
The precise runoff rates for the proposed project Nyould be determined during the final design
calculations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 Nyould require preparation of a final drainage
study to determine Nyhether the Citv's infrastructure Nyould be able to absorb the increase in runoff from
the proposed project If the existing infrastructure can accommodate the increase in runoff from the
project,this impact Nyould be less than significant and no further mitigation Nyould be required.
If, hoNvever, the projected project runoff Nyould be greater than the current capacity of the existing Citi<r
storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 Nyould be
required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1
The folloNving mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated Nyith alteration of drainage patterns,
increase in calculated peals flood discharge and localized flooding.
The project on-site storinwater runoff shall be collected in a netv,-ork of detention basins that discharge
into the existing 48-inch storm line that traverses the project site. Project storm lines connecting to the
existing 48-inch storm line shall be designed Nyith sufficient capacity to accommodate the peals runoff
from a 10-Near storm. The existing 48-inch line, Nyhich Nyill be relocated as part of the proposed project,
shall provide sufficient capacity to accommodate a 25-Near storm.
The project applicant shall prepare a final drainage study for the drainage basin to Nyhich the project site
contributes, subject to approval by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading permit for
the project. The final drainage study shall confirm the total and remaining capacity of the existing 48-inch
and doNsnstream City storm lines. The final drainage study shall demonstrate the adequacy of on-site and
downstream storm drainage lines to transmit post-project floNys Nyithout causing flooding. The final
drainage study shall demonstrate that post-project flows are attenuated to the maximum extent practicable
criteria defined in the best management practices prior to the City storm line's release into the Bay.
If the final drainage study indicates that the total storinwater flows into the City s 48-inch line Nyould
exceed the 25-Near design storm event, then the project Nyould either (1) provide additional detention on
the project site to offset the project's contribution to the floNys, or (2) upsize the doNsnstream pipes and
Nyithin the project site boundary N-,-hen that pipe is relocated as needed to accommodate the project's
contribution to the floNys that are conveyed through the City s existing 48-inch line.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 the impact Nyould be reduced to less than
significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-21
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.H-6: The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the
proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality
impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the
project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project's subsurface construction
activities (ex., excavation activities) could degrade groundNvater quality by providing a direct pathway for
pollutants to enter the underlying aquifer. Potential pollutants could originate from accidental hazardous
materials spills or leaks from improperly maintained construction equipment. In addition, the proposed
project's construction could affect the underlying groundNvater quality if it resulted in the discharge of
contaminated deNvatered groundNvater to the bioretention areas or other onsite storm Nvater runoff features.
As discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project Nvould be required to comply
Nvith the NPDES General Construction Permit regulations, implement a SWPPP, and implement spill
prevention and control measures. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, the proposed project Nvould be required to comply Nvith extensive federal, state, and local
hazardous materials-related regulations that Nvould ensure implementation of plans and measures to
prevent, control, and clean-up any accidental hazardous materials releases. Compliance Nvith these
measures Nvould minimize the potential for leaks from construction equipment or accidental spills to
affect the underlying groundNvater quality, similar to measures employed in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
As discussed in Impact IV.H-2 the proposed project ma_-require deNvatering of groundNvater. As such, the
project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the NPDES General Construction Permit, which allows for the
discharge of uncontaminated groundNvater from deNvatering assuming compliance Nvith specific BMP,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. The project could result in the discharge of contaminated
groundNvater if the project's construction activities or equipment transported pollutants into the deNvatered
groundNvater. HoNvever, per the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the project
Nvould implement BMPs related to equipment maintenance and use, and spill prevention and control
measures that Nvould minimize the potential for construction activities to contaminate any deNvatered
groundNvater, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Therefore, this impact Nvould be
less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Impact IV.H-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, no housing is proposed and as such there Nvould
be no impact related to placing housing Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area.
According to the FEMA LOMC letter dated October 12, 2012, the project site is not located Nvithin a 100
Near flood zone as defined by FEMA. Further, the project development Nvould consist of office and
research facilities and a hotel, Nvith no permanent housing planned. In addition, as described in Impact
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-22
00)of South Sari Fr^aricisco April 2013
IV.H-8 below, the project Nvould not significantly alter the floodplain boundaries and thus Nvould not
result in an expansion of the floodplain such that it Nvould affect any existing housing that is currently
located outside of the floodplain. Therefore there is no impact associated Nvith housing in a flood hazard
area and, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, no mitigation
measures are required.
Impact IV.H--8: The proposed project would not place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found this to be a less than significant
impact and initiation of the LOMC process Nvas recommended as Mitigation Measure 113.2 for the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The process Nvas completed by FEMA and documented in its
October 12, 2012 letter, therefore,this mitigation measure is no longer required.
According to the FEMA LOMC letter dated October 12, 2012 the project site located at community panel
number 060811C0042E, is not located Nvithin a 100-Near flood zone (Case number 01-09-916A).
Therefore,the proposed project Nvould not place structures Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area and Nvould
not impede or redirect flows in the project area. Therefore there is no impact associated Nvith placing
structures Nvithin a 100-year flood hazard zone.
Impact IV.H-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death in>>oh ing flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a leiee or dam.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project on exposure to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
This impact discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
According to maps published by ABAG, the project site is not subject to inundation due to failure of a
dam,nor are there any levees near the project area.21
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of sea level
rise flooding on the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial. This impact discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith
2013 CEQA Gruidelines. As previously mentioned, BCDC requires that any projects within its jurisdiction
prepare a sea level rise risk assessments when planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline
projects. Per BCDC sea level rise predictions the proposed project site is not within expected sea level
rise areas,therefore there Nvould be no impact related to sea level rise.
`� Association of Bay Area Gover^nnrerits (ABAG). 1995. Earthquake acid Hazards Irifc)r^nratioll Dam Failure.
Inuridatiori, Dam Failure. Inuridatiori Ala s. Available.: http: quake.abq�yxa.gov dam failzn^e'. Accessed: llar^cli 6;
2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio)
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztallmpactReport Page If:H-23
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.H--10: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow on the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. This impact is analyzed consistent
N ith 2013 C'EQA Guidelines.
A seiche is a very long surface Nvave that oscillates from shore to shore Nvithin an enclosed body of Nvater.
While a seiche could occur in the San Francisco Bay, the topography surrounding the San Francisco Bav
marina near the project site Nvould likely reduce the potential seiche magnitudes compared to more open
areas of the Bay. In addition, the proposed project's distance from the marina Nvould reduce the potential
risk of seiche-related inundation. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have less than significant
impacts related to seiche inundation.
The San Bruno Mountain slopes are located approximately to the northwest of the project site and could
be susceptible to mudflows. HoNvever, U.S. 101 is located between the project site and the San Bruno
Mountain and Nvould act as an impediment to slow or block mudflows from reaching the project site. In
addition, the project site's distance from the hillside Nvould minimize the potential for mudflow
inundation of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have less than significant impacts
related to mudflow inundation.
The proposed project is located approximately 60 feet from the San Francisco Bay marina area across
Veterans Boulevard. Based on the State of California's Tsunami Inundation Map for the San Francisco
South Quadrangle, a portion of the site along Veterans Boulevard Nvould be located Nvithin a tsunami
inundation zone. Thus, development of the proposed project could potentially expose people or structures
to inundation from a tsunami and result in a potentially significant impact. As such, the proposed project
could expose people and structures to the risk of inundation by tsunami. HoNvever, buildings constructed
in flood hazard areas are required to comply Nvith the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56
of the SSFMC. Specifically, Section 15.56.140 identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high
hazard areas,which include areas subject to inundation by tsunami. Developments shall be elevated above
the flood level, anchored, and constructed of materials resistant to flood damage.
The City has emergency services in place to respond to natural disasters. The Citv's emergency services
are established in SSFMC Chapter 2.72, which also provides for the preparation and implementation of
plans for protection of people and property in the event of an emergency. Under the General Plan, the
City's Emergency Response Plan serves as the guide for emergency management.
Considering site location the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact due to tsunami
flooding.
Mitigation Measure IV.H--10.1 Tsunami Inundation Evaluation
As part of the final map approval, the project engineer shall submit data comparing the tsunami
inundation zone to the project design in order to confirm that project buildings Nvill not be subject to
tsunami inundation. As necessary, the report Nvill recommend grading or structural project improvements
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-24
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
that Nvill comply Nvith SSFMC Chapter 15.56, Flood Damage Prevention. Compliance may include but not
be limited to raising structural elevations or flood proofing the proposed structures, as detailed in SSFMC
Section 15.56.160, Standards of Construction. Recommendations included in the report and implemented
as part of the project Nvill not increase potential flood hazards in other areas. The report and recommended
improvements Nvill be certified by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City s floodplain
administrator prior to the Citv,s issuance of anv development or building permits for the project.
FolloNving approval of the report, the project applicant Nvill implement all recommended flood protection
improvements as part of the project design and construction.
Compliance Nvith the SSFMC requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-10.1 Nvould
reduce potential impacts resulting from tsunami inundation to a less than significant level
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Assuming concurrent implementation of the project Nvith other reasonably foreseeable future projects in
the vicinity, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and Nvater quality could include construction
impacts related to increases in storm Nvater runoff and pollutant loading to Colma Creels and San
Francisco Bay. The project and other future projects in the City Nvould be required to comply Nvith
drainage and grading ordinances intended to control runoff and regulate Nvater quality at each
development site. New projects Nvould be required to demonstrate that storm Nvater volumes could be
managed by dovristream conveyance facilities and Nvould not increase flooding. Therefore, the impact of
the project on Nvater quality and hydrology, in combination Nvith other foreseeable projects, Nvould be less
than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Compliance Nvith federal, state and local regulation and implementation of BMPs and identified
Mitigation measures Nvould reduce the level of significance for proposed project impacts on Hydrology
and Water quality to a less than significant level. The long-term mitigation measures in the SWPPP are
important to mitigate the potentially increased non-point source pollution due to the intensified land-use.
The short- and long-term mitigation measures and BMPs outlined above Nvill serve to reduce the
potentially significant impacts of increased non-point source pollution and increased sedimentation to
receiving Nvaters during construction activities to a level of less than significant. Further, the proposed
site drainage plan, proposed bioretention areas and Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 Nvould reduce the impact
from project run off to a less than significant level. Implementation of BCDC policies and Mitigation
Measure IV.H-9 and IV.H-10 Nvould reduce the impact from potential flooding at the site from tsunami or
sea level rise to a less than significant level.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-25
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page left blank intentionally.
2072375.1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio)
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:H-26
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing land uses in the project area, which
encompasses the project site and surrounding areas, and evaluates the potential for land use impacts
associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. A regulator- frameNvork is also provided in this
section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to land use.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on land uses of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise
Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant
land use impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the proposed
project increases development on the project site, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new
significant land use impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified land use
impacts. Due to changing of land use regulations in the project area and design features, one previous
potentially significant impact in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvas found to be less than
significant in this Draft Subsequent EIR. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San
Francisco General Plan (1999), the City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR Amendment (2001),
the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan (1994), the City of South San Francisco Municipal
Code, Chapter 20.210 (The Bay West Cove Specific Plan), San Francisco International Airport Master
Plan(2012), and photographs of the project area.
Comment letters Nvere received from the San Francisco International Airport, Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)in response
to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the land use impacts of the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould create one potentially significant and
seven less than significant impacts on land use.
Br^itaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I. Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.I-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact(4.2.2)Proposed Square Footage of Mitigation Measure(4.2.2)Proposed Square Footage
Development Exceeds the Allowed Square Footage in of Development Exceeds the Allowed Square Footage
the General Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove in the General Plan-The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
the square footage of 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Mitigation Measure 4.2.2.which required the following
Project proposed development exceeds the maximum for the applicant to accomplish this mitigation,as
base floor area ratios and square footage of development summarized below.
allowed by the General Plan for Business Commercial e Implementation of TDM Measures
uses. The 2000 proposed development in Planning Area e Implementation of Off-Site Improvements
I would exceed the allowed development of offices and e Implementation of Specified Design Standards.
hotel space by 358,600 gsf.Proposed The impact would be reduced to less than significant
office/R&D/technology space in Planning Area 2/3
would exceed allowed space by 98,484 gsf. These with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.2.
inconsistencies would be a potentially significant
impact of the project,unless the applicants were to
reduce the scope of the project,and/or qualify for
"bonus"floor area ratios specified in the General Plan.
Impact(4.3.1)Consistency with General Plan No mitigation measures were required.
Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 which Promotes Campus-
Style Development,and East of 101 Area Plan Policy
DE-22 Which Encourages Open Space as a
Continuous Unifying Element.The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project is
consistent with the basic objectives of General Plan
Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 to promote campus-style office,
high technology and research and development uses.
The project is also consistent with Design Element
Policy DE-22,thus the impact would be less than
significant.
Impact(4.3.2)Consistency with General Plan Policy No mitigation measures were required.
3.5-1-8 and East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-4a,
Encouraging Development which serves the East of
101 Area.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found that since the project
would be consistent with City objectives to provide
30,000 gsf of commercial serti-ices(including a
minimum of two restaurants)and day care facilities,and
to encourage shoreline-oriented recreation,the impact
would be less than significant.
Impact(4.3.3)Conversion of Open Land to No mitigation measures were required.
Development.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found that although the
project would convert open land to development the
impact would be less than significant because of the
past uses of the site and the accessibility it will create to
the Bai-Trail.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--2
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.I-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact(4.3.4)Land Use Compatibility with Adjacent No mitigation measures were required.
Properties.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project proposes a project which
would have similar site improvements as high quality
projects like Gateway Center and Sierra Point business
parks,thus the impact would be less than significant.
Impact(4.3.5)Inclusion of the 100ft.Shoreline Band No mitigation measures were required.
Open Space in FAR Calculations.The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that
since the project includes a discretionary permit to allow
the applicant to include Open Space in FAR calculations
pursuant to LU-1 Ob,the impact would be less than
significant.
Impact(4.3.6)Consistency with the Airport Master No mitigation measures were required.
Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that The Project is consistent
with the San Francisco International Airport Master
Plan,because it is consistent with the East of 101 Area
Plan,with respect to airport development and operations,
thus the impact would be less than significant.
Impact (4.3.7) Cumulative Land Use Impacts Land No mitigation measures were required.
use impacts of the Project are site-specific.The 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
found that the East of 101 Area Plan anticipates in its
development policies,the build-out of the Area which
includes the 2000 project site,and the transportation and
utilities infrastructure necessary-to accommodate build-
out. Therefore,no significant cumulative land use
impacts are anticipated,thus the impact would be less
than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional and Local Setting
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project site is located in the East of the 101 Area Plan, in the City* of
South San Francisco (the City), approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of dOy-,ntOy-,n San Francisco. The project site is approximately
20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and un-paved, yvith the exception of a City*-ovried sanitary*
server pump located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bounded by Oyster Point
Boulevard to the south, Caltrain railroad tracks to the yvest, Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco
Bay to the north, and commercial properties and research and development buildings to the east. The
regional and local setting of the project site are similar to those described in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Supplemental EIR.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Land uses in the area consist of hotels, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies (Research &
Development [R&D] uses), and other light industrial uses. Hotels, including Courtyard San Francisco and
Residence Inn, are located directly to the north corner of the project site. Several other hotels and the
South San Francisco Conference Center are located further south, although Nvithin the East of 101 Area,
similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Several R&D uses are located directly to the east and south of the property. Land uses to the east and
south of the project site are generally housed in several-stony buildings surrounded by parking lots. The
property to the east is located in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, Nvhile properties to the south
are located Nvithin the Gateway Specific Plan District. The property to the east is a new addition since the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and it Nvas developed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Office building development in the East of the 101 Area Plan and
near the project site add to the overall character of the site. The project site is bounded to the Nvest by
railroad tracks and several public storage buildings and U.S. 101. The northern border of the project site is
bounded by the San Francisco Bay and hotels . New R D development occurred in the project area since
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Additionally, the Gateway Master plan Nvas developed to
further development in the project area.
Local access to the project site is currently available from Oyster Point (major arterial) and Veterans
Boulevards (primary roadway), similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Regional access
is primarily provided by U.S. 101 via the Oyster Point Boulevard East exit, Nvhich is directly connected to
Oyster Point Boulevard and the project site. The South San Francisco Caltrain and San Bruno BART
Stations are located approximately 1 mile and approximately 2.8 miles southNvest of the project site,
respectively. The project site is not directly accessible to transit, but is currently served by several shuttle
services to connect employees Nvith area BART and CalTrain stations, Nvhich are new additions compared
to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority is
operating a new ferry terminal at the ONTster Point Marina Nvith Nveekday only commuter service between
Oakland's Jack London Square or Alameda Main Street terminals in the East Bay, that opened since the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Therefore the project site benefits from higher regional and
local connectivity than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
No residential uses are located in the East of 101 Area, consistent Nvith the City's planning goals and
policies for the East of 101 Area and similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Planning History
The project site Nvas originally part of the Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area, established by the
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Beginning in 1997, the approximately 55 acre (on-
shore portion) Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area (170 acres, 118 located offshore) has been
redeveloped in phases. The proposed project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development
Project. The original site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe
fabrication facilities, ship repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of
the original site are located offshore and are not subject to development.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The on-shore area of the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site has been redeveloped in phases.
In December 1997, the City certified an EIR for Bav West Cove, a proposed mixed use commercial
project. The Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith each
planning area proposing a different development scenario. The proposed project site Nvas defined as
Planning Area 1 in the 1997 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. One planning area (Planning Area 5) Nvas
located offshore in the San Francisco Bav and the only development proposed for Planning Area 5 Nvas to
create tidal Nvetland, as required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup Order. By
2000, oniv Planning Area 4 had been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under the original 1997 Bay
West Cove Specific Plan.
In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2 and
3. The development application included a subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan
dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub-planning areas: la and lb. Land uses permitted in Planning Area
la included office/R&D, Nvhile land uses permitted in Planning Area lb included hotel. The City certified
a Supplemental EIR for the Bay West Cove Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently, Planning Areas 2
and 3 Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D uses.
The current project is the last phase of development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove Specific
Plan in 1997. BST developing Planning Area 1, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point(project) is intended to
complete development of the former Sheanvater Redevelopment Area and specifically complete the
development objectives related to the adjacent Britannia Oyster Point.
Project Site
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project site consists of six parcels and is
approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the exception of a City-
ovmed sanitary seNver pump located in the northern portion of the site.
REGULATORY SETTING
New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and
are reflected in this section.
Federal
There are no federal land use regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
The San Francisco Bav Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) updated the San Francisco
Bav Plan in October 2011 to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. The
new and revised Bay Plan policies are summarized below:
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Risk Assessments. Sea level rise risk assessments are required when planning shoreline areas or
designing larger shoreline projects to ensure the project is designed to cope Nvith flood levels
expected by mid-century or end of century if the project Nvill remain in place longer than mid-
centurv. Risk assessments are only required Nvithin BCDC's jurisdiction and projects located only
in the shoreline band need only address risks to public access. Furthermore, risk assessments are
not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase
risks to public safety, and infill projects Nvithin existing urbanized areas.
• Sea Level Rise Projections. Risk assessments must be based on the best estimates of future sea
level rise. The California Climate Action Team's sea level rise projections, ranging from 10-17
inches at mid-century and 31-69 inches at the end of the century, currently provide the best
available sea level rise projections for the West Coast. However, scientific uncertainty remains
regarding the pace and amount of future sea level rise, and project applicants may use other sea
level rise projections if they provide an explanation.
• Protecting Existing and Planned Development. Fill may be placed in the Bay to protect
existing and planned development from flooding as Nvell as erosion. New projects on fill that are
likely to be affected by future sea level rise and storm activity during the life of the project must
be set back far enough from the shoreline to avoid flooding, be elevated above expected flood
levels, be designed to tolerate flooding, or employ other means of addressing flood risks.
• Designing Shoreline Protection. Shoreline protection projects, such as levees and seawalls,must
be designed to Nvithstand the effects of projected sea level rise and to be integrated Nvith adjacent
shoreline protection. Whenever feasible, projects must integrate hard shoreline protection
structures Nvith natural features that enhance the Bay ecosystem, e.g., by including marsh or
upland vegetation in the design.
• Preserving Public Access. Public access must be designed and maintained to avoid flood
damage due to sea level rise and storms. Any public access provided as a condition of
development must either remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or
equivalent access consistent Nvith the project must be provided nearby.
• Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. Where feasible, ecosystem restoration projects must be
designed to provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises.
• Encouraging Resilient Development. The policies encourage projects if their regional benefits,
such as reducing carbon emissions by locating jobs and housing near public transportation,
outweigh the risk from flooding. Projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not
increase risks to public safety, such as repairs, small and interim projects, and parks, are also
encouraged.
• Preserving Undeveloped Areas. The policies encourage preservation and habitat enhancement
in undeveloped areas that are vulnerable to future flooding and contain significant habitats or
species, or are especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Regional Strategy. The policies call on the Commission, Nvorking Nvith other agencies and the
general public, to develop a regional strategy for protecting critical developed areas along the
shoreline from flooding, enhancing the natural resources of the Bay by preserving existing habitat
and identiA-ing areas Nvhere tidal Nvetlands can migrate landNvard, and improving the ability of
communities to adapt to sea level rise in Nvays that advance economic prosperity, social equity
and environmental protection.
Local
The South San Francisco General Plan
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides a vision for the long-range physical and
economic development for the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and
establishes a basis for judging Nvhether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent
Nvith the City's plans and policy standards. The South San Francisco General Plan contains the folloNving
chapters:
• Land Use
• Planning Sub-Areas Element
• Transportation
• Parks,Public Facilities, and Services
• Economic Development
• Open Space and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Noise
These chapters include six of the seven elements required by state law and other optional elements that
address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh required element is the Housing Element,
Nvhich is updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan and published under a separate volume.
According to the City's 1999 General Plan, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas,
Nvith industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city and single-family homes to the north and
Nvest. The City encompasses 4,298 acres of Nvhich single-family residences occupy approximately 33
percent of the land, industrial uses such as Nvarehouses and business parks occupy approximately 25
percent of the City's area, and parks and open space occupy approximately 10 percent of the land. The
General Plan noted that business parks for high-technology research and development is one of the City's
highest priority land uses. HoNvever, business parks occupy only 173 acres or 14 percent.' Commercial
areas in the City total approximately 8 percent. Limited vacant land in the city requires new grosth to
take the form of redevelopment and intensification.
'All percentages are net arid do riot include streets, water, arid other rights of 1j'ay.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The General Plan contains a Planning Sub-Area element. Policies in this element complement citywide
policies included in the Land Use and other elements. Some of these sub-areas have detailed area plans,
specific plans, or redevelopment plans. Where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to hoNy
these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction provided by the General
Plan. The sub-areas, 14 in all, Nyere collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design
patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. The project site is located Nyithin the East
of 101 Sub-Area.
The General Plan governs the amount and intensity of development Nyithin the East of 101 Sub-Area and
establishes specific policies and goals for the area,including the project site. The project site is designated
as Business Commercial District in the General Plan. As shos-,n in Figure IV.I-1 General Plan land use
designations surrounding the project site are also Business Commercial, Nyhile on the shore of San
Francisco Bav it is Park and Recreation. General Plan land use designations in the vicinity to the east of
U.S. 101 include Business and Technology Park, Park and Recreation, Coastal Commercial, and
Transportation Center. General Plan land use designations to the Nyest of U.S. 101 include Logy, Medium,
and High Density Residential; Open Space, Community Commercial, DoN-,ntoN-,n Medium Density
Residential, DoN-,ntoN-,n High Density Residential, and DoN-,ntoN-,n Commercial.
Business Commercial
The Business Commercial land use category is designated for business and professional offices, visitor
service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional,
medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial
centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is
intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gatevmy, and Oyster Point
Boulevards, and South Spruce Avenue corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increase may
be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for
development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or
specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 Nyith increase to a
maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East 101 Area Plan is one level beloNy the General Plan in the South San Francisco land use hierarchy
and sets forth additional and more specific land use policies for the East 101 Area, in addition to those in
the General Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan, Nyhich Nyas adopted by the City Council in 1994, contains a
Land Use Element that designates the East of 101 Area into Planned Commercial, Light Industrial,
Coastal Commercial, Airport-Related, Mixed-Use Categories, and Planned Industrial. The project site is
designated Planned Industrial in the East of 101 Area Plan. HoNvever, General Plan Implementing Polio*
The East of 101 area is (which is considered a single neighborhood because it corztairzs rzo residents) is further
divided into jour areas for calculations related to approved arzd future developnierzt. For calculations related to
approved arzd future developnierztpurposes, the project site is within the Gateway subarea.
3 00)of South Sari Francisco, South Sari Francisco General Plarz, Larzd Use Elenierzt(1999).
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:I--8
1 o aoo 1,000 2,000
� 4
ax NFeet
Olk
rn �
a
P���� V, Dy '" '� °'° + �i�rt�`� ♦aaA°� � ""� � . ���� � V�@tya-Atn,�,
OR/"
Ir, i 9
viii 01 tlm m A �a
w'ir .." �:+Fr'nv� � J ...:...:.:....
Oo
NO
0i�ah�n°` rrw9u"0r0Umu�Nr
Y r •nriw�-�.
4 D
+1
G�
� I�pyu��,ru
a?r tFP � ub " �� '✓�� apu � pr� u ry. � P
�
ts n w aw
w � �'BaP 'Yw IIIIN4":Ig' W d V
� m NY ,
lary g "q
p� �
ti0
a b r a
' tion "�"� �r
,
ti
fR5a1M�i4�;+rt�t'p'm ta`a aq
u 1L
M
r�
�_� ,� �mman�mras aa0mt"Cw�rNttnur9ar kmw�'� —__ f� � � ��.
Per
E ans'paacmad(in cell ter
d�
Lott Oveday District � 0",
`i
f
� aAA
Existing�t,Yi�ndaatlA�Lrq��aWL eltect!nm � � �A �
ed Street
O"WZU Prop
� V ,
InzteTchauurge0mtx n sectuaxrcn Study k,ea p
71 cl
• �m 0B I� � aa��
ray r W�°v i
xr ;. � its*
f
�VB9
44 °° City of South San Francisco
Br,tru
In Figure IV.1-1
nria con,(it Oyster Point
Project Site General Plan Designations
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
3.5-I-1 states "Maintain the East of 101 Area Plan as the detailed implementing guide for the area; amend
it as appropriate for consistency Nvith the General Plan."Accordingly, where the General Plan and East of
101 Area Plan conflict, land use policies and designations of the General Plan supersede those outlined in
the East of 101 Area Plan. The City has, however, retained the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element
policies to be the design guideline for development in the East of 101 Area.
The land use plan Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan designates the majority- of the East of 101 Area as
Planned Industrial. As discussed above, the project site is designated as Business Commercial in the
City's General Plan, and the General Plan designation supersedes the East of 101 Area Plan.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)
Policies set forth Nvith the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are implemented through enforcement
of the City s Zoning Code. The Zoning Code prescribes the alloNvable uses Nvithin specified zoning
districts and imposes standards on those uses. Under the Citv's existing Zoning Code, the project site is
subject to the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), Chapter 20.210 (Bay
West Specific Plan District), Sections 20.210.00 through 20.210.14. As shos-,n in Figure IV.I-2, the
project site is zoned as Bay West Specific Plan District. Zoning designations immediately surrounding the
project site are GateNva-T Specific Plan District (GSPD) to the south, Business Commercial (BC) to the
east, and Freewa-,T Commercial (FC) to the Nvest. Parks and Recreation (PR) and Oyster Point Marina
Specific Plan District (OPMSPD) zoning designations are located northeast and east of the project site.
Zoning designations to the Nvest of U.S. 101 include Terrabay Specific Plan District (TSPD), Medium
Density Residential(RM-15), and BC.
Bay West Co>>e Specific Plan District
The project is located in Bay West Cove Specific Plan Redevelopment District within the East of 101
Area Plan. The Bav West Cove Specific Plan serves to refine and to implement the General Plan Nvith
respect to the specific plan area and to combine the concepts, procedures, and regulations of the General
Plan,redevelopment plan, zoning ordinance, and certain aspects of the subdivision ordinance.
The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District is a redevelopment district created to refine and implement the
City's General Plan for a specific area Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan. The Bay West Cove Specific
Plan District is intended to provide for comprehensively planned development, long-term development of
land uses, efficient extension of services and infrastructure, and coordination of planning efforts Nvith
other agencies. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan establishes the type,location,intensity, and character of
development to take place in the Specific Plan District. Uses categories include commercial and offices
(not permitted in Planning Area 4); day care centers; restaurants; hotels and motels (not permitted in
Planning Area la, 2 and 3); research and development (not permitted in Planning Area lb and 4); food
and beverage sales and service (convenience market not permitted in Planning Area 4); maintenance and
repair services, and personal services uses are permitted. Specific development standards and
requirements for development Nvithin the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District include:
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--10
��,
,G
D/wmq,
y
,i�� Bc
sw ,,,,�
FC
Jame
%%
%/ of
GSPD %i /////� U%� a
� o
ijr
oo,6iu„
/J.06<;, ; "
iw MISS"
i
i
ia�
eff
GG„ ',�i% 'ii/% i, ///�
j
%%/lfll 0/0%
Bc
-
m"
Zoning Mi
lJORM
BC OPMSPDu
BTP
PQP
PR
GC BWCSPD
i
1� RL-8
FC
GMP TSPD a
GSPD
m IIII
Cite./o f South San Francisco
ll II IIII
0
II� i� � Br,/,,,,,,,a con,„/o„stcr roz„/ Figure IVJ 2
Project Sitc Zoriiri Desi riatior'rs
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Building Height: Maximum building heights shall not exceed the maximum height limit established by
the San Mateo County airport land use commission based on Federal Aviation Administration Regulation
Part 77.`
Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels
and .5 for all other uses unless the Planning Commission grants an FAR bonus in accordance Nvith the
folloNving:
• 0.4 for Hotels and Motels and 0.2 for all other uses for the incorporation of Transportation
Demand Management(TDM)measures.
• 0.2 for the provision of off-site improvements.
• 0.2 for Hotels and Motels and 0.1 for all other uses for projects meeting specified design
standards.
Setback and Yard Requirement: Setbacks shall be provided in accordance Nvith the folloNving table.
Table IV.I-2
Setback Requirements
Minimum
Minimum Building Lan scAppd Setback Minimum Parking
Setback,Feature Se back(ft)(1) 00 Setback(ft)(1)
Ovster Point Boulevard 20 20 20
Ovster Point Boulevard adjacent to freeway 20 20 10
overpass structure
West property line 20 10 10
East property line 20 6 15
Veterans Boulevard 20 20 20
Bav shoreline and marsh See note 2 35 100
Surface parking Avg of 20,minimum 15 n/a 10
,rotes:
I Activities permitted within building and parking setback areas include landscaPing,pedeste°ian walkways,gathering areas,
driveways,and zrtilities.
2.Bay Conser-vation and Development Commission(BC.'D()jurisdictional area development will comply with requirements
established by the BC.'DC pertaining to the BC.'DC jurisdictional area. The BC.'DC jza°isdictional area is located within one
hzrndred feet of the mean high fide line.Commercial improvements located within the shoreline band are permitted by BC.'DC on
a case-by-case basis. The City nzay similarly permit improvements within the shoreline band and as permitted by the East(?/'101
Area Plan.
Parking Requirements (Chapter 20.210.008): Location of Parking: Parking may not be located Nvithin
required setbacks.
a Building heights in the project site area are limited to 1 j0 feet per airport-related heiglit restrictions.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorzmerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Handicap Accessible Parking: Designated"accessible parking" spaces and signs shall be provided to meet
current CA Administrative Code regulations, Title 24, Part 2. In addition one in even* eight handicap
accessible stalls required must meet van access standards.
Shoreline Access Parking: Parking spaces required for public shoreline access shall be convenient to the
shoreline and shall be properly and clearly marked and posted per the California Vehicle Code.
Loading and Service Areas:
o All loading facilities and maneuvering areas shall be located on the same site as the use it
serves.
o Loading and unloading shall only be permitted in the rear or side yard areas and shall not
face the Bay or be visible from any public streets.
o Aisle Nvidths adjacent to loading docks shall have a minimum Nvidth of 30 feet.
o Loading docks shall be set back a minimum distance of 60 feet from the northerly right-
of-Nvav line of Veterans Boulevard.
o Loading facilities shall be adequately screened from public view to the satisfaction of the
Chief Planner through the use of screen Nvalls and landscaping.
o Minimum aisle Nvidth adjacent to loading areas, Nvithout high dock doors, shall be 16 feet
for one-Nvav traffic and 28 feet for N,-o-wav traffic.
o Provisions shall be made on each site for necessary vehicle loading. On-street vehicle
loading is prohibited.
o No street parking, staging or maneuvering of delivery trucks shall be permitted in order
to access loading docks unless Nvithin designated truck maneuvering areas.
o Truck dock and loading zones are subject to individual evaluation by the City Public
Works Department.
o Thick docks or loading areas shall not face San Francisco Bay.
Transportation Demand Management(Chapter 20.210.010): General Requirements —Planning Areas la,
Ib, 2 and 3.
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Project sponsors shall implement a TDM plan to
reduce vehicular trips, and shall be required to achieve a minimum 35 percent alternative mode
use by tenant employees.
2. TDM Monitoring Report. The project sponsors shall prepare an annual TDM report to document
a minimum 35 percent alternative mode usage as identified in the Bay West Cove Supplemental
EIR.
Transportation Demand Management Prozram(Chapter 20.400)
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or
more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a
project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Britannia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Manning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes
of the TDM ordinance are as follows:
• Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential
development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's
police poNver and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and Nvelfare.
• Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from grovlh in employment opportunities in
the City of South San Francisco Nvill be adequately mitigated.
• Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peal-,traffic periods by using a combination of services,
incentives, and facilities.
• Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new
developments are designed in Nvays to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.
• Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
• Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter.
• Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are
implemented.
San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan
Because the project site is located in an area of the City subject to flights from San Francisco International
Airport, the project site is also subject to airport-related height limitations of the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Plan. The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan restricts building heights on the
project site to from 100-150 feet above mean sea level. Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC Nvas
updated in 2012 addressing specifically the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan.
Policy Consistency Analysis
Conflicts beN,-een a project and applicable policies do not constitute a significant physical environmental
impact in and of themselves; as such, the project's consistency Nvith applicable policies is discussed
separately from the physical land use impacts associated Nvith the project. A policy inconsistency is
considered to be a significant adverse environmental impact only when it conflicts Nvith a policy adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is anticipated that the
inconsistenev would result in a significant adverse physical impact(based on the established significance
criteria).
Conflicts Nvith a General Plan do not inherentIv result in a significant effect on the environment Nvithin the
context of CEQA. As stated in Section 15358(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, "[e]ffects analyzed under
CEQA must be related to a physical change." Section 15125(d) of the Guidelines states that EIRs shall
discuss anv inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable General Plans in the Setting
section of the document(not under Impacts).
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--14
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Further, Appendix G of the Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) makes explicit the focus on
environmental policies and plans, asking if the project Nvould "conflict Nvith any applicable land use plan,
policy*, or regulation . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect"
(emphasis added). Even a response in the affirmative, however, does not necessarily* indicate the project
Nvould have a significant effect,unless a physical change Nvould occur. To the extent that physical impacts
may* result from such conflicts, such physical impacts are analyzed elsewhere in this Draft Subsequent
EIR.
The General Plan contains many* policies, which may in some cases address different goals, and thus
some policies may compete Nvith each other. The Planning Commission and City Council, in deciding
whether to approve the proposed project, must decide whether, on balance, the project is consistent (i.e.,
in general harmony*)Nvith the General Plan.
A comparison of the project characteristics Nvith applicable regional and local plans and policies is
provided in Table IV.I-1. A similar table Nvas not provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR, although the document found that the 2000 Bay- West Cove Commercial
Project Nvould be consistent Nvith land use policies in the area.
Table IV.I-3
Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies
Policy Consistency Analysis
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program Consistent:Development of the proposed project would
that provides opportunities for continued economic result in the creation of a higher density business
growth,and building intensities that reflect South San commercial campus,providing professional research and
Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent development,administrative.commercial and
regional access. construction related employment opportunities. The
project would increase the site's existing FAR to 1.18,
increasing the zoning potential by blending FAR across
the project site for a total 0.86 blended FAR at build out,
allowing for more business and employment
opportunities. The proposed project also plans to connect
and foster the use of various modes of transit such as
Caltrain,BART, shuttles and Fern- seixice.
Policy 2-G-3: Provide land use designations that Consistent: The proposed project would provide a large
maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will employment center near transit routes including the
result from BART extension to the City and adjacent existing and future BART, Caltrain, SamTrans(San
locations. Mateo County Transit Authority)seixice routes as well as
the San Francisco Bay Area Water Authority (WTA)
fern terminal. This would assist in improving mobility
access,bridge the geographic distance between housing
and jobs,and support compatible land uses wid"the
East of 101 Area.
EAST OF 101 SUB AREA
Policy 3.5-G-1: Provide appropriate settings for a Consistent: The proposed project guides development
diverse range of non-residential uses. for research and development uses within a life sciences
Britannia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If-1-15
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.I-3
Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies
Policy Consistency Analysis
oriented campus and tourism and commercial uses. It
does not include a residential land use component.
Policy 3.5-G-3: Promote campus-style biotechnology, Consistent: The proposed project includes the
high-technology,and research and development development of a higher density,contemporaiv,high
uses. quality,life sciences oriented campus,which would
promote research and development and commercial uses.
Policy 3.5-I-4: Unless otherwise stated in a specific Consistent: The project proposes structures from three to
plan,allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to nine stories in height. The San Mateo County Airport
the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Land Use Commission height contours for structures
Aviation Regulations Part 77. located in the project area allow for up to 150 feet above
sea level.Building heights within the proposed project
area would be within these maximum height limits,
although it would require FAA notification.
Policy 3.5-I-5: Do not vary permitted maximum Consistent:Development intensities would not vary:
development intensities based on lot size. they would be consistent with blended FAR requirements
across the sites for Britannia Cove at Oi-ster Point and
Britannia Oi-ster Point.
Policy 3.5-I-8: Encourage the development of Consistent:Project amenities on the site would include
employee-seining amenities with restaurants,cafes, various employee amenities such as cafes,restaurants,
support commercial establishments such as dry and a day-care facility and a hotel.
cleaners,to meet the need of the employees in the East
of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in
independent centers or integrated into office parks or
technology campuses.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Policy 5.I-G-3: Provide a comprehensive and Consistent: The parking structure and building
integrated network of parks and open space:improve placement allow for the creation of a series of outdoor
access to existing facilities where feasible. spaces on the project site. The open space and landscape
zones would include a central commons, sheet frontage,
arrival areas,and parking structure frontage. These open
space areas would contain outdoor amenities,gathering
spaces,passive use areas,and landscape screens,and
would be approximately 242,282sf. The Bay Trail would
be accessible from the project site.
TRANSIT
Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient uses of existing Consistent: The East 101 Area is not directly seined by
transportation facilities and,through the arrangement transit. The area relies on supplementaiv shuttle seivices
of land uses,improved,alternative modes,and to connect employees to BART, Caltrain,and SamTrans.
enhanced integration of various transportation systems Shuttle seivices are operated by Peninsula Traffic
seining South San Francisco,strive to reduce the total Congestion Relief Alliance and include the Utah-Grand
vehicle miles traveled. and Oi-ster Point shuttles. The Oi-ster Point Shuttle runs
between South San Francisco Caltrain Station and Oi-ster
Point Boulevard offices.An existing shuttle stop is
located along Veterans Boulevard,on the east side of the
proposed project. The existing and proposed transit and
shuttle stops provide employees with the option to take
alternative modes of transportation and help to reduce the
total vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, Consistent: The existing shuttle stops along Oyster Point
continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Bled and Veterans Bled near the project site would be
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.I-3
Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies
Policy Consistency Analysis
maintained under the proposed project.
Policy 4.3-I-3: Require provision of secure covered Consistent: A Transportation Demand Management
bicycle parking at all existing and fixture multifamily (TDM) study conducted for the Britannia Cove at Oyster
residential,commercial,industrial,and Point Precise Plan area identified measures to be taken in
office/institutional uses. order to promote alternative modes of transportation and
reduce total vehicle miles traN-eled.The TDM specifies
that on-site bike storage including racks,cages,lockers
and inside storage be required as site design features for
development of the proposed project.
Policy 4.4-G-1: Promote local and regional public Consistent:Existing transit seixice in the East of 101
transit seii-ing South San Francisco. area includes Caltrain,BART, SamTrans seixices,and
the San Francisco Bai- Area Water Transit Authority
(WTA).
Policy 4.4-G-2: Explore mechanisms to integrate Consistent: The TDM has identified several strategies to
various forms of transit. promote the use of alternative modes of transportation
and reduce the total vehicle miles traveled. Some of these
strategies include provision of bicycle parking,direct
routes to transit,free parking for carpools and vanpools,
designated passenger loading zones,pedestrian
connections,preferential carpool and vanpool parking,
shower and locker facilities,installment of transportation
information boards and kiosks,designation of a TDM
coordinator to promote TDM strategies,carpool/N-anpool
matching sen-ices,etc. A complete list of TDM strategies
can be referenced in Appendix D of this Draft EIR.
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
LAND USE
Policy 1.1: Promote planned industrial,office,and Consistent: The project proposes office,commercial and
commercial uses in the East 101 Area,and research and development uses and would complement
discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with existing industrial,office,and commercial uses in the
these uses. East of 101 area.
Policy 1.2: Encourage development that enhances net Consistent:Development of the Britannia Cove at
revenues to the City. Oi-ster Point Precise Plan would stimulate the local
economy by increasing the amount of high quality
research and development oriented jobs in the East of 101
area.
Policy 1.3: Promote development that creates quality Consistent: The employment positions that will be
jobs for South San Francisco. provided through development of the proposed project
include a mixture of high quality office and research and
development jobs.
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
CIRCULATION
Policy 2.4: Provide for adequate amounts of parking Consistent: The project would include 2,670 parking
in the East of 101 Area. spaces upon completion of all three construction phases.
The project includes a TDM plan to reduce vehicles on
the site. The number of parking spaces provided would be
supportive of the recommendations of the TDM plan and
would be consistent with the City's expectations for
parking on the site since they will meet City parking
requirements.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--17
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.I-3
Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies
Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy 2.5: Encourage and support transportation Consistent: The proposed project will include a variety
modes other than single-occupancy automobiles of transportation amenities,connections,and seixices to
including ridesharing,bicycling,walking and transit. support alternative modes of transportation such as
transit,bicycling,and walking. The proposed project
includes a TDM plan to promote and encourage
alternative modes of transportation other than single
occupancy vehicles.
Policy 5.1:Promote high quality site,architectural and Consistent:Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan
landscape design that increases a sense of identity in includes a master sign,architectural and landscape design
the East of 101 Area. element that would ensure a coherent space that matches
the identity of the East of 101 Area.
Policy 5.2: Improve the streetscape quality of the East Consistent: The Oyster Point BouleN-ard frontage
of 101 Area through planting of street trees and buildings at the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point
provision of entry monuments. Boulevards would provide an iconic gateway defining the
campus.Further, streetscape would be improved with
new landscaping around the perimeter of the project area.
Policy 5.3:Protect visually significant features of the Consistent: The project is bordered by the Oyster Point
East of 101 Area,including views of the Bay and San inlet part of the Bay. The positioning of building would
Bruno Mountain. allow for views of the Bay of open space users,as well as
office building occupants:therefore,the project would
not block those views. Further views of San Brno
Mountain would be aN-ailable to users of office buildings
located on the west side of the campus. Although the
project includes buildings from three to nine stories in
height due to the campus style position and the relative
distance of the views from surrounding land uses the
project would not hinder views of the Bay and San Bruno
Mountain.
TRANSPORTATIONDEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM(SSFMC, CHAPTER 20.400)
Policy 2.6: Promote the use of public transit to and Consistent: The proposed project would promote and
within the East of 101 Area. provide transit seivice within the East of 101 Area.
Presently,a variety of supplementary shuttle seivices
connecting employees from BART, Caltrain,and
SamTrans,operated by Peninsula Traffic Congestion
Relief Alliance,operate in the project area The shuttles
travel along Oyster Point Boulevard,and seine the Oyster
Point Boulevard offices. Further,the proposed project
includes a TDM plan to promote and encourage
alternative modes of transportation.
Source: URS,2013.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
The analysis in this section focuses on the compatibility* of land uses identified in the proposed project
area v ith existing and planned land use adjacent to the master plan area, as v ell as consistency*with any*
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--18
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect.
The analysis presented in this Draft Subsequent EIR is based on similar information as the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, but it also considers new project site information and updated
regulations.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts from land use and planning if the project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
Phvsicallv divide an established community.
• Conflict Nvith any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency Nvith jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
• Conflict Nvith any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance
as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR, which differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include questions regarding
established communities.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant land use impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of the previously identified land use impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Due to new regulations and
design features the proposed project does not require mitigation measures and Mitigation Measure 4.2.2
of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR is no longer required. For a summary
of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the
Prior Analvsis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them
Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--19
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.I--1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project on established communities. This impact discussion is consistent
With 2013 ( A Guidelines requirements.
The East of 101 Area has been previously developed and is reserved by the City for non-residential
development.No residential structures currently occupy the existing project site, and residential structures
are not permitted in the East of 101 Area, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Existing and future uses developed on the project site Nvould include office and R&D activities. These
uses are consistent Nvith existing land uses in the surrounding area Nvhich include industrial, Nvarehouse,
commercial and research and development activities. Currently the site is vacant; therefore no existing
business or residential community Nvould be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project
Nvould not divide an established community. There Nvould be no impact and no mitigation measures are
required.
Impact IV.I 2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction o>>er the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted with the
purpose of aiwiding or mitigating an en>>ironmental ef'f'ect.
Local Regulations
As shossn in Figure IV.I-1, the City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) designates the
proposed project site as Business Commercial, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
The project site is also located Nvithin the BaY West Cove Specific Plan District, Nvhich provides zoning
for the coordinated development of planned areas Nvith various commercial and research and development
uses in the District. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District allows for an FAR of 1.2 for Hotels and
Motels and .5 for all other uses.
