HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft EIR Lowe's Project
DRAFT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2031
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
LOWE'S PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
MARCH 2006
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...... ............... ..... ...................... ...................................... ....................... ...... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 EIR Review Process .................................................. ...... ...................................................... .................................... ....... 1-1
1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR...........................................................................................................................1-2
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy........................................................ ................. ..................... ........... 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project. ..................... ....... ......... ............................................................................................................. .... ....... 2-1
2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ .................................................................................. 2-1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................... ...... .............................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Description.................................................... ............ ........................................................................... ............... 3-1
3.3 Required Approvals................................................. ....................... ....................................... ................ ........................... 3-2
4. AIR QUALITY........ ........ .................. .......... ........................................... ............ ....................4-1
4.1 Introduction ....... .......... .................. .............................. .......................... ................... .......... .............. ..... 4-1
4.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Air Quality Data...........................................................................................................................:................................... 4-2
4.4 Impact Analysis............................ ............................................................................................................................. ........ 4-3
5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................ ............................................................ ....... ............. ........... 5-1
5.1 Introduction.. ................................................................................................................. ................................................... 5-1
5.2 Setting..................................................... ........................................................................... ................................................. 5-1
5.3 Impact Analysis............ ............................................................................................ ........................... ..... ....................... 5-12
6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......... ........................................ ..................... .......... ..................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ......................................................... ...................... ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Setting. ..... ...... ... ....... ... ...... .... ...... ........ .......... ............ ........................ .................... ..... .... ........... ......... ........ ....... ... ...... ... ...... 6-2
6.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................ ....................................................... 6-13
7. HYDROLOGy........ ........................ ....... ........................ ................................... .....................7-1
7.1 Introduction. ....................................... ..................... .........................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Setting............................................................................................................. .................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.4 Impact Analysis................................... .............................. ..............................................................................................7 -10
8. LAND USE ..........................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Introduction............................ .................... ......................................... .................................................................. ........... 8-1
8.2 Impact Analysis............................. ...... .................................................... ...... .............. ...................................................... 8-2
9 . NOISE .................... ...................... ....................................... ......... ........ .............................. 9-1
9.1 Introduction ..................................................... ............................................................................................................ ..... 9-1
9.2 Setting................................................................................................................................................................................. 9-4
9.3 Impact Analysis.................................................... .................................... ................................ ......................................... 9-5
10. PUBLIC SERVICES........................ ......................... .......... ..................... ....... .......... ............ 10-1
10.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................... .................................................................................................. 10-2
11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................11-1
11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Setting ...................................................................... ...................................................................................................... 11-2
11.3 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................11-55
12. UTILITIES................ ................. ................ ....... ............... .......... ........ ............................... 12-1
12.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12-1
12.2 Impact Analysis........................... ........... ........................... ............ .... .......................................... ....... ........... ......... ...... 12-3
13. ALTERNATIVES...... .................. ..... ................................. ............................ .......... ........ .... 13-1
13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 13-1
13.2 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................ ............................................................................................ 13-1
13.3 Alternatives Evaluation....... ............................ ................................. ............................................................................ 13-2
14. IMPACT OVERVIEW........ ..... ......... ........... .......... .............. ........... ............ .... ...................... 14-1
14.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant..................14-1
14.2 Impacts Determined not to be Significant................................................................................................................14-1
14.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes...................................................................................................... 14-5
14.4 Growth Inducing Impacts........................................................................................................................................... 14-7
14.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... .................................................. 14-7
15. REFERENCES..... ..................... ................ ...... .................... ......... ............. .... ....... .............. 15-1
15.1 Report Preparers........................................................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 15-1
16. APPENDICES .......................... ........... ................ .................... .............. ............................. 16-1
A: Notice of Preparation and Comments on Notice of Preparation............................................................................... A-I
B: Traffic Tables ..................................................................................................................................................................... B-1
C: Air Quality Model Output, Emissions Procedures and Calculations ......................................................................... C-l
FIGURES
3-1 Project Site and Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3-2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-5
5-1 A Geologic Map................................................................................................... ........ ................... ...................................... 5- 5
5-1 B Geologic Units and Symbols ...........................................................................................................................................5-7
7-1 Colma Creek Flood Control Zones.................................................................................................................................7-3
7 -2 FEMA Flood Zones Map ................................................................................................................................................. 7-7
11-1 Project Vicinity Map........................................................................................................................................................11-3
11-2 Location ofIntersection, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis .............................................................11-7
11-3 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................................................................11-9
11-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ...............................................................................................................................11-11
11-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control................................................................................................11-13
11-6 Year 2006 Geometrics and Intersection Control......................................................................................................11-31
11-7 Year 2020 Geometrics and Intersection Control......................................................................................................11-33
11-8 Year 2006 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes .........................................................................11-39
11-9 Year 2006 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................... 11-41
11-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes .........................................................................11-51
11-11 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes..........................................................................11-53
11-12 Year 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................11-59
11-11 Year 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes........................................................................................11-61
11-14 Year 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................11-63
11-15 Year 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes........................................................................................11-65
TABLES
2-1 Execu tive Summary Table.................................................................................................................. ................ ..............2-2
4-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2001-2003 .........................................................4-3
4-2 Predicted 8-Hour Worse Carbon Monoxide Levels .....................................................................................................4-9
4-3 Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions .......................................................................................................................4-10
5-1 Peak Ground Motions..................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 0
7 -1 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities............................................................................................................. 7 -12
7 -2 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10- Year Design Storm ......................................................... 7 -16
9-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms .........................................................................................................................................9-2
9-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry.............................................................................. 9-3
11-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................11-16
11-2 Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour.............................................................................................................11-17
11-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................11-19
11-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour.............................................................................................................................11-20
11-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation, Peak Hour ........................11-22
11-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation, Peak Hour ........................11-23
11-7 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 50th Percentile Queue, AM Peak Hour................................11-24
11-8 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 50th Percentile Queue, PM Peak Hour ................................11-25
11-9 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 95th Percentile Queue, AM Peak Hour................................11-26
11-10 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 95th Percentile Queue, PM Peak Hour ..............................11-27
11-11 Trip Generation of Approved Development Within East of 101 Area Expected by Year 2006.....................11-35
11-12A Home Depot Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................11-36
11-12B Net Change in Near Term Horizon Trip Generation, Home Depot Minus Existing Use (Levitz) ................11-36
11-12C Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation, Home Depot Minus Office/R&D Uses ......................................11-36
11-13 Terrabay Phase II Trip Generation (Remaining Residential Development, as ofFeb 2005)............................11-37
11-14 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research and Development........................................................................................11-43
11-15A Lowe's Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................11-58
11-15B Net Change in Trip Generation, Lowe's and West Marine Minus Existing Site Uses ......................................11-58
11-15C Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation, Lowe's and West Marine Minus Office/R&D............................11-58
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be
prepared for all projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an
informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "... to
identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a
project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and
impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the
significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed Lowe's Project.
1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS
This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to
evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the
proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified
before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During
the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer
their comments on its evaluation of Project impacts and alternatives. The comments received
during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these
comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will
constitute the EIR for the Project. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR
documents, and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of
the Project and its alternatives.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with property
acquisition, as well as the potential future environmental impacts associated with the Lowe's
Project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant
impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful
when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide
better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the
basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of
their comments.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED fiR
PAGE 1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from March 24, 2006 to May 8, 2006.
Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
Please contact Steve Carlson at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the
Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete,
the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currently
proposed, revise the Project prior to approval, or reject the Project. This determination will be
based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable
consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available.
1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
Following this brief description of the Lowe's Project Focused EIR, the document's ensuing
chapters include the following:
. Chapter 2: Executive Summary
. Chapter 3: Project Description
. Chapter 4: Air Quality
. Chapter 5: Geology and Soils
. Chapter 6: Hazardous Materials
. Chapter 7: Hydrology
. Chapter 8: Land Use
. Chapter 9: Noise
. Chapter 10: Public Services
. Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation
. Chapter 12: Utilities
. Chapter 13: Alternatives
. Chapter 14: Impact Overview
. Chapter 15: References
. Chapter 16: Appendices
In Chapters 4 through 12 existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an
evaluation of potentially significant impacts that may be associated with the Project.
PAGE 1-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project consists of the demolition of three existing site buildings totaling 223,110 square
feet, and the construction of a 124,051 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, a
24,698 square foot Lowe's Garden Center, and a 655-space surface parking lot.
2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing
setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project
implementation. The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and
corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation.
Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a
finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of
the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a
less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 4-1: Implementation of TCMs.
Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan
involves assessing whether Transportation Control
Measures (rCMs) are implemented. The
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven
TCMs (rCM numbers 1,9,12,15,17,19 and 20)
that have Cities and Counties identified among the
implementing agencies. At the Project level, the
City along with the Project applicant would be
required to implement the following TCMs:
TCM #1 Support Voluntary Employer-
Based Trip Reduction Programs
TCM#9 Improve Bicycle Access and
Facilities
TCM#12 Improve
Management
Arterial
Traffic
TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel
The Project does not include specific measures that
are consistent with applicable TCMs identified in
the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Under the General Plan policies, the project would
be required to implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce
Project trips. This would, in turn, reduce air
pollutant emissions. If appropriate TCMs are
included in the TDP plan, then the Project would
be consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and
the impact would be less-than-significant.
PAGE 2-2
Mitigation Measure 4-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The Project will be required
to develop a Transportation Demand Management
(rDM) plan since it would generate more than 100
new vehicle trips per day (approximately 160 new
trips during the AM peak hour and 320 new trips
during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-15B), which is
a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan
shall include the following components so that the
Project would reasonably implement applicable
TCMs:
1. TDM#1 - Support shuttle service to BART.
There are currently shuttles that serve
employers in the area. The Project shall
become a sponsoring employer so that
shuttles would serve the site, providing
employees an alternative mode of
commuting. The Project site is adjacent to
a Caltrain station.
2. TDM#9 - Provide bicycle amenities so that
employees and customers could bicycle to
the Project. Such amenities shall include
safe onsite bicycle access and convenient
storage (bike racks). Amenities for
employees shall include secure bicycle
parking, lockers, and shower facilities.
3. TDM#12 - The Applicant and City shall
work to improve traffic operations at
intersections serving the Project that are
predicted to operate at congested levels.
Such improvements shall include lane
striping, signal timing adjustments, and
additional turn lane capacity.
4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include
sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe
and convenient access to the Project and
any shuttle or future bus stops that serve
the Project (see TDM#1 above).
The Final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review
and approval of the San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's
Chief Planner.
Less than
significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Impact 4-2: Construction Dust. Construction
activity involves a high potential for the emission
of air pollutants. Construction activities would
generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and
equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would affect local air quality. This would be a
potentiallY significant impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect
local air quality, causing a temporary increase in
particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust
emission during periods of construction would
increase particulate concentrations at neighboring
properties. This impact is potentiallY significant, but
normally mitigatible.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
With the implementation of appropriate TCMs,
impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4-2: Dust Suppression
Procedures. The following measures shall be
included in construction contracts to control fugitive
dust emissions during construction.
. Water all active construction areas at least
twice daily.
.
Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
sand or other materials that can be blown
by the wind.
.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and
other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking
areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water
sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD
significance thresholds for construction dust impacts
are based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible
control measures for construction emission of PMIO.
Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction plan that includes measures to
reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the
BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be
subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief
Building Official and City Engineer.
Implementation of construction controls will reduce
air pollutant emissions associated with construction
activities to a level less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
significant
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 5-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a
high probability that the proposed development
would be subjected to strong to violent ground
shaking from an earthquake during its design life.
Strong seismic ground shaking is considered a
potentially significant impact.
PAGE 2-4
Mitigation Measure 5-1a: Compliance with
Uniform Building Code and California Building
Code. Project development shall meet requirements
of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards,
2001 Edition, published by the International
Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by
the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted
by the City of South San Francisco, California.
Incorporation of seismic construction standards
would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of
ground shaking, such as complete structural failure,
but would not completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure 5-1b: Compliance with
recommendations of a Design Level Geotechnical
Report. Proper foundation engineering and
construction in accordance with the recommendations
of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a
Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the
Project.
At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall
incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the
preliminary geotechnical investigation report and
from the California Building Code.
The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final
Geotechnical Engineering Report.
The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review
and approval by the City's Chief Building Official.
Mitigation Measure 5-1c: Obtain a building
permit and complete final design review. The
Project applicant shall obtain a building permit
through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings
and structures shall be completed by a licensed
structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design
criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan
Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable
seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in
the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would
Less than
Significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 5-2. Liquefaction and Ground Surface
Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Study by Consolidated Engineering
Laboratories concluded that potentially liquefiable
soil is present within the upper 15 feet below
ground surface on the northern and southern
margins of the site. Liquefaction of soils could
result in damage to site improvements. A detailed
liquefaction analysis was performed and included
Cone Penetration Test studies to identify zones of
potentially liquefiable soil. The potential for
liquefaction site soils is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Impact 5-3 Unstable Soils and Debris.
Undocumented ftll soils are present on most of the
subject site to depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet
below ground surface (BGS). Buried objects and
Recommended Mitigation Measures
reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground
shaking to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-2a: Compliance with
recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineering report and with Structural Design
Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural
Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and
construction shall be performed in accordance with
the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer.
Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of
the anticipated seismic settlements. The City of South
San Francisco Building Department shall perform
review of the Structural Design Plans. The review
shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer
experienced in structural design or by a Registered
Structural Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
review the Structural Design Plans and provide
approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans.
The design plans shall identify specific mitigation
measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of
surface soils. Mitigations measures may include
excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced
foundation loading, and ground improvement by
methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting.
Mitigation Measure 5-2b: Obtain a building
permit and complete final design review. The
Project applicant shall obtain a building permit
through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings
and structures shall be completed by a licensed
Structural Engineer for adherence to the seismic
design criteria for planned commercial and industrial
sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan,
Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable
seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in
the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 5-3: Investigate unstable
soils and debris. A detailed investigation of the
undocumented fill soils shall be performed to
determine the extent of potentially unstable soils and
debris. Based on results of this study the
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
significant.
Less than
significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-5
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
debris were found during the site investigation. Fill
soils of unknown quality are present in the
proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may
settle due to new building loads. The near surface
soils are also corrosive in nature and may affect
concrete and steel placed in contact with them.
Groundwater is present at shallow depths,
approximately five feet below ground surface, and
could impact excavations such as utility trenches.
Groundwater will also limit the options to mitigate
the undocumented fill. Older Bay Mud is present
under portions of the site and may settle under
design loading conditions resulting in differential
settlement of structures. The presence of unstable
soil and debris is a potentially significant
impact.
Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate
measures to stabilize the unstable soils and debris
present in undocumented fill at the site. Additional
consolidation testing of older Bay Mud soils will be
performed as part of the additional design level
geotechnical investigation.
Methods of soil stabilization may include excavation
of unstable soil and debris, replacement with clean,
engineered reinforced fill, construction of geo-piers to
stabilize zones of unstable soil and debris, and other
methods as recommended by the Geotechnical
Engineer.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable
soils to less than significant.
Impact 5-4: Soil Erosion. The Project would
involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the
San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading
would disturb soil and displace any topsoil that
could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and
would eventually impact Colma Creek and the Bay.
This would be a potentially significant impact
during and following site construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 5-4a: Erosion Control Plan.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the
applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control
Plan to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall
include winterization, dust control, erosion control
and pollution control measures conforming to the
ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control
Plan shall describe the "Best Management Practices"
(BMPs) to be used during and following construction
to control pollution resulting from both storm and
construction water runoff. The Plan shall include but
not be limited to, locations of vehicle and equipment
staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and
planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and
gravel construction entrance areas or other control to
prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into
storm drains.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the
applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City
Engineer.
The City of South San Francisco Department of
Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be
required to inspect the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC
Grading Ordinance and approved plans, and require
that the project applicant immediately correct any
PAGE 2-6
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
violations.
Mitigation Measure 5-4b: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the
Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall flle a
SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The
SWPPP shall include specific best management
practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to
obtain coverage under the General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit,
99-08-DWQ).
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the
applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm
Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than
significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 6-1: Routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed
Lowe's complex, including parking, warehousing,
delivety, and shopping facilities, is designed for
commercial retail. Retail sales items includes many
potentially hazardous products, including paints,
thinners, solvents, preservatives, and large
potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These
items would be routinely delivered to the facility,
transported to and from the site by consumers
(generally in small quantities), and, when not sold
or warehoused, must be transported from the site
for disposal or return to the manufacturer.
Transport would be concentrated along Dubuque
Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk
of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use,
and disposal of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public and environment
is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 6-1a: Hazardous Materials
Business Plan. In accordance with State law and
local regulations, businesses occupying the
development must complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the safe storage and use of
chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type
and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map
showing storage locations of hazardous materials and
where they may be used and transported from, risks
of using these materials (included in material safety
data sheets for each material), a spill prevention plan,
an emergency response plan, employee training
consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency
contact information. Businesses qualify for the
program if they store a hazardous material equal to or
greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Retail establishments, such as Lowe's Home
Improvement Warehouses, are normally required by
law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous
materials. Hazardous materials may include paints,
solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compresses gas
cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels,
lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators
Less than
Significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 6-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials
Release. Mitigations for accidental release of
hazardous materials during construction are
included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) required for the Project under
conditions of the Regional Water Quality Control
PAGE 2-8
Recommended Mitigation Measures
and other mechanical equipment, as well as any other
chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, and other
regulators. Lowe's is also responsible for reporting
"off spec" materials. These are materials that were
not sold and are not able to be returned to the
manufacturer. Lowe's is responsible for the safe
disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally
reported and included in the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the
proposed development must submit a business plan
prior to the start of operations, and must review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every
two years, or within 30 days of any significant change.
Some of these changes are new emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in
hazardous materials storage and/or changes in
location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Business Plan Program. The San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD) shall inspect the business annually to
make sure that the Business Plan is complete and
accurate. Prior to the final inspection, the applicant
shall provide a copy of the County approved HMBP
to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation Measure 6-1b: Compliance with U.S.
Department of Transportation, State of California
and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for
transportation of hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste to and from the site
would be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOl), State of California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local
laws, ordinances and procedures including placards,
signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure 6-2a: Demolition Plan and
Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or
structures, the applicant shall prepare a Demolition
Plan and obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of
South San Francisco Building Division. The
Demolition Plan shall include measures ensuring safe
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
Board Construction Stormwater Program. This is
discussed in greater detail under the Hydrology
Section of this environmental impact report. The
required SWPPP includes implementation of best
management practices for preventing the discharge
of construction-related pollutants such as diesel
fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, and concrete into the
environment. However, the SWPPP is unlikely to
address mitigation for the accidental release of
hazardous materials during demolition of the
existing facilities. Hazardous materials to be
encountered include asbestos containing building
materials, and possible lead based paint.
Demolition presents a primary hazard to workers
through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and
ingestion of hazardous materials. Following the
completion of construction; warehousing,
transport, and vending operations at the proposed
facilities are expected to represent a continuing
threat to the environment through accidental
release of potentially hazardous materials. The
greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm
drain system. These hazards are a potentially
significant impact.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
demolition of existing buildings and structures. The
Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust
and incorporate site surveys for the presence of
potentially hazardous building materials. The
Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker
protection and off-site resident and worker protection
from both chemical and physical hazards. All
contaminated building materials are required to be
tested for contaminant concentrations, and are
required to be disposed of at licensed landf1J1 facilities.
Prior to building demolition, hazardous building
materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead
based paint and asbestos containing building materials
are required be removed in accordance with all State
and local laws, regulations, and guidelines. The
Demolition Plan shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the Plan.
Prior to obtaining a Demolition Permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
and the City of South San Francisco, an asbestos
demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11,
Rule 2.
For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint,
the requirements of Title 8, California Code of
Regulations, Section 1532.1 (f8 CCR 1532.1) must be
followed. These requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
.
Loose and peeling lead-containing paint
should be removed prior to building
demolition. Workers conducting removal
of lead paint must receive training In
accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
.
Lead-containing paint removal shall be
designed by a DHS-certified lead designer,
project monitor or supervisor.
.
Preparation of a written Lead Compliance
Plan that meets the requirements of the
lead construction standard by any
contractor that impacts leads coatings.
.
Workers conducting removal of lead paint
must be certified by DHS in accordance
with T8 CCR 1532.1.
.
Workers that may be exposed above the
PAGE 2-9
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Action Level must have blood lead levels
tested prior to commencement of lead work
and at least quarterly thereafter for the
duration of the Project. Workers that are
terminated from the Project should have
their blood lead levels tested within 24
hours of termination.
· A written exposure assessment must be
prepared in accordance with T8 CCR
1532.1.
· Any amount of lead waste generated,
including painted building components,
must be characterized for proper disposal in
accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24.
Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the
City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall
provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and
Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco
Building Official.
Mitigation Measure 6-2b: California Accidental
Release Prevention Program (CalARP). The
applicant shall check the State and federal lists of
regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety of the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive.
The list is available from the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD).
Businesses are responsible for determining which list
to use in consultation with SMCEHD.
Should the applicant's business qualify for the
program, as determined in consultation with
SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CalARP
registration form listing all regulated substances and
submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, the
applicant shall submit a Risk Management Plan
(RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses have the proper
information to provide to emergency response teams
if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that
store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)
of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and
follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance is
released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for:
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-10
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
keeping employees and customers safe; handling
regulated substances; training staff; maintaining
equipment; checking that substances are stored safely;
and responding to an accidental release.
Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall
provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the
City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation Measure 6-2c: Employee Training.
The applicant shall develop and implement an
Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention,
cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance
with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the
store will require having sufficient cleanup materials
such as spill kits, absorbent rags, and sand available to
staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as
well as procedures for proper disposal of
contaminated materials.
Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall
provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the
City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. The Plan
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire
Marshall.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous
materials to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6-3: Potential Exposure to Residual
Site Contamination. According to the most
recent Environmental Database Report, dated June
16, 2005, the property remains on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. This is despite
receiving case closure from San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department for former
leaking underground storage tanks. Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments, as well as
sampling associated with the geotechnical
investigation for the site, have assessed the extent
of hazardous materials that is feasible, given the
constraints of existing buildings and utilities.
Sampling and testing has revealed residual
contamination of soil and groundwater in the
vicinity of the former leaking underground tanks
that were located near the center of the northern
quarter of the property. Levels of total petroleum
hydrocarbons occurring as diesel, motor oil and
gasoline were found to exceed Water Board
Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for
Mitigation Measure 6-3a: San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department Closure of
Existing Facilities. Facilities registered in the
Hazardous Materials Business Plan program,
including 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue, and
US Air Conditioning at 700 Dubuque Avenue, shall
submit a closure work plan in accordance with the
San Mateo County Environmental Health
Deparrment Business Closure Policy prior to vacating
the property. The closure plan must detail any
necessary sampling and remediation. Closure would
not be granted until businesses have demonsrrated
there is no need for further remediation, and shall
include documentation of the removal of any
hazardous chemicals.
Mitigation Measure 6-3b: Preparation and
Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater
Management and Contingency Plan. A Soil and
Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan
shall be prepared. The plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department and City of South San Francisco
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-11
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
commercial sites in this area. Other contaminants
found to exceed the ESL were semi-volatile
organic compounds in soil taken from a borehole
located near the northern edge of the long
warehouse structure constructed next to the east
edge of the property, and concentrations of the
metals antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
cobalt exceeding the ESL in soil taken at a depth of
5 feet BGS near the southeast corner.
Groundwater in the same area was also found to
exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit
Concentrations (STLC) for cadmium, copper, lead
and zinc.
Since it was not feasible to screen all areas, it is
possible that similar contaminant concentrations
could be encountered in other areas, especially
during site grading. Pockets of debris and fill may
remain, with elevated concentrations of metals,
semi-volatiles, hydrocarbons, or other
contaminants. Encountering low levels of diesel,
gasoline, and motor oil in soil and groundwater can
be expected in the location of the former
hydrocarbon plume on the north side of the
property, as well as scattered metals and metal
contaminated soil and groundwater, especially near
the south edge of the site.
During site demolition and grading aCtIVItieS,
construction workers could be subjected to
exposure to residual site contamination. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Building Department to provide a basis for handling
and disposal of contaminated or hazardous materials
encountered during the site grading and construction
process.
Specific mltlgatlon measures designed to protect
human health and the environment would be
provided in the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
1) Documentation of the extent of previous
environmental investigation and
remediation at the site, including closure
reports for the Underground Storage Tank
(UST) and contaminant concentrations.
2) Requirements for site-specific Health and
Safety Plans (HASP) to be prepared in
accordance with OSHA regulations by all
contractors at the Project site. This
includes a HASP for all demolition, grading
and excavation on the site, as well as for
future subsurface maintenance work. The
HASP shall include appropriate training,
any required personal protective equipment,
and monitoring of contaminants to
determine exposure. The HASP would be
reviewed and approved by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist. The Plan shall also
designate provisions to limit worker entry
and exposure and shall show locations and
type of protective fencing to prevent public
exposure to any hazards during demolition,
site grading and construction.
3) Description of protocols for the
investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could
be encountered during Project
development, including engineering
controls that may be required to reduce
exposure risks. Screening should delineate
the vertical and horizontal extent of any
contamination within the footprint of
foundation or utility work. Excavated
materials should then be segregated and
stockpiled accordingly on plastic tarps to
prevent the further spread of any
contamination. Should testing reveal
hazardous waste levels, the excavated soil
or groundwater would be shipped by a
licensed hazardous material hauler to an
approved disposal site under the proper
manifesting documents. A report shall
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-12 LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measures
document the volume, concentration and
nature of contaminants in the off-hauled
material.
4)
Requirements for site-specific construction
techniques that would minimize exposure
to any subsurface contamination. This
shall include treatment and disposal
measures for any contaminated
groundwater removed from excavations,
trenches, and dewatering systems in
accordance with local and Regional Water
Quality Control Board guidelines.
Groundwater encountered in trenches and
other excavations should be pumped or
drained into a closed containment facility,
unless otherwise proven to have
concentrations of contaminants below the
Environmental Screening Levels for
commercial sites where groundwater is not
to be developed.
5)
General sampling and testing plan for
excavated soils to determine suitability for
reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state
licensed landfIll facility. At a minimum ,
analytical testing shall be performed on one
composite sample per 500 cubic yards of
soil disturbed, excavated or graded at the
site. Testing shall include CAM 17 metals,
asbestos, volatile organic compounds, semi-
volatile organic compounds, TPH as
gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor
oil. Testing results shall be compared to
the RWQCB Environmental Screening
Levels for Commercial Sites to determine
suitability to remain on site as engineered
fill. Any soils determined to exceed the
ESL shall be deemed unsuitable for use as
engineered fill. Exceptions may be made
for metals such as arsenic, chromium,
cobalt and others that fall within the normal
background range of metals in soils of the
San Francisco Bay area.
6)
Restrictions limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by owners,
tenants or visitors to the proposed
development, and prohibition of
groundwater development.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-13
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 6-4: Potential Interference with
Emergency Response Plan. The proposed
development is not expected to physically interfere
with implementation of an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan. However, traffic may
increase along Dubuque Avenue and could reduce
response times. Discussion of specific traffic and
transportation impacts resulting from the proposed
development are also discussed in the Traffic and
Transportation Section of this EIR. In addition,
Project construction could result in a reduction of
response times, due to large construction
equipment and reduced access to the site and
surrounding areas. Demand for fire protection
and emergency medical services may also increase
at the site since the proposed facility is designed to
accommodate more visitors than the existing
facilities. Such an increase in traffic must be
accommodated in the local Emergency Response
Plan, and represents a potentially significant
impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of potential exposure to residual
site contamination to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 6-4: Fire Department Review.
Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the City
of South San Francisco Fire Department is required
to review construction plans for roadway
modifications and shall establish temporary alternative
emergency routes necessary for the duration of the
Project construction. The applicant shall design the
aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and
Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency
access.
The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the
teview and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City
Engineer and Fire Marshall.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce the impact of development to any emergency
response or evacuation plan to a level of less than
significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
Impact 7-1 Lack of Hydraulic Sizing
Calculations for Storm Drain Interceptor.
Storm drain interceptor devices must be properly
sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet
water quality requirements. The Project applicant
has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations. This
presents a potentially significant impact.
Impact 7-2 Soil Erosion. Project grading and
other construction activities will disturb site soils,
potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco
Bay. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
PAGE 2-14
Mitigation Measure 7-1 Storm Drain Interceptor
Shall Be Designed in Accordance with CASQA
Sizing Recommendations. The storm drain
interceptor shall be designed in accordance with
CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line separator
BMPs. Final calculations, sizing criteria, and
maintenance responsibility provisions shall be
submitted and approved prior to issuing appropriate
building permits.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 will reduce
the impact of non-point source pollution to a level of
less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure 7-2a: Preparation and
Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall
develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and
after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include,
but not be limited, to the following mitigation
measures for the construction period:
1) Erosion control! soil stabilization techniques such
as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion
control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized,
in accordance with the regulations outlined in the
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G)
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination
with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all
graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow
path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and
around storm drain inlets.
2) BMPs for preventing the
construction-related NPDES
sediment (i.e. paint, concrete,
waters.
discharge of other
pollutants beside
etc) to downstream
3) After construction IS completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment,
and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris
and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
Project SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
4) Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and
significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed Project site shall be described. This
shall include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
Project site based on identified industrial activities and
potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used
as needed.
6) Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall
be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance,
replacement of media f1lters, regular sweeping of
parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes
removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include
disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be
cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the
storm drain system.
7) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-15
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 7-3: Increases in Peak Runoff.
According to preliminary calculations by Questa
Engineering, the proposed Project will increase 10-
year peak discharge to the southern municipal
storm sewer drainpipe by approximately 72%. No
analysis or defmitive information has been
presented to verify that the existing municipal pipe
can carry the design flows under proposed Project
conditions. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies
of the BMPs.
8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature
and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to
all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of
commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and
d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of
materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Mitigation Measure 7-2b: Erosion Control
Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion
Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San
Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit
Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include
controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution
in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The
Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during
and following construction to control pollution
resulting from both storm and construction water
runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle
and equipment staging, portable restrooms,
mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site
during grading and construction to ensure compliance
with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any
violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Implementation of these mlt1gation measures will
reduce the construction and post-development
impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level
of less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure 7-3a: Storm Drain Analysis.
The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of the
proposed storm drain system for the Project site to
establish whether the existing municipal storm sewer
drainpipe located near the southern property
boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased
flows resulting from the proposed Project. The
analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of
pre- and post-development to-year peak flows and
shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations,
drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The analysis
shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco
for review. If the analysis cannot determine that the
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-16
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
eXIstIng municipal pipe can contain the additional
flows from the proposed Project, Mitigation 7-3b
shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 7-3b: Revised Storm Drain
Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation
Measure 7-3a cannot show that the existing southern
storm sewer drainpipe has capacity for Project flows,
the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan
for the Project. The revised plan shall include
drawings of the new proposed system and shall
include calculations of the new system capacity.
Methods such as on-site storm water detention or
storm drain line upgrades may be considered.
Alternatively, some greater portion of site run-off may
be routed to the existing northeast municipal storm
sewer drainpipe.
Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the
Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review
and approval by the City of South San Francisco
Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level
less than significant.
Impact 9-1: Construction Related Noise.
Project construction would result in temporary
short-term noise increases due to the operation of
heavy equipment. This would be a potentiallY
Jignificant i,,;pact associated with Project
development. Construction noise sources range
from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types
of construction equipment, and slightly higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain
types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
Mitigation Measure 9-1: Noise Abatement. While
there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the
Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-
generated construction noise, neighboring businesses
would be subjected to high noise levels during site
preparation and construction. If noise controls are
installed on construction equipment, noise levels
could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet,
depending on the type of equipment. Assuming
construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA
noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance,
construction related noise impacts would be reduced
to a level of less than significant.
