Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 Terrabay Phase III Addendum to the SEIR TERRABA Y PHASE III 'I ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 I SUPPLEMENT AL ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR04-0002) SCH: 1997082077 August 20, 2006 TERRABA Y PHASE III ONLY 2006 PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIR August 20, 2006 INTRODUCTION The attached Initial Study (IS) evaluates the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project (2006 Project) environmental impacts and mitigation measures and compares them to the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR). The 2005 SEIR supplements, as permitted by law, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. The 2005 SEIR was prepared for a Terrabay Phase III only application received by the City of South San Francisco in the same year. The 2005 SEIR is tiered upon the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998/99 SEIR). The original Terrabay Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified in 1982 (1982 EIR) and a supplemental to that document was prepared and certified in 1996 (1996 SEIR). 2006 Project Description The 2006 Project is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site. Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,996 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total, as noted above, of 2,052 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of 2.68/1,000 gross square feet and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. The applicant has indicated that the project could be built in two phases and that the child care and performing arts center would be provided in Phase 1. There is the possibility that the project could be built entirely in one phase of construction. The following table breaks down the square footage of each tower. Please note that the 2006 traffic analysis was performed using 25,000 square feet of commercial. Subsequently the commercial square footage was reduced to accommodate a larger performing arts facility as shown in the following table. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17, 2006 Page 1 TABLE 1 2006 TERRABA Y PROJECT I Gross Square Feet I Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11 ,083 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 , 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase II 1,090 spaces PHASE lAND II TOTALS Office 665,028 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and II 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 2,052 spaces Changes in Project Description from 2000 Entitlement The Terrabay Phase III site is currently entitled with an approved Precise and Specific Plan that conforms with the City's General Plan which permits the construction of a 665,000 square foot office building in a single tower, 7,500 square feet of office supporting retail commercial use, a 150-seat performing arts facility shared with the office conference room and a 100-child day care center. The 2006 Project consists of a re-entitlement of existing 665,000 square foot office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers. The 2006 Project also proposes an increase in commercial uses to 24,000 square feet, a 100-child day care center and 200 seat performing arts center shared with office space. BACKGROUND Previous Environmental Analysis The Terrabay project was first envisioned in 1980 and the land was within the County of San Mateo's jurisdiction. The project required annexation to the City of South San Francisco, the formation of a Habitat Conservation Plan and the evaluation of project impacts on the three proposed phases of construction. The phasing is identified as: Phase Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 2 I Village and Park residential, Phase II Woods, Pointe and Commons East and West residential and Phase III commercial. 1982 Environmental Analysis The following table outlines the development proposal analyzed in the 1982 ElR. TABLE 2 1982 TERRABA Y EIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase I Approved 1982 As-Built 2005 161 units 125 units Village 181 Park 136 Phase II Woods 200 Commons East 57 135 units o (Recreation Parcel for City) 182 units (Commons West and Point merged into one area in 2000 referred to as "The Pointe") Commons West 77 Point 99 Commercial Phase III 663,000 Sq. ft. office, 0 health club, restaurants, hotel, seminar and high technology center Alternatives analyzed in the 1982 EIR include: . No project/no development ofthe site. . Mixed use consisting of 745 dwelling units, 200 room hotel inclusive of a 150 seat restaurant/bar, two additional restaurants consisting of 300 seats and 150 seats and a 210,000 square foot office. . 1,036 residential units and a lOA acre shopping center of undefined square footage. . 985 dwelling units including 30% for seniors and 20% for low and moderate income households. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 3 1996 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The 1996 SEIR analyzed the impacts associated with extending the terms of the development agreement for the Terrabay Project. Phase I Terrabay was under construction which includes the Village and Park residential subdivisions, the Terrabay Fire Station, Terrabay Recreation Center, Sister Cities Boulevard (completed), the Terrabay water tank (potable), linear park, grading improvements to Hillside School and construction of South San Francisco Drive. The 1996 SEIR analyzed the un-constructed Terrabay Phases II and III as shown in Table 2, above. The 1996 SEIR noted, but did not analyze the impacts to wetlands present on the Phase III site and noted but did not analyze the impacts to special species habitat and an historic resource (archaeological) on the Phase III lands. 1998/99 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The 1998/99 SEIR was prepared in response to an application form Sunchase, G.A.. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed the following development proposal. TABLE 3 1998/99 SEIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase II Woods Commons Pointe TOTAL PHASE II Phase III Commercial Number of Units/Type of Units or Square Footage 135 single family (detached) 32 duplex (attached) 181 duplex and triplex (attached) 348 units Hotel Restaurant Retail Mixed Use TOTAL PHASE III 235,000-280,000 sq. ft. 12,000-18,000 sq. ft. 6,000-10,000 sq. ft. 30,000-35,000 sq. ft. 283,000-343,000 sq. ft. In response to City of South San Francisco direction the Final 1998/99 SEIR analyzed a "Mitigated Plan Alternative". The Mitigated Plan Alternative concentrated development on three "pads" (avoiding disturbance of a 5,000 year old archaeological site entirely), avoided some wetlands and special species habitat and consisted of the following: . A 4.9 acre development pad with 340,000 square feet of office and a five level parking garage (situated in front of the office tower); . A 1.8 acre development pad with a hotel, 7,500 square foot restaurant or office use and surface parking; and Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 4 . A 2.9 acre development pad with up to a 150 room hotel. The project analyzed would have disturbed approximately 12 acres of the 37 acre phase III site. Additionally the following alternatives were analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. . No Development - Analyzes the impacts of no development on the Terrabay Phase III and II sites. . Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Analyzes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. . Reduced Residential - Analyzes 316 residential units and no commercial. . Reduced Commercial - Analyzes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. . Permanent Open Space - Analyzes the impacts associated with dedicating Phase II and III parcels as permanent open space. The 1998/99 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #97-82077) was certified by South San Francisco City Council Resolution # 19-99. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzes geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services (police and fire) and hazards as well as the wetlands, biological and archaeological resources that were not analyzed previously. 2000 Environmental Analysis In 2000, Myers Development submitted an application to the City requesting entitlements and legislative approvals to develop a 665,000 square foot office in a single tower, 7,500 square feet support retail and 100 child day care center on the Phase III parcel. The application also included a request for a 96 unit condominium tower (later approved for 112 units) and 70 paired units on a portion of the Phase II site. A request for lot line reconfigurations and a change in the land use designation of the "Commons Parcel" to Open Space/Recreation and approximately 26 acres of the Phase III site to Open Space for conveyance to the County of San Mateo. The conveyance to the County stipulates that the land will be incorporated into San Bruno County and State Park. The open space request implemented biological and archaeological mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR given that wetlands, special species habitat and an archaeological resource would be protected in perpetuity with the dedication of the property as permanent open space coupled with its conveyance to the County for inclusion in the Park. Specifically the mitigation measures are: Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 5 . Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 avoidance of take of callippee silverspot butterfly habitat. . Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 avoidance of take of wetlands. . Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-40. . Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-92. The 2000Addendum analyzed the following project and found that an addendum to the 1998/99SEIR was the appropriate environmental documentation. The 2000 Project had fewer impacts that those associated with the project analyzed in 1998/99, as proposed implemented mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SElR and that minor technical changes were all that was needed to the previously certified SEIR (Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Residential Parcel TABLE 4 2000 ADDENDUM LAND USE Open Space Preserve Surface Parking 665,000/ Office (child care and performing arts theatre) 96Condominiuml Apartments 70 single family attached 25,000-30,000 Recreation Center ACRES 25.73 2.69 18.08 PARCEL Preservation Parcel Buffer Parcel Office Parcel 14.96 Recreation Parcel 6048 TOTAL 67.94 PORTION DEVELOP ABLE 35.73 PORTION OPEN SPACE 32.21 2005 Environmental Analysis In 2005 Myers Development submitted an application to the City for a mixed-use development on the Phase III lands only. Phase II was built out in 2005 with a 112-unit condominium tower and 70 paired units. The 2005 Project application requested entitlements for 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 295,500 gross square foot office building and 351 residential units. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) was prepared for the project. The 2005 SEIR analyzed two alternatives intended to build upon the alternatives analyzed in the previous environmental documents. The two alternatives analyzed are: . 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 300-room hotel and 351 residential units. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17, 2006 Page 6 . 357,500 gross square feet of retail and 531 residential units. The 2005 SEIR underwent public review and a response to comments document (draft Final 2005 SEIR) was prepared. Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the document (October 6, 2005) and recommended certification to the City Council on December 1, 2005. The Applicant, prior to the hearing before the City Council, withdrew the application stating that the project was too expensive to build. The above referenced environmental documents and the supporting and background documents and references contained therein are incorporated herein by reference. Changes in Environment since the Preparation of the 1998/99 SEIR Environmental conditions as well as models used to predict project impacts have changed since the preparation of the 1998/99 SElR. The changes include: . Hook ramps and Oyster Point F1yover are constructed and are in operation for 2005 analysis and were not for 1998 analysis. . Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in 2005 SEIR and not 1998 SEIR. . BART is in and included in analysis for 2005 SEIR and not for 1998 SEIR. . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SElR documentation was established as was in and operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes are not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR and are included in the 2005 SElR. . East of 101 cumulative impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR and was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 2005 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1997 . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004 Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17, 2006 Page 7 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Only Specific and Precise Plan Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner 650. 877.8535 4. Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. APN: 007-650-100,007-650-110,007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Myers Development Company 101 Second Street - Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 6. General Plan Designation: Business Commercial 7. Zoning Designation: Terrabay Specific Plan District 8. Description of Project: 2006 Project The 2006 Project is the third and final phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan (most recently amended in 2000),the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 2 The 2006 Project is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site. The following table breaks down the square footage of each tower. Please note that the 2006 traffic analysis was performed using 25,000 square feet of commercial. Subsequently the commercial square footage was reduced to accommodate a larger performing arts facility as shown in the following table. TABLE 1 2006 TERRABAY PROJECT I Gross Square Feet I Net Square Feet PHASEI-SOUTHTOWER Office Commercial Child Care Performing Arts Sub Total Phase I Parking Phase I PHASE II - NORTH TOWER 313,002 11,544 5,000 3,100 332,646 962 spaces 300,482 11,083 5,000 3,100 319,665 Office Commercial Sub Total Phase II Parking Phase II PHASE I AND II TOTALS 352,026 12,465 364,482 1,090 spaces 337,945 11,958 349,903 Office Commercial Child Care Performing Arts Total Phase I and II Total Parking Phase I and II 665,028 24,009 5,000 3,100 697,137 2,052 spaces 638,427 23,041 5,000 3,100 669,568 Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,996 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total, as noted above, of 2,052 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of 2.68/1,000 gross square feet and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. The applicant has indicated that the project could be built in two phases and that the child care and performing arts center would be provided in Phase. There is the possibility that the project could be built entirely in one phase of construction. Environmental Background- Documents Incorporated by Reference The entirety of the Terrabay /Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3 1. In 1982, the Terrabqy Development Prqject Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan. 2. A Supplemental Environmental Impad Report for the Terrabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Specific Plan and Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. In 1998/99, the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment. 4. 