Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A_NOP and CommentsAPPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND COMMENTS 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR THE PROPOSED 201 HASKINS WAY PROJECT To: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties From: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The City of South San Francisco (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project identified below. The City will prepare an EIR for the proposed project identified below: Project Title: 201 Haskins Way Project. The project location and a summary of the project description are included on the following page. Current Environmental Review: To ensure that the proposed project is fully analyzed under CEQA, an EIR will be prepared in compliance with Title 14, Section 15161 of the CCR. An Initial Study has not been prepared. The EIR will address all environmental topic areas. Agency/Public Comments: The City requests your comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental review to be conducted for the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earlie st possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The City will accept written comments on this NOP between April 18, 2018 and May 18, 2018. Please send your comments by email to [email protected] or by mail to: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94083, Attention: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner. Scoping Meeting: The Lead Agency will conduct a scoping meeting on May 3, 2018, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the Annex Conference Room, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, at which agencies, organizations, and the public will have an opportunity to submit verbal comment. Please note that verbal comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. EIR Process: Following the close of the NOP comment period, a Draft EIR will be prepared that will consider all environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and take into consideration NOP comments. In accordance with Title 14, Section 15105(a) of the CCR, the Draft EIR will be released for public review and comment for the required 45- day review period. Following the close of the 45-day public review period, the City will prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in making the decision to certify the EIR and to approve or deny the project. Project Location: The proposed project site is part of the City’s “East of 101” planning area, bound by the San Francisco Bay on the east and Highway 101 and railway lines on the west. The project site is comprised of eight parcels encompassing approximately 18 acres of land bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north, Haskins Way to the west, San Francisco Bay to the south, and a recycling center and the Genentech campus to the east (Figure 1). Project Description: The project would rezone seven parcels from Mixed Industrial (MI) district to Business Technology Park (BTP) district and one parcel from Business Commercial (BC) district to BTP district. The project would allow development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 or approximately 677,600 gross square feet (gsf) of new BTP office use, which would be built out in the Phase 1 area and the Phase 2 area. 2 In the Phase 1 area, 336,368 gsf of new BTP office use would be constructed on 201 Haskins Way and 400-450 East Jamie Court. The project would demolish a 24,075-gsf building at 201 Haskins Way which previously contained a light industrial trucking use and construct a new 311,368-gsf office building (201 Haskins Way Building) with a 63-foot-tall, 3-story wing and a 95-foot-tall, 5- story wing, a 700-stall, 5-level parking structure (up to 48 feet in height), and 203 surface parking spaces. At 400-450 East Jamie Court, the project would construct an approximately 25,000-gsf, 2- story addition to the existing western building. Construction in the Phase 1 area would begin in 2019 and occur over approximately 18 months, for anticipated completion in 2021. At this time, no plan-level development in the Phase 2 area is proposed. The proposed rezoning of the parcels in the Phase 2 area would allow the existing uses to continue indefinitely, and would allow redevelopment at 1.0 FAR in accordance with the BTP rezoning. The project rezoning would allow up to 341,232 gsf of new BTP office use on 101 and 151 Haskins Way, 410 and 430 East Grand Avenue, 451 East Jamie Court, and an unaddressed parcel at APN 015-102-290. Five of the parcels contain 5 existing 1- to 2-story light industrial buildings totaling approximately 157,995 gsf that would be removed. A portion of the 451 East Jamie Court parcel and APN 015-102-290 contain a parking lot that would be removed. The EIR will identify a conceptual Phase 2 area development plan that would include construction of a new 256,232-gsf 3- and 5-story office building (East Grand Building) up to 95 feet in height. In addition, the parking garage would be expanded to two parcels east at 451 East Jamie Court (APN 015-102-240) and APN 015-102-290 to accommodate 1,060 stalls, and 243 additional surface parking stalls would be constructed (see Figure 1). It is uncertain when or if such development for the Phase 2 area would occur. To provide a conservative analysis of construction impacts in the EIR, it is assumed that construction in the Phase 2 area would commence in 2021 (immediately after completion