The Bay West Cove Specific Planning District zoning provides for the coordinated development of
comprehensively planned areas Nvith various commercial and research and development uses in the
District. The project proposes the development of a contemporary, high-quality, high-density business
park in three phases. Surface parking Nvould be reconfigured on the site to accommodate parking during
all phases of construction to continuously provide parking at a ratio of not to exceed more than 2.83
spaces per 1,000 s£ All land uses proposed by the proposed project Nvould be consistent Nvith uses alloNved
under the site's General Plan and Zoning designations, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
The project Nvould require amendments to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan and the City's Zoning
Ordinance. The amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District would maintain the FAR on
Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 at 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and increase the FAR to 1.0 for all other uses
(unless the Planning Commission grants an FAR bonus for use of TDM, off-site improvements, and
specified design standards). The project Nvould be constructed at an FAR of 1.18 on the Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point site; hoNvever, Nvith the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point(Planning Areas 2 and 3) planning areas, the FAR on
the site Nvould be aggregated to an FAR of 0.86. This aggregated FAR Nvould be consistent Nvith the FAR
for the project site adopted Nvith the Specific Plan amendment.
As previously discussed, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR proposed for
Planning Area 1 (the proposed project site) 620,000 sf of office space and a 296,000 sf hotel. The
proposed FAR for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould be a 1.0 FAR for office/R&D and
2.0 FAR for hotel. The proposed project Nvould maintain the 1.2 alloNved FAR for hotel uses and increase
the FAR for office/R&D to 1.0, from the 0.5 alloNved. Although development on the site Nvill be at a
greater intensity under the proposed project than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, in
comparison the proposed project proposes a smaller increase in FAR than the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project for Planning Area 1.
With the approval of the Specific Plan and zoning amendments, the project Nvould be consistent Nvith the
Bay West Cove Specific Plan and Bay West Cove Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance regarding
building coverage, setbacks, parking requirements and circulation requirements. Total parking provided
for the project at ultimate buildout Nvould be 2,670 spaces, provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf,
similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
The project Nvould also include the adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map
approval, approval of a TDM Plan, and a Sign Application approval. The proposed project Nvould include
a change to Planning Area 1 to consolidate sub-areas IA and 1B into one planning area, and text
amendments to clarIA- the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1. Table III-2 outlines the
development standards in the City's Zoning Code and any changes that Nvould occur under the proposed
project.
Table VLI4
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes
Existing Bay West Cove Specific Proposed Bay West Cove Specific
Plan and Municipal Code Zoning Plan and Municipal Code Zoning
District District
Building Limitations Life-Science/Office/R&D FAR is 1.0 FAR may be blended across Planning
Gross FAR and the Hotel FAR is 2.0.Hotel will Areas within the Bav West Cove
not be counted against the 1.0 Specific Plan District provided that
Office/R&D FAR and the Life the maximum development allowed
Science/Office/R&D FAR will not be for the Bay West Cove specified in
applied against the hotel FAR. the Bay West Cove Specific Plan is
not exceeded.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--21
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Planning Area 1 Divides Planning Area 1 into la and Planning Area 1 would be amended
lb. to(1)eliminate the alternatives
considered for Planning Area 1 in the
prior 2000 Bay West Cove Specific
Plan: (2)consolidate Planning Areas
la and lb: (3)allow for the
development of both Life
Sciences/Office/R&D uses and Hotel
uses within Planning Area 1:and(4)
allow for density- to be transferred
from Planning Area 2 within the Bay
West Cove Specific Plan to Planning
Area 1.
Lead Agency City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco due to
Redevelopment Agency elimination of Redevelopment
Agency authority under state law.
Source:Bay Nest Cove Specific Plan,Jztly 26, 2012.
Development of the currently* vacant site at an FAR of 1.18 Nyould be more intense than the current
zoning on the site, and then the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The City-has been approving
zoning amendments in the East of 101 Area to increase development in the area. The 1.25 FAR alloNyed
under the Gatevyay Specific Plan District zoning in the vicinity* of the proposed project Nyas adopted for
the purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gatevyay Specific Plan District at a higher density*.
Therefore, the proposed blending of FAR on the site Nyith the Britannia Cove development and the FAR
of other parcels in the area Nyould be consistent Nyith recent City*action and amended zoning regulations in
the project area. As surrounding properties are redeveloped,it is likely that they Nyill also be developed at
increased densities as Nyell. Therefore, the project's density* is consistent Nyith the City's vision for
development in the area and Nyould not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased
density.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found, as shos-,n in the Prior Analysis
section, that development at a greater FAR than Nyhat Nyas alloNyed under City regulations Nyould be a
potentially* significant impact(Impact 4.2.2). Due to recent City* action, the redevelopment in the project
area and the proposed zoning amendments, this Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that the project Nyould
not conflict Nyith any applicable land use plan, policy*, or regulation adopted Nyith the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect and this impact Nyould be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required. Further, Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR is noNy part of project design as outlined in Section III Project Description.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project is no longer
necessary.
BCDC Regulations
A permit from BCDC is required before engaging in any project Nyithin 100 feet from the shoreline
around San Francisco Bay. BCDC Permit No. M98-66 Nyas issued in 1999 to permit Auto Nation to
construct a used auto dealership on the Cove Property*, as outlined in the 1997 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project EIR. This permit has lapsed. Currently*the site is under BCDC Permit No. M98-41,
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning
Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--22
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
which BCDC granted to Bay West Cove for the construction of Veterans Boulevard (formerly Parcel 7 of
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site)that lies Nvithin the 100 feet of the shoreline.
Although the proposed project does not include any improvements to Veterans Boulevard in its NOP
comment letter BCDC stated that a portion of the proposed project may partially be located within the
Commission's jurisdiction. The proposed project does not include any improvements to the shoreline
band or any development on the shoreline band. Further, as discussed in Section IV.D Biological
Resources no Nvatenvays occur onsite, and no Nvetlands Nvere found onsite during the 2013 site visit.
Therefore,the proposed project Nvould have no impact on any Nvater features under BCDC jurisdiction.
The proposed project site does not contain anv Nvater oriented priority land uses and although the project
site is near the ONTster Point Marina,it is not expected to have any impacts on the Oyster Point Marina and
its users. Therefore,the proposed project Nvould have no impact on Nvater oriented priority land uses
The proposed project includes providing higher accessibility to bicycles and pedestrians to the adjacent
Bav Trail. This Nvould be in compliance Nvith BCDC policy Gov. Code section 66632.4 to provide
maximum feasible public access to the bay and its shorelines. Therefore the proposed project Nvould have
no impact on public access to the Bay Trail, and Nvould enhance access to the Bay Shore recreational
opportunities.
Further, as discussed in Section IV.D H Hydrology and Water Quality the project site is not Nvithin BCDC
expected sea level rise areas, therefore there Nvould be no impact related to sea level rise, and the
proposed project Nvould not require a public access risk assessment.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included an analysis of impacts to the
Bav Trail under BCDC jurisdiction. These impacts, as summarized in the Prior Analvsis section, related
to Planning Area 2/3 and Planning Area 4, not Planning Area 1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project included a 8 foot Nvide path in Planning Area 2/3. Further, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found the impact on the Bay Trail to be less than significant.
Impact IV.I--3: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conseri�ation plan
or natural community conseri�ation plan.
There is no natural community plan or applicable habitat conservation plan that applies to the project site
and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Impacts to potential biological
resources are addressed in Section IV.D Biological Resources. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and
no mitigation measures are required, similar to the 2000 Ba-NT West Cove Commercial Project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction Nvith other
development in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco, unless othenvise specified. This analysis
accounts for all anticipated cumulative gros-,th Nvithin this geographic area, as represented by full
implementation of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development of the East of 101
Area.
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--23
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a discussion of the project relative to planning
policy is included in the environmental setting section. Implementation of the project Nvould require
Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments. HoNvever, once these amendments Nvere made the project
Nvould be consistent Nvith the General Plan and Zoning Code and there Nvould be no impact, similar to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. .
Cumulative development Nvithin the City could have a potentially significant effect on the environment by
conflicting Nvith an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency Nvith jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental affect. Cumulative
development in the East of 101 Area Nvill include by Near 2035 over 5 million sf of office and 12.7 million
sf of R&D uses. The City has designated the East of 101 Area as an area reserved for non-residential uses
and has implemented planning policies and zoning to provide for the transformation of the East of 101
Area to a denser office/research and development center. Therefore, the City has planned and accounted
for development of the proposed project in conjunction Nvith similar projects in the area in the applicable
regional and local plans and policies. Cumulative development Nvould be consistent Nvith existing plans
and polices, and the desired future outcome of the East of 101 area and cumulative impacts to land use
and planning policies Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Because no impacts related to land use and planning have been identified, no mitigation measures are
required or recommended.
2072143.1
Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning
Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--24
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
J. NOISE
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft SEIR describes noise in the project area, Nvhich comprises the project site and
neighboring uses.. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies
and regulations related to noise.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project increases
development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, therefore the proposed project Nvould result in new significant impacts or substantial
changes in the severity of the previously identified noise impacts. New and supplemental mitigation
measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised noise analysis, Nvhich considers the current conditions
on the project site. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San
Francisco General Plan Noise Element, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the East of 101 Area
Plan, San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, and data from measuring and modeling
existing and future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. Traffic information
contained in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project Nvas used to prepare the noise modeling for
vehicular sources.
No comment letters related to noise Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of
Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent
EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on noise as identified in Table IV.F-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould
result four less than significant impacts.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra f t Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.J-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 8.2.2—Short Term Construction Noise.The No mitigation measure required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR identified project construction noise as less than
significant impact because it will produce noise above
existing ambient levels.
Impact 8.2.3-Minor Increase in Noise Levels from No mitigation measure required.
the Project,Vehicular Traffic and Trains. The 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
identified the developed project would increase noise
levels in the vicinity,and would constitute a less than
significant impact on the existing land uses in the area.
Impact 8.2.4—Consistency with Noise Element No mitigation measure required.
Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan.The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
would be consistent with noise element policies in the
area and would have a less than significant impact.
Impact 8.2.5—No Cumulative Impact.The 2000 Bay No mitigation measures were required.
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
identified that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project would have a less than significant impact on
cumulative noise in the area,as there are no other
planned projects at the same time and the existing
industrial land use in the area would not be impacted.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The environmental setting consists of a revised analysis of existing noise levels in the project vicinity and
on the project site. Since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project the Britannia Oyster Point
(Planning area 2/3) Nyas developed and the Gatevmy Master Plan Nyas implemented. Therefore, baseline
conditions have changed and are presented in this section.
Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Noise
Noise can be defined as miNvanted sound. It is commonly measured Nvith an instrument called a sound
level meter Nyhich senses sound Nvith a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level.
Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the Nyay humans perceive noise, the A-
Nveighting filter is used. A-Nyeighting de-emphasizes logy-frequency and very* high-frequency sound in a
manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-Nveighting is required by most local agencies as Nyell as
other Federal and State noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is
often used N-,-hen the A-Nveighted sound level is reported.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. -N-oise
DraftSubsequerztErzvirorznzerztallnzpactReport Page If:J-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to
quantiA- the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fulIv describe a particular
noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are
four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies;the Lm, Leq, L,,o and La„(or CNEL).
The maximum instantaneous noise level (L,,,,,) is often used to identIA- the loudness of a single event
such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level, the equivalent noise level
(Leq) is used. Leq is the energy average noise level that is equivalent to a perfectly constant sound pressure
level containing the same acoustic energy over a given time interval. The background noise level (or
residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady
sources such as distant freeway- traffic. It can be quantified Nvith a descriptor called the Lqo which is the
sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantiA- the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (La„ or DNL) or
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except
they include, by definition, a ten dBA "penalty"for noises that occur during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7
a.m.) to account for people's sensitivity to intrusive noise during these hours. The CNEL also includes a
five dBA "penalty" during evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) to account for peoples' increased sensitivity
during these hours.'
In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a
change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable and a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of
loudness.
Existing Noise Environment
The major noise sources affecting the project site are vehicular traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard, , and
aircraft overflights from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). U.S. 101 and the railroad tracks that
support Caltrain and freight train operations are also located to the Nvest. The project site is currently
vacant. Various commercial buildings adjacent to the project site are located to the north, south and east.
Noise measurements Nvere conducted near the project site to quantiA- the existing noise environment.
These included four 1-hour short-term noise measurements (Locations 1 through 4). Each measurement
location represents an area adjacent to the project site that may be impacted adversely by project related
noise. Short-term measurement Locations 1 through 4 represent the noise exposure at the closest noise
receivers to the project site. Locations 1 and 2 represent the noise environment at the commercial
buildings to the south and east of the project site. Location 3 and 4 represent the noise environment at the
two closest noise sensitive receivers. The noise measurement locations are shoN-,n in Figure IV.J-1.
Results of the noise measurements can be found in Table IV.J-2, which includes the Leq and L percentiles
noise levels at all four noise measurement locations.
'American Vatiorial Standards Institute,Al;SI S1.1-1994,Acoustical Terminology, 1994.
'C.'oweliHarzdbookoffrzvironnzerztalAcoustics, 1994.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--3
m r t N r ii/
I�
m
11 N, r
r
i
r
9
�e ST 1
U ,lr r' Nwl� Ar ' ✓Li wn irim� u ";jJ��� ',. A ���/ '�
o V,. �� 0� � f ni, � ✓� �'/l �� it �
r
xr f Y a r/
l , ✓ �` � % �mf% r;r ,; �r ,i��V� � w*r,�' 1%1SI �fM1a ���� �IM �Di ��� e
Gib �r�
�r,!e"'a
r�
'Yf0 it ��y ✓���Itao'... /, �,o���i IN s r. � ° �� rp r 1�S��VD1, � r✓!Y �f'r ��
)�r
r
JNnr,' �� %11�rr, � �uI010� / ,,,,,��Ad� l tl�l(4iN
m ° Im Im City of South San Francisco
II
II III I
Britannia Cosa'(it Oi�stcr Point Figure IVJ-1
Noise Measurement Locations
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
The project environment is dominated by traffic noise from U.S. 101. No long-term noise measurements
wvere conducted because there wvere no nighttime land uses near the project site. To determine the CNEL
at each of the noise measurement locations, the traffic noise from U.S. 101 wvas propagated out to each of
the short-term noise measurement site locations to determine their respective CNEL noise level. Table
IV.J-2 shows the CNEL noise levels at each noise measurement location. The traffic noise CNELs wvere
propagated using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise prediction equations. The area
surrounding the project site is dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101 and Caltrain operations, which
adds up to an exposure level of 70 Leq dBA. During the short-term noise measurement survey*, train
operations along the Caltrain rail line produced noise levels of up to 81 dBA L,,,,, at Location 4 and as
low as 56 dBA L,,,,, at Location 2. Recorded aircraft overflights noise levels ranged between 62 and 71
dBA L,,,,,. Additional noise sources included landscaping activities and car horns/alarms.
Table IV. J-2
Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
A-weighted Sound Level,dBA
Location Time Ley Lio L, Lvo Lmin
1 Corner of Oyster Point Boulevard 10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. 65 68 64 60 55
and Gatewav Boulevard
Veterans Boulevard
2 (East side of site 90 feet to 11:05 a.m. - 12:05 p.m. 55 57 54 51 49
centerline of roadway)
Airport Boulevard
3 (West side of site on the other end 12:40 p.m. - 1:40 p.m. 70 72 70 69 66
of U.S. 101 90 feet to centerline of
roadway)
Veterans Boulevard
4 (Courtyard Marriott Hotel parking 1:50 p.m. -2:50 p.m. 60 61 57 56 54
lot 100 feet to centerline of
roadway)
Source: URS Corporation 2013
Noise Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Area
Land uses surrounding the site are mostly* limited to offices, commercial and light industrial. Noise
sensitive land uses are typically* defined as residences, schools, places of worship, hospitals, care centers
and hotels. The nearest noise sensitive land use is an existing hotel (Courtyard Marriott) located to the
north that is approximately* 420 feet from the northern property* line. Another hotel (Residence Inn
Marriott) is located 900 feet to the north. The nearest residential land uses are located to the southwest of
the site. These residences are located along the west side of Airport Boulevard, west of U.S. 101 and are
approximately*750 feet from the project site.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
DraftSnbsegnerztErzvirorznzerztallnzpactReport Page If:J-5
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J-3
CNEL Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Locations
A-weighted Sound Level
Location dBA CNEL
Coiner of 01-ster Point
1 Boulevard and Gatewav 62.4
Boulevard
Veterans Boulevard
2 (East side of site 90 feet to 622
centerline of roadway)
Airport Boulevard
3 (West side of site on the other 72.8
end of U.S. 101 90 feet to
centerline of roadway)
Veterans Boulevard
4 (Courtyard Marriott Hotel 70.1
parking lot 100 feet to centerline
of roadway)
Source: URS Corporation 2013
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
and are reflected in this section.
Local Noise Guidelines
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project is located in South San Francisco which has noise standards in
its General Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed project is subject to the noise policies of the East of
101 Area Plan and County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International
Airport.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan contains policy statements Nvith the goal of
achieving acceptable noise levels throughout South San Francisco. The City has guidelines for noise and
land use compatibility*in the noise element. These guidelines are summarized in Table IV.J-4.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 8.32.030 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies maximum permissible sound levels to be
generated by any property*Nvithin the City. The maximum alloNvable noise level is determined by the land
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft,SubsegnerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page If:J--6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
use category of the receiving property. These levels are summarized in Table IV.J-4. The levels shoN-,n in
Table IV.J-4 are applicable for noises that occur up to 30 minutes per hour. Higher noise levels are
alloNved, but for shorter periods of time.
Chapter 832.050 (d)identifies a Special Provision Nvhich allows construction activities Nvith a City permit
between the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nveekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. A permit must be obtained from the City before construction begins. Other hours
may be authorized by obtaining a permit, provided the construction meets at least one of the folloNving
requirements:
1. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a
distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed Nvithin a structure or trailer on the property,the
measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the
equipment as possible.
2. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed
90 dB.
Table IV.J-4
Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas
Land Use CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria
Residential Less than 65 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements
65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction
requirements and insulation as needed
Over 70 Development should not be undertaken
Commercial Less than 70 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements
70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction
requirements and noise insulation as needed
Over 80 Airport-related development only: special noise
insulation should be provided
Industrial Less than 75 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements
75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction
requirements and noise insulation as needed
Over 85 Airport-related development only: special noise
insulation should be provided
Open Less than 75 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements
Over 75 Avoid uses invoking concentrations of people or
animals
Source:City of Sorrth Saar Francisco General Plan Noise Element,SFO Air portLand Use Plan
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan applies to the areas of South San Francisco bounded by the City limits to the
north and south, the San Francisco Bay to the east and U.S. 101 to the Nvest. The Plan's Noise Element
provides policies to ensure anticipated land uses in the plan area Nvill not be exposed to unacceptable
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft SubsequerztErzviroznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:J--7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
noise levels. For commercial development, Policy* NO-2 states that the daytime interior hourly* average
noise levels (Leq) should not exceed Leq 45 dBA and instantaneous interior noise levels (Lmj should not
exceed 60 dBA. The East of 101 Area Plan indicates that office and retail buildings located between
Colma Creels and Oyster Point Boulevard are required to provide a minimum exterior-to-interior noise
attenuation of 27 dBA. This minimum attenuation is based on an aircraft noise level of Lm, 87 dBA
which is comparable to the airplane Lm,values measured for this analysis.
Table IV.J-5
Maximum Permissible Noise Levels
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level(dB)
R-E,R-1 and R-2 zones 10 p.m. -7 a.m. 50
or any single-family or
duplex residential in a 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60
specific plan district
R-3 and D-C zones or
any multiple-family 10 P.M. -7 a.m. 55
residential or mixed
residential/commercial in 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60
any specific plan district
C-1,P-C. Gateway and
Oyster Point Marina 10 p.m. -7 a.m. 60
specific plan districts or
any commercial use in 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 65
any a specific plan district
M-L P-1 Ani-time 70
Source:City ofSozrth Saar Francisco Vbtnicipal Code
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
The current San Mateo Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Nvas adopted by the San Mateo
County* Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in December 1996. It contains the same standards that
are presented in the Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas for the City of South San Francisco
General Plan Noise Element (Table IV.J-3 of this analysis). Chapter V of the San Mateo County*ALUC
Nvas updated in 2012 addressing specifically*the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines contains a checklist to identiA- whether a proposed project
could result in potentially* significant impacts Nvith respect to either noise or vibration. These guidelines
have been adopted as thresholds of significance. A potentially* significant impact Nvould occur if the
proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:J--8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity* above levels
existing Nvithout the project.
• A substantial temporary* or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
existing Nvithout the project.
• For a project located Nvithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, Nvithin N,-o miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people
residing or Nvorlcing in the project vicinity*to excessive noise levels.
• For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or Nvorlcing in the
project vicinity to excessive noise levels.
Neither the CEQA Guidelines nor the City's General Plan define what is considered to be a "substantial
increase." In general, an increase 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable and a
change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving). Therefore, the folloNving increases in noise are
considered to be significant:
• 5 dBA or greater if the future noise is Nvithin the normally acceptable range (CNEL 65 dBA
or less for residences,hotels and child care; CNEL 70 dBA or less for offices and retail).
• 3 dBA or greater if future noise level is above the normally acceptable range.
CEQA, the City and the State do not speciA- acceptable vibration levels from construction activities. For
the purposes of this assessment, the methodology described by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
is used.' These FTA criteria are based on the potential for annoyance and interference Nvith vibration
sensitive activities which is much more stringent than criteria for structural damage. The FTA specifies an
impact criterion of a vibration level of 80 VdB-'for residences and hotels, and 83 VdB for offices. These
criteria are for "infrequent" events (i.e. transit train passbys). Although more stringent criteria are
recommended for"frequent"or"occasional"events,these are not used since construction activities Nvould
generally occur during the day-mime and Nvould not be permanent.
The methodologies used in this section have not changed from the noise analysis conducted in 2000
Supplemental EIR and the current analysis.
s Transit Voise arid I7bratiorz InrpactAsses/neat,Federal Transit Administration,May 2006
4 VdB—The vibration velocity level expressed in decibels re one micro-inch per second.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Impacts
Impact IV.J--1: The proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
in excess of standards established in the local generalplan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies. Operational noise at the site, such as that created by HVAC equipment, would
exceed the noise generation standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code.
The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the project buildings Nvould be
located on the roof-tops of the buildings. At this time the details of the HVAC system are not lcnoN-,n and
therefore, precise predictions cannot be made regarding the noise levels at the nearby land uses. It is
possible that HVAC noise levels could exceed the limits of the Municipal Code at adjacent noise sensitive
land uses such as the Courtvard Marriott Hotel and the child care center located approximately 350 feet
east of the project site. The child care center located approximately 700 feet south of the project site
Nvould likely not be impacted by the HVAC equipment due to its distance from the site. ? This is
considered to be a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-
1.1 Nvould reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring the project's HVAC design to
include noise control measures adequate to meet the Citv's Noise Standards.
Mitigation Measure IV-J.1-I Operational Noise
As part of the application to the City for each phase of the project design, the project applicant shall
prepare an analysis of the noise generated by the project's mechanical equipment to confirm that the
proposed equipment meet the standards of 60 dBA at the property line beN,-een the hours of 10 p.m. and 7
a.m. and 65 dBA at the property line between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The analysis shall specIA-
the noise control measures required to meet these noise levels for all buildings constructed in each phase
that includes mechanical equipment. Specific measures cannot be outlined at this time because of the lack
of detailed information on the HVAC equipment design and location. Typical noise control measures
include barriers or enclosures around rooftop equipment. Other measures include duct silencers and
acoustical louvers at the ventilation openings. FolloNving inclusion of the noise control measures in the
building design, the project sponsor shall submit a letter to the City Building Division, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, Nvith a letter from the designer and a copy of the report shoNving that the
mechanical equipment has been designed to meet the City s Noise Standards.
Impact IV.J--2: The proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
in excess of standards established in the local generalplan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies. The proposed project would not expose persons to traffic-related noise leiels greater
than the upper limit of satisfactory noise leiels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA.
Proposed project buildings for each phase Nvould be exposed to an exterior noise exposure level of up to
60 dBA CNEL from traffic along Oyster Point Boulevard, resulting in an exterior level of 69 dBA CNEL
due to traffic along Veterans Boulevard. This noise exposure Nvould be below the upper limit of
satisfactory exterior noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA; therefore, the City Nvould not
require an analysis of indoor noise reduction as the future traffic noise along Oyster Point Boulevard and
Veterans Boulevard Nvould meet the exterior noise standard and Nvould by default meet the interior noise
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
standard as the buildings provide a minimum of 20 dBA outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. Therefore,
this is considered to be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
Impact IV.J--3: The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise lei�els in
the project>>icinity abo>>e lei�els existing without the project.
The effect of project generated traffic Nvas calculated using traffic noise prediction equations derived by
the Federal Highwa-,T Administration. Table IV.J-6 shows the calculated existing and project generated
traffic noise levels along the roadwa-,Ts in the project vicinity. The greatest effect on ambient levels Nvould
occur at the existing commercial land uses along Veterans Boulevard where the increase Nvould be up to
4.4 dBA. The nearest residential land use potentially affected by project generated traffic is on the Nvest
side of U.S. 101 near Airport Boulevard. The noise level along this roadwa-,T is expected to increase by
less than 1 dBA due to project generated traffic. Therefore,this is considered to be a less than significant
impact and no mitigation is required. Cumulative traffic noise increases are assessed in the Cumulative
Impacts section of this noise section.
Table IV.J-6
Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project
CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline,dBA
Roadway Existing Existing+Project Increase'
Airport Boulevard
North of Terra Bav Access 62.6 62.7 0.0
Between Terra Bay Access to Sister
Cities Boulevard 6L8 6L8 0.1
Between Sister Cities Boulevard and 62.5 62.5 0.1
Grand Avenue
Gateway Boulevard
Oyster Point Boulevard to East Grand
63.5 64 0.4
Avenue
Grand Avenue
Between Airport Boulevard and
Gateway Boulevard 63.1 63.2 1
0.
Oyster Point Boulevard
Between Airport Boulevard and
Dubuque Avenue 64.3 64.4 0.2
Between Dubuque Avenue and
Gateway Boulevard 66.6 67.6 09
Between Gateway Boulevard and
Veterans Boulevard 64.7 65.4 0.7
Veterans Boulevard
Between Drivewav d and b 51.1 55.6 4.4
Between Drivewav b and a 55.3 57.2 2.0
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-11
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J-6
Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project
CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline,dBA
Roadway Existing Existing+Project Increase'
Between Drivewav a and Oyster Point 579 60.2 2.3
Boulevard
Source: VRS Corporation 2013
,rote:
-Noise levels are rounded to the nearest one tenths
Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise lei�els in the project vicinity.
Offsite Impacts
Ambient noise levels in the project vicinit-- Nvould temporarily increase during the project-related
construction activities on the project site. These activities Nvould include the construction of one 8-level
parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. The project
Nvould be constructed in three phases and it is assumed that Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase
2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Since the construction Nvould be phased, there is the potential for
construction noise to affect the buildings neighboring the project site as Nvell as the occupied buildings on
the project site (nevdv constructed project buildings). There are no foreseen off-site construction activities
such as road improvements or installation of utilities that Nvould contribute to a secondary noise impact.
The noisiest construction activities Nvould be conducted during the initial phases of construction for
Phases 1, 2, and 3. These construction activities Nvould include mass excavation, site grading and
foundation Nvork. Other activities that Nvould occur Nvith construction of each phase Nvould typically
include use of heavy diesel poNvered machinery such as impact hammers, compactors, front end loaders,
bacichoes, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, trucks and concrete equipment. Later activities Nvould include the
construction of the building and may require a crane and smaller equipment such as generators,
compressors,power tools, and hand tools.
The nearest noise sensitive building adjacent to the project site is the Court--ard Marriott Hotel located
along Veterans Boulevard which is approximately 413 feet north of the project site. Another hotel
(Residence Inn Marriott) is located approximately 900 feet north of the project. Several office buildings
are located near the project site. The closest office building is located approximately 150 south of the
project site, and the second closest office building is located approximately 217 feet east of the project
site. The project includes a proposed child care facility, which Nvould be constructed as early as Phase 1
which is expected to be located indoors approximately 350 feet east of the project site. Additionally,there
is an existing child care facility located approximately 700 feet from the project site, which has an
outdoor play area.
Britaririia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft,Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--12
00)(?fSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J-6 shows the expected noise levels from various pieces of construction equipment at the nearest
land uses and at the proposed child care facilities, when construction activities are occurring at their
closest point to these land uses. The table includes noise levels from various types of pile driving
equipment since pile driving Nvould be required during construction and Nvould be one of the highest noise
generating activities.
The noise level standards of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are not applied to construction
activities because of a Special Provision that allows construction activities between 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on
Nveekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
Although the construction activities are allowed by the Citv's Municipal Code, they Nvould cause a short-
term substantial increase in noise levels at the nearest land uses adjacent to the project site. For example,
the existing daytime noise level near the center of the site is 65 dBA Leq (see noise measurement at
Location 1). Maximum noise levels from the nearest construction activities could result in a roughly 5 to
10 dBA Leq increase over the existing Leq The increase in Leq Nvould depend on the duration that the
equipment Nvould operate and the number of simultaneous activities.
Table IV.J-7
Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses
Maximum Noise Levels(L,,,aa)
for Typical Construction Activities,dBA
Construction
Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Child Care Southern
Marriott Building on djacent Facility(In Outdoor Play
Hotel A Property Door) Area
Auger Drill Rig 66 74 47 56
Backhoe 60 68 41 50
Compactor 65 73 46 55
Compressor 60 68 41 50
Concrete Pump Truck 63 71 44 53
Crane 63 71 44 53
Bulldozer 60 68 41 50
Dump Truck 58 66 39 48
Excavator 63 71 44 53
Front End Loader 61 69 42 51
Grader 65 73 46 55
Jackhammer 71 79 52 61
Paver 59 67 40 49
Pile Driving-Impact 83 91 64 73
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra ft Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.J-7
Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses
Maximum Noise Levels(Lm x)
for Typical Construction Activities,dBA
Construction
Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Child Care Southern
Marriott Building on Adjacent Facility(In Outdoor Play
Hotel Property Door) Area
Pile Driving- 83 91 64 73
Vibrator-
Pile Driving-Pushing 63 71 44 53
Pneumatic Tools 65 73 46 55
Source: URS Corporation
Construction noise has the potential to be high enough at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel to be disruptive
during impact pile driving at the project site. The loudest noise level due to construction activities is
projected to be 83 dBA L,,,,,at the building face Court-Tard Marriott Hotel,which exceeds the noise limits
set by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
Currently, there are no external areas of frequent human use such as a patio or a swimming pool at this
hotel. A child care facility may be constructed as part of Phase 1 to the east of the project site across
Veterans Boulevard. Construction noise at the child care facility, which is scheduled to be in operation
after Phase 1,Nvould be high enough to disrupt sleep. The loudest noise level due to construction activities
at the child care facility east of the project site is projected to be as high as 64 dBA Lm, inside the
building, which exceeds the noise limits set by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code. Additionally, construction noise at the child care facility located to the south of the project site on
Gatewa-,T Boulevard has the potential to interfere Nvith speech communication in the external play area.
The loudest noise level due to construction activities at the day care facility located to the south of the
project site is projected to be as high as 73 dBA Lm,which exceeds the noise limits set by the provisions
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. This is a significant temporan- noise impact and
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 is required. Mitigation measures would reduce
construction noise impacts to less than significant.
Onsite Impacts
The project is assumed to be developed in three phases. Development of Phase 1, which Nvould include
the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, and potentially a child care facility on the project site,
Nvould have the potential to impact existing buildings located offsite adjacent to the project site. When
Phases 2 is developed, which includes Buildings B L B2, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and the first
three floors of the parking structure, noise generated by construction activities associated Nvith Phase 2
Nvould have a short-term, but apotentialty significant impact on the onsite structures existing at that time.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra ft Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:J-14
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
SimilarIv, when Phase 3 is constructed, it Nvill have a potentially significant impact on the onsite
structures constructed during both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Mitigation Measure IV.J--4.1 Construction Generated Noise
The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise control plan that identifies detailed, site-specific
noise attenuation measures that Nvould be used to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. The
construction noise control plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant
or person experienced Nvith equipment and techniques that can be used to reduce construction related
noise. The plan must include, but is not limited to,the folloNving measures:
• Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule,
including the various types of activities that Nvould be occurring throughout the duration of
the construction period.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards.
• Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas avmy
from sensitive uses,Nvhere feasible.
• Schedule high noise-producing activities Nvhen they Nvould be least likely to interfere Nvith the
noise sensitive activities of the neighboring land uses. When near office buildings evening
hours may be preferable because the buildings are not occupied. The Municipal Code
currentIv allows construction activities until 8 p.m. during Nveek days, and between 9 a.m. and
8 P.M. on Saturdays. If construction equipment can meet the noise limit requirements of
Municipal Code section 832.50 d (1) or d (2), then they could be used during off-hours. If
construction hours Nvere too late then these levels could potentially impact the existing hotel.
SimilarIv, when near the existing hotel late morning and afternoon hours may be preferable
because rooms may be vacant.
• Where possible and practical, the project sponsor may use driven or drilled piles based on the
results of further geotechnical investigations. If the drilling and casing method is used Nvhen
driving piles pursuant to further geotechnical recommendations, the level of noise to adjacent
buildings may be further reduced.
• Designate an on-site construction noise complaint manager for the duration of the project.
• Post signs around the project site to inform persons of the construction hours and the name
and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the event of a noise related problem.
• A pre-construction meeting shall be held Nvith the job inspectors and the general
contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation practices (including
construction hours,neighborhood notification,posted signs, etc.) are completed.
• The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas
along Nvith operation of earthmoving equipment Nvithin the project site be located as far avmy
from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--1 5
00)of Sotah Sari Francisco April 201;
in the construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
• The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks
should be routed awa-,T from noise and vibration sensitive uses, to the extent possible.
Contract specifications shall be included on the construction documents, which shall be
reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Since the mitigation measure Nvould reduce construction noise where feasible, minimizing the potential
for disturbance, and considering that construction noise is exempt from noise limits by the provisions of
the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the construction noise impact at the existing office buildings
located to the east and south, existing hotel located to the north, and child care facility located to the east
and south of the project site Nvould be less than significant after mitigation.
Due to the proximity of the buildings located onsite Nvith the other project related structures, and
depending upon the type of pile driving that Nvould be conducted in the second and third construction
phases, it may not be possible to mitigate all of the noise impacts from construction activities during
Phases 2 and 3 on the building constructed during the previous phases. Even though the construction
noise represents a short-term impact, this could still represent a potentially significant and unaiwidable
impact even after mitigation.
Impact IV.J--S: The proposed project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne ibration or groundborne noise lei�els.
Construction equipment could generate noticeable vibration at adjacent buildings on and off the site. The
greatest potential for vibration generation Nvould be during the excavation and foundation construction
activities. Pile driving often generates the highest vibration levels at a construction site. As required by
future geotechnical recommendations, where piles are required they Nvill be specified as less invasive
drilling,not driven,piles,where feasible.
Table IV.J-8 shows the vibration levels for different construction equipment at their closest point to the
Courtvard Marriott Hotel and commercial buildings adjacent to the site. As the equipment moves farther
away, the vibration level drops rapidly, due to absorption from the ground through which the vibration
propagates.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--16
00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J-8
Vibration Levels at Nearby Receivers
Construction Maximum Vibration by Receiver,VdB
Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Nearest Commercial
Marriott Hotel Building South of Building East of the
the Project Site Project Site
Pile Driver—Impact 75 89 84
Pile Driver—Vibratory- 68 82 77
Large Bulldozer 50 64 59
Loaded Trucks 49 63 58
Jackhaimiter 42 56 51
Vibratory-Roller 57 71 66
Hoe Ram 50 64 59
Caisson Drilling 50 64 59
Pile Driving—Pushing 42 56 51
So ..e:e: tW Corporation 2013
With the exception of impact pile driving, construction activities yvould result in vibration levels that are
yvithin the FTA's impact levels of 80 VdB for residences and hotels and 83 VdB for offices. Impact pile
driving yvould exceed the FTA impact criteria at its closest point to the commercial land uses near the
project site. There is the potential for nearby buildings to contain vibration sensitive research equipment
such as electron microscopes. This equipment could be affected at loyver levels than those discussed
above. Therefore,groundborne vibration is considered apotentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 Groundborne Vibration Off'Site
Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities for each phase of the project, the project
applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the locations of vibration sensitive
equipment near the construction site. If it is determined that no vibration sensitive equipment is present,
then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken.
The distances for a preconstruction survey yvill depend on yvhich method of pile installation yvill be used.
The folloyving are different pile installation methodologies that can be used:
• Implementation of either the impact or vibratory pile driving method yvould result in a
preconstruction survey of vibration sensitive equipment of at least 500 feet from the construction
site.
• Implementation of the drilling and casting method yvould result in a preconstruction survey of
vibration sensitive equipment of at least 300 feet from the construction site.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• implementation of the pushing method, if feasible and consistent Nvith the recommendations of
the geotechnical study Nvould not require a preconstruction survey of vibration sensitive
equipment. Vibration levels from the pushing method Nvould not generate vibration levels high
enough to effect vibration sensitive equipment near the construction site.
If the project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to be affected, the
applicant shall implement a construction schedule to ensure that construction activities Nvould occur
during times when vibration sensitive equipment Nvould not be in use. If it is not feasible for the applicant
to change or adjust the construction schedule (i.e., if the use of vibration sensitive equipment is used
continuousIv throughout the day), the applicant shall install mitigation measures at the location of the
vibration sensitive equipment. This may include the installation of vibration isolators sufficient to isolate
the sensitive equipment from the building structure. If there is vibration sensitive equipment located near
the project site and the geotechnical study concludes the pushing method of pile installation is suitable for
the soils on the project site, it is strongly recommended that the project sponsor implement the pushing
method when installing piles. Implementation of this measure Nvould reduce the impact of off-site
groundborne vibration to a less than significant level.
On Site
Due to the proximity of the buildings located onsite Nvith other project related buildings, it may not be
possible or feasible to mitigate all of the vibration impacts from construction activities during Phase 2 and
3 on the buildings constructed during Phase 1. Vibration levels from the pile driving (i.e., including the
pushing method) and other construction activities such as backhoe Nvork Nvould exceed FTA vibration
criteria. Even through the construction vibration represents a short-term impact,this could still represent a
potentially significant and una>>oidable impact after mitigation.
Impact IV.J-6: The proposed project would not result in exposure of people residing or working at the
project site to excessive noise lei�els from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public or public use airport.
The proposed project site is located Nvithin two miles of the San Francisco International Airport. Noise
contours prepared for the airport indicate that the project site is located 2,700 feet outside the CNEL 60
dBA contour. Therefore, the proposed office buildings Nvould be exposed to an aircraft generated CNEL
below 60 dBA which is considered satisfactory for commercial development by the policies of the South
San Francisco General Plan and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. The policies of
the East of 101 Area Plan indicate that office and retail buildings located in the project vicinity are
required to provide a minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27 dBA to reduce indoor
maximum instantaneous noise levels (L,,,,,) from aircraft to the goal of 60 dBA (i.e., to achieve an indoor
Lm, of 60 dBA, aircraft overfights cannot exceed 87 dBA L,,,,,.) (Policy NO-2). None of the noise
measurements conducted in the vicinity of the project site measured an aircraft overflight greater than 87
dBA Lm,. Therefore, airport noise is a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures Nvill be
required to reduce indoor Lm,to 60 dBA.
Impact IV.J-7. The proposed project would not result in exposure of people residing or working at the
project site to excessive noise lei�els from a private airstrip.
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
DraftSubsequerztElivironnrelitalImpactReport Page If:J--18
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The proposed project site is not within the vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore no impact Nvould
occur and no mitigation measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Noise level increases due to increased traffic are summarized in Table IV.J-9. In the future, cumulative
traffic Nvill increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Airport, Gatevmy, Oyster
Point and Veterans Boulevards, and East Grand Avenue by 3.5, 3.9, 3.9, 2.8, and 4.4dBA CNEL,
respectively. Cumulative traffic Nvould increase the traffic noise levels at the closest residential land use
along Airport Boulevard by 1.7 dBA.
These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase.
Although the project contribution is as high as 2.8 dBA CNEL along Veterans Boulevard and less than 2
dBA CNEL evervv,-here else, this contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. Therefore, the
increase in traffic noise is a significant and unaiwidable cumulative impact.
Mitigation of the traffic noise along any of the roadvmy segments analyzed in this section Nvould not be
feasible or effective. This is because all of the land uses in the vicinity of the project are commercial and
do not have anv external common uses areas that need protecting. Additionally, cumulative impacts
Nvould oniv be due to traffic grov th and not project operation.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.J-1.1, IV.J-4.1, IV.J-5.1, IV.J- 5.2 and IV.J-6.1 identified in
this section Nvould adequately mitigate potential impacts related to operational noise, construction noise
impacts to off-site office uses, groundborne vibration, and aircraft noise. These impacts Nvould be
reduced to a less than significant level. HoNvever, even Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.J-4.1, IV.J-5.1, IV.J-5.2, construction noise and vibration for on-site uses Nvould remain significant
and una>>oidable. Additionallv, the increase in traffic noise Nvould be a significant and unaiwidable
cumulative impact.
Table IV.J-9
Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases
Traffic Noise Level 100 Feet from Centerline Existing to
(dBA CNEL)
Future+ Project
Project Contribution
Future+ Increase to Future
Roadway Existing Future(2035) Project (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL)
Airport Boulevard
North of Terra Bav Access 62.6 65.3 65.3 2.7 0.0
Between Terra Bav Access 61.8 65.2 65.3 3.5 0.1
to Sister Cities Boulevard
Between Sister Cities
Boulevard and Grand 62.5 64.1 64.2 1.7 0.1
Avenue
Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-19
00)ofSotrth Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J-9
Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases
Traffic Noise Level 100 Feet from Centerline Existing to
(dBA CNEL)
Future+ Project
Project Contribution
Future+ Increase to Future
Roadway Existing Future(2035) Project (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL)
Gateway-Boulevard
Oyster Point Boulevard to 64 67.1 679 39 0.8
East Grand Avenue
East Grand Avenue
Between Airport Boulevard 63.1 65.5 67.5 4.4 2.0
and Gatewai-BouleN-ard
Oi-ster Point Boulevard
Between Airport Boulevard
and Dubuque Avenue
6 .3 67.0 67.1 2.8 0.1
v
Between Dubuque Avenue 66.6 69.5 70.0 3.4 0.5
and Gatewai-BouleN-ard
Between Gateway-
Boulevard and Veteran's 64.7 68.2 68.6 39 0.4
Boulevard
Veterans Boulevard
Between Driveway- d and b 51.1 51.1 52.8 1.7 1.7
Between Driveway-b and a 55.3 55.3 57.3 2.0 2.0
Between Driveway a and 579 579 60.7 2.8 2.8
Oi-ster Point Boulevard
Source: URS Corporation 2013
,rote:
'Change in noise levels are rounded to the nearest tenth of a dB
Britaririia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise.
Draft,Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--20
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing population, employment and housing in the
project area, which includes the project site and other properties in the vicinity, and analyzes the potential
for adverse impacts on population and housing resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on population and housing of the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new
significant population and housing impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant population
and housing impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified population and
housing impacts. Similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR,
mitigation measures are not required for the project. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
The Subsequent Draft EIR analysis is limited to those socioeconomic issues that could result in a direct
change to the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). In light of this, the effect of the
proposed project on property values and its economic effect on surrounding businesses are not considered
environmental issues, and thus Nvill not be analyzed. A regulatory frameNvork is provided in this section
describing applicable agencies and regulations related to population and housing.
Information Sources
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the Association of Bay
Area Governments ("ABAG") and the City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element
("Housing Element"),updated in June 2009.
No comment letters related to population, employment, and housing Nvere received in response to the
December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this Subsequent Draft EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on population and housing as identified in Table IV.K-1. The 2000 Bay
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing
Dra ft Subsequen t Environnzen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts associated with employment and population
groN-,th or increase demand for housing, because these increases Nvere anticipated in build out of the City
in 2020.
Table IV.K-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 17.2.2—Minor Employment Growth Effect No mitigation measures were required.
upon City Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the
project would lead to an increase in employees in the
City of South San Francisco,which would utilize City
facilities and seixices. The impact would be less than
significant.
Impact 17.2.3-No Population Growth Effects on No mitigation measures were required.
City Services. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR concluded that the project
would have a less than significant impact on population
growth and city seixices,as no new housing would be
built as part of the project,and no direct demands on
City seixices are associated with the project.
Impact 17.2.4—Balance of Jobs/Employed Residents. No mitigation measures were required.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that the project would add jobs
to the city faster than employed residents:nonetheless
the project is consistent with the City General Plan of
promoting*'continued job growth in the City will
promote greater regional balance between jobs and
housing." The impact would be less than significant.
Impact 17.2.5—Impacts on Availability of Affordable No mitigation measures were required.
Housing.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that the project does not
include housing and that the project's failure to provide
onsite housing for households with a range of incomes is
not an adverse impact.Development of housing on the
project site would be inconsistent with the General Plan
and East of 101 Area Plan. Although,the lack of
housing supply in the City would make it difficult for
future employees who might wish to live in South San
Francisco to do so,the impact was not found to be
adverse on the East of 101 Area Plan. The project would
create a mix of land uses consistent with the East of 101
Area Plan. The impact would be less than significant.
Impact 17.2.6-Cumulative Impact.The 2000 Bay No mitigation measures were required.
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
found that since the project would have no impact,there
would be less than significant impacts on population and
housing.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:K. Population aid Housing
Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:K-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical Setting
Although population has groN-,n in the City of South San Francisco (City) since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, grov,th is in line Nvith ABAG projections for the City. Population, housing, and
employment data are available on city, county, regional, and state levels. Table IV.K-2 shows updated
population, housing, and employment data at the City and County level, in order to focus the analysis on
the Citv of South San Francisco.
