The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-10-11 e-packet ~t\\ s~ ~ P.p-,\ ~ . ~~\ o ('l >-0 r;; ~ g C' ~~ '4l1FOp..~ SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.o. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11,2006 6:45 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code ofthe State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 11 th day of October, 2006, at 6:45 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Update and potential direction related to San Mateo County Harbor District municipal service review and sphere of influence review 5. Adjournment J lh7/~ bty Clerk / CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Cynthia Wang SUBJECT: Summary ofLAFCO report regarding San Mateo County Harbor District The following is a summary of a summary ofthe San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") Report & Recommended Determinations - San Mateo County Harbor District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Review ("Report") and a discussion of the potential issues related to the City. SUMMARY LAFCO is required by Gov. Code ~ 56430 to study all cities and districts in the county and to provide determinations regarding adequacies or deficiencies in service, cost effectiveness, government structure options, and local accountability. These reports are then used by the Commission to review the sphere of influence for that entity. 1 Based on that review, LAFCO staff has provided the Commission with options that include maintaining the current Harbor District management structure and dissolution of the Harbor District pursuant to LAFCO procedures with the County identified as the successor agency. Under the latter scenario, the County would assume the District's responsibility for management, operation, and maintenance of Oyster Point MarinalPark under the JP A. When the JP A terminates, this responsibility shall revert to the City. LAFCO has the authority to initiate dissolution of the District. A noticed public hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2006 to provide for comment from the Harbor District and affected 'agencies and parties. At this meeting, the City Council may provide comments as to the direction they deem appropriate, but LAFCO has ultimate discretion. 1 Sphere of influence is defmed as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as defined by the Commission (Gov. Code Section 5607), SUBJECT: PAGE: October II, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Cynthia Wang Summary ofLAFCO report regarding San Mateo County Harbor District 2 DATE: TO: FROM: BACKGROUND Oyster Point is a public 600-berth marina serving predominantly recreational vessels. In addition to commercial leaseholds, it assists the U.S. Coast Guard with S.F. Bay Search & Rescue (SAR) activities and Homeland Security patrols, reflecting the proximity of Oyster Point Marina to S.F. International Airport and shipping channels and anchorages in the Bay. The Coast Guard's responsibilities continue to expand and subsequently, so do the Harbor Patrol's. Oyster Point also implements youth education programs for ocean awareness, and has shoreline public park uses. The San Mateo County Harbor District ("District") is an independent special district formed in 1933 to construct, maintain and administer harbor facilities. It operates according to State Harbors and Navigation Code Sections 6000 et seq. and operates at two locations. The Oyster Point MarinalPark is located in the City of South San Francisco ("City") and is operated via a Joint Power Agreement ("JP A") with the City. Gov. Code ~ 56430 requires the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to study all cities and special districts in the county and provide a sphere of influence update. LAFCO conducted its periodic municipal service review of the San Mateo County Harbor District and issued its report and recommendations on September 19'\ 2006. The purpose of the review was to make determinations in nine areas concerning district operations and governance as required by Gov. Code ~ 56430. Report Summary Sphere of Influence LAFCO staff is recommending that the current zero sphere of influence boundary be retained. Municipal Service Review There were nine criteria in the municipal service review as set forth in Gov. Code ~ 56430. The summary of the report in the nine areas is as follows: I. Infrastructure needs/deficiencies - infrastructure work is needed, including parking lot paving, maintenance dredging of West Basin, completion of Bay Trail Segment, and modification of the dock 2. Growth and population proiections for the affected area a. Population is projected to grow by 106,000 (14.6%) persons in the County by 2025. 3. Finance - LAFCO noted issues with the financial management of the District. 865820_l.DOC (405-00 I) SUBJECT: PAGE: October II, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Cynthia Wang Summary of LAFCO report regarding San Mateo County Harbor District 3 DATE: TO: FROM: a. As of June 2005, the District had $19,451,746.00 in 10ng-term debt including 19 outstanding loans from the California Department of Boating and Waterways (Calboating). In the 2006-2007 budget, the District included $875,000.00 in interest payments. b. The district identified opportunities for sustaining positive cash flow, expanding investments, and modifying debt service practices: i. Loan restructuring 11. Proposed ferry service income 111. Future share of tax increment resulting from inclusion of marina in Redevelopment Area iv. Increased rates for berthing 4. Cost avoidance opportunities - competitive bidding, renegotiating contracts for equipment, in-house labor, use of Sheriffs and Court work programs. Currently there is a hiring freeze. 