Less than
Significant
Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100
Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed project
would generate 100 net new trips more than
existing site uses during the AM and PM peak
hours (1 160 more trips during the AM peak hour
and 1320 more trips during the PM peak hour than
the existing uses). The San Mateo City/County
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The project sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management
(fDM) program consistent with the City of South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120
Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable
to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented,
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-17
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency
Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003
Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG
Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must
ensure that the developer and/or tenants would
mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first
100 trips) projected to be generated by the
development.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of
Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that
all but one analyzed intersection would maintain
acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour
conditions with the proposed project. At the
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection, PM peak hour project traffic would
degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and
increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%).
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing
Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed
project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM
peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection
approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8
with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate
an increase in vehicle storage demand with the
addition of project traffic that are not listed below
would not have volumes increased by more than
two percent, the significance criteria level.
PM PEAK HOUR
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the
number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM
programs that can generate trip credits to offset the :t
160 net new AM peak hour trips and :t320 net new
PM peak hour trips generated by the project. Since
the majority of vehicles associated with Lowe's would
be retail customers and not employees (and not
influenced by typical TDM measures), the project
applicant and C/CAG would need to meet and
develop a program agreeable to both parties.
Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this
intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to
improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better.
The impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation 11-5A: 50th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as
required of the Bay West Cove
development) to provide one left turn lane,
two through lanes and one right turn lane
would reduce westbound through queuing
demand to 195 feet, less than the available
255 feet of storage. This impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound On-
Ramp
There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection by
City of South San Francisco staff to reduce
queuing to Base Case conditions.
The Oyster Point westbound
approach through lanes would The impact would remain significant and
receive more than a two percent
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
PAGE 2-18
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
increase In traffic (6.6%) with unavoidable.
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
2) Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane would
receive more than a two percent
increase in traffic (13.6%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing in
the left turn lane. Acceptable Base
Case queuing in the combined
left/through lane would also be
increased beyond the available
storage with the addition of project
traffic. The project would increase
combined through/left turn
movements by 16.7 percent.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed
project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9
and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing
that indicate an increas,ed vehicle storage demand
with the addition of project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by
more than two percent, the significance criteria
level.
AM PEAK HOUR
1) Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane would
receive more than a two percent
increase in traffic (9.6%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation 11-5B: 95th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as
required of the Bay West Cove
development) to provide one left turn lane,
two through lanes and one right turn lane
would reduce westbound through queuing
demand to 225 feet, less than the available
255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th
percentile queuing in the westbound left
turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet,
within the planned available storage length.
This impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.lOl Northbound On-
Ramp
There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection by
City of South San Francisco staff to reduce
queuing to Base Case conditions.
This impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-19
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound
approach through lanes would
receive more than a two percent
illcrease in traffic (5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Also, acceptable Base Case queuing
in the westbound approach left turn
lane would be increased beyond the
available storage (by 1 car length)
with the addition of project traffic.
3) Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn and through/left
turn lanes would receive more than
a two percent increase in traffic
(19.5%) with unacceptable Base
Case queuing in both lanes.
These would be significant impacts.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of
Service Impacts. Tables 11-t and 11-2 show that
all but three analyzed intersections would maintain
acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour
conditions with the proposed project. At the
Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook
Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak
hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes
would increase by less than two percent (0.8%). At
the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection, AM peak hour operation would
remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less
than two percent (0.2%). In addition, PM peak
hour operation at this intersection would remain
LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than
two percent (1.5%). However, project traffic
would produce a significant impact during the PM
peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities
Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain
LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than
two percent (2.4%).
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-6
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
. Provide a fair share contribution to the
same mitigations required of the Terrabay
Phase 3 development.
. Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard
approach to provide a second left turn lane.
. Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities
Boulevard approach to provide two left turn
lanes, an exclusive through lane and a
shared through/right turn lane.
Improvements to the eastbound approach
should also provide adjustments to the
north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if
needed, to allow safe U-turn movements.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds
vehicle delay
The impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-20
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Impact 11-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50th Percentile Queue
Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed
project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7
and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with
the addition of project traffic that are not listed
below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.IOI Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane would
receive a :1:5.8% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
intersection.
Cities
Point
Boulevard
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach through lanes
would receive a :1: 5.0% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queUIng.
· The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach left turn lane
would receive a :1:3.7% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queUIng.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.IOI Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would
receive a :1: 4.4% increase in traffic
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/
Airport Boulevard (same improvements
as for level of service)
· Provide a fair share contribution to
the same mitigations required of the
Terrabay Phase 3 development.
o Provide two left turn lanes on the
eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach.
o Stripe a second left turn lane on
the northbound Airport
Boulevard approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable
westbound through and left turn lane queuing to
acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.IOI Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco staff to
reduce project queuing impacts to
Base Case conditions.
Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/
Airport Boulevard (same improvements
as for level of service)
. Reconfigure the eastbound Sister
Cities Boulevard approach to provide
two left turn lanes, an exclusive
through lane and a combined
through/right turn lane.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the
northbound Airport Boulevard
approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable
westbound through and left turn lane queuing to
acceptable levels.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable
PAGE 2-21
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
with unacceptable Base Case
quemng.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed
project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9
and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing
that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand
with the addition of project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by
more than two percent, the significance criteria
level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.IOl Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would
receive a 6.2% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case
queUing.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
Cities
Point
Boulevard
intersection.
. The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound approach left turn
lanes would receive an 8.8%
increase in traffic with unacceptable
Base Case queuing. In addition, the
Oyster Point Boulevard westbound
approach left turn lane would have
demand increased beyond the
available storage with the addition
of project traffic.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
intersection.
Cities
Point
Boulevard
.
The
Boulevard
Bayshore
PAGE 2-22
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco staff to
reduce project queuing impacts to
Base Case conditions.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
southbound approach left turn lane
would receive a 5.3% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
quelling.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach through lanes
would receive a 5% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach left turn lane
would receive a 3.7% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/D.S.tOt Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would
receive a 4.4% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
These would be significant impacts.
Impact 11-tO: Project Access Impacts. The
proposed project would have four driveway
connections to Dubuque Avenue. Driveway would
be in the same locations as driveways now serving
existing site uses. For identification purposes, they
have been labeled #1 to 4 starting with the north
driveway. No left or right turn deceleration lanes
are proposed on the approaches to any driveway.
Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the
project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour.
Driveway #1, near the north end of the site, would
be 48 feet wide and would serve truck deliveries as
well as an employee parking area in the back of the
Lowe's store. This wide entrance would facilitate
truck turn movements to/from Dubuque Avenue.
It would be channelized about 25 feet internal to
the site and would lead to a large open area that
would accommodate truck turning maneuvers
to/from the Lowe's unloading dock.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 11-tO:
Left Turn Lane
. Revise the project site plan in the vicinity of
driveway #2 in order to widen Dubuque
Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound
left turn lane at least 250 feet long. In addition,
it is strongly recommended that Dubuque
Avenue be widened to provide a continuous
turn lane along the entire site frontage.
Sight Lines
. Provide low height landscaping along the site's
entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that would
allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet
in both directions from each project driveway.
. The City of South San Francisco shall post
speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour
along Dubuque A venue in the vicinity of the
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
1 Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix
B Table 6.
2 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-23
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Construction
Rough grading activities would be expected to last approximately 6 weeks, and the applicant
plans on grinding the existing buildings and pavement for reuse if possible. At this time, the
applicant does not have any information regarding the disposal of any excess materials to be
hauled away, but they would provide this information once a contractor is chosen. Utilities
work would be expected to take approximately 6 weeks, and total construction time, including
building, would be approximately 9-12 months.
Building Characteristics and Architecture
The Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse building is proposed on the northeast portion of
the property, with the Garden Center just west of the warehouse, fronting Dubuque Avenue.
The Project perimeter wall of the Garden Center would be 25'-0" high, that of the main building
would be 30'-0" high, while the accentuated entrance areas to the store and Indoor Lumber Md
would be 33'-0" high. The top of the pitched roof at the main entrance would be approximately
49'0" high. Architectural features, such as split-face CMU blocks and foam-formed cornices at
the Garden Center and building entrances, and earth toned paint colors, would be added to the
elevations to create depth and variation. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened by
the raised building parapet walls.
Landscaping
The Project would include extensive landscaping designed to conform with East of 101 Area
Plan Policy DE-55 and to exceed landscape development standards outlined in Section
13.30.100 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. It would include landscape
islands, planters, and berms along Dubuque A venue to buffer the parking lot and building from
the street. The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2.
3.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant
environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following
approvals would be required:
. Use Permit
. Type C Sign Permit
. Planned Unit Development Permit
. Design Review
. Transportation Demand Management Plan
. Development Agreement
PAGE 3-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
.
o
l
t
2000
I
Feet
Figure 3-1
Project Site Location
7 I
~
SOURCE: Lalnphier-Gregory
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-4
1..
i..~
\ .
_.~ .
a:: l
iii r
0
~
G
{i
i c.i
.5
C " l3
I iii
g 'U
5l
:2
~ en
~
en SlIM01 ::lSS .9111l:\'P"foJd\:"l Gi
~ I:!
;1
c
..;J en
W
..J
<:
(.)
U)
g
b
z
'N Z
d, ~
w~
a:: w
~ !::
-en
U- l-
t)
LU
...
g
~
z
o
~
i:2
u
rn
UJ
Cl
t5
UJ
a
a::
(l.
(or)
a::
~
J:
C)
- --J
-.
-
a
-
)-
.tt
S.
:t.
\l)
-
J:
4
AIR QUALITY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section examines the degree to which the proposed Project may result in significant adverse
changes to air quality. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities such as
site grading, as well as long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed
Project, are discussed. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from two
perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations. "Emissions" refers to the actual
quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day. "Concentrations" refers to the amount of
pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million
(PPM) or micrograms per cubic meter ()..Lg/ m3).
South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San
Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds with cool Pacific air
to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. As a result, winds are
usually from the west. There are periods in fall and winter where winds tend to flow from
easterly or southerly directions.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in elevated air
pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. Highway 101,
Interstate 280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant
concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. Winds blowing
out of the south and southeast expose the city to emissions from the San Francisco International
Airport and the industrial areas that are east of U.S. Highway 101.
4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, State and federal levels of government. Air
quality management planning programs developed during the past decade have generally been in
response to requirements established by the federal Clean Air Act. However, the enactment of
the California Clean Air Act of 1988 has produced additional changes in the structure and
administration of air quality management programs in the State. South San Francisco is located
within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
PAGE 4-1
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for
criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies air
basins or portion thereof, as in "attainment" or "nonattainment". Where there is insufficient
monitoring data to classify an area, but that area likely is "attainment", EP A identifies it as
"unclassified". These classifications are based on whether or not the basin meets national
ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act
with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards.
Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the
standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data
and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or federal
ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and State standards for respirable
particulate matter (PMlO)'
Until recendy, the EPA has designated the region as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour
ground level 03 standard. The region had developed and updated plans to achieve this standard.
The EPA revoked this standard in June 2005. However, the region has not violated the 1-hour
03 standard over the last four years (2000-2004), and EP A was proposing to redesignate the Bay
Area as a maintenance area. The 8-hour ozone standard has now replaced the 1-hour standard.
EP A has recendy classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the newer, more stringent
8-hour 03 standard. EP A requires. the region to adopt a plan that will bring it into attainment
with that standard by 2007. The Bay Area has met the Carbon Monoxide (CO) standards for
over a decade, and is classified attainment maintenance by the EP A. The EP A grades the region
unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PMtO and PM2.S (particulate matter that is
2.5 micrometers or smaller in size).
At the State level, the region is considered serious nonattainment for ground level 03 and non-
attainment for PMtO. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the
national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis
that show progress towards meeting the State 03 standard. The state considers the area
attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of
the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000,
with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels,
and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. An update to the Plan
is expected later this year.
4.3 AIR QUALITY DATA
The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin,
although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project
PAGE 4-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 4-1 summarizes exceedances of the
State and federal standards at these two sites over the last five years. The table shows that most
of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area, with the exception of the State
standard for PMIO and ozone.
TABLE 4.1
Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004
Monitoring Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant Standard Station 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
NMOS 1-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
SAY AREA 3 1 2 1 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
03 NMOS 8-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
SAY AREA 4 7 7 7 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
CMOS 1-hr Redwood City 0 1 0 1 1
SAY AREA 12 15 16 19 7
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
NMOS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
SAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0
PM,o
San Francisco 2 7 2 1 1
CMOS 24-hr Redwood City 1 4 1 0 1
SAY AREA 7 10 6 6 7
San Francisco 0 4 0 0
PM2.5 NMOS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0
SAY AREA 1 5 5 0 1
All Other San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
(CO, N02, All Other Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
Lead, S02) SAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005.
4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT fiR
PAGE 4-3
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
1. Would the Project conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality
plan? The criteria are further defined as follows:
- If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air
Plan (as defined in Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections), then
it would be inconsistent with air quality planning, and would be deemed to have a
significant air quality impact.
- If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the
population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward
achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and
miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality
planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
- The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan (CAP) Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated
with implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable
efforts to implement the TCMs identified in the CAP, then it would be considered to
be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN PROJECTIONS
The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the
intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan,
which was published in 1999. This Project is within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an
aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the
land within City limits east of Highway 101. This Project site is zoned "Planned Commercial"
under this planning sub-area. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types
and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most
recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would, therefore, be consistent with, and
have no impact on, the Clean Air Plan.
PAGE 4-4
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
Impact 4-1
Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures
Mitigation
Measure 4-1
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
Implementation of TCMs. Determining consistency with the Clean Air
Plan also involves assessing whether Transportation Control Measures
(fCMs) are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies
seven TCMs (fCM numbers 1,9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) that have Cities and
Counties identified among the implementing agencies. At the Project level,
the City along with the Project applicant would be required to implement the
following TCMs:
TCM #1
Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction
Programs
TCM#9
Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities
TCM#12
Improve Arterial Traffic Management
TCM#19
Pedestrian Travel
The Project does not include specific measures that are consistent with
applicable TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially
significant impact. Under the General Plan policies, the Project would be
required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (fD:M) plan
to reduce project trips. This would in turn reduce air pollutant emissions. If
appropriate TCMs are included in the TDP plan, then the Project would be
consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and the impact would be less-than-
significant.
Traffic Demand Management. The Project will be required to develop a
Transportation Demand Management (fDM) plan, since it would generate
more than 100 new vehicle trips per day (approximately 160 new trips during
the AM peak hour and 320 new trips during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-
15B), which is a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan shall
include the following components so that the Project would reasonably
implement applicable TCMs:
1. TDM#1 - Support shutde service to BART. There are currendy shutdes
that serve employers in the area. The Project could become a sponsoring
employer so that shutdes would serve the site, providing employees an
alternative mode of commuting. The Project site is adjacent to a Caltrain
station.
PAGE 4-5
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
2. TDM#9 - Provide bicycle amenities so that employees and customers
can bicycle to the Project. Such amenities shall include safe on site bicycle
access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees
shall include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities.
3. TDM#12 - The Applicant and City shall work to improve traffic
operations at intersections serving the Project that are predicted to
operate at congested levels. Such improvements shall include lane
striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity.
4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that
provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or
future bus stops that serve the project (see TDM#l above).
The final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner.
With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean
Air Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Impact 4-2
Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the
emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant
impact.
The Project would involve demolition of three buildings, site grading, and the construction of a
new Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse building with garden center. Construction
activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate
dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase
particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but
normally mitigatible.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines' provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The
BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible
control measures for construction emissions of PMlO. If the appropriate construction controls
are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be
considered less than significant.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999).
PAGE 4-6
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
Another source of construction impacts would be exhaust emissions from construction vehicles.
Diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, an ozone precursor pollutant, are the two primary
pollutants that are of concern from construction exhaust. Diesel particulate matter can lead to
localized impacts; however, sensitive receptors are not located near the project site. Emissions
of nitrogen oxides can contribute to higher ozone levels at downwind areas in the Bay Area.
The BAAQMD calculates region-wide construction exhaust emissions of ozone precursor
pollutants (nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases) in air quality planning efforts to attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards. Therefore, quantitative analyses of these construction
emissions are not recommended by the BAAQMD unless the lead agency believes there would
be unusually large or intensive activities. The BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies
consider mitigation measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions.
Mitigation
Measure 4-2
Dust Suppression Procedures and measures to reduce exhaust, The
following is a list of feasible control measures that the BAAQMD
recommends for construction emissions of PMlO at project sites greater than
4 acres. In addition, the BAAQMD recommends construction projects
include measures to reduce exhaust emissions. The following measures will
be utilized to the extent possible.
1. Sprinkle water on all active construction areas at least twice daily, and
more often when conditions warrant.
2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
si tes.
4. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites on a daily basis.
5. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
6. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas.
7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
PAGE 4-7
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
8. Limit traffic speeds on unpav~d roads to 15 miles per hour.
9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
10. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
11. The applicant shall be required to ensure that removal or disturbance of
any materials that contain asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous
pollutants during renovation and demolition activities will be conducted
in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations.
12. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible
to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g.,
compressors).
13. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be
turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil,
aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could
keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site.
14. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall submit
a construction plan that includes measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that
the BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the
City's Chief Building Official and City Engineer.
Implementation of construction controls will reduce aIr pollutant emISSIOns associated with
construction activities to a level less than significant.
Violate Air Quality Standards - Local Carbon Monoxide Standards
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the Project would be the pollutant of
greatest concern at the local level. The intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque
Avenue and Grand Avenue and Dubuque Avenue would be affected by the Project due to a
combination of high traffic volumes and congestion. Congested intersections with a large
volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high localized concentrations of carbon
monoxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations would be the highest at this interchange. There
are 1- and 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide. The 8-hour standard is the most stringent
and is always exceeded if the 1-hour standard is exceeded. Therefore, this analysis evaluated
impacts against the 8-hour standard.
Carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled using screening methods recommended by the
BAAQMD that are based on the Caline4 Line-Source dispersion model. This method uses
PAGE 4-8
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
traffic volumes, emlSSlons, meteorology, and the roadway/receptor geometry. For this
assessment, meteorological conditions most conducive for high carbon monoxide
concentrations in the Bay Area, peak-hour traffic conditions (i.e., evening period), slow traffic
speeds and emission factors generated by the California Air Resources Board emission factor
model (i.e., EMF AC2002) were used as input to the model. Modeled concentrations were added
to background levels to predict total carbon monoxide concentrations. The contribution from
U.S. Highway 101 traffic was included in this assessment, since the intersection is only about 200
feet from the nearest freeway lanes. The screening method is designed to be a conservative
method of determining whether or not a project may cause exceedances of the carbon monoxide
air quality standard. If the screening method predicts significant levels, then a more-refined
analysis may be conducted that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels, which
would likely be lower.
As shown in Table 4-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide
Levels are currently below California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Predicted 8-hour Carbon
Monoxide Levels with the Project in place under near-term (2006) and future Project conditions
(in 2020) are predicted to remain below California ambient air quality standards. As a result, the
impact on local air quality resulting from the Project is considered to be less-than-significant,
TABLE 4-2
PREDICTED 8-HOUR WORST CASE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS (IN PPM)
2006
Base Conditions
with Project
Descript' on
Oyster Point Boulevard and Contribution from:
Dubuque Avenue w/adjacent Intersection-
freeway
2005
Existing
Freeway (US 101)-
Background-
Total:
3.6 PPM
1.2 PPM
2.8 PPM
7.6 PPM
Grand Ave and Dubuque
Avenue w/adjacent freeway
Contribution from:
Intersection-
Freeway (US 101)-
Background-
Total:
1.9 PPM
0.8 PPM
2.8 PPM
5.5 PPM
4.3 PPM
0.9 PPM
2.8 PPM
8.0 PPM
2.4 PPM
0.4 PPM
2.8 PPM
5.6 PPM
2020
Base Conditions
with Project
1.6 PPM
0.3 PPM
2.5 PPM
4.4 PPM
0.8 PPM
0.3 PPM
2.5 PPM
3.6 PPM
Significance Thresholds
(CMOS)
9.0 PPM for 8-hour exposure
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
PAGE 4-9
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
has developed criteria to determine if a development project could result in potentially
significant regional emissions. The District recommends the use of the URBEMIS2002 model
to quantify the emissions associated with new projects.
Based on Crane Transportation Group's estimate of 5,908 daily two-way trips to and from the
Project site (including trips generated by the West Marine Building), URBEMIS2002 Model
calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air
emissions thresholds for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NO,) or PMlO. Emissions
thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, or PMlO. The threshold for CO is 550 pounds
per day, but it only applies to stationary sources (e.g., power plants); and, therefore, does not
apply to this Project. Calculated emissions are shown in Table 4-3. Model output is contained
in Appendix C, along with the results of the screening level CO modeling calculations. The
Project's emissions for ROG, NOx, and PMlO are calculated to be below the BAAQMD's
significance thresholds. This would be a less than significant impact.
TABLE 4-3
DAILY REGIONAL AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Reactive Nitrogen
Organic Gases Oxides Particulate
(ROG) (NOx) Matter (PMlO)
0.3 1.5 <0.1
44.1 52.8 46.2
44.4 lbs 54.31bs 46.2 lbs
Description
Area Sources (e.g., water and
space heating)
Motor vehicle sources
Total*
BAAQMD Signijicance
Thresholds
80 Ibs
80 Ibs
80 Ibs
* Includes emissions from West Marine.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population
groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These
land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics.
PAGE 4-10
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
The closest sensitive receptors would be homes opposite U.S. 101, over 300 feet west/northwest
of the proposed Project site, and two childcare facilities on Gateway Boulevard, about 400 yards
east of the Project site. However, the homes are located upwind from the Project site, and are
separated from the site by U.S. 101. The childcare facilities, while located downwind from the
Project site, are separated from the site by several large buildings, and are located a far enough
distance away that any emissions that might be generated on the Project site would not represent
a significant air quality impact.
Project construction activities would lead to the emission of construction dust and exhaust, the
impact of which would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4-2. Project operational air quality impacts would be less than
significant.
ODORS
During construction, the vanous diesel-powered vehicles and equipment In use on the site
would create odors. These odors would be temporary, and not likely to be noticeable much
beyond the Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is, therefore, less
than significant. Operational activities from these types of land uses proposed at the Project
site do not produce objectionable odors that normally extend beyond their site boundaries;
therefore, the odor impacts associated with Project operations would be considered less than
significant.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT EIR
PAGE4-11
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right-
lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault.
The nearest active fault zones to the site are the San Andreas fault (located 3.4 miles to the
southwest); the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault), located approximately 12 miles to the
southwest; and the Hayward Fault (located approximately 15.5 miles to the northeast). The
nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence of Quaternary movement, or movement within
the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault, located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of
the site. The nearest geologic fault (not mapped as active or potentially active) is the Hillside
fault, mapped approximately 1,100 feet northeast of the site.
Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic
period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most
recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (CDMG, 2000). Small, non-damaging earthquakes
occur frequently in the Project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to
occur periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site. The
Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other
scientists conclude that there is a 620,(orobabili ty of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake,
capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032.1
Regional Geology
The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast
Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and
valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan
complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone),
argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are
ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the
North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction.
These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits.
Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project
vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are
common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in
sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history
of the Franciscan.
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses
the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in northwestern San Mateo County, on the
other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending structurally controlled valleys dissect the
San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site.
WGCEP,2002.
PAGE 5-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOilS
During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global
glaciation, these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of
alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the
bay margin, deposits of Holocene "Bay Mud" and marsh soils deposited during the past 11,000
years can be found. Marine terrace deposits consisting of sand, gravel and colluvial clay and
slope debris and ravine fill materials consisting of gravelly clay, sandy clay, clayey gravel and
similar soils occur in the area. Man-placed artificial fill over the old marsh deposits and Bay Mud
are also present.
Site Geology and Soils
According to the USGS Map Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and
parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California (USGS Open-me
Report 98-354, 1998) the site is underlain by the Pleistocene Colma Formation, Quaternary
alluvium, and artificial man-placed fill.2 The Colma Formation is described as friable, well-
sorted, fine to medium-grained sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel
throughout most of the area, but also as sandy clay and silty sand in the Project vicinity. The
alluvium consists mainly of sand and silt but locally contains clay, gravel or boulders. The
artificial fill is composed of a variety of materials including clay, silt, sand, rock fragments,
organic matter, and man-made debris. The site is likely underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks
similar to those exposed in nearby Mount San Bruno. Figure 5-lA presents a Geologic Map of
the site and vicinity based on the 1998 USGS map of the area.
A site geologic map was not completed for the preliminary geotechnical investigation, but a
number of boreholes completed for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Consolidated
Engineering Laboratories, 2005) indicate subsurface conditions.3 Boreholes were not drilled
inside the existing structures, but only around the perimeter and in parking lot areas. The
boreholes typically encountered five (5) to eighteen (18) feet of undocumented fill of variable
composition. The fill includes silty sand, sandy silt, sandy lean clay, gravel, and debris such as
wood, metal, concrete, and possibly glass mill tailings (reported as non-native obsidian in
cuttings). Underlying native soils consist of a combination of fine sand, sandy lean clay, lean to
fat clay, and Bay Mud or other marsh soil deposits.3 Sandy soils were typically medium dense in
the upper five feet below ground surface (BGS), becoming loose in some holes between eight
and twelve feet BGS. Sandy lean clays were typically medium stiff to very stiff. Review of the
logs of boreholes and CPT soundings suggest that the Pleistocene Colma Formation underlies at
least pan of the site and consists of very dense fine sand with silt.
2
USGS, 1998
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 200S
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-3
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Groundwater
Groundwater was typically encountered in the boreholes completed at the site by Consolidated
Engineering Laboratories (2005) at depths five feet below ground surface during the subsurface
investigation of July 22, 2005. Groundwater levels at the site fluctuate during the year and are
typically highest during the winter and spring rainy season. Shallower groundwater levels may be
encountered during construction activities.
Landsliding and Slope Stability
Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil
and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in
areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations report
(2005) did not address slope stability. The site has very gentle relief, with no significant slopes
on the property that would be subject to slope instabilities. No landslides are shown on geologic
and planning maps of the area as affecting the subject site.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils experience volumetric changes (shrink and swell) seasonally due to changes in
soil moisture content. The shrink/swell cycles can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs-
on-grade, and pavement sections. Based on Atterberg limits testing, soils in the upper five feet
of the site can be generally considered to have a low expansion potential (Consolidated
Engineering Laboratories, 2005).
Settlement Due to Consolidation
Consolidation is the densification of soil into a more dense state from adding an overlying load
to the soil. Consolidation of soft and loose soil layers can cause settlement of the ground
surface and damage buildings, structural improvements and utilities. The site is underlain by fill
soils in the upper 5 to 10 feet below ground surface that could be susceptible to consolidation
settlement. Older Bay Mud soils underlying the northern portion of the property are as thick as
25 feet and could be susceptible to consolidation settlement.
Potentially Unstable Soils and Debris
The site is typically underlain by five to ten feet of undocumented fill soils, with fill along the site
margins as thick as 18 feet. Buried objects and debris including wood, metal, brick, concrete,
and slag/mill tailings were detected during drilling. Low-density sands were also reported in
portions of the fill.
Primary Seismic Hazards
Primary seismic hazards are direct affects of an earthquake such as surface fault rupture.
PAGE 5-4
lOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
~
iO
~
- I
~~~
..::e.;::;!floO
~--
,"I
I
t }-... (p
~Oj
':..=
,C:;
~,
a:- ~
_~o.~
Reference: Bonilla, 1998, Geologic Map of the
South San Francisco 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the
Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, US Geological
< ;
~
~
~
1---~.!!tO ft
. I - II
il ~
~lfe~Fa'~ioFf'fF
I-. )1
I _
__J~~::"-::'-
",,,,,...==""- cN..
'-::;=:;:~=r~l
IJ
~
~
4 I (
4(
Er- ~-
4\
....
...
..
.-: ~ ;?\ ---"' \.
''-E ~'] ~ ~\
It.::iJ~"" 1\.1 \ - ~
-,: <' (
~~ I,
~ ~. -~~ ~
'~.:-'~'[I ~ - 31~ ~
- - . t!P)V~lq7
OIf G"
./
./
./
o
I
SOOm
I
Date:
FIGURE
Drawn:
Appr'd:
Dwg. No.
08/18/05
JF
WH
250089Ge...
UEST A
Cwll
Environmental
& Water Resources
Geologic Map
Lowe's EIR
600-790 Dubuque Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
I '
po. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807
5-1A
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-6
Explanation of Geologic Units and Symbols
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
QUATERNARY
Hlllocene
Qaf Artifkial fill
C1a}\ :)llt~ sand. R"'ck fragrnents~ ,)rgani.: matter ~ and nUlIl"1uade debris.
Qao'tf Artijk~a1 fill "..,r tidal flat
l1ay. silt. sand. I\"\ck fragment::i.\ organic matter. and man made debris.
placed "ver tidal fiats,
QalS Artificial fill. Native American shellmolUld.
Dark ~-ilty to ~dy soil containing sheD fragments and r.ue int1k."1
shells.
QI Land..Jide dep,'Sito
<'t"lIDf'L"lsiti1-ln and stmeturc dC}'l-"'tld ,--'In the gCt.'logic fl"lrmation invt'hcd
:U1d t)l'e of landslide,
Qdl Alluvium
M,'stly sand and silt but locally ",,'tuains day, gravel. (.r b..m1ders:
gonerally gray t" brown,
Qb Beaeh Deposits
Predominantly well ,",'rted medilD11~rnined I<x's<: gray sand: k><oalIy
"""si>~s of sand, gravel and cobbles,
Qm Bay mud
Soft (moisll to linn Imyl day and silt: loc-ally c,'llIains shell
fragmonts, plant remains. and tlrin beds "I' sand,
J)JcislcJrCc:me
Ql Marin. 1erra.,'O dep"sits
Predominantly friable well sorted fine grained yellowish"l'aIll!c to
gmy sand; indudes alluvial gravel and c<,lluvial clay,
Qar Slope debris and ravine fill
Stony silty to sandy day; locaJly silty le' dayey sand ,'r gravel;
yellowish-orange to medium gray. lUlStratified or pt-........rly stratified.
"''here it overlies the Merced or C","llma Fonnatk"lJ\ it is C0mmonly a
silty to clayey gand. or gravel.
Qc
C(llma Fonnation
In oorthwest and central parts ,'I' area, friable well sorted line to
mediwn sand containing a few beds of sandy silt. day. and graveL
In southeast f"ll1 of area. mostly sand)' day and silty sand,
yellowish orange to gray.
-+-
--~--
--j--
--.--
D
D
D
o
D
Bedding
CRET ACEOl'S A,'I[> JURASSIC
Franciscan Complex and associated rocks
KIs Sandstone and shale
Interbedded sand.<lone and shale. hard where fresh and intact. ;;oft
where weath....d ('r sheared, Com"","1 y medilUll dark gra)' where trcsh.
olive gray to yellov.,sh bro\\Tl where mod.rately weathered. and )'ello\\;sh
orange t" yellowish gray where highly weathered,
KIsk Sandstone and shale
S;mdsti......ne generally Ci..llltaining more than tw0 percent pl.,tassiwn feldspar,
KJm Metamorphic rocks
Hard to finn~ fine--k"' O;.."larsc--grained ochistosc~ gndS&..""'lSC~ ,,)f
granulos<: metamorphie rocks; <lark gmy. dark greenish gray. or
<lark bluish gray,
sp Serpentine
liard t(l soft, generally greenish gray', contains small bi.....di~ of grabbro
and diabase,
KI 11 Sheared rocks
Small to large fragments of hard fi."ICk in matrix ,,'If sheared rl~k.
Matrix gcrk:rally coherent and finn. hut $l....ft in pl;}c~. e."pe'l..;ally
where weathered. f}ark gray "here fresh. yeUo\\;sh bnw.'Tl where
wC'Jthcred. Derived mostfy from shale and ~&;tone l)f Fr-arK-tSc..'atl
C(.)mplex and serpentine.
Omtact, certain
C.ontact, approximately 1000'ated
Approximate bedding
Omtact, concealed
e
-+-
Vertical bedding
Horizontal bedding
Contact, gradational or inferred
..
Fault attitude
Fault, eel1ain
Fault, approximately located
Fault. concealed
......,..