Table IV.K-2
Current and Future Population,Employment and Housing
South San Francisco and San Mateo County
South San Francisco San Mateo County
2005 2015 2020 2005 2015 2020
Total Population 61,700 66,600 69,700 721,900 766,900 801,300
Total Jobs 42,240 45,350 48,290 337,350 373,370 404,400
Total Households 20,130 21,750 22,840 260,070 275,680 287,350
Source:ABAG Projections, 2009.
Population
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the City of South San Francisco had a population of 63,362 in 2010,
Nvhich is higher than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project population. ABAG Projections 2009
shoNved the total population of South San Francisco as 61,700 in 2005. As these numbers indicate, the
City is primarily built out and no new substantial residential uses are anticipated.
Table IV.K-3 shows the projected population grov,th in the City, surrounding communities and the
County from 2005 to 2020. The three most populous cities in San Mateo County are Daly City, Redwood
City, and the City of San Mateo. South San Francisco ranks as the fourth most populated city in San
Mateo County. Based on the ABAG Projections 2009 data, the population in the City of South San
Francisco Nvould increase by a total of approximately 13.0 percent from 2005 to 2020, Nvhich recorded a
population of 63,362 in 2010.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:K-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.K-3
Population Projections: South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities
2005 to 2020
Jurisdiction 2005-2020 Increase in
2005 2015 2020 Population
South San Francisco 61,700 66,600 69,700 8,000
DaIv CitN- 104,800 111,700 118,000 13,200
San Bruno 41,400 45,600 48,600 7,200
Colma 1,500 1,700 1,800 300
San Mateo County 721,900 766,900 801,300 79,400
Source:.4BAGProjections, 2009.
Households
As defined by ABAG, "household" is another term for an occupied dvyelling unit. A household includes
all persons Who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a group of rooms or a single room occupied as
separate living quarters Nyhere occupants live separately from other persons in the building and have
direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. A household can include more than one
family.
Regional Housin6 Needs Allocation
Since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, ABAG released the 2009 Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. Therefore,the discussion belovy reflects the neNy data.
The State of California's Housing and Community Development Department Nyorks Nyith regional
Councils of Governments (COGS) to determine the amount of housing needed Nyithin the region. ABAG
is this region's COG. The determination of housing need is based on existing need and estimated
population grov,th. Need is determined for households in all income categories: very-logy, logy, moderate
and above-moderate incomes. Once the total regional need is determined, ABAG Nyorks Nyith local
governments and others to allocate the total need to individual cities and counties. Local governments are
then required to plan Nyhere and hoNy the allocated housing units Nyill be developed Nyithin their
communities. This is done through the Housing Element of each local government's General Plan.
Based on a methodology that Nyeighs a number of factors (e.g.,projected population grov,th, employment,
commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determines quantifiable needs for housing units in the region
according to various income categories. ABAG publishes an annual report that discusses housing issues
of importance to the San Francisco Bay Area. The 2012 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is
scheduled to be released in JuIv 2013; therefore this analysis is based on the 2009 report, San Francisco
Bay Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014. The Plan explains the RHNA process and outcomes. The San
Francisco Bav Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014, allocates 1,635 housing units to the City of South
San Francisco (General Plan).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft,Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:K-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The Citv's current Housing Element Nyas adopted in June 2009 and addressed ABAG's previous RHNA.
The planning horizon for the Housing Element extends from 2007 to 2014. Betvyeen January 1, 2007, and
June 30, 2009, South San Francisco built 815 neNy units. In addition there Nyere 15 housing units that Nyere
substantialIv rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing. Consequently, the City
has a remaining balance of 805 units Nyhich it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period.
According to the General Plan Housing Element, South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to
accommodate its share of the regional housing need betvyeen 2007 and 2014. There is sufficient land to
support the production of more than 1,195 neNy housing units.
Potential Future Housin6 Development
The General Plan Housing Element includes an analysis of residential development potential. A total of
30.8 acres Nvithin the City of South San Francisco are considered opportunity sites (Transit Village, South
El Camino Real, and Dovmtovm), upon Nvhich a total 1,244 residential units could be built (Table 40,
South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element).
Jobs/Housing Balance
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project conditions,the City of South San Francisco has a
job/housing imbalance. This section discusses neNy information released since the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project. According to the General Plan Housing Element, the Cit_T has a history of imbalance
in its jobs/housing ratio. South San Francisco is a "Jobs rich" City Nvith substantial in-commuting from
other jurisdictions. In 2007, there Nyere approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to
50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per even*Nyorlcing resident of the City. By comparison,in 2007 San Mateo
County had a much closer balance betvyeen the number of employed residents and total jobs Nvith
approximately 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per even* Nyorlcing
resident of the Countv.
Given that much of the land in the City, including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for residential
development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful. On the other
hand, continued job grovlh in the City Nyill promote a greater regional balance bet�yeen jobs and housing.
As an inner Bav Area community Nyell served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART and
fern* service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City Nyill have varied means
of reaching employment sites.
The Citv's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on
infill sites. The intent is that increased residential development Nvithin the City Nyill help alleviate traffic
impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential opportunities to those that Nyork in
the City but currently live elsevyhere.
As South San Francisco's employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major
share of South San Francisco's new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total
building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million square feet [sf] to
about 17.4 million sf), overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in 1997
to 42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Consistent Nvith this, ABAG Projections 2009 projects the City's total employment number to be 48,290
in 2020. Both the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and the ABAG Projections 2009 are based upon
existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are approved, the projection numbers Nvould
also change. As such,the employment buildout projections are not treated as limits,rather they project the
employment for the region based upon the best available data.
Regarding the City s jobs-housing balance, although the jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use
planning purposes,the City does not currently have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal.
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
and are reflected in this section.
Federal
There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project.
State
There are no state regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project.
Local
Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide governs regulations
applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. California's Housing Element Law assigns
responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need and for allocating a share of this need
to localities Nvithin the region to regional councils of government. For the San Francisco Bay Area, these
determinations are prepared by ABAG and documented in its San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs
Plan(Plan).
The plan documents the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Bay Area. The RHNA
process is a state mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of housing across a range of
affordability and in all communities throughout the state. Each jurisdiction Nvithin the Bay Area (101
cities, nine counties) is given a share of the anticipated regional housing need. The Bay Area's regional
housing need is specified by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) and finalized through negotiations Nvith ABAG. The timeframe for this RHNA process is 2007
through 2014 (a seven year planning period).
South San Francisco General Plan and Municipal Code
The General Plan Housing Element and the SSFMC govern regulations applicable to population and
housing for the proposed project. The City's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential
development opportunities on inflll sites. The intent is that increased residential development Nvithin the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
City Nvill help alleviate traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential
opportunities to those that Nvork in the City but currently live elsewhere.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
As described in the introduction section, sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the population
and housing in the project area. This analysis considers employment growth, and the resulting increase in
overall population groNsth and housing demand that Nvould occur Nvith implementation of the proposed
project and whether this growth is Nvithin local or regional forecasts.
The analysis is based on new information released since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,
including the 2010 Census, the 2007 RHNA, and ABAG 2009 population projection information. In
addition, this analysis determines whether it can be considered substantial Nvith respect to remaining
groNsth potential in the City as articulated in the East of 101 Area Plan. Further, this analysis considers
whether groNsth and development Nvere previously assumed to occur in the project area. Specifically,
population, employment, and housing impacts Nvere analyzed by comparing the proposed project Nvith
groNsth projections for the Cit-T from ABAG.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Subsequent Draft EIR,implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts to population and housing if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance
as the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR, which differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an analysis of housing
displacement.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant population and housing impacts or a substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts in the 1997 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are not
required. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the
project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.K-1: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population
growth in the area by proposing housing or increased employment.
Since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, new information regarding population and
employment grov,th in the City of South San Francisco Nvas gathered and published. The discussion
below analyzing the impacts of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan is based on the new
information.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project does not propose any housing.
Current1v the site is vacant. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings
including 884344 square feet of Office/R&D use; up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service
hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space; and a parking structure. Total
business/commercial development on the site Nvould be 1,030,344 square feet.
The project proposes the construction of a maximum of 884344 square feet of Office/R&D by 2019. As
shoN-,n in Table IV.K-4, this Nvould result in 2,595 employees Nvorlcing on the site by the Near 2019.
Considering that the site is vacant at present time, overall, the project Nvould result in a total net increase
of 2,595 employees Nvorking on the site by 2019. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City
of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, the proposed project's
contributions to the increase in employment in the City Nvould be Nvithin ABAG's employment
projections for the City for both the Nears of 2015 and 2020, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
The increase in employees in the City could result in an increase in demand for housing. As described
previously, the City is primarily built out and any housing constructed Nvithin the City limits Nvould most
likely be infill housing. Therefore, the project could result in an increased unfavorable jobs/housing ratio
in the City Nvhich Nvould increase over the implementation of the proposed project.
A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs and
the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide both
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs housing
ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to 1.5 is
generally considered balanced (so that there is little in-or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and housing
can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas
and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates
environmental effects, such as those associated Nvith transportation, air quality, and noise. As discussed
above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7; this means that South San
Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that
exports housing.
Table IV.K-4
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project Projected Employees
Land Use Total Phase 1 Total Phase Total Phase Projected Projected Projected
Type (sf)* 2 3(sf)* Employees Employees Employees
(sf)* (Phase I)** (Phase 110** (Phase III)**
Office 251593 458,067 884,344 L221 L137 2358
Hotel 126,000 1 so
Retail 20,000 57
Total Employees 2,595
* sf=Square Feet
**
Full bzedd-ozetserviee population is based on 2,385 employees associated with
,lice R&D, 180 employees associated with
the hotel,and 57 employees associated with the retail. The folloivfirg land zese size mete°ics to employees was zetilized:
office/R&D is 375 sgzeare feet per employee,hotel is 0.9 employees per room,and retad is 350 sgzrare feet per employee
Source:City of Sorrth San Francisco, 2008.
Based on ABAG's projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City for 2015 Nvould increase to
approximately 2.09 by 2015 and to 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability relative
to the amount of jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected
to be out of balance, Nvould decrease Nvith implementation of the proposed project. Assuming that not
more than one person per household Nvould be employed by the project, the project Nvould add a total of
2,595new employees. This Nvould create the need for 2,595 new units of housing in the City, Nvhich
cannot all be provided for by the City. Consequently, the potential employment increase resulting from
the project Nvould result in direct and indirect grov,th that may not be accommodated by existing or
proposed housing projections for the City. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
projected a smaller number of employees for Planning Area 1, resulting impacts Nvere similar to the
project.
HoNvever, continued job grov,th in the City Nvill promote a greater regional balance beN,-een jobs and
housing. The City is a strategically located inner Bay Area community Nvell served by all modes of
transit—including air and rail, BART and fern* service. Therefore, future employees commuting to jobs
in the City Nvould have varied means of reaching the project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poilzt IT:K. Population alzd Housing
Draft Subsequelz t Elzvironneelz tal Impact Report Page IT:K-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Given that the number of employees generated by the project Nvould be Nvithin the ABAG projections, the
fact that the City does not have an adopted*obs/hou sing ratio goal, and overall the project would promote
a greater regional jobs balance, implementation of the proposed project Nvould not directly or indirectly
induce substantial population growth and this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.K-2: The proposed project would not displace existing housing, and would not necessitate
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of housing
displacement. This discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith the 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
The project site is located in the East of 101 Area. According to the General Plan, the East of 101 Area,
the traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, Nvas originally developed Nvith meat packing and
heavy manufacturing activities. In the post-Nvar Nears the City converted previously unused marshlands
into areas usable for industrial development, drasticalIv reshaping the shoreline and attracting light
industry to the City for the first time.
Residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. As South San Francisco's employment base,
the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non-
residential development. Since no residential uses exist in the project area, implementation of the
proposed project Nvould not displace existing housing. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.K-3: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people, and would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of housing
displacement. This discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith the 2013 CEQA Guidelines.
No residences exist in the project area. Thus no residents Nvould be displaced, and construction of
replacement housing elsewhere Nvould not be necessitated. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project proposes the redevelopment of the site Nvith office and research & development uses, at a
greater intensity that proposed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Similar to the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, population growth Nvould be induced in the South San Francisco area.
Other future development in the City Nvould have the same effect as each project Nvould create new jobs
and/or homes Nvithin the Citv.
Although the employment generated by the project fits Nvithin the ABAG estimates for employment
growth in the area, the project Nvould generate demand for additional housing in the area, similar to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project in conjunction Nvith existing and future area
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
projects could be cumulatively considerable creating a significant impact on population grov,th in the
South San Francisco area; hoNvever, continued job grov,th in the City Nvill promote a greater regional
balance between jobs and housing.
The General Plan Housing Element Nvas adopted in June 2009. According to the General Plan Housing
Element, South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional
housing need between 2007 and 2014. As an inner Bay Area community Nvell served by all modes of
transit—including air and rail, BART, and ferry service in the near future—future employees from and
traveling to the City Nvould have varied means of reaching employment sites. The Housing Element
determined that the City can accommodate its share of the regional housing need, and continued
employment grov,th Nvithin the City Nvould serve to balance regional needs between jobs and housing.
Although the analysis for the project is based on new and updated information regarding population,
employment and housing in the City of South San Francisco, the cumulative impact Nvould be less than
significant,Nvhich is similar to that of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, because no impacts related to population and
housing Nvere identified,no mitigation measures are required or recommended.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:K-12
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes public services Nvithin the project area,which includes
the project site and surrounding areas, and whether implementation of the proposed project Nvould cause a
substantial adverse effect on public services.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on public services of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the proposed project Nvould result in
new significant public services impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant public
services impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified public services impacts.
Due to the implementation by the City of some of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project, and new available technology, some impacts of the proposed project are not as
severe as the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
This section evaluates potential project impacts to police and fire protection and emergency services. The
project does not include any residential uses and Nvould not result in a direct increase in residential
population; therefore there Nvould be no impacts to schools, libraries, or other public services. The project
Nvould improve access to the Bay Trail that is adjacent to the project site, but Nvould not directly impact
the Bay Trail. Information provided in this section is based on the City's General Plan and on
communications Nvith local service providers. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section
describing applicable agencies and regulations related to public services.
No comment letters related to public services Nvere received in response to the December 12, 2012 Notice
of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix
A of this Draft EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on public services and identified mitigation measures for significant
impacts. The proposed project does not include the Bay Trail and Shoreline Park analyzed in the 2000
Supplemental EIR, but it does provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Bay Trail.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.L-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 15.2.2-Increased Demand For Police Mitigation Measure 15.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove
Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
Supplemental EIR identified that the proposed project Mitigation Measure 15.2.2,which states that the
would create a demand for about one new police officer applicants should provide finds for the purchase cost of
in the City and an additional one-half of a police car. one-half a police vehicle. The applicant should submit a
This impact would be potentially significant. Security and Safety Plan for the project at the time of
application for approval of precise plants)to the City.
The plan should make provision for private security
guards to be on the site commencing with the
construction phase. The Security and Safety Plan should
make provision for emergency access for fire and police
vehicles.Fire department keyed entry (Knox Boxes)will
be required during construction for all structures that do
not haN-e personnel on-site for 24 hours.Knox entry
systems will also be required at any locking gates or
barriers across enftyways. With the implementation of
these mitigation measures the impact would be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Impact 15.3.2-Blockage of Emergency Mitigation Measure 15.2.3-The 2000 Bay West Cove
Communication Signal in the Shadow of San Bruno Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified
Mountain. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Mitigation Measure 15.2.3,which required developers of
Project Supplemental EIR identified that the 2000 Bay affected projects in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain
West Cove Commercial Project creates a demand for to make a fair share contribution to the cost of a small
communications equipment that would need to rooftop enclosure containing radio equipment on the
overcome a signal-blocking effect of San Bruno tallest and/or northern-most building in the Bay West
Mountain. Interruption or loss of a signal would be a Cove Project,to reduce the impact to a less than
potential obstacle to fire-fighting or other emergency significant level.
seivice vehicles operating on the Bay West Cove site or
in the vicinity,and would constitute a potentially
significant adverse impact of the project.
Impact 15.2.4—Need for Bay Trail Maintenance.The No mitigation measures were required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR found that although this could be a potentially
significant impact it is less than significant due to
compliance with the Bay Conseivation and
Development Commission(BCDC)issued Permit 10-98,
Amendment One,on Juli- 16, 1998.
Impact 15.3.3—No Significant Increased Demand for No mitigation measures were required.
Fire Fighting or Emergency Services.The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
would be consistent with the 1997 Bai-West Cove
Commercial Project EIR discussion of the original
project.Development of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project would not create any significant
increase in demand for fire protection seivices,
according to the City Fire Marshall contacted in 2000,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:L. Public Services
Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:L-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.L-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 15.3.4-Compliance with Fire Safety No mitigation measures were required.
Requirements.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found that through
compliance with various fire protection standards,the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would have a
less than significant impact on fire safety requirements.
Impact 154.2-Need for Bay Trail Maintenance.The No mitigation measures were required.
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR found that the proposed Bay Trail and its immediate
surroundings(excluding planting areas related to
wetland remediation)will require maintenance. This is
not a significant impact because the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project includes private development,
ownership and maintenance of the trail. The Bay
Conseii-ation and Development Commission(BCDC)
issued Permit 10-98,Amendment One,on July 16, 1998
for development of public improvements within the
shoreline. The permit required that improvements be
complete by December 1,2000,and the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project area be permanently
maintained by the permittees or assignees. The
developers of Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2/3
should share in the maintenance of common facilities
(such as landscaping along public roadways)through
such mechanisms as a property owners association or
Covenants Codes and Restrictions(CC&Rs),therefore
the impact was determined to be less than significant.
Impact 15.5.2-No Significant Impact on School No mitigation measures were required.
Facilities.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project would not create any
significant direct demands upon public schools and
seivices because it would not include anti- residential
development. Impacts upon transportation of students
are less than significant because the district does not
provide transportation for any of its students,whether
they-are from within the district or outside of it,
therefore the impact was determined to be less than
significant.
Impact 15.6.1-No Cumulative Impacts to Public No mitigation measures were required.
Services..The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that cumulative impacts to fire
and police protection, schools and maintenance of street
improvements would not be significant.The 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project in combination with
other development projects in the City would not
necessarily result in increased police calls beyond the
number that would be generated by the individual
projects. The Police Department estimates the demand
for additional personnel and equipment for each project
as it is developed. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:L. Public Services
Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:L-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.L-1
2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Commercial Project alone Avould not create any
unanticipated demand for fire protection and emergency
medical services,and therefore Avould not contribute to
cumulative demands. The project Avould not create any
direct demand for school facilities,because no housing
is proposed,therefore the cumulative impact Avas
determined to be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Availability of police and fire services and communication capabilities have changed in the project area
since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The environmental setting discussion below presents
the updated conditions as they pertain to the proposed project.
Existing Conditions
Police
Police service Nvithin the project area is provided by the South San Francisco Police Department
(SSFPD). The SSFPD includes two divisions: Operations and Services. The Operations Division includes
Patrol, Investigations, and Traffic. The Services Divisions includes Communications, Records and
Community Relations.' Each Division is commanded by a Captain. These divisions include special
sections and units staffed by both civilians and sworn officers for a total of 37 civilian staff and 83 sworn
officers employed by the SSFPD. One chief of police, two captains, five lieutenants, 11 sergeants, 15
corporals, and the remaining 49 sworn personnel are police officers. The SSFPD is currently allotted to
have a total of 83 sworn personnel.
Under the Operations Division, the Patrol Division is the primary* provider of police services for the
residents of South San Francisco. The Patrol Division consists of over 40 officers who cover the 11
square miles of the City* on a 24-hour basis. Patrol Division personnel are prepared to respond to both
emergency and non-emergency calls for service in each of the City's four patrol "beats." The Patrol
Division provides continuous availability of field units to respond to calls for service, provide visible
patrol throughout the City*, detect and apprehend persons actively involved in criminal activity, recover
and return lost and stolen property, provide for the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
investigate criminal offenses, and attempt to reduce both immediate and potentially hazardous situations
'Cio, of South Sari Francisco, Departinerzts, Police, The Departinerzt. it ebsite:
httU:`iru u.ssfnet inde .atips?SID=283.Accessed January 18, 2013.
Sergeant Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crinie Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Departinerzt. 2013.
Personal coniniuriicatiori via e-mail with Vicole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding
service irzforniatiorz.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:L-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
to the community. The Criminal Investigation Bureau is responsible for the investigative follow up of all
incident reports generated by Patrol,to ensure every report written receives the proper case closure.
The Criminal Investigations Bureau is allotted for one Detective Sergeant and eight Detectives. Five of
the Detectives are generalist investigators, who may investigate both Crimes against Property and Crimes
against Persons. The remaining three Detectives can be assigned to the folloNving Task Forces: San
Mateo County Narcotics Task Force, San Mateo County Vehicle Theft Task Force, San Mateo County
Gang Intelligent Unit and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Task Force. In addition to protecting life
and property as peace officers and public officers, the Traffic/Motor Unit's duty is to enforce the street
traffic regulations of the City of South San Francisco, enforce the State's vehicle laws applicable to
traffic, make arrests for traffic violations, and to investigate traffic accidents. The Unit cooperates Nvith
the traffic engineer and other Departments in developing wa-,Ts and means to improve traffic conditions
and traffic safetv.'Under the Services Division, the Communications Center provides 24-hour answering
of all emergency and non-emergency police, fire, and medical calls (including 911 and non-emergency
telephone service for the hearing and speech impaired).a
The Citv's officer-to-population ratio is currently at an acceptable level of 1.4 officers per 1,000
population. HoNvever, due to fact that the City serves as an employment center, the dad-mime population
rises to over 75,000 individuals during business hours. The officer-to-population ratio is currently at an
acceptable level and consistent Nvith other bay area law enforcement agencies.' Police, Fire, and Parks and
Recreation departments share facilities Nvithin the Citv's Municipal Services Building. The nearest
SSFPD station is located at 33 Arrovo Drive, approximately 3 miles Nvest of the project site. The SSFPD
is generally able to respond to priority one calls Nvithin the City in three to four minutes time. The SSFPD
responds to all calls for service on a priority basis,which is in keeping Nvith the department's performance
standards. Police response to reported crimes are continually monitored by department management and
supervisors to ensure appropriate response times.
The project site is located Nvithin Beat 4 reporting distriet.6 Crime statistics for this reporting district are
generally low Nvith calls for service including, but not limited to, false alarms, vehicle burglaries and
grand thefts.
3 S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crinie Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Departinerzt. 2013.
Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding
service irzforniatiorz.
S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013.
Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding
service irzforniatiorz.
S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013.
Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding
service irzforniatiorz.
e S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013.
Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding
service irzforniatiorz.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Fire Protection
Fire protection and emergency services Nvithin the project area is the responsibility of the South San
Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD is staffed by 95 full-time and 7 part-time members
organized into seven divisions: Administration, Suppression, Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement,
Training, Disaster Preparedness, Emergency Medical Services, and Health and SafetA .7 There are
currentIv five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to the paramedics, the rest
of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) EMT-D (defibrillation certified
to help those who have cardiac related emergencies that need to be defibrillated as soon as possible).
SSFFD has 30 paramedics on staff. Each day there are two paramedics on the two full time ambulances
and on as many engine companies as possible creating an Advanced Life Support (ALS) engine
company.' In addition SSFFD has a Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance which provides non-
emergency transport for persons who are non-ambulatory or bed confined. The BLS crew is available to
transport patients to and from scheduled doctor appointments, dialysis centers, hospital-based treatment,
and diagnostic centers, etc. The BLS ambulance is designated for those who do not require sophisticated
medical therapy."
The Administration Division is responsible for providing administrative support to all Fire Department
Divisions, to allow for accurate planning, budgeting and execution of the mission of the Fire Department.
The Suppression Division is responsible for providing response to, management and mitigation of all
emergency incidents including fires, natural and man-made disasters, hazardous materials incidents,
technical rescues and medical emergencies. The Prevention and Code Enforcement Division is
responsible for the annual inspections, plan review and construction inspection. This division also
conducts Municipal Code enforcement for the City. The Training Division is responsible for the
acquisition of new and maintenance of existing skills, lcnoNvledge and abilities. The Disaster
Preparedness division is responsible for preparing the City for major emergency events, including natural
disasters, nuclear, biological and chemical Nveapons of mass destruction. This division is also responsible
for training of CERT members. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) division is responsible for
providing timely advanced life support (ALS) medical care and transport of the sick and injured. In
addition, this division is responsible for ensuring up to date EMS training and techniques for all Fire
Department Personnel. The Health and Safety Division is responsible for providing high quality safety
training to civilians and local businesses alike. Examples of training include: First Aid/CPR, hazardous
materials response, fire extinguisher training and building evacuation. The Health and Safety Division
also operates a Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance transportation service, Nvhich provides high quality*,
low cost non-emergency ambulance transportation service.
Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail
with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz.
�CitJ> of South Sari Francisco, Departnierzts, Fire, KlIS—ALS. TFebsite: htt):`7r7rw—sf.net indes.asj).Y."7D 432.
Accessed January 28, 2013.
9 00) of South Sari Francisco, Departnierzts, Fire, DlIS BLS. TFebsite: htt): 7r7rw-sf.net indes.asps''��7D=133.
Accessed:January 28, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Station 462,located at 249 Harbor Way, Nvould provide first response to any emergency at the project site
during the construction phases and upon project completion. Currently, Station 462 houses one fire
apparatus that is both a truck and an engine. This type of apparatus has a ladder like a truck and also
carries Nvater and has a fire pump like an engine. Currently, Station 462 has three full-time personnel.
Station 465 is the second responding station to the project site, located at 480 North Canal Street. Station
465 is physically closer to the project site but U.S.101 presents a possible obstruction to reaching the site.
Currently there is one Engine Company located at Station 465. Daily staffing levels can fluctuate between
two to three personnel. Estimated emergency response times from Stations 462 and 465 to the project site
are approximately 4 minutes and 3.5 minutes,respectively.The SSFD has an adequate level of staffing for
the City of South San Francisco's population served and is able to respond to calls Nvithin the prescribed
response time. 10
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
and are reflected in this section.
Federal
There are no federal regulations related to fire protection or police services applicable to the proposed
project.
State
The 2010 California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings
and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants,
automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials
storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many
other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises. The
Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.
Local
The City's General Plan contains implementing policies regarding public services of Nvhich the applicable
policies are discussed below.
Police
General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1 calls for the Police Department to provide rapid and timely response to all
emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. While there are no
response time goals, the current average response time throughout South San Francisco (which is roughly
1OLuis Da Silva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail
with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irz)(orniatiorz.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnierztallnipactReport Page IT:L-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
eight square miles, geographically) are approximately 5-7 minutes depending on priority of calls for
service.
Fire and Emer6ency Services
Citv of South San Francisco General Plan Poliev 8.4-G-1 calls for minimization of the risk to life and
property from fire hazards in the City, and Policy 8.4-G-2 calls for fire protection that is responsive to
citizens' needs. The fire response goal is 3.5 to 4 minutes for engines and quints, and 4.5 minutes for
medical or rescue vehicles.
Health and Safety Element: Fire Hazards
Policy 8.4-1-1
Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those
management units identified in Figure 4.12-2,in the South San Francisco General Plan.
Policy 8.4-1-2
Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to
encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their property.
Policy 8.4-I--3
Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for
approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire Nvithin the City.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
The City of South San Francisco Fire Department adopted an amended version of the 2010 California Fire
Code, as Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the SSFMC.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR , the assessment of whether
the project Nvould result in a significant adverse impact related to public services or utilities Nvas
determined by first evaluating whether for a given public service, additional resources Nvould be required
to serve the project at acceptable service standards, or if serving the project under current resources Nvould
reduce services to the existing public below accepted or current standards, and second, by evaluating
whether construction of new facilities Nvould result in potentially adverse effects. The assessment is based
on new baseline information gathered for the proposed project, as Nvell as new regulator- information as
presented in the Environmental Setting and Regulatory Framework Sections.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The project does not include any residential uses and Nvould not result in a direct increase in population;
therefore there Nvould be no impacts to schools, libraries, or other public services and the analysis focuses
on the potential impacts to SSFPD and SSFFD.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts on public services, including police and fire protection if the proposed project Nvould
result in anv of the folloNving:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated Nvith the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services,including the folloNving:
0 Police protection; and
0 Fire protection.
The 2000 Supplemental Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR thresholds Nvere similar
although they did not include an analysis of other public facilities.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould not result in any new significant public services impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of the previously identified public services impacts in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR. This Draft Subsequent EIR does not provide any new mitigation measures as
none are necessary, consistent Nvith the revised environmental setting. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project mitigation measures are not necessary as the potentially significant impacts have
been reduced through implementation of City policies and new technologies. Therefore, the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures are superseded by the impact analysis and findings
presented below. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts
from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Impacts Not Analyzed Further
The proposed project Nvould not create any significant direct demands upon public schools and services
because it Nvould not include anv residential development. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have no
impact on schools and services.
The nearest park to the project site is the Bay Trail and Shoreline Park located across Veterans Boulevard.
This open space area Nvas a project component of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and Nvas
analyzed in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The 2000 Ba-T West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that although there is the potential for significant impacts to
the park and compliance Nvith the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) issued
Permit 10-98, Amendment One,Nvould reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The Bay Trail
is not part of the proposed project although better connectivity to the bike and pedestrian paths Nvould be
provided. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan includes its own recreational facilities and as
such Nvould not impact the usage of the Bay Trail. Further, the increase in population from the proposed
project is expected to be mainly from employees that Nvould utilize parks near their places of residence.
Shoreline Park consists of a paved footpath adjacent to the sideNvallc, but no other recreational facilities. It
is unlikely that the project Nvould substantially increase the use of this paved footpath and open space area
in a manner than Nvould degrade the path or require the need for new facilities. Further, the proposed
project includes open space amenities for office buildings occupants' usage. Therefore, the impact to
recreational resources is not discussed further and the proposed project Nvould have no impact on parks in
the project area. These impact findings are in line Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR that found impacts to schools and parks to be less than significant.
Impact IV.L-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered
police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for police protection services.
As described earlier, the project site is currently served by the SSFPD. The SSFPD's jurisdictional area
includes the entire City. Two unincorporated pockets,including the California Golf and Country Club, are
under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's office. The entire City is patrolled except for the
undeveloped Sierra Point area.
Implementation of the proposed project Nvould increase development on the project site. The proposed
project consists of the phased build out of eight buildings including 884344 square feet of R&D/Office
use; a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail
space; and a parking structure. Total business/commercial development on the site Nvould be 1,030,344
square feet. As discussed previously,the City s officer-to-population ratio is currently an acceptable level
of 1.4 officers per 1,000 population. The total population of the City of South San Francisco is 63362."
The dad-mime population of the City of South San Francisco Nvas 76,141'2, as of 2011.
U.S. Census Bureau, Anrericarz Fact Finder, Table: B01003, Total resident population, 2009-2011 Anrericarz
Conznzu11io) Survey 3-dear Estimates. ii ebsite:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:L-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Overall, the proposed project would generate 2,595 new employees." This increase in new employees on
site would constitute a minor increase (approximately 3 percent) in the Citv's dad-mime population, and it
is in compliance Nvith the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The SSFPD is generally able to
respond to high priority calls Nvithin three to four minutes, and can accommodate the increase in day time
population Nvithout loNvering response times. Further, these times are Nvithin the department's response
time goals. With implementation of the proposed project, police surveillance at the project site Nvould be
adequate for routine patrols and responses to calls for assistance and Nvould not lead to a change in
response times and/or requirement for construction of new facilities.'-'
At the time of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR the SSFPD employed 80
sworn officers. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, which included both Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2/3, Nvould
result in an increased demand for about one police office and one half a police car. This constituted a
potentially significant impact and Mitigation Measure 15.2.2 Nvas recommended to reduce the impact to a
less than significant level (please see the Prior Analysis section for a summary of impacts). In 2013 the
SSFPD employed 83 sworn officers, and increase of three, thus accommodating the increase in day time
population generated by the proposed project. Therefore, as opposed to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove
Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant impact on police resources
in the project area.
Further, the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) establishes guiding policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to
provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for
people and property in the community and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and
community design. Implementation of the proposed project Nvould constitute a minor increase in the
City's dad-mime population, and Nvould not result in SSFPD's inability to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.'' Current response times and service ratios are
adequate and no new facilities that Nvould result in potential significant impacts would be required.
Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
htt�fact/inder2.cerrsrr,ti.yov face,titable,tier�Yice,ti i,ti'f` a e,v productLYie7i.�httnl''Uid.�('S 11 3�T� DP03.
Accessed January 29, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau, People arid Households, Conmiutirzg (Journe)) to cork) AIairz, Data, Daytime Population.
TFebsite:hap: www.celisus.gov lilies conmiuting data daytzniepop.htnil.Accessed January 29, 2013.
13Full build-out service population is based orz 2,385 employees associated with office-R&D, 180 employees
associated with the hotel, arid 57 employees associated with the retail. The following land use size metrics to
employees was utilized: office-R&D is 37-square feetper employee, hotel is 0.9 employees per room, arzd retail
is 350 square feet per employee
Setyealit Scott Campbell, Plarzrzirzg & C rinse Prevention 'S.ii'.A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department.
2013. Personal conimurzicatiorz via e-mad with Vicole Keeler of CARS Corporation orz January 22, 2013
regarding service ililbrination.
"Ibid.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:L-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.L-2: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire
or emergency services facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire and emergency seri�ices.
As discussed in Section IV.I Land Use and Planning, the land uses Nvithin the project area include
commercial, manufacturing, and research and development activities. Beyond the topographic, climatic,
and land use conditions that create fire hazards,two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations:
Vegetation
As discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project area is urbanized and there
are no Nvildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity*of the project site. The
project site is bordered by urban land uses including U.S. 101 and Caltrain tracks, which do not contain
vegetation conducive to Nvildland fires. Therefore, the project area site does not have a significant fire
risk.
Infrastructure
Public infrastructure, particularly* site access and Nvater supply*, affect the CityT's ability*to respond to fire.
Currently*the project site is vacant. Adherence to the fire code that contains regulations pertaining to fire
hN-drants, automatic sprinkler systems,fire alarm systems,fire and explosion hazards safety*, and other fire
safety* requirements for new buildings and premises Nvould reduce any significant building specific
impacts.
The proposed project Nvould result in approximately* 1,030,344 square feet of total business/commercial
development and Nvould increase the number of people on the project site, presenting new fire and life
safety*risks to people. The proposed project Nvould generate 2,595 employees at build out. Similar to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, through implementation of fire flow policies as outlined in
Section IV.N Utilities, as Nvell as implementation of site lay* out plans the impact Nvould be less than
significant.
Further, as described in Section IV.K, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed project
Nvould constitute a minor increase in the City s daytime population and Nvould not result in SSFFD's
inability*to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, similar to
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.16 Current response times and service ratios are adequate,
and no new facilities that Nvould result in potential significant impacts Nvould be required. Therefore, the
impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project required the implementation of Mitigation Measure 15.3.2 to alleviate the shadow
effect of San Bruno Mountain on emergency*communication in the area near the project site. This impact
has been mitigated through new technology*available since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
and the mitigation measure is not necessary*.
16 Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail
with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project,in conjunction Nvith other
development Nvithin the City of South San Francisco. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative
groN-,th Nvithin the City and the proposed project's contribution to a cumulative impact on public services.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, as additional development occurs in the City,
there ma-,T be an overall increase in the demand for police protection services, including personnel,
equipment, and/or facilities. Providing adequate police protection services is of critical importance to the
City and funds are allocated to these services to ensure that police protection services are responsive to
changes in the City. Staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFPD during the annual budgetary process, and
personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services are provided. Therefore,
the cumulative impact, on police services in the City Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000
Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project's contribution to this
cumulative impact is also less than significant because current response times are adequate and not
expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. There Nvould only be a minor increase in daytime
population as a result of the project, which ensures that the officer to population ratio Nvould remain
adequate. In addition, existing City programs, practices, and procedures Nvould continue to ensure the
adequate provision of police protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to
cumulative impacts on police protection services Nvould not be cumulatively considerable. This is
considered to be a less than significant impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Further, as additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for
fire protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. Providing adequate fire
protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services to ensure
that fire protection services are responsive to changes in the City. In addition, staffing levels are evaluated
by the SSFFD during the annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that
adequate fire protection services are provided. The cumulative impact, therefore, on fire services in the
City Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
The proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is also less than significant because current
response times are adequate and not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project, the same as
the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. There Nvould only be a minor increase in da-'-time
population as a result of the project, which ensures that the officer to population ratio Nvould remain
adequate. In addition, existing City programs, practices, and procedures Nvould continue to ensure the
adequate provision of fire protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to
cumulative impacts on fire protection services Nvould not be cumulatively considerable. This is considered
to be a less than significant impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
MITIGATION MEASURES
Because no impacts related to public services have been identified, no mitigation measures are required or
recommended.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services
Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-14
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
M. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the traffic and circulation impacts resulting from development of the 1,030,344-
square-foot Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project along the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard and
along the Nvest and south sides of Veterans Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco (see Figure 1).
Existing, year 2017, and Near 2035 conditions Nvere evaluated by Crane Transportation Group at 10
nearby intersections and at the nearby U.S. 101 freevmv interchanges that serve the project that Nvould be
most affected by project traffic. Project impacts to intersection level of service and vehicle queuing as
Nvell as impacts to U.S. 101 freevmy ramps and mainline operation Nvere determined, as Nvere impacts due
to project access, internal vehicular circulation, and pedestrian/bicycle circulation. Where appropriate,
excerpts and findings from the folloNving EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this section: Oyster
Point Redevelopment EIR(Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, 2011), the Revised Draft
Report of the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area(TJKM Transportation Consultants, April, 2012),the
494 Forbes EIR(Impact Sciences and Crane Transportation Group, 2012)and the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR
(Knapp Consulting and Crane Transportation Group, ongoing).
CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION
This analysis evaluated six scenarios of local circulation system operating conditions. They included
Existing Conditions; Existing "With Project" Buildout Conditions; 2017 "Without Project" Conditions;
2017 "With Project" Phase 1 Conditions; 2035 "Without Project" Conditions; and 2035 "With Project"
Buildout Conditions.
The Existing Conditions scenario Nvas used to describe the current operating conditions in the project area.
Phase 1 of the project is not anticipated to be completely constructed until 2016 and fully occupied until
2017. Therefore traffic impacts from the project Nvere evaluated by comparing 2017 "Without Project
Phase 1" Conditions to 2017 "With Project" Conditions. Cumulative impacts resulting from project traffic
are evaluated for 2035 Nvith and Nvithout full Project buildout development. Also, an"Existing With Total
Project"development scenario is presented and compared to existing conditions in order to satisA- CEQA
requirements.
Traffic operations Nvere evaluated at 10 intersections during Nveekdav AM and PM peals traffic hours.
Four freevmv mainline segments, three off-ramps and two on-ramps of the U.S. 101 freevmv Nvere also
evaluated. The study area is shoN-,n in Figure IV.M-1 and locations are identified below, Nvhile locations
of analysis are shoN-,n in Figure IV.M-2, Study Intersection Existing Lane Geometries and Control.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT-Al. Transportation
Dra f t Subsequen t Environnzen tal Impact Report Page IT--11-1
Not To Scale
101
NORTH
Sister Cr .
Project
Veterans Site
Bivd
O ster Point Blvd
Dr
E Grand _ast �rq ���°
Mitchell Ave
a
�ro a l)taY�Fwe
c%
101
�n
a
iE
380
3
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa,(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-1
Area map
1 n
US 101 Not To Scale
SB
Ramps NORTH
n
4Te,,13 -)t t
�
� m�
nom- Jter ' owt
Sister er OystePt omt 101
Mi
Veterans
aim / Blvd
onram Sister Cities Blvd,
4.
N B 101 I /
�PROJEC
Offram
�A SITE
Pit o� yster Point Blvd
Grand
1
tF ��� ��� �`► Drivewa d
0 0� °'
a +o
. E Grand � ��`�
� � Drivewa b
o
® T r'
Grand Ave : East Eli
Grand Ave
= Signal
101
= Side Street Drivewa a
Stop Sign
Control
g n
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-2
Existing Intersection Lane Geometries and Control
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Intersections
1. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound On/Off Hook Ramps (Signal)
2. Airport Boulevard/Terrabay Access (Signal)
3. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard(Signal)
4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal)
5. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp (Signal)
6. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp/project
Access (Signal)
7. Oyster Point BoulevardNeterans Boulevard (Signal)
8. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (Signal)
9. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive (Off-Ramp not Signal or
Stop Sign Controlled, East Grand Avenue stop sign controlled right turn)
10. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard(Signal)
Mainline Segments of U.S. 101 Freeway
1. North of ONTster Point Boulevard,northbound direction
2. North of ONTster Point Boulevard, southbound direction
I. North of I-380,northbound direction
4. North of I-380, southbound direction
U.S. 101 Off-Ramps
1. Southbound off-ramp flyover to Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd.
2. Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
3. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue
U.S. 101 On-Ramps
1. Southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue
2. Northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue
SETTING
Roadway System
The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, Nvhich is located along major transportation
routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain. San Francisco International Airport
is approximately 1.75 miles south of the project site and the U.S. 101 freeway is almost immediately Nvest
of the site (separated from the site by the Caltrain rail line and a public storage facility) (see Figure IV.M-
1, Area Map).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
The project site is served directly by Oyster Point Boulevard on the south and by Veterans Boulevard
along the north and east sides of the site. Regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. A single
access connection Nvill be provided along Oyster Point Boulevard as the (new) north leg of the existing
Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound FIN-over off-ramp intersection, while six driveway connections
Nvill be provided to Veterans Boulevard. Access to U.S.101 Nvill be provided primarily by Oyster Point
Boulevard, Nvith additional route options available. Each roadway is briefly described below, Nvhile a
schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and controls are presented in Figure IV.M-
2.
Major Regional Roadways
US. 101 Freeway. U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area and extends
from doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within
the study area, U.S. 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between
Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Oyster Point Boulevard. Northbound off-ramps are provided
at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah
Avenue), and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are
provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of
Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue. Southbound off-ramps are provided at Produce Avenue,
Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard, and at Airport Boulevard
(just north of Oyster Point Boulevard).
There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S. 101 both north and south of Ouster Point Boulevard and on
southbound U.S. 101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2010, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily
traffic (ADT) volume of 232,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 220,000 vehicles south of Oyster
Point Boulevard, and 216,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard.
Local Streets
Oyster Point Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the
East of 101 area in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange Nvith the U.S. 101
freeway,four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard, and two lanes near Gull Road.
Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard is a four-to six-lane,north-south arterial street that runs parallel to
and Nvest of U.S. 101. This roadwav continues north into the Citv of Brisbane and the CitA- of San
Francisco, Nvhere it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard
changes names to Produce Avenue.
Gateway Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand
Avenue Nvith South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Dubuque Avenue. Dubuque Avenue is a two- to seven-lane roadway running parallel to and east of U.S.
101 in a north-south direction. This roadway extends from East Grand Avenue Overcrossing to Oyster
Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 ramps
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
intersection and up to seven lanes between the ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque
Avenue is classified as a collector roadway.
Veterans Boulevard. Veterans Boulevard is a two- to four-lane collector roadvmv extending north and
then Nvest of ONTster Point Boulevard. It ultimately makes a 90-degree turn to the north (adjacent to the
Caltrain right-of-Nvay) and provides access to two hotels, Nvhere it ends. Four lanes are provided in the
vicinity of ONTster Point Boulevard. Veterans Boulevard is intersected by three driveway connections on
the north and east sides of the street near Ouster Point Boulevard. These driveways serve the Britannia
ONTster Point office development and public parking for the Bay Trail. A fourth driveway is located just
east of the 90-degree turn at the Caltrain right-of-Nvay and serves a parking lot used jointly for hotel and
Bay Trail parking. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
Volumes
Existing traffic counts Nvere obtained from the City Public Works Department for all but one analysis
intersection. Counts Nvere conducted in March 2008 or June 2009. In addition, counts at the U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand Avenue-Executive Drive intersection Nvere conducted by Crane
Transportation Group in June 2009. Year 2008 & 2009 counts Nvere considered reflective of Near 2013
conditions by the Public Works Department due to the minimal local area development experienced over
the past five Nears. Figures IV.M-3 and IV.M- 4 present existing Nveekday AM and PM Peale Hour
volumes at all analysis intersections. Weekday AM and PM peals hour counts Nvere also conducted by
Crane Transportation Group in early December 2012 at all driveNvays along the north and east sides of
Veterans Boulevard opposite the project site. These volumes are presented in Figure IV.M-5.
CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION METHODOLOGY & STANDARDS
Intersection Level of Service
Analysis Methodolo6v
Signalized Intersections
Intersections, rather than roadvmy segments between intersections, are almost alvmys the capacity
controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon
two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service(LOS)Nvhich ranges
from LOS A,indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers,to LOS F,indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The LOS scale is also associated Nvith a
control delay tabulation (TRB 2010) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more
detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control dela-T
relationship is provided in Table IV.M-1, Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--6
434 n L 3
1 54 0 204 Not To Scale
US707 /�
SB
t Ramps NORTH
228 14
oo 638 n
0
TerraBa
ccess t
242 1_ 12
r 286
74 0 19 m 3
1
204 n 4-42 7 0 210 302 4• ointr
176 258
1 4 ° ` 162 �—107 `58 258 t f
Sister ry Oster Oster S 137 Oyster Pt 1460 0 8
hies Point om 743—► (� 0
101 �1 t r► 498 , a t (*' 296 —h 2 94 0 d
997 —► 27 I 281 626 —►� 274 41 �� 881 \,
27 99 412 ° 38 ��� 368 P�tQ� 101
48+_7
5 e pr �0 Veterans
Blvd
NB Sister Cities 8/vd Ofram
471 111 56
102 332 F 67 02 8 255 �— 266
G1 •
rand 4 183 • 4 52 Pit o yster Point Blvd
L 0
233 t �► 162 m t (� 59 0 r 4
174 —► 35 161 1213 —► 47 286 4 Drivewa d
86 337 61 ° 71
G
q 49 12
414 Q� p� gNd 2
a ���� 64 1 10
• E Grand I Drivewa b
tr*
556 1062 Q` j 60 98
Grand Ave • East 1
Grand Ave 73 1 20
101 4 Drivewa a
° t
g 157 113
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-3
Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes
497 Not To Scale
l 64 ��
US 101
SB NORTH
Ramps
230
9 11
1 0
TetraBa
ccess t
243 1_ 17
0 1414
226 12 c 5
337 n 64 i 906 1582 �► O r
oint
416 158 -+--720 F 625 58
1 L► °� 229 iv 72 t (�
Sister Oster Oster S ` 1002 Oyster Pt 354 0 0
ities Point Point 223� (� 0 ,a
61 j f 178 (� 46 i vh 75 0 �Qj
301 —► I ° 951
22 41118127 140 --►� 388 129 e� 127 ��p°
268 �.� 100 ��o� 27,i P 101
L 2
Veterans
t �► Blvd
0 Sister Cities Blvd 134
306 4 186 7 340 93 F 1070
145 160 _
Grand � 574 . � 159 Per ° yiter Point Blvd
1 L
� 0
165, t �► 93 , m t (� 30 0 ` 8
49 45 I 110 286 --► 66 54 I Drivewa d
76 333 74 ° 45
54 6
4-9 2
E Grand O �� 41
0 ` 87
4 Drivewa b
`O 65 471 °� �0 + c 1 (�
61 11
° Grand Ave ; 1 East p
iE Grand Ave 128 p ` 110
101
T'. Drivewa Ta
tr*.
72 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-4
Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes
Not To Scale
/O
NORTH
4
59
• 1� CF 12
Veterans 49
Blvd 1
2 10
1 98
--& .
US101 63 0 60
Southbound • 64�►
Flyover '
Offramp � 73 �► � 20
.�� e►�d f
Oyster Point 157 113
� >
(Dm
AM Peak Hour
8
30`
�I • C6 Veterans
Veterans 54 Blvd
Blvd 4
• �► 2 87
1 Z3 ``l 11
US101 37 0 61
Southbound • 41 I-IL
OffraP m / %% 128 �— 0
% 0
110
Oyster Point Blvd f*
72 17
� m
g PM Peak Hour
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
Britannia Cope(It0y5terPoirzt Figure IV.M-5
Existing AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes at Driveways along Veterans Blvd
00)(?fSoutlr S'anFrancisco April 201;
Table IV.M-1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Average Control
Level of Delay
Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable < 10.0
progression and/or short cycle lengths.
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 20.0
short cycle lengths.
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 35.0
and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to
appear.
D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0
progression.. long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity
(V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression- long 55.1 to 80.0
cycle lengths, and high VIC ratios. Individual cycle failures are
frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay.
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to >80.0
oversaturation,poor progression,or very long cycle lengths.
Source:2000 Highwgy CapacityMarrrral(Transportation Research Board).
Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically*graded using the LOS A through F scale. LOS ratings
for all-Nvay stop intersections are determined using a methodology* outlined in the year 2010 TRB
Highway Capacity* Manual. Under this methodology*, all-Nvay stop intersections receive one LOS
designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay* values are also
calculated. Intersections Nvith side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also
evaluated using the LOS and average control delay* scales using a methodology*outlined in the year 2010
TRB Highway Capacity*Manual. HoNvever, unlike signalized or all-Nvay stop analysis N-,-here the LOS and
control delay* designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis
LOS and delay*designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn
and through movements. Table IV.M-2, Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria, provides
greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
Minimum Acceptable Standard
LOS D is the minimum acceptable operation for signalized or all Nvay stop intersections, while LOS E is
the minimum acceptable operation for stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements at a side street
stop sign controlled intersection.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--10
00)of 1;outh S'an Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Average Control Delay
Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Little or no delays <10.0
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Veiv long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded
(for an all-way stop), or with approach/tum movement
F capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled 'S�'�
intersection)
Source:2000 Highway Capaci6).lalntal(Tt°anspor°tation Resear°ch Board).
Intersection Vehicle Queuing
Analysis Methodolo6v
The Synchro software program has been used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues at the folloNving
signalized freeway off-ramp intersections and at the adjacent or nearby intersections that need to
accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersections:
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Airport Boulevard intersection and the adjacent Airport
Boulevard/Terrabav intersection
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue intersection and the adjacent
Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection
• U.S. 101 Southbound FIN-over Off-Ramp/ONTster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection
and the adjacent Oyster Point BoulevardNeterans Boulevard intersection
• U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Dubuque Avenue intersection and the adjacent Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection and the nearby Oyster
Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection
In addition to Synchro software queuing evaluation, the SIM Traffic analysis program Nvas utilized to
determine if freeway off-ramp queues Nvould extend to the freeway mainline. For locations Nvhere an
auxiliary lane becomes the off-ramp lane, the storage distance to the freeway mainline is based upon the
location Nvhere the auxiliary lane separates from the adjacent mainline travel lane.
Oueuin6 Standards
The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95"' percentile vehicle
queue must be accommodated Nvithin available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to
intersections adjacent to or nearby off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is alloNved to back up to the freevmy mainline during the
entire AM or PM peals traffic hour. The 95"' percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups Nyill only
extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in
this study for Existing, year 2017, and year 2035 Nyithout and "With Project" conditions. Off-ramp
queuing Nyas evaluated using both the Synchro sof fare output, Nyhich details queuing for one of the
signal cycles during the peal.traffic hour, as Nyell as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program,
Nyhich evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peal.traffic hour.
Freeway Ramps
Off-Ramp Diverge from Freeway Mainline
Analysis Methodology and Minimum Acceptable Standards
Caltrans uses a volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be
accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freevmy. This threshold Nyas used in
this EIR.
On-Ramps
Analysis Methodology and Minimum Acceptable Standards
On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning-level methodology contained in the Year 2010
Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity is dependent upon the free-flovy speed of on-ramp traffic. For
single- and double-lane diamond on-ramps Nyith higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 and 3300
vehicles per hour, respectively. For single-lane button hook or curving on- ramps, capacity has been set at
2,000 vehicles per hour.
Freeway Mainline
Analysis Methodology
U.S. 101 freevmv mainline segments Nyere evaluated based on the Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S. 101
existing traffic conditions Nyere evaluated for the Nyeekday AM and PM Peal. Hours. Existing traffic
volumes used for the analysis Nyere derived from year 2009 U.S. 101 mainline counts from Caltrans as
provided by TJKM Associates as part of their Nyork for the updating of the City's East of 101 Traffic
Modeling.
Minimum Acceptable Standard
LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for the freevmy mainline.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--12
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Intersection Level of Service
Table 3, Existing Intersection Levels of Service, shows that all analyzed intersections currently operate
at good to acceptable(LOS D or better)levels of service during both the AM and PM peals traffic hours.
Intersection 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing
Table 4, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queue, shows that only one intersection evaluated in this study
currently has 95"'percentile queues exceeding available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue — AM & PM Peak Hours: The northbound
Dubuque Avenue approach through/left turn lane currently has queues exceeding the 150-foot
available storage during both commute peals traffic hours.
Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing to Freeway Mainline
Table IV.M-5, 95th Percentile Off-Ramp Queuing, shows that no off-ramps evaluated for this study
currently have off-ramp 95th percentile queues extending to the freeway mainline.
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
Table IV.M-6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway off-ramps
evaluated in this study serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area are operating acceptably and
have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peals traffic hours, Nvith the
exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM Peale Hour
(Nvith 1,618 vehicles per hour).
On-Ramp Operation
Table IV.M-7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway on-ramps
evaluated in this study serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area are operating acceptably and
have volumes Nvell below capacity during the AM and PM Peale Hours.
Freeway Mainline Operation
Existing LOS on the freeway segments in South San Francisco Nvere based on analysis of year 2009
volumes. Table IV.M-8 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation, Nvhile Table IV.M-9
shows details of the existing freeway LOS results. Currently, all U.S. 101 freeway segments are operating
at an acceptable LOS D or better during the Nveekday AM and PM Peale Hours. Conditions are generally
poorer along U.S. 101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, in both the northbound and the southbound
directions during the AM Peale Hour, and in the northbound direction during the PM Peale Hour.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--13
00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013
Table IV.M-3
Intersection Level of Service
Existing &Existing+Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Existing+ Existing
Existing Existing +
Project
Project
1. Airport BIN-d./U.S.101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps C-23.2(1) C-23.3 C-26.6 C-26.7
(Signal)
2. Airport BIN-d./Ter7abay Access NA(1) NA NA NA
(Signal)
3. Airport Bled./Sister Cities BIN-d./Oyster Point Bled. C-31.6(1) C-31.7 C-24.5 C-24.7
(Signal)
4. Oyster Point BIN-d./Dubuque Ave./ C-23.2(1) C-23.8 C-25.1 C-25.3
US 101 NB On-Ramp(Signal)
5. Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB B-20.0(1) B-20.0 B-12.3 B-12.3
On-Ramp(Signal)
6. Oyster Point Bled./Gateway Bled./ C-27.7(1) C-36.0 C-219 C-24.1
US 101 SB Flyover/Off-Ramp Project Access(Signal)
7. Oyster Point BlNANeterans Bled. B-109(1) B-16.8 B-12.6 C-259
(Signal)
S. Airport Bled./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.6(1) D-41.4 C-31.8 C-319
9. NB US 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ C-17.7(2) C-17.7 B-10.2 B-10.3
E. Grand Ave(E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn)
10. E. Grand Ave./Gateway Bled. C-25.0(1) C-25.6 C-22.4 C-229
(Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2, Viisignalized level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds. Westbound E. Grand.4venrre stop sign controlled right
till-r.
Fear 2010 Highway Capacitj��llrn�zral.lnalysis�llethodolo��Source:Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-14
00)of 1;otrth S'an Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-4
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Existing &Existing+Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Intersection Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Distance* Existing Existing
Existing +project Existing +project
Airport Blvd./US 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps
Off-Ramp Left&Left/Right Turn 1275 194 194 378 378
NB Thm&Thm/Right Turn 920 222 222 254 258
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Access
SB Right Turn 220 NA NA NA NA
SB Thin 460 NA NA NA NA
NB Thin 850 NA NA NA NA
NB Left Tum 350 NA NA NA NA
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.
WB Left Tum(total for 2 lanes) 310 128 146 228 248
WB Thm & Tllln/Rlght Turll
( 440 154 190 424 394
total for 2 lanes)
WB Right Turn NA NA NA NA NA
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue
EB Thin 225 132 146 68 74
WB Tlnn 840 27 38 155 173
WB Left(total for 2 lanes) 1360 118 170 728 960
WB Right 520 39 51 427 840
NB Left Turn 270 167 166 254 254
NB Left/Tlnu 150 166 164 260 260
NB Right Tum 1 270 99 142 25 31
Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Tlnn (total of 2
1740 414 458 284 300
lanes)
SB Right Tum 300 4 5 15 28
Oyster Point Blvd./Gatevvay Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access
SB Off-Ramp Thm 3350 318 551 72 94
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 322 453 46 46
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--1 S
00)of 1;outh S'an Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-4
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Existing &Existing+Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Intersection Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Distance* Existing Existing
Existing +project Existing +project
EB Thiti 875 235 280 63 86
Oyster Point Blvd.Neterans Bled.
EB Left Turn 515 129 286 54 lqq
Bolded results=significant project impact.
*Storage and queues measured in feet per lane unless noted.
S\•nclu-o softie are used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..M--16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-5
Off-Ramp Queuing Back to U.S.101 Mainline
(SIM Traffic Evaluation)
AM Peak Hour
Do Off-Ramp Volumes Extend to Freeway Mainline?
Existing Year 2017 Year 2035
W/O With W/O With W/O With
U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Project Project Project Project Project Project
SB to Airport Bled. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
900 ft. storage (0%)* (0%)*
SB to Oi-ster Point Bled./ No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gateway Bled. (4.7%)* (6.9%)*
3100 Ft. storage
NB to Dubuque Ave. No No No Yes Yes Yes
1275 ft. storage (4.6%)* (4.8%)*
PM Peak Hour
Do Off-Ramp Volumes Extend to Freeway Mainline?
Existing Year 2017 Year 2035
W/O With W/O With W/O With
U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Project Project Project Project Project Project
SB to Airport Blvd. No No No No Yes Yes
900 ft. storage (0%)*
SB to Oi-ster Point BIN A/ No No No No No No
Gatew ai-Blvd.
3100 Ft. storage
NB to Dubuque Ave. No No No No No No
1275 ft. storage
Bolded=significant project impact(1%or greater)
(XX%)*=percent increase in off-ramp traffic due to project
Source:Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft S'izbsegiient Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--17
00)of South S'an Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-6
Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes
Existing,Year 2017 &Year 2035 Without &With Project
Volumes
Year 2017 Year 2035
Capacity Existing Without + Without +
* Existing +Project Project Project Project Project
U.S. 101 Off-Ramp (Veh/Hr)
AM Peak Hour
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to
Ovster Point/Gatewav 1500 1249 1411 1655 1732 2361 2523
NB Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Ave./Executive 1500** 1618 1770 1747 1791 2157 2309
Drive
NB Off-Ramp to 1500 716 802 1392 1455 1816 1902
Dubuque Ave.
PM Peak Hour
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to
Ovster Point/Gateway 1500 154 204 296 325 404 454
NB Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Ave./ Executive 1500** 536 576 520 534 630 670
Drive
NB Off-Ramp to 1500 494 533 613 640 741 780
Dubuque Ave.
Bolded results=significant project impact
*Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline.
** Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway by Nvill increase capacity to 2,300
vehicles per hour.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft S'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--18
00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-7
On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes
Existing,Year 2017 &Year 2035 Without &With Project
Volumes
Year 2017 Year 2035
U.S. 101On- Capacity* Existing W/O + W/O +
Ramp (Veh/Hr) Existing +Project Project Project Project Project
AM Peak Hour
SB On-Ramp from 2000 495 552 578 610 1172 1229
Dubuque Ave.
NB On-Ramp 2200 746 789 897 923 1220 1263
from Oyster Point
Blvd./Dubuque
Ave.
PM Peak Hour
SB On-Ramp from 2000 1263 1499 1530 1620 1957 2193
Dubuque Ave.
NB On-Ramp 2200 1184 1350 1896 1965 2487 2653
from Oyster Point
Blvd./Dubuque
Ave.
*Planning level capacity: Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Exhibit 13-10,Transportation Research Board
Bolded results=significant project impact
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--19
00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-8
Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operations
AM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp(just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp(just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
PM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp(just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp(just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
LOS=Level of Service
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table IV.M-9
Freeway Mainline Levels of Service
Existing &Existing+Project
Existing Existing+Project
Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 7452 D 31.2 7491 D 31.4
Southbound 6774 D 27.1 6936 D 28.0
North of I-380
Northbound 9713 C 25.5 9951 D 26.4
Southbound 6421 B 16.1 6478 B 16.3
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 7530 D 31.7 7680 D 32.7
Southbound 6314 C 24.7 6364 C 25.0
North of I-380
Northbound 7605 C 19.2 7684 C 19.4
Southbound 8377 C 21.3 8613 C 22.0
LOS=Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--20
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service, fern* service and regional rail
service. Figure IV.M-6,Public Transportation Routes, and Table IV.M-10, Public Transportation Service,
shovy the type and frequency of transit service east of the U.S. 101 freevmy in the project vicinity-, Nyhile
Table IV.M- 11, Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service, lists the shuttle services available in the study area.
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
HoNvever, currentIv there is no SamTrans service east of U.S. 101. Bus routes running just Nyest of the
U.S. 101 are described beloNy.
Bus Route 34
Tanforan Shopping Center—Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard betv,-een
Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on
Nyeekdays Nyith headvmvs of about 2 hours.
Bus Route 130
DaIv City/Colma BART—South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the
study area. It connects central South San Francisco Nvith the Colma BART station and Daly City. This
route operates Nvith 20-minute peals period headvmys and 30- to 60-minute non-peals headvmys on
Nveekdays, 30-minute headvmvs on Saturdays and 60-minute headvmvs on Sundays.
Bus Route 132
Airport/Linden-Arrovo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the
South San Francisco BART station. Bus Route 132 operates on 30-minute peals period headvyays and 60-
minute non-peals headvmys on Nyeekdays and 60-minute headvyays on Saturdays.
Bus Route 292
San Francisco—SF Airport—Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. Bus Route 292
operates Nyith 20- to 30-minute peals headvmys and 25- to 60-minute non-peals headvmys on Nyeekdays
and 30-to 60-minute headvmvs on Saturdays and Sundays.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--21
Not To Scale
An
NORTH
4 miles
to west ft
..® t veterans Project
''�•••+... 101 .� Blvd It
Sister Citie®''®'••+..
U) .♦
® Blvd
®s ®ys er Point ®e ®,•
b b
�`' ® J¢s 'eta\ � ® •®®®
Forbes B)vd;
AfillerAv :� r
r
•,•• / ; East
Grand Av Grand
Ave
E
L
----- CalTrain Shuttle
BART Oyster Point Shuttle
®. SamTrans Routes
101
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
BART STATION
Between Mission/El Camino at Lawndale/McClellan
FRANCISCO"a SOUTH SAN
CALTRAIN STATION
Shuttle stops nearest Project Site
1120 Veterans Blvd
g Brittania - Oyster Point
200 Oyster Point Blvd
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-6
Transit and Shuttle Routes
00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013
Table IV.M-10
Public Transportation Service
Frequency
AM/PM
Services Route Peak Hour T Midday Area Served
Airport/Linden-Daly City and Colma 20/20 30 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave
BART Stations(130)
South SF BART Station(132) 30/30 50 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave
Sam Trans Airport/Linden-Serramonte(133) 30/30 60 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave
Palo Alto-Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3
Redwood City-Colma BART Station 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF
(391) BART Station
San Mateo-SF(292) 15115(a) 30 Airport BIN-d./Baden Ave.
Caltrain Gilrov-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station
BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15115 15 Daly City BART Station
Fremont-Daly- City- 15115 15 Daly City-BART Station
Riclunond-Daly- City- 15115 — Daly- City-BART Station
FDublin-Millbrae 15115 15 South SF BART Station
Gateway-Area 15115 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech
Caltrain Bldgs B9,B5
Shuttle to Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
SSF Oyster Point
Station Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Court
Utah Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton
Sierra Point Area 35135 5000 Shoreline Court
BART Genentech 15115 — Genentech Bldgs B5,B54
Shuttle to
SSF Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Station Oyster Point
Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton
Alameda/Oakland (Jack London 30-60 mins -- From Alameda/Oakland
San Square) (3 runs AM)
1 run Francisco To Alameda/Oakland
Bati-Fern- 1 runA AM/60 PM
min (3 runs
PM)
Soza°ce:�lletr°opolitan Transportation Commission (Sll.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief.411iance (conznzzrte.org),
Caltrain 2013.Frequency of transitserviee is presented in mirrzrtes.Saar Francisco Bay Ferry Schedzde 2013.
SF=Saar Francisco
(a) =average jregrreney period.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--23
00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-11
Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service
Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served
Oyster Point BART eight AM&nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd.,Gull Dr.,Eccles Ave.,Forbes
Caltrain seven AM&seven PM trips Blvd.,Veterans Blvd.
BART rune AM&rune PM trips E. Grand Ave.,Utah Ave.,Harbor Way,
Utah-Grand
Caltrain seven AM&seven PM trips Littlefield Ave.
Gateway.
Millbrae BART ten AM&twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd.,BART
Caltrain six AM&five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office
BART four AM&four PM trips
Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline
Caltrain four AM&four PM trips
�otlishitttles oza°ce:Peninsula Tt°affic Congestion Relief 4llianee(Conrnnrte.org), Caltrain 2009.
alternate between 15-and 30-minzrte headways dzn°ing both peak hours.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on
the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. During the AM
commute period there are northbound trains at 7:05, 7:25, 8:05, 8:25, 9:05 and 9:25 (then hourly), while
all trains southbound are on an hourly schedule. During the PM commute period there are northbound
trains hourly, while southbound there are trains at 4:48, 5:08, 5:48, 6:08, 6:18, 7:08 and 7:48 (then
hourly)..
San Francisco Bay Ferry
The San Francisco Bay Ferry provides Nveekday service between South San Francisco and Alameda &
Oakland (Jack London Square). During the AM commute period there are three ferries to South San
Francisco (leaving the East Bay at 6:25, 7:25 and 7:55 AM) and one ferry from South San Francisco
(leaving at 7:20 AM). During the PM commute period there are three ferries from South San Francisco
(leaving at 4:20, 5:20 and 6:20 PM) and one ferry to South San Francisco leaving the East Bay at 4:55
PM). There is also tourist service between South San Francisco and doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco and
Fisherman's Wharf on Wednesdav and Friday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides van shuttle service between the South San
Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S. 101 during commute hours. Separate
shuttles also provide service to and from the Colma BART station. As shoNsn in Figure IV.M-6, a shuttle
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-24
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
stop is located just east of Veterans Boulevard internal to the Britannia Oyster Point office complex
(across the street from the proposed project).
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard,
Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15
morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips
on the Caltrain shuttle.
All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule, and provided at no cost on Nveekdays during the
commute periods. Seventy-five percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint PoNvers Board (JPB),
SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of
Governments. Twenty-five percent of operating costs are borne by area employers.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
SideNvallcs extend along the project site's entire Oyster Point Boulevard frontage and along the majority of
the project site's Veterans Boulevard frontage. The exception is a±350-foot segment at the Nvest end of
the project site's Veterans Boulevard frontage.
Proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element
and the Bicycle Master Plan (February, 2011). The Bicycle Master Plan updated and amended the
Transportation Element of the General Plan in 2011 to include new routes and facilities. The Bicycle
Master Plan is on a two-year, as needed, update schedule and is anticipated to be updated in 2013 (Dennis
Chuck, August 8, 2012). Numerous bicycle facilities are available in the study area. The Bay Trail paved
bicycle/pedestrian recreation pathway is located on the north side of Veterans Boulevard across the street
from the project site. Bike lanes are available along Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east
of Veterans Boulevard), Gull Drive, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes
are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the
East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and Shoreline Court. Future
bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard.
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over
improvements proposed as part of any project that are Nvithin 100 feet of San Francisco Bay. Some parts
of the project frontage along the south side of Veterans Boulevard are Nvithin this 100-foot limit. The
applicant, City and BCDC Nvill be in discussion regarding any required improvements.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Plans and policies that pertain to the traffic conditions affecting and affected by the project include:
(1)the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Standards; and (2) the City of South
San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--25
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
San Mateo County CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network
vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county line, the
LOS standard Nvas set as LOS E in order to be consistent Nvith the recommendations in the neighboring
counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 Nvas F, the standard Nvas set to LOS F. If the existing
or future LOS Nvas or Nvill be E, the standard Nvas set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections,
the standard Nvas set to be one letter designation Nvorse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change Nvould either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a
CMP-designated roadway system facility, or Nvould significantly affect the 1991 CMP baseline LOS,
mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated
roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental, or other
factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate
the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the
deficient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if by eliminating from the evaluation the traffic volume that is
traveling on the route between San Mateo County and an adjacent county, operating conditions Nvould be
acceptable on a CMP route the deficiency Nvould not occur.
City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or
more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or a
project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes
of the TDM ordinance are as follows:
• Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential
development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's
police poNver and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and Nvelfare.
• Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from grovlh in employment opportunities in
the City of South San Francisco Nvill be adequately mitigated.
• Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peal-,traffic periods by using a combination of services,
incentives, and facilities.
• Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new
developments are designed in Nvays to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.
• Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
• Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this section.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--26
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are
implemented.
Calibration of the City s traffic model for existing traffic conditions indicated that land uses to the east of
the U.S.101 freevmv in South San Francisco are now generating Peale Hour traffic at levels Nvell below
those that Nvould be expected using fitted curve equation trip rates from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008). Based upon this data and the City s requirement of an
aggressive TDM Program for the project,it Nvas projected that Project Peale Hour trip generation Nvould be
20 percent below fitted curve equation trip rates for Near 2017 conditions and 25 percent below fitted
curve equation trip rates for Near 2035 conditions. These conservative reductions are smaller than the 33
to 35 percent below average Peale Hour fitted curve trip rates found for existing model calibration. The
objective of TDM programs Nvill be to reduce vehicle trips at research and development, office and
manufacturing developments by incorporating program components such as having a TDM coordinator,
encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
South San Francisco has a"menu"of potential TDM programs, each Nvith a specific number of points that
relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free
carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
FUTURE "WITHOUT PROJECT" OPERATING CONDITIONS
The proposed project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to both year 2017 and year 2035
Base Case conditions. Year 2017 reflects a horizon year that Phase 1 of Britannia Cove at Ouster Point
Nvould be completed and occupied, Nvhile Near 2035 reflects the most distant horizon Near currentIv
utilized by the City Public Works Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes. The project Nvould be
expected to be completely constructed and fully occupied by 2020. This section details the process to
determine Base Case traffic operation for Near 2017 and 2035 conditions.
YEAR 2017 "WITHOUT PROJECT" CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
Year 2017 "Without Project" conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved, and proposed
development in the study area, as Nvell as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Projects
and their associated trip generation are provided in Table IV.M- 12, 2017 "Without Project" Trip
Generation, and have been utilized by TJKM Associates to develop local area intersection and freevmy
volumes for use in the City s updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study.
Year 2017 "Without Project" Peale Hour conditions Nvere developed by adding traffic expected to be
generated by the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to existing traffic
volumes. Year 2017 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such
as the first part of the Gatevmy Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, 213 East Grand, 328
Roebling Road, 494 Forbes Boulevard, Home Depot, Terrabay full development, the ferry terminal and
the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2017 "Without Project" AM and PM Peale Hour
intersection volumes are presented in Figures IV.M-7 and IV.M- 8.
The TJKM near term horizon projections Nvere originally for the year 2015. HoNvever, due to economic
conditions and lack of development over the past four Nears,the City Planning and Public Works
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--27
597 k3l
1 64 5 Not To Scale
US707 SB
Ramps NORTH
118 794
a
o
TerraBa *
CCR- � I
45 217 296 `k g
r 409
74 1 18 m 3
286 ��—
4- 185 214 0 L 324 fJ i 4 t O s t
176 377 F 478 oint
�—235
195 ` 162 r 95 258 J 1 r
Sister Oster Oster Oster Pt Oyster Pt 2063 90 3
Cities � Point Point 13431 "i 3
102 O �► � �► 411 �
(* 523 a 537
'1063--o. 45 226469 881 —tea 359 999 �e� 12 5 243 164 o�0�y
505 50 ���° 430 ° P��e 101
563 101 3 L 3
.� 1 L* 1
e�o� `0
pram
1313 o� (�
0 a 14 0 Veterans
79 / Blvd
NB 101 92 Sister Cities Blvd
Ot(ram�
481
69 55
4 � 1713 252
110 48 ��/
140 -4) I L �— 306 0 Point Blvd
Grand ` 229 i 159 Pit yster
� L 0
248 1 �► 226 m 1 (� 59 0 4
317 1632 —► m �� Drivewa d
35 213 47 636 m a �►
86�, 421 95 � °i 419 Q� � _
v
j 49 12
14 O� B�Jd 2
as \�
E Grand 64 1 10��J �a I 4 Drivewa b
5431204 Q ? 98
60
Grand Ave East 1
Grand Ave 73 1 20
101 4 Drivewa a
g 157 113
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunria Copa,(It OyStcr Point
Figure IVA-7
Year 2017 without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes
721 SB On/off Not To Scale
734 Ramps
1 �► L 12
`500 NORTH
451 13
20 1201 n
,J
0
Terra Ba
Access 1
109 38
151 355 17
2 ,-1971 277 2 490 n 202 z 1581 229 7 m 2
�0 44 0 46 753 -+--2275 4 OOint r
1144 423 67 �1 1 f
Sister Oster O sler O ter Pr
hies Point Om } 334 Oyster Pt 511 498 5 4 ��d
305—i 202 , I 164— ' �1 r► 75 �0
23 74128 274 317 —�� 472113181 22� 1203 96 P 101
502 o e m
��� 73
1493147 6 2
_�7o7 0
Onram
Veterans
565 �� 1 �► Blvd
0 "-35 0 Sister Cities Blvd /
48 199
NB 109 0
Offram
14535 183 215 150 65 89 92
P �—446 �—1493
1 4 1 728 554 Point Blvd
Grand P yiter
1
173 J 1 f* 164 o c 1 � i 0
110 45 138 388 --► 75 I 196 \� 30 p g
76 522 103 ° 160 P� o��� 4 Drivewa d
1 r
9 � 54 6
� � d
E Grand Q� g'v i 2
41 p ` 87
Q �G} °�� 4 Dfrivewa b
49 471 I
Q ate`
61 11
Grand Ave ; 1 East 01
iE D
Grand Ave
128 p ` 110
1101 1 � Drivewa a
'T 1 lrl�
72 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-8
Year 2017 without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes
M � O
oo 0 h C, n cn o O
co co O Ln �n ti co c, ti ti c l O
G� N � M � c0 '� � V '� V
c-I M M c-I c-I c-IV c-I M
N
oo
M N �--� N co C1i h0 O c c-I
O M N L h M cl M M —
N h `�
Q l� Lr) oo N � M O ti O
i--i N Ln Ln co h M c-I Ln "o Lr)
CQ Ln O L M
F+I Q Lr) O cl oo tM Lr) V
D Ln
a
'a
O O N O O O
V In M N
♦+ O l� W co oo M V'
co V h M o h �'
N 4 M c-I Ln M M c-I
Ln cl
c0 G
O M Ln lfl� Ln
S.i Q M � N M
V .N-i
F�
cc "o c0 c0 N
cc lf�
11 cc cl Ln f
cl N N cy M M oo .N-i
cl lf� cl
O F+H o co cn "o cn "o co co t� C
G W
Ln lo
In
i V
o t �n co cn Ln
t" N co N N N N a
CA M N N co M h M u 0
cl
Q ti ti b G
cl N O C1 M O '" W
pl, p O
.� co c-IV C1i
� V
N p ti
w u H
O
N �
o ° u u u a u W
a° z oo b b a p o b
4,0 a d a b U
ti
a 0 O a O Q V x O H H V
U � Q
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
Department determined that the original 2015 projections Nvould now better reflect year 2017 conditions
based upon current development schedules for approved and pending projects. Also, the year 2015
modeling had included full development on the project site Nvith a development called Genentech
Triangle. It included 248,000 square feet of office development, 372,000 square feet of R&D
development and a 350-room hotel. This development and its associated traffic has been removed from
the 2015/2017 "Without Project"projections.
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2017
The City's East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection
improvements in the City s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In
accordance Nvith the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development
projects in the East of 101 Area,held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the
area and the projects from Nvhich the fees Nvere collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 Area, the
project Nvould pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of
updating its capital improvement program list for the East of 101 Area; a new list is tentatively scheduled
to be available in early 2013. Based on currently available funding, projected growth rates, and the
pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department expects that the folloNving
intersection improvements Nvill be funded and constructed by 2017. Accordingly, the improvements have
been factored into the year 2017 Base Case traffic modeling for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program. The improvements are:
1. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramp s/Wondercolor Lane
a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane.
b. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline.
2. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp
a. Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach.
b. Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane.
3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
a. Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe
the existing combined through/right turn lane as an exclusive through lane.
4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
a. Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide two exclusive left turn lanes,
one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right
turn lane on the Nvestbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway
Boulevard).
5. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing
a. Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound East Grand Avenue approach.
6. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
a. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--31
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
Figure IV.M-9, Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control, provides a schematic presentation
of Near 2017 intersection approach lanes and control, while Figure IV.M-10 presents the sequencing of
improvements along Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard in 2017 Nvithout and Nvith the
project.
Year 2017 "Without Project" Intersection Level of Service
Table IV.M-13, Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections Nvith Near 2017
"Without Project"volumes Nvould operate at acceptable Levels of Service Nvith the folloNving exceptions.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--32
;k US707 Not To Scale
SB /�
Ramps NORTH
4cr,.,B C)
TerraBa
�
cn
m F-
m
oint
Sister fO ster O ter Oyster Pt 4� ��,d
ities� Point oa��
`1 trr- �• Pie 101
Z�
��� Veterans
/ Blvd
Onram Sister Cities 8/vd
a-
� pp �+
NB 101 �o PROJEV
Offram
SITE
b Pit 0 Blvd
� yster Point
�`► Drivewa d
� � V
z
o
a a
E Grand
T:t t*-
a�0 • Drivewa b
o tj
o
® ?r'
Grand Ave East EIJ
Grand Ave
= Signal
101
= Side Street Drivewa a
Stop Sign ��
Control
3
El
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco Q(�
u o ii�lll@ BritanniaCopa,atOyStcrPoint Figure 1V.M- /
Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control
Veterans Veterans t1 Veterans
w
E a m E
°' CO = 0 t7 a o 0
2 4 IIII II
a tit ° �i� o m CL
(7
oQ o 3 J o
J o O d m J
N
V N r
C) m ° E * m
a���4 Gatewa d iii4 Gatewa 0 '���� Gatewa
s
t
y� a� r M 111 1 M LO
T 1 ��� N N T 1�� a N
a i _� m
a m
OZ Qa o � Oao
`�1TTf' Tf� �� fftt
IL
Veterans Veterans v Veterans 0
0'1`1t t'' 01`1t tl' Tt
E O1'l '' E
m 0 m 0 0
Z- Q-
y J
J a'S J > J
OO w Ln O
�.. N rn I W k
K a�h * o 'r 0
W N * d d
WL, Gatewa -44L,- Gateway t ML, Gatewa 0
p 2 C m
1�1 w
II II
o
m a m m w
�tt� `�iTt� �f t�
3
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-10
Oyster Point/Gateway&Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd Lane
Configurations-Existing,2017 and 2035 With and Without Project
00)ofSoutlr Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-13
Intersection Level of Service-Year 2017 Without&With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Without Without
+Project +Project
Project Project
1. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps C-23.8(1) C-23.8 C-29.6 C-29.6
(Signal)
2. Airport Blvd./Ter7abay Access B-11.7(1) B-11.0 B-10.2 B-10.2
(Signal)
3. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. C-31.7(1) C-319 D-42.7 D-42.0
(Signal)
4. Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./ C-22.4(1) C-24.3 C-32.1 C-36.0
US 101 NB On-Ramp(Signal)
5. Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp C-21.1(1) C-21.4 B-11.0 B-11.0
(Signal)
6. Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ F-88.8(1) F-104.1 C-339 D-47.4
US 101 SB Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access(Signal)
7. Oyster Point Blvd./Veterans Blvd. C-31.7(1) C-31.4 F-91.2 E-56.7
(Signal)
8. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-42.0(1) D-42.3 D-44.8 D-45.5
9. NB US 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ B-10.8(2) B-10.8 A-8.6 A-8.6
E. Grand Ave(E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn)
10. E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. D-48.1(1) D-48.6 D-38.0 D-38.4
(Signal)
Bolded result=significant project impact.
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
''' V'nsignalized level ofservice-vehicle control delay in seconds. IFestborrnd E. G°and.4venrre stop sign controlled right ta,r.
Fear 2010High�ayCapacitjllrn�rral.lnalysisllethodolo� 'Soza°ce:Crane TransportationG°ozrp
AM Peak Hour
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal)-
LOS F
PM Peak Hour
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (Signal)-LOS F
Year 2017 "Without Project" Vehicle Queuing at Intersections
Table IV.M-14, Year 2017 95"' Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the folloNving off-ramp
intersections and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95"' percentile year 2017 "Without
Project"queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--35
00)of 1;otrtli S'an Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-14
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Year 2017 Without &With Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service)
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Distance*
Without +Project Without +Project
Project Project
Airport Blvd./US 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps
Off-Ramp Left & Left/Right
1275 280 280 504 504
Turn
NB Thm&Thm/Right Turn 920 208 220 292 300
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Access
SB Right Turn 220 5 5 1 1
SB Thii 460 113 114 121 122
NB Tlllu 850 3 1 26 27
NB Left Turn 350 209 217 60 60
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.
WB Left Turn(total for 2 lane) 310 222 226 270 272
WB T1llU & Thm/Rlght Turll
(total for 2 lanes) 206 206 51 522
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp
EB Thiti 225 318 329 105 114
WB Tlllu 840 120 117 177 118
WB Left(total for 2 lanes) 1360 176 228 1272 1326
WB Right(total for 2 lanes) 1040 142 144 516 1026
NB Left Turn 270 79 85 234 234
NB Left/Tlnu 270 23 24 129 129
NB Right Turn 270 70 81 15 16
Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Tlnu (total for 2
170 858 918 370 386
lane)
SB Right Turn 300 31 60 37 47
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Project Access
SB Off-Ramp Thiti 3350 546 650 109 137
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 434 470 91 103
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--36
00)ofSout1i Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-14
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Year 2017 Without &With Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service)
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Distance*
Without +project Without +project
Project Project
EB Tlnu(total for q lanes) 2825 2948 3168 932 764
Oyster Point B1vd.Neterans Blvd.
EB Left Turn 515 108 161 30 99
Bolded results=significant project impact.
*Storage and queues measured in feet per lane unless noted.
Svnclu-o software used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
AM Peak Hour
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: The Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach through movement Nvould have 95"' percentile queue demands
greater than available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: The off-
ramp approach right turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach Nvould
have 95"'percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour
• Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard: The Oyster Point Boulevard
Nvestbound approach through and through/right turn lanes Nvould have 95"' percentile queue
demands greater than available storage.
Year 2017 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Queuing Back to Freeway Mainline
Table IV.M-5 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project" queuing
extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peals traffic hours as determined
using the SIM traffic software program (unless noted).
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard—AM Peale Hour: Backups to mainline.
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard — AM Peal.
Hour: Backups to mainline.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--37
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Year 2017 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
Table IV.M-6 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project" volumes
exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline.
• U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection-AM Peale Hour: 1655 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
Year 2017 "Without Project" On-Ramp Operation
Table IV.M-7 shows that no on-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project"volumes exceeding ramp
capacities.
Year 2017 "Without Project" U.S. 101 Mainline Freeway Operation
Table IV.M-15 shows that no mainline freeway segments Nvith year 2017 "Without Project" volumes
Nvould be operating at an unacceptable LOS.
Table IV.M-15
Freeway Mainline Levels of Service
Year 2017 Without &With Project
W/O Project +Project
Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8076 D 35.0 8099 D 35.1
Southbound 7283 D 29.6 7360 D 30.1
North of I-380
Northbound 11186 D 30.7 11293 B 31.2
Southbound 6662 B 16.6 6694 B 16.7
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8100 E 35.1 8163 E 35.6
Southbound 6758 D 26.6 6787 D 26.8
North of I-380
Northbound 8308 C 209 8349 C 21.0
Southbound 9520 C 24.6 9616 C 24.9
LOS=Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--38
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
YEAR 2035 "WITHOUT PROJECT" CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
The year 2035 "Without Project" conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the
2017 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point Redevelopment
area, the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as Nvell as other increases in manufacturing,
commercial, office, and R&D uses as determined by the City Planning Department. The daily and Peale
Hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 Area by 2035 is presented
in Table IV.M-16,Year 2035 "Without Project"Trip Generation.
In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as
Nvell as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the Nvest of the U.S. 101 freewav Nvere
projected to grow from 2017 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model (after alloNvance for
traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway). Year 2035 intersection AM and PM Peale Hour
as Nvell as U.S. 101 freeway segment traffic volumes Nvere developed by TJKM Associates for the City's
Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 "Without Project" AM and PM
Peale Hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures IV.M-11 and IV.M-12.
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035
All roadway improvements currently listed in the City's November 21, 2012 Traffic Impact Fee Update'
Nvere assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 "Without Project" evaluation except some
improvements immediately adjacent to the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point site. Figure IV.M-13, Year
2035 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2035
intersection approach lanes and control, Nvhile Figure IV.M-10 presents the sequencing of improvements
along the project's Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard frontages in 2035 Nvithout and Nvith
the project.
Year 2035 "Without Project" Intersection Level of Service
Table IV.M-17, 2035 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections Nvith year 2035 "Without
Project"volumes Nvould be operating at acceptable levels of service Nvith the folloNving exceptions.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp
(Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale Hour: LOS E
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale
Hour: LOS F
• Airport Avenue/Grand Avenue (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS E
• East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale Hour:
LOS F
' Willdan Financial Seixices.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--39
988 kt
1 s4 8 Not To Scale
SB 101 /�
SB
Ramps NORTH
374 24
128 1288
.) 1 a
TerraBa
c 31 s� t
47 189 367 `k— g
r 644
83 1 18 m 3
323 188 481 .� 1 �► " O s t
177 835 —216 O F 236 �—717 . °nt
fJ 4 ° `212 v 100 258 , t (�
Sister Oster Oster S `274 D sterPt Pt 2963 90 3
Oyster
t104 J ornt orn � 1695 404 4 d
1064—i � f* 629 1
69 672 927 —►a 380 133 571 17 8 m 274 202
54 264 1015 110 a 633 ° ��Q�
P 101
129 Is
1+57
SUVeterans
0 Blvd
Sister Cities Blvd
N '
Offramp
527 n 475 34 6�Jd .:
1 7� 149 22 1 251 �—353 0� Point Blvd
237 4 `257 P�� yiter
Grand 1 0
249 J 1 � 224 �� I �► 59 0 ` 4
416 --► 35 217 2101 --► m^79 988 a� 4 Drivewa d
86 454 90 m 91
G
�, 49 12
8 d i
23 2
Q� \,O N
,a °J� 64 1 ` 10
E Grand �
p 831 1326 98
60
Grand Ave East i 1
1
Grand Ave 73 20
1 f
101 I Drivewa a
m �
g 157 113
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunria Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-11
Year 2035 without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes
884 SB On/off Not To Scale
820 Ramps
j 4 t 11
61 NORTH
n t f
a
655 13
20 1476
,J
le rrasa
ccess t
109
158 42 559 k__1 T
2 r 2721
594 L,! I�—,394 2135 +1 ) 29 7 L.
p r
435 605 436 1096 oint
Sister ster Oyster 1482 Os 67 �1 1 �►
Cities Point otnt f 530 864 '� 498 5 15 �a
64 1 (► 224 , I 225 75 �322 —► g2 325 440 —►a 483 315 526 143 588 � ''b 128 NpP 101
F
1920145 5 * 2
.� 1 �► 2
e toy `0
Onram
H92, } Veterans
�� I Blvd
0 --► 35 0 Sister Cities 91vd
41 232 0
NB 101 m
Offram
365 4-93 d
t 234 ii
138 243 859 F 1567 ���
-*--562 181 83 0� Point Blvd
r r 852 1 740 PAC yster
Grand
192 } �► 191 �� 1 �► L 0
152 —► 45 I 170 601 —► n 159 I 128 \� 30 p g
76 529 158 211 P�� �<<� 4 Unve way d
9 � 54 6
E Grand Q J0 8 i 2
41 p ` 87
1 r* �} � I 4 Drivewa b
30 600 \o �a I f
61 11
000l
Grand Ave ; East
Grand Ave 0
101 128 p
L ` 110
4 Drivewa a
� I-r,-
m 72 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-12
Year 2035 without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes
M
+�•`
C W N �O co V I M M oo C1 Lr C1 c-I
O
� � N
oo
C1i N cti c0 C1i �J Ln c
O r r N ° Ln r ch cl oo oM co ti
* ° o o
h N co N �' M O M c`c � W
N Ln cc r cn r Ln ti cq lo
O O �--� N Ln M
x co � Ln co lo
C) cl
o
� M 'co
a �
In
O o M N o 0 0 0
a�+ O O co h h C�i� N
O M co to l� "o oo M 'n O
N c-I M c-I Ln M c-I C1i "o N
�i cl
M l--
"o "o oo co Ln 'f, cN-I Ln N
O M NV r-
S.i
co co V .--i O M
co Ln N oo .--i c, Ln I-- Ln M N
N N c-I M cc Ln c�-I
oo oo
oo lfl� Io Ln Io oo oo
V O � ti yr M � M ti ti N
0
a
cc � N w
E� o 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti Ln oo O C
MO ti ti cn L-- L-- O lo W ca
co N N "o N N .o M p u
cl
:b a
.� ., cc "o co Ln E�
cy c, r, N uu
c cy
cc cn
p o oo o O Ln u N
cl
\ r No , Q
N p M h co O N V O U
O -m �J M O M N N "C W
V) � ti h � N cn co
u
0 0 o C 4 O
b b b a ca u ca
.5 b � b O
N N
-d It
,�
H 0 0 0 aj Ln w In In p O
a c7 O O V O
n
r
� r US707 Not To Scale
SB
Ramps
t t Ramps
NORTH
-441
Access�
i
Qj
m
PM Peak Hour m F
Lq
F�)
� `O - r
c FY Y r oint
AM eak Hou c'� O� � a �a � � • � �d
¢ �a yster
Sister O ster O ,ter Point o�
hies Point -1h P��e 101
---10. `1 Truro- --- `1`1��'�' ����Q-,
R
�� Veterans
/
Blvd
onram Sister Cities Blvd
0NB PJ
Offram
6�Jd SITE
yiter Point Blvd
and
Drivewa v d
m
1 O z
E Grand
� 4-
® T r'
Grand Ave , � East
= Signal
Grand Ave
101
= Side Street �� Drivewa a
Stop Sign
Control
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-13
Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control
00)ofSoutlr Sari Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-17
Intersection Level of Service
Year 2035 Without &With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Without Without
+Project +Project
Project Project
1. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps C-25.1(1) C-25.1 D-42.2 D-42.4
(Signal)
2. Airport Blvd./Ter7abay Access B-11.3(1) B-11.3 B-15.4 B-15.4
(Signal)
3. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. D-36.2(1) D-36.5 D-48.1 D-48.1
(Signal)
4. Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./ D-35.6(1) D-47.3 D-37.8 D-50.3
US 101 NB On-Ramp(Signal)
5. Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp B-15.3(1) B-17.8 B-13.0 B-15.7
(Signal)
6. Oyster Point Blvd./Gatersay Blvd./ F-95.8(1) F-127.8 E-76.6 F-110.1
US 101 SB Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access(Signal)
7. Oyster Point Blvd./Veterans Blvd. F-133.4(1) F-132.4 F-80.5 F-91.0
(Signal)
8. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-739(1) E-75.7 D-51.2 D-52.7
9. NB US 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ C-159(2) C-18.7 A-8.5 A-8.7
E. Grand Ave(E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn)
10. E. Grand Ave./Gatersay Blvd. F-182(1) F-182 F-89.2 F-93.3 ?
(Signal)
Bolded result-significant project impact.