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring - depends on occupancy rates, fishing restrictions. Oyster Point currently has low occupancy (54%) 6. Opportunities for shared facilities - proposed as location for new ferry service, contingent on funding. Opportunities also exist to collaborate with schools and colleges on marine- related educational programs. 7. Government Structure Options - District's sphere of influence is zero and should be dissolved, with service responsibilities transferred to the County of San Mateo a. Advantages of dissolution: i. Elimination of costs associated with maintaining a separate government entity to operate the two marinas 11. Once debt is paid down, dedication of property tax to other non-enterprise servIces 111. Administration costs reduced (In 2005-2006 the District budged $146,674 for Harbor Commission and $634,443 for administration) IV. Overhead savings for salaries, benefits and elections (election costs have been as high as $500,000 for two commissioner terms) v. A successor agency would be disadvantaged if shouldered with the District's debt when a general-purpose government such as the County could effectively provide the oversight and day-to-day specialized services that the District provided as a single-purpose special district 1. Note: the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act requires that in any reorganization successor agencies use existing revenues to pay obligations of a district. That means that San Mateo County would not bear a new cost associated with debt, but it would instead serve as the agent to receive property tax to pay debts of the dissolved district. 865820_l.DOC (405-001) SUBJECT: PAGE: October II, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Cynthia Wang Summary ofLAFCO report regarding San Mateo County Harbor District 4 DATE: TO: FROM: VI. Reorganization of service providers could also include expansion of District services to include operation of other marina facilities by JP A or formal transfer of facilities. This means facilities for a new ferry service and other such facilities have the potential for being transferred over to the City. 1. The report maintains that the advantage of this alternative is that once debts are retired, property taxes collected countywide could be more equitably used to fund non-enterprise services at marinelharbor facilities in other areas of the county. Property taxes could also be redistributed to affected agencies to fund non- enterprise function of those agencies. 2. The City could therefore receive a different share of property taxes in the event that it assumes more responsibility for the operation of facilities. 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies a. The arrangement by which the District operates the Oyster Point Marina via a JP A with the City eliminates the need for the City to maintain a separate function of marina operations and administration. 9. Local Accountability (the degree to which the agency keeps affected residents informed about district services, budget, programs) Discussion LAFCO has the authority to determine a successor agency that will succeed to all assets, revenues, liabilities, and debt of the dissolved District. LAFCO has recommended, as one option, that a successor agency to the District should not be established, citing efficiency reasons. The report suggests that a general-purpose government such as San Mateo County can more effectively provide the oversight and day-to-day specialized harbor and marine services while avoiding the administrative costs and overhead of a separate government entity. As successor to the interests of the District, San Mateo County will be bound by the JP A between the District and City. (Recital 21-22, Agreement. Recital 22 of the Agreement provides that the agreement is binding upon successors in interest.) The City will retain the same authority and decision- making capacity that it currently has with the District. For example, the City has historically approved leases that extend beyond the term of the JP A. When the JP A terminates, this responsibility shall revert to the City pursuant to Recital 20 of the JP A. 865820_I.DOC (405-001) AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11,2006 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is held on the second Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the CommunitY,Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances ). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Vice Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer SYLVIAM. PAYNE Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director STEVENT. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMP AIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of September 13 and 27, 2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of October 11, 2006 CLOSED SESSION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 323, 466, and 507-509 Miller Avenue; Agency Negotiator: Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11,2006 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman KARYLMATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Annual Day in the Park, report on September 23,2006 event - Recreation and Community Services Director Sharon Ranals · Certificate of Recognition - recipient: Mr. Steve Firpo · Proclamation: Fire Prevention Week, October 8-14, 2006 · Proclamation: Disability Awareness Month, October, 2006 AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of September 20 and 27,2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of October 11, 2006 3. Resolution rejecting all bids received for the 2006-07 Street Slurry Seal and Cape Seal Project and re-advertise the project 4. Resolution approving the 