Fault, concealed, queried
Qu Sedimelltal}' <k1'<'Sil', lmdiffcrenli3ted
fr Fault "vckl;
Zone of goug.. breccia, fraclUred and sheared reek aIoll!! the San
Andreas fault. Gradational contact with surrounding r.><oks, linti..
f'l")orl}' kJh..wn. ABe extends into HI.l1ocene
TERTIARY ANDQFATERNARY
Pleistocene and ptj()Cene
QTm Merced Fonnabofl
Friable to firm sand~ silt. and day: minor amour.ts I."'f gravel.
lignite. and volcanic ash, medium gray to yell.......wish orange.
Foliation
Foreset beds
Joint
.....
Verti eal joint
Fault, inferred
rT'T"T"'I
Top oflandslide S<.'3I'p
"'-
Shear planes
Striations or grooves on faults
1800s shoreline and stream channel,
Anticline, certain
Anticline, approximately located
Syncline. approximately located
Monocline, approximately 1000'ated
Date:
FIGURE
Drawn:
Appr'd:
Dwg, No,
08/03/05
JF
Q C~
Environmental
~ U~~ ~wme'Re'ou'ce'
WH
Geologic Map Legend
Home Depot EIR
900 Dubuque Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
250073Ge...
I I i
p.o. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807
5-18
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-8
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Surface Fault Rupture
A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria
of the California Geological Survey, active faults are faults that have experienced surface rupture
within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active (surface rupture within
the last 1.6 million years) faults. According to the Act, zones around active faults are delineated
and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones must include investigations to
establish the location and age of any fault ruptures occurring on the property. The Act primarily
covers structures for human occupancy, which includes commercial structures. Active and
potentially active faults on the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation
in the past. The California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and
Geology) has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries for active faults in the
region. According to the Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle
(1982), the proposed development is not located within an EFZ.4 The nearest EFZ is for the
San Andreas Fault, located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the site. The active Hayward
fault is located approximately 15 miles to the east-northeast.
An inactive pre-Quaternary fault, the Hillside fault (see Figure 1), is mapped approximately
1,100 feet to the north of the site.s Based on the age of the fault being greater than 1.6 million
years old (California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No.6, 1994), the State
of California Geological Survey (CGS) does not consider the Hillside fault active or potentially
active.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a program of mapping of areas subject to
the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other
seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. These seismically induced hazards are known as
secondary seismic hazards. According to the California Geological Survey, the San Francisco
South Quadrangle is currently in the process of being mapped. Other sources of information
provide details on the potential for secondary seismic hazards in the area.
Ground Shaking
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely
be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the
development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic
sources.
4
CDMG, 1982
USGS, 1998
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-9
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay
Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will
occur in the region between 2003 and 2032.6
The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake
causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the
site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of
equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of
magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking
equivalent to modified Mercalli intensity level VI!.7
Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-
year period (design basis ground motion) were determined using the Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Mapping Ground Motion Page on the California Geological Survey web site
(bttp:/ lwww.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp).This page provides an
interactive analysis and produces a set of conservative values to be used in seismic design. The
following Table 1 presents preliminary values that should be verified by site-specific analysis.
Table 1. Peak Ground Motions
Ground Motion Firm Rock Soft Roe~ Alluviumj
Pga
0.616
0.616
0.616
Sa 0.2 see
1.377
1.377
1.377
Sa 1.0 see
0.647
0.731
0.844
Pga- Peak Ground Acceleration;
Sa 0.2 sec- Spectral acceleration for 0.2-second (short) period;
Sa 1.0 sec- Spectral acceleration for 1.0-second Oong) period
Site-specific Seismic Response Criteria for the site is presented in the Geotechnical Investigation
report by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction. Dynamic Densification. and Ground Settlement
Liquefaction and dynamic densification are conditions that can result from seismically induced
ground shaking. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil
into a viscous liquid as a result of ground shaking. Dynamic densification (seismic settlement)
WGCEP, 2002.
Association of Bay Area Governments, \v\vw.abag.ca.gov , 2005.
PAGE 5-10
LOWE'S PROJEO
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
occurs 1ll dry cohesionless soil during seismic shaking and can result in ground surface
settlement during earthquakes. Seismically induced ground settlement can also occur at sites
with man-placed fill containing debris. The upper five feet of fill soils may be susceptible to
dynamic densification.
Potentially liquefiable soils were identified at the site in boreholes completed as part of the
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering study. These soils consist of medium to coarse-grained
clean sand, fine sand, and fine sand with silt that is very loose to medium dense. According to
the Geotechnical study, the heterogeneous upper 15 feet of soils could suffer local liquefaction
and may experience up to one inch of settlement during a major seismic event under the
northern and southern portions of the site. The central portion is underlain by denser soils
(Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005).
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake
induced ground shaking, landslides and debris flows can form on unstable slopes. No slopes
subject to potential slope failure due to seismically induced landslides are present at the subject
property.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-11
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is
considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects of the
proposed Project can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2)
geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of
construction impacts is whether construction of the project will create unstable geologic
conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological
hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or
structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic
hazards, features or events.
According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental
impact if it were to result in:
1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 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
known fault;
2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking;
3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides;
4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides;
5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards;
PAGE 5-12
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7. Development located on expansIve soil, creating substantial risks to life and
property;
8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils.
9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater;
10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local
economy;
11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Surface Fault Rupture
According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault
as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active,
with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential
impact of surface fault rupture is considered less than significant,
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 5-1
Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed
development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an
earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is
considered a potentially significant impact..
Mitigation
Measure 5-1a
Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall
meet requirements of the California Building Code V ols. 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published
by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the
amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San
Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would
reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as
complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-13
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOilS
Mitigation
Measure 5-1b
Mitigation
Measure 5-1c
Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report
prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural
Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper
foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance
with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a
Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. At a
minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic
parameters as outlined in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report
and from the California Building Code as summarized below.
Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Type So
Seismic Source Type A
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40
Near Source Acceleration Factor, 1.22
Na
Near Source Velocity Factor, Nv 1.63
The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final Geotechnical
Engineering Report. The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and
approval by the City's Chief Building Official.
Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence
to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of strong seismic ground
shaking to a level of less than significant.
P AG E 5-14
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Ground Surface
Settlement
Impact 5-2.
Mitigation
Measure 5-2a
Mitigation
Measure 5-2b
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Liquefaction and Ground Surface Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Study by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories concluded that
potentially liquefiable soil is present within the upper 15 feet below ground
surface on the northern and southern margins of the site. Liquefaction of soils
could result in damage to site improvements. A detailed liquefaction analysis was
performed and included Cone Penetration Test studies to identify zones of
potentially liquefiable soil. The potential for liquefaction site soils is considered
a potentially significant impact.
Compliance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering
report and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered
Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall
be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Structures shall
be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements.
The City of South San Francisco Building Department shall perform review
of the Structural Design Plans. The review shall be completed by a
Registered Civil Engineer experienced in structural design or by a Registered
Structural Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural
Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the
plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce
the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include
excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading,
and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure
grouting.
Obtain a building permit and complete final design review, The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed Structural Engineer for adherence
to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
PAGE 5-15
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Implementation of these rrutlgation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground
shaking to a less than significant level.
UNSTABLE SOIL MATERIALS
Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become
unstable as a result of the Project.
Impact 5-3
Mitigation
Measure 5-3
Unstable Soils and Debris. Undocumented fill soils are present on most of the
subject site to depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (BGS).
Buried objects and debris were found during the site investigation. Fill soils of
unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill
soils may settle due to new building loads. The near surface soils are also
corrosive in nature and may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with
them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths, approximately five feet below
ground surface, and could impact excavations such as utility trenches.
Groundwater will also limit the options to mitigate the undocumented fill. Older
Bay Mud is present under portions of the site and may settle under design
loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence
of unstable soil and debris is a potentially significant impact.
Investigate unstable soils and debris. A detailed investigation of the
undocumented fill soils shall be performed to determine the extent of
potentially unstable soils and debris. Based on results of this study the
Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the
unstable soils and debris present in undocumented fill at the site. Additional
consolidation testing of older Bay Mud soils will be performed as part of the
additional design level geotechnical investigation.
Methods of soil stabilization may include excavation of unstable soil and
debris, replacement with clean, engineered reinforced fill, construction of
geo-piers to stabilize zones of unstable soil and debris, and other methods as
recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or
potentially unstable soils to less than significant.
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
No active volcanic areas are located in the San Francisco Bay or Northern California region that
could potentially impact the Project site. No Impact.
PAGE 5-16
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
EXPANSIVE SOILS
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to results of the Geotechnical Investigation by Consolidated Engineering
Laboratories, potentially expansive soils were not encountered in the upper five feet of soils.
Expansive soils may be present at depths below five feet, but are not considered a hazard to
construction. The presence of expansive soils is considered a less than significant impact.
SOIL EROSION
Impact 5-4
Mitigation
Measure 5-4a
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near
the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements would
expose underlying soil to the elements. Some site soils may also be
contaminated. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and
pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose
soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to
erosion during storm events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading
to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant
impact during and following site construction activities.
Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion
Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization,
dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to
the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the Best management
practices"(BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control
pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan
shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms,
mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw
wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other
control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control
Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer.
The City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or
representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and
PAGE 5-17
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
approved plans, and require that the Project applicant immediately correct
any violations.
Mitigation
Measure 5-4b
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
Applicant shall flle a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior
to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-
DWQ).
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm
Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less
than significant.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. No impact.
Loss OF MINERAL RESOURCES
No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project. No
Impact,
UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURE
No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. No Impact.
PAGE 5-18
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
6
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The following section summarizes identified hazards and potentially hazardous materials existing
or considered likely to occur on the property and which would, therefore, impact the proposed
Project. This includes a description of the history of hazardous materials at the site; and
consideration of the threat to future occupants, workers, and the surrounding environment that
would result from development as proposed. This includes consideration of risk from exposure
to hazards or hazardous materials during demolition, earthwork and grading, construction, and
during the course of normal operations at the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement
Warehouse.
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or
significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed.
Hazardous materials include waste that has been abandoned, discarded or recycled on the
property that may represent a continuing hazard as development occurs.
The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data, including: (1) Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment and Addendum Report by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
(CEI) Ouly 8, 2005 and August 10, 2005); (2) Limited Phase 2 Subsurface Environmental Site
Assessment (December 23, 2005); (3) Letter of geotechnical report review by CEI (September
27,2005); (4) Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) Radius Map with Geocheck database
search for the proposed Project site Oune 15, 2005); (5) EDR Sanborn Map Report for the
proposed Project site Oune 16,2005); (6) EDR Site Report, Homart Development 480 Industrial
Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Oune 20, 2005); (7) EDR Site Report, HWY 280, South
San Francisco, CA Oune 23, 2005); (8) Species List for Lowe's Retail, U.S. Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Oune 15, 2005); (9) Report on Asbestos Surveys completed on
Commercial Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Oune
30,2005); (10) Report on Lead Based Paint Surveys completed on Commercial Property at 600-
790 Dubuque Avenue prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Oune 30, 2005); (11)
Environmental Sampling, Testing and Evaluation of Soil by Consolidated Engineering
Laboratories (CEL) (Revised August 29, 2005); (12) Analytical Reports by Severn Trent
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 6-1
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Laboratories, Inc. (August 23, 2005, December 7,8,9, 2005); (13) Final Case Closure:
Contaminant Contour Maps and Volume Estimates for Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue,
South San Francisco, California by AllWest Environmental Inc. (February 26, 2001); (14) Review
of Historical Topographic Maps (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/); (15) Review of the East
of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances
and regulations; (16) Development Plan Sheets prepared for Lowe's Home Improvement
Warehouse, Inc. by AMS Associates, Inc. Oune 7, 2005); (17) San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department website, (www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/ department/home.html); (18)
personal communication with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and
(19) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on August 22, 2005.
6.2 SETTING
Site History
Site history was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared
by CEI Engineering (2005), as well as from independent review of historic maps. More recent
information was obtained from personal communication with County and City officials,
planning documentation, and a site visit on August 22, 2005.
An early map of the area is the 1896 United States Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic map
of the San Mateo 15-minute quadrangle. According to this map, the vicinity south of Colma
Creek and west of the present day Bayshore Freeway alignment was already developed. Roads
are shown in similar alignment to present Dubuque and East Grand Avenues, while the railroad
terminated near the northern end of the Project site. No buildings are shown on the subject
property. By 1915 the railroad was shown to be significantly wider and three large buildings are
shown on the subject property. A more detailed Sanborn Map from 1925 shows the Enterprise
Foundry Company and the American Brake Shop and Foundry Company occupied the western
half of the Project site, while the eastern portion nearest the railroad tracks and including the
present long warehouse building, was classified as a low marshy area. Facilities included several
iron foundries, a machine shop, steel cleaning room, sand blaster, and various metal working
facilities. The Bayshore Highway is not shown, but appears on the 1939 USGS topographic
quadrangle map, which also shows a minor road was added to connect Dubuque Avenue to a
railroad station at the south end of the site in similar location to the current CAL TRAIN station.
The 1939 map is important because it no longer shows Colma Creek as an open channel,
indicating it was routed into underground culverts sometime prior to 1939.
The 1947 USGS topographic map of the area shows that the highway had been upgraded to a
freeway in similar configuration to the present day, while a spur of the railroad is shown to
extend to metal working facilities on the site. A Sanborn Map dated 1956 shows the property
was still used for metal working, including welding and machining, but that buildings on the site
PAGE 6-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
had been remodeled and additions made. This map shows the electrical transmission towers
located near the northeast corner of the property were constructed by that time.
The most significant change to the property since original development as a foundry and metal
shop took place in the 1960s, as witnessed in a 1965 aerial photo. The photo shows the original
buildings had been demolished and replaced with new structures. Three of the four existing
buildings are shown, while a pad for the fourth building located on the northwest portion of the
proposed development site was apparently in preparation for construction, with a graded pad
clearly visible. The fourth building is later shown on the 1968 USGS topographic map. Asphalt
pavement appears to have been placed in conjunction with the new construction. More recent
maps indicate the Project site has undergone no major structural changes since 1968.
Site history reflects development of industry in close proximity to the railroad and highway. The
property was used for metal working until the 1960s, and since then for a variety of commercial
and light industrial uses, including freight transportation. The entire area east of U.S. 101
appears to have undergone a similar history, with a transition from more heavy industrial uses
such as metal foundries and sheet metal work and warehousing to more recent development of
laboratory facilities and commercial complexes.
Regulatory Setting
Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). The department administers several
programs to regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous
materials business plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental
release program, underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the
stormwater pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by State and
federal Laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The Hazardous
Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in
accordance with both State and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was
started in 1984 when the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in
San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health
and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5.
The groundwater protection program IS funded wholly or in part, by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of
San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws, the underground storage tank program was created
to regulate the chief source of underground contamination: leaking underground storage tanks
(LUST). At the federal level, the chief regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-3
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Substances Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of
toxic materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of
potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection
through the general permit, which must be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre,
including the Project. The local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). The Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) has also established environmental screening guidelines for commercial
developments (RWQCB, 2005). According to the publication, the environmental screening
levels (ESL) are to be used as Tier 1 guidelines:
"Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part of
the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing regulatory
agency. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does not necessarily
indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; this simply
indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional evaluation is warranted.
ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly biodegradable in the environment may
in particular be overly conservative for use as final cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related
compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels should be evaluated in view of the overall site
investigation results and the cost/benefit of performing a more site-specific risk assessment."
Other standards have been developed by the State of California through the Department of
Toxic Substances Control and other agencies to qualify concentrations that are generally greater
than the Environmental Screening Levels and that are considered hazardous. These standards
are referred to under Titles 22 and 26 of the California Code of Regulations. The leaching
procedures, known as the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (ITLC) and Soluble Threshold
Limit Concentration (STLC), are intended to simulate the conditions that may be present in a
landfill where water may pass through the waste and travel into the groundwater, carrying the
soluble materials with it. The TTLC analysis determines the total concentration of each target
analyte in a soil sample, while the STLC analysis determines the total concentration of the target
analyte in water.
More stringent standards are used to determine suitability of water for drinking, known as
maximum contaminant levels (MCL). These are enforceable regulatory standards under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and must be met by all public drinking water systems to which they apply.
Primary MCLs can be found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with contamination, as well as potential sources
of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with information on hazardous
materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the EP A, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), the
Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessment prepared for the Project site. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
PAGE 6-4
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
These programs and regulations are primarily intended to ffiltigate for environmental
contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit
public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from
exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration at both the federal Level (OSHA) and the State level (CAL-
OSHA).
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the federal
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify
the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and State laws address
risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations
outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is
mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the
Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway
Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations associated with hazardous materials and
wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking;
labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of
transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Overview
The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by CEI Engineering
Associates, Inc. (CEI) in 2005 for existing businesses at 600 t0790 Dubuque Avenue to identify
any hazards and potential environmental hazards present at the Project site. Hazards may result
from use and storage of chemicals on the property, any hazardous building materials, and from
the history of hazardous materials and environmental contaminants on the property and nearby
properties. A Phase 1 ESA is intended to not only identify hazards and provide basic risk
assessment, but also to provide recommendations for further investigation, including sampling
and testing of potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and building materials. The Phase 1
ESA included a literature review, records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with
knowledgeable parties.
The search through local, State, and federal databases for environmentally hazardous properties
identified three businesses on the property. 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue is included
because it has a Hazardous Materials Business Plan on file with the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department for generating and recycling waste oil and solvent. US Air
Conditioning is reported for storing less than 3,500 gallons of unidentified hazardous materials.
Bressie and Company, which currently owns the subject property, is included in both the Haznet
and Cortese Databases. This is apparently related to the case of the former leaking storage tanks
(LUSTs) on the property, including two underground tanks which were removed and which
received case closure in 2001. According to the Phase 1 ESA, inclusion of these properties in
the environmental databases was not considered a recognized environmental condition, perhaps
since there is no ongoing remediation or request for remediation. The report did consider
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-5
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
asbestos contauung material and lead based paint found on the proposed Lowe's sIte as
recognized environmental conditions. The Phase 1 ESA also considered several nearby
properties with a history of remediation as recognized environmental conditions.
Subsurface Contamination Sources
Subsurface contamination of soil, groundwater, and fill material on the site may be attributed to
four primary sources: leaking aboveground or underground storage tanks on the property;
subsurface migration of contamination onto the property from nearby properties through
groundwater flow, dispersion, and diffusion; a history of contaminated materials at the site
which were discarded as on-site fill; and penetration of contaminants through the surface from
leaks and spills.
Records indicate the site formerly contained two leaking underground storage tanks with
approximate capacity of 2,000 gallons each. These tanks were located at the northeast corner of
the second long warehouse building nearest Dubuque Avenue. In a letter from the San Mateo
County Health Services Agency dated June 11, 2001, the case for the storage tanks was granted
closure following tank removal and subsequent monitoring of contamination. At the time of
closure, AIlWest Environmental estimated the combined mass of petroleum hydrocarbons
remaining in the soil was 43,000 pounds, and that an additional 40 pounds of hydrocarbons
remained in groundwater. The network of monitoring wells formerly present on the property
during the leaking underground and aboveground storage tank investigation determined these
hydrocarbons were concentrated in two separate plumes with total petroleum hydrocarbon
concentrations exceeding 100 parts per million (ppm) inside each of these plume areas.
According to the closure letter report, the plumes were located next to the power lines along the
northeastern edge of the property. The closure letter did not consider the proposed
development and possible exposure to workers during site grading of at least a small fraction of
the 43,000 pounds of total hydrocarbons estimated to remain in soil along the northeast side of
the property.
Contamination may also occur due to subsurface migration from nearby sites. This type of
contamination was not specifically identified through the former monitoring well network.
However, any contaminant migration following well destruction would obviously not have been
detected. The Phase 1 ESA considered the likelihood of contamination from nearby sites a
recognized environmental condition, and recommended a Phase 2 investigation of subsurface
sampling and testing to identify the occurrence of any such contamination. The property is
located in an industrial area, and according to the Phase 1 ESA, there are five properties on the
CAL-SITES list located within a 1-mile radius of the site. CAL-SITES is the database
maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) for sites
with known hazardous and potentially hazardous substances. Seven nearby leaking underground
storage tank sites were also considered to be recognized environmental conditions.
PAGE 6-6
LOWE'S PROJEG
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Subsurface contamination could also result from former site uses, including use as an Iron
foundry, steel foundry, metalworking shop, brake manufacturing plant, and sandblaster.
Contaminated materials may have been left in fill at the site during the 1960s.
Other subsurface contamination could have resulted from surface spills that penetrated to the
subsurface, but this is limited by the extent of paved surfaces that currently cover the site.
Historical maps and aerial photos indicate that about 90 percent of the site has been paved since
the late 1960's.
Additional Chemicals of Concern and Sources of Contamination
Chemicals of concern are chemicals documented on the property or considered likely to exist,
and which also pose a calculable human health or ecological risk. These risks are sometimes
called recognized environmental conditions. Chemicals and hazardous materials specifically
addressed in the Phase 1 ESA include asbestos containing building materials, lead based paint,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and radon. Chemicals of concern include asbestos and lead,
since there is documented evidence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint in
existing building materials. PCB's were found unlikely to occur, since no PCB-labeled
transformers were observed on the property or in the site vicinity, and a radon survey found
radon levels below the recommended safe radon level for San Mateo County of 2 picocuries per
liter of air. However, another source of potential PCB contamination from fluorescent light
fixtures manufactured prior to 1979 may not have been considered.
Based on the site history, other potential chemicals of concern are related to the recent history
of the property. Businesses occupying the four major buildings on the property include Hoyt
Shepson Freight, the Jackson Arms Shooting Range, U.S. Air Conditioning, the American
Furniture Warehouse, Compdata, West Marine, 101 Trucking, Fitness West Sports Club, and
SAI Packing and Crating. Some of these businesses almost certainly use common potentially
hazardous materials. Trucking and freight companies on the property use heavy equipment such
as hydraulic lifts to load containers, and have stores of diesel fuel, hydraulic oil and other
hydrocarbons. Staining of asphalt was observed in the parking area and loading docks of some
of these facilities. U.S. Air Conditioning stores refrigerants such as Puron and R22 in products
they are vending both commercially and for residential use. In addition to these chemicals,
normal cleaning agents are stored in businesses at the site. While these chemicals are potentially
hazardous, there is no evidence of site contamination from these chemicals through spills or
leaks. Chemicals of concern include ammonia, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), oxidizers,
abrasives, and other substances that pose a definite threat to the environment, but which are so
common as to be ignored unless they are spilled or catch on fire. Provided these chemicals are
safely stored and removed prior to development, the hazard from these chemicals should be
minimal.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-7
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Metal contamination may pose a human health risk if present at elevated concentrations.
Current exposure is limited because foundations of structures and paved surfaces cover and
contain soils. However, during demolition of site structures and utilities, grading of site soils, and
construction of new structures, construction workers could be exposed to contaminated soils.
Other potential contaminants include asbestos used in brake linings, solvents, and other
chemicals used in metalworking and steel manufacturing that may have been left on site
following the former land uses.
The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not include the
property in either the Hazardous Materials Inventory or Site Remediation Database. The
Hazardous Material Inventory is a database with fues on sites that use or generate hazardous
waste, or have underground storage tanks. The Site Remediation Database is a database of sites
that are being remediated for soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or disposal of
hazardous materials from the site. According to the SMCEHD, there is no ongoing or proposed
remediation, except that businesses participating in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
program would need to submit a closure work plan prior to vacating the property.
Off-Site Sources Of Contamination
Contaminants migrate through a variety of media, including air, soil and groundwater. The most
transient contaminant is air pollution. Since the site is not in close proximity to a major factory
emitter or other source, small-scale emissions from nearby businesses are considered
insignificant when compared to regional pollution from sources such as the adjacent Bayshore
Freeway. Less transient sources of pollution are soil and groundwater contamination. The
mobility of contamination within the soil depends in large part upon the solubility of the
contaminants in water and the rate of groundwater flow through the soil. Groundwater flow is
much less rapid than surface flow. However, where groundwater is shallow and a source of
contamination penetrates into the aquifer, contamination may travel a considerable distance.
The greatest threat to the property is from contaminated sites located immediately up-slope or
up gradient from the site. Contamination from these sites is most likely to flow downhill or
down gradient onto the subject property.
The EDR report included a records search of more than thirty different federal, State and local
databases. Only the databases containing sites most likely to impact the proposed development
are mentioned here. The Phase 1 ESA (citing the EDR report) identified numerous sites within
one mile radius of the property, and from this list narrowed down five CAL-SITES (California
Department of Toxic Substances and Control database), 48 LUST (Leaking Underground
Storage Tank) sites, two BEP (Department of Health Services Bond Expenditure Plan) sites, and
one voluntary cleanup program (VCP) site as recognized environmental conditions. However,
the criteria for distinguishing these sites as recognized environmental conditions is unclear,
especially since some of the CAL-SITES are identified as being at a lower elevation and nearly a
mile from the subject property. Contamination spreading from these sites onto the property
seems unlikely since it would appear opposite the likely groundwater flow direction.
PAGE 6-8
LOWE'S PROJEO
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Excluding sites greater than one-eighth of a mile from the property narrows the list of sites with
potential contamination affecting the proposed development to ten. Out of these ten sites, five
are reported as small quantity generators of hazardous materials with no reported violations in
accordance with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Another two
sites are listed as small quantity generators of hazardous materials in accordance with San Mateo
County with no reported violations. Only two sites were found to have had leaking underground
storage tanks. These are Housing Construction at 821 Cypress Avenue and Bob Leech's Auto
Rental at 435 South Airport Boulevard. Both sites are located on the opposite (west) side of the
Bayshore Freeway.
Records show that the County case on the underground tank at 435 South Airport Boulevard
was closed. Spills ofTPH as diesel and TPH as gasoline (with MTBE) at 821 Cypress Avenue
were reported, and groundwater samples showed a level of TPH as gasoline in groundwater of
50 parts per million (ppm). A groundwater investigation was completed in conjunction with
another site and the case was dosed. However, the site remains in the Cortese database, a
California database of sites with suspected or known contamination. The Phase 1 ESA
concluded that these and other nearby sites represent recognized environmental conditions to
the proposed development. However, no adjoining properties are reported with ongoing or
required remediation. This suggests a low level of potential impact to the subject property.
Building Testing
Sampling of building materials and paint was completed for the Phase 1 ESA in 2005. Results of
sampling and testing for asbestos and lead are documented in a June 2005 report by Krazan and
Associates. Floor tile and associated mastic at 712 Dubuque Avenue, 700A Dubuque, and 700
Dubuque Avenue was found to contain at least one-percent asbestos. This is in addition to
other material found to contain trace concentrations of asbestos. According to the California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL-OSHA), asbestos-containing construction
material contains at least one-tenth percent asbestos. Based on this criterion, there are
potentially hazardous asbestos concentrations in building material on the property, and
disturbance of this material is considered a potential human health hazard, primarily due to
exposure from inhalation.
The lead based paint survey report dated June 30, 2005, documented lead concentrations
exceeding 0.5 percent by weight in yellow striping on the concrete floor at 600 Dubuque
Avenue, as well as on yellow metal bollard posts located outside buildings on the property.
Additional paint samples found to contain concentrations of lead exceeding 0.06 percent by
weight were identified on interior and exterior concrete walls at 600 Dubuque Avenue, on a
concrete wall and metal door at 700 Dubuque Avenue, a metal door in the break room of 710a
Dubuque Avenue, a wood door frame at 630 Dubuque Avenue, and on gypsum wallboard at
700a Dubuque Avenue. According to California OSHA regulations, disturbance of paint with
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-9
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
any detectable lead requires that federal and State guidelines to protect workers during
disturbance shall be followed. This would include demolition necessary for the proposed
development to proceed.
Recent Subsurface Investigations
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (CEL) recently completed sampling and analytical testing
in conjunction with the preliminary geotechnical investigation. Sampling was performed at the
northwestern corner of the site at depths of 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface and in the
north central portion of the site at the same depths. Samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, TPH as diesel, TPH as motor oil, and for benzene, toluene,
ethylene and xylenes (BTEX). Samples were also tested for the CAM 17 metals of antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc, and mercury. CAM is an acronym for California Administrative
Manual, which is presently known as CCR or California Code of Regulations. CAM 17 refers to lists
of heavy metals identified in the manual as potentially hazardous. Reported concentrations of
arsenic, chromium, and cobalt were found to exceed the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) , but are below the EP A Residential
preliminary remediation goals and California total threshold limit concentrations (TTLC) and
soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLC). Petroleum hydrocarbons were either not
detected, or found at only very low levels below the ESL.
Most recently, a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated December 23, 2005 was
completed by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories that documents sampling and testing of
soil and groundwater in November and December of 2005. This investigation was completed
pursuant to previous findings of contamination from the former leaking underground storage
tank (LUST) investigation, sampling during the geotechnical investigation, and review of site
history. Testing was completed for a suite of chemicals, including petroleum hydrocarbons in
soil and groundwater according to EP A 8260, volatile organics according to EP A 8260B, semi-
volatile organics according to EP A 8270, and CAM 17 metals. These contaminants were
considered most likely from past industrial uses of the site and vicinity, including use as a metal
foundry, and from the former LUST. Samples were taken from nine boreholes drilled on
November 22,2005. These boreholes are shown to generally cover the northern and southern
areas of the property, as well as the segment along Dubuque Avenue. Not all areas could be
sampled due to inaccessibility within buildings and to avoid utilities. Groundwater was typically
encountered at a depth of between 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface (BGS), while
boreholes were continued to depths of between 10 and 14 feet BGS.
Results of testing from four of the boreholes, Borehole CEL-1, 4, 6 and 7, indicate the upper
five feet of fill contains residual contamination that exceeds the environmental screening levels
developed for shallow soils underlying commercials sites where groundwater is not to be
developed. Groundwater taken from Boreholes CEL 6 and 7, located within the former plume
of petroleum hydroc~rbons associated with the former leaking underground storage tank, were
found to have concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (fPH) occurring as diesel of
PAGE 6-10
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
2,800 ug/L (micrograms per liter) and 17,000 ug/L, while the concentration of TPH occurring
as motor oil from groundwater in Borehole CEL-7 was found to be 5300 ug/L. These
concentrations all exceed the environmental screening level of 640 ug/L. Hydrocarbon
concentrations in soil samples taken at 5 feet below the ground surface were also found to
exceed the respective ESL of 400, 500, and 1000 mg/kg for TPH occurring as gasoline, diesel,
and motor oil. Reported concentrations were 6200 mg/kg ofTPH-diesel, 1900 mg/kg ofTPH-
motor oil, and 410 mg/kg ofTPH-gasoline.
Only Borehole CEL-l was found to have significantly elevated metal concentrations. Samples
taken from a depth of 5 feet were found to have concentrations of antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and cobalt exceeding the ESL. None of these concentrations approach the Total
Threshold Limit Concentrations (ITLC) considered hazardous by the State of California.
However, concentrations in groundwater were found to be hazardous by the State of California
since they exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) for cadmium, copper,
lead, and zinc.
Concentrations of the semi-volatile organic compounds benzoanthracene, benzofluoranthene,
benzopyrene, and indenopyrene in soil also exceeded the environmental screening levels in
Borehole CEL-4. Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (Hazardous Waste Levels) have not
been established for these chemicals. Trace levels of benzene, fluorene, phenanthrene or
toluene were also encountered in groundwater from Boreholes CEL-l, 2, 4, 5, and 7, but these
concentrations are below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established for drinking
water.
Elevated metal concentrations in CEL-l are apparently associated with scrap metal, slag (melted
metal fragments produced from metal smelting) and mixed debris, including brick and glass that
was found buried on the property. High concentrations of TPH-diesel, gasoline, and motor oil
are directly connected with the former leaking underground storage tanks, while other
contaminant levels may be related to general low-level contamination of groundwater underlying
the industrial area. Exposure to contaminants, such as from buried fill contaminated with semi-
volatile organics, petroleum, and metals depends upon the extent and depth of grading,
foundation work, and trenching. This includes possible exposure to groundwater with dissolved
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc exceeding STLC near the southern edge of the property.
Based upon these findings, CEL reiterated their previous recommendation that a soil and
groundwater management and contingency plan be adopted. The conceptual plan developed by
CEL is designed primarily to protect workers during soil disturbance and establish provisions for
future use or recycling of on site soils.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-11
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Current Contamination Levels and Health Risks
Contaminant levels can be estimated based on sampling and testing. Concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil associated
with former leaking underground storage tanks were measured in soil and groundwater in 2001.