'r' Signalized level of service vehicle contr°ol delay in seconds.
''' Unsignalized level ofservice-vehicle contr°ol delay irr seconds. 1Festborrnd E. G°and.4venrre stop sign contr°oiled r°ight till-r.
Fear 2010 Highway Soza°ce:Crane TransportationGrozrp
Year 2035 "Without Project" Vehicle Queuing
Table IV.M-18 Year 2035 95"' Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the folloNving off-ramp
intersections and/or approaches to adjacent intersections Nvould have 95"' percentile year 2035 "Without
Project"queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the SYNCHRO software program.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: The
flyover off-ramp right turn lane and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through
lanes Nvould have 95"' percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the AM
Peale Hour.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: The Dubuque
Avenue northbound approach right turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-II
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
approach through movement Nvould have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available
storage during the AM Peale Hour.
Table IV.M-18
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Year 2035 Without &With Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service)
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Distance*
Without +Project Without +Project
Project Project
Airport Blvd./US 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps
Off-Ramp Left & Left/Right
1275 408 408 680 680
Turn
NB Tlnu&Thu/Right Turn 920 360 362 662 670
Airport Blvd./Terrabav Access
SB Right Turn 220 7 7 8 8
SB Tlnu 460 427 427 353 351
NB Tlnu 850 20 20 43 43
NB Left Turn 350 198 199 64 64
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Ouster Point Blvd.
WB Left Turn(total for 2 lanes) 310 242 242 308 308
WB Tlnu & Thu/Right Turll
( ��6 202 202 980 928
total for 2 lanes)
WB Right Turn NA NA NA NA NA
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp
EB Thu 225 381 432 412 435
WB Thu—AM Peak Hour(total
1680 196 208
for all lanes)**
WB Tlnu—PM Peak Hour(total
1260 1802 2280
for all lanes)**
WB Left(total for 2 lanes) 1360 334 426 1692 2184
WB Right—AM Peak Hour(total
940 84 86
for all lanes)**
WB Right—PM Peak Hour(total
1360 1230 196
for all lanes)**
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-=15
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table IV.M-18
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues
Year 2035 Without &With Project
(Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service)
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Distance*
Without +project Without +project
Project Project
NB Left Turn 270 80 75 289 289
NB Left/Tlnn 270 88 89 172 172
NB Right Turn 270 723 805 40 59
Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Tlnn (total 2
1780 1030 1184 590 668
lanes)
SB Right Turn 295 0 25 26 123
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access
SB Off-Ramp Tlnn 3350 1130 1292 187 214
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 916 916 107 107
EB Tlnn(total for q lanes) 2825 3164 3512 1140 1288
Oyster Point Blvd.Neterans Blvd.
EB Left Turn 515 165 329 58 193
Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project Nvould not result in significant impacts to vehicle
queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95t'percentile queuing as project traffic
contributions Nvould be less than 1 percent of the total.
*Storage and queues measured in feet per lane.
** Capacity for through and right turns varies between the AM and PM peal. periods due to changes in variable lane
assignments on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach.
Svnchro software used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn movement, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach through movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard Nvestbound approach through and left turn
movements Nvould have 95`h percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the PM Peale
Hour.
• Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard: The Oyster Point
Boulevard Nvestbound approach through and through/right turn lanes Nvould have a 95`h percentile
queue demand greater than available storage during the PM Peale Hour.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-46
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Year 2035 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Queuing Back to Freeway Mainline
Table IV.M-5 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2035 "Without Project" queuing
extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peals traffic hours as determined
using the SIM traffic software program.
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard (AM and PM Peale Hours)
• U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue(AM Peale Hour)
• U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/GateNvay Boulevard (AM Peale Hour)
Year 2035 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Operation
Table IV.M-6 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2035 "Without Project" volumes
exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection or 2,200 vehicles per hour on a two-
lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline in the AM Peale Hour.
• U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/GateNvay Boulevard
Intersection—AM Peale Hour: 2361 vehicles per hour using off-ramp
• U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue — AM Peale Hour: 1,816 vehicles per hour
using off-ramp
Year 2035 "Without Project" On-Ramp Operation
Table IV.M-7 shows that the folloNving on-ramps Nvould have year 2035 "Without Project" volumes
exceeding ramp capacities.
• U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque Avenue — PM Peale
Hour: 2,487 vehicles per hour using on-ramp
Year 2035 "Without Project" U.S. 101 Mainline Freeway Operation
Table IV.M-19 shows the folloNving mainline freeway segments Nvith year 2035 "Without Project"
volumes Nvould be operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F).
• U.S. 101 Southbound(North of the Oyster Point Interchange—AM Peale Hour)
• U.S. 101 Northbound(North of the Oyster Point Interchange—AM Peale Hour)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and C/CAG
Guideline thresholds. Therefore,project impacts Nvould be significant if they result in any of the folloNving
conditions:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-47
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
a. The project Nvould exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadwa-,T system (C/CAG
criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation and all kvay-stop operation Nvould change from Level of Service
(LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection Nvould be
increased by at least two percent.
c. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign
controlled intersections Nvould change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes
passing through the intersection Nvould be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are
applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches Nvith more than 25 trips during any peals
traffic hour.
d. Project traffic Nvould increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peals
hour volume signal Nvarrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal Nvarrant
criteria levels.
e. The proposed project Nvould increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two
percent or more Nvith signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or
N-,-hen the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case
operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach).
f. The proposed project Nvould increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent
or more Nvith Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peals hour volume signal Nvarrant criteria
levels.
Table IV.M-19
Freeway Mainline Levels of Service
Year 2035 Without &With Project
W/O Project +Project
Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 9408 F 45.4 9447 F 45.8
Southbound 9965 F 52.3 10127 F 54.6
North of I-380
Northbound 13457 E 41.0 13695 E 42.5
Southbound 8557 C 21.1 8614 C 21.1
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8857 E 40.0 9007 E 41.3
Southbound 7887 D 32.5 7937 D 32.8
North of I-380
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-48
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Northbound 8709 C 21.5 8788 C 21.8
Southbound 11749 D 32.1 11985 D 33.2
Bolded results=significant project impact
LOS=Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
g. Project traffic Nvould increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on all
freevmv off-ramps and also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading avmy from off-
ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if
Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freevmy off-ramps or on the approaches to adjacent
intersections leading avmy from off-ramp intersections is already projected at unacceptable
lengths,the project Nvould increase queuing volumes by one percent or more.
h. Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic
software evaluation for the entire peals hour of operation. If base case traffic already exceeds the
storage capacity of the off-ramp, then a one-percent addition in traffic due to the project is
considered a significant impact.
i. Project traffic Nvould degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freevmy or freewa-T ramps from LOS E to
LOS F Nvith at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than
one percent or on a freevmy segment or a freevmy ramp Nvith Base Case LOS F operation.
j. If on-site circulation Nvould be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through
various parts of the project site.
lc. Project parking Nvould not meet City criteria.
1. Project development or project traffic Nvould produce a detrimental impact to local transit or
shuttle service.
m. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant
traffic,pedestrian or bicycle safety concern Nvould be created or Nvorsened.
Project Trip Generation
Table IV.M-20, Project Trip Generation, shows that by 2017 Phase 1 of the Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point project(two buildings Nvith office and research and development uses as Nvell as a 200-room hotel)
Nvould be likely to generate 242 inbound and 73 outbound trips during the AM peals hour, Nvith 94
inbound and 204 outbound trips during the PM peals hour. This assumes a 20 percent reduction in peals
hour trips based upon implementation of a City-mandated TDM program and survey results of existing
trip generation in the East of 101 Area. Currently,peals hour traffic activity is more than 20 percent loNver
than Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates for office and research & development
activities. BST 2035 Nvith a City TDM program mandated 25- percent reduction in peals hour trips, full
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-49
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
project buildout Nvould be expected to generate 541 inbound and 130 outbound trips during the AM peals
hour, Nvith 180 inbound and 536 outbound trips during the PM peals hour. Trip generation projections for
the proposed project have been developed using fitted curve equation trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. The difference in trip generation
between the Project evaluated in the Near 2000 Bav West Cove Project for Planning Area 1 compared to
the currently proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point is as follows.
Year 2000 AM Peak Hour 2-Way Trips I PM Peak Hour 2-Way Trips
Bav West Cove — 1146 1172
Planning Area 1
Britannia Cove at Oyster 671 716
Point
Based on the trip generation comparison, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould generate
substantialIv feNver peals hour trips than Nvould the approved 2000 Bay West Cove-Planning Area 1
project.
Project Trip Distribution
Project traffic Nvas distributed to the regional roadvmy network based on East of 101 development traffic
patterns contained in the 2001 EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and
Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, and recent
research for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Table IV.M-21, Project Trip
Distribution). It is likely that drivers associated Nvith the proposed project destined to/from the U.S. 101
freevmv either north or south Nvould choose to access the freevmy primarily via the Oyster Point
interchange, although some northbound freevmy drivers Nvould also be expected to exit the freevmy at
East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive due to the congestion at the Oyster Point interchange and the ease of
accessing the Oyster Point Boulevard corridor via Executive Drive and Gatevmy Boulevard. The Year
2017 AM and PM peals hour project Phase 1 traffic increment Nvould be distributed to the local roadwa-T
network as shoNsn in Figures IV.M-14 and IV.M-15, Nvith the full project buildout AM and PM peals hour
project traffic increment distributed to the local roadvmy network in Figures IV.M-16 and IV.M-17.
Resultant Existing "With Project" Buildout AM and PM peals hour volumes at major intersections are
presented in Figures IV.M-18 and IV.M-19, Near 2017 "With Project" Phase 1 AM and PM peals hour
volumes are presented in Figures 20 and IV.M-21, while Near 2035 "With Project" Buildout AM and PM
peals hour volumes are presented in Figures IV.M-22 and IV.M-23.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-SO
SB On,%ff Not To Scale
12 Ramps
NORTH
n 1
a
0 1
12 n
0
TerraBa
ccess
1
L 4
�
51 2 r 1
n 1 °�' 26 1 4 r
14 0 �— 4 �—7 i20 *--45 ou1t
2 32 r6 ister ster D ster O steCities Point oint Oyster Pt 190
15 7• 34 —► 63 ae� 47 16 P`�e101
3
lot
Onram
63 ,' ° Veterans
/
Sister Cities Blvd Blvd
NB 707 n
Offram ��
i
n 2 3 1 2
+--2 °� Point Blvd
Pit yster
Grand f
—► 7
5 I
2 10 P,� ��a� Drivewa d
a
44
oo
` 68
E Grand Qv �0 47
1 rti} �� Drivewa b
44 0 ��
Q
'T t 83
Grand Ave , East
Grand Ave 47
101 1 Jh
Drivewa a
w t
6 111 $3
3
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-14
Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Project Increment
SB On/off-'N Not To Scale
4 Ramps
1 NORTH
n 1
a
0 2
4
l0
I erraBa
ccess 1
2
�k- 1
96 4 m r 1
2 H--) 69 1 4 O r
4 0 �— 12 20104 F 77 oint
6 92 � ` 18 Sister D ster O ster Pt 81 Cities Point 40 Oyster Pt r'6 —► 3 27 29 11 101
F
90 2
8 107 j
Onram
Veterans
27 Blvd
Sister Cities Blvd
NB 101 m
Offram
Jd �/4 LJ'� 2 6� � / ,
2 Pit 0� yster Point Blvd
Grand
1
3 —► 4
P�0 a���Q � Urivewa d
G 56 c
�+ 62
�d
E Grand Q� \� g1 66
Drivewa b
TQ
64
Grand Ave East
Grand Ave 66
101 j
Jh
Drivewa a
n
V 34
a
18 64
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-15
Project Phase I PM Peak Hour Project Increment
SB On/off Not To Scale
22 Ramps /�
l NORTH
n
a
0 1
22 1
l0
TerraBa
cc
1
+-�H� 8 43 � 9 r
24 13 62 51 57 r 13
Sister D ster Oster Pt Cities oint 156 ► Oyster Pt
a t 32 — 70 —i a 86 \�o�zt 16� 182 24 101
n
F
57
8 107
nram
Veterans
86 ,' � Blvd
�- Sister C/ties Blvd � /
NB 707 m
Offramp
2 F 3 4 6
�► 3 •
1 4 ��p° Point Blvd
Grand P yster
1
�► 16 1
10—►
4 27 `�� • Drivewa d
V 27 c
92
a E Grand Q� O� g1 52
z
Drivewa b
O 152
Q
147
Grand Ave East
Grand Ave 52
101
Drivewa a
16 y 203
g j 147
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-16
Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Project Increment
SB On/off-'N Not To Scale
7 Ramps
1 NORTH
n 1
a
0 5
7
l0
I erraBa
ccess
5
�-
H 5
138 21 m r 2
5 °' 166 2 4 O r
o �— 32 ��—53 377 f 89 oint
16 `247 49
Sister D ster Oyster Oster Pt 126
Cities Point 'Point o 66 Oyster Pt
Ir a ,� T
11 —► 5 23—► �\�o��� 50 47 10 P 101
236 11
.41 107
Onram
Veterans
39 Blvd
4 Sister Cities Blvd
NB 707 m
Offram
2 22 16 11 4
r,
Grand
5 Pit o� yster Point Blvd
4 —► 5 1
1 8
G� 55 c
39
� d
E Grand Q� 0� g�J 92
tDrivewa v b
0 40
Q
81
Grand Ave ; , East
Grand Ave 92
101 1
Drivewa v a
n
V 67
a
5D 81
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-17
Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Project Increment
456
1 54 4 Not To Scale
SB 101
SB
Ramps NORTH
229 4
660
0
TerraBa
t
21 `1� 20
A.— 295
138 0 23 d
�9 t 3
43 253 r 353 ofnt
1 -185 O 62 '166 m ~120 `71 600 t
Oster Oster 194 Oyster Pt 1460 0 8
Point oin o' 899-01 G>h (� 0 0
11 296 m 118
1029—► 297 696 —►� 274 49 ��� 1043 152 182 �d
27 99 412 38 ��° 368' 101
539 64 3 3
e 101 `p
pram
757J O� t �►
0 —► 12 0 Veterans
45 / Blvd
51 101 � Sister Cities Blvd
Zfram
i
471 334 n 67 12117
102 258 67
105 266 0� . Blvd
Grand 184 4 ` 52 P�( yster Point
: 1 59 p L p
233J t 178 J m t (� 1 4 r 4
184 —► 1213 —► m ��` Drivewa d
35 165 ,47 286 �� t�
86 337 61 98 P �a� 27 t f*
a� 92 49 12
14 a p� \�� 8�vd 1116 1 10
E Grand �� +�� ��a + Drivewa b
t r o� C��� c t (�
O 708 1062 Q
207 98
Grand Ave ; 1 East 125 1
Grand Ave 1
01 1 4 J,Drivewav a
16 � � t �►
203 113
g 304
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-18
Existing with Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes
504 Not To Scale
l s ;kt 4
lz US101
SS NORTH
Ramps
23 5 r
918
l �.
0
TerraBa
ccess 1
248 1� 23
0 � ,1416
358 39 v 5
2 r
+---)� 9 1072 Dint
52 O 377 Jk,
r 1671 45 67 8 i 101 197 ! 1 t ter Oster 1249 Oyster pt 354 0 0
t om 289—► 0 0 r► 178 , t r- 46 85 Qj 132 163 --►� 388 172 D
_ ��� v 4 7 P` 101
268 m 100 a 27
1462 50 5 L 2
s ioi `0
Onram
Veterans
520 ot� t ► Blvd
0 15,35 0 Sister Cities Blvd
13�
NB 101 138
Offram
11 —IN
306 � IL 188 362 IL 115
145 160 0' 186 23 104
-*--1070 �6��
579 .0) 1 L 159 Pit o yiter Point Blvd
Grand
1
30 p 0
165, t r► 98 J t r* 8
53 —► 45 111 286 --► 66 54 �� 4 Drivewa v d
76 333 74 m 53 Qom ����� 55 t 11,
39 54 6
t 9 d
E Grand p� � �w 133 0 L 2
87
}z �� Drivewa b
� 105 471
t r-
Q ; 141 11
° Grand Ave ; I East 220 0
Grand Ave 0 ` 110
101 1 �►J.Drivewa a
67- t �►
50 153 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-19
Existing with Project Bitildout PM Peak Hour Volumes
609 f297
AL 3
1 64 315 Not To Scale
US707 SB
1 Ramps NORTH
118 806
a
o
I erraSa
c 31 s�
45 217 297 `k— 13
� � 410
125 1 20 3
r38 218 O L 350 20 1 J � O
�—523 �� oint
197 242 101 448 , t ster Oster 194 Oster Pt Oyster Pt 2063 � 90 3
oint orn 1440—► 3 d
523 0 537 26476 915 —►� 359 1062 sec 1302 S 243 180 ��\J
47 0
505 50 �\�° 430 ° P��e 101
595 101 3 4 3
�► F 1
BTOr `0
pram
1376)
0 1 14 0 Veterans
79 NB 707 92 Sister Cities B/vd / Blvd
'm
Offram
481
110 484 Z 69 1913 253 L 57 �
o F 142 I �— 306 0� o,,,,, point Blvd
Grand � '` 229 i F 159 Pit yster
59 0 L 0
248, 1 �► 233 J m 4) t (� 4 4
322 —► 35 215 1632 —► 47 636 �a`� Drivewa d
86 421 95 429 Q� 44 1 f*
68 49 12
414 Q �m 8 111 1 4— 2
`
E Grand 1! 10
nrillPIA
}�° 4 b
v� tr-
5 1204
87 Q
98
j 143
Grand Ave ; I East 1
L
Grand Ave 120 1 20
101 �► Driveway a
6
g y 111 1
240 13
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunria Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-20
Year 2017 with Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Volumes
725 SB On/off Not To Scale
n734 Ramps
X12 500 NORTH
�
453 13
1205
20
.J 1
TerraBa
ccess 4) t
109 38
151 357 �� 18
2 r 1976
325 11 m
420
490 446 n 204 1650 5 fJ j 4 y = 2 r
j o 758 9.+--773 1� il —2352 oint
1. 283 Oster S r 1236 Oyster Pt `441 148 1
hies Point otn 374 Oyster Pt 511 498 5 4 \�d
361 fl r" 202 , 1 � 164 *) t 75 * �74 1 277 330 —►� 472 208 1203 108 P� 101
23 128 502 113 e� 2��° 73
e.-583149 6 t 2
.� j .-2
8 101 `0
pram
592 Veterans
�� t Blvd
0 1 35 0 Sister Cities Blvd
LNB31 8 199
m
352 4-215 156 73 93 i 94
145 183 0' �450 t-1493 ��� %�i
1 ,F 730 j 554 P<( ° yster Point Blvd
Grand
1
173 J 41 f► 167 � �� r► 30 0 � 8
113 —► 45 138 388 —► 75 196 �� j �► Dvew d
76 522 103 ° 164 56 (�
Q 62 54 6
4-9
E Grand p� ) Blvd 107 0 i 87
Drivewa b
63 471 } (*
i I
125 11
Grand Ave , 1 East 194 0 0
iE Grand Ave ` 110
101 j Drivewa a
34 t r*
M T
j
18 136 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
°1 Cihij of South San Francisco
u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-21
Year 2017 with Project Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes
1010
1 611. 8 Not To Scale
US701
SB
Ramps NORTH
375 24
128 1310
b
TerraBa
c 31 s�
47 189 368 kA��k 16
3
137 22
323 '- 189 524 L 9 J �►
1771857 —22 x-249 62 768 nt
Sister Oster Oster 331 D ster 113 Pt 600 oyster 2963
(itf es J Point Point 1851 r 404 4
104 1 O T
0
1096—� 69 688 997 —►� 80 142 571 274 226 0�,a
54 264 1015 110 0,0 1890 182 0�
633 T P�t� 101
129
1+3t
sO Veterans
0 Blvd
Sister Cities O
Offramp
527 IL 45
129793 75 173 ��d
1 .4—152 26 254 �—353 0 �� Point Blvd
f-238 Lo.. 257
yster
Grand nd 59 0 0
249 4) 1 r* 240 1 �► 4 ` 4
426 --► 35 221 2101 —► 79 1 988 o Drivewa d
86 454 90 m 118 P
V 26 (�
j92 49 12
2
x 23 p �� 6 116 1
� 10
E Grand a �o
J
r-
p 983 1326 98
207
Grand Ave East L 1
Grand Ave 125 11 ` 20
01
4 Drivewa v a
16,T) 1 (�
a 203 113
g 304
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-22
Year 2035 with Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes
891 SB Onioff Not To Scale
820 Ramps
4 143
i `61 NORTH
n 1
660 13
J-�2�Terr *I t
1142 564 R+75 22
3
594 n 399 2301 2 435 612 ° F452 �—1149 3� (-3072 t
Sister Oster D ster 1729 O sterPt 514 Cities Point oint 596 —� Oyster Pt 64 , 1 � 224 , I � 225 f
781 333 —► g2 330 463 —►� 483 358 1730 155 dQ°
26 143 588 128 \�p�� 73 47 P 101
F
2156156 5 2
f1 1 L� �—2
e 707 `0
Onran,
31� f Veterans
�� I Blvd
0 --► a 35 0 Sister Cities Bivd /
41 236
NB 101 m
Offram
365 234 881 '-97
�
138 243
578 197 94 1567
r 852 ` 740 Pit ° yster Point Blvd
Grand �
192 } �► 196 �� } �► 30 0 8
—► I 601
157 159 I 128 ! �►
45 170 �� Drivewa v d
76 529 158 219 50 � � t �►
�Q 2 39 54 6
+_9
E Grand 4� 6 133 0 4 2
off, ,` 87
Drivewa b
80 600 °� ��
Q 142 11
Grand Ave , East
Grand Ave 220 0 4 0
0
101 �► Drivewa a
67 c -) 1 r*
j 50 153 17
3
Britannia Cove EIR
41 City of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrun,ia Copa�(It OyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-23
Year 2035 with Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Volumes
00)of 1;outlr S'an Francisco April 2013
Table IV.M-20
Project Trip Generation
Year 2017 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phase 1
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate I Vol Rate I Vol Rate I Vol Rate Vol
Office 101,037 SQ.FT. 0.99 100 0.14 14 0.18 18 0.85 86
R&D 151,556 SQ.FT. 0.49 74 0.10 15 0.09 14 0.41 62
Hotel 200 Rooms 0.34 68 0.22 44 0.31 62 0.28 56
Total 242 73 94 204
Source:Crane Transportation Group
Year 2035 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Total Project
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate I Vol
Office 353,738 SQ.FT. 0.67 237 0.09 32 0.15 53 0.72 255
R&D 530,606 SQ.FT. 0.43 228 0.09 48 0.06 32 0.36 191
Retail 20,000 SQ.FT. 0.42 8 0.27 6 1.63 33 1.70 34
Hotel 200 Rooms 0.34 68 0.22 44 0.31 62 0.28 56
Total 1 541 130 180 536
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table IV.M-21
Project Trip Distribution
Year 2017 Year 2035
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak
Direction Hour Hour Hour PM Peak Hour
U.S. 101 North/San 37 35 34
Francisco/Brisbane 32
U.S. 101 South(11 48 48 48 48
South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6
Dali- City/Colma via Sister Cities 6 6 6
Blvd. 6
Local East of U.S. 101 3 5 6 8
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
'r'Also b'rclndes use(?I'S.Airport Blvd. to fi°om I-380 ir'rterchar�rge.
Source:Cite of Sorrth Saar Francisco,Deaf'Szrpplenrental Erzvt°onnrental InrpactReport,South&m Francisco General Plan
.4nrendnrent and Transportation Denrmid llanagenrent Ordinance,April 200, Genentech Central Campus Master Plan EIR
and the 2012 East of'101 Capitallnrprovenrents Program Update Traffic Strd 1.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--61
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impact IV.M-1: Trips generated by the project would exceed 100 net new trips during AM and PM
Peak Hour. (Less than Significant)
Table IV.M-20, Project Trip Generation shows that under 2017 conditions, Phase 1 of the project Nvould
result in 315 new trips during the AM Peale Hour and 298 new two-way trips during the PM
Peale Hour, which is greater than the C/CAG threshold of 100 net new trips. In 2035, the project Nvould
result in 671 new trips during the AM Peale Hour and 716 new two-way trips during the PM
Peale Hour, which is also greater than the 100 net new trips threshold. C/CAG Agency Guidelines for
implementation of the 2011 Final Congestion Management Program (C/CAG Guidelines) specify that
local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants Nvould mitigate all new Peale Hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. Since the project exceeds this
threshold, the applicant has created and Nvill implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program as a component of the project as described in Appendix D and in Chapter III Project Description
of this SEIR. The TDM Program Nvill be consistent Nvith the City of South San Francisco Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management (or its successor), and acceptable to
C/CAG. This program, once implemented, Nvill be ongoing for the occupied life of the development as
required by the City s Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-1
None required.
EXISTING"WITH PROJECT"IMPACTS
Impact 2: The project would not result in any significant intersection level of service impacts under
Existing "With Project"conditions. (Less than Significant)
Table IV.M-3, Existing Intersection Levels of Service shows that the addition of project traffic Nvould not
result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study intersections under Existing "With Project"
conditions. All study area intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service. This impact
Nvould be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2
None required.
Impact IV.M-3: The project would result in 95th percentile vehicle queuing impacts at one location
under Existing "With Project" conditions. (Potentially Significant: Less than Significant With
Mitigation)
Table 4, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues shows that the addition of project traffic to existing volumes
Nvould result in unacceptable 95th percentile vehicle queuing at one location.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--62
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue — PM Peale Hour. The Nvestbound right turn 95th
percentile queue Nvould increase from 444 feet up to 840 feet Nvith 520 feet of available storage.
The project Nvould not add traffic to other movements where existing 95th percentile queues already
exceed available storage (Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue: Northbound Dubuque through/left
turn movements during the AM and PM peals hours). In addition, the project Nvould not add traffic to a
movement that Nvould have its 95th percentile queue increased above available storage Nvith the addition
of project traffic to other movements at the intersection (Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.
101 Southbound Off-Ramp: The off-ramp right turn queue Nvould increase from 322 feet up to 453 feet
Nvith 400 feet of available storage). This last impact Nvould not meet the City s significance criteria.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-3
The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer for the folloNving mitigations.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue—Provide a second right turn lane on the Nvestbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach. This measure is included in the City's East of 101 Capital
Improvements Program.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, the Nvestbound right turn 95th percentile PM peals hour
"With Project"queue would be reduced from 840 feet doNsn to 92 feet.
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M-3
is feasible and Nvould restore "With Project" vehicle queuing to a length less than "Without Project"
queuing. Therefore,the impact Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-4: The project would not result in 95th percentile off=ramp queues extending back to the
U..& 101.reeway mainline(Less than Significant)
Table 5, Off-Ramp Queuing Back to the U.S. 101 Mainline, shows that the addition of project traffic
Nvould not increase AM or PM peals hour volumes on any analyzed off-ramp to extend back to the
freeway mainline.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-4
None required.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--63
00)of South S'an Francisco April 201;
Impact IV.M-5: The project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the US. 101
Northbound Q11-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive by 9.4 percent, where current volumes
already exceed capacity limits. The offramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing "Without
Project"conditions would be increased to 1,770 vehicles under Existing "With Project"conditions at a
location with an off=ramp diverge capacity (?1'1,500 vehicles per hour. (Potentially Significant, Less
Than Significant with Mitigation)
Table IV.M-6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that the addition of project traffic would increase
volumes by more than 1 percent on the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
Nvhere"Without Project"volumes already exceed the diverge capacity limit of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
Mitigation Measure IV.M 5
The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second off-
ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freevmy at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand
Avenue/Executive Drive. The fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included in the City s East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program(CIP)
Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M-5
is feasible and Nvould restore off-ramp diverge operation to an acceptable level, and therefore the impact
Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-6: The project would not increase the Peak Hour volumes at any study on-ramp above
acceptable capacity limits under Existing "With Project"conditions. (Less than Significant)
Table IV.M-7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of project traffic Nvould not
increase Peale Hour volumes above acceptable capacity limits at anv study on-ramps under Existing "With
Project" conditions. This impact Nvould be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M 6
None required.
Impact IV.M 7. The project would not degrade the level of service of any US. 101 freeway mainline
segment to an unacceptable level under Existing "With Project"conditions. (Less than Significant)
As shoNsn in Table IV.M-9, Existing Freevmy Mainline Levels of Service, the addition of project traffic
Nvould not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study freevmy mainline segments under
Existing "With Project" conditions. This impact Nvould be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M- 7
None required.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-64
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
YEAR 2017"WITH PROJECT"IMPACTS
Figure IV.M-10 shows the additional improvements that NN-ill be constructed along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard Nvith project Phase 1 development.
Impact IV.M-8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant level of service
impact at one study intersection under 2017 "With Project" conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less
than Significant With Mitigation)
Table IV.M-13, Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service, shows that the addition of project-related
traffic Nvould not result in an unacceptable level of service at any intersection. However, project traffic
Nvould increase volumes by more than 2 percent at one intersection already experiencing unacceptable
"Without Project"operation.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp —
During the AM peals hour project traffic Nvould increase volumes by 6.9 percent at a location Nvith
unacceptable LOS F "Without Project"operation.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-8
The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the folloNving
improvement as shoNsn in Table IV.M-22 and Figure IV.M-24, Year 2017 Mitigated Lane Geometries
and Control.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp —
Adjust Signal Timing.. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to
a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact.
After implementation of the mitigation measure, the intersection Nvould operate at LOS F-883 seconds
control delay during the AM peals hour, which is less than "Without Project" operation at 88.8 seconds
control delay.
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M-8
is feasible and Nvould restore "With Project"operation to levels better than "Without Project"operation.
Impact IV.M-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase volumes by more than I
percent at three intersections which would have unacceptable "Without Project" vehicle queuing as
determined by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans. (Potentially Significant; Less than
Significant with Mitigation)
Table IV.M-15,Year 2017 95"'Percentile Vehicle Queue Analysis, shows that the folloNving intersections
Nvould have specific turn or through movement volumes increased by more than 1 percent due to the
addition of project traffic to 2017 "Without Project" volumes, where movements Nvould already exceed
available storage limits.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--65
00)of S'out1 ;an Francisco April 201;
• 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
During the AM peals hour,the project would increase volumes by 3.9 percent in the through lanes
on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location Nvith
unacceptable 2017 "Without Project" 95th percentile queuing. The eastbound through movement
queue per lane Nvould increase from 318 up to 329 feet in a location Nvith only 225 feet of storage
per lane.
• 9b.Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard
During the PM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes by 1.5 percent in the through and
through/right turn lanes on the Nvestbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Airport Boulevard
at a location Nvith unacceptable 2017 "Without Project" 95th percentile queuing. The Nvestbound
movement queue demand Nvould increase from 514 to 522 feet at a location Nvith only 440 feet of
total storage (over two lanes)on the approach.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--66
Not To Scale
NORTH
FS �
r
Oyster Pt
08Z'
Sister �O ster Oyster
Cities J Point 11oln
� try
o
101
Veterans
/
Sister Cities Blvd Blvd
.
= Mitigation
Mitigated Lanes PROJEC
w�a SITE
0 = Overlap Right Turn Phasing Pit 0 yster Point Blvd
® =Adjust signal timing
to accomodate specific
queueing issues as
opposed to optimizing
intersection level of service V
FS = Fair Share Contribution
= Existing Signal
Existing Lanes
Q'
Grand Ave East
Grand Ave
101
3
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
Br,t���,r,,a co�����r 0„Stcr point Figure IVA-24
Year 2017 with Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations
® \ \
\ k \ ® \
a
/
-
} e \
$ A /
u eq )
§
�
Q \
\ }u �
u t a
3 a
% \ e
\
$ ¢ \
y \
/
eq
\ ƒ �
«
/g - *
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
During the AM peals hour,the project Nvould increase volumes by 7.3 percent in the through lanes
on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard at location Nvith
unacceptable 2017 "Without Project" 95th percentile queuing. The eastbound through movement
queue demand Nvould increase from 3,004 up to 3,168 feet at a location Nvith only 2,825 feet of
total storage (over four lanes) on the approach.
Mitigation Measure IV.M 9
The applicant shall be responsible for providing fair-share contributions as determined by the City
Engineer for the folloNving improvements as shoNsn in Figure IV.M-24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection
Lane Geometries and Control. The fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
• 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a
less than significant level Nvhile not creating a significant level of service impact.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the eastbound
approach through lanes Nvould be reduced to the same distance as "Without Project" conditions (3 18 feet
95th percentile mitigated "With Project"queue versus 318 feet"Without Project"unmitigated queue).
• 9b.Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard
Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less
than significant level Nvhile not creating a significant level of service impact.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the Nvestbound
approach through and through/right turn lanes Nvould be reduced to the same distance as "Without
Project" conditions (514 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue versus 514 feet "Without
Project"unmitigated queue).
• 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
Adjust signal timing The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less
than significant level Nvhile not creating a significant level of service impact.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the eastbound
approach through lanes Nvould be reduced to less distance than "Without Project" conditions (2,928 feet
95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue demand versus 2,948 feet "Without Project" unmitigated
queue demand).
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above
in Mitigation Measure IV.M-9 are feasible and Nvould restore intersection queuing to or less than
"Without Project" operation. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to Nvhich the City Nvill
collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 Area to construct these improvements. With
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--69
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the project's impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-10: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes by more than
I percent on one freeway off=ramp that would have "Without Project"queues extending to the freeway
mainline and would extend queues back to the freeway mainline at a second off=ramp where 2017
"Without Project"queues would not otherwise extend to the freeway mainline. (Potentially Significant;
Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Table IV.M-5, Off-Ramp Queuing Back to the U.S. 101 Mainline, shows that the folloNving off-ramps
Nvould experience a significant impact from backups extending to the freeway mainline as the addition of
project traffic Nvould either increase volumes more than 1 percent at a location Nvhere 2017 "Without
Project"volumes are already backing up to the freeway mainline or project traffic Nvould extend "Without
Project"queues back to the freewa-T mainline.
• 10a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this off-ramp by 4.7 percent compared
to 2017 "Without Project" volumes Nvhere vehicles Nvould already be backing up to the freewa-T mainline.
This Nvould result in queues extending back to the freeway mainline more frequently.
• 10b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this off-ramp by 4.6 percent and result
in volumes extending back to the freeway mainline.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--10:
The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the folloNving
improvements as shoNsn in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and
Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy by the Cit<.
• 10a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach from three through lanes and a shared
through/right turn lane to three through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane.
Prohibit right turns on red from the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp right turn.
Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
right turn.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--70
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
• 10b. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp-Northbound Off-Ramp
Provide improvements as detailed in Mitigation 10a above at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection. Measures at this intersection NN-ill allow
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard traffic to clear from both the Gateway and Dubuque intersections and
facilitate flow from the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue.
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above
in Mitigation Measures 10a and lob are feasible and Nvould eliminate AM peals hour "With Project"
traffic on the U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard and on the U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue from backing up to the freeway mainline. The City has a
traffic impact fee program pursuant to Nvhich the City Nvill collect funds from all future development in
the East of 101 Area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the project's fair share of the
cost of this improvement, the project's impact Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level. There
should be no significant secondary impacts due to this measure.
Impact IV.M--11: The project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the U.& 101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard by 4.7 percent, where
2017 "Without Project"volumes would already exceed capacity limits. The off=ramp volume (?1'1,655
vehicles under 2017 "Without Project" conditions would be increased to 1,732 vehicles under "With
Project" conditions at a location with an off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
(Potentially Significant,Significant and Unavoidable)
Table IV.M-6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that the folloNving off-ramp diverge location
from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline Nvould experience a significant impact due to the addition of project
traffic to 2017 "Without Project"volumes at the folloNving intersection:
• 11. U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
During the AM peals hour at the U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection, the project Nvould increase off-ramp volumes by 4.7 percent
(from 1,655 up to 1,732 vehicles) Nvith 2017 "Without Project" volumes already exceeding the
1,500 vehicles per hour diverge capacity.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--11
City Public Works staff has determined that providing a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101
freeway mainline for the southbound flyover off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
intersection Nvould not be feasible due to the limited distance between the flyover off-ramp diverge and
the southbound off-ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. The southbound flyover off-ramp connection to
the U.S. 101 freeway mainline is located about 880 feet south of the southbound off-ramp connection to
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--71
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Airport Boulevard. Provision of a second off-ramp lane connection to the freevmy mainline Nvould require
a separate deceleration auxiliary lane at least 1,250 feet long.
Impact After Mitigation: The improvement to the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp diverge to the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Gatevmv Boulevard intersection cannot be completed for the reasons described above.
Therefore,this impact Nvould remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M--12: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on US. 101
freeway on-ramps, but would not result in unacceptable operation at any on-ramp under 2017 "With
Project"conditions. (Less than Significant)
Table IV.M-7, Year 2017 On-Ramp Capacities and Volumes, shows that the proposed project Nvould not
result in a significant impact to on-ramp operations. All on-ramps Nvould continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service Nvith the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the impact Nvould be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--12:
None required.
Impact IV.M-13: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the US.
101 freeway, but would not result in unacceptable operation on any study freeway mainline segment
under 2017"With Project"conditions. (Less than Significant)
Table IV.M-15, Year 2017 Freevmv Mainline Levels of Service, shows that the proposed project Nvould
not result in a significant impact on freevmy operations. All freevmy segments Nvould continue to operate
at LOS E or better Nvith the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the impact Nvould be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--13:
None required.
Year 2035 "With Proiect" Impacts
Figure IV.M-10 shows the additional improvements that NN-ill be constructed along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard Nvith project buildout.
2 Caltrans Highvmy Design Manual, June 2006.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--72
00)of South S'an Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.M--14: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes and would
result in a significant level of service operational impact at two study intersections under 2035 "With
Project" conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant With Mitigation at One Location;
Significant and Unavoidable at a Second Location)
Table IV.M-17, 2035 Intersection Levels of Service, shows that two intersections Nvould be significantly
affected by the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future "Without Project"volumes. No intersection Nvith
acceptable "Without Project" operation Nvould degrade to unacceptable operation Nvith the addition of
project traffic. HoNvever, the addition of project traffic to the following two intersections Nvith
unacceptable "Without Project"operations Nvould increase volumes by more than 2 percent.
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp/Project Access
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this intersection by 11.2 percent
compared to 2035 "Without Project" volumes; this intersection is already projected to operate at an
unacceptable level of service (LOS F). During the PM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes
10.7 percent compared to 2035 "Without Project" volumes; this intersection is already projected to
operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E).
• 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
During the PM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this intersection by 6.5 percent
compared to 2035 "Without Project" volumes; this intersection is already projected to operate at an
unacceptable level of service (LOS F).
Mitigation Measure IV.M--14
The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer for the folloNving improvements, which are described below and shoNsn in Table 23 and
Figure IV.M-25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy by the City.
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less
than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact.
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide three exclusive through lanes (during
commute peals traffic conditions) and an exclusive right turn lane. Also, provide overlap phasing for the
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn movement and prohibit right turns on red from the U.S. 101
southbound flyover off-ramp.
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection Nvould operate at LOS F-107.9 seconds control
delay during the AM Peale Hour, which remains greater than 2035 "Without Project" conditions (LOS F-
95.8 seconds control delay). During the PM Peale Hour,the intersection Nvould operate at LOS F-99.5
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--73
Not To Scale
NORTH
�
� r
C
1 oint
FS FS 4
O se
trr
Widen to accomodate o�
FS 3rd Off Ramp through P� 101
lane traffic
Veterans
/
Sister Cities Blvd Blvd
.
= Mitigation PROJEC
= Mitigated Lanes •
Pit o yster Point Blvd
® =Adjust signal timing
to accomodate specific
queueing issues as
opposed to optimizing
intersection level of service V
�q'
FS = Fair Share Contribution ��
O = Overlap Right Turn Phasing �O �
= Existing Signal
Existing Lanes Q
Grand Ave • East
Grand Ave
101
3
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
Br,talmia cope(it 0„Sterro,r,t Figure IVA-25
Year 2035 with Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations
® \ %
� \ •{ / � � ./ � /
: \
_ •{ / t _ \
� m § .
)
> \
§ � \
.» f Q = / )
cl
ƒ } •{ / - \
« ; §
% :
a a }
/ \ 9 o \ \
] z - ƒ /
k \ •/ / � § 2 = k §
% U �eq ( /
/ r \
o ® ®
q � (
t ® �
'ƒ ( ± /)
_
� \
? }° \
\
\ \ _ = j \
\ ( \ / \ /
\ 5 \ � \ \
g
0 / y 0
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
seconds control delay, Nvhich is also greater than 2035 "Without Project" conditions (LOS E-76.6 seconds
control delay).
• 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes.
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection Nvould operate at LOS E-67.0 seconds control
delay during the PM Peale Hour, Nvhich is less than 2035 "Without Project" conditions (LOS F-80.5
seconds control delay).
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 14 a and 14b are feasible.
HoNvever, the project's impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound
FIN-over Off-Ramp intersection could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, Nvhile the measure
proposed for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard intersection would reduce the impact at this
location to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M--15: Implementation of the proposed project would increase volumes by more than I
percent on the approaches to two intersections under 2035 "Without Project" conditions that would
already be experiencing unacceptable 95th percentile queuing. Project traffic would also increase
acceptable "Without Project" queuing on one approach to one of these same intersections to
unacceptable lengths. Resultant queuing would exceed acceptable levels established by the City of
South San Francisco and Caltrans. (Potentially Significant;Significant and Unavoidable)
Table IV.M-18, Year 2035 95"' Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the following intersections Nvould
experience a significant queuing impact due to the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future "Without
Project"volumes.
• 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes by 9.2 percent in the through lanes on the
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard at a location Nvith unacceptable 2035
"Without Project" 95"'percentile queuing. Total queue demand in the four eastbound through lanes Nvould
increase from 3,164 up to 3,512 feet in a location Nvith only 2,825 feet of combined storage in the four
through lanes.
• 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes by 7.6 percent in the through lanes on the
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location Nvith unacceptable 2035
"Without Project"queuing. The eastbound through movement queue per lane Nvould increase from 381 up
to 432 feet at a location Nvith only 225 feet of storage. In addition, the project Nvould increase volumes by
2.4 percent in the right turn lanes on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point
Boulevard at a location Nvith unacceptable 2035 "Without Project" queuing. The northbound right turn
queue per lane Nvould increase from 723 up to 805 feet at a location Nvith only 270 feet of storage per lane.
During the PM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes by 5.3 percent in the through lanes on the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--76
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location Nvith unacceptable 2035
"Without Project" queuing. The eastbound through movement queue per lane Nvould increase from 412
up to 435 feet in a location Nvith only 225 feet of storage. In addition, the project Nvould increase volumes
by 4.9 percent and 16.7 percent in the Nvestbound approach through and left turn lanes respectively, at
locations Nvith unacceptable "Without Project" queuing. Also, the project Nvould increase acceptable 95th
percentile queuing storage demand for "Without Project" conditions to an unacceptable length in the
Nvestbound approach right turn lanes. The Nvestbound right turn queue storage demand Nvould increase
from 1,230 feet up to 1,496 feet Nvith 1360 feet of available storage.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--15
The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer for the folloNving improvements as shown in Table 23 and Figure 25. The fair-share payment
shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
• 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access
The measures recommended to improve level of service (that are listed below) have also been evaluated
to determine their ability to reduce vehicle queues.
Adjust signal timing. The signal timing Nvill be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a less than
significant level Nvhile not creating a significant level of service impact.
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide three exclusive through lanes (during
commute peals traffic conditions) and an exclusive right turn lane. Also provide overlap phasing for the
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn movement.
These measures Nvould reduce the amount of queuing storage for eastbound through movements from
2,825 feet doNsn to 1,900 feet (due to reducing the number of through lanes from four to three). "With
Project" AM peals hour 95th percentile vehicle queuing demand in the eastbound through lanes Nvould be
2,586 feet Nvith 1,900 feet of available storage. HoNvever, after the level of service mitigation, the
eastbound through lanes queue demand Nvould be 36 percent higher than available storage, Nvhile Nvith
four eastbound through lanes (the unmitigated condition), the eastbound through lanes "With Project"
queue demand Nvould only be 12 percent above available storage. Therefore, these level of service
measures Nvould not be beneficial for queuing. No other measures are considered feasible at this
intersection due to right-of-N ay and cost constraints.
• 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
This measure Nvould reduce "With Project" AM and PM peals hour vehicle queuing in the eastbound
through lanes to a shorter distance than "Without Project" conditions (AM: 358 feet 95th percentile
mitigated "With Project" queue per lane versus 381 feet "Without Project" unmitigated queue demand;
PM: 321 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue per lane versus 412 feet "Without Project"
unmitigated queue demand). HoNvever,this measure Nvould not be able to reduce "With Project" AM peals
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--77
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
hour vehicle queuing in the northbound right turn lanes to a shorter distance than "Without Project" AM
peals hour vehicle queuing. Also, this measure Nvould not be able to eliminate any of the significant PM
peals hour queuing impacts in the Oyster Point Nvestbound approach left, through or right turn lanes. No
physical improvement measures are considered feasible due to right-of-N ay and construction cost
constraints.