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR. 5. 2005 Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final) subject to City certification. These documents and all the background documents referenced and cited therein are incorporated herein by reference. Updated Conditions since 1998/99 SEIR Certification and drafting of2005 SEIR 1. Approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) were dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. 2. The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel". The Buffer Parcel comprises about 2.7 acres, which would be used for a roadway for emergency vehicle access which is a permitted use by the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed re- entitlement of the Phase III site would affect the Development Parcel and the Buffer Parcels only consisting of approximately 20.7 acres of what was once a 47-acre site. Terrabay Phases I and II are completely built out and occupied. 3. A Wetland 11itigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 4 development of the Terrabay Phase III Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (the City's Oyster Point Flyover Transportation Improvement Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the 2006 Project site. As defmed in the "WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site (now the Preservation Parcel). 4. The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued permits to conduct streambed alterations and wetlands take and mitigation. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. 5. The City completed the Oyster Point Interchange including the hook ramp construction in front of the project site. 6. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the review of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer). Project Site Characteristics The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point F1yover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is located west of the Project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: . San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department . California Water Service Company - water main and access easements . State Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Permit . Caltrans - Encroachment Permit Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAlLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be Dotentially affected by the project to a greater extent than that identi5ed and analyzed in the 2005 SIER which is tiered UDon the 1998/99 SEIR. ~ - 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality o Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Hydrology /Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing 0 Recreation 0 T ransporta tion/T raffic 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance o Biological Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources o Public Services o Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. [gj I fmd that the proposed project impacts are equal to or less than the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 1998/99 SEIR and that an Addendum to the existing final SEIR's shall be prepared. This fmding is based upon the requirements of Section 15164, Califlrnia Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 wherein an Addendum may be prepared if some changes or Terrabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 6 additions are necessary to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred. I find that pursuant to Section 15161 there are no: (1) Substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. And that there is no: (3) New information of substantial importance that has become available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant. Signature Date Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner Printed Name Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following evaluates the 2006 Project in comparison to the impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR for the Terrabay Project. The 2005 SEIR augments, enhances and supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SElR and the 1982 EIR as permitted by law where newer information is available and relevant. The 2005 SEIR contains an updated traffic and circulation analysis based on new build out and development assumptions. The 2005 SEIR also updates air quality and noise, aesthetics, hydrology and public services and utilities. The 1998/99 SEIR remains the governing document with respect to issues such as archaeology, biology and geology and soils. Where appropriate and needed these distinctions are identified in the appropriate environmental section. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o o [8J o b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o o o [8J c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? o o [8J o d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o ~ o o Analysis a and c) The 2006 Project would not significantly affect scenic vistas, although the office towers would be highly visible. The San Bruno Mountain County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site. Project development is concentrated at the northern portion of the property. The 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11, 2004, combined with the 2.7 Buffer Parcel, which would only be used for roadways, would maintain unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Airport Boulevard frontage. Additionally 50 percent less of the site would be developed with the 2006 Project than what was proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum (Entitled Project) and the 2005 SEIR. b) The site is not adjacent to a scenic highway. Development would be clustered on approximately eight acres leaving approximately 10 acres ofland on the "Development Parcel" with a clear view of the mountain. The Development Parcel is approximately 18 acres of land where development is permitted which in previous documents has been referred to as the "Office Parcel". The 2.6 acre "Buffer Parcel" would be developed with an emergency access roadway and turn around which would consist of Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Srudy - 8 pervious turf crete paving materials. The "Pointe" area south of the development would be landscaped in order to minimize the scars of previous grading. The 26 acre Preservation Parcel north of the Buffer Parcel would remain in open space. The majority of the rock outcropping on the Development and Buffer Parcels would remain in place. d) The Project would introduce building, pathway and parking lighting that would add light to the project area. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which restricts the use of reflective building materials and requires controlled and downcast lighting to reduce light spillage from the site. The unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR generally addresses the residential development. The Phase III 2006 Project does incorporate the applicable mitigation measure which includes clustering development, maintaining view lines to the Mountain, restricting development generally to the swales and use landscaping for screening and use of open spaces to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 from the 2005 SEIR which addresses night lighting mitigations to protect residential uses on the Phase III site. The 2006 Project does not propose residential land uses. Finding: The 2006 Project slightly reduces lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR as no residential land uses are proposed. There would be no conflict between night lighting and residential uses associated with the 2006 Project as no residentialland uses are proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Additionally, the 2006 Project would be clustered on eight acres as opposed to 20 acres proposed and analyzed in the 2005 SEIR leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potenti>.lly SlgIlificant Impact Potenti>.lly Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agriculrural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agriculrural use? D D D ~ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 9 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D D D ~ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? D D D ~ Analysis a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) The Project site is currendy zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San Francisco 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ~ D D D b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ~ D D D c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 10 emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? cgj o o o d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 o cgj o e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o C2J Analysis a, band c Both the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR found that short term construction impacts associated with dust without mitigation could exceed PMJQ standards. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 1998/99 SEIR which is restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 shall be required of the 2006 Project and would reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 addresses dust and erosion control and is identified by the Bay Area Air Quality District as effective. The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full buildout of Phases I, II and III of Terrabay would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to ozone and PMJQ. The impact is somewhat lessened but is still unavoidable with a Transportation Demand Management (ID11) Program in place. The City adopted a "Finding of Overriding Considerations" with respect to this air quality impact in 1999. The 2005 SEIR also identified this impact as significant and unavoidable. The proposed 2006 Project would result in a reduction in air emissions, given its reduction in scope. A TDM Program which is proposed by the 2006 Project (as well as required by ordinance) is also identified as Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 for the 2005 Project. The TDM Program will serve to reduce the severity of the impact; however, it will not eliminate it all together. Full build out of Terrabay will continue to exceed air quality standards, which will interfere with the region's efforts to reduce exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMJO. Therefore the same finding will need to be re-adopted for the 2006 Project. d) The proposed day care center is a sensitive receptor. The 2005 SEIR performed curbside carbon monoxide modeling on a considerably more vehicle-intense land use (see Traffic and Circulation Section) which was based on a mixed-use project with sensitive receptors on site. The 1998/99 SEIR also conducted carbon monoxide modeling. The analysis contained in both documents found that there would be no significant impacts associated with carbon monoxide. Table 3.2-3 on p 3.2-7 of the 2005 SEIR compares the curbside carbon monoxide concentrations associated with the more intense 2005 Project to the most stringent one- and eight-hour state and federal standards. The concentrations are below the state and federal standards. e) Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial land use activities. The 2006 Project would include office and commercial land uses which as a rule do not generate objectionable odors. All Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 11 restaurant spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that ftlter air before it is released outside of the building as a standard condition of the 2006 Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address dust and soil erosion. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which requires a TDM Program. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR. This mitigation will reduce impacts but not mitigate to a level of insignificance as discussed in the fmding below. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project slightly reduces air quality impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR. However ozone and PMlO would remain a Significant and Unavoidable Impact as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. A Finding of Overriding Considerations will need to be re-adopted by the City Council. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially UnJess Less 111an Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 \ZJ 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 \ZJ 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, 0 filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 \ZJ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 12 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 0 conservation plan? 0 ~ 0 Analysis The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources on the Terrabay site and re-evaluated potential impacts on biological resources. Section 4.3 Biology of the Terrabt!J 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the Terrabcry 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucfyfor North Peninsula Plaza Projed South San Framisco, California (Environmental Collaborative 2005) for the 2005 SEIR scoping. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate biological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. a) The 2006 Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and given the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel and the reduced site disturbance would likely result in slightly less impacts to status species. Occurrences of the larval host plant for the federally-endangered callippe silverspot (Spryeria callippe ''I1llippe) would be avoided based on mapping prepared as part of the 1998/99 SEIR. No other special-status species are suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR would apply (dust control, salvage and transplant of Monardella, posting signs along trails and vista points warning park users against illegal activities) and would require the 2006 Project sponsor to comply with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site, and the additional provisions to further minimize potential impacts on callippe silverspot. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the 2000 General, Precise and Specific Plan amendments, the 2006 Project design and the conveyance of habitat to the County as open space. As a result of the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel containing Johnny jumpup (Viola pedunmlata) to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park no Viola pedunculata would be disturbed. Installation of signage along trails and use of appropriate dust control measures would be required as a standard condition of approval. A dust mitigation measure for Air Quality is identified in the 2005 SEIR and is required of the 2006 Project. The provision of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 for salvage of larval host plants for callippe silverspot would no longer apply as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata) plants would be avoided. However, the proposed Restoration Plan must still be revised to include a Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13 component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardel/a) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot, as called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. b) The 2006 Project has been substantially revised to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site. The northern portion of the Phase III site is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel. These modifications serve to provide compliance with the intent of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which calls for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community types. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(b) and 4.3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR would remain applicable to the 2006 Project, calling for revisions to the Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. c) The 2006 Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4.3- 3( c) with respect to wetlands. (CDFG) and components of the WMP have been implemented such as removal of invasive exotics and regrading of the two northern drainage channels at the Preservation Parcel. A subsequent memo by \VRA in 2004 (WRA 2004) summarizes the status of the enhancement success and expanded wetland acreage adjacent These include the avoidance of most of the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of the previous Phase III site evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR (now identified as the Preservation Parcel) preparation of a detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan to address unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which would be accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and development of the Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site. Necessary agency authorization was secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game to the northern portion of the site. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. The permit authorizations are attached. The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wetland mitigation plan and appropriate re-authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the currently proposed Project. This includes re-securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the Corps and RWQCB before they expire, if necessary. Reauthorization was received from the Corps July 31, 2005 and CDFG on September 22, 2005. This would also include conf1rnlation of the adequacy of the WMP Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 14 in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wetlands affected by the Mandalay Terrace access improvements at Airport Boulevard. The Corps stated that this area does not constitute wetlands in a letter dated February 1, 2006 and that the existing plan is adequate. d) There are no significant impacts on wildlife habitat are anticipated with the 2006 Project which is consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR. e) The 2006 Project would conform to local plans and policies. f) The 2006 Project would conform to the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel would greatly improve habitat values on this portion of the original site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 would ensure that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (July 12, 2006). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1. from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address landscape compatibility, a restoration plan and salvage plan. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR avoidance of habitat has been accomplished by the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel however, dust control and trail sign age are applicable to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR which identifies avoiding wetlands take to the maximum extent feasible which has been accomplished with the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County containing wetlands and enhanced wetlands pursuant to an approved USACE Section 404 permit which mitigates the loss of 0.10 acres of intermittent stream the only take of wetlands associated with the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in additional impacts over what was identified in the 1998/99SEIR on biological resources. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate biological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The majority of the wetlands on the Phase III site have been preserved, the viola has been preserved and wetlands have been enhanced. The requisite United States Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits has been secured by the Applicant. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 ~ d) Disturb any human remains, including those 0 0 ~ 0 interred outside of formal cemeteries? Analysis Section 4.9 Archaeology of the Terrabqy 1998/99Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7.3-3, 7.3-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Pinal Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the 2005 Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005). The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate cultural impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. a) There are no historic resources (as defmed in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) located on the 2006 Project Site. b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the 2006 Project site. CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004. Extensive study of this site has occurred since 1950. Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional integrity and research significance of the site. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is approximately 2.2 acres in size. Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates ranging from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the oldest documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area. The most abundant material present at the site was the remains of marine shellfish. Additional materials included those associated with cultural activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic artifacts and materials. The shellmound also contains human remains. While the number of human burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman & Terrabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 16 Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The 2006 Project would completely avoid CA-SMa-40. The 2006 Project site plan shows the Preservation Parcel which contains CA-SMa-40, which fulfills the provision of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b). The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer Parcel containing about 2.7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and is proposed as further assurance there is no disturbance to CA-SMa-40. Development on the Buffer Parcel is limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk. c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the 2006 Project Site. d) As discussed in Item Sb above, CA-SMa-40 contains Native American burials. The 2006 Project specific plan and site plan would avoid CA-SMa-40. This would implement Mitigation Measure 4.9- 1 (b) identified in the Terrabcry Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIR As a result of the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native American burials is reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR is implemented by the preservation of CA- S:MA-40 on the Preservation Parcel and its conveyance to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park as open space in perpetuity. There is no impact to CA-SMA-92 off the 2006 Project site and on County land as there is no development on the Preservation Parcel and no trails connecting the two historic resources. Therefore Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR is not required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources on the 2006 Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources on the 2006 Project site. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any impacts to archaeological, cultural or historical resources. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate cultural impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. D 0 ~ 0 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ~ 0 ill) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D 0 ~ 0 iv) Landslides? 0 0 [gl 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 ~ 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or 0 collapse? 0 0 ~ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating 0 substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 0 ~ Analysis Section 4.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabcg 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development CURS 2001a). The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 18 inclinometers. The investigation also included 10 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units. The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001b). Additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis are required to fill data gaps and provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the 2006 Project. This work will be required by the City through standard conditions of approval and incorporated into the 2006 Project design and maps. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geology and soils impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon 20 years of field analysis and implementing and monitoring mitigation measures in Terrabay Phase I, identified a list of mitigations for each geological condition facing the site; therefore, minor refmements to the mitigations are all that is required for the 2006 Project. The topography of the Project has been modified as a result of previous quarrying activity. The bedrock type is predominantly Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. a) No known active faults are located within the 2006 Project site or the Terrabay development. Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast. According to the u.s. Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located dose to the 2006 Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west-northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive. A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the 2006 Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the 2006 Project site. Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design: grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; install rock anchors; install subdrains; revegetate slopes; install slope monitoring instrumentation; locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-a and would reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. The 2006 Project will be required by the City to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) which specifies that an annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking be included in the Slope Maintenance Plan. The Slope Maintenance Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19 Plan shall be prepared for the project as specified by Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires that the Project's CC&Rs establish and provide for the implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan and that the Project's Property Owners Association is the responsible party for maintenance. The 2006 Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(a) and 4.1- 4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR will reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the 2006 Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR and the following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design including: place keyways for fills through soft soils; grade flatter slopes with benches, install rock anchors; install subdrains; install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 and would reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level. Stability analyses and geotechnical design recommendations identified in the URS reports (URS 2001a and 2001 b) and required by the City will conftrm the appropriateness of the previously adopted mitigation measures. The surficial soil deposits at the 2006 Project site consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b). Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the 2006 Project site. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on 2006 Project development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR specifies that the Precise Plan for Phase III identify measure to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides that include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. The 2006 Project design incorporates these measures and would thus implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) which would provide for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) and (b) would reduce potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. Grading plans for Phase III propose cutting into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) (see above) would reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. b) While the 2006 Project would result in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high. Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) 4.1-2(b) and 4.1-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require the 2006 Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 20 A - ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads,. This would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. c) The 2006 Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction therefore the risk oflateral spreading is considered very low (URS 2001). The site contains landslides which could adversely affect 2006 Project development. See Item 6a above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls be listed in the Precise Plan for Phase III. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b), which requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association shall establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. This would reduce potential landslide impacts to a less than significant level. d) Future development would primarily be constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which would reduce potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be incorporated into the2006 Project design including: over-excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate settlement; postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction season; monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and place structures on deep pier foundations. The 2006 Project would avoid the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore, two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment". e) The Project would be connected to the city sewer system. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which stipulates that all grading shall be in conformance with the Agreement with Respect to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation also requires state and federal agency permitting prior to grading. The 2006 Project is in compliance with this requirement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which stipulates maximum slope grades, benches and drainage and slope engineering design to insure slope stability and minimize erOSlOn. Terrabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 21 Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Additionally, implementation of this mitigation measure requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Mitigation Measure 4.14 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which required rockslide and rockfall mitigations including such measures as flatter slopes with benches, rock anchors, subdrains, revegetation, slope monitoring instrumentation, sealing off loose rocks, netting and encapsulating rocks, fencing rocks, annual inspection of outcrops prior to the rainy season, slope maintenance plans and implementation of the plans through the CC&R's for the property. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the project which addresses the secondary effects of seismic shaking. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR Artificial fill over CA-SMA-40. No fill would be placed over CA-SMA-40. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR Hook Ramp Mitigations. The City sponsored hook ramp project is complete and the mitigation was incorporated. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geology and soils impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitig>tion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or 0 disposal of hazardous materials? D D D b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of D D 0 hazardous materials into the environment? D Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 22 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 lZJ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 0 lZJ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 ~ 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 ~ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 lZJ g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 lZJ Analysis a) The 2006 Project site is undeveloped vacant land. The site does not contain hazardous or toxic materials (pHASE ONE, rnc 2003). Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials. b) The 2006 Project is office and commercial uses which are land uses not associated with the use or release of hazardous materials into the environment c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0.75 miles from the Project site. See Items 7a and 7b above. d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list (DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962.5. e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site. The General Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use T errabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 23 Plan. The Project site has a height limit of 360 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). f) The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports and would not present a safety hazard for people working at the 2006 Project. g) Development of the 2006 Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. The South San Francisco Fire Department has reviewed the plans and requested the emergency vehicle access and turn around on the buffer parcel. The 2006 project incorporates this request. h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a ''Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit" (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1.from the 1998/99 SEIR Aerially deposited lead applied to the hook ramp project and the requisite field work and analysis was conducted as apart of the City's Oyster Point Flyovr transportation improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2from the 1998/99 SEIR from the Effect of EMF on future residents applied to the Commons neighborhood proposed in the 1998/99 Project. The Commons parcel is not designated open space/recreation. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hazards from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate hazard 1 impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o IZI Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 24 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) 0 0 [2J 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 !3j 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 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? 0 0 [2J 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 [2J 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 !3j 0 g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 [2J h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 ~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as 0 0 ~ a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 ~ 0 Analysis Section 4.2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR is hereby incorporated by reference. Water, wastewater and storm drainage is updated in the 2005 SEIR and discussed herein. a) The 2006 Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A SWPP and compliance with the NPDES C-3 provisions is required as a standard condition of project approval. b) Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 50 percent from the 2000 Project (approved entitlement) as construction would be limited to eight of the 21 acres. Coupled with the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel impervious and disturbed areas on the site have Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25 been reduced approximately 75 percent over that analyzed in the1998/99 SEIR. This would result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the 2006 Project site. c) A portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building area would be filled as a result of the 2006 Project. Mitigation for the fill of this drainage is addressed in the WMP and has been permitted by the USACE, CDFG and RWCCB (as discussed under Biological Resources). As noted the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced which results in a reduction in storm water runoff. Storm water runoff would be collected into a pipe system that would convey storm water to the existing storm drain facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. A debris basin is proposed by the 2006 Project to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. This would fulfill Mitigation Measures 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR which requires a debris basin at the Phase III site. d) The amount of surface runoff from the 2006 Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. The 2006 Project would reduce the potential for flooding at the Project site. See Items 8c, 8g and 8h. e) The 2006 Project would result in a reduction of storm water runoff compared with the all the previous development plans. Project-related storm water runoff was also evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. The City Engineer conducted the analysis required by Mitigation Measure a 3.4-8 from the 2005 SEIR and found that there is adequate capacity for Terrabay Phase III and cumulative development in the existing infrastructure. t) Future site development as a result of the 2006 Project would not degrade water quality. The Project will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) and comply with NPDES C-3 standards as a condition of project approval which will result in implementation of erosion control and other measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality. g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). The 2006 Project would convey storm water runoff into a pipe system that will connect to the storm water facilities located in Airport Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard was mitigation for the development of Terrabay as a whole. These facilities were designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay development as a whole including the 2006 Project. The previous design for Phase III included a system of benched concrete-lined drainage channels conveying surface drainage to a sump inlet with a proposed headwall but without a storm drain link to the adjacent street storm drain system. The 2006 Project eliminates the channels and would convey storm water via a system of pipes that will connect to the City's storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard. The 2006 Project design eliminates the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-4. h) The 2006 Project would not locate any structures within a laO-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect any flood flows. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 26 i) The 2006 Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. See Items 8g and 8h above. j) The 2006 Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR refers to debris basins that are required on the Phase III parcel and does apply to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 from the 19998/99 SEIR storm water and flooding applies to the design of Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2from the 1998/99 SEIR storm water drainage and flooding impact relates to Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 from the 1998/99 SEIRrelates to a storm water impact on the Commons parcel in Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the design analyzed in the 1998 Project (not approved or constructed) analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the completed City sponsored hook ramp project. The project is complete and the mitigations have been implemented. Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to erosion and sedimentation based upon the 1998 project (not approved or constructed) and does not apply to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Woods Project. The mitigation measure is incorporated into the completed project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Commons parcel. The Commons is now the "Recreation and Open space" parcel. The sedimentation basin has been improved and abandoned roads have been re-vegetated. Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Pointe neighborhood which has been constructed and the mitigation measure is implemented. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did re-evaluate storm water/waste water Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 27 and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the 2006 Project and cumulative development. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorponted Impact Impact 9. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 [g1 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 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? 0 0 [g1 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 [g1 Analysis a) The Project is the third and final phase of the development of Terrabay. The 2006 Project would complete this planned community. b) The Project would require minor text amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement pertaining to maximum height, parking and the types of retail land uses permitted. The 2006 Project would add approximately 17,000 square feet more commercial and construct two as opposed to one office tower for a total of 665,000 square feet of office. The 2006 Project would provide 32 moderate-income dwelling units off site which is required by the existing development agreement. The 2006 Project would construct a 100 child day care center and a performing arts facility both required by the development agreement, Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Zoning Ordinance. The 2006 Project would provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan in compliance with Sections of 20.115 and 20.120 of the Municipal Code. c) The 2006 Project would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conseroation Plan. See Section 4 Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required as part of the subdivision applicant procedure. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fire break and exotic weed controL Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 28 Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: There are no land use impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? o o o fZI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? o o o fZI Analysis a) The 2006 Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or state (City of South San Francisco general Plan 1999). b) The 2006 Project site is not delineated as an area oflocally-important mineral resources under the General Plan (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: There are no mineral resources on the Terrabay site and therefore there are no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 rgJ 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? 0 0 rgJ 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 rgJ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 rgJ 0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 rgJ D f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working rgJ in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 0 Analysis a, b, c and d) The dominant source of noise in the Project area is traffic from U.S. 101 and aircraft flyovers from San Francisco International Airport. The 2006 Project fronts Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101 entirely. The 2005 SEIR analyzed noise on a mixed use project that included 24/7 land uses inclusive of noise sensitive residential uses. The 2005 Project also proposed construction and land uses located on the point within approximately 200 feet of residential land uses. The 2006 Project clusters development in the northern portion of the site approximately 900 feet from residential land uses. The 2006 Project does not include residential land uses. Terrabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 30 Temporary- Construction Impacts Pile driving and blasting are not anticipated for 2006 Project construction. Grading, concrete work and pneumatic equipment would be used during construction. Construction activity may on occasion be audible to nearby residential land uses however in all likelihood the majority of construction noise would be muffled by the traffic from the freeway. 2006 Project construction would also be approximately 900 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR would apply to the 2006 Project. The mitigation measures require construction scheduling and limits hours of construction activity, muffling and shielding of equipment, stipulates location of equipment (furthest from residential uses) and equipment idling prohibitions to reduce temporary noise impacts. The mitigations also require "Disturbance Coordinator" which in practice on Terrabay Phase I and II has been entitled a "lvIitigation Monitor". The Monitor ensures that all mitigations are adhered to, inspects the site and reports on compliance to various departments, agencies and officials and has the authority to recommend to the Building Division to red tag construction should mitigations not be in place. Operational and Cumulative Impacts The 2005 SEIR analyzed increases to ambient noise levels based upon a substantially more intense project. The 2005 SEIR found that traffic related to the 2005 Project would increase the ambient noise levels by one db in the year 2020. A one db increase is not perceptible to the human ear and not considered an impact. Typically, a five db is considered a significant impact as identified in the 2005 SEIR. No cumulative noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the 2006 Project. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon measurements and modeling, did not identify an increase in ambient noise levels associated with the 1998 Project and cumulative development. Impacts to Occupants The project site is within a 74 - 78 dBA, CNEL contour. As a matter of law a design level acoustical analysis will be required for the 2006 Project that includes construction measures to reduce interior ambient noise levels for the office and day care uses prior to the City issuance of building permits. e and f) The 2006 Project site is within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The 2006 Project site is not within the current Airport Land Use Commission (CCAG) Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman Chair CCAG ALUC letter dated October 14, 2005). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR relating to temporary constn{{;tion impa..ts. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 31 Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 from the 2005 SEIR requiring disclosure of the location of the airport on CC&R's for the 2006 Project Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 from the 2005 SEIR which requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR to the residential uses proposed in the 2005 Project. Residential land uses are not proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.34 from the 2005 SEIR Pertaining to noise from mechanical equipment. The 2006 Project would not impact residential land uses as none are proposed. The Design Review Board required shielding of mechanical equipment, as does a standard condition of approval. The City's Municipal Code restricts the level of noise generating from mechanical equipment to 55 DBA at the property line. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to noise from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR which did re-evaluate noise. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 o ~ o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 o o ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 o o ~ Analysis a) The 2006 Project would not induce the extension of roads and other infrastructure. The 2006 Project is the third and final phase of Terrabay which is a project that has provided housing, constructed a recreation centerin Phase I and a fire station in Phase I a sound wall, donated open space, paid child care fees and developed project-specific and area-wide and regional infrastructure. b) The 2006 Project site is vacant and would not displace any housing. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 32 c) The 2006 Project site would not displace any people. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. None required. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing nor did the 1998/99 SEIR identify any impacts associated with population and housing. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate population and housing impacts based upon the analysis contained in the initial study for the 2005 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government 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: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? o o o o o Analysis Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [gJ [gJ o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o [gJ [gJ [gJ No Impact o o o o o a) The South San Francisco Fire Marshall, Brian Niswonger evaluated the 2006 Project and found that the mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR apply to the 2006 Project. The :tvlitigation Measure (unnumbered) requires the addition of one fire fighter position to Station 1. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 b) The South San Francisco Police Department evaluated the 2006 Project. Sgt. Alan Normandy found that :Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR would be required for the 2006 Project. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position. Additionally, :Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR would also be required. The mitigation requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and 6re communications. Cumulative development for police and fIre requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police offtcers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) c) The 2005 SEIR analyzed school impacts on a more intense and mixed-use project and found that there would be no impact to schools. The state required school impact fees required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits adequately addressed the more intense land plan. d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (Terrabay Recreation Center). The Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Any impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignifIcant. e) There are no other public facilities affected. See the discussion under Utilities (# 16, below). A PG&E will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the funding of one new police position. Mitigation Measure 4.74 from the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and flre communications on the fIrst building constructed on the Phase III site. Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police offtcers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cumulative development impacts. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 (a), (b) and (c)from the 2005 SEIR which mitigates an more intense project that proposed in 2006 and requires the funding of six police offIcers and three vehicles, crime and safety Terrabay Phase In Project Initial Study - 34 equipment specific to the 2005 Project, and the timing of the funding of the six positions and three vehicles. (please note, the Public Service Mitigation Measures from the 2005 SEIR are numbered 3.10- 1 through 9 on pages 3.4-8 through 3.4-13 and as 3.4- 1 through 9 in the summary table.). Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-2from the 2005 SEIR requiring additional fue positions based upon the 2005 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.10-4 from the 2005 SEIR requiring a radio communications design and study based upon the 2005 Project. Communications issues for the 2006 Project if needed will be a part of the conditions of approval as they were required for the Peninsula Mandalay tower in Phase II. Mitigation Measure 3.10-6 from the 2005 SEIR addressing mitigations for wildland fue which will be included as a condition of project approval. Additionally, pursuant to the Fire Code the fue buffer area has increased from 50 to 100 feet from project structures. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR The 2005 SEIR did evaluate impacts associated with a more intense land plan and both police and fire have indicated that the mitigations identified in the 1998/99 SEIR., 1996 SEIR and 1982 SEIR adequately address the 2006 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels ( 400 acres) as open space. Potentia1ly Significant Potentia1ly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorpora ted Impact Impact 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project 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? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect 0 on the environment? 0 0 ~ Analysis: a) See Item 13d above. b) See Item 13d above. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35 Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR that include: . 153 acres of open space dedication consisting of the remainder lands abutting Phases I, II and III. Phase I and II lands have been restored and have been offered to the County. Phase III will be offered when construction is complete. . Trail access to the Mountain- Completed to the satisfaction of the County in Phase 1. The County has stated in writing that they do not want additional trails. . 2,000 square foot child care center- Completed September 25, 1996 when the City accepted a $700,000 in-lieu payment. . Improvement of Hillside School, grading and soccer fields and outdoor facilities- Completed in 1997 as a part of Phase 1. . Construction of Terrabay Recreation Center- Completed in 1996 as a part of Phase I . Restoration and offer of dedication to the County of the 157-acre Juncus Ravine Parcel- Restoration complete and offered to the County in 2004. . Restoration and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County Phase III - Completed August 2004. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. The 2006 Project proposes, as required by ordinance, the construction of a 100 child day care center. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 36 Significant PotentialJy Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? D [2] D D b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D D I8l 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D D D [8J d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D [2] D 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D 0 I8l 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 I8l 0 Analysis Terrabay project traffic has been analyzed extensively since 1982. More recently updated studies have been conducted by Crane Transportation Group in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2005. The City again requested Crane Transportation Group to analyze the changes in the 2006 Project as compared to the Project and Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 SEIR The 2005 SEIR was used as the baseline because background, environmental and cumulative conditions have changed since the certification of the 1998/99 SEIR. The project analyzed in the 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR is closer to the 2006 Project in magnitude, however, due to the changes noted and re-iterated herein a 2006 Project comparison was made to the 2005 SEIR. A summary of the changes are that the: . U.S.lOl Southbound Hook ramps and the Oyster Point Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover have been constructed and were in operation for the 2005 analysis, but were not for the 1998 analysis. . Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, but not in the 1998 SEIR. . BART extension to South San Francisco and the Airport is in and included in analysis for the 2005 SEIR, but not for the 1998 SEIR. . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut A venue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SEIR documentation was established, but was in and operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes were not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR, but are included in the 2005 SEIR. . East of 101 cumulative impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR, but was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated, using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 37 . The 2005 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1994. . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004. The analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group Guly 31, 2006) for the City is attached to this initial study, incorporated herein and summarized in the following. a and b) The 2006 Project would add approximately 17 inbound + outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 75 inbound + outbound trips in the PM peak hour beyond the currently entitled 2000 Project. The 2006 Project would eliminate three off site impacts and four significant unavoidable impacts associated with the 2005 Project. The 2006 Project off site circulation impacts are all queuing related and all 2006 Project off site circulation impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. The two locations with queuing impacts are: . Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Boulevards: Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 325 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. . The Project Access Driveway and Airport Boulevard: The queuing impact at the main project access intersection with Airport Boulevard can also be mitigated with the 2006 Project, where no mitigation was feasible with the 2005 Project. Mitigations include lengthening the left turn lane on the Airport Boulevard northbound approach to the Project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the left turn lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are 1) striping the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane in conjunction with north-south split phase signalization; or 2) widening Airport Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. An on-site circulation impact and mitigation measure is identified with the 2006 Project, similar to the 2005 SEIR impact. Pedestrian crossings at the first on-site 2006 Project intersection could disrupt traffic flow. A "walk/don't walk" signal for pedestrians is identified as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking impacts, the first intersection on the site shall be monitored after full project completion and occupancy. The monitoring shall be funded through a developer pass-through account. Backups off the project site or driver confusion will result in signalizing the intersection with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access at Airport Boulevard. Additionally, there will be adequate right-of-way area to provide either an exclusive right turn lane and/or an exclusive left turn lane on the inbound driveway approach to the first internal intersection should the results of the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 38 monitoring indicate the necessity to do so. Also, right-of-way will be provided on the outbound driveway approach to Airport Boulevard to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). c) No change in traffic air patterns would result from the 2006 Project. The 2006 Project maximum height pursuant to the FAA is 360 feet above means ea level (as noted in the South San Francisco General Plan). The North Tower is proposed at 360 feet above "mean sea level". d) The 2006 Project site plan was reviewed by police, engineering, fire, planning and the City's traffic consultant. The on-site intersections are designed to be free flowing for traffic inbound to or outbound from the Project garage. Pedestrian walkways are mostly separated from high traffic flow locations. The parking garage proposes underground, well-lighted and appointed pedestrian tunnels separating pedestrian and vehicular movements. e) As a result of tl1e review noted in d, above, the Buffer Parcel will include an emergency vehicle access road and turn around area for fire. Police and Fire comments have been incorporated into the 2006 Project as proposed. f) Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of land use (2.94/1,000 gsf). The existing entitlement is parked at 2.68/1,000 gsf. The 2006 Project is adequately parked as proposed and also includes a Transportation Demand Management Program, as required by ordinance. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Bayshore)requiring a f111ancial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided 8.5 million and this mitigation is completed. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Dubuque) requiring a financial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided 8.5 million and this mitigation measure is completed. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5a and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2010. Mitigation Measure 3.1-9a and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2020. Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Circulation. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 39 Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR Roadway Widths. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Turnaround Sizes. Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Phase II Residential Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Overflow Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1-10 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Commercial Parking Shortfall. Mitigation Measure 4.1.11 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trail Head Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1.12 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Storage Deficiencies Between Intersections. Mitigation Measure 4.1.13 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Mainline (required an override). Mitigation Measure 4.1-14 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Ramps (required an override). Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2010. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2020. Mitigation Measure 3.1-11 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Parking. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to Transportation and Circulation from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project would result in fewer impacts than those identified in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project would still rely on the Statement of the Overriding Considerations adopted in 1999 for the 1998 Project of which the 2000 Addendum relied upon. The impacts that required the Findings of Overriding Considerations are: Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. No significantly new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 40 Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. No significantly new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ~ 0 c) 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? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ) 0 0 ~ 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 ~ 0 Analysis a, b and e) The 2005 SEIR analyzed wastewater impacts on a more intense land use proposal. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the inspection (televising) of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17,2006). c) The existing 48-inch storm drain system in Airport Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The line is stubbed and ready for connection at several points Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 41 along the 2006 Project frontage. The 48-inch line connects to a 60-inch culvert which crosses under u.s. 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete lined channel that discharges to the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the 100-year event. (Corolett, 2005 whom was the City's engineer for the storm drain improvements). Additionally, as a matter of law, the 2006 Project shall comply with the NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permits including the C-3 requirements. d) The Terrabay Project installed a water tank for the Terrabay project as a part of Phase 1. The project also constructed the water distribution system and pump house on the Phase III site. Cal Water has provided the project with a will serve letter (Appendix F of 2005 SEIR) which is based on a more intense land plan. Will serve letters are attached to this Initial Study. f and g) The project will be required as a condition of approval to provide recycling and waste diversion. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 from the SEIRis complete. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact J mp.ct 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California 0 ~ 0 history or prehistory? 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 42 ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 0 o rgj o c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direcdy or indirecdy? o o rgj o Finding The 2006 Project would not result in any increases in identified impacts or new impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR. which supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. The two significant findings relate to air quality and would require a restatement of the Finding of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council February 1999. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 43 REFERENCES Corlett, Adrian. BKF. Email correspondence February 27, 2005. Environmental Collaborative. 2005. Review ojBiological Issues Initial Stuc!Jfor North Peninsula Plaza Prqjet"t South San FrandSi"O, California. March 1, 2005. Holman, Miley. Holman & Associates. Personal communication January 3, 2005. PHASE ONE, Inc. 2003. Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. South San Francisco, California. Prepared for Myers Development. February 24, 2003. City of South San Francisco. 2002. South San Framisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. Adopted October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002. City of South San Francisco. 1999 Terrabqy Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impad fuport. January 1999. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Final Terrabqy Spedftc Plan. October 16, 2000. Prepared by Myers Development Company. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Terrabqy Phase II and III Drqft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. July 1998. City of South San Francisco. 1996. Terrabqy Spedfic Plan and Development Agreement Extension Draft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. January 1996. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1996. Terrabqy Spedftc Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1982. Terrabqy Development Prqjed Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 1982. Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group. URS. 2001a. Geotet'hnical Exploration, Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Framisco, California. February 12, 2001. URS. 2001 b. Report Geoted}nical Design Criteria Terrabcry Phase III Development, South San Fram1'sco, California. March 16,2001. U.S. Geologic Survey. 199. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 - A Summary of Findings, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517. Wetland Research Associates. 2000. Wet/and Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Frandsco, California, COE File Number 23533S. September 2000. Wetland Research Associates. 2004. Letter to Mr. Ed Wylie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21, 2004. ATTACHMENT A USACE Section 404 Permit Extension, July 28, 2006 CDFG Streambed Alteration Permit Extension, September 22,2005 USACE Wetlands Determination, February 1,2006 Crane Transportation Group 2006 Project Traffic Analysis PG&E will serve letter California Water Service will serve letter RCN will serve letter DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105.2197 il JJ g ?Blffi RECEIVED JUL :) 1 2006 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: File Number 258721 S MYERS DEVELOPMENT CO. TIME EXTENSION Mr. Shepherd Heery Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Heery: This letter is written in response to your request dated July 21, 2006 for a time extension of Permit Number 25872S, issued by this office on July 3, 2001 authorizing you to place earthen fill material into 1480 linear feet of intermittent stream channel for the construction of the Terra Bay Phase 3 project located in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. You are hereby granted Department of the Army authorization to extend to July 3,2007 the completion date specified in General Condition No.1 of Department of the Army Permit Number 25872S. If the work authorized is not completed on or before July 3, 2007, this authorization, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. Except for General Condition No.1, all conditions of the original permit remain in full force and effect. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Mark D' Avignon of our Regulatory Branch at 415-977-8507. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch and refer to the File Number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, ~_,1'Y\ - tk~ G-rTraig W. Kiley Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Commanding 2 Copy Furnished: Mr. Tom Fraser WRA Environmental Consultants San Rafael, California CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA , ! STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL COAST REGION (707)944-5520 Mailing Address POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 Street Address 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94558 RECEIVED SEP 23 2005 September 22, 2005 MYERS DEVELOPMENT CO. Mr. S. Shepherd Reery Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Reery:. Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration Notification No. 1600-2005-0339-3 As the Department explained in its letter to you dated July 12, 2005 the Department had until September 9, 2005, to submit a draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement to you or inform you that an agreement is not required. Due to staffing constraints, the Department was unable to meet that date. As a result, by law, you may now complete the project described in your notification without an agreement. In doing so, however, the project must be the same one and conducted in the same manner as described in the notification. That includes completing the project within the proposed term and seasonal work period and implementing all mitigation and avoidance measures to protect fish and wildlife resources specified in the notification. [Fish and Game Code section 1602(a)(4)(D).] If your project differs from the one described in the notification, you may be in violation of Fish and Game Code section 1602. Also, even though you are entitled to complete the project without an agreement, you are still responsible for complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal laws, including, for example, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and Fish and Game Code sections 5650 (water pollution) and 5901 (fish passage). Finally, you must have a copy ofthis letter and your notification with all attachments available at all times at the work site. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dave Johnston, at (831) 475-9065. ~in erely, ".,4' _ "" Lr- !.' be-____ .....-J, r. --..._._. . Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region cc: D. Jolmston Woo. Kavanagh Lt. Kelly ~N~\C)rl ~~A~A~ft DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Jl . L-r. f)E.LL'( NOTIFICATION OF LAKE OR STREAMBED ALTERATION . All fields must be completed unless otherwise indicated. See enclosures for instructions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY it o Tunber Harvesting Plan (No. lJ Water Application (No. tJ Commercial Gravel Extraction (No: o Other Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, SuIte 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 Fax:415-7n-3331 - WRA Business: 415-454-8868 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Fax: 415-454-0129 Business: Fax: Business: Fax: Business: Fax: Three unnamed creeks draining the southeastern slope of San Bruno Mountian. Form F02023 (Effective Janulll)' 12, 2004} NOTIFICATION OF LAKE OR STREAMBED ALTERATION (Continued) Name of Applicant: Myers Development Company See Attachment 1 D Continued on separate page (8) ~ Project Desa:iption E;l Map showing project location, including distances and/or directions from nearest city or town o Notice of Exemption 0 Negative Declaration (;l Draft or Final Environmentallmpact Report o Local. Describe: expect CEOA in Fall 2005 ~ Construction plans and drawings pertaining to the project [J Mitigated Negative Declaration [J Notice of Determination Ii State. Describe: RWQCB. 401 Certification for Terrabay Phase 3; CDFG 8M for Terrabay Phase 3 (expired) UFederal. Describe: Wetland Mitigation Plan (#235335) and ACOE permit (#258728. expo 1 July '06) I hereby celtify that all information contained in this notification is trUe and correct and that I am authorized to sign this document I understand that in the event this jnformation is found to be unlIUe or incorrect, 1 may be subject to civil or criminal prosecution and the Department may collSider this notification to be incomplete and/or cancel any Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement issued pursuant to this notification. I understand that this notification is valid only for the project described herein and that I may be "subject to civil or criminal prosecution for undertaking a project that differs from the one described herein, unless I have notified the Department of that ttroject in accorclance with Fish and Game Code Section 1602. J understand that a Depal'tment represenllllive may need to inspect the property where the project described herein will take place before issuing a Lake or Stnlambed A1len1tion Agreement pursuant to this notification. In the event the Oepartment detennines that a site illSpection is necessary. I hereby authorize the DepBI1melIt to enter the property where the project described herein will take place to inspecllhe property at any reasonable time aild certifY that J am authorized to grant the Department permission to access the property. " o I request the Department to tint contact me at (insert telephone number) to schedule a date and time to enter the property where the projeCt described herein will take place and understand that !his may delay the Deplll1ment's evaluation of !he project described herein. ~1~ Operator or Operator's Representative b -8 -05 Date FomrFG2023 (Effective January 12,2004) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2197 FEB 0 1 2006 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: File Number 29616S Mr. Shepherd Heel)' Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suit 555 San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Hecry: This letter is written in regard to a submittal on your behalf from WRA, Incorporated, dated June 7, 2005, requesting Department of the Alroy (DA) authorization for plans to impact an approximately O.023-acre portion ofa partially constructed mitigation wetland adjacent to the Terrabay Phase III site. This project is located on Bayshore Boulevard, approximately 1200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard, in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. We have detexmined that a modification to your Department ofthe Anny pennit for the construction of Terrabay Phase III, dated July 2, 2001, will not be required at this time. Because your pennit is valid until July 1,2006, the wetland delineation verified by this office in July 1998 is still valid. The 0.023-acre wetland in question was not in existence at that time and is therefore cun'ently not regulated. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional delineations are valid for a period oHive years. If your permit expires before the work has been completed, you will need to re-apply for DA authorization, at which point a current jurisdictional delineation will be required to be verified as the previous one will have expired with the permit authorization. This emergent wetland would likely be found to be a jurisdictional wetland and would require DA authorization for any proposed fill. This determination does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State or local approvals required by law, including compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.). Even though this activity is not prohibited by, or otberwise subject to regulation under Section 404, the take of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA is not authorized. In the absence of a separate authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-lethal takes of protected species are a violation of the ESA. Similarly, the appropriate State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board may still regulate your proposed activity because of impacts to a "water of the State", Therefore, you should also contact appropriate Federal, State 2 and locall'egulatory authorities to determine whether your activity may require other authorizations or permits. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please ca1l Holly Costa of our Regulatory Branch at 415-977-8438. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch and refer to the File Number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, <t-~ -(Y). ~ Jane M. Hicks Chief, Regulatory Branch Copies furnished: US EP A, San Francisco, CA CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA WRA, Incorporated; Attn: Tom Fraser CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 545 Burnett Avenue, #101 San Francisco, CA 94131 (415) 282-9656 phone (415) 821-9837 fax 6220 Bay View Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94806 (510) 236-9375 phone (510) 236-5624fax MEMORANDUM TO: Allison Knapp FROM: Mark D. Crane, P.E. DATE: August 21, 2006 RE: ANALYSIS OF TERRABAY PHASE 3 REVISED PLAN (JUNE 2006) IN RELATION TO CURRENTLY PROPOSED DSEIR PROJECT Allison: Crane Transportation Group has conducted an analysis to determine significant circulation impacts resulting from the Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) which is replacing the currently proposed retail/movie theater/office/residential mix with a development containing 665,000 square feet of office use, a 7,000 square foot quality restaurant and up to 18,000 square feet of specialty retail use. Child care facilities and a 150-seat community theater are also included in this development plan. The newly proposed project's quality restaurant and 5,800 of the 18,000 square feet of specialty retail use are above and beyond the development previously approved for the site, which is considered the Base Case development level. Since about half of the specialty retail uses will be focused on serving proj ect office employees only, the net increase in traffic from the currently proposed plan (in relation to the approved plan) will result from the remaining specialty retail use and the quality restaurant. Table 1 presents resultant AM and PM peak hour gross trip generatio,n from each of the project uses. Due to the mix of development, it is very likely that there will only be minimal internal trip capture between the various activities. Tables 2 and 3 present expected AM and PM peak hour internal trip capture between the various project land uses as well as the resultant net new trips that will travel external to the project site. Table 4 presents the net new traffic that would be expected on the local roadway network due to the proposed project in comparison to the approved project. Overall, the June 2006 proposal would result in an additional ::f:17 (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and an additional ::f:75 (inbound + outbound) trips during the PM peak hour. The increment of net new traffic to be added to the local roadway system due to the proposed project is presented in Figures 1 and 2 for AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Resultant year 2010 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes are presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, while year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes are presented in Figures 5 and 6. All analyses for the currently proposed project were carried out in a manner and using methodologies which were the same as in the August and November 2005 DSEIR and FSEIR studies. The following tables present findings for the currently proposed project. . Intersection Level of Service (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 5 PM Peak Hour - Table 6 . Freeway Operation (2010) AM Peak Hour - Table 7 PM Peak Hour - Table 8 . Freeway Ramp Operation AM Peak Hour (2010 & 2020) - Table 9 PM Peak Hour (2010 & 2020) - Table 10 . Vehicle Queuing at Intersections-50th Percentile (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 11 PM Peak Hour - Table 12 . Vehicle Queuing at Intersections-95th Percentile (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 13 PM Peak Hour - Table 14 EVALUATION OF CHANGES TO SIGNIFICANT CIRCULATION IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR THE PREVIOUS PROJECT PROPOSAL (AS PRESENTED IN THE AUGUST 2005 DSEIR AND NOVEMBER 2005 FSEIR) DUE TO THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT FORMER IMPACT 3.1.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION EXCEEDS 100 TRIPS DURING PM PEAK HOUR . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with the currently proposed project for the PM peak hour and remains less than significant for the AM peak hour. No mitigation required. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 2 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project FORMER IMPACT 3.1.2 YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with currently proposed project. No mitigation required. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.3 YEAR 2010 FREEWAY MAINLINE IMP ACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.4 YEAR 2010 FREEWAY RAMPS IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.5 YEAR 2010 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (50TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with the previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport AM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 10.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport to reduce impact to a 1ess-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 150 feet (to accommodate 50th percentile queue). 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 3 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project FORMER IMPACT 3.1.6 YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport and BayshorelU.S.10l Southbound ramps/Terrabay Access intersections with previous proposal. Impact at one location (Bayshore/U.S.10l Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access) could not be mitigated to a 1ess-than-significant level. . Becomes less than significant with currently proposed project. No mitigation required. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.7 YEAR 2020 FREEWAY MAINLINE IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.8 YEAR 2020 FREEWAY RAMPS IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.9 YEAR 2020 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (50TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a 1ess-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives an 8.6% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport to reduce impact to a less-than-significant level. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 4 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 250 feet (to accommodate 50th percentile queue). FORMER IMPACT 3.1.5b (FROM FSEIR) YEAR 2010 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (95TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersection with previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a 1ess-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport AM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 10.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection to reduce impact to a 1ess-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 250 feet. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.9b (FROM FSEIR) YEAR 2020 VEHICLE QUEUING IMP ACTS (95TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at BayshorelU.S.10l Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with previous proposal. Mitigation was possible to reduce impact at Bayshore/U.S.I01 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access to a 1ess-than-significant level, but not at the other two locations. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection. However, there are no significant impacts at the BayshorelU.S.101 Southbound Ramps or Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections. Also note, that while not significant from a CEQA standpoint, compared to the approved project, the 95th percentile 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 5 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project queue in the left turn lane on the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach would exceed available storage during the AM peak hour. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 6 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives an 8.6% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport to reduce impact to a 1ess-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 325 feet. Mitigation is also possible at the Bayshore/Project Access intersection to reduce the impact of queuing in the northbound left turn lane to a less-than-significant level. . Either: . Lengthen the northbound left turn lane on the Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the length of the left turn lanes on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of vehicle queuing at both locations). --or- . Stripe the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane. In conjunction with this striping, provide split phase signalization for the north and southbound intersection approaches. --or- . Widen Bayshore Boulevard adjacent to the project site and provide a second left turn lane on the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. The project site plan would allow this widening at the sacrifice of landscaping and significant grading. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.10 ON-SITE CIRCULATION . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Remains significant with current plan. Pedestrian crossings at the first intersection internal to site could disrupt the flow of traffic into the site and possibly back vehicles onto Bayshore Boulevard. In addition, stop sign control will only be employed on three of the four approaches at the first intersection internal to the site; the inbound 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 7 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project approach will not be controlled to preclude the possibility of vehicles backing onto Bayshore Boulevard. This could lead to some driver confusion and congestion, particularly during peak inbound or outbound traffic flow periods. In addition, during PM commute conditions, outbound traffic flow may occasionally back up through the first internal intersection. Mitigation is possible to reduce impact to 1ess-than-significant level. . Provide a pedestrian walk/don't walk signal for pedestrians crossing the inbound trave11anes just west of first internal intersection. This will stop pedestrian flow in conjunction with heavy left turn movements from Bayshore Boulevard into the site. . The City shall independently monitor traffic flow through the first intersection internal to the site after full project completion and occupancy. The applicant will fund the monitoring program. If driver confusion is observed resulting from the provision of stop sign control on only three of the four intersection approaches, signalization shall be provided at this location, with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access intersection with Bayshore Boulevard. . Reserve right-of-way along the inbound driveway approach to the first intersection internal to the site in order to provide an exclusive left turn and/or an exclusive right turn deceleration lane if monitoring indicates a need for one or both lanes. These turn lanes will be in addition to the two inbound lanes already proposed. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.11 PROVISION OF ON-SITE PARKING . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with the proposed plan. The 665,000 square feet of development would require 1,783 on-site parking stalls (based upon the Terrabay Specific Plan district office parking requirement of2.68 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of office floor area). A total of:f: 2,055 on-site spaces is being proposed. No mitigation required. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 8 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project r- \2 \ ./6/1M/:I ,r "' I , ..- , ~ .<"1 III Q) ,...... ~ aNti anbnQnQ ~ E ~ ~ \ ~ - lD ....- 0 ~ "OQ. > ~ SE ... lil 2~ ~ (,) Q) ~ €~ Q) ..... ~o ~ 0 ~ "" '==t- .r:! 0- ~ LL ~ -0 0 s:: ~ ;:, .8 ~ ~ CO &5 Q) Q.. :i <t ~ pAIS pO IV '<l" N. ..- ~ ~ .L..... .- ..... ~ ~ ..- -- N. .....(") ~ U1u.1 .,... 0- ~cn Q. \ \... - \ , "0 ::> iii ",- Jl c:s ..... ~. ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~\\ 6 8 ~ N I- , a:: ~ 0 o Q.. g U) a: % ~ ~ ~, lU ~~. ~ ~ 0 i~ J\.. ~i> ~?>0 /?..- ~*,s ....-"- ~~ .~ t '" ~ C"l ~ ~ ~~ :'t . -.J (z j- t~ . -tc m '- II) -";" ~ _C"l .g:: -tc";"j -tcc?_ ~ ~ PAle 8JOl./8 ee '<t - ~. m m ..- I- UII.I 11.I1- .,- Oft) D:: a. .j ~\. ~~~ Ci'l .s & ~ ~ o -tc .. ..- N ..- ;q~ C"l ..- -tc ";" m + .J _C"l II)j ~ t II)-tc ..-- ..- ..- . ;? ~ Ci'l '" .~ G .... Q) ;;; ci) (ON ~l. s:: t .~ s:: ..- ~ ..- ~ ~ .!!! :E ""' ~ ~v.n~:a,\ ~~ o IU .QQ: '€~ ~o 't> s:: ::J o .Q ;S ::J o CI) pille 110 Jill r ""'\ III Q) E :::s - o > ~ N Q) a.. ::::s C) u. - u Q) .... o ... 0. ... :::s o :J: .x: n1 Q) 0. :E 0. "E e! I/) ~ 0) .l9E I/) ~ 0)- ~ 0 '0> (ij~ =~ a.. ro- :) Ql'O ~ c: e ~~ e! 0::: _ 0 (1l ~ Q) C) '5~ ~ Z 0) " Com l- e 1/).0 Q) uE C,) i= 0) 0 Ii: <C c;= ~ 0 0)- N I- "''0 0::: I/) 0) Ci;~ (ij e -S~ ~ a.. a. rn ::l ro e z c: I/) Q) ~ 0.. <C > 0) <0 0::: ..E 0 m 0 0 I- 01- N 0) I/) >. W zi3 '3 z -, <C -tc C') ell 0::: '" 0 (1l .c: ~ 0.. >. (1l .0 e! ~ ~ '- r (z ~ t'l -..... 00 co ~ J. 0 l() '- .... 0 ,... _m t'l l() t'l <4-1 I~ 10 .~ - 10 t'l l() 0 g- ~ ~ pille 8JOl/S ee co J ("') m co In. co ("') 00 - co It) co t'l l- (Jill III... -,- 0(1) a:: A. o co a M ~ ~ .J~L. l() ..... -..... ..... ~- 00 ("')0 co.....l() ~t'lm .J~L. ~J f2- ("') ~. .... +_~l ,t.. ': - f5\ ol() 0 - ~ t'l I .:2 . ffl '.1.1 t l. 1>~t~ ....J - co l() CO ~~~ Q;__ s ~ ~ & .... .S! ~ o -L~ It) _ co .... .'{f ~t~ ml()l() mm~ T""'~~ ~. ,... 'r '\ '00.. !S E o co -co:: .r:~ 'Eo ;<: t'l t'l _0> en III Q) E :s ~ - :s 0 0> :r1) M~Q) Q) CU'- ~ Q) 0 :s a. I.. CJ a. .- :! + LL~Q) o III ,.. CU 00 NQ) I>> CU m ~ a. CO :J CI) 0 ~ U IX: l!? C) ~ (J> ~ Z U5 0 (J> i= () IE c( 0 I- .... N IX: co ~ , 0 ~ N a; a. ~ rJl l. 0 tJ) 0- Z E a a. c( "1i.i <.0 IX: C: a I- 0 .Sl N W .n >- :; Z ~ ..., c( "1i.i (") IX: ::::: G> 0 J: III <II .c ~ a. >- <II .0 !!! :n I- '-- .J Pille 110 I'll r ,r ""\ (z ~ N 0) I/) -a; :g ;-tL:. ._~~ ~ t.. 00 +- ~ 01/)0 - c;; .~ ~~l..~ ~ t I" I LO j ~ 8Alf8n nqna ~ C"l .... t ,. co ~:g:; :g_ 1000 1:: N N ~" "- ~ """"'\ ..... ..- & t- ... .. .... ~ ~ o co to _C"l (l) ~ Q) ~ j C) .- u. I/) Q) ~ E j~ o 0 J:> ~.... ca (.) Q) .~ D.. 0 ~ :ED.. D..+ e Q) 't'" I/) eca NO Q) I/) ca In N ~- ..... C1l o 10 _0 .... N ..... -~ co ~- I/) ..... to C1l ~ I/) -~ 0 10 I/) C"l to I/) .J L. co co ..- 10 .~ ~ PAle 8JOI./SAee (J) ..... ~ ,. ..... j ..- - C"l 0 ..- C1l~ 0) ~. ..- - C"l C"l I/) ~C"l C1l(l)0 ~mgJ .JtL. co +- 0 N .~ .... ~ j ~ t ,. PAle po :J!II ... CJw WI- -,- 20 a. c;;- ~ :g. ~ 1/)C1l0 1/)C1l1O ..- C"l Ii 'I ~ 0.. '" :l "~ II) 0 "'" D: u ! C) .. ~ z "~ I- CI) Q) 0 u i= lE t...... 0 < N N I- co ..... OJ D: ~ 0 .... ~ II) 0 0.. ~ 0- 2 rn c.. Z <0 < 0 D: 0 N I- > W :; ., z ~ C"l < Q) ,gj II) D: <tl (.) 5: .s= c.. ~ > <tl .0 ~ Q; l- '\... j'\... ../ r ""\ (z o ..- U'l g ~ ~ .Jtl. ~~~~ ..-:) ~ o~ N I .. ~ .. ~ 1.1 t l. ~t~ .....j ~CO::. ..- U'l tolil~ 1: N & ..- '- .!!! ~ o ~- (') ~. I- "OQ. 5 E o (\> .ca:: €ll!: ~o In Q) E ~ ... - ~ 0 0> J:.... an~C) Q) ns.~ ... Q) 0 ~ D- ... C) D- .- :E + u-< Q Q) N ~ ~O Q) In ns EO "0 e: => o .c :S => o Ci) 0 CD -L CD 0 0 N - .... N I- U'l ...J U'l .-~ l. - .... (') U'l 0 0 ~ ,. pAle 8JOI.JS ee U'l _ 0 j N .... ..- ..- ~. CD (') .... - co N CD U'l C")~~ ~N~ .J t l. .. lil ~t,. PAle po !v I- CJw WI- -,- OU) D:: a. ~j ~- .... ~. ..- ....U'lo U'll-o ('t)~~ ~ 0- m ;:) '" 0 ~ f 0::: C3 Ql C) '- 3:: .!!! 0 Z I- .~ Ql 0 Ci) () i= Ii: 0 0( N I- ..- m 0::: I- ..- rn 0 .... C") 0 0- t a. U) l. 2 c.. z .~ CD 0( 0 0::: 0 '" N l- e: .!!! > W .n :; ..., Z ~ (') 0( Ql 0::: ~ rn <ll 0 J: .c c.. @>> > <ll .D e:! 0> I- "- J'\... ../ r (z ~ -Lo C") '- g N LO..- "=t ..~ ,II,:g al \.... t ... N -g~t( lDJ as 180le g_ _ CO~C") N .S 00...... & al 'f' .... ..- .l!! ~ o "=t N (]) M~r:: N ~ ~ .J~l. 0 ~ "=t ~ ..- (]) LO .-~ I"- "=t LO C") .- If) If) ..- If) C") (]) al If) ..- N N ~J l. al ..~ ~ ..~ .- al .J l. If) PAle I3JOl/SAef1 (]) N ~ ~ ~J ~ t ~ PAle JlO !V '<t J C") - "=t "=t ..- (])"=t O(])1f) (]) - ..-'"). C")C") :;- (])coco co "=t C") If) I'- If) "-If) :2'"). l- I'- Uw WI- -,- 00 ~ A. \... v .~ .... CiS N (]) N ..- co -LI'- C") ~ l. ~ .g~ t 0 '" N c: co N ~I: Ie ~ 5: ,r " II) Q) E :s ...- :J 0 0> (l) J: u ... .:.:: Q) ... cu.... ... Q) 0 .