90 Oak Avenue final condominium map, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and related documents and authorizing recordation 5. Acknowledgement of proclamation issued: National Breast Cancer Month-October, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING 6. Consideration of appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny use permit allowing a mobile computerized tomography imaging unit at the rear of the Kaiser Medical Center situated at 1200 El Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81; Owner/Applicant: Kaiser Permanente; Continued from September 27,2006, public hearing opened 7. Consideration of Terrabay Phase III, Mandalay Place, Precise Plan, Specific Plan, Design Review, Zoning Text Amendment, amending SSFMC Chapter 20.63, and Final 2005 SElR with addendum for a re-entitlement of an existing 665,000 s.f. office building and 7,500 s.f. retail to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2 towers and an increase in commercial uses; and appeal of Planning Commission Conditions A.17 and A.20, pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 20.90 is also being requested by the applicant. Applicant/Owner: Myers Development; Project No. P06-0073 (PP06- 0002, SP06-0001, DR06-0060, ZA06-0001 & EIR04-0002) (Resolution and waive reading and introduce an ordinance) COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 11,2006 PAGE 3 ~'t\l s::w &\ ~ - ":::,.\i..\ o C'l:) >- .... ~ ~ u 0 ~llE#\" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #3 DATE: October 11,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: 2006 - 2007 STREETS SLURRY SEAL AND CAPE SEAL PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0703, PROJECT NO. ST-07-3, BID NO. 2450 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council by motion, reject all the bids for the 2006 - 2007 Streets Slurry Seal and Cape Seal Project; Engineering File No. 51-13231-0703, Project No. ST-07-3, Bid No. 2450 and authorize Staffto re-bid the project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: ,,-,,-- _____-=__.L ___":11 _____~____.L ____1__1..... __.______40.._ _____ ___, ___..1 _1______ ___1 ----________.1.. ......___.L___.___.L ___ ____-=____ l.lll;; PlUJI;;l,;l WUl l,;Ulli::>lIUl,;l a;:;pllall l,;Ulll,;ll;;ll;; l,;apl;; ;:;I;;al i:1l1U ;:;1U11Y ;:;I;;al paVl;;llll;;Ul 1ll;;allUI;;lll UU Vi:1l1UU;:; streets in the City. The construction project involves pavement crack sealing, installation of aggregate chip seal, installation of slurry seal pavement treatment, and installation of pavement striping, markings and markers. On August 25, 2006 and August 31, 2006, staff advertised the notice to invite sealed bids for the project. Staff opened bids on September 12,2006 and three (3) bids were received. Below is the summary of the bids: Engineer's Estimate: Bids: International Surfacing Systems of Modesto, CA American Asphalt Repair & Surfacing Co., of Hayward, CA Graham Contractors, Inc. of San Jose, CA $683,766.50 $741,298.65 $806,134.75 $886,552.95 This project is the third phase of streets to rcceive new pavement treatment as stated in the Capital Improvement Program. Attached is the list of streets that will receive the cape seal and the slurry seal treatment. After the bid opening, staff reviewed the bids submitted by the apparent low bidder, International Surfacing Systems of Modesto, CA, and determined that the submitted amount for bid item no. 1 _ "Mobilization and Demobilization" is over the 3% of the total contract price, and does not meet the requirements ofthe "Measurement and Payment" section ofthe project specifications which states that mobilization and demobilization cost shall not exceed 3% (three percent) of the total contract price. Staff Report Subject: 2006 - 2007 STREETS SLURRY SEAL AND CAPE SEAL PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0703, PROJECT NO. ST-07-3, BID NO. 2450 Page 2 of2 Staff deferred this finding to the City Attorney's office for review. On September 13, 2006, staff received a formal bid protest letter via facsimile from American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. of Hayward, CA indicating the submitted bid proposal by International Surfacing Systems of Modesto, CA was non-responsive, and requested that the City consider awarding the contract to them. Staff informed American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. that the City Attorney's office was in the process of reviewing their bid protest. On September 18, 2006, the City Attorney's office determined that the bid protest by American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. had merit and concluded the submitted bid by International Surfacing Systems of Modesto, CA was non-responsive due to excessive cost for mobilization Staffhas decided not to award the contract to the second lowest bidder, American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. since their bid was 17.9% above the engineer's estimate. CONCLUSION: Rejection of all the submitted bids will allow Staffto re-bid the project in the first quarter of2007 when more contractors are able to bid the project. As a result, the City may obtain more favorable bids and construction will take place during the dry season. f B~~ Marty VanDuyn ( Assistant City Manager . YO'''''', l j/' .........'1 tf/~ Approved by: " G\.