Impact After Mitigation: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 15a are feasible, but
Nvould not reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level at the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measure 15b, Nvhich applies to the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, is feasible to reduce some, but
not all queuing impacts. Therefore, both impacts Nvould remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-16: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the frequency of backups
extending to the freeway mainline at two U.S:101 off=ramps. (Potentially Significant; Significant and
Unavoidable)
As shoNsn in Table IV.M-5, the folloNving off-ramps Nvould experience a significant impact from backups
extending more frequently to the freeway mainline from the addition of project traffic to Year 2035
"Without Project"volumes.
• 16a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this off-ramp by 6.9 percent compared
to Year 2035 "Without Project" volumes. This Nvould result in traffic backing up to the freewa-T mainline
more frequently.
• 16b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection
During the AM peals hour, the project Nvould increase volumes at this off-ramp by 4.8 percent compared
to Year 2035 "Without Project" volumes. This Nvould result in traffic backing up to the freewa-T mainline
more frequently.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--16
The improvements that Nvould be necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts to the off-ramps
identified above are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. Therefore, the impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable.
• 16a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other mitigation measures
considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that Nvould reduce 95th percentile off-
ramp queuing Nvithin available storage beyond those recommended for 2035 unacceptable surface street
queuing (Mitigation Measure 15a). Additional measures Nvould potentially include Nvidening Oyster Point
Boulevard an additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--78
00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013
(through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as Nvell as Ndening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-
Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard
through part of the interchange area Nvould be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of
the support columns for the southbound flyover off-ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off-ramp Ndening
Nvould also require expansion of bridge structures, Nvhich Nvould result in additional environmental
impacts such as the need for additional right of Nvay, and be prohibitively expensive. Provision of
additional lanes Nvould require acquisition of additional right-of-N ay along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also,
provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off-ramp intersection approaches
Nvould not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure
leg) of the intersection.
• 16b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection
There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that
could be provided at either the off-ramp intersection Nvith the surface street system or at adjacent surface
street intersections that Nvould provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from
backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline.
Impact IV.M-17. Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to three
US. 101 off-ramp diverges with the mainline freeway under 2035 "With Project" conditions.
(Potentially Significant;Significant and Unavoidable)
Table IV.M-6, Year 2035 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that the folloNving off-ramp diverge
locations from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline Nvould experience a significant impact from the addition of
project traffic to 2035 Future "Without Project"volumes.
• 17a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard Intersection
During the AM peals hour at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) to the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection, the project Nvould increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9 percent
(from 2,361 up to 2,523 vehicles) Nvith 2035 "Without Project"volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles
per hour capacity at the off-ramp diverge.
• 17b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to the E. Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection
During the AM peals hour at the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp to the E. Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
intersection, the project Nvould increase off-ramp volumes by 7.1 percent (from 2,157 up to 2309
vehicles) and Nvould increase volumes above the 2300 vehicles per hour diverge capacity of the two off-
ramp lane connections to the U.S. 101 mainline.
• 17c. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to the Dubuque Avenue/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
During the AM peals hour at the U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp to the Dubuque Avenue/Southbound On-
Ramp intersection, the project Nvould increase off-ramp volumes by 4.8 percent (from 1,816 up to 1,902
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--79
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
vehicles) Nvith 2035 "Without Project"volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity at the
off-ramp diverge.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-17
Improvements necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts to the off-ramp diverge areas
identified above are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. Therefore, the impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable.
• 17a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) Diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard Intersection
No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate this
impact. In order to provide a second off-ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the
Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it Nvould likely be necessary to move the
Southbound Off-Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between
the two southbound off-ramps. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline Nvould require
a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane Nvith only 300 feet of available space. This Nvould be
infeasible given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off-ramp overpass connection
to Bayshore Boulevard. There is insufficient right of Nvay for the provision of this lane.
• 17b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to the E. Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection
No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate the
impact. A second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline Nvill already have been provided and
no additional measures to increase diverge capacity are considered possible.
• 17c. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to the Dubuque Avenue/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate the
impact. A second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline Nvould require approval by Caltrans,
Nvhich is not considered likely given the constrained off-ramp diverge geometries.
Impact IV.M-18: Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to two
U.& 101 On-Ramps to the U.& 101 freeway under 2035 "With Project" conditions. (Potentially
Significant;Significant and Unavoidable)
Table IV.M-7,Year 2035 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that the folloNving two on-ramps to the
U.S. 101 freeway Nvould experience a significant impact from the addition of project traffic to Year 2035
"Without Project"volumes.
• 18a. U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue Intersection
During the PM peals hour at the U.S. 101 Northbound on-ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue Intersection, the project Nvould increase on-ramp volumes by 6.7 percent (from 2,487 up to
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--80
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
2,653 vehicles) Nvith Year 2035 "Without Project" volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of
2,200 vehicles per hour.
• 18b. U.S. 101 Southbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
During the PM peals hour at the U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp from the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp intersection, the project Nvould increase on-ramp volumes by 12.1 percent (from
1,957 up to 2,193 vehicles)and above the on-ramp capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--18
Improvements necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts to the off-ramp diverge areas
identified above are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. Therefore, the impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable.
• 18a. U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue Intersection
Provision of a second on-ramp lane Nvould increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour.
While this measure Nvould accommodate the 2035 "With Project" volume of about 2,653 vehicles per
hour,it Nvould require the approval of Caltrans,Nvhich is not guaranteed.
• 18b. U.S. 101 Southbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
Provision of a second on-ramp lane Nvould increase capacity to about 2,800 to 3,100 vehicles per hour.
While this measure Nvould accommodate the 2035 "With Project" volume of about 2,193 vehicles per
hour,it Nvould require the approval of Caltrans,Nvhich is not guaranteed.
Impact After Mitigation: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 18a and 18b Nvould both
require approval of Caltrans, Nvhich is not guaranteed. Therefore, it could not be guaranteed that impacts
at either location could be reduced to a less than significant level. For reasons presented above, this
impact Nvould remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-19: Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to one
U.& 101 freeway mainline segment under 2035 "With Project" conditions. (Potentially Significant;
Significant and Unavoidable)
Table IV.M-19, Year 2035 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, shows that the proposed project Nvould
result in a significant impact to freeway operation on one freeway segment.
• U.S. 101 Southbound Freeway(North of Oyster Point Interchange)
During the AM peals hour, project traffic Nvould increase volumes by 1.63 percent on southbound U.S.
101 north of the Oyster Point interchange (from 9,965 up to 10,127 vehicles per hour, Nvhere 2035
"Without Project" operation Nvould already be an unacceptable LOS F. This Nvould be a significant
impact.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--81
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Mitigation Measure IV.M--19
Mitigation of this impact Nvould require Nvidening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway.
Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, and
impacts on existing land uses, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it Nvould benefit. Given these specific
concerns, mitigation of Impact 19 is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code
§21061.1 (defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished...taking into account economic...and
technological factors.").) Under CEQA, the City in this matter must balance public objectives, including
specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd.
(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation
measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd.
(a)(3).)
Impact After Mitigation: For reasons presented above, this impact Nvould remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-20: Project driveway intersections along Veterans Boulevard should operate acceptably
as proposed (Potentially Significant;Mitigated to Less than Significant)
Six project drivewa-Ts are proposed along Veterans Boulevard. Year 2017 project drivewa-T AM and PM
peals hour turn movement volumes along Veterans Boulevard are presented in Figure IV.M-26,while Near
2035 project drivewa-T AM and PM peals hour volumes are presented in Figure IV.M-27. As shoNsn, the
only project driveway- intersection Nvith a significant number of through and turning vehicles Nvould be
located about 300 feet north of ONTster Point Boulevard, Nvith the project drivewa-,T located opposite a
major driveway serving the Britannia Point office development. The peals inbound flow to the project
Nvould occur during the AM peals hour, Nvith 126 left turns into the project in 2017 Nvith the Phase 1
development, and 203 left turns into the project in 2035 Nvith"Project Buildout." Veterans Boulevard has
two northbound and two southbound travel lanes at this location. The project is not proposing an
exclusive left turn lane on the northbound approach to this major drivewa-,T nor anv of their other
drivewa-,Ts. Left turns into the site Nvould be made from one of the through travel lanes.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--82
Not To Scale
/O
NORTH
4
59` �12
� R
�I •
68 49 Veterans
4 / Blvd
Veterans 4
Blvd 2
t1 2 10
• 107 15,WJ 98
US101 1 • 143
Southbound • 3 111 �►
Flyover
Offramp / 120 1 1
Oyster point Blvd 6 -� r*
111 240 113
(D m
AM Peak Hour
8
6
30 rj
• r Veterans
62 5 Blvd
Veterans 54
Blvd 4
i • 87
2 N`� � 11
US101 1 /'� 0 • �
Southbound • 93 10 107 125
Flyover
Offramp / % ,,,, 194 0 0
i
won lr 110
Oyster Point Bivd 34
18 17
136
3
� m
PM Peak Hour
3
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IVA-26
Year 2017 with Project Phase 1 AM&PM Peak Hour
Volumes at Driveways along Veterans Blvd
Not To Scale
Veterans /O
Blvd NORTH
4
59` R �12
92 �40 \153 49
26 Veterans
Blvd 891 - 3
2 1 15 .J 10 98
US101 111 116 �► • 207
Southbound •
Flyover /, / 1
125 1
Offramp // "''
Oyster Point Blvd 16 -� �1 f*
203 304 113
(Dm
AM Peak Hour
Veterans
oe Blvd
/ 8
30 ij �►
\ 6
Veterans
50 39 54 \99
Blvd 93\ - Ie\40
4
�� • 32� (,,1. 23 J 87 ( 11
US101 119 f*� 0 • 142
Southbound • 10 133
Flyover '��'�� � �, � %
Offramp % 220 0 �- 0
- 110
-
Oyste Blvd r Point 67
50 17
153
3
( m
g PM Peak Hour
°1 Cihy of South San Francisco
u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point
Figure IV.M-27
Year 2035 with Project Buildout AM&PM Peak
Hour Volumes at Driveways along Veterans Blvd
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
SIM traffic evaluation for 2017 shows that during both the AM and PM peals hours, northbound traffic on
Veterans Boulevard at the first major project and Britannia Point driveways should not back up to the
Oyster Point Boulevard intersection (i.e. northbound left turns into the project site Nvould not be blocked
by southbound Veterans Boulevard traffic to an extent that they Nvould queue back to Oyster Point
Boulevard). LikeNvise, southbound Veterans Boulevard traffic on the approach to the Oyster Point
Boulevard signal Nvould not be expected to queue back to and through the first major project driveway
intersection. A SIM traffic evaluation for 2035 AM and PM peals hour "With Project" traffic volumes
also projects the same findings, although both the northbound and southbound queues Nvould be longer
than in 2017.
The project has one driveway proposed about 150 feet north of Oyster Point Boulevard, which Nvould be
used just for egress from Building 5's loading dock. Turn movements would be negligible. The project
has two driveways proposed along the central part of its Veterans Boulevard frontage; one serving
loading docks for Buildings B3 and B4, and the other serving one level of parking under Building B4.
Both should have minimal turn volumes. The project's most westerly driveways would be used by hotel
traffic as well as some office/R&D-related traffic, either parking along the project's western boundary or
accessing the parking garage in the southwest corner of the site. Non-project related traffic flow along
Veterans Boulevard near the west end of the site would be low, as it would only be associated with the
two hotels at the end of Veterans Boulevard and people parking to use the Bay Trail.
Turn movements to/from these five driveways should not result in any operational or queuing problems.
The only issue of concern would occur at the project's most westerly driveway, where Veterans
Boulevard has a sharp 90-degree turn to/from the north less than 30 feet from the project driveway
intersection. Sight lines may be less than ideal for a driver on southbound Veterans Boulevard
proceeding through the 90-degree curve being immediately confronted with a vehicle malting a left turn
into the project's westerly driveway. This would result in a significant safety concern.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--20
The applicant shall be responsible for providing the following improvement.
• Veterans Boulevard/Project's western driveway intersections
Provide stop sign control on the Veterans Boulevard southbound to eastbound approach to the
intersection with the project's western driveway.
Impact After Mitigation: Impact reduced to less than significant.
Impact IV.M--21: The Proposed Internal Circulation Plan is acceptable, with the exception that long,
straight parking aisles would potentially lead to higher than desired vehicle speeds. (Potentially
Significant;Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The proposed project site plan shows the project entrances on Oyster Point Boulevard opposite Gateway
Boulevard and on Veterans Boulevard about 300 feet north of Ouster Point Boulevard channelized 125
and 80 feet internal to the project site, respectively. This is acceptable design for the main project
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--85
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
entrances and is good traffic engineering practice. The two drivewa-,Ts serving the site by the hotel on the
Nvest end of Veterans Boulevard are both channelized about 35 feet internal to site, which should be
acceptable given the low volumes expected at both locations. Parking aisle Nvidths of 25 feet Nvith 90-
degree stalls in the surface lots and in the parking garage are acceptable and meet City criteria.
The only potential concern Nvith the Phase 1 or Buildout internal circulation layouts are the long straight
parking aisles that Nvill potentially result in higher than safe vehicle speeds. No traffic calming measures
are listed on the site plans that Nvould eliminate this potential issue.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--21
The project applicant shall adjust the Internal Vehicular Circulation Plan to include the folloNving
measures.
Provide traffic calming measures along all straight parking aisles longer than 200 feet. Speed tables,
landscaped chokers and/or small landscaped traffic circles should be considered rather than speed bumps
or speed humps. All measures shall be approved by City Public Works, Planning and Emergency
Services.
Impact After Mitigation: Impact reduced to less than significant.
Impact IV.M-22: The project internal pedestrian access plan lacks detail regarding safe pedestrian
flow.rom the parking garage to the buildings lining Oyster Point Boulevard, especially across parking
aisles that will have significant volumes. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with
Mitigation)
The project Nvould maintain or replace sidewalks along the site's Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans
Boulevard frontages in the same locations as existing sideNvalks. No sidewalk Nvould be provided along
the Nvestern end of the project's Veterans Boulevard frontage, as is the case toda-T. This 350-foot-long
frontage in front of the hotel Nvould have landscaping. The project's Veterans Boulevard sidewalk Nvould
end (as the sidewalk does today) at a midblock pedestrian crossing providing access to the Bay Trail
across the street. A sidewalk internal to the project site would connect to the Veterans Boulevard frontage
sidewalk in the viciniti<,of the crossing to the Bay Trail. The lack of sidewalk along the project's Veterans
Boulevard Nvestern frontage is not considered significant as there should be little or no pedestrian traffic
along the street in this area, there are wallcwa-,Ts proposed around the hotel, and the Bay Trail is across the
street.
The internal pedestrian flow between the parking garage and Buildings B1 and B2 or Buildings 133 and
B4 is straightfonvard and requires crossing only one major parking aisle. HoNvever, pedestrian travel
between the garage and Buildings B5, B6 and B7 Nvill require a somewhat indirect crossing of two high
volume parking aisles and may result in some pedestrians taking a more direct Nvalking route across the
traffic circle at the main entry. This Nvould be a significant safety impact.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--86
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Mitigation Measure IV.M--22
The project applicant shall adjust the Internal Pedestrian Circulation Plan to include the folloNving
measures.
Provide landscaping, signing and/or other design features to prevent pedestrian flow between the parking
garage and buildings B5, B6 and B7 across the traffic circle at the Oyster Point Boulevard project
entry/exit. In addition, speed tables or similar measures are recommended at each of the pedestrian
crossings of the parking aisles just east and Nvest of the traffic circle at the Oyster Point Boulevard project
entry/exit.
Impact After Mitigation: Impact reduced to less than significant.
Impact IV.M-23: The project will not provide any specific bicycle paths or routes internal or adjacent
to the project site. (Potentially Significant:Less than Significant with Mitigation)
All bievele traffic internal to the project site Nvill be required to use parking aisles or sideNvallcs. No
specific internal bicycle paths Nvill be provided. Also, there are no Class II bicycle lanes proposed along
Veterans Boulevard between ONTster Point Boulevard (where Class II bike lanes are in place along Oyster
Point Boulevard to the east of the intersection) and the Bay Trail (on the north side of Veterans Boulevard
about 1,150 feet from ONTster Point Boulevard). This lack of bicycle-related facilities Nvill discourage
alternative travel modes to the automobile for the project as Nvell as other East of 101 development. This
Nvould be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M--23
The project applicant shall Nvork Nvith the City to provide either a Class I or Class II bicycle connection
between the Bav Trail and the existing Class II bicycle lanes along Oyster Point Boulevard
Impact After Mitigation: Impact reduced to less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--87
00)of S'outli S'an Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--88
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
N. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes public services in the project area, Nyhich includes the
project site and neighboring properties, and Nyhether implementation of the project Nyould cause a
substantial adverse effect on utilities/service systems.
This section evaluates the potential impacts on utilities and service systems of the Britannia Cove at
Oyster Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers Nyhether the project Nyould result
in new significant utility and service system impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified
significant impacts.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for
Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project
increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nyould not result in any new significant utilities and
service system impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified utilities and
service systems. Similar Nyith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR mitigation
measures are required for impacts on onsite waste Nyater facilities and project Nyater consumptions.
Further, due to updates at the waste Nyater treatment facility that serves the City of South San Francisco,
since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, impacts to wastewater treatment would be reduced
from the potentially significant impact on waste Nyater facilities as described in the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section.
Information Sources
Information is provided for Nyater, Nyaste Nyater, Nyater quality, and solid Nyaste. Information in this section
is based on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the California Water Service Company
(Cal Water) on March 6, 2013; the City of South San Francisco General Plan; the East of 101 Area Plan;
and communications Nyith local service providers.
No comment letters related to utilities Nyere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of
Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent
EIR.
Prior Analysis and Conclusions
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project on utilities and service systems as identified in Table IV.N-1. The 2000
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--1
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project Nvould not result in any significant adverse impacts associated Nvith employment and population
growth or increase demand for housing, because these increases Nvere anticipated in build out of the City
in 2020.
Table IVN-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 14.2.7—Potential Failure of Aging Mitigation Measure 14.2.7 Potential Failure of Aging
Wastewater Collection Facilities.The 2000 Bay West Wastewater Collection Facilities -The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR required
the project would increase the rate and volume of flow the implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.7 which
through the pumps and controls that have been identified required that before the proposed Project is connected to
as in need of replacement at pumping station#4. This the City's wastewater collection system,the City should
creates a potential for more serious wastewater backups upgrade and improve aged pumping station#4,in
if pumping station#4 experiences an operational failure. accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan and the
The impact would be potentially significant. Capital Improvement Program budget for FY 2004-2005
(which may need revision to complete the improvement
before the Project is occupied). The Project should pay
its fair share of pump station improvement costs,as
determined by the City Public Works Department,in
accordance With General Plan policies. The Project
sponsors shall also be required to reimburse the City for
their fair share of the recent replacement by the City of
the Harbor Way sewer main,north of Pump Station#4
(the cost of this improvement is being shared by the
Point Grand development on Harbor Way by Genentech
and by the Gateway Assessment District.This mitigation
would lessen the impact to less than significant.
Impact 14.2.8-Potential Capacity Shortfall in Mitigation Measure 14.2.8 Potential Capacity
Existing,On-Site Wastewater Collection Facilities. Shortfall in Existing,On-Site Wastewater Collection
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Facilities-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Supplemental EIR concluded that the on-site collection Project Supplemental EIR required the implementation
facilities,including the gravity sewers,pumping station of Mitigation Measure 14.2.8 which required that the
and force main,were designed for a mix of land uses Project sponsors should prepare detailed engineering
with potentially lower wastewater production rates than studies that provide conserti-ative projections of
are now proposed on the Project site. As a result,if the wastewater production including process water,on the
proposed R&D/technology and biotech buildings Project site. If these studies indicate the existing
generate high rates of flow,new or expanded facilities collection facilities may not have sufficient capacity to
may be needed to accommodate build-out of the Project accommodate future flows.the Project sponsors should
site. Such facilities could include higher capacity pumps, pay to upgrade these facilities(where possible)or install
a second pump station wet well,a new force main, new facilities,as directed by the City Engineer. If the
graN-ity relief sewers,or some combination of these studies indicate that a capacity shortfall is feasible but
components. The impact would be potentially not likely,the Project engineer and City Engineer should
significant. devise a monitoring program that will alert the City
when additional capacity would be needed. This
capacity would then be designed and installed by the
Project sponsors or subsequent parcel or building
owners. This mitigation would lessen the impact to less
than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-2
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IVN-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 14.2.9-Cumulative Impacts to the Mitigation Measure 14.2.9 Cumulative Impacts to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 2000 Bai-West Wastewater Treatment Plant -The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR required
the East of 101 Area Plan did not fully account for the the implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.9 which
high wastewater production rates associated with the required that in accordance with the General Plan,the
projected square footage of R&D,high- City should develop a program that encourages potential
technology/biotechnology industries. If such uses R&D,high-technology and biotechnology customers to
become widespread east of 101,the higher than reduce the volume of wastewater discharged to the
anticipated wastewater flows and treatment requirements collection and treatment systems. General Plan Policy
could eventually result in a capacity shortfall at the 5.3-1-7 directs: "Encourage new projects in East of 101
WQCP.and constrain future growth. The WQCP area that are likely to generate large quantities of
expansion by the end of 2001 is projected to provide wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling,
sufficient treatment capacity to meet the seii-ice area's pre-treatment or other means as necessary".
needs for the next 15 years:however,if industries The program could include incentives to implement
requiring significant treatment capacity are developed, recycling and/or pretreatment and,where appropriate,
the plant might have to be expanded sooner.The impact provide assistance in planning these facilities so as to
would be potentially significant. maximize the benefit to the City's wastewater system.
This mitigation would lessen the impact to less than
significant.
Impact 14.1.4—Potentially Wasteful Use of Limited Mitigation Measure 14.1.4 Potentially Wasteful Use
Water Supplies.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial of Limited Water Supplies-The 2000 Bay West Cove
Project Supplemental EIR found that the project would Commercial Project Supplemental EIR required the
increase the overall use of water produced by the San implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.9 which
Francisco Water Department and distributed by the require that the Project would incorporate the water
California Water Seivice Company within the City of conseivation measures set forth in both General Plan and
South San Francisco.Potential daily water demand at East of 101 Area Plan policies,pursuant to California
build-out is calculated on page 14-4 of the 2000 Assembly Bill 325,which requires the use of low flow
Supplemental EIR. This demand may exceed the plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping in
estimates by the CWSC and the East of 101 Area Plan. all new development. It is assumed that,particularly for
A major factor in the demand projections is the potential the proposed hotel rooms,implementation of these
for R&D technology industries in Planning Area 2/3 to measures would lower water use on the Project site.
use an estimated 423,500 gpd or 70%of the projected Although such conseivation measures will lower water
total of 599,820 gpd used in the Project. The proposed consumption,the proposed biotech/R&D uses could still
hotel in Planning Area 1 would represent another 10%of push total consumption far higher than estimated in the
the Project water demand.However, CWSC has East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore,it is recommended
determined that its current water supply is sufficient to that the City encourage office/R&D technology
meet all fixture demand in South San Francisco,without industries with high process water demands to institute
constraining water deliveries elsewhere in their seivice recycling programs,whenever it is both practical and
area.Therefore,the impact on water supplies is deemed economically feasible. This mitigation would lessen the
less than significant. The impact would be less than impact to less than significant.
significant.
Impact 14.1.5-Potential Construction and No mitigation measures were required.
Maintenance Impacts to CWSC Water Main.The
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR found The 12"water main installed in an easement
along the boundary of the Project site may have been
covered by as much as three to four feet of fill during
recent grading operations,which could result in future
maintenance or pipe replacement problems for CWSC.
The impact would be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--3
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IVN-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 14.3.1—Sufficient Capacity to Serve the No mitigation measures were required.
Project.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR found that telephone seixice is
provided to the East of 101 Area by Pacific Bell
Telephone Company and that the company does not
anticipate any trenching in Oyster Point Bled. to seize
the project. The company has the capacity to seize the
proposed Project. The impact would be less than
significant.
Impact 14.4.1-Sufficient Capacity to Serve the No mitigation measures were required.
Project. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR concluded that Pacific Gas and
Electric Company,which seizes the Project area,has
generating capacity and access to power and natural gas
to seize the proposed Project. The impact would be less
than significant.
Impact 14.4.2-Cumulative Demand for Power and No mitigation measures were required.
Gas and System Improvements. The 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded
that the project and other projects anticipated in the
build-out of the General Plan will create a cumulative
demand for electrical seixice.PG&E's gas and electric
systems may require onsite and off-site additions and
improvements to the facilities which supply these
seixices.PG&E notes that electrical system
improvements needed to accommodate growth may
include distribution feeders,upgraded substations,new
substations and interconnecting transmission lines.
Power transmission reinforcement mai-be needed from
the East Grand substation if tenants of buildings in Bay
West Cove make large demands on power.For example,
internet sen-ice providers may require"data centers"
with 100 times the power needed for an equivalent
amount of warehouse space. A new feeder may require
one year to build and operate:a new transfer station
could require two years. Comparable upgrades or
additions needed to accommodate additional load on the
gas system could include such facilities as regulator
stations,odorizer stations,valve lots,distribution and
transmission lines. The impact would be less than
significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-I
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.N-1
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary
Impact Mitigation
Impact 14.4.3-No Consensus on Health Effects of No mitigation measures were required.
Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields. The 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR
concluded that there will be electric and magnetic fields
(EMT)associated with electricity on the Project site.
There has been concern about the health effects
associated with exposure to EMF throughout the
country.However,there is no evidence that exposure on
the site would be a significant impact.Documentation by
PG&E of current research on EMF and possible effects
on humans is on file for this Project in the Planning
Division of the City of South San Francisco. The impact
would be less than significant.
Impact 14.5.1-Minor Demand for Solid Waste No mitigation measures were required.
Disposal Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that
the South San Francisco Scavenger Company provides
solid waste handling and disposal in the City. It is not
known if the R&D technology industries buildings in
Planning Area 2/3 will house laboraton-animals,
medical waste or other living organisms. If so, special
treatment procedures, such as incineration of wastes,and
special disposal will be required. Assuming adequate
planning, safe handling,disposal and recycling at each
building project,the Project would not place a
significant demand upon proper disposal or recycling of
wastes by the refuse seivice. The impact would be less
than significant.
Impact 14.6.1-Less than Significant Consumption of No mitigation measures were required..
Energy. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental concluded that the project would not result
in the use of substantial amounts of fiiel or energy,or
require the development of new sources of energy. See
also Section 14.4.2 of the 2000 Supplemental EIR.The
impact would be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
New information was gathered for the analysis of the proposed project and is presented below.
Water
Domestic Water
A new water supply assessment Nvas prepared for the project site by Cal Water on March 6, 2013 to
determine water availability for the proposed project. The information below is based on the Cal Water
"SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for Britannia Cove ON-ster Point Project."
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-5
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Similar to the project site conditions analyzed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR, the project site is undeveloped and unpaved. The site is located Nvithin California
Water Service Company's (Cal Water) Bayshore District, Nvhich is located in northern San Mateo County*
approximately* six miles south of the City of San Francisco. The project site is located adjacent to and
southeast of the Cal Train railroad tracks and is bounded on the south by Ouster Point Boulevard and on
the north and east by Veterans Boulevard. The site is mostly* vacant— there are no existing buildings or
other structures other than one seNver pump station near the center of the site accessed from Veterans
Boulevard.
The Bayshore District serves the communities of South San Francisco (where the project site is located),
the City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, City of Colma, a portion of Daly City*, Broadmoor, Palomar
Park, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo County*. They Bayshore District is then further divided
into the Mid-Peninsula District and South San Francisco District (SSF District), Nvhich includes the
project site. The Bayshore District Nvater supply* is a combination of purchased Nvater and groundNvater
sources.
South San Francisco District Water Supply and Demand
Cal Water purchases treated surface Nvater from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
This supply*is predominantly*from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but
also includes treated Nvater produced by the SFPUC from its local Nvatersheds and facilities in Alameda
and San Mateo Counties. In 1984, Cal Water, along Nvith 29 other Bay Area Nvater suppliers, signed a
Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) Nvith San Francisco,
supplemented by an individual Water Supply* Contract. These contracts provided for 184 million gallons
per day* (mgd), expressed on an annual average basis of supply*assurance to SFPUC wholesale customers
collectively*. In 2009 the Master Contract Nvas extended through 2018, keeping the SAA at 184 mgd, but
changing its name to the Individual Supply* Guarantee (ISG). Cal Water's supply* assurance is 35.39 mgd
or 39,642 acre feet per year. Additionally*, the acquisition of the Los Trancos County* Water District in
July*2005 alloNved the transfer of its 0.11 mgd ISG to Cal Water. In 2009 Cal Nvater acquired the Skyline
County* Water District, Nvhich also transferred its 0.181 mgd ISG to Cal Water. This increased Cal
Water's total ISG for the three districts to 35.68 MGD (39,967 AFY).2
Although increased levels of imported Nvater may become available after completion of the SFPUC's
Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), Cal Water does not anticipate a significant increase in its
Supply* Assurance over time. For planning purposes the imported supply* has been limited to its present
quantity*. Cal Water is also installing additional Nvells in the SSF District so that 1,500 AY can be reliably*
be provided by groundNvater. As noted, Cal Water's main supply*is purchased Nvater from SFPUC for SSF
District and also for its Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts. Normal supply* beyond 2030 and under
drought conditions is projected to have shortfalls. HoNvever, Cal Water has Nvater rationing programs in
' California Water Seixices Company,Bayshore District,website:
httta s://ii-ii-ii-.cahti-ater.corri/vour district/indel.l)hp'!district=baN-,accessed January 30,2013.
California Water Seixice Company,2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District,Adopted
June 2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--6
City of South San Francisco April 2013
place for drought years, future plans to develop additional supplies, including possible desalination
treatment facilities and recycled Nyater use.
The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and Nyholesale customers in years of average and above
average precipitation. The SFPUC and all Nyholesale customers adopted an Interim Water Shortage
Allocation Plan in 2000 to address the allocation of Nyater between San Francisco and Nyholesale
customers in aggregate and among individual Nyholesale customers during Nyater shortages of up to 20
percent of system-Nyide use. In 2010 the Nyholesale customers negotiated, and have recently* adopted, a
revised methodology*for allocating supplies during shortages.'
A variety of land uses exist in the South San Francisco district service area. Within the Citv of South San
Francisco, 28%of the land is residential, 21%industrial, 7 %commercial, 11 %is vacant and the balance
is for public and utility*use. For this Nyater assessment, Cal Water estimated the population for 2010 in the
South San Francisco District at 58,658. Cal Water bases this estimate on the average annual service
connection count, persons per DU density*, and the MFR DU density* shoNsn in Table 3 of the WSA. The
persons per DU density* remains nearly* unchanged for the period from 2000 to 2010, and is assumed in
the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)to remain the same until 2040. The MFR DU density* shoNys
an increase in the number of units per MFR services.
Residential Nyater use represents the largest customer class (85.5%) in the District; yet residential
customers Nyater use averages only 36.5 percent of District demand. In comparison, 11.8 percent of total
services are commercial and 0.4 percent are industrial, yet they represent 41.6 percent and 8.5 percent of
total demand, respectively*. The method used in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) to
project future Nyater demands complies Nyith SBx7-7 requirements.
TN-,-o demand projections Nyere made: an unadjusted baseline demand and a target demand. The unadjusted
baseline Nyater demand projection is the total demand expected Nyithout achieving conservation goals. It is
equal to forecasted population multiplied by the 2005 to 2009 average 140 gallons per person per day*
(gpcd). The target Nyater demand projection includes conservations savings due to both passive and active
demand management, Nyhich are described in Section 6 of the UWMP. The target demand is calculated by
multiplying SBx7-7 target gpcd values and projected population. Actual and projected Nyater use through
2040 is shoNsn in Table IV.N-2. The values represent the total target demand projection based on SBx7-7
gpcd targets,including unaccounted for Nyater.4
s California Water Seixice Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District, Adopted
June 2011 Page 47.
4 California Water Seixice Company, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Britannia Cove Oyster Point Project.
March 6,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..N--7
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.N-2
South San Francisco District Actual and Projected Water Demand(AF)*
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Total 8,869 8,465 9,297 8,665 8,928 9,204 9,494 9,799
*AF=acre feet
Source: Cal(ybrnia [ ater Service Conzpagy, SB 610 l ater Szrppl7 AssessnzentFor Britannia Cove Oyster PointProjeet. llarch
6, 2013.
SSF District actual demand in 2010 is 8,465 AF and forecasted demand for 2015 is 9,297 acre feet
(AF). Estimated demand for 2013 is 8,964 AF assuming linear increases in the 5 year period.
Estimated SSF District demand in 2033 is 9,378 AFY, so the increase in demand from 2013 to 2033
(20-year period)is 414 AF.
Groundwater is extracted from the Merced Formation of the Colma Creels Basin, a sub-basin of the
Merced Valley GroundNvater Basin. GroundNvater supplies ten to fifteen percent of the SSF District's
Nyater demand.' Active Nyells in the South San Francisco District have total design capacity of 935 GPM.
If operated full-time, these Nyells could produce 138 mgd (1,540 acre-feet per year [AFY]). The total
supply capacity of SSF District Nyells is expected to increase slightly over time as neNy Nyells are installed.6
The Nyater distribution system in the East of 101 Area Nyas designed and constructed to meet industrial
Nyater demands. Water distribution mains serving the site include a 12-inch main along Gatevmy
Boulevard and 16-inch main along Oyster Point Boulevard.' There is no existing on-site public
distribution system.
Waste Water
Waste Water Collection System
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, seNvage and NyasteNvater generated Nyithin the
City is collected through the City's seNver system and is disposed of and treated at the South San
Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). Since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project, the City of South San Francisco completed the East of U.S. 101 Sewer System Master Plan
Update (SSMP) in January 2012. The 2012 SSMP included anticipated development of the Oyster Point
Business Park and Marina, and the Gatevmv Business Park. The City's sanitary seNver system, east of U.S.
101, has an interconnecting netvyork of approximately 13 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch diameter gravity
5 California Water Seixice Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District, Adopted
June 2011 Page 51.
6 California Water Seixice Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District, Adopted
June 2011 Page 53.
Bradv and Associates for the Citti-of South San Francisco,East of 101 Area Plan,JuIv. 1994
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-8
City of South San Francisco April 2013
server mains, force mains, and nine pump stations, yvhich function together to bring wastewater from
individual homes and businesses to the WQCP.'
As identified in Table 1 of the 2012 SSMP, under 2005 conditions, the East of 101 Area average dry*
yveather server floyvs yvere estimated to be 1.70 million gallons per day (mgd) and future average dry*
yveather floyvs for the year 2030 are anticipated to reach 3.58 mgd, an increase of 12 percent. Further,
Peale Dry*Weather Floyvs are expected to increase by 16 percent by 2030, yvhile Peale Wet Weather Floyvs
are expected to increase by 12 percent. The updated SSMP provides a list of existing facilities serving the
project site and the East of 101 Area, as yvell as planned improvements for the system and completed
projects since the 2007 SSMP.
The project site is served by a Pump Station(PS 14)located on the project site at Veterans Boulevard, and
is served by a force main 8 inch or smaller pipe that connects into the overall system at Oyster Point
Boulevard. PS 14 consists of two pumps yvith an individual capacity* of 1,255 gallons per minute (gpm)
and a total capacity*, including standby*, of 2,510 gpm. The SSMP concluded that PS 14 has adequate
capacity* to accommodate the projected 2030 increased floyvs knoyvn at the time of the SSMP and that a
capacity*upgrade is not necessary.
Water Quality Control Plant
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the South San Francisco and San Bruno Water
Quality* Control Plant (WQCP), located in South San Francisco, yvill provide yvasteyvater treatment
services for the proposed project. The WQCP operates under NPDES No. CAS612008 and Waste
Discharge Requirements R2-2009-0074.The current facility*has an average dry*yveather floyv capacity*to
provide secondary level treatment for 13 mgd of domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater from
the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, portions of the City* of Daly City, and the Toy-,-n of
Colma. Peale yvet yveather floyvs can exceed 60 mgd and the peals yvet yveather floyv maximum capacity*is
61.8 mgd. The current average dry*yveather floyv is 9 mgd and the WQCP permitted floyv is 13 mgd.10 The
facility*capacity*has been updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Wastewater treatment at the facility* consists of screening, grit removal, chemical addition to aid settling
of solids,primary settling under vacuum, aeration, clarification, disinfection by chlorination, and removal
of excess chlorine prior to discharge. The WQCP also provides the de-chlorination treatment of
chlorinated effluent for the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and the San Francisco International Airport
prior to discharging the treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay*." Treated yvastevmter is discharged 2
s Akel Engineering Group, City of South San Francisco, East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update,
(Final)January 2012.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater
NPDES Permit, Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, Adopted October 14, 2009, Revised
November 28,2011.
10 Ken Navarre, Assistant Superintendent, South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant, Telephone
communications with URS Staff Nicole Keeler,February 7,2013.
" City of South San Francisco,Departments,Public Works, Water Quality Control Plant,Basic Treatment Process,
website: httta://www.ssf.net/index.astax?NID=643,accessed January 31,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--9
City of South San Francisco April 2013
miles out into San Francisco Bay via a joint outfall pipe operated by the North Bayside System Unit
(NBSU), Nyhich is the joint powers authority* responsible for operation of certain shared transport,
treatment, and disposal facilities. The NBSU includes the shared by the cities of Millbrae, Burlingame,
South San Francisco and San Bruno, and the San Francisco International Airport.
Storm Drainage
As discussed in Section IV.H, Hydrology and Water Quality* storm Nyater runoff from the project site
begins as overland sheet floNy and either infiltrates into the site's pervious surfaces, floNys overland toNvard
the Bay, or is captured in the site's existing 48-inch storm drain that conveys runoff eastNyard to the City's
storm drainage infrastructure, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site conditions. The
City's storm drainage system in the project vicinity* consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying
into San Francisco Bay at various locations. The Citv of South San Francisco does not have a storm Nyater
master plan and does not knoNy the existing runoff floNys to or the existing capacities of the storm Nyater
infrastructure near the project site. Therefore, it is unknoNsn if the infrastructure has sufficient capacity*to
transport additional runoff flovys. There are no creeks or natural surface drainages in the project area.
Solid Waste16
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, solid Nyaste is collected from the CityT's homes
and businesses, including the project site, by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company*. The
Scavenger Company* also serves the City of Brisbane, the City* of Millbrae, and the San Francisco
International Airport.12 After collection, Nyaste is brought to the Scavenger Company's Blue Line
Transfer, Inc. facility*, a public disposal and recycling center located just south of the project site at 500
East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer facility* has a permitted capacity* of 1,200 tons per day*, but
currently*receives an average of approximately*200 tons per day.1314
From the Blue Line Transfer facility*, non-recyclable Nyastes are then deposited at the BFI Waste Systems
Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near the Citv of Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill
accepts South San Francisco Scavenger Company*Nyaste. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal
of 3,598 tons per day*. As of 2000, the landfill had exceeded its permitted capacity* of 37.9 million cubic
yards by approximately* 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). HoNvever, the closure date is planned for
2018.''
County of San Mateo,Recycle Works,website: http://wAl-w.recycleworks.org/cgi-
bin/bin/user/details_company_aq.pl?id_company=85&id_subcategoiy-=54&ActualType=where,accessed
Januan- 30,2013.
13 CalRecycle,Facility/Site Sunman-Details: Blue Line MRF and TS(41-AA-0185),website:
httla://ii-ii-ii-.calrecN-cle.ca.Gov/SWFacilities/DirectoiN-/41-AA-0185/Detail/,accessed Januan- 30,2013.
14 Bernardini,Barbara,Recycling Manager, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, phone conversation- Januan-
31,2013.
15 CalRecycle,Facility/Site Sunman-Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill(Ox Mtn)(41-AA-0002),website:
http://wAi-w.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directoiy-/41-AA-0002/Detail/,accessed Januan- 30,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-10
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Regulatory Setting
New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
and are reflected in this section.
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The CWA is the principal statute governing Nvater quality as discussed in Section IV.H, Hydrology and
Water Quality. It mandates permits for NvasteNvater and stormNvater discharges, regulates publicly owned
treatment Nvorks that treat municipal and industrial NvasteNvater, requires states to establish site-specific
Nvater quality standards for navigable bodies of Nvater, and regulates other activities that affect Nvater
quality, such as dredging and the filling of Nvetlands. As discussed in Section IV.H, Hydrology and Water
Quality, the NPDES permit system Nvas established in the CWA to regulate both point source discharges
and non-point source discharges from construction, industrial, and municipal activities to surface Nvaters
ofthe U.S.
State
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides urban Nvater management planning services to local
and regional urban Nvater suppliers. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water
Management Planning Act(Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656). The Act states that even*urban
Nvater supplier that provides Nvater to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of
Nvater annually, should make even*effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its Nvater service
sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years. The Act describes the contents of the Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) as Nvell as how
urban Nvater suppliers should adopt and implement the plans.
Water Supply Assessments (SB 610)
Effective January 1, 2002, California, through Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), requires that a city or county,
and the associated public Nvater system,prepare a Water Supply Assessment(WSA) for projects that meet
certain criteria. Three criteria include (1)a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units,
(2) a proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 sf of floor space, and (3) a commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space. The project meets the criteria for requiring a WSA
because the project is projected to employ over 1,000 persons and Nvould include development of
approximately 1 million additional square feet of office, research and development, hotel, retail, and
parking structures. The purpose of the WSA is to assess the adequacy of Nvater supply for the proposed
project over a 20-year horizon during normal, single dn-, and multiple dn- year conditions. The WSA
completed for the project is attached as Appendix G to this Draft SEIR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..N--11
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act)
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality* Control Act is the primary state statute that addresses Nvater quality*.
The requirements of the Act are implemented by the SWRCB at the state level, and the RWQCB at the
regional level. The SWRCB, as authorized by the Act, has promulgated regulations in Subchapter 15 of
Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) designed to protect Nvater quality*from the effects of
Nvaste discharges to land. Under Subchapter 15, Nvastes that cannot be discharged directly*or indirectly*to
Nvaters of the state (and therefore must be discharged to land for treatment, storage, or disposal) are
classified to determine specifically*Nvhere such Nvastes may be discharged.
Pretreatment Program and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
The City s Public Works Department's Environmental Compliance inspectors administer a Pretreatment
Program and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program mandated by the state. The two programs
regulate and control the concentrations of wastewater and stormNvater pollutants discharged by industrial,
commercial, and residential dischargers. Pollution prevention information is distributed to residents as
Nvell as schools and businesses Nvithin the service area. These programs are enacted under Chapter 14.08
(Water Quality* Control) of the SSFMC, which is described in "City* of South San Francisco Municipal
Code,"below.
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
To minimize the amount of solid Nvaste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the
State Legislature passed Assembly* Bill 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
(AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties in California are required
to divert 25 percent of all solid Nvaste to recycling facilities from landfill or transformation facilities by
January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The City of South San Francisco has not yet met this
goal. Between 2001 and 2004, the City* has achieved a diversion of rate ranging between 40 and 48
percent. The City* has submitted an application for a time extension Nvith the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) until December 2005 to meet the 50 percent goal, but the CIWMB's
review of the City's application has been delayed.
Solid Nvaste plans are prepared by each jurisdiction to explain how each city's AB 939 plan is integrated
Nvith its county* plan. The plans must promote in order of priority*: source reduction, recycling and
composting, and finally*, environmentally*safe transformation,and land disposal.
Waste disposal efforts in the County* of San Mateo are governed by the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan. The County's Health Department, Environmental Health Division, acts as the solid
Nvaste disposal enforcement agency*, coordinating efforts and granting Nvaste disposal permits.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24
New buildings in California are required to conform to energy* conservation standards specified in Title
24 of the CCR. The standards establish "energy* budgets" for different types of residential and
nonresidential buildings, Nvith Nvhich all new buildings must comply*. The energy* budget has a space
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-12
City of South San Francisco April 2013
conditioning component and a Nvater-heating component, both expressed in terms of energy* (British
thermal units, BTU) consumed per year. The regulations allow for trade-offs Nvithin and between the
components to meet the overall budget. Energy* consumption of new buildings in California is regulated
by the State Building Energy* Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the CCR. The efficiency*
standards apply*to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy*
consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, Nvater heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards
are enforced through the local building or individual agency* permit and approval processes. The City
requires all new buildings to meet Title 24 standards.
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7)
The 2009 legislative package requires a stateNvide 20 percent reduction in urban per capita Nvater use by
2020. It requires that urban Nvater retail suppliers determine baseline Nvater use and set reduction targets
according to specified requirements, and requires agricultural Nvater suppliers prepare plans and
implement efficient Nvater management practices.
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is required to adopt an alternative method for setting targets
through a public process. DWR, in consultation Nvith the California Urban Water Conservation Council
(CUWCC), is to develop standardized technical methodologies and criteria for calculating per capita
Nvater use, baseline use, population and other analytical metrics. DWR is also directed to convene a
representative Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Task Force to develop standard metrics and
best management practices (BMPs)for CII Nvater use.
Regional
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region
Prepared by the RWQCB, the Water Quality* Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Region
identifies surface Nvaters in the region as consisting of inland surface Nvater (freshNvater lakes, rivers, and
streams), estuaries, enclosed bays, and ocean Nvaters. Historic and ongoing Nvaste load contributions to
surface Nvater bodies in the region come from upstream discharges carried into the region via Delta
outflow, direct input in the forms of point and nonpoint sources, and indirect input via groundNvater
seepage (SFB RWQCB 1995). The Basin Plan describes the Nvater quality* control measures that
contribute to the protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay Nvatershed. The Basin Plan identifies
beneficial uses for each segment of the Bay and its tributaries, Nvater quality*objectives for the reasonable
protection of the uses, and an implementation plan for achieving these objectives.