More recently, asbestos and lead were detected in building materials at the site, as reported in the
Phase 1 ESA.
Hazards associated with demolition of structures containing asbestos-containing materials and
lead based paint is a well-mown and documented risk during demolition. The hazard from
petroleum hydrocarbons such as diesel fuel, gasoline, and motor oil is also well known. There is
expected to be at least a slight risk of exposure during grading near the power lines, since this is
where contaminant plumes were shown in the 2001 leaking underground storage tank closure
report. The actual risk would depend upon the depth and extent of grading. There is also
documentation of low levels of metal contamination in soil, and higher concentrations of metals
in groundwater that exceed the STLC (Title 22 Hazardous Waste Level). Since soils in the upper
five feet below the ground surface are proposed to be graded and used as engineered fill and
utility line excavations may extend to greater than five feet in depth, there are definite exposure
hazards.
During construction there would also be normal construction hazards. These hazards include
fall hazards, collapse hazards, risk of electrocution or explosion from utilities, as well as any
other foreseeable hazards. Regulation of these hazards is normally administered through CAL-
OSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration), the California Division of
Industrial Health and Safety, and related agencies. Implementation of safety procedures and
training is the responsibility of the contractor, and would require a health and safety plan.
PAGE 6-12
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental Impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Would the Project produce hazardous emISSIons or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4) Would the Project 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?
5) Would the Project be 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?
6) 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?
7) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8) Would the Project 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?
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-13
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
Impact 6-1
Mitigation
Measure 6-1a
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The
proposed Lowe's complex, including parking, warehousing, delivery, and
shopping facilities, is designed for commercial retail. Retail sales items include
many potentially hazardous products, including paints, thinners, solvents,
preservatives, propane gas (for both sale and use in forklifts), and large
potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items would be routinely
delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally
in small quantities), and, when not sold or warehoused, must be transported
from the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport would be
concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk
of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport,
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the
public and environment is a potentially significant impact.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan. In accordance with State law and
local regulations, businesses occupying the development must complete a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals.
The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials,
a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they
may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials (included in
material safety data sheets for each material), a spill prevention plan, an
emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA
guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the
program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the
minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids,
500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Retail establishments, such as Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouses are
normally required by law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous
materials. Hazardous materials may include paints, solvents, batteries,
aerosol cans, compressed gas cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica
gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators and other
mechanical equipment, as well as any other chemicals considered hazardous
by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, Department
PAGE 6-14
Mitigation
Measure 6-1b
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
of Toxic Substances Control, and other regulators. Lowe's is also
responsible for reporting "off spec" materials. These are materials that were
not sold and are not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Lowe's is
responsible for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be
additionally reported and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must
submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30
days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency
contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials
storage, and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan
Program. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD) shall inspect the business annually to verify that the Business
Plan is complete and accurate.
Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the County
approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation, State of
California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation
of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site would be in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of the above rrutlgation measures would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6-2
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release, Mitigation for the accidental
release of hazardous materials during construction is included in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for the Project
under conditions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board Construction
Stormwater Program. This is discussed in greater detail under the Hydrology
Section of this environmental impact report. The required SWPPP includes
implementation of best management practices for preventing the discharge
of construction-related pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, and
PAGE 6-15
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation
Measure 6-2a
PAGE 6-16
concrete into the environment. However, the SWPPP is unlikely to address
mitigation for the accidental release of hazardous materials during demolition
of the existing facilities. Hazardous materials to be encountered include
asbestos containing building materials, and possible lead based paint.
Demolition presents a primary hazard to workers through inhalation of dust,
dermal absorption, and ingestion of hazardous materials. Following the
completion of construction; warehousing, transport, and vending operations
at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the
environment through accidental release of potentially hazardous materials.
The greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm drain system. These
hazards are a potentially significant impact.
Demolition Plan and Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or
structures, the applicant shall prepare a Demolition Plan and obtain a
Demolition Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building Division.
The Demolition Plan shall include measures ensuring safe demolition of
existing buildings and structures. The Plan shall include measures to control
asbestos dust and incorporate site surveys for the presence of potentially
hazardous building materials. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-
site worker protection and off-site resident and worker protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials are
required to be tested for contaminant concentrations and are required to be
disposed of at appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building
demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable
lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials are required to be
removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances.
The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of
work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the Plan. Prior to obtaining
a Demolition Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted ill
accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1)
must be followed. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following:
· Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to
building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must
receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
. Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by a DHS-certified
lead project designer, project monitor or supervisor.
. Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the
requirements of the lead construction standard by any contractor that
impacts leads coatings.
. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be certified by DHS
in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level must have
blood lead levels tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least
quarterly thereafter for the duration of the Project. Workers that are
terminated from the Project should have their blood lead levels tested
within 24 hours of termination.
. A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with
T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building
components, must be characterized for proper disposal in accordance
with Title 22, Section 66261.24.
Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San
Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit
and Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Building
Official.
Mitigation
Measure 6-2b
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). The
applicant shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances for
chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the
environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. This list
is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Businesses are responsible for determining which list to use in
consultation with SMCEHD.
Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in
consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CalARP
registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to the
SMCEHD. Following registration of the regulated substances, the applicant
shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle
accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to
provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 6-17
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a
regulated substance must develop and implement a Risk Management Plan.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the
environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential
areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for:
keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances;
training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored
safely; and responding to an accidental release.
Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the
Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation
Measure 6-2c
Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an
Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification
procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of
the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits,
absorbent rags, sand, etc. available to staff for containing and cleaning up
spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated
materials.
Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the
Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of accidental releases of
hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
HAZARDOusMATE~SNEARSCHOOLS
The nearest registered school or daycare facility is the Martin School, located at 35 School
Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles from the site. This distance of greater than one-quarter mile
from the site, and the relative isolation of the Project site between Highway 101 and the railroad
tracks, results in the potential impact to schools from hazardous emissions or accidental spills
being characterized as a less than significant impact.
HAZARDOUS MATE~S SITES
Impact 6-3 Potential Exposure to Residual Site Contamination. According to the most
recent Environmental Database Report, dated June 16, 2005, the property
remains on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
PAGE 6-18 LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Code Section 65962.5. This is despite receiving case closure from San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department for former leaking underground
storage tanks. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments, as well as
sampling associated with the geotechnical investigation for the site, have assessed
the extent of hazardous materials that is feasible, given the constraints of existing
buildings and utilities.
Sampling and testing has revealed residual contamination of soil and
groundwater in the vicinity of the former leaking underground tanks that were
located near the center of the northern quarter of the property. Levels of total
petroleum hydrocarbons occurring as diesel, motor oil and gasoline were found
to exceed Water Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for commercial
sites in this area. Other contaminants found to exceed the ESL were semi-
volatile organic compounds in soil taken from a borehole located near the
northern edge of the long warehouse structure constructed next to the east edge
of the property, and concentrations of the metals antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and cobalt exceeding the ESL in soil taken at a depth of 5 feet BGS
near the southeast corner. Groundwater in the same area was also found to
exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) for cadmium,
copper, lead and zinc.
Since it was not feasible to screen all areas, it is possible that similar contaminant
concentrations could be encountered in other areas, especially during site
grading. Pockets of debris and fill may remain, with elevated concentrations of
metals, semi-volatiles, hydrocarbons, or other contaminants. Encountering low
levels of diesel, gasoline, and motor oil in soil and groundwater can be expected
in the location of the former hydrocarbon plume on the north side of the
property, as well as scattered metals and metal contaminated soil and
groundwater, especially near the south edge of the site.
During site demolition and grading activities, construction workers could be subjected to
exposure to residual site contamination. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 6-3a
San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of
Existing Facilities. Facilities registered in the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan program, including 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue, and
US Air Conditioning at 700 Dubuque Avenue, shall submit a closure work
plan in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property. The
closure plan must detail any necessary sampling and remediation. Closure
would not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no need
for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the removal of
any hazardous chemicals.
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-19
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation
Measure 6-3b
PAGE 6-20
Preparation and Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater
Management and Contingency Plan. A Soil and Groundwater
Management and Contingency Plan shall be prepared. The Plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department and City of South San Francisco Building Department to
provide a basis for handling and disposal of contaminated or hazardous
materials encountered during the site grading and construction process.
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the
environment would be provided in the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and
remediation at the site, including closure reports for the Underground
Storage Tank (UST) and contaminant concentrations.
2) Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) to be
prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the
Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation
on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP
shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective
equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The
HASP would be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
The Plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure
and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public
exposure to any hazards during demolition, site grading and construction.
3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project
development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce
exposure risks. Screening should delineate the vertical and horizontal extent
of any contamination within the footprint of foundation or utility work.
Excavated materials should then be segregated and stockpiled accordingly on
plastic tarps to prevent the further spread of any contamination. Should
testing reveal hazardous waste levels, the excavated soil or groundwater
would be shipped by a licensed hazardous material hauler to an approved
disposal site under the proper manifesting documents. A report shall
document the volume, concentration and nature of contaminants in the off-
hauled material.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination. This shall include treatment and
disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and
Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered
in trenches and other excavations should be pumped or drained into a closed
containment facility, unless otherwise proven to have concentrations of
contaminants below the Environmental Screening Levels for commercial
sites where groundwater is not to be developed.
5) General sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability
for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. At a
minimum, analytical testing shall be performed on one composite sample per
500 cubic yards of soil disturbed, excavated or graded at the site. Testing
shall include CAM 17 metals, asbestos, volatile organic compounds, semi-
volatile organic compounds, TPH as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as
motor oil. Testing results shall be compared to the RWQCB Environmental
Screening Levels for Commercial Sites to determine suitability to remain on
site as engineered fill. Any soils determined to exceed the ESL shall be
deemed unsuitable for use as engineered fill. Exceptions may be made for
metals such as arsenic, chromium, cobalt and others that fall within the
normal background range of metals in soils of the San Francisco Bay area.
6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by
owners, tenants or visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of
groundwater development.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of potential exposure to
residual site contamination to a level of less than significant.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Impact 6-4
Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed
development is not expected to physically interfere with implementation of an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. However, traffic may increase
along Dubuque Avenue, and could reduce response times. Discussion of
specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed
development are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this
EIR (see Chapter 11). In addition, Project construction could result in a
reduction of response times, due to large construction equipment and reduced
access to the site and surrounding areas. Demand for fire protection and
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-21
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
emergency medical servlces may also increase at the site since the proposed
facility is designed to accommodate more visitors than the existing facilities.
Such an increase in traffic must be accommodated in the local Emergency
Response Plan, and represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 6-4
Fire Department Review. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the City
of South San Francisco Fire Department is required to review construction
plans for roadway modifications and shall establish temporary alternative
emergency routes necessary for the duration of the Project construction. The
applicant shall design the aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and
Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency access.
The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the review and approval by
the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City
Engineer and Fire Marshall.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of development to any
emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant.
Airport Land Use Plan
While the proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use
Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, it would have a less than significant impact
in terms of the Plan's policies.
Private Airstrip
The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not result in a
safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. As such, the Project will have no
impact.
Wildland Fires
The project site is located in a fully urbanized area, and is not subject to wildland fires. It is not
located adjacent within the adjacent to any residences, and is not within the vicinity of a
wetlands. As such, the Project will have no impact.
PAGE 6-22
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
7
HYDROLOGY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality.
The discussion is based on the review of several reports and documents as well as site visits
conducted on July 12 and August 22, 2005 by Questa Engineering, and correspondence with the
City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Department. The various
reports and documents reviewed include: (1) Project Description; (2) Conceptual Plans and
ALTA Survey prepared by AMS Associates, Inc. Gune 7, 2005); (3) Preliminary Geotechnical
Recommendations completed by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (August 4, 2005); and
(4) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Lowe's Home Warehouse, prepared by CEI
Engineering Associates Guly 8, 2005).
7.2 SETTING
CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is located in a relatively flat industrial area east of U.S. 101 in the City of South
San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the site.
The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild
summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs
during the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation of 20
inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the
summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.l
The Project site and surrounding area is largely developed with light industrial, research, retail,
warehousing, office, and hotel uses. Nearly 90 percent of the 12.8-acre Project site is currendy
covered in impervious surfaces. There are four buildings on the site, with paved parking and
loading areas occupying most of the remainder of the site. Railroad tracks parallel the eastern
boundary of the property. The site ground surface slopes generally to the southeast toward the
railroad tracks. Ground elevations range from approximately 21 feet above Mean Sea Level
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-1
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
(MSL) at the north corner of the property to 14 feet above MSL along the eastern border of the
property.
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
The Project site is located within the Colma Creek watershed, which includes portions of the
San Bruno Mountains and urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most
of this urbanized creek is channelized or conveyed underground to allow for urban
development. In a 1998 study conducted by San Mateo County, impervious surface area in the
Colma Creek watershed was estimated at 63 percent, the highest in San Mateo County.2 The
creek discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International
Airport.
Colma Creek is a flood control channel that is maintained by the San Mateo County Department
of Public Works. Improvements to and maintenance of the creek and its flood control
infrastructure are funded by properties that fall within the county-designated Colma Creek Flood
Control Zone. Figure 7-1 shows the boundaries of the Zone. The Project site is located within
the Zone and must contribute to the Zone's revenue.
SITE HYDROLOGY
Storm water runoff from the site begins as overland sheet flow across the roofs of the buildings
and the paved parking areas. Several storm drains are located in the north-side parking lot and
in the center drive-through area between the four existing buildings. These on-site storm drains
convey runoff to two municipal drainpipes that run through the site. One of the pipes crosses
through the northeast corner of the site and the other pipe runs along the southern property
line. Both of the municipal pipes are 30-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) and
approximately half of the runoff from the site drains into each pipe. From the entrance to the
municipal system, flows are routed eastward beneath the railroad tracks to a 36-inch RCP that
runs south down Executive Drive, then east to Gateway Boulevard. At Gateway Boulevard, the
36-inch pipe connects to a 72-inch RCP that continues south to the point of discharge at the
Colma Creek flood control channel.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines State groundwater basins based
on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located
within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock
and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the
primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the
Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with
Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998
PAGE 7-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
- ~ -~ -. -li'-~' ~:If;. ,. \~ .
I JM!'! ~ ~"~:_-J .- 'J~\ ~;'
r ..\ .~ "'_'\"'.._
, 1 -' -~\ ' ~.
~__~T~V_~D._.C.
SAN
12
POIt-
CK ",~j :
->\ -~ - ~ . : ~"1 .
:'\....... I ~"" ,~
;: ... Ij
1. ~~.-,,:,) ~
/~\I
13
POll
2..
SAN
26
2~
BEACH
:t;~~'~.:;:t, "rj-j -c
-.':'-It _.'~~!
- ,..~~j") ~ '
. (".~if~~~
,,~:.{-'~'4.t Q;/ "(,. 0
.? ~",.., Q i
'':i~'~.' -
"'--.-~. ....... - 'i~... <J
r...., .~l '':--J1
~(..,;\.." ... ~ ...."1-,. ~ ~
~jf3>,,~::;,:it:';,~.. " :
-~:'J /I! ,,.:.' -"l4:,.. .c..... ';, ."
"-...
-~
I
\,::;";; ~
}!,
..
COLMA CREEK
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
o
5000
I
10000
I
17 't'
SCALE
-184-
~QU~T~
Civil
Environmental
& Water Resources
--
FIGURE
(510)236-61'4
r AX (510)236-2473
questa@questaeccorTl
PO Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road POint Richmond, CA 94807
COlMA CREEK 7- ~
FLOOD CONTROL ZONES
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-4
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen
concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.3
The preparation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations for the proposed Project
included twelve exploratory boreholes drilled on July 22, 2005. All but one of the boreholes was
drilled to depths of 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs); one borehole was stopped at 4
feet. Groundwater at the Project site was typically encountered at 5 feet bgs.4
FLOODING
Approximately half of the Project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma
Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Figure 7-2 shows the location of the 100-year flood hazard zone
in the vicinity of the Project site.
7.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws,
and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, federal laws are
administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, State and local
regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes
relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality,
and how they relate to the proposed Project.
FEDERAL LAws AND REGULATIONS
CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and has been amended
several times since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the
United States, and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. Its
objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and
coastal waters. The CW A prescribes the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of
pollutants, as well as sets minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United
States. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers
the CW A. At the State and regional level, the CW A is administered and enforced by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules,
and regulations to assist in the implementation of the CW A and related federally-mandated
water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal requirements set minimum standards, and
4
Department of Water Resources, 2004.
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-5
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive,
i.e., more protective of the environment.
STATE LAws AND REGULATIONS
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the
principal State agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water
quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCB for
adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth
the State's water quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and
the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses.
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The CW A has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any
point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(P) , which
established a framework for regulating non-point source (NPS) storm water discharges under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm
water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized
municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and
construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project
applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and
disturbances to the ground (such as excavation). The Project applicant is required to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOl) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities
that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit a site-specific plan
called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The
SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property
owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management
measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BA 1)
economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the
statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and
perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges.
An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities
must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations.o
PAGE 7-6
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
I-
w
w
u.
o
0-
..
..-'-
-<
...
CD
C>
...
a..
...
...
Z
-<
...
=>
...
:!:
C>
C>
...
~
~
,.
.
~
~
o
.
~
.
~
....et
-~
....X
C>w
o
....!
....~
...~
Xw
OOCw
Q..le
..-
... ClCI
~ '"
OOC _
Cl
.......
>"""
t=...
U '""
....
.......
........
"'Q..
....
en
l; '\
I~
:i
'c
:e
~ II
~ 8
~ ~
.. i
.., .S
.'""
........
'""coo
:IE coo
= coo
:z:
.... ....
... CD
:z: co
OOC on
D- CD
. coo
>-
~
iE
=
:IE
::E
c
...,
CL.
c
:E
....
....
e
a=
....
u
z:
c
a=
:::I
U)
I:
-9
... ...
Cl
C,;l
l;IJ
-
C,;l
~ ~
ClI:l z
ra.<g
:z:-"",
<l2:=
t:/JClI:lIAl
Clto<
Ilootra.41
= _Ill
~ ..;:lz
e:;Cl<41
Ql;IJC,;lo:n
~
L.U
...J
-<(
U
Vl
L.U
I-
~ 0 I
o
~
0-
0..
-<(
I
o
0-
..
...
w
z
z
<I:
J:
l,)
~
Q
w
Z
<(
I-
Z
8
<I:
w
z
o
N
(.)
w
Z
o
N
-=
-~
r /____=_-
--r- r--- '"
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
~O"'l;~
~~~f:l
~8G
~Q:; I
......l:tl ,
lh
~
w__
iJ.l
a:::
:::l
~
~
N
I
I'-
+-'
C
Q)
E <.
Q) u
>
o 0
~ co
en 0. <J)
W E ~
~
Z Q) LL
o ~ ;;
NT(/)
o _(f) ~
o ~ c55
O 0 .
--.J (l)
...J 0 ~
LL U (l)
(f) >
<( U <.
~ ?6 ~
Wli:g
LL c .g
C'Cl 0
if) 0
o
...cr--
+-'
:J
o
if)
~~~
'- c:: ~
O<l>~
E: 0
c:: CI)
o <l>
.!:;: Q:
::.; ...
Jj~
~
'-'
;: S ~ ~
~H~
u-,,,,@ _
~~~ ~
W- ~ ~
.c
u
ii:
"
'0
[L
'"
CIl
o
0::
"
15
u
'"
~
U
'!::
CD
o
N
N
<0
'"
'"
o
r-
x
o
co
c:i
[L
Lfl
o
o
~
s:
~
~
<(
:?
w
LL
cc
c
rr: r- ?:
<. en ."!
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 7-8
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
To comply with the CW A, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County formed
the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP
holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit
includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco
Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay
region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal,
technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region.
The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region, and
specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the
continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water
quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The beneficial uses of surface waters in the south San Francisco Bay include wildlife habitat,
estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, shellfish
harvesting, commercial and sport fishing, water contact and non-contact recreation, navigation,
and industrial service supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater
Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and
domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply.s
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of
the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the
Plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine
drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by
minimizing erosion and sedimentation.6
San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 1995.
City of South San Francisco, 1994.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-9
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
The Colma Creek Flood Control District is administrated by the San Mateo County Department
of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood control
facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City of South
San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone extends over the entire watershed and
contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the District's revenue and maintenance of
the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been constructed since the
District was created in 1964.
The proposed Project is located within the Zone boundary and must contribute to funds for
flood control improvements and maintenance.
7.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental
impact if it would:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
2) 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 level (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);
3) 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 (i.e. within a watershed);
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in runoff rates or volumes;
6) Otherwise degrade water quality;
7) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
8) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows;
PAGE 7-10
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or
10) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project involves the demolition of three of the four existing on-site buildings and
the complete removal of the existing parking lot pavement in order to construct a new building
and a new surface parking lot. The site soils will be re-graded, and a new on-site subterranean
storm drain system will be installed. Unlike the existing on-site storm drain system, which
directs approximately half of the runoff from the site to a municipal storm sewer pipe in the
northeast corner and the other half to a municipal pipe that runs along the southern property
boundary, the new storm drain system will convey nearly all site runoff to the southern pipe. A
small area (approximately 1.2 acres) in the northeast corner of the site will continue to drain into
the northeast municipal storm sewer pipe; this area contains three electrical transmission towers
that will be separated from the rest of the property by a concrete curb and gutter. Potential
hydrological and water quality impacts from the Project are primarily related to: (1) the exposure
of soils during the construction period; and (2) the increased flows contributed by the proposed
new storm drain system to the existing municipal drainpipe near the southern boundary of the
site.
INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) IN RECEIVING WATERS
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and
streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for
various industrial activities are listed in Table 7-1. Development of the proposed Project would
contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering Colma Creek and the San Francisco
Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and
human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of
potential groundwater drinking sources.
Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes a network of
parking lot catch basins that are connected by subterranean pipes to ~he existing municipal storm
sewer drainpipe that runs along the southern boundary of the Project site. A l.2-acre area in the
northeast corner of the site would drain into the other municipal storm sewer drainpipe located
in the northeast corner of the site. As a means of treatment, a storm drain interceptor would be
placed directly before the connection to the southeast municipal drainpipe.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-11
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
TABLE 7.1
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Vehicle & Equipment Fueling
Vehicle & Equipment Washing X
Vehicle & Equipment
Maintenance & Repair
Outdoor Loading & Unloading
of Materials
Outdoor Container Storage of
Liquids
Outdoor Process Equipment
Operations & Maintenance
Outdoor Storage of Ray
Materials, Products, &
Biproducts
Waste Handling & Disposal
Contaminated or Erodible
Surface Areas
Building & Grounds
Maintenance
Building Repair, Remodeling,
& Construction
~
...
to:
<I)
.S
'"0
<I)
C/l
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
...
t::
G)
.t:j
...
;:l
Z
X
X
X
X
X
X
Parking/Storage Area
Maintenance
~
...
<I)
:::s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
...
c
'"
u
.~
o
t-<
'"0
C
'"
~
u
'2
'"
t:P
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
....
~
:::s
G)
~
...
'"
.9
~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
<I)
u
~
...
~
.D
;:l
C/l
OJ)
c
:.a
~
s
<I)
Q
6
<I)
~
~
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<I)
~
'"
<I)
....
Cj
oCl
:-;::I
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.~
....
<I)
...
u
'"
j:l:l
~
<I)
'"0
'0
'p
~
<I)
0..
X
X
X
X
X
Source: California Storrnwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial.
PAGE 7-12
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
A storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator) is a device designed
to remove debris and other contaminants from the drainage stream based on physical
differences between the contaminant and water. Lighter materials such as oils tend to float to
the surface, while denser materials such as sediments tend to sink.7 In general, interceptors are
best suited to removing oils and heavy particulates; they are less effective at removing nutrients
and other dissolved pollutants. Field monitoring suggests that Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
removal rates for various separator models range from 40 to 80 percent.8,9 Site constraints,
including availability of soils of suitable depth, level surface, and stability, can restrict the
effective performance of the interceptor unit. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to
impervious drainage area is also important.lO It also should be noted that these types of
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and maintenance.
Manufacturers suggest different sizes for their interceptor models depending on treatment
requirements and site specifics. The Project applicant has neither indicated a particular model to
be used, nor provided site-specific hydraulic sizing calculations for the proposed storm drain
interceptor.
Impact 7-1
Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Calculations for Storm Drain Interceptor.
Storm drain interceptor devices must be properly sized to maximize pollutant
removal and meet water quality requirements. The Project applicant has not
provided hydraulic sizing calculations. This presents a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 7-1
Storm Drain Interceptor Shall Be Designed in Accordance with
CASQA Sizing Recommendations. The storm drain interceptor shall be
designed in accordance with CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line
separator BMPs. Final calculations, sizing criteria, and maintenance
responsibility provisions shall be submitted and approved prior to issuing
appropriate building permits.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 will reduce the impact of non-point source pollution
to a level of less-than-significant.
7 BASMAA, 1999.
8 University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003.
9 Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005.
10 EPA, 1999.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED fiR
PAGE 7-13
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Approximately 90 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces.
Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximate 2 percent decrease in impervious
surface areas. This slight decrease in impervious area would not have a negative effect on
groundwater recharge; in fact, the small increase in permeable ground surface might have a
beneficial effect. No mitigation is required.
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and
pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Bare, unprotected site soils would be
subjected to the erosional forces of runoff during construction.
Impact 7-2
Mitigation
Measure 7 -2a
PAGE 7-14
Soil Erosion. Project grading and other construction activities will disturb
site soils, potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to
protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall
include, but not be limited, to the following mitigation measures for the
construction period:
1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,
erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding,
shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination
with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber
rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving
concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
2) BMPs for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES
pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream
waters.
3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected
for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared
of debris and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project
site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that
could be used at the proposed Project site shall be described. This shall
include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources.
5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis
shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as
needed.
6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed
from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be
budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be
cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain system.
7) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San
Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted
annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to
address any inadequacies of the BMPs.
8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed
to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall
cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper
use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of
hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing
and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Mitigation
Measure 7-2b
Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control
Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with
the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include
controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the
ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following
construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction
water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment
staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-15
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and
note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development
impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level of less-than-significant.
CHANGES IN PEAK RUNOFF
Under current conditions, approximately 53 percent of the storm water runoff from the Project
site is directed into a municipal storm sewer pipe that runs along the southern boundary of the
property, while the other 47 percent drains into a municipal pipe located in the northeast corner
of the property. The proposed Project drainage plan would direct nearly all site runoff to the
southern pipe; only a 1.2-acre area in the northeast corner of the site would continue to drain to
the northeastern pipe.
Using the Rational Method as presented in the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures (1981), Questa Engineering performed preliminary calculations to
analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on peak runoff. Peak flows for the 10-year design
storm were calculated for the Project site at the point of connection to the southern and
northeastern municipal drainpipes. Results are presented in Table 7-2.
TABLE 7-2.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
Runoff Precipitation Drainage Peak Runoff Precipitation Drainage Peak
coeff. Intensity area flow coeff. Intensity area flow Flow Increase**
( cfs*) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs*) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs) (percent)
South Inlet 0.9 1.66 6.85 10.3 0.9 1.69 11.65 17.7 6.05 72%
Northeast
Inlet 0.9 1.26 5.95 6.7 0.6 1.11 1.15 0.8 -5.9 -88%
* cfs = cubic feet per second
** A negative flow increase represents a flow decrease.
PAGE 7-16
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Impact 7-3
Mitigation
Measure 7-3a
Mitigation
Measure 7-3b
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
Increases in Peak Runoff. According to preliminary calculations by
Questa Engineering, the proposed Project will increase 10-year peak
discharge to the southern municipal storm sewer drainpipe by approximately
72%. No analysis or definitive information has been presented to verify that
the existing municipal pipe can carry the design flows under proposed
Project conditions. This is a potentially significant impact.
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system for the Project site to establish whether the
existing municipal storm sewer drainpipe located near the southern property
boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from
the proposed Project. The analysis shall include Rational Method calculations
of pre- and post-development 10-year peak flows and shall take into account
drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses.
The Storm Drain Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval by the
City of South San Francisco City Engineer. If the existing storm drain
cannot accommodate the Project flows, Mitigation 7 -3b shall be
implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation
Measure 7-3a cannot show that the existing southern storm sewer drainpipe
has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm
Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the
new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system
capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water detention or storm drain line
upgrades may be considered. Alternatively, some greater portion of site run-
off may be routed to the existing northeast municipal storm sewer drainpipe.
Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan
shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures including review and approval from the City of
South San Francisco will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level of less-than-
significant.
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-17
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 7-18
8
LAND USE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and
southeastern portions of the City (in the East of 101 Area), single family homes to the north and
west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing
clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.1 The City was an important center for the
steel and shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II, which in turn led to
significant residential development and helped spur a six-fold increase in population between
1940 and 1959. South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the
past 35-40 years, with steel production and heavy industries largely replaced by warehousing,
research, development, and biotechnology. Both South San Francisco's identity and land use
designations and policies are now strongly tied to its unofficial title of "Biotechnology Capital of
the World".
Included within South San Francisco are 14 planning sub-areas. This Project is located within
the East of 101 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land
Use Element and encompasses all the land within the City limits east of Highway 101. Adopted
in 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or
underused properties in the City's traditional industrial area east of U.S. 101. Consisting of
approximately 1700 acres of land, the East of 101 Area is comprised of eight land use categories:
Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, Gateway Specific Plan Area, Light Industrial, Coastal
Commercial, Airport-Related, Open Space, and Transportation Corridors, with the largest
portion of land zoned as Planned Industrial.
The Project site is zoned Planned Commercial, and is consistent with the City's desire to
"accommodate destination uses such as warehouse style retail specialty stores".2 It is also
consistent with the City's desire for retail uses to be located along the perimeter of the East of
1 01 Area to serve visiting shoppers, business people, and recreational users, with the majority of
these to be located along the western portions of the area, so as to provide a transition between
the industrial uses of the east and the remaining portions of the City west of Highway 101.
Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-1
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project physically divide an established community?
2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established
community. The Project site is bounded on the west by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on
the east by railroad rights-of-way, and on the north and south by office buildings. There are no
residential communities east of Highway 101, and the highway serves as a buffer and shield in
preventing the Project site, and the access points along Dubuque Avenue, from dividing the
established residential communities to the west.
CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
The Project site is currently zoned Planned Commercial (P-C) and is part of the "East of 101"
. Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Business Commercial. This designation accommodates business and
professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail, and is intended for the emerging
commercial and hotel district that include and surround the project site along South Airport,
Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses.
Policy 3.5-1-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
PAGE 8-2 LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies:
Policy LU-4a Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically include
hotels and motels, retail uses, office development, restaurants, administrative
services, day care centers, business and professional services, convenience
sales, financial services, personal and repair services, marinas, and
shoreline-oriented recreation.
Policy LU-13 No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area.
Policy LU-24 Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to
serve the employees of the East of 101 Area.
Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be
installed as part of all new developments in the area.
Policy DE-3 As an edge to the East of 101 Area, Dubuque Avenue should have
streetscape improvements to emphasize its visual importance.
Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees
and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages.
Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed
for minimum maintenance by City staff.
Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services.
Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low
maintenance plants with automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-17
In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks should and
service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and
should be separated from automobile parking areas.
Policy DE-21
Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines
that is appropriate to the land use category, as shown in Figure A and
specified in Section D of the Design Element.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-3
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
Policy OE-24 Perimeter landscaping should be provided in the landscaped buffers required
in Policy OE-21, at a minimum rate of one tree for each 200 square feet of
buffer area. Buffer areas should be planted with low-growing flowering
ground cover or shrubs.
Policy OE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and
plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant
species and planting design should complement the development's design.
Policy OE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall
building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with,
be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements.
Policy OE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash
disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails,
adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by
planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated
into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as
an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all
types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment,
including autos, trucks and trailers.
Policy OE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials
and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider
the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of
identity for the East of 101 area.
Policy OE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be
detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in plane.
Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral
architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards
or low towers.
Policy DE-53 Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it
is located.