of construction in the Phase 1 area) and would occur over an 18-month period. The project would also allow future development potential at 400-450 East Jamie Court based on the remaining balance of FAR-defined square footage after implementation of the planned approximately 25,000-gsf building addition to 400-450 East Jamie Court that would occur in the Phase 1 area. It is assumed that the BTP use developed at 400-450 East Jamie Court would result in up to 85,000 gsf of development, excluding areas defined under Sections 20.040.008 and 20.040.009 of the zoning ordinance. Currently, there is no plan-level development proposed for Phase 2; development of Phase 2 would require subsequent project-level site design. Probable Environmental Impacts: Each of the following CEQA environmental issue areas will be addressed in the EIR: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Minerals and Energy Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Transportation and Traffic. There is reasonable potential that the project may result in environmental effects related to regional air quality, archeological and paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, changes in land use, temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise, retaining acceptable public service levels and utility service systems, and increases in traffic. Date: April 18, 2018 Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner Telephone: (650) 877-8535 Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan From: Randy Dilena <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:41 PM To: Wassum, Ryan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 201 Haskins Way - Environmental Impact Report Importance: High Thank you Ryan I want to call your attention to one mention of “under-capacity” in my letter which I believe could be confusing. To clarify what I meant here, I want you to be aware that the left turn lane located on Westbound East Grand Avenue (shown in green below) cannot handle the number of cars that need to use it to keep traffic flowing well between approximately 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM on many weekdays. Consequently, cars back up in the middle multi-turn (two-way) lane (shown in red below) and sometimes extends over the Allerton intersection with East Grand. There is often a minor back up on Allerton – though it is less pronounced than the backup on East Grand. I cannot see this getting much better with the current and proposed vehicle / employment expansion occurring east of Allerton without something being done to make the turn lane more efficient at the critical time of day (and with a dramatic improvement to the horrific condition of the Littlefield pavement – see two Littlefield pavement photos attached) in order to improve the growing evening commute times. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you. All the best, Randy From: Wassum, Ryan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 2:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 201 Haskins Way - Environmental Impact Report Thanks Randy. I have added your comment letter to the file and have also shared with the EIR consultant. I will seek clarification on your comments and will be in touch. Best, Ryan --- Ryan Wassum | Associate Planner Planning Division | City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue | South San Francisco, CA 94083  (650) 877-8535 | www.ssf.net | Like us! From: Randy Dilena <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 1:44 PM To: Wassum, Ryan <[email protected]> Subject: 201 Haskins Way - Environmental Impact Report Importance: High May 3, 2018 Attention: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 MAPLE ST S SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 [Via Email] Re: 201 Haskins Way - Environmental Impact Report Dear Ryan, Thank you for sending us a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 201 Haskins Way Project dated April 18, 2018. I also want to thank you for providing us a copy of proposed development plans for our review. Due to conflicts in our scheduling, we are unable to attend the proposed Scoping Meeting on May 3, 2018. Instead, we are submitting our comments to you in writing here. I am writing to you on behalf of Dilena Family LLC – the organization that owns what is known as 451 East Jamie Court. This address is comprised of APN 015-102-240 and APN 015-102-290, which has been included in the proposed rezoning areas. The following is a collection of comments we have pertaining to the “scope and content” of the proposed EIR: 1. While in principle we are not opposed to an up-zoning of the subject area from its current zoning to Business Technology Park (BTP), we want to be assured that we will be able to continue to operate our businesses as we have in the past, and that we will be able to maintain and improve our property and existing building in future. 2. Again, while we are not opposed to an up-zoning of the subject area, the proposed development site plan indicates two phases adding alternative structures and uses on the proposed project site. This planning submittal development plan in Phase 2 does not include development alternatives that could occur to each of the parcels not currently owned by the developer. As I understand it, alternative developments could be developed by other existing property owners in the subject area under the BTP district zoning. Am I correct about this, and would an EIR take into consideration the fact that our parcels (APN 015-102-240 and APN 015- 102-290) could be eventually developed differently as separate and individual parcels in compliance with the new proposed BTP up-zoning? While the proposed site plan we have seen takes into consideration a continuation of current uses for all parcels not owned by the developer (under Phase 1), if possible, the EIR should alternatively anticipate all implications of development alternatives for each and every parcel not currently owned by the developer. 