~ no Ii: LL :E + a. Q) c II) N cu cO N Q) II) cu m Ul Q; ~ I- Q) (.) IE o N , D.. :J o 0::: C) z Q l- e( I- 0::: o D.. en z e( 0::: I- W Z e( 0::: (.) (ij Ul o Co l2 0.. (0 o o N >- :; -, <'> Q) Ul III .t: 0.. >- III .0 !!! Q; I- ~ ~ Table 1 TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT GROSS TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound + Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Office 665,000 11.01 7322 1.231 818 .171 113 .231 153 1.121 745 SQ.FT. --- Community 9,000 40 360 0.72 7 0.48 4 1.8 16 1.8 16 Serving SQ.FT. Specialty Retail Quality 7,000 89.95 630 .49 4 .32 2 5.02 35 2.47 17 Restaurant SQ.FT. TOTAL 8312 829 119 204 778 1 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to city mandated TDM program. Trip Rate Source: Trip Gene,.ation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, or T,.4fic Gene,.atrm by the San Diego Association of Govemments, 2002. Compiled by: Crane Transponation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) Table 2 TERRABAY PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN AM PEAK HOUR COMMUNITY SERVING SPECIALTY RETAIL IN 'OUT 7 Gross Trips 4 INTERNAL CAPTURE Project Office o Stop on Way to Pro;. Office 0 7 Net New Trips 4 IN 4 o QUALITY RESTAURANT I Gross Trips INTERNAL CAPTURE OUT 2 o 4 All Net New Trips 2 OFFICE IN OUT 818 Gross Trips 113 0 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 818 Net New Trips 113 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 829 119 Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) Table 3 TERRABAY PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN PM PEAK HOUR COMMUNITY SERVING SPECIALTY RETAIL QUALITY RESTAURANT IN OUT IN I OUT 16 Gross Trips 16 35 Gross Trips 17 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -1 Project Office -1 -3 Project Office 0 (direct back & forth trips) 0 Community Serving 0 0 Stop on Way Home from 0 Specialty Retail Proj. Office 0 Project Restaurant 0 15 Net New Trips 15 32 All Net New Trips 17 OFFICE IN OUT 153 Gross Trips 745 INTERNAL CAPTURE -1 Community Serving Specialty -1 Retail 0 Project Restaurant -3 152 Net New Trips 741 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 199 773 Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) NET NEW TRlPS ON LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK DUE TO TERRABAY pRASE III PROPOSED OFFICE/RESTAURANT /SPECIAL'fY RETAlL PROJEC1' (IN RELATION TO APPROvED PlIASE 3 DEVELOPM.ENT) JUNE 2006 PLAN 'fable 4 -~ _-pM Peak RoW: 'frips ---~~-- .AM. Peak B.out Trips "'bMmd Ou'b",,,,d 2-'0"11'0'" Inbo"" On,bo...d 2- WilY l' o~al +74 ----------- +1.1 ...6 ...17 +46 +28 --- 5o\ll:ce: Crane Tratlsportauon Group 7/3V06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerraba)' phase 3 Revised Plan (]UIle :2006) TABLE 5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.l0l NB D-36.51 D-38.7 D-40.9 D-40.9 Off-Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque E-59.51 E-59.6 E-64.4 E-64.6 Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-29.41 C-30.2 C-29.2 C-29.4 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signa!) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.l0l SB On- B-14.1I B-14.0 C-21.1 C-23.8 and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Project Access C-24.61 C-23.6 C-20.1 C-20.1 (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-9.61 A-9.6 B-12.3 B-12.3 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 6: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.l0l NB C-23.41 C-23.5 D-46.3 D-46.6 Off-Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque F-136.41 F-137.2 F-268.1 F-268.9 Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-26.71 C-28.8 C-26.0 C-27.8 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- B-19.41 C-26.2 D-44.8 D-47.7 and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Project Access C-21.71 B-19.2 C-20.1 B-1 7.1 (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. B-1 0.41 B-1O.4 B-14.6 B-14.7 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analy.is Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 7: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North of 5B Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9930 F +0.01 % 9931 F Bayshore Blvd./ Oyster: Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (199) (A) (199) (A) Between Oyster Point 5B 7970 D 8860 E +0.01 % 8861 E On Ramp and Grand/ Miller 5B Off-Ramp (SaI] Mateo Origins On!J) (177) (A) (177) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8195 D 9920 E 2 +0.02% 9922 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!J) (7043) (C) (7044) (C) North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D +0.01 % 8721 D On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!J) (6191) (C) (6192) (C) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 8: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North of 5B Off-Ramp 6965 D 7570 D 2 +0.03% 7572 D to Bayshore Blvd'; Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins On!J) (303) (A) (303) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 9435 E -3 -0.03% 9432 E On-Ramp and Grand/ Miller 5B Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (377) (A) (377) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 9355 E 3 +0.03% 9358 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (8045) (D) (8048) (D) North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -1 -0.01% 10,609 F On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (9125) (E) (9124) (E) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 9: EXISTING, YEAR 2010 BASE AND YEAR 2010 BASE CASE + PROJECT, : ~REEWAY RAMP OPERAT~ON, AM AND (PM)] PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existin~ Base Case Base Case + Project Under/ Under/ Under/ Over Over Over D.S.lO! Ramp Capacity2 V olume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity SB Off-Ramp to 1900 300 Under 590 Under 591 Under Bayshore (455) (Under) (590) (Under) (599) (Under) SB On-Ramp 1900 NAJ NA 465 Under 466 Under From Bayshore (930) (Under) (934) (Under) NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 945 Under 946 Under From Oyster [2600]4 (1325) (Under) (2135) (Over) (2137) (Over) 0.1%* Point NB Off-Ramp to 2100 870 Under 2145 Over 2147 Over 0.1 %* Dubuque (545) (Under) (880) (Under) (886) (Under) SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Under 770 Under 770 Under from Dubuque (2600)4 (171 0) (Under) (1855) (Under) (1855) (Under) 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) == PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacitywith two-lane on-ramp. Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 10: EXISTING, YEAR 2020 BASE AND YEAR 2020 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)1 PEAK HOUR Year 2020 Existinl't Base Case Base Case + Project Under/ Under/ Under/ Over Over Over U.S.lO! Ramp Capacity2 V olume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity V olume2 Capacity SB Off-Ramp 1900 300 Under 725 Under 726 Under to Bayshore (455) (Under) (960) (Under) (969) (Under) SB On-Ramp 1900 NA(3) NA 660 Under 661 Under From Bayshore (1155) (Under) (1159) (Under) NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 1230 Under 1231 Under From Oyster [2600](4) (1325) (Under) (2990) (Over) (2992) (Over) 0.1 %* Point NB Off-Ramp 2100 870 Under 2220 Over 2222 Over 0.1 %* to Dubuque (545) (Under) (1200) (Under) (1206) (Under) SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Under 815 Under 815 Under from Dubuque [2600] (4) (1710) (Under) (2098) (Over) (2098) (Over) No change* 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) == PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacitywith two-lane on-ramp. * Percent increase in traffic due to the project. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of TelTabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 11: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 NA 81 87 216 214 NB through 450 NA 47 27 30 79 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 138 130 324 322 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 202 277 327 343 NB through 820 NA 12 19 16 26 SB right turn 230 NA 2 1 32 34 SB through 450 NA 260 251 264 264 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ Ait;port EB left turn 55 29 110 118 189 197 SB left turn 325 154 19 123 145 123 SB through 820 52 9 54 52 41 SB right turn 310 0 0 23 18 12 WB left turn 80 18 62 62 57 57 WB through 255 44 92 92 79 80 WB right turn 255 NA 209 214 167 169 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 116 174 186 264 272 EB through 255 128 401 405 467 471 EB right turn 255 70 28 28 50 50 NB left turn 135 43 257 261 273 275 NB left/ through 255 46 281 283 296 297 NB right turn 210 190 320 320 314 314 Dubuque/tOt Ramps Off-ramp left/through/right (total)* 1600 70 830 834 924 926 SB right turn 255 0 0 0 0 0 SB through 255 13 100 100 187 187 * The term "toral" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the mOst efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total sto~r available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about h the length of the overpass, Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31106 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 12: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left 350 NA 107 113 279 288 NB through 450 NA 113 185 236 273 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 170 170 560 578 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 53 177 48 147 NB through 820 NA 69 57 100 92 SB right turn 230 NA 1 4 0 1 SB through 450 NA 225 222 165 163 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 50 91 168 101 194 SB left turn 325 154 133 135 91 118 SB through 820 115 147 181 113 197 SB right turn 310 100 113 112 80 135 WB left turn 80 33 131 131 133 134 WB through 255 151 347 345 366 365 WB right turn 255 NA 3 17 15 23 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 184 448 476 628 652 EB through 255 67 82 85 88 90 EB right turn 255 124 160 171 202 204 NB left turn 135 155 357 386 437 462 NB left! through 255 166 384 412 468 493 NB right turn 210 31 17 17 21 21 Dubuque/101 Ramps Off-ramp left!through! right (total)* 1600 75 236 252 564 596 SB right turn 255 19 13 13 126 124 SB through 255 13 65 65 131 131 * The term "total" ahplied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, were drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total stomJe available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about ha the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Tmnsportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 13: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps 5B left turn 350 NA 157 196 292 325 NB through 450 NA 47 37 157 118 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 220 330 518 520 Bayshore/Pro;ect Access NB left turn 340 NA 326 334 386 401 NB through 820 NA 27 10 7 4 5B right turn 230 NA 45 72 0 13 5B through 450 NA 311 423 347 372 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 81 177 191 265 278 5B left turn 325 213 101 86 164 180 5B through 820 97 42 24 59 62 5B right turn 310 24 2 1 19 13 WB left turn 80 24 67 67 63 63 WB through 255 41 92 91 80 80 WB right turn 255 NA 199 203 154 155 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 248 338 358 362 374 EB through 255 285 534 538 594 597 EB right turn 255 216 101 99 121 118 NB left turn 135 84 437 442 452 455 NB left/ through 255 89 465 466 478 480 NB righ t turn 210 306 441 441 430 430 Dubuque/l0l Ramps Off-ramp left/through/right (total)* 1600 337 1580 1584 1576 1578 5B right turn 255 5 56 56 53 53 5B through 255 51 240 242 385 387 * The term "total" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. *'" The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total sto~r available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about h the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/3]/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 14: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 NA 233 253 463 472 NB through 450 NA 120 273 342 273 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 296 546 826 994 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 111 232 103 213 NB through 820 NA 103 85 160 90 SB right turn 230 NA 7 11 2 4 SB through 450 NA 276 268 189 243 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 93 180 317 224 342 SB left turn 325 210 156 152 142 151 SB through 820 164 171 197 318 343 SB right turn 310 174 124 72 316 219 WB left turn 80 52 153 151 180 174 WB through 255 205 341 332 330 317 WB right turn 255 NA 5 20 15 23 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 324 660 688 852 878 EB through 255 107 114 117 142 142 EB right turn 255 285 213 306 265 268 NB left turn 135 281 550 581 638 666 NB left/through 255 302 581 612 672 701 NB right turn 210 50 67 32 31 31 Dubuque/t01 Ramps Off-ramp left/through/right (total)* 1600 190 458 494 896 950 SB right turn 255 69 118 115 431 430 SB through 255 41 140 140 228 228 * The term "total" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total storaJe available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about ha the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31106 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) ~ ~~i~ Pacific Gas and Electric Company" 275 Industrial Road San Carlos, CA 94070 August 15, 2006 D) rn @ ~ D \'17 tr-r ill AUG 2 1 2006 .u BIt' enlJlneers REDWOOD CITY Elizabeth Kerbleski BKF Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Ms. Kerbleski: Re: The Mandalay Terrace Sister Cities Blvd & Bayshore Blvd, South San Francisco Gas and electric distribution and service facilities will be extended to and within the referenced project in accordance with the tariffs in effect at the time gas and electric service is required. The California Public Utilities Commission approves our extension and service tariffs. Copies of the tariffs specific to your project are available from this office upon request. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (650) 598-7408. Thank you and have a safe day! Sincerely, ?' ~-4--::z::- Peter A. Siu (for Jerrv Banzet) Twlla Griffith ...,.. .'* -~'-." Connec; to somelhlllg more' C;')I\I\<.~(IIO ~f)'111:'Ihll\\;1 ':1<."'" Design Manager RCN Engineering (650) 212-8123 fax (650) 212-8129 lwila.griffith@rc:n.net 1400 Fashion Island Blvd. Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94404 7/31/2006 0) 212-8000 (650) 212-8009 DJ~~~IlW~ -:t JlJ AUG 04 2006 .:..., IKt ICIIlIlOlerS REDWOOD CITY BKF Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 RE: The Mandci.!ayTerrace Dear Elizabeth, Thank: you for the invitation on behalf of the Myers Development Company to participate in The Mandalay Terrace project. Please let this letter serve as our Will-Serve letter for our phone, internet and cable TV servIces. The provision of these services are contingent upon the completion of the necessary agreement in accordance with RCN rules and regulations. We anticipate that the terms and conditions of the agreement of service to the The Mandalay Terrace project will be further clarified in detail. RCN looks forward to working with and providing services to the The Mandalay Terrace in connection with its service requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me. ~ Twila Griffith Engineering Manager 650-212-8123 650-212-8129 fax Twila. gri ffi th(a)rcn. net 1400 Fashion Island Blvd. . Suite 100 Son Mateo, CA 94404 e CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 341 NORTH DELAWARE STREET. SAN MATEO, CA 9440 J .1727 (650) 343.1808 . FAX 16501 342.6865 BAYSHORE DISTRICT July 13, 2005 Mr. Adrian Corlett, PE BKF 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Re: The Mandalay Terrace, South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Corlett, California Water Service Company is prepared to provide water service to "The Mandalay Terrace" project located adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and the newly constructed Route 101 Hook Ramps in South San Francisco in accordance with all rules and regulations in effect and on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Those rules may be modified from time to time by the commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An extension of our facilities will be necessary to serve this project. The specific water requirements for the proposed site can not be determined until fire department requirements, domestic requirements, and utility plans are submitted to California Water Company. If! can be of further assistance, please call me at (650) 558-7862. Sincere.lY' .. ~ ~. c/~tt~ Leighton Low Construction Superintendent DISTlaCT OFflCESt ANTElOPE VALLEV .. BAKERSfiElD. eAVSHORE .. aEAR GULCH.. CHICO" DIX.ON .. EAST tOS ANGElES .. ~ERN RIVER VAllEY .. KING CITY" LIVERMORE" LOS ALTOS" MARYSVlLlE .. OROVILLE .. RANCHO DOMINGUEZ" REDWOOD VAHEY" SALINAS.. SElMA" STOCKTON.. VJ$Al/A .. WESTlAKE.. WillOWS