Policy DE-55 The following additional design policies apply in the 101 Frontage Area:
Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of
each other. Dubuque Avenue should be specifically targeted for
streetscape improvements due to its visual accessibility from
Highway 101.
PAGE 8-4
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along Dubuque Avenue should
be at least 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet
wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide.
Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet
long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38.
Development along Dubuque Avenue should pay particular attention
to visual integrity of their development as seen from Highway 101.
Parkinq Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a
row without a planting island that contains at least one tree.
Parkinq Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a
parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total
parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with
shrubs.
Policy NO-2
Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so
that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not
exceed an Leq of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA.
The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above
applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies,
thereby constituting no adverse environmental impact.
CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
Construction at the Project site would remove all existing vegetation at the site, resulting in the
removal of approximately sixty existing trees. Of these, twelve (12) of the trees on the site are
considered "protected" trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (free Ordinance). A "protected" tree is any tree
with a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of
trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to
its unusual appearance, location, historical significance; or, a stand of trees whereby each tree is
dependent upon the others for survival. "Protected" trees must be replaced with either three
24" box trees each or two 36" box trees each. The proposed Landscaping Plan would meet the
criteria of replacing the 12 "protected" trees, in that it calls for a total of forty (40) 36" box trees
(16 more than required): 26 along Dubuque Avenue, and 14 at entries to the project site. As
such, the project will have a less than significant impact.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED fiR
PAGE 8-5
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-6
9
NOISE
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing
or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its Pitch or its loudness.
Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of
the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than
sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception
characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave, in that it
is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales
which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement
which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the
Lowe'st sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels
are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in
acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more
intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and
its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of
loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 9-1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA
are shown in Table 9-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a
method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an
average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period
is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways
and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-1
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
TABLE 9-1
DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
TERM
DEFINITIONS
Decibel, dB
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference
pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, HZ
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level, dB
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the
very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted,
unless reported otherwise.
L01, L 10, Lso, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%,50%, and 90% of
the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after
addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00
PM and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and
7:00 am.
Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period.
Ambient Noise level
The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing
level of environmental noise at a given location.
That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a
given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its
amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or
informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.! Acoustical Engineers
Intrusive
PAGE 9-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
TABLE 9.2
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY
At a Given Distance A-Weighted Sound
From Noise Source Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Impression
140
Civil Defense Siren (100') 130
Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold
110 Rock Music Concert
Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud
90 Boiler Room
Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant
Pneumatic Drill (50') 80
Freeway (100') In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal
Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Running Moderately Loud
60 Data Processing Center
Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store
Large Transformer (200')
40 Private Business Office Quiet
Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing
0
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC1Acoustical Engineers
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-3
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus
or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
9.2 SETTING
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of
various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the
implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than
70 dBA (CNEL)l are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses.2
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030)
specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land
uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this
zone is 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Lso).3
Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods
of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for
more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used.
The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing
ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the
standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property
line.
As the East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, including aircraft, surface
transportation, and various industrial uses, the East of 101 Area Plan calls for office and retail
developments to be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during daytime does
not exceed an Leq of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA.
Decibel: Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human
response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at
night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a
24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
3
Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1.
The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
PAGE 9-4
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
In order to meet this, interior noise reduction for retail uses adjacent to Highway 101 between
Coma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard must meet or exceed 32 dBA.4
9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measunng a Project's environmental Impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
5. 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?
6. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
VIOLATION OF LOCAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
As noted in Section 9.2, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise impacted areas, which indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL)5
are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses.6
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations) specifies the
maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The
Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65
4 Brady and Associates, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994, p. 157, Table 14
6 Dyett and Bhatia, Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1.
LowE's PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-5
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (LsO).7 Shorter
periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of
time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more
than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The
standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing
ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the
standard. The noise ordinance also restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of
equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES
Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local
streets due to Project-generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a
3-dBA noise increase in a traffic-dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is
barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables ll-11A, Il-llB and ll-llC of the
Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project-related daily vehicle trips would
increase to an estimated 5,908 daily trips under the proposed Project, which would lead to a
noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity.
However, due to the prevalence of commercial, office, and industrial land uses in the area, as
well as the isolated geography of the site, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the Project and neighboring
land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the
Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be
considered less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment
than currently function on the multiple buildings at the Project site. However, the equipment
would be screened by the raised building parapet walls. The impact of the HV AC system would be
considered less than significant, provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City
of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance.
Vibration. It is not be expected that proposed land uses at the Project site would generate
excessive ground bourne vibration or ground bourne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the
Project would have no impact related to excessive ground bourne vibration or excessive
groundbourne noise.
The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
PAGE 9-6
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
NOISE, GROUNDBOURNE VIBRATION
Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site,
operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impact 9-1
Mitigation
Measure 9-1
Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy
equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with
Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90
dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and
impact equipment.
Noise Abatement. While there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in
the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-generated construction
noise, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during
site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on
construction equipment, noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25
feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise
levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise
Ordinance, construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of
less than significant.
NOISE FROM AIRPORTS, RAIL, AND ROAD
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport
noise contours associated with flight operations at San Francisco International Airport, located
south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL)
existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road, railroad, and other localiy-
generated noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project
site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will
continue to be between 70 and 75 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the
proposed Project's commercial land use would be largely compatible with future noise level
projections in the Project vicinity of less than 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing a less
than significant impact.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-7
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-8
10
PUBLIC SERVICES
10.1 SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program,
with certified paramedics on its fire engines and two full-time Advanced Support ambulances.
The 85-member department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine
and fire truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on-duty staffing is 20 persons.1
Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding
areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two
factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations:
1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large
concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops
of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both
public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained
and overgrown.
2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the
City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can
increase the loss of life and property in a fire.
Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas of the city that need vegetation
management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for
successful fire suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low
priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The Project site is not located
in any of these fire hazard management units, and access to the site is adequate via Dubuque
Avenue.
City of South San Francisco, Fire Department website.
Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 264.
3 Ibid.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-1
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
POLICE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The
Department currently has a total of 80 sworn officers. The current ratio of officers is 1.2 per
1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to
three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department
typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his
personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by
a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training,
float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.
SCHOOLS
The South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving South San
Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest
school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle
schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be
met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development,
and State-directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and
a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools
have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed
in coming years for the same reason.
PARKS
The City of South San Francisco operates 21 recreational facilities through its Recreation and
Community Services Department.4 These include 9 parks (3 community parks and 6
neighborhood parks), a gymnasium, an athletic field, and a variety of play lots and areas.
10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measunng a Project's environmental Impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a 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 following public services:
4 City of South San Francisco, Recreation and Community Services website
PAGE 10-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
- Fire Protection
- Police Protection
- Schools
- Parks
- Other Public Facilities
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FIRE PROTECTION
The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas, and access
to the site via Dubuque Avenue is adequate. The Project's design would be required to comply
with the City Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the city's fire protection services.
POLICE PROTECTION
Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed
commercial retail land use would lead to a less than significant increase in service calls to the
Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police
Department service call response times.
SCHOOLS
The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase
student enrollments in the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that the
Project might lead some future employees of Lowe's to move their families to the city to live.
However, such an influx of new residents would be so small that it would have a less than
significant impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District.
PARKS
The proposed Project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though
some users of the Project site might use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than
significant.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-3
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
PAGE 10-4
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
11
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents the analysis of circulation and traffic impacts related to development of the
Lowe's Project along Dubuque Avenue. It first describes the existing transportation network in
the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, as well as year 2006
(projected Lowe's opening) and year 2020 Base Case circulation conditions without Lowe's.
Potential circulation impacts due to Lowe's on this network are then detailed in contrast to the
current development on the Project site, as well as in contrast to potential officeiesearch &
development activities that potentially would occur by 2020. Finally, measures are proposed to
mitigate any Lowe's circulation and traffic impacts. ~re relevant, parts of this section draw
on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse
Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand
Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, .Jme
2005), the 2005 Terrabay Draft EIR traffic analyses by Crane Transportation Group and the
2005 Home Depot Draft EIR traffic analysis by Crane Transportation Group.
For the analysis of the currently proposed Lowe's Project, local transportation system conditions
are described for the following scenarios:
. Existing (spring 2005)
. aar 2006 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with the current activities
in operation on the Project site)
. aar 2006 Base Case with the currently proposed Lowe's replacing existing uses
(with the exception of the "Wt Marine" building)
. aar 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with officeiesearch &
development on the Project site)
. Mir 2020 Base Case with the currently proposed Lowe's and Wt Marine replacing
officeiesearch &levelopment
For year 2006 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition
based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Lowe's
site:
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-1
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
· Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005
to 2020 for analysis purposes, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All
specific future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after
each impact.
11.2 SETTING
LOCAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated
on Figure 11-1 and described below.
u.s. Highway 101 (U.S.I0l) is the principal freeway providing access to the Project area.
U.S.101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco, with auxiliary lanes provided
between some interchanges. Access to U.S.101 in the Project area is provided by the Oyster
Point Boulevard interchange and by select on- and off-ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard
(to the north) and Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue (to the south). The Oyster Point
interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north- and southbound U.S.l01, as well as a
northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a
common signalized intersection with Dubuque A venue on the east side of the freeway, just
south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp
extends north as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard:Dubuque Avenue
intersection. Southbound U.S.l0l traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-
ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard along the Terrabay site frontage (soon to be signalized).
Northbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is stop sign controlled at this location as is off-ramp
traffic. A northbound U.S.l0l off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is provided just
north of the Project area. U-turns are prohibited on northbound Bayshore Boulevard well into
the City of Brisbane. A new southbound on-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at the
existing off-ramp intersection is under construction, and will be open by mid 2005. A
northbound on-ramp and a southbound off-ramp are provided to Airport Boulevard just north
of its intersection with Grand A venue to the south of the Project site. There are auxiliary lanes
on northbound U .S.l 01 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound
U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.I0l carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume
of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point
Boulevard.
Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway extending westerly from its
signalized intersection with Bayshore BoulevardfL)yster Point BoulevardAirport Boulevard on
the east to its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard ExtensionJ'Iillside Boulevard on
the west.
Bayshore Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway extending north from South San
Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west side of U.S.l 01. South of
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-2
(
"",\r
""'\
-
...
,..........
r
'0.
r C\3
r:ae
(I)
I.. C\3
::s (I)
0)1..
.- <(
u.
~
05
c::
~
....
.l!l
~
...
<<nO
WWW
~.,...
00;;
...I~
A.
t
".
'.
=i n.
t :J
-. 0
I ~
C)
Z
0
l-
e:(
I-
~
0
n.
en
z
e:(
~
I-
W
Z
e:(
0:::
()
OJ
ro Lf :r. IX @-
u ...
(/) a:: [ij
~'o '"
'0 Z a>
~
z 0
-I
I j,- ./
....
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-4
CHAPTER 11 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard and
South Airport Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Terrabay site, Bayshore
Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its
intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are
underway to make Bayshore Boulevard a four-lane roadway adjacent to the Terrabay site.
Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway located
parallel to, and west, of U.S.l 01. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area.
Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore
Boulevard$ister Cities BoulevardAirport Boul evard intersection across the U.S.I0l freeway
and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway overpass has
eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median.
Dubuque Avenue is a frontage road running along the east side of U.S.101 from Oyster Point
Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two travel lanes along its entire length, except
adjacent to the majority of the existing Levitz furniture (proposed Home Depot) frontage
(where two northbound and one southbound travel lanes are provided), and from Oyster Point
Boulevard to its intersection with the U.S.101 freeway northbound off-ramp and southbound
on-ramp (where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised median are provided). It has signalized
intersections with Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps, and Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjacent to
the Project site, the roadway is 26 feet wide, and on-street parking is prohibited. No turn lanes
are provided on the approaches to the four driveways now serving existing activities on the
Project site. A 30 mile per hour speed limit sign is provided for southbound traffic just south of
the U.S.I0INorthbound Off-Ramp$outhbound On-Ramp intersection, and for northbound
traffic just north of Grand Avenue.
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Lowe's Project, the AM ands6r PM peak hour
operations of 10 existing or future intersections in South San Francisco have been studied (see
Figure 11-2).
Signalized
. Bayshore Boulevard,6ister Cities Boul evardfDyster Point BoulevardAirport
Boulevard
· Oyster Point Boulevard}0ubuque AvenueV.S.I0l northbound on-ramp
. Dubuque AvenueV.S.101 northbound off-rampV.S.101 southbound on-ramp
. Bayshore Boulevard$outhbound U. S.101 freeway on- and off-hook
rampsJDroposed Terrabay North Access (to be signalized)
. Grand Avenue,Airport Boulevard
· Grand Avenue}0ubuque Avenue
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-5
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Side Street Stop Sign Controlled
. Dubuque Avenue}llroject site north drivewaySite Driveway t/:
. Dubuque A venue}llroject site central ,iorth drivewaySite Driveway tI-
. Dubuque Avenue}llroject site central ~outh driveway&ite Driveway 1t
. Dubuque Avenuerroject site south driv eway ~t Marine) Site Driveway #-
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were conducted
for this study at all existing analysis intersections north of the Project site within South San
Francisco in February 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp
from the U.S.101 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard~ateway Boulevard intersection was in
full operation. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted in jine 2005 at the
two Grand Avenue intersections to be evaluated, and in jily 2005 at each of the four driveways
now serving activities on the Project site. The jily counts also included turn movements
tofrom the driveway just south of the Project site serving the Caltrain station.
Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-3, while existing PM peak hour
counts are presented in Figure 11~4. Figure 11-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed
intersection.
EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Intersection Operation
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A Ondicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers), down to Level F (indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches). The Level of Service scale is also
associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board lfRB]
Highwqy Capacity Manual [ICM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay
designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater
detail regarding the LOSiontrol delay relationship is provided in Appendix B Table 1.
Un signalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity Manual. Under
this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of
the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side
streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and
average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-6
-------
------
(
l< z
Gl
.... ..
~O,g~
~~ ~E
(/)Ollllll
::lZlDO:::
"tl
c:
:J ell
0"0.
J:l"gE
.c: III I'iI
'5 >. '-
o l'Il c:
(/)lJ)O
------
----
."
"
" '"
O'-Q.
~~~
:J ~.t:
Olll"-'
C/)lllO
."
"
" '"
o'-Q.
.o2E
~ ~~
0'" "
C/)lllO
."
" ~
" C
C Q.., _,...
:g~~~C/)
--S ~ ~UJ ~
650itE'O
'--
~
CiL
c:
.0
Q-
\
0) (fl
C C
.- 0
C~
.- ca
ca 0
:!: 0
>.-'
ca.~
3: (fl
<I)>.
0)-
L.. ca
U. C
<(
(fl
C
0.0
E~
ca ca
cr. g
>.-'
ca (fl
3: .-
0) (fl
O)~
L.. ca
U. c
<(
------
----
---------
---
-----
(fl
c
o
C~
o ca
.- 0
- 0
~-'
(fl (fl
L.. ._
Q) (fl
->.
1:_
- ca
I:
<(
P"lfJ SJOl/S,{ efJ
P"lfJ j.lodJ!'tI
"tl
l:
~ III
~t;l5Q)
(/)>'0>
::l0...<
.....
~
Iii
OJ
~-
(J
'-
oS!
OJ
Ci5 _____
------
- - -
------
- - -
...
"tl c:
c:.-
:JoQ.
o a. E
J:l'-
"t:J
'"
Iii
'-
Q)
1;;
Ci5
Gl 0.
::J E
trill
....::J~
::J .0 c:
~~O
~
CO
'"
~
<3
....
.le
'"
CJ;
"0
Q)
l/)
>-
ro
c
<(
l/)
c
o
~
(,)
Q)
l/)
I-
Q)
......
C
II
OJ
~
~~
oS!/Il
OJ
Ci5
III """
>.C:>.
1Il 0 c:
.g~0
.. Gl III
... U)--
Gl .. III
I-Gl>'
-g~~
11IM <
OGle
Q.IIIN
21lle
a.f~./
.
,r
"'
~
a.
E
CO
~ (/)
~.-
CO (/)
~~
Q) CO
Q) c::
~<(
u.~
~ c:: CO
~ 0 ~
~ .- Q)
Q) '0 Q)
~ Q) "-
:s (/) u.
Cl"-Q)
U. ~.~
.: c::
.... .-
o CO
(fl~
c::"
o c::
:;:; CO
CO
o
o
-'
0..
:J
o
~
C)
z
o
~
<C
~
~
o
0..
(/)
z
<C
~
~
w
z
<C
~
u
a:
W
(j)
Q)
3
o
...J
~
~\....
~
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-8
"
'( NOTT05CALE
745 A
1" ~ .300
t t N
190 8065
1
~
ill
~
o
~
~
t.. 15
- 200
. 90
~
t
7325 t.. 265
-95
Oyster Point Blvd . 240
460 J ~ t ~
695 - 210 645
785"') _ 15
1
1
145 290 610
1 Sister Cities ;;'Vd ~ t.
75 J
1045-
45 t
-Lo
945 79 1 _ _5 J
.J~L..~
825 J ~ t ~
0- 10 45 0
45 "')
/
~
'<(
(J)
::.
o
::.
.0
::.
a
r
"'
1
~
ill
t::
o
e-
:q;
/'=' ~
* Lowes
Project
Site
-L 21
63 14 . 5
~ t.-
t ~
80 2
58 10 t. 1
~ t.~
t ,.
81 12
~
65 '<( -L 0
2 ~ .0
~ t.g-
~ t ,.
93 1
641 -Lo
~t. .1
t
1
1
1
1
Miller
,-..J .
.. - - - ~ Caltraln
, - . ,
~- ---.. ~tation I
L 45 I
I 55
45 .- 500 I I
20 '"" Grand A ve I t
~ .) :
55/,I
705
t ,.
94 0
'\... j
----------------~
, ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~~----------------,
-L 14
10 ~ . 10
(J)
t.5_
~ t ,.
a _ 80 20
1
95 370 395
.J ~ t.
l'
200 J
145 -
70 "')
,--lo... Lowes EIR
r
1 ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-3
Existing
AM Peak Hour Volumes
j
"'
j
,
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-12
"'
( NOTTOSCALE
I ~ ~
N
I
I
I Sister Ci~ l~d~~
J
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
~
iii
t::
o
e-
~
Miller
H
'-- Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
.....
(J) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
r
"'
~
~
;-~~
- * Lowes ~
Project ~
Site,
>- ~ < Caltrain ~ =.Jt. J
~ - . - - ".' ~tation '"- _ _ _ _ _ ..
. ,.----------,
~, I
\:rn"d M' ~ ~ ~ i
: .~ :
I r I
I ,
, ,
~----------------
)'vf
J
--+
--+
--+
..J
"'
Figure 11-5
Existing
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
../
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-14
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Manual However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay
designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS
and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual
turn and through movements. Appendix B Table 2 provides greater detail about un signalized
analysis methodologies.
Level of Service Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for un signalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from private driveways.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
All intersection analysis within the Oyster Point interchange has been conducted using the
Synchro software program, which evaluates the coordinated operation of a system of
intersections. Intersection operating results (levels of service) are typically a little poorer with
Synchro analysis than would be the case if each intersection were evaluated on a "stand alone"
basis. The two intersections along Grand Avenue have been evaluated as individual "stand
alone" locations as the Dubuque AvenuejGrand Avenue intersection is traffic activated and not
coordinated with operation at Grand AvenueAirport Boulevard.
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently operating at
acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All
operations are either LOS A, B or C.
Freeway Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwt:!J Capacity Manual as
specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level
lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane
per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.l0l
freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange (where peak hour
factor and truck percentages were obtained), the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of
U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles
per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880
vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below
6,340 vehicles. The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane
is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-
foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street
network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-15
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
county border, the LOS standard has been set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the
neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990~1 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the
existing or future LOS was (or will be) E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections,
the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP-
designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS),
mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway
system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan
must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action
items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County
were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon Crane Transportation
Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.I0l freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from
Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. 6ar 2005 interchange
ramp counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Figure 11-2 shows the
freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study.
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 20042005 traffic counts when
compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized
below.
AM PEAlE OUR
Southbound LOS E
LOSD
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS D
LOSD
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
PM PEAlEOUR
Southbound LOS D
LOSD
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS D
LOSE
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-18
Table 11-3
FREEWAY OPERATION
LOWE'S
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
VOL LOS
BASE CASE
VOL LOS
YEAR 2006
BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT
PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL
INCREMENT INCREASE VOL
LOS
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to
Bayshore Blvd.Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only)
Between Oyster Point SB
On-Ramp and
GrandMiller SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins OnlY)
NORTHBOUND
Between Grand Ave. On-
Ramp and Oyster Point
Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins OnlY)
North of Oyster Point On-
Ramp
(San Mateo OriJ!ins OnlY)
8350
7970
8195 D
8065 D
E
9051 F
8
F
19
27
15
9:1%
)059
(A)
D
(A)
9:3%
~859
D
9:2%
(181 )
~420
(C)
D
(C)
(168)
(6290)
B45
D
~~
8401 D
9:2%
(5925)
Year 2000 Highwqy Capacity Manual AnalYsis Methodology
Compiled f?y: Crane Transportation Group
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
~~.
8832 D
(6270) ~
8330 D
(5914) (C)
PAGE 11-19
Table 11-4
FREEWAY OPERATION
LOWE'S
PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2006
EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT
-- --
VOL LOS VOL LOS PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS
INCREMENT INCREASE VOL
SOUTHBOUND
._- ._-
North of SB Off- 6965 D 7222 D 16 9:2% 7238 D
Ramp to Bayshorc
Blvd.Oyster Point
Blvd. (288) (A) (290) (A)
(San Mateo Origins
Only) -- --
Between Oyster Point 7990 D 8506 D 38 9:4% 1544 D
SB On-Ramp and
GrandMiller SB Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins (340) (A) (342) (A)
Only) ._- --_.
NORTHBOUND
Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 8698 D 46 9:5% 1744 D
On-Ramp and Oyster
Point Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins (7481) (0) (7520) (0)
Only) -- --
North of Oyster 9060 E 9731 E 37 9:4% >768 F
Point On-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins (8369) (0) (8400) (0)
On!YJ
Year 2000 Highwqy Capacity Manual AnalYsis Methodology
Compiled~: Crane Transportation Group
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-20
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers,
jIly 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LO S D operations in 2003 for U.S.101 between the
San Francisco County Line and 1-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this
segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has
lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San
Francisco and the Peninsula.
Freeway Ramp Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway ramps have been evaluated based upon the methodology contained in the year 2000
Highwqy Capacity Manual, where ramp capacities have been set at 2,100 vehicles per hour for
diamond (slip) ramps and 1,900 vehicles per hour for any ramps with sharp curves (such as the
southbound buttonhook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard). These capacities reflect
LOS E operation, the same service level which is acceptable for freeway operation.
Existing Freeway Ramp Operation
Figure 11-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 11-5 and 11-6
show that all ramps at the Oyster Point interchange currently are operating under capacity
during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the approaches
to all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange during each peak traffic hour.
Projections are provided for each turn and through lane for the 50th percentile queue.
Queuing Standards
The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50th percentile vehicle queue must be
accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95th percentile
queue must be accommodated within the available storage.
Existing Queuing Conditions
It should be noted that existing observed queuing between intersections within the Oyster Point
Boulevard interchange should be improved with the opening of the new southbound freeway
on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard. This will eliminate southbound Brisbane$an Francisco
traffic on Bayshore Boulevard traveling through the entire Oyster Point interchange to access
the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue. The elimination of these vehicles should free
up additional green time within the interchange to provide greater accommodation of other
movements.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-21
lO
I
..-l
..-l
V
......
..0
c:Il
~
~
U
~
o
~
~
+
~
en
2S
~
en
~z~
oO~
"",",looo40
~~:I1
~~~
~~~
O~~
~~~
~~~
en --
<~O
U~~
ffi~~
<~
~~
o
""'"'
o
N
~
~
,,'"
Z
looo4
~
en
looo4
~
~
IX:
~~~
UO_
W........U
Q'IX:<
g:~~
ZU
+;::l
W
CIl- -----
< ~
U W
W ~
~ ;::l
~~ 8
~ ;>
~-;;- -----
[e ~~
0_
........u
w~~
CIl~<
<ZU
U;::l
W
CIl- -----
<
~
~"'i:;'~~4_l'$:;'"~'$:i'4_l"'i:l
v v v v v v v v v v
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::>2::>2::>2::>2::>2
~ ~
0\60U')80007~00\
U')('<") I'--N(,<")O 700000\
('<")U')('<")U')001'--('<")'-C)'-C)U')
'- ""--" 'r""'4 ~............ ~
'-' '-'
$..4"i:;'4-l~4-l"'C'''-l''C'4-l''"C''
v v v v v v v v v v
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::>2::>2::>2::>2::>2
~
w
::g ~Nl1)81J)~r-oo~~
;::l U')NI'--N_I'---('<")'-C)'-C)
...:l (,<")~(,<")~ooc~8'-C)c
o
;>
IX:
~~
0_
........u
IX: <
c.?w~
z~j
_Z
E-<;::l
CIl
~--------
><:
w
....";:;-
~~<
~ ~ Z
::>2
~"'Cl4-l"'i:l4-l'i:l
Q.) Q) Q.) OJ QJ QJ
"0"0"0"0"0"0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::>2::>2::>2
~
w
::g 0 G)n
;::l OU')<
...:l ('<")::!-Z
o
;>
olf)oLi)o8-
7N 1'--7 '-C)-
1'--('<") OOU') 0\1'--
- '-' -
'-' '-'
~
_ 0
U g
~ -
j
q-
o~o
050
-0-
N'-C)N
"*
~
o
S5
N~
"*
o
o
0\
-
B
s
o
....
~ 0... u...
~ ~ 8' @"+J~ 8'
~ ~ <il .s ~ ~
~!:l~!:l~~~~~~
80o~oO~""Oo-O~o-
;;5 ~O~ ~ .E .E
....; ~ ~~ ~~ ;>,P=! ~ P=! ~
,.., </JP=!</Jp=!ZOZQ</JQ
s
o
....
u...
B
s
o
<.t:
0...
~
~
v
.c:
....
u
v
c;:1
v
....
o
+J
~
8-
+J
~
v
u
....
v
0...
o
e
"0
~
~
~
$
1:1
v
u
....
v
0...
....
~
..8
+J
~
o
..0
~
:>-.
..0
"0
v
'"
~
v
....
u
.s
v
..0
"0
'"3
o
.c:
'"
'"
v
S
~
o
:>
+J
U
v
'0
....
'l-
v
'"
~
U
v
'"
~
P=!
"0
~
~ '"
V +J
~ 5
u'"
v :>
~ 'S
P=! 2"
gf~
.l:l U
'" ....
">< ~
u.1 5
vi ~ ~
5 it ~
..; ~ B ~
g '3 g 0
-c: ~'6 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
v U ~ 0
0... tl 8 . ;:;,
~b.O vl::>
ll'I.51l:c-S
'b fJ) tl:1 ~.-
..."'....J:j~
g it ~ &.q
.c: .s 8' ~ ~
~ C.~ 0 0...
['u ~ # ~
"'...... 0
~g..~<~
~U;Z"-I.-
U
c ~ E 6.: €
N
N
I
,....
w
lJ
<(
0...
~
12
\.)
~
.~
i!
<>
~
~
h
~
w
I- 0
U w
w Vl
6' ~
a::: U
0... 0
u..
,Vl I-
w U-
S <(
o a:::
....JO
"
~
~
\j
~
""
<>
'-l
\0
I
~
~
Cl)
:0
~
f-t
f-I
U
~
o
~
p..
+
~
en
-<
U
~
en
-<
~z~
001--)
N~~
Of-lO
N~~
~~~
~~~
Op..~
~~~
~~p..
en --
<~O
U~~
~~~
<~
~~
o
N
o
N
~
~
rS
Z
~
f-I
en
~
~
~
~
f-l~~
Uo_
~.......U
O~<
~~~
p.,OU
+Z
~;::J
rJl- -----
< t!.
U ~
~ ::g
~ ;::J
~~ S
~ :>
~-------
< ~
~ ~~
0_
.......U
~~~
rJlO<
<ZU
U;:J
~
rJl- -----
<
~
$-l~$-l~$-l~$-l"i:?$-l'1:'
~~~~~~~~~~
cccccoccco
;:J2~2~......~2~......
G'\(:'r-NO\(<)~8lf)~
't'"""lt--\Olf)n\O'f""""lr--~T"""'I
\O~\O~~G~eoo&
~~$-l~$-l"i:"4-l"'i:'$-l~
~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~
CCCCCOOCCO
~2~12~...... 2~......
t!.
~
~ If)~r--N..q-~<o;;t(<)N~
;::J r-- '0 '0 L/") c<) 0 0\ 7 ..... '0
~ \O~\O~~3~eOO&
o
:>
~
~~
0_
.......U
~<
~~~
ZOU
_Z
f-l;:J
rJl
~------
~
~
..."C'
~~<G
C C z
~12
$-l""i:'''''''~$-l''Z'
QJ Q) Q.) OJ Q.) QJ
"0"0"0"0"0"0
C C C C C C
~12~12~12
t!.
~
~ 0 me
;::J 0 L/") <G
~ c<)::!- Z
o
:>
oG)oG)OO
7Nr--7'O.....
r--c<)OOL/")O\r--
C '--" C
~
_ 0
U 0
< ~
~
U
q-
o~ 0
050
.....0.....
N'ON
C>l-
~
o
o
0\
.....
o
05
.....0
N'O
C>l-
B 8 888
000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 8 0.. 0.. ~ 0..
~ ~ ~ .8 ~ ~
p., 4!..<u~<u~Ott:<U~<U
....oococc;:05-c5-
~ {iO{io* .Eo.E
.-; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?-~. ::1 ~ ::1
.... (/)~(/)~ZOZc:l(/)c:l
s:--
<:<l
<u
..c:
..
U
<u
c;::
<u
...
o
..
2
e:<-
..
C
<u
u
...
<u
0..
o
e
"0
C
<:<l
~
..
C
<u
u
...
<u
0..
...
::1
..8
..
::1
o
~
;.-.
..0
"0
<u
<Il
<:<l
<u
...
u
.S
<u
..0
"0
"B
o
...c:
<Il
<Il
<u
8
::1
o
i>
..
U
<u
'0'
...
q,.
<u
<Il
<:<l
U
<u
<Il
<:<l
~
"0
C
<:<l ~
<u ..
~ 5
U(;l
<u i>
~ "3
~ 8'
00...
.fj [J
.~ ::>
w~
<u
vi ~ cL
iE 8.. E
. ~ B ~
... i> I
::1'S C g
o CT'.S <u
..c: <u ~ C
~ ~ ~ ~
<u u C 0
0..::>8.;;"
:::8 co <u J:;
lli.51l:o-s
<tS en ~ C'$._
..... ~ .. J:j ~
g 0.. ~ ~.q
...c: .s if <:<l ~
~ c.!:l 0 g..
g,'oJ:;~~
<:<l...... 0
~J~i~
u
c~g6:~
M
N
I
..-
..-
UJ
(,J
<
0...
~
e
'-'
;:,
.~
~
'"
1t
~
t-<
0:::
L.U
t- 0
U UJ
UJ Vl
6 ::)
C<: U
0... 0
u..
: t-
~ '<
.9cs
'"
;:,
~
\,.J
<.;
\::
;,:
'"
'"
~
~
~
o~
~;:J
~~
f-t;:J
ZO
.....~
f-t~
zu
..........
o~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 5
r-; f-t ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.....""""-i ~
E ~ ~
~f-t
~z
z~
.....u
;:J~
~~
;:J~
o~
~~
u-'-
.....
tt:
~
~F-<
ooU
00 -<~
~ U 0'-'
::> ~
~___oo~
::>F-<-<~
0'~j:Q+
~
~~-
~z ~
~~ ~
~ ~
00
-<
j:Q
~F-<
ooU
00 -<~
~ Us
::> ~~
~___oo~
g~~+
\O~
o~-
~z
~~
~
e,:iooR
z~~
.....::>~
~~~
.....::>z
><l 0'.....