~ / " 7' J3atryM. Nagel City Manager i. C. ">)~~'c , Q-' RR/ rd/rc Attachments: American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. Protest Letter Street List for Cape and Slurry Seal PENINSUi-A 650-366-0144 Redwood City NORTH SAY 707-571-2004 Santa Rosa SOUTH BAY 408-292-1775 San Jose EAST SAY 510-537-2172 American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co., Inc. September 13, 2006 RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2006 BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION Raul Dacnay City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Bid Protest 2006-2007 Street Slurry Seal & Cape Seal Project Dear Raul, On Tuesday, September 12,2006, bids were submitted and opened for the above referenced project. The apparent low bidder was International Surfacing Systems at'$741,299.25. International Su...rfac;ng System.s listed a bid lwit price of$51:500.60 for Item 1 Mobilization & Demobilization. This bid item amount represents 7 percent of their total bid. Per the contract bid documents Technical Specification page 37, Bid Item 1, paragraph B. Measurement and Payment: "Payment for mobilization and demobilization, including all incidental work shall be made on a lump sum basis at the contract unit price. The mobilization and demobilization cost shall not exceed 3% (three percent) of the total contract price." Based on the above information, American Asphalt requests the bid of International Surfacing Systems be considered non-responsive and the bid be award to American Asphalt. Sincerely, www.AmerieanAsphalt.com 27601 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. · P.O, BOX 3367. HAYWARD, CA 94540-3367. (800) 541-5559. FAX (510) 723-0288 .CA Lie. 439591 STREET LISTING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRNCISCO 2006 - 2007 CAPE SEAL PROGRAM APRIL 24, 2006 Street Name Bel!innin!! Endin!! Location Location Treatment LeDlrth Width ~ Sushine Gradens Area Edgewood Way Sequoia Ave. Edgewood Way Cape Seal 425 33 14,025 Gardenside Ave Baywood Ave. Miller Cape Seal 865 33 28,545 Gardenside Ave Crestwood Ave Morningside Ave Cape Seal 840 33 27,720 Femdale Ave. Baywood Ave. Momingside Cape Seal 2,645 33 87,285 Old Town and Downtown Area Poplar Park Rocca Cape Seal 230 31 7,130 Magnolia Ave. Palm Ave Miller Ave Cape Seal 1,210 31 37,510 Magnolia Ave. Grand Miller Ave Cape Seal 630 32 20,160 Magnolia Grand Ave. Baden Cape Seal 295 32 9,440 Drake Hillside Randolph Cape Seal 640 27 17,280 Edison Randolph Hillside Cape Seal 515 27 13,905 Keamy Hemlock Larch Cape Seal 210 33 6,930 Arden Ave. Randolph Hillside Cape Seal 835 27 22,545 Tamarack Ln Walnut Ave Linden Ave Cape Seal 520 18 9,360 2nd Ln Chextnut Ave Orange Ave Cape Seal 2,100 19 39,900 ~pruce Ave Miller Ave Park Wy Cape Seal 880 38 33,440 Hazelwood, Southwood & Francisco Areas Cherry Ave Mayfair Ave Myrtle Ave Cape Seal 1,105 28 30,940 Sycamore Ave Toyon Ave Mayfair Ave Cape Seal 685 28 19,180 Northwood Dr Conmuir Dr Hazelwood Dr Cape Seal 3,310 27 89,370 Buri-Buri Area South Cliff Newman Dr West End Cape Seal 370 31 11,470 Hilton Ave. Kipling Ave. Newman Dr. Cape Seal 215 37 7,955 Kipling Ave. Newman Conrad Ct. Cape Seal 995 37 36,815 Dundee Dr Longford Dr (South) Clay Ave 2,565 37 Westborough Area Annapolis Ct. Roundtree Way End of Road Cape Seal 400 31 12,400 Dublin Dr Olympic Dr. Shannon Dr Cape Seal 1,435 33 47,355 Donegal Ave, Dublin Tipperary Cape Seal 2,150 33 70,950 TOTAL AREA (SF) 701,610 STREET LISTING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2006 - 2007 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM APRIL 24, 2006 Street Name I Bel!inninl! Endinl! Lenlrth Width Area (SF) Treatment Dil!-outs Sushine Gardens Area Edgewood Way Evergreen Ave, Edgewood Way I 310 33 10,230 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Westview Dr, Holly Miller Ave 280 31 8,680 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Heather Way Miller Ave, Crestwood Dr. 1,180 33 38,940 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Estate Willow End 417 33 13,761 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Sunnyside Drive Holly Ave Forestview Ave 510 33 16,830 Slurry Seal Emerald Ct Suunyside Dr End 315 27 8,505 Slurry Seal Mission Rd Limit of New Pavement Limit of New Pavement 605 45 27,225 Slurry Seal y Old Town and Downtown Area Maple Lux Spruce 1,778 34 60,452 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Leo Cir North Spruce End 495 43 21,285 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Olive SchoolSt. California 1,815 32 58,080 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y North Spruce Randolph Hillside . 1,095 37 40,515 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Belmont Hillside Randolph 730 27 19,710 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Damonte North Spruce Damonte 240 55 13,200 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Lincoln Hillside Larch 405 33 13,365 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Hazelwood, Southwood & Francisco Areas Toyon Cherry Mulberry 640 28 17,920 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Hillcrest Ct. West Orange Ave End 185 35 6.475 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Fairway Southwood West Orange 1,150 27 31,050 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Buri-Buri Area Carmelo Bonita El Campo 860 27 23,220 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Tunitas Ln EI Campo End 340 34 11,560 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Hermosa Camaritas Alta Lorna 515 27 13,905 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Erica Arroyo Casey 380 31 11,780 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Berenda Escanyo Arroyo 670 31 20,770 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Chico Ct. Alta Lorna Chico Ct. 190 34 6,460 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Casey Dr Arroyo Dr Escanyo Dr 605 31 18,755 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Westborough Area Dublin Ct. Dublin Dr, Dublin Ct. 120 32 3,840 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Kenry Way Gellert Blvd, Gellert Blvd, 1,460 33 48,180 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Kilconway Lane Athy Dr. Carter Dr. 380 34 12,920 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Palos Verdes Way Greendale Dr. North Greendale Dr, South 1,055 37 39,035 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Bassett Ct. Greendale Dr. End 550 31 17,050 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Pomeroy Ct. Palos Verdes Way End 415 31 12,865 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Geddes Ct Greendale Dr End 555 31 17,205 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y H:ICITY PROJECTSICAPE_SLURRY PROJECTSI06 0410 SSeal Run,xls PAGE 1 OF 2 STREET LISTING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2006 - 2007 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM APRIL 24, 2006 Street Name Bel!inninl! Endinl! Lenl!th Width Area (SF) Treatment Dil!