Local
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
The SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each
incorporated city* and toNsn in the county*, and the County* of San Mateo. The SMCWPPP includes the
folloN ing:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-13
City of South San Francisco April 2013
• Provisions for a model ordinance
• Identification of BMPs, including street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill clean-up, and
annual catch basin maintenance
• Measures for extensive public education and public awareness
• Pollutant source identification and Nvater quality* measurement, and elimination of illicit
discharges
• Structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for
industrial facilities
• Controls for new development and construction sites and other elements
In addition, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance document is a BMP plan meant to
assist developers, builders, and project sponsors include post-construction storm Nvater controls in their
projects, in order to meet local municipal requirements and the post-construction storm Nvater control
requirements under Provision C.3 of the MRP.16 Further information regarding the SMCWPPP is
provided in Section IV.H,Hydrology and Water Quality.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The City s General Plan, Nvhich contains implementing policies regarding public services and utilities, is
discussed below.
Water and Wastewater
General Plan Policies 5.3-I-1 and 5.3-I-2 of the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element call for the
City*to Nvork Nvith CWSC and Westborough Water District to do the folloNving:
• Ensure coordinated capital improvements
• Establish guidelines and standards for Nvater conservation
• Actively*promote the use of Nvater-conserving devices and practices in both new construction
and major alterations and additions to existing buildings, including conservation as it relates
to anv industrial or commercial construction
Industrial-related conservation measures regarding monitoring of industrial discharges to ensure that
wastewater quality* continues to meet various federal, state, and regional standards and to encourage new
projects in the East of 101 Area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to loNver
treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment, or other means as necessary are intended to help limit
the demand for NvasteNvater treatment plant capacity*.
16 SMCWPPP. 2013. C.3 Storin water Technical Guidance. Available:
http://wAi-w.flowstobay.org/bs_new_development.plip. Accessed:February 21,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-14
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Policy 5.3-I--6
Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality* continues to meet various federal, state,
and regional standards;treatment costs would remain affordable.
Policy 5.3-I--7
Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to
loNver treatment needs through recycling,pretreatment, or other means as necessary.
Solid Waste
General Plan Policy* 8.3-I-1 of the Health and Safety* Element calls for the City to continue Nvorking
toNvard reducing solid Nvaste, increasing recycling, and complying Nvith the San Mateo County* Integrated
Waste Management Plan. The City is responsible for participating in regional source reduction and
recycling initiatives in order to achieve state-mandated waste reduction targets and to extend the useful
life of existing landfill facilities. Under this policy*, builders are encouraged to incorporate interior and
exterior storage areas for recyclables into new or remodeled buildings (both residential and commercial)
to make recycling activities more convenient for those who use the buildings. Also, the City* is
encouraged to explore the feasibility*of installing recycling receptacles in parks and public areas, such as
the open space areas in the project site. Commercial and business parks are encouraged to install
recycling receptacles on their premises. The City is encouraged to explore incentives for businesses to
establish recycling programs.
East of 101 Area Plan
Public Facilities Element
The East of 101 Area Plan's overall intent regarding Nvater, seNver, drainage, and utility* facilities for the
East of 101 Area is to provide adequate municipal services to serve all development, and to limit
development if it Nvould exceed available service capacity*.
Policy PF-1
The City shall allow development in the East of 101 Area only if adequate Nvater supply*to meet its needs
can be provided in a timely*manner.
Policy PF-2
Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new
developments in the area.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Unhties'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-I S
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Policy PF-7
Projects in the East of 101 Area that Nvould generate large quantities of wastewater shall be required to
loNver their wastewater treatment needs through Nvater recycling, on-site treatment, gray Nvater irrigation
and similar programs Nvhere feasible.
Policy PF-11
Utility*companies shall be provided early*notification for any proposed project that could have an unusual
requirement for Nvater, seNver,gas, electric, or telephone services.
Design Element
The overall design policy* of the City is to promote quality* design; promote a functional, safe, and
attractive environment; preserve the character of the City's heritage; protect public investment and land
values; protect the natural environment; and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals
through the use of Design Guidelines.
Policy DE-13
New construction projects shall be required to supply* and install street trees and landscaping and
landscaping to meet the City's specifications for the frontages.
• Streetscape planting, irrigation, and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance
by City staff.
• Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped Nvith low maintenance plants Nvith
automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-18
Paths Nvith durable, all-Nveather surfaces should be located in medians and other landscaped areas Nvithin
parking lots to provide convenient pedestrian routes, and reduce Nvear on landscaped areas.
Policy DE-30
Utility* lines serving new development shall be installed underground, unless the City finds that
undergrounding Nvould be financially*infeasible for a specific project.
Financinz Element
Policies in the Financing Element of the East of 101 Area Plan are intended to form an overall approach
to future discussions about who Nvill pay*for improvements and how sources of revenues Nvill be used. In
addition, these policies provide some element of certainty*to developers and property* owners in terms of
Nvhat types of facilities and/or fees they Nvill be expected to provide in conjunction Nvith plans for future
development Nvith the East of 101 Area.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..N--16
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Policy FIN-I
Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be borne by both existing and future development.
Policy FIN-4
Ongoing operating and maintenance costs for new East of 101 Area improvements shall be financed
through ongoing revenues collected as fees, assessments, and taxes generated by future development in
the Area.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)
Chapter 8.16(Solid Waste Scavenzer Seri�ices)
Chapter 8.16 of the SSFMC contains health and sanitation rules and regulations applicable to all lands
and premises Nvithin the City. The purpose of Chapter 8.16 is to prevent the accumulation of quantities of
solid Nvaste Nvithin the boundaries of the City, except for approved dump sites, in order to protect and
preserve the public health and Nvelfare of City and neighboring communities. The Scavenger Company is
identified in this chapter as the entity*Nvith Nyhom the City*has contracted to collect, receive, carry* and/or
transport solid waste in accordance Nvith the provisions of this chapter.
Chapter 8.28(Recyclable Materials)
The purpose of Chapter 8.28 is to increase participation rates, improve recyclable material recovery*rates,
reduce landfill dependency*, and ultimately* maintain a cost-effective overall solid Nvaste and recycling
program for the citizens, businesses, and institutions of the City. While the SSFMC does not appoint an
authorized recycling agent, the Scavenger Company*is responsible for providing recycling services in the
City*. Also,the SSFMC does not establish recycling goals for the City.
Chapter 14.08(Water Ouality)
Chapter 14.08 sets forth requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the City,s wastewater
collection and treatment system and enables the City to comply*Nvith all applicable state and federal laws
required by the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations. The objectives of Chapter 14.08 are the
folloNving:
• To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal wastewater system which Nvill
upset or interfere Nvith the operation of the system or contaminate the resulting sludge
• To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal wastewater system Nvhich Nvill
pass through the system, inadequately* treated, into receiving Nvaters or the atmosphere or
othenvise be incompatible Nvith the system
• To improve the opportunity*to recycle and reclaim wastewaters and sludges from the system
• To provide for equitable distribution of the cost of the municipal wastewater system
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities;Service Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--17
City of South San Francisco April 2013
• To prevent the exposure of Nvorkers at the publicly*ovmed treatment Nvorks and the collection
system to chemical hazards
Chapter 14.08 provides for the regulation of direct and indirect contributors to the municipal Nvaste-Nvater
system through the issuance of permits to certain non-domestic users. Further, through enforcement of
general requirements for all users, the chapter authorizes monitoring and enforcement activities, requires
user reporting, assumes that existing customer's capacity* Nvill not be preempted, and provides for the
setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs.
The superintendent of the WQCP is responsible for administering, implementing, and enforcing the
provisions of Chapter 14.08.
Chapter 14.12 (Sewer Rates)
In accordance Nvith this chapter, the City* establishes a system of seNver rentals and charges for all
domestic, commercial, and industrial uses of the municipal seNver system. Chapter 14.12 also contains the
charges for seNver service and facilities as provided by the City*.
Chapter 13.16(Underground Utilitv Installations)
Under Chapter 13.16, the City* Council may call public hearings to determine Nvhether existing overhead
utilities should be relocated underground. It is the responsibility* of the person owning, operating, leasing
or renting the property* Nvith the utility* in question to follow the provisions set forth as a result of the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
As described in the introduction section, sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze utilities and
service systems in the project area. This analysis considers the existing and projected Nvater supply* and
demand in addition to the resulting increase in wastewater treatment, storm drainage, and solid Nvaste
disposal capacity*that Nvould occur Nvith implementation of the proposed project and Nveather this increase
is Nvithin projected supplies and capacities.
The analysis is based on new information released since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,
including the Water Supply* Assessment(WSA) prepared by the California Water Service Company* (Cal
Water) on March 6, 2013 and communications Nvith local service providers.
Thresholds of Significance
The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this Draft SEIR,implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially* significant
impacts to utilities if the proposed project would result in any of the folloNving:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-18
City of South San Francisco April 2013
• Exceed NvasteNvater treatment requirements of the applicable Water Quality*Control Board
• Require or result in the construction of new Nvater or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
• Require or result in the construction of new storm Nvater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Have insufficient Nvater supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
• Result in a determination by the NvasteNvater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity* to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments.
• Be served by a landfill Nvith insufficient permitted capacity* to accommodate the project's
solid Nvaste disposal needs.
• Fail to comply*Nvith federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid Nvaste.
The CEQA Guidelines have been revised and updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR. Federal, state and local regulation updates make compliance that is evaluated by the
2013 CEQA Guidelines, more stringent. Therefore, the analyses for the proposed project reflect the more
stringent thresholds. Further, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not
study* the project impact on landfills and its compliance Nvith federal, state and local statues related to
solid Nvaste.
Project Impacts
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area
covered by the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,namely*Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at
Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared
to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould
increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square
footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking
garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
The project Nvould result in similar potentially* significant impacts to projected Nvater usage and Nvaste
Nvater infrastructure to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The impacts Nvould be mitigated to a
less than significant level Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1, IV.N-5.1 and 5.2,
outlined below, which replace mitigation measures of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
There are no other increases in the severity* of the previously* identified utilities and services impacts in
the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bay- West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR. Due to updates to wastewater treatment facilities that serve the project area, the
proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially* significant wastewater
impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-19
City of South San Francisco April 2013
project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. For a
summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the proposed
project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Impact IV.N--1: The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Water Ouality Control Board
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project as they relate to RWQCB standards. This impact discussion is
consistent with 2013 CEO
A Guidelines requirements.
The proposed project Nvould generate Nastewater from sanitary facilities and potentially* lab uses. Water
from sanitary facilities Nvould be conveyed to the sanitary*seNver system directly*from the project site. If R
& D tenants occupy* buildings on the project site, the tenant would be required to either install a
neutralization tank to treat lab Nvater prior to release into the seNver system or to a separate lab Nvaste
system that Nvould be subject to monitoring. The separate lab waste system Nvould act as a means for the
City*to check/take periodic samples to ensure no pollutants are released into the sanitary*seNver system.
The project Nvould connect for seNver service to the City's seNver system and wastewater would be
disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality* Control Plant(WQCP). The
WQCP operates under NPDES No. CAS612008 and Waste Discharge Requirements R2-2009-0074 and
meets all the applicable requirements of the RWQCB. As discussed in Impact IV.N-5, the South San
Francisco/San Bruno WQCP has capacity* to treat this wastewater. Therefore, the project Nvould not
violate wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB and there Nvould be no impact.
Impact IV.N-2: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water
treatment, distribution, or conn> Vance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects.
The project consists of the phased construction on the 20.1 acre project site, Nvhich is currently* vacant.
The project Nvould be constructed in three phases from 2014 to 2019,resulting in the need for construction
of new or expansion of existing on-site facilities for new Nvater supply*. The proposed project Nvould
involve increasing density* at the site by developing a vacant site Nvith office, R&D, and hotel uses. The
proposed project Nvould lead to a net change of development at the site from vacant to 1,030,344 square
feet, Nvhich is an increase from the square footage included in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
Water for fire flow Nvould be provided in 12 inch mains that Nvould be constructed Nvith each phase of the
project. The Nvater distribution system is ovmed and operated by CWSC. The Nvater system consists of a
network of 12-and 10-inch lines Nvhich should be adequate to serve the required flows.17
' Bradv and Associates for the Citti-of South San Francisco,East of 101 Area Plan,July, 1994.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--20
City of South San Francisco April 2013
The project site utility*plan is shown in Figure IV.N-1. The proposed service lines Nvould be connected to
the existing Nvater mains on Veterans Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, depending on Cal Water's
determination of available flow capacities. The Nvater distribution system in the East of 101 Area Nvas
designed and constructed to meet industrial Nvater demands. The service lines in the proposed utility*plan
are designed Nvith sufficient capacity* to meet peals demands for domestic Nvater and industrial process
Nvater, and to supply*both interior sprinkler systems and exterior fire hydrants for the project.
The Cal Water assessment has determined that for the next 20 years, its Cal Water's SSF District Nvill be
able to provide adequate Nvater supplies to meet its existing and projected customer demands which
include all three phases of the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan for normal, single
dry*year and multiple dry*year conditions. Therefore, similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project,the proposed project Nvould not result in the construction of new Nvater facilities.
To avoid impacts to the Nvater system's ability*to serve peals flow demands, fire flow testing, analysis, and
certification Nvill be performed by fire protection personnel. Using this information, prior to issuance of
building permits, the civil engineer Nvill calculate fire flows to serve the entire site Nvater mains and
hydrants at all times. A Fire Protection Engineer Nvould design the fire protection system for each building
once the sprinkler system design is determined. Any site improvements necessary Nvould be designed to
City* standards and Nvould have to be approved by the City's Fire Department. Therefore, the proposed
project Nvould not have a less than significant impact associated Nvith fire flows, similar to the 2000 Bay-
West Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-21
g. 1W o 0
o��a _
1 0
/F
. .......................
T11
.............................................................
...........
..........
...........
V,
..............
,....w lhr
J�j
..............................
..........
n
..........
V..........
.....................................
URSCihy of South San Francisco
Britalmia copc(it 0111ster poillf Figure 1V.N-1
Proposed Utilities Plan
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.N-3: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Section IV.H- Hydrology and Water Quality* discusses the proposed project's storm Nvater infrastructure
and project runoff, and compares it Nvith the 2000 Bay- West Cove Commercial Project. During final
project design, the project's storm Nvater drainage system, including improvements to the existing system,
Nvould be designed to comply*Nvith the City of South San Francisco's Standard Development Conditions,
the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance, the CityT's MRP, and the
SMCWPPP's C3. Technical Guidance document. With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 in
Section IV.H Hydrology and Water Quality*, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant
impact on storm Nvater drainage facilities. Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 replaces mitigation measures
imposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Impact IV.N-4: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project based its analysis on a Nvater supply*assessment conducted
in 1997 and updated through communications Nvith Nvater suppliers in 2000. It concluded that there Nvas
sufficient Nvater supply*to serve the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The information presented
below is based on a new WSA conducted for the proposed project by Cal Water on March 6, 2013.
The project Nvould be constructed in three phases, resulting in a gradual increase the project's demand on
Nvater supply*. Cal Water owns and operates the Bayshore District, which serves the City of South San
Francisco including the proposed project, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
provides 35.68 MGD (39,967 AFY), approximately* 90 percent, of the Cal Water supply* during normal
years.'$ The remainder of the Cal Water supply* comes from a groundwater system.' Table IVN-3
summarizes the projected Nvater supply*sources through 2040.
18 California Water Sen-ice Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District, Adopted
June 2011.
19 California Water Seixices Company, Bayshore District, website: httta s://ii-ii-ii-.cahti-ater.corri/vour district/
index.j)hp?district=bay-,accessed January 30,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--23
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.N-3
South San Francisco District Available Water Supplies (AF)*
Water Supply Source 2010 Actual 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 8,013 7,915 7381 7,644 7,920 8,219 8,515
Groundwater 452 L535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535
Total Water Supply 8,465 9,450 8,916 9,179 9,455 9,745 10,050
":1F=acre feet
Source:Cal(ybrnia later Service Company,SB 610 Cove 6,
Construction of all project phases Nyould result in a net area increase of 1,030,344 square feet of
development on the site. The neNy square footage Nyould be used as such: 884,344 square feet of
Office/R&D use; up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000
square feet of retail space; about 200,000sf of landscaping and a parking structure. The project site is
currently*vacant therefore the change in Nyater demand Nyould be substantial.
The WSA assumed that Nyater usage rates for neNv office space, R&D laboratories, commercial and retail
uses and landscape irrigation on the site Nyould be the same as similar existing facilities in the Oyster
Point area. The WSA conservatively* assumes that use of average annual day* Nyater use rates at the
Gatevmv Boulevard facilities Nyould be representative of those for the proposed facilities. For example,
for the period from July 2007 — June 2008 (1 year or 365 days), total internal metered Nyater use for five
existing buildings at 700, 1000, 750 800 and 850 Gate�yay Boulevard ryas ','92,180 gallons for an area
of 234,013 square feet. Overall average annual day* Nyater use Nyas 0.04 gallons/day/ft. The existing
building at 700 Gatevmy Blvd is nearly* all office space use. The building area is 55,098 square feet and
annual Nyater use from July 2007 — June 2008 Nyas 722, 568 gallons or 0.036 gallons/day/ft. The existing
building at 800 Gatevmy Blvd is nearly*all biotechnology*research and development laboratory* space use.
The building area is 45,400 square feet and annual Nyater use from July 2007 — June 2008 Nyas 1,039,720
gallons or 0.063 gallons/day/ft.
Cal Water Assesses the Nyater demand for the proposed project to be as folloNvs: by year 2016 upon
completion of Phase 1 139,1001gpd, by year 2017 upon completion of Phase 2 an additional 13, 152 gpd;
and by 2019 upon completion of Phase 3 an additional 74,369gpd for a total of 226,622 gpd.20 The total
estimated Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nyater demand Nyould be equal to 254 acre-feet per
year.
In 2019, the SSF District demand Nvithout the project is estimated to be 8,791 AF and Nvith the project
implemented it is estimated to be 9,042 AF. In terms of percentage of total district demand in 2020, the
proposed project Nyould be 2.9 percent (252/8,665). For a 20 year period, the proposed project Nyould
represent 2.7 percent (252/9378) of total demand. Although constituting a loNv percentage of total
10 California Water Seixice Company, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Britannia Cove Oyster Point Project,
Page 7.March 6,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S,rvice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-24
City of South San Francisco April 2013
demand, for purposes of the WSA, Nvater demand estimates for the proposed project are added to Cal
Water's SSF District demand forecast as shoNsn in Table IV.N-4.2'
Table IV.N-4
South San Francisco District and Proposed Project Projected Water Demand(AF)*
2005 2010
Actual Actual 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total 8,869 8,465 9,450 8,916 9,179 9,445 9,745 10,050
"AF=acre feet
Source: Cal(ybrnia [ ater Service Conzpagy' SB 610 l ater Szrppl7 AssessnzentFor Britannia Cove Oyster PointProjeet. llarch
6, 2013.
As described above in the Environmental Setting, Cal Water expects the 39,967 AFY to be available for
the length of the Masters Contract.22 As such, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cover Commercial Project,
the WSA concludes that for the next 20 years, Cal Water's SSF District Nvould be able to provide
adequate Nvater supplies to meet its existing and projected customer demands, which includes all three
phases of the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan for normal, single dry* year and
multiple dry*year conditions.
Water usage for irrigation Nvould also increase on the site, as landscaping Nvould be present on the site.
The proposed project Nvould include landscaped areas planted Nvith low to moderate Nvater use
classification of landscaped species. The landscape plan Nvould further include Nvater conserving
automatic irrigation system in accordance Nvith the City* of South San Francisco and Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. For the July 2007—June 2008 period,total landscape irrigation Nvater use
Nvas 7,219,192 gallons for an area of 250,143 square feet, which Nvas used as comparison to determine
Nvater irrigation usage for the proposed project. Average annual day- irrigation Nvater use Nvas: 0.079
gallons/day/ft. Cal Water estimates that the proposed project Nvould require approximately*51,350 gpd for
irrigation and landscaping,for a proposed landscaped area of about 4 acres.
The City* of South San Francisco has updated codes and ordinances intended to meet all state
requirements related to Nvater efficient fixtures and Nvater landscaping standards. The proposed project
Nvould be required to comply* Nvith City regulations. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project, although the proposed project Nvould have sufficient Nvater supply* the folloNving mitigation
measure could be implemented to further reduce the propose project's contribution to total Nvater demand.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 replaces any mitigation measures that Nvere part of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project.
California Water Seixice Company, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Britannia Cove Oyster Point Project.
March 6,2013.
Cal Water's purchased water supply from the SFPUC is subject to the Water Supply Agreement between the City
and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers, which was adopted in July, 2009. The supply
agreement and associated Contract are included in Appendices I&J of Cal Water's 2010 UWMP and should be
referenced for further details.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-2.5
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Mitigation Measure IV-N-4.1 Water Conservation
In order to reduce Nvater demands of all phases of the project, the project applicant shall include methods
of Nvater conservation in the proposed project's buildings and landscaping for each phase of the Precise
Plan. These methods shall include, but not be limited,to the folloNving:
• Install Nvater-conserving dishNvashers and Nvashing machines and Nvater-efficient centralized
cooling systems in all neNv buildings (this method Nvould not apply*to process development or
research development laboratory*equipment);
• Install Nvater-conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and evapotranspiration-based
irrigation controllers);
• Design landscaping Nvith drought-resistant and other low-Nvater-use plants; and
• Install Nvater-saving devices such as Nvater-efficient toilets,faucets, and shoNverheads.
Impact IV.N-5: The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
The project Nvould be constructed in three phases, resulting in a gradual increase to the project's impacts
related to wastewater treatment. As previously* discussed, there are no uses proposed for the site that
Nvould use or produce wastewater containing contaminants that cannot be treated at the WQCP.
WasteNvater from Cal Water's South San Francisco service area communities of South San Francisco and
Colma is treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP. The seNver system includes gravity*lines
and force mains that combine both NvasteNvater and storm Nvater runoff.
The quantity* of wastewater generated is proportional to the population and the Nvater use in the service
area. For 2008,it is estimated that 3,300 AFY of NvasteNvater flows from Cal Water's South San Francisco
District. It is projected to increase to 3,700 AFY in 2028. The SSFWQCP has capacity*to treat 13 MGD
average daily* flow (instantaneous peals Nvet Nveather flow capacity* of 30 mgd) and currently* receives 10
MGD from the SSFWQCP service area.23
Currently* there is a City-ovmed pump on the project site, Pump Station 414. Similar to the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project,the proposed project Nvould increase the rate and volume of floNv through
the pumps and controls. According to City* staff, Pump Station 414 has identified as in need of
replacement and the current pump capacity* Nvould not be able to accommodate proposed project flows.
This creates a potential for more serious wastewater backups if Pump Station 414 experiences an
operational failure. Therefore, an upgrade Nvould be necessary to accommodate project flows.24
23 California Water Service Company, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Britannia Cove Oyster Point Project.
March 6,2013.
24 Ken Navarre,Assistant Superintendent, South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant,Email communications
Avith URS Staff Florentina Craciun,
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--26
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,on-site collection facilities,including the gravity*
sewers, pumping station and force main, Nvere designed for a mix of land uses Nvith potentially* loNver
wastewater production rates than are now proposed on the project site. As a result, if the proposed
office/R&D and commercial buildings generate high rates of flow, new or expanded pump facilities may
be needed to accommodate build-out of the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project,this impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 Wastewater Collection
Before the proposed project is connected to the City's Nastewater collection system, the City shall
upgrade and improve Pump Station 414, in accordance Nvith the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall
pay* its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, in accordance Nvith General Plan policies and based on the project's contribution to
wastewater flows. In addition,the project applicant would be required to dedicate Pump Station 414 to the
Citv of South San Francisco.
To mitigate the impact to Pump Station 414,the folloNving improvements shall be implemented:
• The relocated force main Nvill be sized to serve the flow characteristics of the new pumps.
• Upgrades made to pumps/Nvet Nvell/SCADA/Generator.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.2 Wastewater Collection
Before the proposed project is connected to the City's Nastewater collection system, the City shall
upgrade and improve aged Pump Station 42, in accordance Nvith the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant
shall pay* its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, in accordance Nvith General Plan policies. The folloNving improvements shall be
implemented:
• Upgrade pumps and generator.Per SeNver Master Plan, 3-850 gpm pumps shall be installed.
• Relocate force main from Pump Station 414 around proposed Building 3 into the easement.
Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.N-5.1 and 5.2, the impact to waste Nvater collection Nvould be less than significant. These mitigation
measures replace Mitigation Measure 14.2.7 and 14.2.8 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR as they are outdated and do not reflect current conditions on the project site and system
capacity*.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..N--27
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.N--6: The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bay West Cove Commercial Project as the relate to solid Nvaste disposal. This impact discussion is
consistent with 2013 CEO
A Guidelines requirements.
The project Nvould result in the phased construction of eight new buildings and a parking structure. The
project Nvould be constructed in three phases from 2014 to 2019, resulting in a gradual increase in solid
waste generation on the project site.
The Scavenger Company* is contracted by the City* of South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid
Nvaste and operator of recycling services for the City*. The Scavenger Company* transports all solid Nvaste
from the project area to the Blue Line Transfer facilit< The Blue Line Transfer facility* has a permitted
capacity* of 1,200 tons per day*, but currently*receives an average of approximately* 200 tons per day*.25,26
Once the useable materials have been separated at the Blue Line Transfer facility*, the remaining trash is
then transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. As of 2000,the landfill had exceeded its permitted
capacity* of 37.9 million cubic yards by approximately* 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). A closure
date is planned for 2018 and plans have not been confirmed where Nvaste Nvill be landfilled upon closure
of Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill.
The project site is currently* vacant; therefore the proposed project Nvould increase the amount of solid
Nvaste to the Blue Line Transfer facility* and Ox Mountain Sanitary* Landfill from the project site.27
Development under the proposed project Nvould result in an additional 4,061,616 pounds (1,842 tons) of
solid Nvaste per year, representing a negligible percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted daily*
at the Blue Line Transfer facility*and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill,respectively*.
The remaining capacity* of the Blue Line Transfer facility* Nvould be able to accommodate the additional
solid Nvaste.28 While the Ox Mountain Landfill is currently* in excess of its permitted capacity*, BFI
continues to accept waste as the landfill gradually* settles and new space becomes available. As discussed
previously*, BFI is permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain Landfill. Thus, the increase in solid
waste generated under the proposed project Nvould be sufficiently* served by the Blue Line Transfer
facility* and the Ox Mountain Landfill. Therefore, the impact Nvould be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
15 CalRecycle, Facility/Site Summary Details: Blue Line MRF and TS (41-AA-0185), rsebsite:
httla://ii-ii-ii-.calrecN-cle.ca.Gov/SWFacilities/DirectoiN-/41-AA-0185/Detail/,accessed January 30,2013.
16 Bernardini,Barbara,Recycling Manager, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, phone conversation- January
31,2013.
According to the Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts (Ventura
County Solid Waste Management Department, May 1998), a solid waste generation rate of 0.0108 pounds per
square foot per day is applicable to office, manufacturing, and eating/drinking establishments sectors. Thus, if
this rate is applied to the project, the solid waste generation rate would directly relate to the increase in
development proposed under the project.
,8 Bernardini, Barbara, Recycling Manager, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, phone conversation- March
13,2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'&,rvice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-28
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Impact IV.N-7: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000
Bay* West Cove Commercial Project as they* relate to solid Nvaste regulations. This impact discussion is
consistent with 2013 CEO
A Guidelines requirements.
Solid Nvaste disposal and recycling in the City* of South San Francisco is regulated by the SSFMC,
particularly* Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or
recycling rates, the project site, Nvould not be subject to diversion requirements. HoNvever, under the
SSFMC, the project Nvould be required to have its solid Nvaste, including construction and demolition
debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company*. Additional health and sanitation
requirements set forth in the SSFMC Nvould be met by the Scavenger Company*. As described in the
Regulatory* FrameNvork, AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid
Nvaste by 2000. As analyzed above, the project site is not a substantial contributor to the City,s generation
of solid Nvaste disposal at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Implementation of the proposed project
Nvould increase the project site's solid Nvaste contribution to Blue Line Transfer facility*and Ox Mountain
Sanitary*Landfill, but the contribution Nvould remain relatively*small. Consequently*, because the proposed
project Nvould not impede the City's compliance Nvith AB 939, there Nvould be no impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic context for a discussion of cumulative impacts to utilities is the service area of the utility*
in question. For instance, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to Nvater supply*is the Cal Water
and SFPUC service areas, to NvasteNvater, it is the East of 101 Area, and to the storm drainage system, the
geographic context is the local Nvatershed. The cumulative impacts analysis for each utility* includes all
cumulative groNsth Nvithin its respective service area, as identified by the providers' demand projections.
GroNsth and utility*demand forecasts for each utility*are presented above.
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally*designed and constructed for industrial
development, which has a high ratio of impervious surface s.�� The project site's 48-inch storm drain
conveys runoff southNvard to the CityT's storm drainage infrastructure. The CityT's storm drainage system in
the project vicinity*consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various
locations. Runoff as a result of the proposed project's pervious surfaces could contribute to potential
capacity* issues of the storm Nvater infrastructure, however implementation of mitigation measures
outlined in Section IV.H. Hydrology and Water Quality*Nvould ensure the project Nvould not contribute to
cumulative storm Nvater impacts, similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental
EIR.
The East of 101 SeNver System Master Plan Nvas updated in 2011 to accommodate for a 2030 planning
horizon and cumulative groNsth. The 2011 Plan outlines the improvements made to the system as Nvell as
11)Bradv and Associates for the Citti-of South San Francisco,East of 101 Area Plan,July, 1994.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-29
City of South San Francisco April 2013
future needs. Current average dry*Nveather flows in the East of 101 Area are approximately* 1.7 mgd. The
recalculated sewer flow rates assume the wastewater flow rates are equal to the Nvater demands. The
recalculated average dry* flows Nvere 2.64 mgd in 2015 and 3.58 mgd in 2030. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 and 5.2, which Nvill help complete planned improvements to the collection
system at the project site, the waste Nvater system Nvill adequately* serve the cumulative growth in the
project area. Therefore, the impact to the collection systems is less than significant, and similar Nvith the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
SFPUC and Cal Water are dedicated to implementing conservation and Nvater recycling measures. In
addition, Cal Water is a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The
CUWCC Nvas created to increase efficient Nvater use stateNvide through partnerships among urban Nvater
agencies, public interest organizations, and private entities. The Council's goal is to integrate urban Nvater
conservation BMPs into the planning and management of California's Nvater resources. Implementation of
Nvater conservation BMPs Nvill help limit Nvater demand from customers Nvithin the SSF District's service
area and reduce Nvater supply* requirements. HoNvever, compliance Nvith Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1
Nvould ensure that the project's contribution to Nvater supply* demand Nvould be minimized, similar to the
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.N-2.1 through IV.N-4.1 identified in this section Nvould
adequately*mitigate all potential impacts related to utilities and service systems. These impacts Nvould also
be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to mitigation measures imposed in the 2000 Bay West
Cove Commercial Project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.N. Utilities'S'ervice Systems
Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N--30
V. GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that all aspects
of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning,
acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, the Draft Subsequent EIR must also
identIA- (1) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is
implemented; (2) significant irreversible environmental change that Nvould result from implementation of
the proposed project; and (3)growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
A. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts which
cannot be avoided, even Nvith implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Section 15126.2(b)
states:
`Describe any sign f cant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a
level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an
alternative design, their implications and the reason why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding their effect, should be described. "
Based on the analysis contained in this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the project Nvould result
in significant unavoidable impacts to the folloNving:
• Traffic
• Noise
B. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the way-s in which a proposed action
could be groNsth inducing. This includes way-s in which the project Nvould foster economic or population
growth, or result in the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Section 15126.2(d)of the CEQA Guidelines reads as follows:
"Discuss the ways in which the proposed project couuld foster economic or population growth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a
major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more
construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service
facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental
effects. Also discuss the characteristic ofsome projects which may encourage and facilitate other
activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt T- General Impact Categories
Draft Subsequent EnvironmentallmpactReport Page I-I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. "
In general, a project may foster economic or population growth in a geographic area if it meets anv one of
the criteria identified below:
• The project removes an impediment to groNsth (e.g., the establishment or expansion of an
essential public service to an area)
• The project results in the urbanization of land in a remote location(leapfrog development)
• The project establishes a precedent-setting action (e.g., a change in zoning or General Plan
amendment approval)
• Economic expansion or grovlh occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in
revenue base, employment expansion, etc.)
If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth
inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the
extension of major infrastructure such as seNver and Nvater facilities or roadvmys, or encouraging
premature or unplanned growth.
Remove an Impediment to Growth/Precedent-Setting Action
The project Nvould require an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the BaY West
Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, adoption of
Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, a Development Agreement,
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), and a Sign Application approval.
The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clariA- the aggregation of FAR across
Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original
Britannia Cove and Britannia ONTster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map
amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area. The Britannia Oyster Point site
(Planning Areas 2 and 3) is developed at a FAR of 0.58. The project proposes the transfer of FAR from
the Britannia ONTster Point site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) to the project site (Planning Area 1) for a
combined FAR of 0.86. Development of the project site at a FAR of 0.86 Nvould be more intense than
Nvhat currently is planned at the project site. The project's density is consistent Nvith the City s vision for
development in the area and Nvould not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased
density as discussed in Section IV. I Land Use.
Urbanization of Land in a Remote Location
The project Nvould not encourage growth through the urbanization of land in remote locations,resulting in
"leapfrog" development, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The proposed project is
located in an urbanized industrial area of South San Francisco, bordered by rail lines and U.S. 101 on the
Nvest, 3/4 of a mile north of the Caltrain station, and located roughly 1.5 miles north of the San Francisco
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point T- (general Impact Categories
Draft,SubsequentEnvironmentallmpactReport Page I=2
00)of S'out/Sari Francisco April 2013
International Airport. Since the proposed project is not located in a remote location, no growth inducing
impacts related to urbanization of remote locations Nvould occur.
Economic Expansion or Growth
The project Nvould result in approximately 2,595 employees by the Near 2019, Nvhich is a higher number
of employees than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Considering that the site is vacant at
present time, overall, the project Nvould result in a total net increase of 2,595 employees Nvorking on the
site by 2019. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and
2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, the project's contribution to the increase in employment in the
City Nvould be Nvithin ABAGs employment projections for the City for both the Nears of 2015 and 2020,
similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7; this means that South San Francisco is
a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing.
Based on ABAGs projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City for 2015 Nvould increase to
approximately 2.09 by 2015 and to 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability relative
to the amount of jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability*, already projected
to be out of balance,Nvould decrease Nvith implementation of the proposed project, similar to the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project. Consequently*, as Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the
potential employment increase resulting from the proposed project Nvould result in direct and indirect
growth that may not be accommodated by existing or proposed housing projections for the City
HoNvever, the project is in line Nvith the CityT's vision for the East of 101 Area, Nvhich does not include
residential development.
Despite the imbalance between jobs and housing Nvithin South San Francisco, continued job growth in the
City* Nvould promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. The City is a strategically*
located inner Bav Area community*Nvell served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART and
ferry service, as Nvell as local shuttles for employees of business parks in the area. Therefore, future
employees commuting to jobs in the City Nvould have varied means of reaching the project, similar to the
2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Given that the number of employees generated by the project Nvould be Nvithin the ABAG projections and
overall the project Nvould promote a greater regional jobs balance, the project Nvould not directly* or
indirectly* induce substantial population growth, similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that significant irreversible environmental changes
associated Nvith a proposed project shall be discussed,including the folloNving:
• Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the protect that may
be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely;
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt T- General Impact Categories
Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorzmerztallmpactReport Page I=3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that
provides access to a previously inaccessible area), which generally commit fixture generations to
similar uses; and
• Irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the protect.
The construction and operation of the project Nvould entail the commitment of energy, human resources,
and building materials, at a higher volume than that of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project due
to increase in FAR on the project site. Ongoing maintenance and operation of the proposed project Nvould
entail a further commitment of energy resources in the form of natural gas, electricity, and Nvater
resources. This commitment of energy, personnel, and building materials Nvould be commensurate Nvith
that of other projects of similar magnitude, and there are currently no shortages of these resources to the
extent that it Nvould preclude the construction and operation of the project.
The proposed project Nvould increase development at the site from a vacant parcel to an approximately
20.2 acre office/Research&Development(R&D) business park. The project site is not developed and use
of the site Nvith these uses is planned and accounted for in the Citv's General Plan, Nvithin the East of 101
Area Plan, and the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District. Therefore,implementation of the project Nvould
commit future generations to using the project site for uses similar to the current uses in the project area,
similar with the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.
Irreversible changes to the physical environment could occur from accidental releases of hazardous
materials associated Nvith development. HoNvever, compliance Nvith hazardous materials regulations,
policies and mitigation measures (as outlined in this Draft Subsequent EIR) is expected to ensure this
potential impact is less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. No
other irreversible changes Nvould result from the adoption and implementation of the proposed project.
2066961.1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt T- General Impact Categories
Draft,SubsegnerztErzvirorznnerztallnnpactReport Page I=4
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to assess a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project that Nvould feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or
substantialIv lessening any of the significant impacts of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits
of each alternative (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6). The CEQA Guidelines state that the selection of
alternatives should be governed by a "rule of reason." Not every conceivable alternative must be
addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]).
When addressing feasibilit-,T, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states, "among the factors that may
be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic
viabilit-,T, availability of infrastructure, other plans or regulatory limitations,jurisdictional boundaries...."
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors must be considered in determining the range of
alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each
alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) the
ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated Nvith the project, (3) the ability
of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project, and (4)the feasibility of the alternatives.
CEQA also states that, "[t]he EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow
meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison Nvith the proposed project." Generally, significant
impacts of an alternative are discussed in this section, but in less detail than the proposed project, and the
discussion should provide decision makers perspective as Nvell as a reasoned choice regarding each
alternative.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
To develop project alternatives, the Subsequent EIR preparers considered the project objectives and
reviewed the significant impacts in Section IV of this Subsequent EIR to identIA- those significant
impacts that could be avoided or reduced substantially through an alternative (refer to Table VI-1 at the
end of this section).
The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
• Develop the project site Nvith high-quality Office/R&D, and retail/hotel uses to serve the project's
employees,visitors, and the City of South San Francisco.
• Construct a cohesive Nvorking campus environment Nvith a clear organization of buildings,
structured parking, and pedestrian circulation and open space.
• Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements that
are in line Nvith the East of 101 Area guidelines.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnzerztalMipactReport Page I7-1
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
• Create an open space and pedestrian path netNyork that incorporates parks and landscaping for
passive recreational use.
• Emphasize the pedestrian environment Nyith Nyell-designed and useful landscaping that respond to
the climate of the City.
• Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and Ferry
service.
C. METHODOLOGY
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed project. A project may
have the potential to generate significant impacts, but changes to certain features may also afford the
opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts. The folloNving alternatives analysis compares the potential
significant environmental impacts of the three alternatives Nyith those of the proposed project for each of
the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Chapter IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the
Subsequent EIR.
The project Nyould not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, land
use,mineral resources, population and housing,public services, or recreation. Impacts associated Nyith the
folloNving topics Nyould be significant Nyithout the implementation of mitigation measures, but Nyould be
reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this Subsequent EIR
are implemented.
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the analysis contained in this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the project Nyould result
in significant unavoidable impacts to the folloNving:
• Noise. Impacts due to construction and groundbourne vibration noise. Cumulative noise impacts
to surrounding area.
• Transportation/Traffic. Impacts due to traffic volumes at intersections (2017, 2035), vehicle
queuing (2035), U.S.101 ramps (2035), and freevyay mainline operations (2035).
The folloNving discussion is provided to meet the requirement of the CEQA Guidelines and provide the
public and decision makers Nyith information that Nyill help them understand the adverse impacts and
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
benefits associated Nvith the three potential alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives Nvere
chosen for their ability to reduce or avoid impacts resulting from the project. A discussion of the
environmentally superior alternative is also provided.
D. SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the project Nvere evaluated. All alternatives are located on the project site.
Differences between the build alternatives include square footage of office/R&D development, total
employees, and the number of parking spaces. The proposed alternatives Nvere selected in an attempt to
design an alternative that would minimize the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. As
outlined below, the potentially significant noise impacts in Nvould remain potentially significant under all
the selected alternatives as they are associated Nvith construction noise, which would occur under each
alternative. Further,the potentially significant impacts on transportation and noise Nvould be lessened to a
less than significant level only under Alternative C.
The proposed alternatives Nvere selected in an attempt to reduce peals hour trips. Per Section IV.M
Transportation and Traffic, the main uses that generate the largest amount of peals hour trips are
office/R&D. Consequently the three proposed alternatives analyze scenarios Nvith a reduced office/R&D
use while hotel and commercial uses remain constant. Alternative A has two possible scenarios:
development similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project proposed development for Planning
Area 1, and no development on the site Nvith the site remaining vacant; while Alternative B and C Nvould
be a reduced FAR of 0.75 and 0.5 respectively. A more thorough description of each of the alternatives is
provided below. The three alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project are shoNsn in
Table VI-1 and are as follows:
Alternative A: No Project. There are two potential scenarios under Alternative A: development similar
to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project proposed development for Planning Area 1, and no
development on the site Nvith the site remaining vacant. The first scenario Nvas analyzed in the 2000 Bay
West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR and Nvas further compared Nvith the proposed project
throughout Chapter IV of this Draft Subsequent EIR. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in the Prior Analysis section of Chapter IV and are not
further presented in this chapter.
Consistent Nvith CEQA Guidelines the no project/ site Nvould remain vacant and undeveloped is analyzed
in this section of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Alternative B: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75. Alternative B Nvould allow development of the project
site at a. FAR of 0.75, assuming a 40/60 split beN,-een office and research and development(R&D) uses,
resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of building mass and employees on site. This
alternative assumes that development on the site Nvould be phased and that total buildout Nvould occur by
2019. As shoNsn in Table VI-1, under Alternative B buildout on the site Nvould result in the construction
of approximately 305,854 sf of R&D uses; 203,903 sf of office uses; 126,000 sf of hotel uses; and 20,000
sf of retail uses. Buildout under Alternative B Nvould result in approximately 1,460 employees on the
project site. Parking Nvould be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of office/R&D development,
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
200 hotel spaces, 100 of which Nvill be shared Nvith office and R&D uses, and 333 spaces per 1,000 sf of
retail for a total of 1,709 spaces. The overall FAR under Alternative B Nvould be 0.67.
Alternative C: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.5. Alternative C Nvould develop the project site Nvith office
and R&D uses at a FAR of 0.5, assuming a 40/60 split between office and R&D t uses, resulting in a
further reduction in building mass and employees on site. This alternative Nvould also assume that
development on the site Nvould be phased and that total buildout Nvould occur by 2019. As shown in Table
IV-1, under Alternative C buildout on the site Nvould result in the construction of approximately 174,703
sf of R&D uses, 116,468 sf of office uses, 126,000 sf of hotel uses, and 20,000 sf of retail uses. Buildout
under Alternative C Nvould result in approximately 935 employees on the project site. Parking Nvould be
provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of office/R&D development, 200 hotel spaces, 100 of
which Nvill be shared Nvith office and R&D uses, and 333 spaces per 1,000 sf of retail for a total of 1,091
spaces. The overall FAR under Alternative C Nvould be 0.55.
Table VI-1
Project Alternative Scenarios
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C
1.18 FAR No Project 0.75 FAR 0.5 FAR
FAR 1.18 0 0.75 0.5
Office Uses Building Area' 884,344 — 203,903 116,468
R&D Uses Building Area — — 305,854 174,703
Hotel Uses 126,000 — 126,000 126,000
Retail 20,000 — 20,000 20,000
Total Building Area 1,030,344 — 655,758 437,172
Office Employees 2,358 — 544 310
R&D Employees — — 679 388
Total Employees 2,5954 — 14605 9356
Parking Ratio 2.83 — 2.83 2.83
Total Parking Spaces 2,6707 — 17098 10919
Oice and R&D zrses for the proposed project are counted together;same aide applies to eniphoyees.
'Employees generated for Office land zrses=375 sgzrare feet per employee
3 Employees generated for R&D land zrses=450 sgzrare feet per employee
4Fiil1 build-oirtserviee population is based on 2,385 eniployees associated with office R&D, 180 eniployees associated with the
hotel,and 57 employees associated with the retail. The following land zrse size metrics to employees was utilized:office R&D is
375 sgzrare feet per employee,hotel is 0.9 employees per room,and retail is 350 sgzrare feet per employee
''6Inchrdes 180 eniphoyees associated with the hotel and 57 employees associated with the retail
8,9 Parking ratio inclzrdes:2.83 per sf of Once R&D zrse;200 spaces for hotel, 100 shared with Office R&D;3.33 per sf of
retail zrse
Sorg°ce: URS, 2013
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poilit I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguelitElivirolinrelitalMipactReport Page I7-4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Alternatives Rejected as Being Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identIA- any
alternatives that Nyere considered by the lead agency but Nyere rejected as infeasible during the scoping
process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency s determination. Given the nature of
the project(a Precise Plan for a specific site),the fact that the project applicant owns this site and does not
oNsn another site that it intends to develop for these uses; an off-site alternative Nyas not feasible.
E. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Alternative A: No Project
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative (Alternative A). In this case,
the No Project Alternative consists of a "No Project/No Build" alternative, Nyhich is defined as the
circumstances under Nyhich the project Nyould not proceed (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)3)(B)).
Evaluation of this alternative alloNys the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project
Nvith the impacts of not approving the proposed project and maintenance of the existing environmental
setting on the project site.
Aesthetics
The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and is currently vacant and undeveloped, Nvith the
exception of a CitN--oNsned sanitary seNyer pump located in the northern portion of the site. Under
Alternative A, the site Nyould remain vacant and no development Nyould occur on the site. Similar to the
project, there Nyould be no impact to state scenic highNyayTs and less than significant impacts to scenic
vistas. Because there Nyould be no development, unlike the project there Nyould be no impact from light
and glare.
HoNvever, Alternative A could degrade the overall existing visual character of the site's surroundings.
Under Alternative A the site Nyould remain vacant and Nyould not be consistent Nyith the overall character
of the East of 101 Area, Nyhich is one of commercial, light industrial, office, and R & D uses and this
impact Nyould be greater than under the project.
Air Ouality
Alternative A Nyould not entail any construction activities as the site Nyould remain vacant. Some minor
grading Nyould occur under Alternative A, due to cap and vegetation maintenance activities on the site.