~ '-'
~---
e,:iF-<
~~
o~
F-<Z
oo~
~o\ U')\O'<:t~
N\ON c<)_ N
00 \0
- 00
-
~5';~0\
NN_'<:t'<:t-
r--;:;O
U') \0 U') 0\
ONc<)o\__
'l""""41f)~'l""""4'l""""'1\O
- N
OOlf)OO ~
a:;~oo:!~~
-
Or--_ \0
o c<)_oo \0 0\
'<:t- ooN
r-- _ '<:t
~~O\r--~Rl
O-c<) 0
0\ r--U') '<:t\OO\
t--~'l""""4 ~'l""""4
LnLnLnLn 0
~U')U')c<)U')_
U')NN-LnN
r-- N
~
o
<<<<~oo;;!iNo
zzzZ<c<)_U') N'<:t<
....... ..-'<:tz
F-<
~ Z
'~ '0 ~=- ~
U ~
~ ~
OLn ><OLnOO~LnU')oo
Lnr-- c..<O'<:to'<:tr N\O..-
c<)'<:t0 ~~C<)O\C<)U')ooU')c<)\Oc<)oU')Ln
8~ ~ oo~~
~ ~
rn ~ .~ ::>
~ F-<..... 0'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... F-< ~ 0 ~
S ~~z F-< ....... ~ ~
j:Q ,-<..o~ ~ F-< ....~~
00 BOi:u 00 Z 0,-<0
....... ~~.............. 0..0 ~B~
ga ..o~~ga~..o8 ga~ 8 ~~ 8~gr8~'t't8
o gr880BgrB10B~1B8~~~B1BB~~g~~21
::r: ~ 8 ~ ~::r:~ 81; o::r:~ ~ oJ:: B ~ ~~~ 8.fr~~~::> 8 8J:: 0
~ 't -B li: li: ~ ~ -B .9f: 1: ~ ~ 't 1: .9f: ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ -B .tj ~ ~ '\:1 j:Q ~ ~ .9f: ~
<~~~~<~~~~<~~~~~~~><j:Q~~~~j:Q::>li:li:~~
j:Q~Z~~j:QZZ~~j:Q~~~~~~~O~~~ZZZOOO~oo
~~ !:::::805';
~ 'l""""4 0 ..... .."
\0 c<)
- \0
..-
~~\O"-
NNOO<<) c<)
00c<)0
U')..-..-
00 c<)
Ln 00 0 \0
c<) U') _
c<)
N U')
r--NOr--
c<) r-- ..-
c<)
~c<)0c<)
..--.0 -.0
..-
~\OOO\
N..- '<:t
N
~LnO~
c<)
--
o U') U')
o a U') Ln
r--aNN
r--
v
~
..$
'-<
[~
~ ~
<'l\-'
"'0 l::
~ 'i;
E ~
Q) '"
"'O'f;.,
"'0 l::
C :::
~h
.~ ~
.- :::
g\j
0...
rJ ~
::::l ~
t:~
Lna <<<<
r--c<)c<) ZZZZ
'<:tc<)
'<:t
8~:36a
0\\0<
"-U')Z
~
rn
-<
U
~
00
-<
j:Q
'<:to. <<<<
r--NN ZZZZ
'<:tN
'<:t
~~ooa
r---.o<
Nr--Z
<<
ZZ<<
Zz
-
"t
N
I
.....
.....
w
lJ
<(
0..
oc
LU
tJ 8
w V'l
6::)
~ U
0... 0
u...
~ I-
5 <
go
~
~
~
~-
u~
~;:J
~~
f-tP
ZCl
~~
f-t.....:l
zu
~~
O~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 5
ocr f-t ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
t d ~
~~
~z
Z~
~u
;:J~
~~
;:J~
CI~
~f-t
.....:l~
u'-'
~
~
~
~r-.
rJl ~~
~ Us '" '1" ~\Oo- '1"1'-"''1" oSG;:g'1"~ N \0 \0
\0 \0 0'1"'1"\0 \ON_N
~ ~ ",,,,0\ N'" 00 '1"N",\OOI'-N r-~~LJ')N N\O'If-l~
~,,"",rJl~ '1"'1" \0 U') _ '" \0 N
~r-.<p., '1"\0 _ \0 _
'1"
O'~~+
~
~~- ---- ---- ------- ------ ----
~z ~
~~ rJl
~ '" 0\ ;!"'o \0 \0 0 0\ U') U')'1"g~oo'1" flo"''1"
~ \0 U') 0\'1""''1"
~ '" '" '" -'1" 00 n('J(<)\Qlr)?-I \,QOO~UlO\t-- NN\OI'-
rJl ~I'- U')_O '" U') N
< ~ ..... \0
~
~r-.
rJlU
rJl <~
~ us U') N <<<< C<)C<):;~ Lt)~OO::(<);;) I'- ..... N
0\ '1" ZZZZ U') 1'-.......... U')O< If)I'-NU')
~ ~~ \0 O~~N't'-I U')
~,,"",rJlp., I'- \0 \O~Z ..... '"
I'- Ll')
~r-.~+ N
O'~ I
'J:)~ .....
o~- ---- ---- ------- ------ ---- .....
~z w
~ lJ
~~ rJl <(
~ 0..
~ '1"..... <<<< U')oRl8 0000~0\G'\ - \0 U')
~ 0\'1"", ZZZZ U')\O__'1"1'-< OO\G'\N'1"N \o_N'1"
~ 1'-", '1"~Z - N \0
I'-
~
"
z
.....
r-.
rJl
.....
~
~
~
o
<<<<~o;:1;~g
ZZZZ""'lU')---",-<
<<l:; ",U')z
........ -
r-.
rJl Z
rJl .....
~ 0
U p.,
~ ~
OU') ;>ooU')oO~U')U')oo
U')I'- :..<O'1"O'1"r N\O_
"''1"0 ~~"'G'\"'U')rJlU')"'\O"'oU')U')
00 "-' 00U')U')
\O~ (3 NN
;n ~
rJl .~ ~ ~
p., r-...... 0'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... r-. ~ 0 ~
~ q~Z r-. ~ ~ ~
~ ~~u~ ~ Z ....qg
rJl p~ rJl ~~~
........ ~~................ o........c: ........p~
~ <u<u~ ~ q OJ:q,.,~~
~ ...c:--~8...c:8 ~q 8 p.,q...c:....q;3~.....<U<U8
o ~880;3~B~OB~~B8~~~B~BB~~g~~B~
:I: +-> 8 ~ ~:I:.t 8~ o:I:~ +-> o~ B;3 +->~~ 8~~~~;:J 8 8~ 0
rJl 4-< ~ ~ ~ rJl <u ...c: OJ: l:l rJl <u 4-< ~ OJ: ~ 0 ...c: r-. <u ~ .!<F <u <u .~ "" ~ ~ OJ: l:l
~ ~ "'i:J 4-.4 4-i ~ - +-' 'C ~ ~ ,.........j ~ ~ "$:1 ~ I-t bi. en - '"'i3 I-t - - I-t ~ t1.. ~ ''0 ~
<~~oo<~~~~<~~~~~-B.c><~~~~~~;:J4-<4-<~~
~ C/J Z ~ ~ ~ Z ZIC/J C/J ~ ~ C/J C/J C/J ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Z Z ZOO 0 C/J C/J
rJlR
~~
;:J~
~~
;:JZ
0'.....
'-'
l'-'1"U') _
N\ONU')\O",
0\ ,....-1,......\0
-
<<
ZZ<<
Zz
I'- G'\ <')
('<) 00 ~ ,......
'"
~"""'
"r-.
~~
o~
r-.Z
(/)~
U')U')U')U') 0
~U')U')<')U')_
U')NN-U')N
I'- N
o U') U')
00U')U')
I'-ONN
I'-
cU
to:
~
....
~~
<u l2
~\.)
"0 ~
~ .~
8 ~
<u '"
"O~
"0 ~
q ::::
~h
.~ ~
.~ ~
g\V
0...
i3 ?i
:::l ~
$~
c.::::
L.U
t- 0
U w
w Vl
6=.J
O!: U
0.. 0
,Vl u..
w t-
$ ~
.so
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues
within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, Tables 11-9
and 11-10 show that 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage on several approaches
to the Oyster Point Boulevard}0ubuque Avenue intersection during both the AM and PM peak
hours and on one approach to the Bayshore Boulevard$ister Cities Boulevard~yster Point
BoulevardAirport Boulevard intersection. Field observations confirm that the theoretically
predicted queuing intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain
movements.
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Local Bus Routes
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
There is currently no SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Dubuque Avenue
or east of the U.S.101 freeway. Local area bus service west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping CenterGeneva operates along Bayshore
Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART
station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays,
with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City~olma BARTSouth San Francisco operates along Linden
Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San
Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-
minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on
weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 6O-minute headways on
Sundays.
Route 132: AirportJ'inden-Arroyo}l?,1 Camino operates along Hillside Avenue,
Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco
BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute
non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays.
Route 292: San FranciscoSF AirportMillsda Ie Shopping Center operates along
Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute
peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to
60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Route 397 (297): San FranciscoPalo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates
along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour
headways each direction between about 1 :00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per
week.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-28
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San pse and San Francisco. There is a station
located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco adjacent
to the Project site. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods, and hourly
during midday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
ah shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service tofrom the
Colma BART station.
The Gateway Area~enentech Shuttle (BART an d Caltrain) provides service on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six
morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers 1n the
Utah~randtittlefield area. It provides se rvice on Harbor W, Ea st Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Wand Utah Avenue. There are six
trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and
seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute
periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the pint Powers
Board (PB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Qua lity Management District, and the City~ounty
Association of Governments (75 percent), and sponsoring employers (25 percent). There are no
shuttle stops along Dubuque Avenue other than at the Caltrain station.
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE
A sidewalk is in place along the east side of Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site. It
extends northerly to Oyster Point Boulevard and southerly to Grand Avenue. However, there
are no bicycle lanes striped or posted along Dubuque Avenue in the Project area.
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp
improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is
replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U .S.l 01 to Bayshore Boulevard with
a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is
being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.I0l from the same intersection.
The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert
additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue
within the interchange area.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 11-29
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay ~t Cove
development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard
(change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-striping the
westbound through,lght lane to a right turn lane), Merans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard
(widen southbound Merans Road to add a ri ght turn lane and re-stripe the optional
througweft lane to an optional rightthroug weft lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East
Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through,lght turn
lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide
a separate right turn lane).
Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Ms Department, only Bayshore
Hook Ramps intersection improvements and signalization were assumed in place at study
intersections by 2006. Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case intersection geometrics and
control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control.
BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to
non-project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the years 2006 and 2020.
Year 2006 Base Case Traffic Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Approved Development Trip Generation
South San Francisco
Trip generation was estimated for approved industrial#ficeRID developments in the Project
area (see Table 11-11). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of
South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from a Home Depot store recently proposed
along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included in the
analysis at the direction of City of South San Francisco staff (see Table 11-12). It should be
noted that 2006 Base Case development did not include construction of the approved 665,000-
square-foot office10,000-square-foot retail deve lopment on the Terrabay Phase 3 site.
However, trip generation projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase 2 residential
development at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 high-rise condo
units (see Table 11-13).
Traffic generation rates for approved officeR& Df\.otel development are based on the analysis
conducted for the Dnift Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General
Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001). Traffic counts were
conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak
hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently
approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand
management (fDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-30
"'
( NQTTOSCALE
I A
N
I
I
I Sister Cities Blvd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.J~~~~
J
--.
--.
~
r
~
CO
~
e-
~
t.
..-
..-
F
~4~~
--+. )-
.y=
.J.J ~ ~
4 ~~
'/
@
.q:
Q:
I ~
? - "' Lowes
- * Project
_ Site
(}) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
~
"'
~
Miller
~
~~
~ ..~ Caltrain ~ ..J
'_\~tt. '-- -
, ., · a Ion _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
.-...A- :' r :
+- I I
+- I L- I
Grand Ave :.......... =--:J7- :
: ~ :
I I
'~----------------'
~
\". Lowes EIR
I
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
.J
...
Figure 11-6
Year 2006
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
..J
""'
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-32
(
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
I Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
co
1:::
o
e-
<(
~
/' ==-' * Lowes
Project
- Site
Miller
'- =../ Caltrain
". ---
~ - ~ ~tation
- . - -...
.A- :
..- I
..- I
I
I
I
I
I
Grand Ave
10.... Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
""\
NOTTQSCAU
~
N
(}) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
r
"'
~
~
~
~
~=..t.
'\... ~
----------------~
# ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
\~----------------,
~=:.f
~
../
"'"
Figure 11-7
Year 2020
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
../
....
This page intentionally left blank.
LmNE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-34
Table 11-11
TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA
EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2006
PROJECT
1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd.
OfficeREl
(replacing light industrial)
SIZE
RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
315,444 SQ.Ff.
(-94,990 SQ.Ff.)
445
(- 46)
Net 399
426
~
374
2. Britannia East Grand
OfficeREl
Retail
Child Care
Fitness Center
(replacing light industrial)
783,530 SQ.Ff.
8,000 SQ.Ff.
8,000 SQ.Ff.
5,000 SQ.Ff.
(-354,880 SQ.FI).
1,207
1,201
( - 170) ( - 191)
Net 1,037 1,010
61 131
234 225
100 90
147 133
124 115
( - 31) ~
Net 93 Net 70
122 111
-C::...18l (- 28)
Net 84 Net 83
3. Genentech Building 5
33 RID and 37 garage
4. Genentech Building 31
OfficeREl
5. 180 Oyster Point
Office
6. 200 Oyster Point
Office
7. 345 East Grand
RID
(replacing warehouse uses)
125,000 SQ.Ff.
150,972 SQ.Ff.
105,000 SQ.Ff.
155,000 SQ.Ff.
210,560 SQ.Ff.
8. 285 East Grand Ave./
349 Allerton Ave.
OfficeREl
(replacing existing site uses)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-35
Table 11-12A
HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION
USE SIZE
Home 125,794
Depot SQ.FT.
-25<fulfety Factor
TOTAL
DAILY
2-WAYTRIPS
RATE VOL
29.8 3750
(40)
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
RATE VOL RATE I VOL
.65 82 .55 69
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
RATE VOL RATE VOL
1.15 145 1.30 164
21
103
117 86
36
181
141
205
"40
4690
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition !?J the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Complled!?J: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-12B
HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN NEAR TERM HORIZON TRIP
GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE (LEVITZ
FURNITURE)
USE
Home Depot
Existing Site Use
Net Change in Site Trip
Generation
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
103 86
(-4) (-2)
99 84
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
181 205
(-20) (-19)
161 186
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-12C
HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020
TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS OFFICE/R&D USES
USE
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
103 86
(-173) (-32)
(-70) S4
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
181 205
(-46) (-161)
1-35 44
Home Depot
OfficeJtB}
Net Change in Site Trip
Generation
Source: Crane Transportation Group
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-36
Table 11-13
.
~ ---" PM PEAK lIOUR TRIPS
AM PEAK lIOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUN:
'-'SE # UNITS RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE V{
)wnhomes 12 .07 1 .37 4 .35 4 .17 2
Condominiums 61 .07 4 .37 23 .35 22 .17 10
~0TAL 5 27 26 12
r
TRIp GENERATION
TERRAB.AY Pf!A.SE 2-REMAINING RESIDENTlAL
DEVELOPMENT
(.AS OF FEBRD.ARY 2005)
T"p &k S,_.. T"p G,n_M 7th Editi,n, by 11"Inditnk ,/T,o"'fX>""linn En,omo; 2003.
Compiled b: Crane Tran.rportation Group
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED fIR
PAGE 11-37
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Amendment assumes that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by
an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates.
Brisbane
Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year 2006 was
projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via
Bayshore Boulevard.
Regional Traffic Growth on V.S.I0l Freeway
North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated
with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a straight line rate of
one percent per year from 2005 to 2006.
Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution
The estimated distribution of approved officeJUl;l;iotel development traffic was based upon
employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report
(Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, j.nuary 1994). The inbound and
outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the
percentages shown in Table 11-14. New Terrabay Phase 2 residential trip distribution was based
upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing
Terrabay Phase 1 +2 development. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2006 Base Case
volumes are presented in Figures 11-8 and 11-9.
Year 2006 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2006 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate
acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with one exception. The Oyster Point
BoulevardPubuque Avenuep.S.I0l northbound on-ramp intersection would be operating at
LOS E conditions during the PM peak traffic hour.
Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Operation
Table 11-3 shows that during the AM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments
would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of
southbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F.
Table 11-4 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments
would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E).
Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Table 11-5 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the
Oyster Point interchange would be under capacity in the year 2006.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 11-38
r
"'"
500 330
+ ~
~ 20
,331
t ~
224 45
~
CO
~
o
..c::
~
<ll
II)
7740
+
~ 19
155 340 336
.J + ~ ~ 229
Sister Cities Blvd ' 91
120 j
1097 -+
135 t
Miller
105 375 743
.J + ~
220 j
211 -+
70 t
t
7515
~305
~ 110
Oyster Point Blvd , 285
470 j ~ t ~
767 -+
495 t 22940 1074
154 ~ 0
625 1 ~ ~ 5 }
.J + ~ t::...2../
1246J ~ t ~
o -+ 31 97 0
71 t
m/
::>
"'l:
Q:
::,
Co
J --.. ~
- * Lowes
_ Project
Site
~
1::
o
e-
~
H
,-=.J
,.. . - .. -- , Caltrain
'.. :-:-_..' ~tation
~50 ~
.- 570
Grand Ave
..... Lowes EIR
r
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NOTTOSCALE
~
N
r
"'"
79 ~21
14 ,5
+ ~ -
t ~
101 2
74 10 ~1
+ ~ ,9
-
t ~
102 12
~
81 <:l: ~O
2 Q)
+ ~5 ,0
:::>-
8 t ~
114 1
80 1 ~O
+ ~ ,1
t ~
115 0
\... ./
#----------------,
, ,
. ~ .
. Q) 14 .
. 71 10 ~ ,10 ·
. I Q) ·
. ... ~5_ ·
· ~ t ~ ·
· a ·
· _ 101 20 ·
, .
~---------------_#
./
"'"
Figure 11-8
Year 2006 Base Case (WID Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
J
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-40
r
"
-L 186
350 395 182
..l ~ L. +- 847
Sister Cities Blvd t 212
85 J
378 -+
60 ,
435 350
~ L.
I
I
Mift r
187 430 231
..l ~ L.
198 J
96 -+
145 ,
""",-j Caltrain t ~
.. --- Station 154 11
, - , '--
, .~ .J
- .. ~ "93 # ----------------~
. \
25 ..- 1890 . -L 23 .
. ~ .
87 'vir Grand Ave . 98 17<:( t 14 .
~ .} . ~ (j) .
. L.5_ .
61 /' . :, t ~ .
.Q
386 . :, .
Cl 142 12
. .
, .
~--------------_.'
-L30
.492
t ,.
281 170
~
€Il
~
o
..c::
~
<II
€Il
-L 1300
+- 773
Oyster Point Blvd t 1272
255 J ~ t ~
240 -+ 472 179
332, _ 11
1452 147 5 fJ..}-L 0
I +-5
..ltL..o
561 J ~ t ~
0-+ 104211 0
77,
/
~
Qj
1::
o
1:-
:q;
Ql
::>
<:(
Ql
! ~
r =-' * Lowes
Project
- Site
H
\... Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
.....
NOTTQSCALE
A
N
r "
101 -L 33
34 .6
~ L. -
t ~
130 20
101 6 -L 11
~ L. . 18
t ~
139 23
~
1136 ~-L6
+ L. ~LL':O
;3 t ~
156 2
110 6 -L4
+ L. t5
j
"'
Figure 11-9
Year 2006 Base Case (W/O Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
j
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-42
Table 11-14
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
OFFICE/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Year 2005
US 101 NorthSan Francisco
US 101 South
South San Francisco (central area)
Daly CityColma via Sister Cities Blvd.
Daly CityColma via Guadalupe Parkway
Brisbane
Airport area via South Airport Blvd.
Local east of US 101
TOTAL
29
48
3
8
o
7
3
2
100%
Year 2020+
US 101 NorthSan Francisco
US 101 South
South San Francisco (central area)
Daly CityColma via Sister Cities Blvd.
Daly CityColma via Guadalupe Parkway
Daly CityColma and South San Francisco (central area)
via Railroad Avenue Extension
Brisbane
Airport area via South Airport Blvd.
San Brunoiouth via San Mateo Avenue
Local east of US 101
TOTAL
29
48
2
1
o
8
7
2
1
2
100%
Source: Ciry of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Apri/2001.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-43
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on
select approaches of both the Bayshore BoulevardSister Cities Boulevard~yster Point
BoulevardNrport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard}0ubuque AvenuefJ.S.I0l
Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM PEAlEOUR
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound right turn approach lanes would have storage demands about 3 car
lengths greater than available storage.
PM PEAlEOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a demand
(per lane) about 4 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound left turn lane would have storage demand about 4 car lengths greater
than available storage.
Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and~r PM peak hours on
select approaches of both the Bayshore BoulevardSister Cities Boulevard~yster Point
BoulevardNrport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard}0ubuque Avenuep.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM PEAlEOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn would have a demand 2 car
lengths longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach right turn lanes would have storage
demands (per lane) 10 car lengths greater than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-44
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
than available storage. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach
through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available
storage.
PM PEAIEOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage
demand (per lane) 5 car lengths greater than available storage. The Sister Cities
Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand 2 car lengths greater
than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand
11 car lengths greater than available storage, while the northbound throughlkft turn
lane would have a storage demand 7 car lengths greater than available storage.
Year 2020 Base Case Traffic Conditions
Traffic Volumes
The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffic generated by approved
development in the study area, traffic generated by projects which are completed or under
construction and not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic
generated by potential development of vacant or under-utilized land in the study area.
Appendix B Tables 3 and 4 present new development in South San Francisco and Brisbane
expected by 2020.
Evaluation of year 2020 +conditions is based upon traffic projections from the Drcift
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment
and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, with project description and
improvement updates based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past
four years (see References). The proposed project in the 2001 DSEIR consists of a General
Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it
includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and
traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures
is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the East 0/101 Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP).
Preliminary year 2020 Base Case volumes were obtained using AM and PM peak hour
projections from the City's East of 101 traffic model developed as part of the year 2001
Transportation Demand Management DSEIR. Mlr 2020 projections developed in 2001 were
then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development proposals. Specific
projects include:
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-45
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
· 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco)
· Home Depot store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office}tID use (South San
Francisco)
· Baylands Phases I and II (Brisbane)
A traffic study was prepared for the City of Brisbane in 2004 evaluating the circulation impacts
of a revised plan for the Baylands Phase I and II developments. It was determined that South
San Francisco's East of 101 model had included a land use scenario for the entire Baylands
project somewhat more intense than the current Phase I proposal, but somewhat less than the
current Phase I ~otential Phase II plan. Since Br isbane Planning staff indicated that all of
Phase I would likely be built and occupied by 2020, but that it was unknown how much, if any,
of Phase II would be constructed by that horizon, South San Francisco staff concluded that the
Baylands development proposal within the East of 101 model presented a conservative estimate
of the likely development potential of this property by 2020. Because the Brisbane model is
three years more current than the East of 101 model, Brisbane year 2020 (with Baylands Phase I
and II development) projections for Bayshore Boulevard near the Brisbane$outh San Francisco
border were used as guidance to adjust future projections along Bayshore Boulevard.
Mtr 2020 Base Case traffic projections also in clude development of the proposed retail}'hovie
theater, office and residential development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant AM and
PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-10 and 11-11.
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate
acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with three exceptions.
AM PEAIEOUR
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
PM PEAIEOUR
· Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard: LOS F operation
· Bayshore Boulevard/V.S.10l Southbound Hook Ramps/Mandalay Terrace:
LOS F operation
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-46
CHAPTER 11 : TRANSPORTATION AND ORCULA TION
Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Tables 11-5 and 11-6 show that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway
ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year 2020 with three
exceptions. During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque
Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the PM peak hour volumes on
the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard and on the southbound on-ramp from
Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical capacity limits.
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM andpr PM peak hours on
select approaches of the Bayshore Boulevard$ister Cities Boulevardf)yster Point
Boulevard.Airport Boulevard, Oyster Point BoulevardJ0ubuque Avenuep.S.I0l Northbound
On-Ramp and the Bayshore Boulevardp.S.10l Southbound Hook Ramps';ferrabay North
Access intersections.
AM PEAlBOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand about
7 car lengths longer than the available turn lane's storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound left and right turn approach lanes would both have storage demands
greater than available storage distance (1 car length longer for the left turn lane;about 12
car lengths longer (per lane) than available storage for the right turn lanes).
The eastbound through lanes would have storage demand (per lane) about 6 car lengths
longer than the available storage.
PM PEAlBOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about 14 car
lengths longer than the available storage.
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage
demand (per lane) about 15 car lengths greater than the available storage distance. The
westbound approach left turn lane would also have a storage demand about 3 car lengths
greater than the available storage.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-47
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would have a demand
about 14 car lengths greater than the available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and combined left~rough lanes
would have storage demands about 14 to 17 car lengths greater than the available
storage.
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lanes would have a storage
demand about 2 car lengths greater than the available storage.
. Bayshore Boulevard/D.S.lOl Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would have a storage
demand 1 car length greater than available storage.
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM andpr PM peak hours on
the intersection approaches presented below.
AM PEAIBOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would
have a demand one car length longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane)
10 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn
lane would have a demand 7 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque
Avenue northbound through!eft turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer
than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a
demand (per lane) 17 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/D.S.IOl Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand 5 car lengths
longer than available storage.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-48
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PM PEAlEOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/D.S.10l Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access
Intersection
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand 9 car lengths
longer than available storage. The off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand (per
lane) 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound
through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 1 car length longer than available storage.
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 16 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane
would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 12 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane
would have a demand 19 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore
Boulevard southbound left turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 1 car length
longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lanes would have a demand 17 car
lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane
would have a demand 26 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque
Avenue northbound througNeft turn lane would have a demand of 23 car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/D.S.10l Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 4 car
lengths longer than available storage.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-49
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-50
r
36 794 398
.J + ~
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access 17 j
51 -
14 "')
39 1326
.J .
22 j
61 "')
10 1377
.J .
77"')
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
229 446 779
.J + ~
Sister Cities Blvd
60 ~
322 j
1448 -
100 "')
Miller
415
160 1615
.J + ~
530 j
414 -
90 "')
t.. 20
- 98
.. 557
t ~
340 218
~ t
119 536
~
co
~
o
.t::
~
<1l
1Il
t.. 153
-424
.. 1 07
~
co
1:
o
e-
:q:
t.. 500
-237
Oyster Point Blvd .. 408
679 j ~ t ~
1263- 447 1369
656"'). 55
725 338 1 ~ 1 :J
.J+~..o
1746 j ~ t ~
o _ 87 124 0
348"')
/
19
<:(
Q)
I ~
Cl
". ~ * Lo,^!es
PrOject
- Site
'- ---/ Caltrain
, .. ...... ~ Station
- '~
~- "t:."69 . ~
87 __ 905
35 'vf Grand Ave
) .}
104 /'
2153
.... Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
""'\
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
r
"'"
t..1O
416 56 .L
+ ~ .!.....2.
t ~
163 9
362 55 t.. 10
+ ~ ..2
t ~
162 10
19
309 55 ~ t.. 9
+ ~g ..2
8 t ~
163 10
271 40 t.. 8
+~ ..2
'\...
t ~
165 8
..J
----------------,
: ,
. .
· 19 t.. 28 ·
:117 156 ~ .. 5 :
. + ~5_ ·
· ,g t ~ ·
· 6 28 ·
· 145 ;
, #
~----------------
..J
"'\
Figure 11-10
Year 2020 Base Case (W/O Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
J
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-52
( -L 35
58 529 440 - 141
I Terrabay ~ .. l.. 1893
Ph 3 Access 59 j t ,.
228 -+
112 . 541 384
49 1485
I Terrabay ~ t
I Ph 3 Access 83 j ~ t
~ 232. ;'09 842 ~
I 23 1694 ~ 0
I en a:
I ~ t ~
Terrabay 0
.c
Ph 3 Access 275. ~
<ll
en
924 576 469 -L 600
~ .. l.. -1163
Sister Cities Blvd 1 246
90 ~
269 j
528 -+
65 .
-L 2131
- 1179
Oyster Point Blvd 1 1695
643 j ~ t ,.
284 -+ 830 384
315.. 227
1805 WO 5 ~ 5 3.J
~tl..11
1060j ~ t ,.
5 -+ 355 376 0
178.
/
Miller
'tJ
::.
m
1::
o
e-
:q:
~
<l:
Q)
t ~
Q
r =' * Lo~es
PrOject
_ Site
505
560 522
~ t l..
'- -..J Caltrain
. ~ .::.: -, Station
'- .-L'<03~
44 __ 2400
108 \.J( Grand Ave
;
455 j
115 -+
100 .
l Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
"'-
""
NOTTQSCALE
A
N
r ""
172 15 -L 50
t l.. 18
-
t ,.
407 2
16515 -L 50
t l.. 18
-
t ,.
Q) 359 2
::.
158 15:; -L 50
t l..g 19
.Q t ,.
::>
Q
311 3
158 9 -L 40
t l.. 19
-
t ,.
"- 284 3
..J
# ---------------- ..
. ,
. -L 130 .
. ~ .
. 127 40 <l: 125 .
. t Q) .
. l..5_ .
. ::> t ,.
.Q .
. ::> .
. Q 147 8
.
, .
~----------------,
~
Figure 11-11 """
Year 2020 Base Case (WID Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
J
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-54
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PROJECT IMPACTS
Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions:
. The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. This
is the trip generation threshold utilized by the City~ounty Association of Governments
(C~AG) of San Mateo County to determi ne when their Congestion Management
Program policies and guidelines must be followed for new projects.
. Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F
and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent.
. Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B,
C, D or E to LOS F and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent.
. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an un signalized intersection to meet
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
. The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or
more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or
when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F.
. The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria
levels.
. The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels, or if Base Case 50th percentile
queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would
increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria).
. The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels, or if Base Case 95th percentile
queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would
increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria).
. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway or a freeway ramp from
LOS E to LOS F with at least a 1 percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes
by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case
LOS F operation.
. The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety.
LowE's PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-55
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
· If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow
through various parts of the Project site.
· If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant safety concern would be created.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Lowe's trip generation was developed using trip rates for "Home Improvement Superstores"
contained in the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation
7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. In consultation with City staff,
average trip rates were then increased by 25 percent in order to provide a safety factor for
impact analysis. In addition, specialty retail uses were projected for the northern half of the
building owned by Wt Marine that will remain on the Project site. Traffic from this use was
also increased 25 percent above average. The WI st Marine existing traffic levels were projected
to continue into the future. Table 11-15A presents gross trip rates that would be expected due
to the Lowe's store and activity from the Wt Mari ne building. The net increase in traffic from
the Project site for the near term horizon was then determined by subtracting the level of trip
generation associated with existing site uses from that of the proposed development. As shown
in Table 11-15B, the net increase in traffic from the Project site, with the proposed development
replacing most existing site uses would be expected to be about 90 net new inbound and 70 net
new outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 135 net new inbound and 185
net new outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour.
For the year 2020 long term horizon, the Project site has been Projected in the East of 101
traffic model to contain high-rise office or research and development activities. These uses,
assumed in place for the 2020 Base Case analysis, would have a higher level of trip generation
than existing site activities. As shown in Table 11-15C, the net increase in traffic from the
project site with Lowe's~t Marine replacin g officeRm uses would be expected to be
about 115 net fewer inbound and 65 net more outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour,
with about 180 net more inbound and 45 net more outbound trips during the PM peak traffic
hour.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Distribution patterns of existing site traffic were based upon JIly 2005 AM and PM peak period
turn movement counts at project driveways, while distribution patterns of officeRm traffic
projected to be generated by the project site by 2020 were obtained from the City's East of 101
traffic model. Distribution patterns for Lowe's/Wt Marine traffic were developed by Crane
Transportation Group in consultation with City staff based upon the projected service area of
the store (San Franciscoerisbane to the north, the U.S.101 corridor to Burlingame to the south
and South San Francisco on the east and west), knowledge of existing nearby Lowe's operations
(San Bruno) and attractive access routes based upon roadwayfreeway congestion during
commute periods. Overall, Lowe's~t Marine traffic was projected to distribute in the
following patterns:
LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-56
CHAPTER 11 : TRANSPORTATION AND CrRCULA TION
LOWE'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
IN OUT IN OUT
U.S.1 01 Freeway & 30% 30% :7% 31(/0
Bayshore Blvd. North
U.S.1 01 Freeway South 20% 20% :1% 23(/0
Wt of U.S.101 Freeway 40% 40% 9% 42(/0
Sister Cities~rand Avenue
East ofU.S.101 Freeway 10% 10% 3% 4O/~
TOTAL 100% 100% JO% 100%
Resultant weekday year 2006 Base Case -Lowe' s AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented
in Figures 11-12 and 11-13, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case -Lowe's AM and PM peak
hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-14 and 11-15, respectively.