-outs Fairfax Wy Greendale Dr Greendale Dr. 1,140 33 37,620 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Fairfax Wy Greendale Dr End 480 31 14,880 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Cork PI. Leix Way End of Street. 400 27 10,800 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Tipperary Ave, Dublin Dr. Ulster Way 1,325 33 43,725 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Barrington Ct. Gellert Blvd, Barrington Ct. 363 27 9,801 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Downey Ct. Gellert Blvd. Downey Ct. 295 28 8,260 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Athy Dr, Kilconway Lane End of Street 1,330 27 35,910 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Unwin Ct. Galway Dr. End of Street 430 31 13,330 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Leix Way Carter Dr, Callan Blvd, 886 33 29,238 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Erris Ct. (Duhallow Wy) East End West End 555 27 14,985 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Sean Ct. Carter Dr. End of Street. 280 31 8,680 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Ulster Way Tipperary Ave, Donegal Ave, 220 33 7,260 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Crofton Way Greendale West End, 470 31 14,570 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Crofton Way Greendale East End 540 31 16,740 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Tyrone Ct. Callan Blvd, End 495 27 13,365 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Tipperary Ave, Ulster way Wexford 1,650 36 59,400 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y Appian Way Valley View Way Valley View Way 1,136 33 37,488 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Gellert Ct. Shannon Dr, Gellet Ct. 375 33 12,375 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Seville Way Chateau Ct. Seville Way (End) 285 33 9,405 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Seville Way Chateau Ct. Avalon Dr 735 37 27,195 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Wright Ct. Galway Dr. End of Street 365 31 11,315 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal y T:'..._...~,.,... r"...11..._ nl~..:J 1:'_.:.1 Aon "I'" 1" ot:n Cll~~_. Cl......l ..........:1 r"'.."".....l... C.......l Y .1 0.1.1.1\..."" '-'t. vaUQ.J.1U1VU. .L.UU ..ov .. , J.4fw,.JVV U1UJ.J.J U\.Iu..l UU..... '-'J.U\,.lJ.'I.. ""''''''''J. Shamrock Ct. Carter Dr. End of Street 390 27 10,530 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Galway PI Westborough Bl Shannon Dr 895 33 29,535 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Avalon Area Alpine Ct. Alta Vista End 120 59 7,080 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Dianne Ct. Conmur St. End 220 48 10,560 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr Conmuir Dr 1,090 39 42,510 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Conmuir Dr Granada Dr Northwood Dr 775 38 29,450 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal TOTAL AREA (SF) 1,242,735 H:ICITY PROJECTSICAPE_SLURRY PROJECTSI06 0410 SSeal Run,xls PAGE 2 OF 2 ~tll S:1,N &i o 0;\ 1>< ~J t:l ~ v 0 ~IIF9p$'" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 11, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager 90 OAK A VENUE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP RECOMMENDA TION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution approving the 90 Oak A venue Condominium Subdivision Final Map and authorizing the recordation of the map, approved Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and related documents. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Engineer and the City's Technical Reviewers, with the concurrence of all affected City Departments, have determined that the 90 Oak A venue Condominium Subdivision Final Map, improvement plans, on and off-site landscape plans, (CC&Rs) and related documents are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all applicable tentative map conditions of approval. The final map and CC&Rs have been signed by the Subdivider. The 90 Oak A venue Condominium Subdivision Final Map will subdivide the property into a 13-unit condominium project. All units will be served with public utilities. No easements, roads, utilities or other improvements are offered for dedication to the City of South San Francisco nor to be maintained by the City within the boundaries of the subdivision. Appropriate off-site utilities, landscaping and roadway improvements along the project's frontage will be constructed by the Subdivider pursuant to an encroachment permit secured by a $13,500 bond, thereby eliminating the need for a subdivision improvement agreement. FUNDING The applicant has paid the City's filing fee for the Final Map. CONCLUSION Staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving the 90 Oak Avenue Condominium Subdivision Final Map and authorizing the recordation of the map, approved Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and