3. We currently have a 36.3 Kw rooftop solar power generation system comprised of 2 arrays with 162 Microinverters. When originally installed in 2012, the 36.3 kW rooftop system was (at that time) one of the largest for a company of its kind in South San Francisco. We generate over 100 percent of our electricity from solar power. The inverter units we have connect directly to each solar module to convert DC power into grid-compliant AC power while transmitting valuable performance data on each module to provide more reliable power and the ability to monitor and respond quickly to performance issues. We estimate this system saves our organizations approximately $15,000 in electricity costs annually and contributes to the available power supply in our area. It also reduces the company’s carbon footprint by more than 40 metric tons of CO2 per year. The reason why I mention this is because it is in our plans to expand this system using a new “thin-film” solar power generation system that does not require angled panels to be applied solely to our roof. In fact, these can be attached to almost any external surface of our building that receives sunshine, including walls because of the wider angle of light these new advanced thin film products convert (see http://miasole.com/miasole_solutions/). It appears to us that a building of the proposed height of the 201 Haskins Way Building and the related Parking Garage may (depending on ground elevation) cast a shadow on the rooftop and western walls of our building located at 451 East Jamie Court. Since we do not wish for such the height, bulk and proximity of such a development to negatively impact our ability to currently (and most importantly in the foreseeable future) produce energy using solar power, we ask the EIR consider our continued (and future) ability to produce power using all existing walls and rooftops which could be affected by the height, bulk and proximity of this proposed project? 4. Winds in this area can be quite strong. While we welcome buildings and structures that use, block and/or control the wind effectively, we wonder if the specific siting configuration of the subject buildings (e.g. 201 Haskins Building, Parking Garage Phase 1 and Phase 2, and the East Grand Building) will have a Venturi Effect that could increase the winds on downwind parcels. We are unsure if this is in the scope of this EIR, however, we ask what steps will be taken to be sure the completion of these buildings do not negatively impact (increase) the prevailing winds downwind from the development site? 5. Construction in this area may pose an increase in noise for the surrounding areas. We ask what steps will be taken to dramatically limit and/or reduce construction noise and traffic during the Phase 1 development of the 201 Haskins Way Building and Parking Garage? 6. With the completion on this proposed project, we anticipate vehicle traffic to dramatically increase in the area – making access to roadways and businesses in South San Francisco difficult, especially during morning and evening commute hours. Over the past two decades, traffic volume and traffic patterns have substantially changed – and these changes have increased the difficulty and time required to travel using any type of vehicle (public or private) on East Grand Avenue. One of the biggest problems during evening commute hours is the grossly under- capacity left turn lane on westbound East Grand Avenue at Littlefield Avenue. Dozens of vehicles are often backed up in the middle of the street awaiting the ability to turn left onto Littlefield Avenue from East Grand Avenue. Traffic flow difficulties in this area are also compounded by the poor condition of the roadway surface on Littlefield Avenue - making driving on that road a dangerous hazard for any type of vehicle. Another problem we see with the growth in traffic is the backup that is caused on westbound East Grand Avenue from Littlefield to Highway 101 – some of which (from Forbes to 101) is caused by the new freeway onramp signals that were recently installed to delay cars from entering the freeway. Due to the growth in worker housing being built in San Francisco, we are seeing more cars traveling northbound to cause more traffic issues on East Grand Avenue. We are unsure if this is in the scope of this EIR, but we ask what steps will be taken to dramatically improve the efficient flow of vehicle traffic along roadways (especially Haskins Way, East Grand and Littlefield) funneling vehicles to and from the proposed development? We also wonder how vehicles added by this development might cause additional problems accessing East Grand Avenue from Haskins Way, and how it might cause additional problems accessing northbound 101 from East Grand Avenue during the evening commute hours? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Randy Dilena Dilena Family LLC 201 W SANTA INEZ AVE HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010-6860