BASE CASE + PROJECT INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND
CONTROL
Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case and Base Case -Project intersection geometrics and
control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case and Base Case -Project intersection
geometrics and control. As shown, Base Case -Project intersection geometrics and control are
projected to remain the same as Base Case conditions for both horizon years, including the four
project access driveways. The Project is not proposing turn lanes on the Dubuque Avenue
approaches to any of the four Project driveways.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 11-57
Table 11-15A
LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-WAYTRIPS INBOUND OUTB)UND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Lowe's 148,749 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193
SQ.Fr.
~t Marine 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12
Bldg.-North SQ.Fr.
Area
Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205
-e5<safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51
+Existing ~t Marine NA* 2 0 14 12
Store (No Change)
GRAND TOTAL 5908* 130 106 243 268
"NA =Not surveyed for daily trip generation.
"Does not include existing ~t Marine store.
Trip Rate Source: uwe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego
Association ofGotJemments, 2002; Existing West Marine Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-15B
LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES
USE
Lowe's and ~t Marine Bldg.
Existing Site Uses (including W st Marine Bldg.)
Net Change in Site Trip Generation
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
130 106
- 42 - 37
88 69
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
243 268
- 108 - 86
1-35 tB2
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-15C
LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020
TRIP GENERATION-LOWE'S & WEST MARINE MINUS OFFICE/R&D
USE
Lowe's and ~t Marine Bldg.
OfficeJt&l
Net Change in Site Trip Generation
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
130 106
(-243) (-44)
(-113) 6-2
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
243 268
(-64) (-224)
1-79 44
Source: Crane Transportation Croup
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-58
(
"'
t ,.
227 45
NOT TO SCALE
508 330
t ~
-L 20
,339
A
N
~
ii5
~
o
J::
~
&l
155 340 352
.J t ~
Sister Cities Blvd
-L 22
- 247
, 93
t
t
7515 -L 305
-110
Oyster Point Blvd ,290
470..1 ~ t ,.
767 -
540"') ~52 55 1078
204 -L 0 r "'
625 1"E.U 146 20 -L5
.Jtl.,o t l. ,2
1250..1 ~t,. t ,.
0- 50 135 0 174 5
94 "') 88 60 -L56
~/ t ~L2
t ,.
.q: <1l 123 13
!!' ::>
~ ~ 77 "l: -L 17
-Q t 18 ~ , 15
c.. l.g-
r =--- * Lowes .<::l t ,.
::,
Cl
Project 119 10
- Site 90 2 -L1
.. l. ,3
7740
120 ..1
1122 -
135 "')
~
ii5
1:::
o
e.
:q:
'--~
, .. oooo.. \ Caltrain
\.. ::-oo..' ~tation
~55 ~
..- 570
Grand Ave
t ,.
128 2
'\... .J
,----------------~
, \
. .
· ~ -L 14 ·
: 83 10 ~ , 10 :
. t l.5_ ·
· ~ t ,. ·
· Cl ·
. 116 20 ·
\ .
~------------~---,
Miller
105 375 748
.J t ~
220 ..1
214 -
70 "')
~ Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-12
Year 2006 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
.J
"'
....
J
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-60
r ""'\.
456 350 t.. 30
I .. I..- " 508 NOT TO SCALE
A
t ~
284 170 N
~
CiS
~
o
~
&l
6945
350 395 219
.J .. I..-
Sister Cities Blvd
t.. 189
--- 903
" 220
..
t
8060 t.. 1302
--- 776
Oyster Point Blvd " 1272
255 J ~ t ~
240 -+ 536 179
400""). 15
1448 219 5 ~ r ""'\.
t ___5 244 20 t.. 20
~ I..- ,,0 .. L.. ,,5
555 J ~t~ t ~
0-+ 146316 0 295 5
129 "") 146 103 t.. 111
~/ .. L.. L.2 5
t ~
<i 189 15
g; ~
Q ~ 111 50 ~ t.. 60
-Q .. L.. 5 " 37
6 :J-
r ---... * Lowes .Q t ~
:J
a
_ Project 144 27
140 8 t..1O
Site t L.. " 10
~
co
t:
o
e-
q;
""-.../
, ,. ...... ~ Caltrain
~.. ::: ,.' ~tation
~93 ~
..- 1895
Grand Ave
t ~
161 15
'-- ../
#----------------~
, \
. .
. ~ t.. 23 ·
· 133 17 <( -L 14 ·
. I Q)" ·
. ,L..5_ ·
: ~ t ~ :
. a 153 12 .
\ .
~----------------,
85 J
403 -+
60 t
Mill r
187 430 237
~ .. I..-
198 J
99 -+
145 t
_ Lowes EIR
r
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
../
Figure 11-13 "'
Year 2006 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
../
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-62
r
36 787 398
.J t I.
T errabay
Ph 3 Access 17 J
51 -+
14 ..
39 1263
.J
22 J
61..
10 1314
.J .
77..
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
229 446 716
.J t I.
Sister Cities Blvd
60 ~
322 J
1473 -+
100 ..
Mill r
1604151621
.J t I.
530 J
404 -+
90 ..
-L 20
+-- 98
. 501
t ~
342 218
~ t
119 538 ~
-g 0
in i:i:
~
o
..c::
~
<ll
!Xl
-L 155
+-- 445
. 110
-L 500
+-- 237
Oyster Point Blvd . 414
679 J ~ t ~
1258-+ 473 1377
627.. _ 60
-L1
725 315 1 +-- ~ 0 }
.Jtl.~
1746 J ~ t ~
o -+ 90 163 0
265..
0/
::>
<:(
~ ~
c- ~
/" ::-"\ * Lowes
_ Project
Site
-g
in
t:::
o
e-
:q:
'- =.-J C It .
, .. .... \ a rain '--
\.. :::-. ..' ~tation
L 65 ...............
.- 905
Grand Ave
Grand Ave
~t~
25 224
305
H
..... Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
""'\.
NOT TO SCALE
~
N
r
'\
-L5
346 20 .2
t I.
t ~
210 5
288 60 -L 56
t I. .7
t ~
159 13
~
277 18 ":t: -L 17
t !!l f 15
I.g-
;3 t ~
155 10
290 2 -L1
t I. f3
t ~
164 2
../
_______M________~
.# \
. .
· 137 ~ -L 28 :
: 156 ~ f 5 .
. tl.g- ·
:;, .
: -g t ~ ·
. Cl 138 28 .
.
\ ,
~--------------_.
j
'\
Figure 11-14
Year 2020 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
-
../
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 11-64
(
""'\
~ t
309 844 ~
'0 .s
::. 0
co Q:
~
o
.c::
CI)
Ph 3 Access 275 . ;0-
co
576 -L 602
924 494 -1221
.J ~ ~ , 255
Sister Cities Blvd
I
l
\... Lowes EIR
r
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
!to...
58 546 440
.J ~ ~
I Terrabay
Ph 3 Access 59 j
228 -+-
112 .
49 1510
Terrabay .J t
Ph 3 Access 83 j
232.
23 1719
Terrabay .J t
90 ~
269 j
561 -+-
65 .
i/l r
505
560 54 1
.J ~ ~
455 j
130 -+-
100 .
-L 35
- 141
, 901
t ~
543 384
-L 2125
- 1175
. .L 1710
Oyster Pomt Blvd ...
638 j ~ t ~
284 -+- 903 384
386. _ 200
1801 290 5 ~_5 '.)
.J ~ ~ ("" 1
1050 j ~ t ~
5 -+- 310 432 0
215.
~
co
t::
o
e-
:q;
~
~ =' * Lowes
Project
- Site
,-.J I. \..
, -- - - .., Ca tram
,_ ::-_ __' ~tation
L 115 ~
.- 2390
Grand Ave
NOT TO sc ALE
~
N
r
""'\
299 20 -L 20
~ ~ i:2.
t ~
448 5
201 103 -L 111
~ ~ ,15
t ~
Q) 342 15
::.
166 50 -;:; -L 60
~ ~ g , 37
;3 t ~
297 27
195 8 -L 10
~ ~ ,10
t ~
314 15
../
----------------~
,# ,
I
I
I ~ -L 130 I
I 165 40 <( .L 20 I
I I Q)'" I
I t ~5_ I
~ I
: -g t ~ I
I a 199 8 :
, #
~------------~---
../
""'\
Figure 11-15
Year 2020 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
.J
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-66
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
YEAR 2006
Impact 11-1
Project Trip Generation Will Exceed 100 Trips During the AM and PM
Peak Hours
The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than existing site uses during
the AM and PM peak hours (i160 more trips during the AM peak hour and 320 more trips
during the PM peak hour than existing site uses). This requires that the proposed Project follow
Crt-AG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of the net new trips. The San Mateo
Cityrt-ounty Association of Governments (Crt-AG ) Agency Guidelines for the implementation
of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("Crt-AG Guidelines") specifies that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and0r tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-1
The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
consistent with the City of South San Francisco 0ning Ordinance Chapter 20.120
Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to Crt-AGo These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The Crt-AG
guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure.
Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the i160
net new AM peak hour trips and 320 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project.
Since the majority of vehicles associated with Lowe's will be retail customers and not employees
(and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and Crt-AG will need to
meet and develop a program agreeable to both parties.
Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Intersection Level Of Service Impacts
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable
operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster
Point Boulevard}i)ubuque Avenuep.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour
Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and increase volumes by more
than two percent (3.5Y.o
This would be a significant impact.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-67
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure 11-2
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San
Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better.
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-3 Year 2006 Freeway Mainline Impacts
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway
segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F, with
one exception. During the PM peak hour, northbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point
interchange would have Base Case LOS E operation changed to LOS F operation with the
addition of traffic from Lowe's (40 vehicles). However, this increment would be less than a
one percent increase in northbound traffic (a 0.4 percent increase) and would be a less-than-
significant impact.
For those freeway segments projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project
would result in a less-than-significant increase in traffic.
AM PEAJEOUR
Southbound U.S.I0l (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result
in Base Case freeway volumes being increased by 0.1 %
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-3
No mitigation required.
Impact 11-4 Year 2006 Freeway Ramps Impacts
Table 11-5 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or
PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-4
No mitigation required.
LowE's PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-68
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection
approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance
criteria level.
PM PEAlBOUR
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (6.6YlWith unacceptable Base Case queuing.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than
a two percent increase in traffic (13.6YlWith unacceptable Base Case queuing in the
left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left~rough lane
would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project
traffic. The Project would increase combined through}eft turn movements by 16.7
percent.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation 11-5A: 50th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of
the Bay ~t Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and
one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less
than the available 255 feet of storage. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions.
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED fiR
PAGE 11-69
CHAPTER 11; TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and6r PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case
queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic
that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the
significance criteria level.
AM PEAJEOUR
1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/D.S.tot Northbound On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than
a two percent increase in traffic (9.6Yo with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAJEOUR
2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (5Yowith unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also,
acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be
increased beyond the available storage (by 1 car length) with the addition of Project
traffic.
3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/D.S.lot Northbound On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and throughJeft turn lanes
would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.sYlWith unacceptable
Base Case queuing in both lanes.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation 11-5B: 95th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of
the Bay Wt Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and
one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less
than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the
westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, within the planned available
storage length. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-70
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
YEAR 2020
Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level Of Service Impacts
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable
operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the
Bayshore}1.S.101 Southbound Hook Rampsterrabay access intersection, PM peak hour
operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (0.8Y,o
resulting in a less-than-significant impact. At the Oyster Point Boulevard}0ubuque
Avenue}1.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersect ion, AM peak hour operation would remain
LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent (0.2Yo In addition, PM peak hour
operation at this intersection would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two
percent (l.5Y,o resulting in a less-than-signi ficant impact. However, Project traffic would
produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard;Sister Cities
Boulevard~yster Point Boulevard,Airport Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain
LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.4Yo
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-6
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
o Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the
Terrabay Phase 3 development.
o Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide a second left
turn lane.
o Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left
turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared throughitght turn lane.
Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to
the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe U-turn
movements.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay
The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-71
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway
segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact by 2006. No segment
would receive more than five-tenths of one percent traffic increase due to the Project.
Therefore, since background traffic on the U.S.I0l freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and
the percent project traffic contribution to overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment will
receive a significant impact due to Project traffic in 2020.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-7
No mitigation required.
Impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramps Impacts
Table U..6 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or
PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps
projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Lowe's~t Marine Project (in
comparison to office}tEl uses projected for the site) would result in a net decrease in traffic.
AM PEAIBOUR
· U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased
from about 2,095 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would
improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E.
PM PEAIBOUR
· U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes
decreased from about 3,000 down to about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation
would remain LOS F.
· U.S.l0l Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes
decreased from about 2,165 down to about 2,115 vehicles per hour. Operation
would remain LOS F.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-8
No mitigation required.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
PAGE 11-72
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM andpr PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing
that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance
criteria level.
AM PEAlEOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a 5:8%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAlEOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a
::5.0<1'mcrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a
:t7<1'mcrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through}Ht
turn lanes would receive a :!i-.4<1'mcrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case
quemng.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service)
. Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the
Terrabay Phase 3 development.
. Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-73
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing
to acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp
· There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City
of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case
conditions.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and0r PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case
queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic
that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the
significance criteria level.
AM PEAIEOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp
· The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined throughJeft
turn lanes would receive a 6.2lfmcrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
· The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lanes would receive an 8.8%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have demand increased
beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic.
PM PEAIEOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
· The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 5.3%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
· The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a 5%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-74
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a
3.7o.Irocrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined throughlHt
turn lanes would receive a 4.401rocrease in traffic with unacceptable Base Case
quemng.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service)
. Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn
lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through{1ght turn lane.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing
to acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City
of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to Base Case
conditions.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-75
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-10 Project Access Impacts
The proposed Project would have four driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. Driveways
would be in the same locations as driveways now serving existing site uses. For identification
purposes, they have been labeled tf-to 4 starting with the north driveway. No left or right turn
deceleration lanes are proposed on the approaches to any driveway. Speeds along Dubuque
Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour.
Driveway it, near the north end of the site, would be 48 feet wide and would serve truck
deliveries as well as an employee parking area in the back of the Lowe's store. This wide
entrance would facilitate truck turn movements tofrom Dubuque Avenue. It would be
channelized about 25 feet internal to the site and would lead to a large open area that would
accommodate truck turning maneuvers tofrom the Lowe's unloading dock.
Driveway 'J!J: would provide access to an east-wes t parking aisle running directly in front of
Lowe's entrance. It would be 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and
would be channelized about 40 feet internal to the parking lot on the south side of the entrance
lane and about 25 feet on the north side of the exit lane.
Driveway '!J would be located just north of the existing Wt Marine Building and would
provide access to an east-west parking aisle serving the north-south rows of parking in front of
the Lowe's store. It would be 25 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and
would be channelized about 30 feet internal to the parking lot on the south side of the entrance
lane and about 80 feet on the north side of the exit lane. Ninety-degree parking associated with
the Wt Marine Building would begin on the south side of the entry lane 30 feet internal to the
site.
Driveway #: would be adjacent to the south Project boundary and just south of the Wt
Marine building. It would be about 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and
would be channelized adjacent to both the entry and exit lanes about 65 feet internal to the site.
It would lead to an east-west parking aisle that would serve the Wt Marine building as well as
rows of north-south parking serving Lowe's. The south edge of Driveway #:would be located
about 15 to 20 feet north of the north edge of the driveway serving the Caltrain station.
Turn Lane Warrants
No Project driveway would have northbound Dubuque Avenue right turn entering volumes
meeting warrant criteria levels for provision of right turn deceleration lanes in either 2006 or
2020. In addition, none of Lowe's four driveways would have volumes warranting provision of
southbound left turn lanes in 2006. However, by 2020, PM peak hour volumes at driveway 'J!J:
(serving the front of Lowe's store) would be exceeding warrant criteria! levels for provision of a
southbound left turn lane. In addition, year 2020 PM peak volumes would also be approaching
warrant criteria levels for provision of left turn lanes at driveways tf-and 3.
1 Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985see Appendix
B Table 6.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-76
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This would be a significant impact.
Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue
Mllcle speeds along Dub uque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per
hour. Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305
and 360 feet, respectively, based upon guidelines in A Poliry on Geometric Design if Highwqys and
Street, 2004.2 Dubuque Avenue has a straight alignment between driveways ~and 4 and a very
gradual curve between driveways itand 2. This gradual curve will require that direct line of site
between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting the Project site at either driveway it
or 2 extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This presents the possibility that
landscaping may interfere with required sight lines.
This would be a significant impact.
Relationship of Caltrain Station Driveway to Lowe's Southerly Driveway
The Project's southerly driveway (t#) connection to Dubuque Avenue will be located less than
20 feet north of the driveway serving the South San Francisco Caltrain station. OOe the
existing moderate to low turn movements tofrom the Caltrain station driveway in combination
with the low projected turn movements tofrom Lowe's southerly driveway would result in only
a moderate near term safety concern, should the Caltrain property redevelop with a high
intensity use, safety concerns would increase significantly
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-10
Left Turn Lanes
. Revise the Project site plan in the vicinity of driveway ~in order to widen Dubuque
Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 250 feet long. In
addition, it is strongly recommended that Dubuque Avenue be widened to provide a
continuous turn lane along the entire site frontage.
Sight Lines
. Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will
allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project
driveway.
. The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour
along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site for both travel directions.
2 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-77
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Caltrain Station & Lowe's South Driveway
· The Caltrain station and Lowe's southerly driveways should be combined. If this isn't done
with Lowe's initial development, the Project site plan should take this ultimate single
driveway connection into account that will be provided at the time the Caltrain station
parcel is redeveloped into a higher intensity use.
These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 11-11 On-Site Circulation
The Project site plan by AMS Associates, Inc. (6-7-2005) shows all internal parking aisles (with
two exceptions) being a minimum 25 feet wide and serving 90-degree parking. Twenty-five-foot
aisles meet City Code criteria and represent good traffic engineering practice. The two
exceptions are: 1) an access aisle to be located along the west side of the Lowe's building
(connecting driveways #and 2) that narrows to 15 feet for at least 160 feet near driveway 'PJ
and 2) an access aisle to be located along the east side of the Lowe's building that will be 20 feet
wide. No parking will be directly served via either of these aisles.
The 15-foot-wide aisle is planned for use by Lowe's forklifts to move merchandise between the
truck unloading area near driveway #and the front of the store near driveway 'It.
The 20-foot aisle on the east side of Lowe's building will be open to the public, although it
should receive minimal levels of traffic activity. This width meets fire department standards.
Ninety-degree parking stalls are proposed along the inbound lane of driveway 11- starting about
25 feet from Dubuque Avenue. They would be located in the same location as stalls that are
currently in place serving the business in the north part of the &'{it Marine building. Although
not ideal, this distance would allow one inbound vehicle to fully queue onsite if blocked by a
vehicle exiting the first internal parking stall.
These would be less-than-significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-11
No mitigation required.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-78
12
UTlllTI ES
12.1 SETTING
WATER SUPPLY
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company, Bayshore
District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the
majority of the city's area, including the Project site. According to its website, the CWSC uses
eight water wells to pump 1.5 million gallons of groundwater per day for its 16,600 customers in
South San Francisco.1 The CWSC also serves 36,100 users in San Carlos and San Mateo, with
no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. To meet the needs of its users in
the Bayshore District and beyond, the CWSC buys water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). The company's current contract with the SFPUC entitles the city to 42.3
million gallons per day (mgd) per year.
Water use in South San Francisco has increased steadily over the past few decades at a rate faster
than increases in the number of users, resulting in a per capita increase in water consumption.
Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an
extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down
considerably.
According to the General Plan, while residential users comprised approximately 90% of the
water accounts in South San Francisco between 1986 and 1996, less than half of the total
consumption could be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprised
only 0.46% of the water accounts but used 11 % of the total water, at an average of 3.6 million
gallons per user per year. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the
predominance of biotechnology firms. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure
water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels.
Commercial users accounted for approximately 10% of total accounts, but used approximately
37% of the total water, for an average of 528,132 gallons per user per year.2
1 California Water Service Company web site
2 Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 193, Table 5.3-2
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-1
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future
water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five-year average
growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water
users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFPUC contract allocation is not modified during the remaining
contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.3
However, while the CWSC has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand that
would be created by the allowed development in the East of 101 Area Plan, this increase would
be greater than that estimated by the CWSC for the Bayshore District, and would use
approximately 24 percent of the district's surplus supply, based on 2010 projection with similar
assumptions.4
Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development
allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan.s The water distribution system in the area was
designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch
lines in relatively good condition, adequate to meet the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow
requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area.
WASTEWATER
The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s
and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both
cities is treated there, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. As
of 1995, the average dry weather flow was 8.33 million gallons per day (MGD), and had
increased on average 0.5 MGD per year since 1991.
Since 1998 the plant has undergone an expansion in order to accommodate wastewater flows
from future development in the city, and work has been undertaken to upgrade the city's trunk
sewers, including along East Grand Avenue. The plant expansion has increased the dry weather
flow capacity to 13 MGD. These improvements to the wastewater infrastructure have all taken
into account, and will satisfy, increased demand on the system resulting from future
development in the city, including the proposed Project. 6
4
Dyett and Bhatia, p. 194.
Brady and Associates, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994, p. 97
Brady and Associates, p. 98.
Raul Dacanay, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005.
6
PAGE 12-2
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has extensive impervious surfaces. As noted in Table 7-2,
development of the proposed Project would result in an approximate 6 percent decrease in
impervious surfaces at the Project site. As a decrease in impervious surface area would result in a
corresponding decrease in peak discharge from the Project site, redevelopment of existing
development would not increase runoff.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses, and then processed at
the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot
be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon
Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for future expansion of the
Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda
Los Trancos will be expanded further, or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill.
The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day
of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to
recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill.
South San Francisco recycles household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge.
With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will
generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation
rates used by San Mateo County.
12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
. Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or
wastewater treatment and collection facilities?
. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities?
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-3
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves, or may serve, the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the Project's solid waste disposal needs?
. Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The proposed Project's wastewater discharge would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not
be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco
General Plan.
The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve
the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being, expanded and upgraded. This
work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout
horizon.
Because the eXIstIng drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and
constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm
water from the large areas of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of
existing sites, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff.
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on utility servIce and
infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area.
LANDFILL CAPACITY
Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening
Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity.
PAGE 12-4
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
13
Al lERNA liVES
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) requires
an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. CEQA also
requires that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives that were considered at one time
in developing the project proposal were rejected in favor of the Project. The selection of
alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of
informed decision making and informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate
alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or for which implementation
would be remote and speculative.
CEQA also requires that the EIR specifically address a "no project" alternative within this
discussion, and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]).
Where the "no project" alternative is also identified as the "environmentally superior"
alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the
absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identified.
The environmental consequences associated with this Project are fully addressed in Chapters 4
through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of
the following alternatives:
. No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state, and
. 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
13.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today: developed with
four buildings that total 241,737 square feet: three circa 1970 one-story concrete (23,949,65,330,
and 139,280 square feet, respectively) that house a variety of office and retail uses, and a fourth
one-story concrete building, 13,178 square feet in size and occupied by West Marine.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-1
CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES
This alternative would maintain the site's Planned Commercial General Plan designation, but the
retail, office, and warehousing uses would not be as intense or economically beneficial to the
City, an issue which is addressed in numerous General Plan goals and policies.
The No Project Alternative would not result in environmental impacts described in this EIR
document, particularly those identified as significant and unavoidable, as it would not involve
any construction or other changes. Table 11-15B shows that there would be approximately 160
fewer AM Peak Hour trips and 320 fewer PM Peak Hour trips than the proposed Project,
resulting in lower air pollutant vehicle emissions and traffic levels of service. The No Project
site would also not introduce several of the hazardous materials that would be stored and used
on site as part of the Project, and would maintain the protected trees that would need to be
replaced if development of the Project occurs. As such, it would be environmentally superior.
0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the
currently proposed 0.29 FAR for the 148,749 square foot Project (home improvement
warehouse and garden center), to a square footage of 74,375 square feet, corresponding to a
FAR of 0.15. As the applicant has indicated it would not be economically feasible for a Lowe's
to occupy such a small building based on its standard store size and business model (the average
store size is approximately 115,000 square feet), the alternative would have to be an alternate
retail store.
This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant
emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels
of Service on street intersections near the Project site, but would still not completely mitigate the
significant impacts detailed in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter.
This alternative would still increase and improve landscaping on the site, and would also require
a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities. However, it would effectively prohibit the Project
applicant from occupying the site, and most other alternate warehouse-style retail uses, especially
at a 50% Alternative, would not generate as much sales tax revenue as the proposed Project.
13.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed Lowe's Project reveals that the
environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in
no new environmental impacts. However, should the site retain its existing use, it would not
meet the goals, policies, or visions of the City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan as well
as the proposed Project would.
In the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be
designated as environmentally superior because it would fulfill the City of South San Francisco's
General Plan designation for the site as Planned Commercial. Implementation of this reduced
PAGE 13-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES
intensity alternative would lead to reduced environmental impacts, but would likely be
economically unfeasible for the Project applicant. The applicant has a standard template for
most of its stores, which includes a minimum warehouse size to be economically viable and carry
their full line of products. Reducing to a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would likely make
the Project unfeasible. The applicant would be required to seek an alternate site in the City of
South San Francisco or surrounding communities.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-3
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-4
14
IMPACT OVERVIEW
14.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The following Project-related impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable:
Impact 11-2
Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one
analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and
PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
PM peak hour project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to
LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or
better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-5
Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queuing
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an
increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that
are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two
percent, the significance criteria level.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-1
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
PM PEAK HOUR
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more
than a two percent increase in traffic (6.6%) with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive
more than a two percent increase in traffic (13.6%) with unacceptable Base
Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the
combined leftj through lane would also be increased beyond the available
storage with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would mcrease
combined through/left turn movements by 16.7 percent.
95th Percentile Queuing
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque A venue northbound approach left turn lane would receive
more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base
Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more
than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case
queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left
turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage (by 1 car length)
with the addition of Project traffic.
PAGE 14-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I01 Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn
lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-9
Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive
a ::!::5.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster
Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard intersection.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would
receive a ::!:: 5.0% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Point
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would
receive a ::!::3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
.
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would receive a ::!:: 4.4% increase in traffic with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
LowE's PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-3
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-tO with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0t Northbound On-
Ramp
· The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would receive a 6.2% increase in traffic with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection.
· The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lanes would
receive an 8.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn
lane would have demand increased beyond the available storage with the
addition of Project traffic.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection.
· The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would
receive a 5.3% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
· The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would
receive a 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Point
· The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would
receive a 3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.tOl Northbound On-
Ramp
· The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would receive a 4.4% increase in traffic with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
PAGE 14-4
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
14.2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
As indicated in the DEIR Analysis, there would be no significant Project-related environmental
impacts associated with the following topic areas:
. Air Quality
. Geology and Soils
. Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Land Use
. Noise
. Public Services
. Utilities
14.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by
the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and
secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant
irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific
uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable
resources.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The
property would be converted from a furniture showroom and warehouse use to a retail home
improvement store land use.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Impact 11-2
Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one
analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and
PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to
LowE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-5
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
Impact 11-5
Impact 11-9
PAGE 14-6
LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or
better. These would be significant impacts.
Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queuing
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an
increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that
are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two
percent, the significance criteria level.
95th Percentile Queuing
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
These would be significant impacts.
Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/ or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
These would be significant impacts.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of
agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted
and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project
would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and
operation, such as electricity and construction materials.
14.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local
population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed
Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might
later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of
infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing.
14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact
which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with
other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other
closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.
As the discussions in Chapter 4 (Air Quality) and Chapter 11 (Transportation) indicate, the
development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent cumulative
increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and to reduced freeway Levels of Service.
LowE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-7
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
As noted on Page 4-9 of the Air Quality chapter, the URBEMIS2002 Model was used to
quantify the emissions associated with the Project, and to determine if it could result in
potentially significant regional emissions. Based on the estimate of 5,908 daily two way trips
(fable 11-15A), the Project's emissions for ROG, NOX, and PMI0 were found to be below the
significance threshold. So, while new vehicle trips would result in new regional emissions, the
Project's emissions would represent a less than significant cumulative impact.
Chapter 11 discusses the Project's impact on reduced freeway Levels of Service in the years 2006
(page 11-68, Impact 11-3) and 2020 (page 11-72, Impact 11-7). As discussed in Chapter 11,
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.l0l freeway
segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F with
one exception, and that would be a less than significant impact. As background traffic on the
U.S.101 freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent Project traffic contribution to
overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to Project
traffic in 2020. As such, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway Levels of Service will be
less than significant.
PAGE 14-8
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
15
REFERENCES
15.1 REpORT PREPARERS
Lamphier - Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Joan Lamphier, President
David Levitan, Planner
15.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AMS Associates, Pro/ect Plans for Lowe's, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, June
2005
Association of Bay Area Governments, http://wv;rw.abag.com (Seismic and Other Hazards
Analysis Pages), 2005.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Manual rf Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures, June 1981.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bqy Area Air Quality Summaries, 2001-
2003.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/handbook/default.htm
Permit Handbook,
2005.
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source,
Design Guidance Manual for S tormwater Quality Protection, 1999.
Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map rf the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part rf the
Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bqy Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-file
Report 98-354, 1998.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 15-1
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Brady and Associates, East if 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map if the South San Francisco
Quadrangle, 1982.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map if California and A4Jacent Areas,
1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State if CalifOrnia, 2002.
California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluatz"on Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook} 2003.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), CalifOrnia Stormwater BMP Handbook}
Industrial and Commercia~ January 2003.
California Water Service Company, http://W\.\TW.calwater.com. Customer Service Section} Find
Your District, 2005
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc., Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Lowe's Home Warehouse}
600-790 Dubuque Avenue} South San Francisco} C4} July 8, 2005
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc., Addendum #1} Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Lowe's
Home Warehouse} 600-790 Dubuque Avenue} South San Francisco} C4, August 10,2005
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations} Lowe}s South
San Francisco} Dubuque Avenue} South San Francisco} CalifOrnia, August 4, 2005
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Environmental Sampling, Testing and Evaluation if Soi~
Lowe's South San Francisco} Dubuque Avenue} South San Francisco} CalifOrnia, August 24, 2005 (Revised
August 29, 2005)
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Limited Phase 2 Subsurface Environmental Site
Assessment} Lowe's if South San Francisco} C4} 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, December 23, 2005
City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Preservation, adopted June
28, 2000.
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Report: 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton
Avenue, July, 2002.
PAGE 15-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Report: 345 East Grand A venue, November, 2001.
Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater- Bulletin 118. Updated 2004,
1975.
Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Sanborn Map Report, June 16, 2005
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, June 16,
2005
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Site Report HWY 280, South San Francisco,
CA, Ilme 23, 2005
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map} City of South San Francisco}
California, September 1981
Fehr & Peers/Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Draft Initial Stu4J/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration, February 2005.
Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access - Buildings 33 & 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus
Parking Garage (Budding 37), December 2003.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Pro/ects Draft
Trq/Jic AnalYsis Report, October 2001.
Krazan & Associates, Inc., Asbestos Survey completed on Commercial Property at 600-790
Dubuque Avenue, ITme 30, 2005
Krazan & Associates, Inc., Lead Based Paint Survey completed on Commercial Property at
600-790 Dubuque Avenue, ITme 30, 2005
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Pro/ect Drcift EIR, September 2004.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Final EIR, February 2005.
Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Pro/ect (Fuller O'Brien Property) Recirculation Draft
EIR, February 2002.