Similar to the project Alternative A Nyould have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors due
to maintenance activities; and a less than significant impact on objectionable odors due to operation of
maintenance vehicles. Under Alternative A the project Nyould have no impact on air quality plans and air
quality standards.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Cultural Resources
The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the twentieth century. These
processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain,
significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Under Alternative A, ground
disturbing activities would not take place and there Nvould be no impact to cultural resources; therefore,
this impact Nvould be less than under the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
The site Nvould remain vacant under Alternative A. Similar to the project; there Nvould be no impact due
to the lack of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone on the site. Although geologic hazards such as seismic ground
shaking Nvould still exist under this alternative, there Nvould be no impact due to lack of development on
the site. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and
landslides Nvould have no impact under Alternative A.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of Alternative A Nvould maintain the vacant site. As such, there Nvould be no impact
associated Nvith the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous Nvastes. Further, there
Nvould be no impacts to nearby schools or childcare facilities. Impacts associated Nvith the release of
hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative Nvould be less due to the lack of development;
nonetheless continued cap maintenance would have to be implemented, therefore impact Nvould remain
less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative A the site Nvould remain vacant; therefore there Nvould be no impact to hydrology and
Nvater quality from any run-off from the site. Cap maintenance activities Nvould continue as they currentIv
are implemented to prevent contamination of Nvater quality. Similar to the project, Alternative A Nvould
not expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow.
Noise
Under Alternative A, the project site would remain vacant; therefore, there Nvould be no impact on noise
and groundborne vibration exposure to off-site or on-site users from the construction and operation of the
project. Additionally, there Nvould be no development and therefore no exposure of any site occupants to
noise from a public or private airport.
Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative A, the project site would remain undeveloped. As described in Section IV.M,
Transportation and Circulation, traffic in the area Nvould continue to increase due to other development.
This increase in traffic Nvould result in a decrease in intersection LOS, and unacceptable vehicle queuing
at some intersections, off-ramps, and freeway mainlines. Therefore, although there Nvould be no new trips
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
generated under Alternative A, traffic congestion Nvould increase in the area to unacceptable conditions.
Overall, impacts to traffic would be incrementally less than under the project; hoNvever, some impacts
Nvould remain significant and una>>oidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative A, the project site Nvould remain undeveloped. Overall, Alternative A Nvould have no
impact on utilities and service systems at the project site.
Relationship ofAlternativeA to the Project Objectives
Although Alternative A Nvould be a feasible alternative, it Nvould not meet the project objectives of
redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive Nvorking campus environment, emphasizing the
pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, and connecting to various transit modes.
Alternative B: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75
Alternative B Nvould allow development of the project site at a FAR of 0.75, assuming a 40/60 split for
office and research and development, resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of building mass
and employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site Nvould be phased and that
total buildout Nvould occur by 2019. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site Nvould result in the
construction of approximately 305,854 sf of R&D uses; 203,903 sf of office uses; 126,000 sf of hotel
uses; and 20,000 sf of retail uses. Buildout under Alternative B Nvould result in approximately 1,460
employees on the project site. Parking Nvould be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of
office/R&D development, 200 hotel spaces, 100 of which Nvill be shared Nvith office and R&D uses, and
3.33 spaces per 1,000 sf of retail for a total of 1,709 spaces. This alternative would also include a
childcare facility, similar to the proposed project.
Aesthetics
The project site is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNver
pump located in the northern portion of the site. Under Alternative B, a business park Nvould be developed
on the site Nvith office/R & D, hotel, and commercial uses at a loNver FAR than the proposed project.
Similar to the project, upon completion of construction of all phases, the project Nvould block distant
views of the San Francisco Bay available from Oyster Point Boulevard; hoNvever, the Bay is only
minimally visible from this view point and the impact Nvould be less than significant. Therefore,no public
views to scenic vistas Nvould be blocked and there Nvould be less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.
Additionally, similar to the project there Nvould be no impact to state scenic highNvays.
Alternative B Nvould result in development of the site at a FAR of 0.75, a loNver intensity than the project,
Nvhich is planned for a FAR of 1.18. Similar to the project, Alternative B Nvould result in improvements to
the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a
cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Alternative B, like the project, Nvould add cohesiveness to the
East of 101 Area, by completing the proposed development of the area. Although the density and intensity
of development under Alternative B Nvould be loNver, impacts to visual character and light and glare under
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Alternative B Nvould be less than significant and the same as under the project. Therefore, impacts under
Alternative B Nvould be the same as under the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the project, Alternative B Nvould involve the development of a vacant site and Nvould implement
the same construction mitigation measures as the project. Although emissions could be loNver under
Alternative B due to lower intensity of development from reduced FAR, construction impacts would be
less than significant and the same under Alternative B as the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B
Nvould result in development of the site, although at a loNver FAR of 0.75, and Nvould result in the same
impact regarding consistency Nvith BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan.
Alternative B Nvould result in loNver square footage of development on the site and it Nvould result in feNver
employees and therefore feNver vehicular trips. Nonetheless, similar to the project, air quality impacts
from PMio emissions under Alternative B (both project and cumulative) Nvould be less than significant.
Reduced development Nvill reduce the intensity of building operation impacts, nonetheless the
significance is not substantial and it���ould require the same type of mitigation measures as for the project.
As such, the impact of buildings VOC and ROG Nvould be similar to that of the project and less than
significant Nvith mitigation.
Impacts from local CO concentrations would be loNver than under the project and less than significant.
Assuming that Alternative B Nvould be constructed in a phased manner similar to the project, mitigation
measures meant to lessen impacts to the proposed childcare facility Nvould be implemented. Therefore,the
impacts from TACs Nvould remain less than significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the
project, Alternative B Nvould not create any objectionable odors and Nvould not conflict Nvith the State
goals in AB 32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative B, although incrementally loNver, Nvould
be the same as under the project. Reduced development Nvould reduce vehicle trips at the site; nonetheless
it may lead to a loNver rate of modal shift. The urban setting that the project is in as Nvell as the
transportation options available to employees Nvould maintain the level of significance under Alternative
B similar to that of the project.
Cultural Resources
The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the past centun-, including soil
remediation programs, demolition of structures and removal of slab foundation and asphalt roadways.
These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to
contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed
project,the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities,including
fossil-bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of
cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures Nvould be
developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources Nvould be
avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative B,
impacts to cultural resources Nvould remain the same as under the proposed project.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Geology and Soils
Development of the site under Alternative B Nvould result in less development (655,758 sf) than the
proposed project(1,030,344 sf) and Nvould result in feNver employees at the site. Geologic hazards such as
seismic ground shaking Nvould still exist under this alternative. HoNvever, impacts Nvould be reduced due
to decreased employee generation Nvhich Nvould directly result in feNver people and buildings that Nvould
be exposed to seismic ground shaking. Similar to the project,this impact Nvould be less than significant.
Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides Nvould
be loNver under this alternative as the amount of the site area that Nvould be built upon and the size of the
development Nvould be reduced. Nonetheless, similar to the project, differential settlement and soil
mitigation measures Nvould be employed to lessen impacts due to soil erosion and to structures from
development on unconsolidated soil. Collectively, impacts Nvould be less than significant; similar to the
project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Development of Alternative B Nvould result in the construction of 509,757 sf of office/R&D uses, Nvhich
depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, may involve research facilities
that Nvould use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Although proposed
office/R&D uses Nvould be less than under Alternative B, similar to the project, compliance Nvith safet-T
procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations Nvould ensure the risks
associated Nvith the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous Nvastes remain less than
significant.
Similar to the project, existing soil at the site Nvould be disturbed during construction phases. Due to soil
conditions at the site, development activities may expose soil Nvith elevated lead and hydrocarbons.
HoNvever, similar to the project, Nvith implementation of mitigation measures and compliance Nvith
existing regulations impacts, due to contaminated soils Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level.
Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools and child care facilities Nvould also remain the
same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than
significant. Further, similar to the project under Alternative B a notification Nvould be required to the
FAA prior to project construction. Upon compliance Nvith FAA requirements, the impacts under
Alternative B Nvould be less than significant; similar to the project.
Hydrology and Water Ouality
Development under Alternative B Nvould intensIA-the site's land uses and increase the site's impermeable
surfaces, Nvhich Nvould potentially increase non-point source pollution to receiving Nvaters. Non-point
source pollutants (NPS) are Nvashed by rainNvater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking
areas into the drainage network. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on Nvildlife,
vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the
quality of potential groundNvater drinking sources. HoNvever,Nvith compliance Nvith the San Francisco Bay
Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit (MRP), the San Mateo County-vide Water Pollution Prevention
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Program SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, the Citv's Standard Development Conditions, and
implementation of the planned bioretention area, possible impacts Nvould be reduced to a less than
significant level, similar to the project.
This alternative Nvould result in similar impacts to impervious surfaces, as those identified for the
proposed project Impacts to groundwater Nvould be minimized under Alternative B in a similar manner to
the project. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundNvater Nvould be less
than significant, and similar to the proposed project.
Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative Nvould involve grading activities. Construction
operations associated Nvith this alternative Nvould present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by
subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. HoNvever, it is
expected that mitigation measures identified for the proposed project also Nvould be implemented for this
alternative in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, development
under Alternative B Nvould not place structures Nvithin a 100-Near flood zone that Nvould impede or
redirect flood flows. Therefore, the impact under Alternative B Nvould be similar to the project and less
than significant.
Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and Nvater quality Nvould be less than significant under
Alternative B, similar to the project.
Noise
Under Alternative B, the project site would be developed Nvith office/R&D, hotel and commercial uses
and the heating,ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings Nvould likely be located
on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project,mitigation measures Nvould reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative B
could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 60 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard and 69 dBA along Veterans
Boulevard, Nvhich meets the satisfactory exterior noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA.
HoNvever, the City Nvould require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise
insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact Nvould be the same as under the
project and less than significant. Under Alternative B, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration
and noise Nvould be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project, due to project phasing Nvhich
Nvould require construction activities in proximity to buildings constructed during previous project phases.
Alternative B Nvould result in loNver square footage of development than the project and Nvould require
feNver employees. Alternative B Nvould reduce noise impacts from traffic due to feNver vehicle trips, but
similar to the project the contribution to the noise increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less). This
impact under the project Nvould be less than significant and Nvould remain the same under Alternative B.
Future cumulative traffic unrelated to the project Nvould increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial
land uses along Airport, Gateway, . Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevard and East Grand Avenue and at
residential land uses along Sister Cities Boulevard. This noise increase Nvould occur Nvith or Nvithout the
project; therefore, Alternative B Nvould not reduce noise impacts in these areas. Although the contribution
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-10
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
to this cumulative increase under Alternative B Nvould be incrementalIv less than under the project, this
impact Nvould remain significant and una>oidable.
Impacts from aircraft noise Nvould be less than significant,the same as under the project.
Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative B, development square footage Nvould be reduced compared to the project. Therefore,
Alternative B Nvould result in feNver employees traveling to and from the site and a decrease in the number
of trips generated under Alternative B as opposed to the project.
Although Alternative B Nvould generate fewer trips, it Nvould not reduce all of the significant and
unavoidable impacts identified for the project to less than significant levels under 2017 or 2035
conditions, as shoN-,n in Table VI-2. Similar to the project, Alternative B Nvould increase traffic volumes
and would result in a significant level of service operational impact at two study intersections under 2035
conditions. Further, similar to the project, Alternative B Nvould increase volumes by more than 1 percent
on the approaches to two intersections under 2035 Nvith development conditions that Nvould already be
experiencing unacceptable 95th percentile queuing.
Similar to the project, under 2035 conditions, impacts to three U.S. 101 off-ramp diverges Nvith the
mainline freeway Nvould remain potentially significant. Although traffic levels Nvould be lower under
Alternative B, they Nvould not be sufficientIv low enough to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts
to two U.S. 101 on-Ramps. Similar to the project, impacts to the U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2035
Nvould be significant and una>oidable.
Alternative B Nvould provide parking at a 2.83/1000 sf ratio and Nvould, similar to the project, meet
Municipal Code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages Nvould be located in a similar area as
proposed for the project, impacts to pedestrian safet-T and vehicular circulation also be less than
significant,the same as the project.
Table VI-2
Alternative B: Transportation Impacts
YEAR IMPACT 0.75 FAR
2017 # 11 Off-Ramp diverge SIT
4.7%up/I%criteria
2035 #14 Intersection LOS SIT
#14a
#14b
#15 95th%Queue SIT
#15a
#15b
#16 Off-Ramp Queue to Mainline SIT
#16a
#16b
#17 Off-Ramp Diverge SIT
#17a
#17b
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-11
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Table VI-2
Alternative B: Transportation Impacts
YEA'R' ' , IMPACT 4 75 FAR
#17c
#18 On-Ramp SIT
#18a
#18b
#19 Freewav Mainline SIT
Key:
SL'=Significantand V'navoidable
Source:Crane Transportation Group
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative B, square footage of development Nvould be reduced, resulting in feNver employees,
reduced office and R&D uses, and less landscaping and hardscaping on the site. Alternative B Nvould have
similar impacts as the proposed project regarding runoff. Since information regarding the City's storm
Nvater drainage capacity on site is not available, Alternative B runoff could have a potentially significant
impact on the capacity of existing storm Nvater infrastructure. By implementing the same mitigation
measures as the project, the impact Nvould be less than significant. The reductions associated Nvith
Alternative B Nvould result in incrementally less demand for Nvater supplies for fire flow, domestic, and
office/R&D uses. Additionally, Alternative B Nvould result in reduced Nvastewater and solid Nvaste
generation due to feNver employees on the site. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under
Alternative B Nvould be incrementally less than the project and Nvould be less than significant.
Relationship ofAlternative B to the Project Objectives
Alternative B Nvould be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and Nvould meet
all of the project's objectives as outlined in Section B above. This alternative Nvould allow for
redevelopment of the project site at a FAR of 0.75 and meet the project objectives of redeveloping the
project site to create a cohesive Nvorking campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment,
encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and alloNving the incremental
and phased development of the site. HoNvever, Alternative B Nvould not reduce the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the project related to construction noise and vibration or traffic.
Alternative C: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.5
Alternative C Nvould allow development of the project site at a FAR of 0.5, assuming a 40/60 split for
office and research and development, resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of building mass
and employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site Nvould be phased and that
total buildout Nvould occur by 2019. Alternative C assumes 174,703 sf of R&D uses; 116,468 sf of office
uses; 126,000 sf of hotel uses; and 20,000 sf of retail uses. Buildout under Alternative C Nvould result in
approximately 935 employees on the project site. Parking Nvould be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per
1,000 sf of office/R&D development, 200 hotel spaces, 100 of which Nvill be shared Nvith office and R&D
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztalMipactReport Page I7-12
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
uses, and 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sf of retail for a total of 1,091 spaces. This alternative Nvould also include
a childcare facility, similar to the proposed project.
Aesthetics
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, Nvith the exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNver
pump located in the northern portion of the site. Under Alternative C, a business park Nvould be developed
on the site Nvith office/R&D, hotel, and commercial uses at a loNver FAR than the proposed project.
Similar to the project, upon completion of construction of all phases, the project Nvould block distant
views of the San Francisco Bav available from ONTster Point Boulevard; hoNvever, the Bav is oniv
minimalIv visible from this view point and the impact Nvould be less than significant. Therefore,no public
views to scenic vistas Nvould be blocked and there Nvould be less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.
Additionally, similar to the project there Nvould be no impact to state scenic highNvays.
Alternative C Nvould result in development of the site at a FAR of 0.50, a loNver density than the project,
Nvhich is planned for a FAR of 1.18. Similar to the project, Alternative C Nvould result in improvements to
the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a
cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Alternative C, like the project, Nvould add cohesiveness to the
East of 101 Area, by completing the proposed development of the area. Although the density and intensity
of development under Alternative C Nvould be loNver, impacts to visual character and light and glare under
Alternative C Nvould be less than significant and the same as under the project. Therefore, impacts under
Alternative C Nvould be the same as under the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the project, Alternative C Nvould involve the development of a vacant site and Nvould implement
the same construction mitigation measures as the project. Although emissions Nvould be loNver under
Alternative C due to loNver intensity of development, construction impacts would be less than significant
and the same under Alternative C as the project. Similar to the project, Alternative C Nvould result in
development of the site, although at a loNver FAR of 0.50, and Nvould result in the same impact regarding
consistenev Nvith BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan.
Alternative C Nvould result in less development on the site and feNver employees and therefore feNver
vehicular trips. Nonetheless, similar to the project, air quality impacts from PM,( emissions under
Alternative C (both project and cumulative) Nvould be less than significant. Reduced development Nvill
reduce the intensity of operational impacts, nonetheless the significance is not substantial and it Nvould
require the same type of mitigation measures as for the project. As such, the impact of buildings VOC
and ROG Nvould be similar to that of the project and less than significant Nvith mitigation.
Impacts from local CO concentrations would be loNver than under the project and less than significant.
Assuming that Alternative C Nvould be constructed in a phased manner similar to the project, mitigation
measures meant to lessen impacts to the childcare facility Nvould be implemented. Therefore, the impacts
from TACs Nvould remain less than significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project,
Alternative C Nvould not create any objectionable odors and Nvould not conflict Nvith the State goals in AB
32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative C, although incrementally loNver, Nvould be the same
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IZ Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-13
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
as under the project. Reduced development Nvould reduce vehicle trips at the site; nonetheless it ma_-lead
to a loNver rate of modal shift. The project site's urban setting as Nvell as the transportation options
available to employees Nvould maintain a level of significance under Alternative C similar to that of the
project.
Cultural Resources
The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the past centun-, including soil
remediation programs, demolition of structures and removal of slab foundations and asphalt roadvmys.
These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to
contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed
project,the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities,including
fossil-bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of
cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures Nvould be
required for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to cultural resources Nvould be
avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative C,
impacts to cultural resources Nvould be the same as under the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Development of the site under Alternative C Nvould result in less development (437,172 sf) than the
proposed project(1,030,344 sf) and Nvould result in feNver employees at the site. Geologic hazards such as
seismic ground shaking Nvould still exist under this alternative. HoNvever, impacts Nvould be reduced due
to feNver employees Nvhich Nvould directly result in feNver people that Nvould be exposed to seismic ground
shaking. Similar to the project,this impact Nvould be less than significant.
Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides Nvould
be loNver under this alternative as the amount of the site area that Nvould be built upon and the size of the
development Nvould be reduced. Nonetheless, similar to the project, differential settlement and soil
Mitigation measures Nvould be required to reduce impacts on soil erosion and structures from development
on unconsolidated soil. Collectively, impacts Nvould be less than significant, and similar to the proposed
project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Development of Alternative C Nvould result in the construction of 291,171 sf of office/R&D uses, Nvhich
depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, may involve research facilities
that Nvould use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Although proposed
office/R&D uses Nvould be loNver under Alternative C, similar to the project, compliance Nvith safet-T
procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations Nvould ensure the risks
associated Nvith the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous Nvastes remain less than
significant.
Similar to the proposed project, existing soil at the site Nvould be disturbed during construction phases.
Due to soil conditions at the site, as discussed in Section IVY Geology and Soils, development activities
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-14
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
may expose soil Nvith elevated lead and hydrocarbons. HoNvever, similar to the project, Nvith
implementation of mitigation measures similar to the project and compliance Nvith existing regulations
impacts due to contaminated soils Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level.
Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools and childcare facilities Nvould also remain the
same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than
significant. Further, similar to the project, under Alternative C, the project applicant would be required to
noti Y the FAA prior to project construction. Upon compliance Nvith FAA requirements the impacts under
Alternative C Nvould be less than significant; similar to the project.
Hydrology and Water Ouality
Development under Alternative C Nvould intensIA- the site's existing land uses and increase the site's
impermeable surfaces, Nvhich Nvould potentially increase non-point source pollution to receiving waters.
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are Nvashed by rainNvater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and
parking areas into the drainage network. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on
Nvildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundNvater and degrade
the quality of potential groundNvater drinking sources. HoNvever, Nvith compliance Nvith MRP, the
SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, the City s Standard Development Conditions, and implementation
of a bioretention area, possible impacts Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the
project.
This alternative Nvould result in similar impacts to impervious surfaces, as those identified for the
proposed project Impacts to groundwater Nvould be minimized under Alternative C in a manner similar to
the project. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundNvater Nvould be less
than significant, and similar to the proposed project.
Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative Nvould involve grading activities. Construction
operations associated Nvith this alternative Nvould present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by
subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. HoNvever, it is
expected that mitigation measures Nvould be identified in order to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Although the amount of development is loNver under Alternative C, impacts Nvith
implementation of mitigation measures impacts Nvould be similar to the project and less than significant.
Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and Nvater quality Nvould be less than significant under
Alternative C, similar to the project.
Noise
Under Alternative C, the project site would be developed Nvith office/R&D, hotel and commercial uses
and the heating,ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings Nvould likely be located
on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project,mitigation measures Nvould reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative C
could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 60 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard and 69 dBA along Veterans
Boulevard, Nvhich is loNver than the satisfactory exterior noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-15
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
dBA. HoNvever, the City Nvould require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and
noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact Nvould be the same as under
the project and less than significant. Under Alternative C, impacts from temporary groundbourne
vibration and noise Nvould be significant and una>oidable even after mitigation, similar to the project,
due to project phasing.
Alternative C Nvould result in lower square footage of development than the project and Nvould require
fewer employees. Alternative C Nvould reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle
trips, but similar to the project the contribution to this increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less). This
impact under the project Nvould be less than significant and Nvould remain the same under Alternative C.
Future cumulative traffic unrelated to the project Nvould increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial
land uses along Airport, Gateway, Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards, and East Grand Avenue and at
residential land uses along Sister Cities Boulevard. This noise increase Nvould occur Nvith or Nvithout the
project; therefore, Alternative C Nvould not reduce noise impacts in these areas. Although the contribution
to this cumulative increase under Alternative C Nvould be incrementalIv less than under the project, this
impact Nvould remain significant and una>oidable.
Impacts from aircraft noise Nvould be less than significant,the same as under the project.
Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative C, development square footage Nvould be reduced from the project. Therefore,
Alternative C Nvould result in fewer employees traveling to and from the site and fewer trips generated
under Alternative C compared to the project.
Although Alternative C Nvould generate fewer trips, it Nvould not reduce all of the significant and
unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level under 2017 and 2035 conditions, as sho��n in Table
VI-3. Similar to the project, Alternative C Nvould increase traffic volumes and result in a significant level
of service operational impact at two study intersections under 2035 Nvith development conditions. Further,
similar to the project, Alternative C Nvould increase volumes by more than 1 percent on the approaches to
two intersections under 2035 Nvith development conditions that Nvould already be experiencing
unacceptable 95th percentile queuing.
Similar to the project, under 2035 conditions, impacts to three U.S. 101 off-ramp diverges Nvith the
mainline freeway Nvould remain potentially significant. Although traffic levels Nvould be lower under
Alternative C, they Nvould not be sufficiently lower to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to
two U.S. 101 on-Ramps. Unlike the project, impacts to U.S. 101 mainline under 2035 Nvould lower than
the project and less than significant.
Alternative C Nvould provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and Nvould, similar to the project, meet code
requirements. Assuming that the parking garages Nvould be located in a similar area to the project,impacts
to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation Nvould be the same under Alternative C as the project and
there Nvould be less than significant.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IZ Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-16
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
Table VI-3
Alternative C: Transportation Impacts
YEAR IMPACT 0.50 FAR
2017 #11 Off-Ramp diverge SIT
4.7%up/I%criteria
2035 #14 Intersection LOS SIT
#14a
#14b
#15 95th%Queue SIT
#15a
#15b
#16 Off-Ramp Queue to Mainline SIT
#16a
#16b
#17 Off-Ramp Diverge SIT
#17a
#17b
#17c
#18 On-Ramp SIT
#18a
#18b
#19 Freewav Mainline LTS
Key:
SL'—Significant and Zbzavoidable
LTS=Less than Significant
Source:Crane Transportation Group, 2013
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative C, square footage of development Nvould be reduced resulting in fewer employees, and
less landscaping and hardscaping on the site. Alternative C Nvould have similar impacts to the proposed
project regarding runoff. Since information regarding the City s storm Nvater drainage capacity on site is
not available, Alternative C runoff could have a potentially significant impact on the capacity of existing
storm Nvater infrastructure. By implementing the same mitigation measures as the project, the impact
Nvould be less than significant. Alternative C Nvould result in reduced uses and fewer employees on the site
than the project and Nvould result in incrementally less demand for Nvater supplies for fire flow, domestic,
and office/R&D uses. Additionally, Alternative C Nvould result in reduced Nvastewater and solid Nvaste
generation due to fewer employees on the site. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under
Alternative B Nvould be incrementally less than the project and Nvould be less than significant.
Relationship ofAlternative C to the Project Objectives
Alternative C Nvould be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and Nvould meet
the project's objectives. This alternative Nvould allow for redevelopment of the project site at a FAR of
0.50, however, Nvith less development space provided on the site. Alternative C Nvould allow
redevelopment of the project site and would meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site
to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IZ Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-17
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and alloNving the incremental and phased
redevelopment of the site. Although Alternative C Nvould lessen one potentially significant traffic impact,
it Nvould not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to construction noise
and vibration or the majorit-,T of the traffic impacts.
F. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives,
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an "environmentally superior" alternative be
selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior
alternative is the alternative that Nvould be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative
selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City.
Table VI-4 summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives when compared to the project.
The table lists the level of significance of the impacts of the project to each environmental topic analyzed
in Chapter IV and shows whether the impacts anticipated under each proposed alternative Nvould be less
than, similar to, or greater than the proposed project. The table compares each alternative in terms of
avoiding or substantially reducing the significant impacts of the project.
Under Alternative A,the No Project Alternative,the site Nvould remain vacant and no development Nvould
occur, and Nvould have the least environmental impacts. HoNvever, CEQA requires that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identIA- an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.6[e][2]). Based on the analysis provided above, it has been determined that Alternative C Nvould be
the environmentally superior alternative, because this alternative Nvould result in the next greatest
reduction in significant project impacts to noise and traffic.
The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either no development on the site, or
reduced FAR of 0.75 or 0.5 on the site. HoNvever, although all of these alternatives Nvould result in some
reduction in employees and vehicle trips to the project site, none of the alternatives Nvould reduce impacts
to a level that Nvould avoid the significant unavoidable impacts to noise and traffic. Therefore, none of the
evaluated alternatives is superior in this regard and, similar to the project, all alternatives Nvould result in
the significant and unavoidable impacts.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7.Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7-18
O pUj N
N
� U
U O
��- U � ° � II II II II II II I II II II II II �
a
Cq � � II II II II II II I II II II II II
U
�y O
U py
.o W Zo
o �
a �
a a a a a
� a
o
I
U U U h O
cn
cn
U -�, U "� -�, ? •� ? O U
'may O b4 O U cn cn
cn U
O � U cn
Z cn
W �L)
'�z
cn
p o o o x p p
cn
p p
o U U U U U ;:� o
cn ILI
W O tia � O � � p O O O
O �
U � Q
0 pUj N
N
U O
a
cq � � II II I I II II II II
U
a � r
�y O
d a l II I I I I I II
.o W Zo
o �
a �
0
o
ti
0 0
IZ74
ti
"
W o o o ZI,o
�Ll
d ZI
eon � ti o o
O
ZJ N p4 O
b4 O -z -z �
ti
Z�- O -'z oS O -Z -'z O ti ° o
cn
c
o �
U � q
O U b
N
U p
a
i,
Cq � � II II II II II II II
U
O
a � r
�y O
� Z a I II I I I II II
o �
a �
0
O
CC O O O U O O O
U O ti
O 0IZI U O O U
O O ILI U_ O
F� -z
WW1 O �O O U pq O
o O o o m o o
ZI, o ILI o
O O
o
U � q
0 pUj N
N
U O
a
Cq � � II II II II II II II II
U
�y O
A" I I I I II
.o W Zo
o �
a �
o
Z�
m U O O ILI
O O �
o ZI, ° o ? o 0 0
O O ti ^O O :'„
o � pq o z o ° ti N ti o �o
o �
U � q
O �
N
U O
a
Cq � � II II II II II II II
U
O
�y O
A" I I I I I I II
.o W Zo
o �
a
p O 'L, Z
t4
ILI
Zil
U °o
o
U � q
O �
N
U O
��- U � ° � II II II II II II II II II II �
a
d' F=•i so, �
Cq � � II II II II II II II II II II
U
�y O
A" I I I I I I I II
.o W Zo
o �
a �
a a a z a
o
p ti ILI 4.
W gyp ' i
zt
a
o o x o x v Oo
o U
o o o 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 o x ?
ZI
O �Ll
'lz o o -,'Z o o
ti ti a ti
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
o Cn o
o �
cn
U � q
N
U O
a
Cq � � II II II II
U
O
�y O
.o W Zo
o �
a
O
rn O
" ILI
ILI
ILI
ZI
� O �
ti
� o
a
ILI
o
U � q
0 pUj M
N
� �
� � �
O
O
O
i,
�'
is
O
i."
i."
i."
_�
bJJ
CL
�.
H
O
�i
U
ti
ti
� �
O � �
U � .�
�a W
� � +„
� ? �
� � � �
� � �
:G' � �
U �N
VII. PREPARERS OF THE SUBSEQUENT EIR
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic Development
Planning Division
Gera*Beaudin,Principal Planner
Billy Gross, Associate Planner
P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083
(650) 877-8535
SUBSUQUENT EIR CONSULTANT
URS Corporation
1333 Broadway, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Jeff Zimmerman,Principal in Charge
Katrina Hardt-Holoch,Project Manager
Florentina Craciun, Deputy Project Manager
Megan Giglim, Environmental Scientist/Planner
Nicole Keeler, Environmental Planner
Ted Lindberg,Principal Acoustical Scientist
Mandy McElroy, Biologist
Jennifer Schulte,Air Quality Specialist
SUBSEQUENT EIR SUBCONSULTANTS
Transportation/Traffic
Marl.D. Crane,P.E.,Principal
Crane Transportation Group
2621 East Windrim Court
Elkgrove, CA 95758
Jia Hao Wu,Ph.D., Vice President
W &S Solutions, LLC
6130 Stoneridge Mall Rd. Suite 105
Pleasanton, CA, US, 94588
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I71. Preparers of the EIR arid Persons Consulted
DraftSubsequerztErzvironnzerztallnzpactReport Page I7I-1
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank
Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7I Preparers of the EIR azd Persons Consulted
SubsequerztDraftErzvironnrerztal Impact Report Page I7I--2
VIII. REFERENCES
GENERAL REFERENCES
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of,'outh San Francisco General Plan.
City of South San Francisco. 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code South San Francisco, California.
Title 20 Zoning, Division III— Specific and Area Plan Districts, Chapter 20.210, Bay West Cove Specific
Plan District. Website: ham://cicode.tis/codes/southsanfrancisco/.
City of South San Francisco. 1994.East of 101 Area Plan.
AESTHETICS
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of Soitth San Francisco General Plan. Open Space and
Conservation Element.
City of South San Francisco. 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code South San Francisco, California.
Title 20 Zoning, Division III— Specific and Area Plan Districts, Chapter 20.210, Bay West Cove Specific
Plan District. Website: htt :�//cicode.tis/codes/southsanfrancisco/. Accessed: March 7, 2013.
Site photographs taken by Katrina Hardt-Holoch of URS Corporation. 2012.
Site photographs taken by Mandy McElroy of URS Corporation. 2013.
AIR QUALITY
BAAQMD 1999. CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-w.baagmd.gov/—/media/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearch/Plans/CEQA%2OGuide/cega_guid
e.asi. December 1999. Accessed: February 2013.
BAAQMD 2006, adopted January 4, 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-w.baagmd.gov/—/media/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearch/Plans/2005%200zone%2OStrateg)-
/adoptedfinal_voll.ashi. Accessed: February 2013.
BAAQMD 2010a, updated May 2010. CEQA: Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-Ns-.baagmd.gov/—/media/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearch/CEQA/Draft BAAQMD CEQA_
Guidelines Mav 2010—Final.ashx'!Ia--en. Accessed: February 2013.
BAAQMD 2010b, adopted September 15, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Website:
http://Ns-Nsw.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx. Accessed:
February 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7II References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznzerztallnzpactReport Page I-III--I
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
BAAQMD 2011, updated May 2011. CEQA: Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
http://N-,-N-,-w.baagmd.gov/—/media/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearch/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20
Guidelines Mav%202011 5 3 l Lashx. Accessed: February 2013.
BAAQMD. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2012. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated June 7, 2012.
Website: http://N-,-N-,-N-,-.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf.
CARB 2013a. Almanac Emission Projection Data. Updated 2009. Website:
http://N-,-N-,-w.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumeat.php. Accessed: February 2013.
CARB 2013b. Monitored Ambient Air Quality Concentrations. Website:
http://N-,-N-,-w.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourl.php. Accessed: February 2013.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006.
Ca1DOT, 2007AADT. Website: http://N-,N-,-N-,.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/. Accessed: October
2008.
Cal/EPA OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 2003.
Cal/EPA OEEHA, Guidance for School Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 901(f), 2004.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 7.3: Air Quality.
Website: http://NN-NN-NN.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/602. Accessed: February 2013.
CTG 2012. Britannia Cove Traffic Studv. December 2012.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007 — The Physical Science Basis,
Summary for Polievinalcers, 2007.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Risk Assessment Guidelines The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments. August.
OEHHA. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation,
Listing of Available Values, and Adjustment to Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures, May.
OEHHA. 2012. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Technical Support Document
for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis. August 2012.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--2
00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A Field Guide
to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. Observation CNDDB observation data for
USGS 7.5 minute quads "San Francisco South," "San Francisco North," "Montara Mountain," and
"Hunters Point."Accessed February 4, 2013.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition,
v8-01a). Accessed February 4, 2013.
Josselvn, M. 2011. Technical Memorandum Summary of Wetland Permitting and Cap Verification.
Wildlife Research Associates, San Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Open Space and
Conservation Element.
Lynn Compass, Researcher II, NorthNvest Information Center, Historical Resources Information System,
Sonoma State University, Letter to Jeff Drier,Wetlands Research Associates, July F8, 1996,incorporated
in "Request to Utilize NationNvide Permit 38, US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District,
Appendix D," by Wetlands Research Associated. 1997. Environmental Impact Report Bay West Cove
Commercial Project, City of South San Francisco.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013.Earthquake and Hazards Information, Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html. Accessed:
March 7, 2013.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Static Shaking Maps for Future Earthquake
Scenarios. 2003. Earthquake Hazard Map for South San Francisco/Brisbane/San Bruno Scenario: South
Havvmrd Segment of the Hayvmrd-Rodgers Creek Fault Svstem. Website:
http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/maps/. Accessed: March 5, 2013.
California Geological Survey. 2010. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps for San Mateo County.
Website: http://N-,-N-,-N-,-.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap maps.htm. Accessed: March 7, 2013.
California Geological Survey. 2003. Shaking Hazard Assessment. Revised 2003. Probabilistic Seismic
Hazards Map. Website: http://redireet.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html. Accessed:
March 5, 2013.
California Geologic Survey (CGS) (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG))
Map. South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map. 1982.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--3
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Citv of South San Francisco. 1999. Citv of South San Francisco General Plan. Health and Safetv Element.
Updated 1999.
Citv of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan.
City of South San Francisco. 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code South San Francisco, California.
Title 20 Zoning, Division III— Specific and Area Plan Districts, Chapter 20.210, Bay West Cove Specific
Plan District. Website: http://gcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/. Accessed: March 7,2013.
Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Geotechnical Consultation for Feasibility Evaluation as Part of an Acquisition
Due Diligence Effort Bay West Cove South San Francisco, California. March 9, 2011.
United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey, San
Mateo County. Website: http://websoilsurveN-.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurveN-.aspx. Accessed: March
7, 2013.
United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Preliminary
Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle,
San Francisco Bav Area, California.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 2007. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture
Forecast (UCERF) Version 2, USGS Open-File Report 2007-1437. Website: htto:/h««v.seec.org/ucerf/.
Accessed: March 7, 2013.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in SRA(State Responsibility Areas). Adopted November 7, 2007. Website:
httr):/h««v.fire.ca.L,ov/fire prevention/fhsz mates sanmateo.plip. Accessed: February 5, 2013.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Unified Program Fact Sheet. March 2012. Website:
http://Ns-Nsw.calepa.ca.gov/cupa/. Accessed: February 12, 2013.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. October 2012.Prepared by:
Ricondo &Associates In association Nvith: Jacobs Consultanev, Clarion Associates. Website:
htto:/h««v.ccat-,.ca.t_,o Oplans reports.html. Accessed: February 7, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. 1994.East(?f101 Area Plan.
San Mateo County Sheriff s Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security. 2011. San Mateo
County "Operational Area"Emergency Operations Plan. January 28, 2011.
Treadwell&Rollo. 2011. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment-The Cove South San Francisco,
California. Prepared for: Project Management Advisors, Inc. South San Francisco, California. March 3,
2011.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page IYff--4
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1995. Earthquake and Hazards Information—Dam
Failure Inundation, Dam Failure Inundation Maps. Website: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/.
Accessed: March 6, 2013.
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California's GroundNvater, Bulletin 118, San Francisco
Bay Hydrologic Region, Visitacion Groundwater Basin (2-32). Update February 27, 2004. Website:
http://N«N-NN.NNater.ca.gov/groundN-,pater/bulletinII8/san francisco_ba-,T.cfm. Accessed: February 12, 2013.
California Emergency Management Agency and County of San Mateo. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map
for Emergency Planning San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay). June 15, 2009. Website:
http://Ns-Nsw.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Pages/Statewide Maps
.aspx. Accessed: February 6, 2013.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region, Water Quality Control
Plan (Basin Plan), Table 2-1. December 31, 2011. Website:
http://N-,-N-,-N-,-.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscoba- basin_planning.shtml. Accessed: February 19, 2013.
California Water Service Company. 2013. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Britannia Cove Oyster
Point Project. March 6, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan. Website: http://ca-
southsanfrancisco.eivieplus.com/index.aspx?NID=366. Accessed: February 5, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code South San Francisco, California
Website: http://ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=220. Accessed: March 6, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. 2009. Standard Development Conditions. January 2009. Website:
http://ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=470. Accessed: February 13, 2013.
Chuck, Dennis: Senior Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco. 2013. Personal Communication via
telephone Nvith Megan Giglim of URS Corporation on February 12, 2013 regarding the absence of a City
storm Nvater master plan and uncertainty about the existing capacities of or runoff flows to the existing
storm Nvater infrastructure.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2013. Mapping Information Platform. Website:
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/Ns-ps/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPN-8xBz9CPOos'gDCN-N
fM_OAYGeLA2cj dwMnN-,-wADKADKR2LKmxrD5f-IrDgfZh 18_WB4HcDTQ9_PIz03 Vj 9SPMsc«-xSL
ABGZKZE5gemJyT pXSBboRBlkmoIgDulWf9/d13/d3/LO1JSklna21DU I EhIS9JRGpBQU 15 QUJFU1cNKR
XFnLzRGR2dzbzBWdnphOU1BOW9JQSEhLzdfMDg TTY3UFNDODBDMkc� QjhQNDAN-,-MDAN-,-M
DAvMOV2RHM4MDA3 MD&s-Nv9zYS52aWV 3ZXIuc3VibW10TWFw/47 082M67PSC80C2GOB8P40
000000. Accessed: February 21, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--5
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Givler, R.W., SoNyers, J.M., and Vorster, P., 2006. Creek & Watershed Map of Daly City & Vicinity.
Oakland Museum of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. Website:
http://museumea.org/creeks/1590-ReseColma.html4. Accessed: February 12, 2013.
San Mateo County. 2013. Assessor Maps Retrieval Svstem. Website:
http://Ns-NyNy.smeare.org/apps/PareelMaps/default.aspx. Accessed: March 6, 2013.
SMCWPPP. 2013. C.3 Storm Water Technical Guidance. Website:
httr):/h««v.flowstobav-.org/bs ne-kv develop nent.phP. Accessed: February 21, 2013.
Sanchez, America. 2013. Associate Engineer, Public Works and Parks Department, San Mateo County.
Phone conversation Nyith Megan Giglim, URS Corporation,regarding the project site's location outside of
anv county flood control districts.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2013. Storm Water Program — Municipal Program. Website:
http://N«-,-N-,-.sN-,reb.ca.gov/N-,pater issues/programs/storm Neater/municipal.shtml. Accessed: February 21,
2013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality
Limited Segments, Category 5, Central Basin, San Francisco (part of SF Bay, LoNyer). Website:
httr)://hN-«--ky.syaterboards.ca.L,ov/-kyater issues/IJroLrams/tmdl/2010state Ir reports/categorv-5 rer)ort.shtinl.
Accessed: February 7,2013.
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information, 2008 Local Climate Data Summaries
for the Western U.S., San Francisco International Airport. Website:
http://N«-,-N-,.N-,ree.dri.edu/summarN-/sfo.ca.html. Accessed: February 1, 2013.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of South San Francisco. 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code South San Francisco, California.
Title 20 Zoning, Division III— Specific and Area Plan Districts, Chapter 20.210, Bay West Cove Specific
Plan District. Website: htt :�//cicode.tis/codes/southsanfraneisco/. Accessed: March 7, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. 1994.East of 101 Area Plan.
City of South San Francisco, 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan, Land Use Element.
City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation. Walking and Biking Map of SSF. Website:
http:/h««y.ssf.net/DoctimentCenter/Home/Viesy/159. Accessed: February 27, 2013.
City of South San Francisco. Planning Division. Revised 2011. Zoning District Map. Website:
httl)://zoninL.ssf.net/zonint-,map.php. Accessed: February 24, 2013.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 1996. San Mateo County Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan. December 1996.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page IYff--6
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
City/Count-,T Association of Governments of San Mateo County RedNyood City, California. 2012.
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International
Airport. July 2012.
Commute.org. South San Francisco-ONTster Point Caltrain - Commute. Website:
«�«v.commute.org/index.r)hp`?option=com content&vie«=article&-id=78&-Itemid=33. Accessed:
February 24, 2013.
NOISE
ANSI (American National Standards Institute) S1.1-1994, Acoustical Terminology, American National
Standards Institute, 1994.
City of South San Francisco General Plan, 2012. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 9.2
Noise Element.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, 2012. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code.
Chapter 8.32.030,Noise Ordinance.
CoNven,Hand Book of Environmental Acoustics,Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1994.
East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. East of 101 Area Plan. Chapter 9 Noise Element.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Report
No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation. May 2006. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-Ny.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise—and—Vibration_Manual.pdf.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Association of Bav Area Governments,Nyebsite: (http:/h««v.aba .ca. ov), 2009.
City of South San Francisco. 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Housing Element. Updated
July 2009.
PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco, Departments, Fire, EMS — ALS. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-Ny.ssf.net/index.aspi?NID=432. Accessed: January 28, 2013.
City of South San Francisco, Departments, Fire, EMS — BLS. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-Ny.ssf.net/index.aspi?NID=433. Accessed January 28,2013.
City of South San Francisco, Departments, Police, The Department. Website:
http://Ns-Ns-Ny.ssf.net/index.aspi?NID=285. Accessed: January 18, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--7
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshall, South San Francisco Fire Department. 2013. Personal communication via e-
mail Nvith Nicole Keeler of URS Corporation on February 22, 2013 regarding service information.
Sergeant Scott Campbell, Planning & Crime Prevention / SWAT., South San Francisco Police
Department. 2013. Personal communication via e-mail Nvith Nicole Keeler of URS Corporation on
January 22, 2013regarding service information.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Table: B01003, Total resident population, 2009-2011
American Communitv Survev 3-Year Estimates. Website:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/produetview.zhtml?pid=ACS_1 15YR_DP03.
Accessed: January 29, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau, People and Households, Commuting (Journey to Work) Main, Data, Daytime
Population. Website: http://Ns-Ns-w.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data/da�-timepop.html. Accessed: January
29, 2013.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Crane Transportation Group. 2013.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Alcel Engineering Group. 2012. City of South San Francisco,East ofHighway 101 Sewer System Master
Plan Update.
Bernardim, Barbara, Recycling Manager, South San Francisco Scavenger Company. 2013. phone
conversation, January 31,2013.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board.2011. San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional
StormNvater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2009-0074,NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, Adopted October 14,
2009, Revised November 28, 2011.
California Water Services Company, Bayshore District, Nvebsite:
https://«-«-w.calsvater.com/your®district/index.php`?district=bay-, accessed Januan- 30, 2013.
California Water Service Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco
District, Adopted June 2011.
Ca1Recvcle, Facility/Site Summary Details: Blue Line MRF and TS (41-AA-0185), Nvebsite:
htti):/h««v.calrecvcle.ca.t-,ov/SWFacilities/Director-v-/41-AA-0185/Detail/, accessed Januan- 30, 2013.
Carollo Engineers. 2002.East ofHighway 101 Sewer System Master Plan
Carollo Engineers for the City of South San Francisco. 2007. Addendum to the City of South San
Francisco East of Highvmy 101 SeNver Master Plan, May 2007.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--8
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
City of South San Francisco. 1994.East(?f101 Area Plan.
City of South San Francisco, Departments, Public Works, Water Quality Control Plant, Basic Treatment
Process,Nvebsite: http://Ns-Ns-w.ssf.net/index.aspi?NID=643, accessed January 31, 2013.
Ken Navarre, Assistant Superintendent, South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. 2013.
Telephone communications Nvith URS Staff Nicole Keeler, February 7, 2013 and March 11 Nvith
Florentina Craciun.
SMCWPPP. 2013. C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance. Available:
http://N-,-N-,-N-,-.floN-,-stoba-,-.org/bs neN-,- development.php . Accessed: February 21, 2013.
California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District,
Adopted June 2011
Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7IL References
Draft SubseguerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--9
00)of South Sari Francisco April 201;
This page intentionally left blank
Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt I7II References
Draft SubseguerztErzvironnrerztallnrpactReport Page I7II--10