related documents. Staff Report Subject: 90 OAK A VENUE CONDOMINIUM SUBDNISION FINAL MAP Page 2 of2 By:~~c~,:::\2~ ,,-"-------- APProV~. ~~p Assistant City Manager City Manager RR/SB/rc Attachment: Resolution Final Map RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 90 OAK A VENUE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF THE MAP, APPROVED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs) AND RELATED DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the final map and authorizing the recordation of the map, approved CC&Rs and related documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby finds that the final map conforms to all applicable laws and regulations and approves the 90 Oak A venue Condominium Subdivision Final Map and authorizes the recordation of the map, approved declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and related documents. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Ci ty Clerk 90 Oak CC Map Acceptance Reso o doVl G:~~ll.. <l-eo ~~8~ CLCL < ~:ij~ ~i5~~ oolii~::> ~~~~ ~~~::l "I( n.< g~~~ . ~tg:~ a~~a:..~ ~~~.~~ ffi~~~~ ~a~~g :)~iE~8 g:jWI:':'~CL ~:~~~ !z ~~iO~~ ~ 8t5~~@ ~ ~~~>-o ~ ll.:::E_jn ~~~~~ en (f) Z 21= Il:: ~ ~8~~~ ~ ~~~8~ ! ~~<t~G In ~~3g~ ! ~'O '\:~ " \;: ~ ~8 < 0:0 ~j~~ 4- ~88 88f5~ ....Jf5....J~ ~;og~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ffi~f-,-2 ~~~~ ~~~;! ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~5l- ~~i~ _<l/')....J ~a:..~~ ~ :~~g: ~ ~~o~ ~ fu~~~ ~ ~ &II ~~t5~ In ~8~: f5 Ci~G~ I ~g:~~ z ~~(fJW W ~~g~ ~ ~;o!;ii'i" l3 ,,~il':l:~ '. _. a--- ~ ... ~ S III "' r o :5~ 2~ w~ ~~ ~~~~lJ) ~V'i~<.)< 0~~ffi~ !r~~Q::5 w(ll(J~C ~~8~~ ~~~~~ ~~(f)<< fX:~~:>-'~ oo~l--:Ji t?@2t~~ Vl-,>-Oj! ffi~:ig:~ ~~~~* ~ffi~U} ~~w~:5w wg:~~5~ ~:.;i~t;~f5 ~~~~~~ I--W~W()lIl ~~od~~ I-OZVlCl~ l..tJl-<~Z(') ~~~~~~ ~~~:Q~ li!t;;~~~~ ~~ztJ::IZ ~~~~~~ I 1 I ,~~~ n~ i~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ '" I I I I'" 1< 10 I I~ 1* I' I:;:' IW ,CL I, I~ I'" I. I~ o o ~"' Uo z, <- "'''' ~, z'" ~: ",IW w>-'" w::>i:L zOx (3VlL...l z~w wo", ~~~ UO::J , I I I , I , ~I ~ ~ ~ F= I- Z ..., ::lIi ..., I- ~ f/) .f/) '" ..., o '" o u ..., '" >- I- Z :::J o U o '" <>- ::!>- Z13 <W "';0 ~.fu 130 :1~ "'o~ LLg::O ZCL>- <<< "'",0 s~ I g~ 1 ~::!w O~iE >-I 0:5 w<O II~ l-I-~ ~~0 i ~t;}5 ~ dffi8 ~ 5~~ ~ w:o'1'5 jO~,,:g ~~E~ ::fCi~ I :5)-.--1 I ~~~ I ~g8 I III i.: It: d ~ u o z ,; .e::. ..( ~ z ..( ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I/) 115 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W 13 ~ ~ z ~ < 0 '" " J ~ 1 U I ~ I (3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CL >- ,; <l < (I) vi :; ~ ~ t; " ~ o ~ 0 g 01 tn ~ I ~ I 0 ~ 6 ~~ ~ ~ ;Eg G: ~ '<fr -ill ?;O :5:5 a!~ z>- w>- "'z "'=> <0 3:u ~ '" I I I I I", Iw 10 ':5 1'-' l~ II: I~ .... z ... ~ ... !;( Iii III ~ ~ .... ~ :z: u I: ,~ ~ I~;ai <0( !~ ii 0'- j l~~~~~ ~ I~ i7l i:J?D ~ ~ J~~~~t= "VI w~<L.UJrz -I i.j:;~H~ ~ ~4t5~g?U)'~ ~ = ~1~Z~b~~ I-- ow 0<( tnw ~ 3 1--;g?2~ffii!= b 8, ~~i8~~8 ~ II) al..C!o c>wj!f- W I/) '-~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~........!:Q ~ a::--Jtt)5oiEwW C5 ~~~ e j'-';Q~::J~ . .....1 ~'1'" ~Lii~~"<~~ I ",1 t~ ; ;Q2~~;~; ~ ~~ oH~ ~--...;o~ <( ~ ~ i!i ~~wi5illZB '-.) ~ ::J ~CD::E~OiQ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ w )- 0::: '-I......J---.Ui WW i ~ ~ ~~-H3~:;~~~ if) b ~ 8 0 I/)W~w-z j5~ I'w;o z=> >-0 <'" r~~ l<~ 150 l~i:; w it >1 ~I () 011: O)~ >-", z'" ~f::: c( 0"l/" Z ZI e ~8 ~ ffiN () o. ~~ >- f!~ ~ ~~ (,) oG{lJO :g ~g&~ ~ ~~~= ,ei ~l.l1lX<. ~~~V1 ~ '-'0 .. ~~~~ ~ ~tn4-~ B ~gOEE ~ <l z g~ Ui ~8 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 0Q ~ zw (3 ~~ >- <0 oz ';'<l ~~ '-aJ ~Io ~fl=! o:.l~ i< I: Ii5 ~, 3 ~ ~ ~ 5 o ~ (7j ~ ~ ~ g: g: 8 :~ ~II - ti~ ~ii ~~ ",N .... ..... ~ -I ill 6 '" < '" ~ z o v; '" 5i " 8 N C o ~ ~ ~ ~ , I , I , I i , I i , I i i i i I 6Q' WIDE ~w ~::::"'--;;;------------------2_36'46,"~.:_L,l1!UlQ~.I6'45'OQ::...ru~lill..____- -____J'l 0 _ I, 0' '" 199.87' -----, V115-:JY(115.00.)(2)------.;,--~,--- I ~~;:I0I.LlO W .W.-. Iw " ~ I I ~r~~o..Gj o. 8~ I~ :S~:joffi91 2S~Z ~~ ~ ~.~~~8 I~ g ~:I:~ ~!o. ~ ' I O:JO~fDr;:;- .0-., I ci OU ~ll) I I G:1l..~VlIb....... ~~~d I;;;~ O~~~~^ I f/"J l/)C\l ll) l.L..o.'lf)ID~ 1 S 36'46'16" E 140.00' -\ I Z I I (5 36'45'00" E 100.00')(6) (5 36'45'00" E I 40.00')(7) t; '" I ~ [' m fin g* ~ i - ~ ~~ z I i ffi~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~! :~!i;~..", ~s 3 ~z 5~ 5~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~~ 0, I I ~J ~.:::; ~wl~ ~~I~ u.."'I~ 0;;; (I)"" ~zl CO i I , I i i i (N 36'45'00' W)(1) ~ N 35'41'56. W I ---.o~-;--- I i ~ I i i " "",j I "''''~S I o~~ 9 It'i[:>h .--------- i s(~6;i:~S;~o~ ~)(~r I \ \ @@ ~ ~ 1.14 ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~15o ~ ~ ~ ~ /[ ~ w~~~~ >-~ ~~ 5 Q;::Q"w...J~ ~~Wo::lg; }:!~Q.~~o~,~~ ~~~ ~ i'i555biH~j!'5~>--1!'5 ::> ~I U"-!!;:>zoo!li "'''' g",,,- e ~ dfZ9::~i~~~ · . 00> ...'" tDr--C\l1l) 1i'J/'_r-- .......10... ........N.... ~ ~.h~o 'j' 88.!. I N"f'.NNOl~ 1:>""'0000 Q.:E::Izz. zz ~~~gggg ....0000 2E5:~e~E COa.e.tERCIAL AVENUE (5 36'45'00" E 40.00')(7) (5 36'45'00" E 100.00')(6) S 36'46'16" E 140.00' (5 36'45'00. E)(5) ;n:; X'; "'''' ,,->- OZ Z ~~ B~; g~8 -.J~~ ~~~ ~b~ <5-6 "'''-0 <1.0", =""~ ~ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- \, 0' ;" r. :ri..- <( I~ ~ ~ ~~ ; II: ;;; :: ~g ~ 3Z -------- (140.00.)(4) 140.09' 5 36'41;'16" E (5 35'45'00. E)(4)(5) 159,91' (160.00')(5) " ::> ~ c[ v , ~ ,. .<1. 9:'~~ . >--81 ~O'" t'~a: oi:j ~; <1.!(j f" ~~~ ~"' '" U>-'" :?t3Q~ 0:>::> f5J.-d~lz ~:2~!z- 1-" '" u,...,>-~ ocr;~:) zco~g OEj:JCl ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~I.i--!-o !-~o[j;b ~g~~~ i'o1z (..')Qt:o..8 ~ ~~8~~ ~ Z "i:j i; "!(j au ii ~I ii O~ C>> '" i2~ ." ~<--0> Zo> "" " !:t z 'j' ~ ~ ~ "'8 ",N W ~i z ~: - $!