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 15-3
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screeningfor Environmental Concerns
at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwatefj 2003
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin
Plan) for the San Francisco Bqy Basin) 1995
Severn Trent Laboratories Inc., August 23) December 7) 8) 9) AnalYtical Reports, 2005
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Species List for Lowe's
Retail, June 15, 2005
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet
Hydrotfynamic Separators) EPA 832-FOO-017, September 1999
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5'
Quadrangle and parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Quadrangle) San Francisco Bqy Area) California, USGS
Open-ftle Report 98-354, 1998.
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stormwater Technology: Stormceptor Fact Sheet No.4,
February 2003
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron,
A.D., San Francisco Bqy Region Landslide Folio Part C - Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthflows in
the San Francisco Bqy Region) California) USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period of MonthlY Climate Summary for San Francisco
WSO AP) California (047769). Period of Record: 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2004. Online. 20 June. 2005.
Available: htlp:/ / l1J1J)lv.wrcc.d17~edu/ cgi-bin/ cliMAIN.pI?casfoa+~fo
Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Earthquake Probabilities
In the San Francisco Bqy Region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 03-214, 2003
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa
Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005.
Dacanay Raul, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May
4, 2005.
PAGE 15-4
LowE's PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at
Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department,
21 June 2005.
Montufar, F. Eduardo, Per telephone conversation between ibseph Farrow, Staff Geologist
at Questa Engineering and F. Estuardo Montufar, San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department, September 20, 2005
Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist
at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005.
Powell, Michelle, Per telephone conservation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at
Questa Engineering and Michelle Powell, San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department, August 2, 2005
Rudhel, Cathy. Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cathy Rudhel, City of South San Francisco Water Quality
Control. August 1, 2005
Shaw, Caroline, Per email
Diligence Coordinator, to
Engineering, August 2, 2005
correspondence from Caroline Shaw, Greenberg Farrow Due
Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa
LOWE'S PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 15~5
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
PAGE 15-6
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
16
ApPENDICES
ApPENDIXA NOTICE OF PREPARATION
RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION
ApPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS
ApPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS
PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS
PAGE 16-1
.~ .....
'-.....r .
____I
DEPARTMEWT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(650)8T1-BS3S
FAX (650) 82lH3039
August 5, 2005
Certified Mail #700111400001 04646014
State Clearinghouse. Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth StreeVP.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Subject: Notice or Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environmental Impact Report, City of
South San Francisco
Lead Agenc:y:
Agency Name:
Street Address:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
94080
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Steve Carlson
Consulting Finn:
Finn Name: Lamphier-Gregory
Street Address: 1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Mailing
Address:
Contact:
Contact:
Joan Lamphier
The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and to infonn all interested parties that the City of South San Francisco
intend~ to prepare an Environmental hnpact Report (BIR) for the Lowe's Project. This notice is
to request comments and guidance on the scope and the content of the environmental information
to be included in the Draft EIR. An initial assessment of environmental factors potentially
affected is attached.
Responsible agencies should comment on the scope and content of the enviromnental
information germane to their statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project,
and will need to use the prepared Em. in their permitting and approvals.
RESPONSE TO NOP
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent a1 the earliest
possible date but not later thalJ 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send vourresoonse to
Steve Carlson at the address shown abOve.
315 MAPLE AVENUE . P.O. BOX 711 . SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94083
'",--;
- 4.--'"-
Subject Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project Environmental hnpact Report
From: The City of South San Francisco
Page 2
, SCOPING MEETING
CEQA requires a Lead Agency to c~ at least one sroping meeting for a proposed project that
may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Transportation, and for a project of statewide, regional, or area-Wide significance. The Lead
Agency shall call the seoping meeting as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after
receiving a request for the meeting from the Department of Transportation (Section 21083.9 of
the Public Resources' Code). The Lead Agency shall provide notice of the scaping meeting to all
of the following: any county or city that borders on a COl1llty or city within which 1he project is
located; any responsible agency; any public agen~y that has jurisdiction by law with respect to
the proj ect; and any organization ot individual who ~as filed i1. written request for the notice.
The project location. and- description are summarized below.
PROJECT LOCATION AM> BOUNDARIES
Regional Location
The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in
northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the
Coastal Range. South San Francisco is strategically located along major transportation corridors
and hubs, including US 101, Interstates 1-280 and 1-380, BART and Caltrain, the Union Pacific
Railroad (formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) main line, and the San Francisco
International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regiona11ocation of the city is
shown in Figure 1. ' '
Project Location and Buundaries
The 12.8 acre Project site. is situated at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue, and is bounded on the west
and north by Dubuque Avenue ~d Highway 101, on the north by single story office buildings
and- services, and to the east and south by Union Pacific Railroad line right-of-way. It is in the
northwest portion of the East of 191 Area., which consists of the roughly 1,700 acres or-Iand in
the City of South San Francisco east of Highway 101.
PROJECf DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve the demolition ofthetbree of the four existing buildings
totaling 22(),932 square feet and the construction of a 124,05lsquare foot Lowe's ~ome _
improvement warehouse, an: adjoining 24,698 square foot Garden Center, the retention of a
15,178 retail building, and 655 open ~t.,.grade parking spaces. The project will require a Use
Permit, Type C Sign Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Design Review, Development
Agreement, Demolition Permit, Grading Permit and Building Permits.
{......-
"
Subject Notice ofPrepamtion. Lowe's Project Environmental Impact Report
From: The City of South 8a.:n Francisco .
Page 3
Pacifica
\;
\
\ V"'
\ Q
. '::l
1;.......\..-.;.1 \
,< '
'- -..l" \
( , oof\
~---_..:..-_--\ -'
, Q
,\'~
_ ''\ .C'....
\. '"
... C"
'\ 0
'\
, (fI
\ {;>
,\'. J-.
\
\,
'\
'\
\
\.
''\
'\
\.
\,.
(
'\,
'\~
;..
", rP
"~ L~
~
o
4-
B
E3
MILES
:',-,'
\J
Subject: Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project Environmental Impact Report
From: The City of South San Francisco
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked belowwould be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist.
D Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources lID Air Quality
-
0 Biolow.cal Resources 0 Cultura1.1tesourc:es [RJ Geology/Soils
lID Hazards & Hazardous [ID HydrologylWater 0 Land UseIPlanning
Materials Quality
0 Minenll Resources ' IX! 'Noise 0 PopulationIHousing
-
I:&l Public Services 0, Recreation', I8J Transportation/Traffic
00 Utilities/Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
_ Systems Significance
DETERMINATION
,
On the basis of this initilll evaluation;
, .
. .
o 1 :find that the proposed project C~U:Ll) NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
0] find that although the proposedproject could have a significant effect an the environment
there will not bea significant effect in this case because reVisions in the project have been made by
or agreed 10 by the project proponent- 'A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAT;lON will be
prepared. I find that the proposed proj ect MA Yhave a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVJRONMEl\'TAL IMPACT REPORT is required.,
IXl I find that the proposed project MAY have a. "potentially significant impact" or .
"potentiaUy significant ,unless mitigated" impact on the envirotimen(but at least one effect 1) has '
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards. and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation meaSures based -on the'eartier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORTisrequire~ but it m,ust analyze only-the effects iliat
r6main to be addressed..- . . ' '.'
o I find that although, the proposed project' could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentimly significam effects (&.) have been analyzed ad~uately 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
r6Visiona or mitigation measures that are. imposed upon the proposed project,notbing further is
reqUired. ' .
/1,rJ ~ ~c? ~
Date
,- . -
0..
~
.c-
.-
c:
.0
S
'f, .;' " ',;, '1 '
1\\ . I)~, , \\" " . ", ",,,',:g~ ,il ,
! \\ " "e: H 'r:i' '"" ':, '.. ";,(0 "!1 ',', i6
I Y '" " , ,'l, c:
~h~\ /1"li .~. )It:'''~'~~I~I;s
~) ~ ~ :-- "~ I'..... e.
~ -
'= ~
i '- ~~ · I, l; ~,~ L~~: ~
' ,'~~/~. b ~ ~ " S
j; ~ ~ ",...- J I '!!J
J [ ~ · J~ "f ~ :.-..: ...- 'i., .
';~ An...; .-d"r~ 71~~ I .~
", "- 'f..- ~ - \ In ~
'~ " :.4 · [~ '.. _ l\ '
! .. r~ " ~~ 3?"" J~W ~
'1) '. j ~ >,....-- ~ -'~ ~ tv)
.... ~ ~...J. · ~ '0:
~f(I. '~"'~ " <"..,- \'I ~' , CI)
.~ :I AT '7'< :?'~, A '"', ", \
~~" (~.~~V~,
'-. ,<" ~ ~Vw "~:>" \' ,
. ---.. ~ ,,~,\, 'Ii ":tJ'9''' V" J..'tI..' ...."" ~. \ \" ".. J
.i.)( ~O( , '. ~ ,:.. ~ I>>-v .7~ "" "\.I.W . J
.~:X~'-<\.....~ ~ -"- . ,> ,"'., (
· \ """ ,~ ~ t · II ~ .1 ,
'~'t. ,I.'~
I ~ ...~'\ '~~" ~..
.......1,/ , /; ',0 ,v ,''''''..<;V .J I. '?J)
.... ~ /; ~-, y
;..'" "'A __~.- '" ~
' .... '" ,. · J" r:-;;;;
~B::;7/':" · j:;-rt'"l'''; ~ '
' ~... ~ ~l-1 p: ~(
~ ~/ .-* -i:C.&'" n
<:) , '. ~'" '~_\\~'v.;'/
CO ~ ~_
N Ih, ,,, I ,{A~"AK~
cr fI, t C 'h,>." i>---""
tJ) · _ '\ ~~?" i
~ .1'=
-'
...
, '-
.1
8
U)
--
u,
c:
~
~
c:
~
i5
.::J
o
U)
B'A'l'F. \.1F C1A41B1l1.NtA P.\.'SI:-,,;SS.:rnA~~PQIl'Tr\T10!'i '\.-';P HOl'Sll<O ,\GE~:l;Y
AflNOLU SGHWAR1,!i.!S:;::;GGF.R. (j""<t"!12!:
DEPARTlVIEN"T OF TRAf-iSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVE~LiE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND. CA !].I623.0660
PHONE (SLOi 286-5505
FAX (51U) 286-5559
~(SOO)735-2929
RECEIVED
SEP 0 22005
PtAN~JW~LG
a,..
., '. .
'f:'~ "
~.
/o'I~"you,. pawer!
He ,!lh!rlf:l r{fici.l'nt!
August 26, 2005
SML01414
SM-101-22A4
SCHff 2005082031
tv1r. Ste....c Carlson
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Lowe's:Project - Not.ice of Preparation
Thank you for"indnding the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
environmental re-vie1,v process for the above-refere.nced project. We have revie.we.d the
Notice of Preparation for the Lowe's Project draft EnvlronmellLal Impact Report and have
the following comments to offer:
Our primary concern Witll Ule project is the potentially significant impact jlmay have to
traffic ,,'olume and congestion, We recommend a traffic lmpact analysis be prepared. The
traffic impact analysis should include. but tIOt be linutcd to the foJlowing:
1. InfOlmatiOl1 011 the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution,
and assiglUuent. The assumptions and meLl1odologicf. used 1n compiling this
information should be addressed.
2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly
affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections.
3.' Schematic illustration of the trafflc conditions for; I'} existing. 2) existing plus project,
3) cumulative, fUld 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and Toadwuy
segments in the project area.
'CIlUnHl5 imprtJ{;es ;,wlJlltiy o.:rOB Colif!.'''''",
r . d
GES9-G2B-OS9 lAIa ~~I~~8Id dSS jO Alr~
W820:~ S002 LO das
i\.Jr~ Sn,:ve CUr150il
^1I~!1I5t ~d. 2D05
Page Z
4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider an trnft1c-generaling
developments, hoth existing find future, thili: would affect the State highway racil'itics
being evaluated.
5. Mitiga.tion measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and
services. Special attention should be given (0 the development of alternate solutions to
circulation pmb!ems that do not rely on increased h.ighway construction.
6. All mitigation measure:> proposed should be fully discussed, including financing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
We encourage the City of South'San Fr'ancisco to c'oordinale prepam(iof1 of the study with
our office., and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see
Ule Department's "Cuide for The Prepamtio/1 of Traffic Impacr Studies" at the:. fallowing
website for more iufonnatlon:
h ttn:1 /w1.'rw.do t.ea. g ov /h q/tia.lfQP~{geve loosen' hJl)eratio n LlIsvs tem~/reDnrtfJt Uigui de. odf
We Look forward to reviewing the lraffic impac.t analysis and draft Enviromnentallmpact
Repol'\: for this project. Please send two copies 10:
Al.i€;c Jackson
Office of Transit and Community Planning
Department of Transportation, Distlicl 4
P.O. Box 23660
OaJdand, CA 94623-0660
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
caLL Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
~fL~
/f1
b
TH\"fOTHY C. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGRlCEQA
c: Scott Morgan (Statc Clearinghouse)
-CaltlU.'ls improves nwbiUl)' urruH Califr,mi.f!'
-p'd
GE99-S28-0S9 I^Ia aWrWW8'd ~SS ~O A~I~
N~aO:L S002 LO daS
. ~partmeDt of Public Works
RECEIVED
SEP 0.7 2005
PLANNING
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE nSSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
555 COUNTY CENTER. 5TH FLOOR' REDWOOD CITY. CALIFORNIA 94063-1665' PHONE (650) 363-4100 . FAX (650) 361-8220
September 2, 2005
Mr. Steve Carlson.
. CitY of $Ou.th San Francisc~
Planning.'Dlvision ' .
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
LJ (0t''1
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Subject:
Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environmental Impact Report,
City of South San Francisco (APN 015-021-090)
,..
We received your letter :dated August 5, 2005 onAugust ~, 2005, regarding the subject. '
proj ect. The letter was addressed to Walt Callahan with the County of San Mateo who
has retired. Future correspondence of this nature whereby the City of South San
Francisco is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District
(District) should be addressed to:
Ann Stillman
County of San Mateo, DPW
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator
of the District, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation ofEnvrronmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the project and offers the following comments:
. Our records show that the proposed project site is located within the Colma Creek
Flood Control Zone (Zone). The District requires that the storm waters from
developments which ultimately drain into the District's flood control channel to
not exceed the existing discharge rate prior to development. Drainage
'calculatioDS showing existing and future discharge rates must be submitted for,
-review and approval. If it is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds .the
existing rate. an on-site storm water detention syStem which would' release surrace
runoff at a rate comparable to the existing flow rate of the site must be designed
and incorporated into the project.
. .
Mr. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Subject: Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environ~ental Impact Report,
City of South San Francisco (APN 015-021-090)
September 2, 2005
Page 2
1
\
_J
· The District advocates that trash management measures be incOlporated into the
design elements of the storm drainage system and appurtenances. Please ensure
that trash collecting devices are installed at storm drain inlets and maintained by
the owner.
If you have any questions, please contact Mark: Chow at (650) 599~ 1489, or myself at
(650) 599-1417. .
Very truly yours,
~
Ann M. Stillman, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC:sdd
F:\USERS\ADMlN\P&S\Utility Scrvices\200S\600-700 Dubuque Lowe's - Notice of Prep. Review.doc
G:\USERS\urn.rrY\COlmll Creek FCD\WORD\Review External Projcct\200S\600-700 Dubuque Lowe's - Notice of Prep.
Review.doc
F-149 (9H)
cc: Mark Chow, P .E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
Rue 30 2005 4:08PM
CITY OF "SSF"PL.ANNiNG DIVIG50-B29-GG39
p.4
".
.=~.
A~gust 22. 2005
Land s.m- ",11m". BllIIennI. ftl)Qll81&
COfllDrl18 R..l Eat.,. s..k&a, CA eli1tS-OODi
",~ AdI/luz
P. O. Bu l5\JIJ5
s...m.. CA 1161ff.ooO~
Steve Carls'oJi
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division .
P.D.Box 711 .
Sooth 8m Francisco, CA 95115.0005
"/I
ECE'JI
AilS 2 3 z,; /)
Jt~
R.e: Notice of Preparation .
Lowe's Project.. Enviro~ ~ Report
600-100 Dubuque Ave.. South Son Fmncisco
of . ..
Mr. Carlson:
Thank lOU"for the oppQrtunity to comment on 1he Notice of Preparation for the Lowe's
Project, Environmemallmpact Report at ~ 700 Dubuque Ave. in South San Fmnciseo.
." "
P9&E. QWDS aDd ~pe:raies.gas Bud electric 'cli~bWio~: facilitic;~ ~hich ri adJacent to the
proposed project. To promote the s8t"e and reliable mai~ and OpCraiiOD of utility
facilities. the California Public Utilities CommisSiOn (CPUC) has mandated specific
cleariuicc ~. ~.~tr :faciIiJies and ~ding obj~. p~ copstruction
activities. To enSlQ"e. compliance with .thCSe'.~ p~ject ;proponen~ 'should
eo:onfinate with PO&!! early in the deve10pnumt of their project.plans. Any proposed
developmCnt plans shQuld provide for UIlI1:Stricted utility access and prevent easemem
encroaclm1ents that might impaif the safe. and reliablC maiDtcDancc and operation of
PG&E's facilities '
Developers "will be responsible for the costs associated With the relocation of existing
"PG&E facilities to" accoUWlOOate their proposed development. Because facilities
relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be
encouraged to consult with PG&B as early in their planning sblges as possible.
Relocations ofPG&E's electric tranSmission and substation facilities (SO,OOO volts and
above) could also tequirc forma] approval from the Califumia Public Utilities
Commission. If ~ this approval ~ces9 could take up to two.~ to ,complete.
Proponents with dev~lopmen1.p~ wbi~ oould ~ s~l1.el~c ~ssi~~ .
facilities should be fcrred to PGU for adI,litiqnal uifoimation aDa assiStince in-tbc
. :" . ~" . ~ '. .. :. . .: '. . "'. ......"....:. . . .' .
.....;..1..."- , f1h . · scliedUl .".... ., ..
'"'lo4W:~~,O- ~.proJect. ..~!.,':......:. ",: . :.... .~t.. :' . .
. ... .. :-.. .. . _ .. ..' - ~ ...." ~8 . ' _ . . .. ... . .
-0... .. .......... .. . 'to _ .. .. .. .~ .. .'. .... .. '.0" ...... _
We.. ~~<t ~8iSo. like'to 'note thai conii~i}ed deVi,1~~ Co~~ With: yOitt: General
Plans 'Yin have a cumUlative imPact on PG&B's gas and electric .S).rStcins and may iequiIe
on-site and off-site additions and improvements to" the ~~ which supply these
services. Because utility facilities are operared as an integrated syst.em, the presence of an
Au~ 30 2005 4:0BPM. CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-929-6639
p.5
existing gas or electric transmission or distribution faciJjty docs not ncccssari1ymean the
facility has capacity to connect new loads.
Expansion of distn'bution and transmission lines and related facilities is a DCcesssry
conseqnence of growth and development. In addition to addimg new distributioD f~
the nmge of electric system improvements needed to 8C~nnnodate growth may include
upgrading existing substation and transmission lin:e equipmc:nls expanding existing
substations 10 their 1JJtimate buildout capacity) and buildingne'W substations and
interconnecting tnmsmission lines. Comparable upgrades or ,ftdditlons needed to
accommodate ~tiona1load on the gas system could include facilities such as regula1oJ:
stations, odorize:r stations, valve 1015, distribution aDd transmission lines.
We would liltr: to recommend that eov.iromnental docummts for proposed development
projects-include adequate evaluation.of cumUhttive ~.ts lo'utility syBtems...the-utility
facilities nCeded.to serve those developments and any potential envimmneotal iSBUCS
associated with extending utility service 10 the pI9pOscd project. This will assure the
project's compliance wi~ CEQA and reduce potcu1ial delays to the project schedule.
.
We also encourage the City .~ include infDIDlation about the issue of electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) in the EnviroDJIUmtallmpact Report. It is PG&E's policy ~ share
information and educ:ate people about the issue of EMF.
Electric. and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity-in appliances, -
homes. schools and offices, and hi power lines. ~ is no scientific consensus on 1he
IJetual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you ha.v~
questionS about EMF; please call your local PG&E office. A pswkl\&C of in'fimlJ~tiOI1
which includes lJ)8tma1S from the California Department of Health Services 8J)d other
groups will be sent to you upon}OW' iequest. -
PO&E ~s committed to wurkJDg with the City 10 provide limely, reliable and cost
eDective'gas and- electric service to South San Francisco. Please C()nt8ct Mary Ruiz,
Service Plaiming Supervisor) at 415.695.3439 if you lurvc my questions regarding Q1I1'
comm~ We would also.appreoiale.beptg cQpic:d on ~ cor:resp6~c.t~
this subject as this project develops. .
The California Consti1ution vests in the Califmnia Public Utili~ Commission (CPUC)
exclUBivc power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of prlvateJ.y owned or
inves10r owned public utilities such as PG&E: This exclusive power extends to nll
aspects of the location, design. constructio~ mainte:mmce and operation of public utility
facilities. Ncverthel~ the CPUC has provisions for regulated ntilities to wo:rk closely
wi1h local governments and give due considCmtion to their conccms. PO&E must
balance our COIimlitmcnt to provide doe consideration to local concems with oW'
obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effcctiwencrgy supply in
comp6ance with the rule~f and1ariffs of the CPUC.
"
"':~elf*~PF.;~~_~r::l~~~f.:t~;<:';:.:?,\,:.,~~~:?:;:~~(:~::;':~~'::"'~'~.:';'"
.;.'~' ~
~uc 3.0. :20qS: ~~;Oipi(
.~.
....,
,"
. .It"Y,Oti-have.any~'~~'~~~7t96-...:'"
. " .'-"... '.
SiDCGdy.
..~~.t:_;.
l'bOJDIBJ~.7.J~h
. LBod'~
eel M1biiz
.,.
~ ...~
','-',
.~'.;...
,,_'
#.... .
":,!':"
......... '
", .
.:.
". ..-'
:."
,',:>
....
...:
I ~:
. -' ~'l'
.\_'.
. ..
'..:00. ':'~" ":'::,;,... .....
'. '. .-.le... "', ..~~....'"'...
. ". ...:.~.\'O.,;;,..;; .~~ ~.
:.~~~~."
. ~".., .~.'. '-'~: ..
' .'. .
", _'. ."."1 "':.'.
:0'"
. .
)r~~~~t;:::)i::";%'~i'>-';~~'fi;:,:; ';"~:'i~i!$"h~~~!f~~';;f\%if::
....t{~~rr.t~
ApPENDIX B
TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS
PAGE B-1
Appendix B
Table 4
BRISBANE
PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND TRIP GENERATION
(2000-2020)
1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123
1,646,990 SF Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454
1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836
8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39
2. Southeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
3 Southwest Bayshore
35 000 SF
Retail
067
23
293
102
,
3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5
66,500 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 65 1.24 82
4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213
5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140
16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9
6. Owl/Buckeye Canyons N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
7. Quarry N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5
2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5
3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15
120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149
9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88
268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147
214 Units Condo/ Apts. 0.67 143 0.82 176
10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283
11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A I N/A 0 I N/A 0
12. Baylands(l) 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680
500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660 I
690,000 SF R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 I 0.94 649
75,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359
2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520
(app. 1 mil. SF) I
SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868
13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
TOTALS I 8,964 14,739
N/ A = No net additional development planned.
(I) Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan
EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of
high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF oflow traffic generating uses.
Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Appendix B Table 5
MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND
C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS
TDM MEASURE
Bicycle lockers and racks
NUMBER OF TRIPS
CREDITED
1/3 per bike locker/rack
RECOMMENDED
QUANTITY
18 (1 per 50 parking
spaces)
Install 3 shower/locker
facilities (I per building)
Showers and changing
rooms
Operation of a shuttle
service to rail stations
Charge employees for
parking
Subsidize transit tickets for
employees
Preferential parking for car
and vanpoolers
Implement a vanpool
program
Operate commute
assistance center
Installation of highband
width connections to
employees' homes
Install a video conference
center
Provision of on-site
amenities
Coordinate TDM programs
with existing
developments/ employers
Provision of childcare
services as part of the
development
Combine 10 elements
2 trips per facility
I trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2
trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride
Home program. 5 trips will be
credited if shuttle stops at a
childcare facility en route to/from
the worksite.
I trip for each parking spot
charged at $20 per month
1 trip per transit pass subsidized at
$20 per month. I additional trip if
subsidy increased to $75 for
parents using transit to take a child
to childcare en route to work.
2 trips per reserved parking spot
for carpools; 7 trips per parking
spot for vanpools.
7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with
Guaranteed Ride Home program
1 trip per features, plus I trip per
hour staffed
I trip per connection
20 trips per center
I trip per on-site feature
5 trips
1 trip for every 2 childcare slots;
increasing to 1 trip for each slot if
multiple age groups are selected
(infants=0-2 yrs, preschool=3-4
yrs, school age=5-13 yrs).
5 trips
TOTAL
Source: City of South San Francisco
Implement Guaranteed
Ride Home. Implement
new shuttles or fund
expansion of existing
shuttles to provide 80
additional round trip seats.
Subsidizes 79 monthly
transit passes (10% of790
employees)
26 carpool parking places
(3% of 882 total); 9
vanpool parking places
(1% of882)
Implement Guaranteed
Ride Home. Implement 2
vanpools.
Install information kiosks
in each of 3 buildings with
links to transit and
rideshare information
Coordinated with tenants to
install connections for 5%
of 90 employees
Install one video
conference center
Coordinate with nearby
buildings
TOTAL TRIP
CREDITS
6
6
160
o
79
115
20
3
40
20
o
5
o
5
459
AppendixB
Table 6
300 400
Advancing . Volume (VPH)
WARRANT FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TURN LANES
Intersection Channelization Guide
Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985
ApPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS
PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS
PAGE C-1
CO ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR TRAFFIC INCREASES
Traffic: From traffic report. Only weekday PM traffic was used, since highest CO
concentrations occur during the early morning or evening.
Emission Factors:
Modeled using EMF AC2002 for San Mateo County
Used worst-case speed 5 mph for all street intersection links, which results in high emission rates. Speeds
of25 mph were used for freeway (US Highway 101) operations. EMFAC2002 rates for 2005 used to
model existing; rates for 2006 and 2020 for project conditions
Reference CO Concentration at edge of roadway (worst case):
14.0 for Primary at grade 4-lane road
3.7 for Secondary at grade 4-lane Road
2.0 for depressed 8-lane freeway at 200 feet
Background 8-hour CO concentration: 2.8 ppm for existing/near term and 2.5 ppm for future.
Screening Method & Assumptions
Use BAAQMD CO Hot Spots Manual calculation method to estimate roadside CO concentrations. The
I-hr average CO concentration is estimated using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 12 values. The
BAAQMD max. l-hr CO values are based on worst-case met conditions and converted to an 8-hour
average. The screening calculations that compute the max I-hour CO concentration contribution from
each roadway (in ppm) is based on the following equation:
Ci = (Cri X Vi X Efi) / 100,000
Where, Cri = CO reference conc. in ppm
Vi = hourly traffic volume
EFi = CO emission factor in gNMT
This yields a I-hour CO concentration based on worst-case meteorology that is then converted to a 8-hour
concentration using a persistence factor of 0.7 (recommended by BAAQMD) and then added to the
existing background 8-hour concentration (3.5 ppm). The resulting concentration is then compared to
NAAQS and CAAQS. Calculations attached.
Regional Emissions Calculations
Regional emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model (version 7.5) obtained from the
California Air Resources Board website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm
URBEMIS 2002 is a computer program that can is used to estimate emissions associated with land
development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and office
buildings. The model calculates emissions from traffic generation, area sources (such as gas appliances,
wood stoves, fireplaces, and landscape maintenance equipment) and construction projects. The model
includes land use types for different types of retail use. Inputs to the model are as follows:
Project Type Size:
Trip Rate:
Project Year:
Season:
Temperature:
Home improvement store
Adjusted for project traffic projections
2006
Summer
850F
All other inputs were default inputs used for analysis conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Emissions were predicted for area sources and operational motor vehicle sources.
Area Source Emissions
The model predicts area source emissions from the different land uses. These include emissions from
natural gas usage and landscape equipment.
Traffic Emissions
The model predicts vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles traveled based on the land use types. The
trip generation from these land use types is adjusted for project-specific forecasts.
URBEMIS2002 OUTPUT FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOWES
Paqe; 1
,v.A~M,:p~}29fii For w,i~; :t..~._:Q
Ion.
,0 \I9ti'le:llil 'aifS,'So'fOO5:
~.~"?
AREA ~ga;" mS'J;lRl ~~
roT-1l-S (l:A'J.d>,y,\IllI!lI~I~~,j) o~'N
"""'!An"....L t\II!Il!~E) ,ElCtSSlllH:esn,w 1"110
roT"''; ('b'l~lftI\ltlQ<>tJ!d) A'l.06 5~~"81
5UtH. .11I9,,-'110 ~_ Ell!S$ml J(S111OO'ES:
T'1""':S" ('b.it!&Yi""!!!~~~) ,~~ '4~~
(;1l
1.]1
~
H.~:l6
W
S3.6.'i3
..J90' t
-Ol_lf:~O<ll' FlIt' llt_. 1,';0
tilBEMP.;2002Ci(itput~ tit
FQ:...-:.~n~\pr.l)1~e~21t1\S0-~FL~-,Jj~
Q~~
PIllO
O,!)J.
'SOl
o",S,O
PlllO
46>1>)
sOl
11;10'
J~~
'alH/2 FOr'wlnoo...\Prolocti,k,Xsosp l........urn.
,~~
on 2.~
(~W'~'~~J
MSSXOH ~TESI' ~<f~~~a~'o!tlg.t"~ ~~
=,....I!~<!r!t.
K ...tUIOMtt,W 9.{1lI: '1..11 OiW 9iog
~;~ 1:;i .J;,ri OiQO 0...01
PllQ<: .
uillu'fuQ,TIio ""....nOlW. EiGsSI,,"S
!1~~ .i.~~ (Oi~ O~
z;t;]\ ~.,~. '3';04 .!I.M
TorAl anssr_ db!/"-'Y> ...;<lli ~>." 'B4.76 !I>~Q
~: 7:f. ~-~~~=~ ~~!Inm;,J1~~J!~!;frir tfiUrriiiJ ~trtP5.
OPER"Tl~, S\Ailfrt'Ql_?cNlSSIOIf'-"EST",ID
>qa.l\1lrls "'""'1' :r~t"~t!J.... '1l')"8< Soi""'"J """-~
€IF.c w...~"'1.' (91:ltJiln
S\II1llaIY <A' lmf v.".,
..,t Tyjl.
= ~w.-t '"i"'i'$ro
v.n1cl.......QWlTt;l""";
Flel1t MJXi
::; ~~~~~ f.~~ro
Tr'1p Uti
;U~ ~~ ! igjg-:~g: ~t
"""i!\,lyst
4.00
1,90.
1!,40
0,00
0: OCt
10.00
0;00
0.00
0.00
82~40
'0.00
0.00
C"t~~t
93~40
96,9'1)
95.70
81.1lO
66.10
~Q.OO
11,.10
0.00
0.00
H.W
0.00
91.10
pe'~?~~
II>< 15.10
lSi~O.
1;:00
~:1S
1,1lO
g'90
o.~
1:10
0.10
1.10
Tr~' condh:ioos
Rtlt14tnti.l
HC(m!!- It...
I1roan Trip le.gUJ 11~S.~ s~
0.",1 Trl. l.noth lS.<l 10.0
~~iJ ~~~. . ~~l~J J2:~
~ pf Td", '. ".....,,"cl..l (i>y l..-d "'0)
= ='i:Mtm~'lU'pe,.,,~ (l~)
H~-
other
6.1
~o.o
k~
~t<
11..8
U.O
lO.O
1.0
},O
P'9O: 4
ChanQQsmade to ~, Qil:f';ndt "~}Ulil'S fOf',l.md us;. Trip per<:lilnt;:JqQ~
POlO
0,34
1..8:5
46a9
Sl:z.
To"tal Ti"1 ps
So 540;90
31>4,92
illS,.',')
~.~9
Dl~!!it1
'0,50'
2.&0
~:~8
ie.20
~:~
98.~0
100.00
lOQ.oo
0.00
100.00
S.lO
C~I"'C1-3.1
~..Wofi:; Cl.IstOfl''''H'
LO 5.0
10..0 lQ.O
leO 10.0
1.0 97.0
1.0 91.0
Pao~ 1
CO Screening Calculation Worksheet