() " ~~ z ..,u 50 '" ~o ~~ '" . ~ :,<N i5 8 iIi g Co ~ ~ g~~ 8 ~~:i ;: <wz W I/)r:t:c( Q:I O..J(I} ::I 0< !ia: ~(}o ~ ~~f~~ !- Z.~ ~~~ .... <.:l La.. ~ ~ ~ .... ....:1 --I [II j!' ~ "' o Co tl :.< '" ~ '" t5~~t5 wo('.l!!2 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~:::I!-~ 0.....J0(l/l ~~Ifi.: >-" '" t5<Ld~ !-~>I- ~B~i ~~~gfa: ~g'ti~~ i :riz~~!!2 Oit:~F j!'i:3~:5 ~o~5~ C~""""')O~ u.. ~~5~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ o! I~ ~j " I 2006 NATIONAL BREAST CANCER A WARENESS MONTH OCTOBER, 2006 WHEREAS, October 2006 is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, October 20, 2006 is National Mammography Day; and WHEREAS, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, except for skin cancer; and WHEREAS, breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer; and WHEREAS, the chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is about 1 in 8; and WHEREAS, almost 212,920 new cases offemale breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2006 and about 40,970 will die from the disease; and WHEREAS, African American women are more likely to die from breast cancer than women of all other races; and WHEREAS, an estimated 1,720 cases of male breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2006 and about 460 men will die of the disease; and WHEREAS, death rates from breast cancer have been declining, and this change is believed to be the result of earlier detection and improved treatment; and WHEREAS, mammography - an "x-ray" of the breast is recognized as the single most effective method of detecting breast changes that may be cancer long before physical symptoms can be seen or felt, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Joseph A, Fernekes, Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, on behalf of the City Council, does hereby proclaim the month of October 2006, as "National Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and October 20 as "National Mammography Day" in the City of South San Francisco, Joseph A, Fernekes, Mayor Dated: October 20, 2006 AGENDA ITEM #5 - ~ ~ - ~~\ (0 n >< - ~ ~ v 0 ~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #6 DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR A MOBILE COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) IMAGING UNIT WITH A NEW FIRE PROTECTION WALL AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING KAISER MEDICAL CENTER Case No.: P06-0026 (up06-0012 & DR06-0071) Address 1200 EI Camino Real Zone: Planned Commercial (P-C-L) SSFMC Chapters: 20.24 & 20.81 Owner & Applicant: Kaiser Permanente RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the applicant's request the matter was continued from the City Council meeting of September 27 to October 11, 2006 allowing the applicant to prepare a presentation. The project site is located at 1200 EI Camino Real. A residential neighborhood lies directly across EI Camino Real to the south and west, while commercial properties abut the site to the north and east. The Colma Creek Linear Park will be constructed along the creek. The proposed mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit would replace an existing mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRl) unit that has been at the same location for many years (albeit without apparent benefit of City approval). The proj ect sponsor believes that the proposed site location is optimal given considerations for staff and patient access, as well as power requirements. Other possible locations on-site are apparently not as convenient and would likely result in reducing open at-grade parking spaces. Due to fire protection requirements, the proj ect will necessitate the construction of an 18 foot tall fire protection wall between the trailer and the Medical Center building. The project site's General Plan Land Use designation, Office, allows Medical Centers and ancillary facilities. The proposed mobile CT imaging unit is consistent with the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 2 of 4 District, subject to a Use Permit approved by the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Section 20.24.030). The SSFMC does not allow trailers for commercial uses except during construction or where it is made to appear as a permanent structure (SSFMC Section 20.24.070). The trailer and fire protection wall will be visible from the back of properties fronting on Mission Road and from the future Linear Park that will lie across the creek channel. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on April 3, 2006. The Board recommended that views of the trailer and the fire protection wall should be screened from the future Linear Park and properties fronting on Mission Road. The Board suggested that the applicant plant a 6 foot tall evergreen hedge along the perimeter property boundary fence to limit views of the CT trailer and fire wall. The applicant's revised plans include the Board's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION The proposed development, including the applicant's revised plans, were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 20,2006. At the meeting the Commissioners repeatedly stated their support for the CT imaging facility, but expressed concerns regarding the use of a trailer and an 18 foot tall fire protection wall as permanent additions (as opposed to expanding the existing medical center), the design incompatibility with the Medical Center building and with the adverse views of the trailer and fire wall from users of the future Linear Park and neighboring properties. The Commissioners determined that the trailer itself and the lack of an internal access to the Medical Center were inappropriate and would be inconvenient, if not unsafe, for both patients and Kaiser Staff. The Commissioners similarly concluded that the fire protection wall was unsightly and that the hedge screen would have little to no screening value. The Commissioners observed that the SSFMC does not allow permanent trailers that are not sufficiently designed to complement the existing development, and that it does allow temporary trailers for the duration of a closely associated construction project (SSFMC Section 20.24.070). To underscore the point the Commissioners noted that they had no concern with Kaiser's temporary trailer housing an MRl unit, located in a portion of the parking area facing El Camino Real structure, because it is temporary and will be removed at the completion of the renovation of the existing MRl facility within the Medical Center building. The Commissioners clearly understood and fully supported the need for the CT unit. Their focus was the quality of the design. The Commissioners reluctantly voted unanimously to deny the approval and at the same time encouraged the applicant to file a much better and more appropriate design that the Commission could approve. Findings of Denial were adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 3, 2006. Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 3 of 4 APPEAL The applicant filed an appeal on August 18, 2006. The appeal focuses on the need for the CT unit, but does not address any of the Planning Commission's design concerns. The applicant's letter contends that the Planning Commission did not understand the need for the project and made an error in arriving at their conclusion. The appeal letter contains several misrepresentations and errors as follows: I. The adoption of the Findings of Denial occurred on August 3, 2006 and not July 6, 2006. 2. The Planning Commission understood the need for the project as evidenced in the applicant's letters of support addressed to the Commission, the Commission meeting minutes and the staff report (see the expanded discussion in the following section). 3. The Planning Commission did not err when it noted that parking spaces would be lost as the proposed CT trailer would occupy an area formerly devoted to truck parking. In response to questions and statements offered by both the Commissioners and the applicant's representatives, City Staff noted that several parking spaces have been temporarily "lost" on the EI Camino Real parking area in association with the MRI facility renovation - the temporary MRI trailer occupies the parking spaces. 4. The current trailer at the back of the Medical Center (the project location) never had benefit of City approval (a Use Permit would have been required). 5. The Design Review Board did not approve the design as they are an advisory body and have no decision making authority and no expertise in or any authority to interpret the City's Zoning Regulations. The Board recommended that the Planning Commission consider the proposed design and suggestion of the addition of a hedge. As the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect, the need for the development was clearly understood and never in question; statements made by both the applicant's representatives and the Commissioners, reflected in the meeting minutes, underscore this point. The Commissioner's were simply concerned with the quality and appropriateness of the design. The applicant's representatives made it very clear at the meeting that they understood the Commissioner's concerns, but that this was a more "cost effective" design. Both the Commissioners and City Staff repeatedly expressed a desire and willingness to work with the applicant to develop a better design that the Commission could approve. The Planning Commissioners took great effort to express their concerns, so that there was no miscommunication or misunderstanding. The Commissioners were even open to the possibility of placing the trailer within a garage type enclosure that would blend with the Medical Center. The applicant's representative stated that while they had willingly added a hedge along the northerly property boundary, they were not going to make any other changes because it would exceed the project budget. Reluctantly, the Planning Commission denied the proposed project. Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 4 of 4 The applicant's appeal letter, Planning Commission meeting minutes, Findings of Denial and the Staff Report are attached. Should the City Council decide on a different course of action than that recommended by the Planning Commission, Draft Findings of Approval and Conditions of Approval are attached. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staffhas determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Class 3, New Construction of Small Facilities, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Zoning Administrator is not required to taken action on an environmental document. CONCLUSION: The proposed trailer and fire protection wall are inconsistent with the City's Zoning Code Section 20.24.070, would result in the loss of parking, are inconsistent with the City's Design Guidelines and are incompatible with the design of the Medical Center and the future Linear Park. City Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. By: Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager MD/SC ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Findings of Denial Optional Action Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval City Council Staff Report of September 27,2006 Planning Commission Staff Report of July 6, 2006 Staff Report of August 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2006 Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2006 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of March 21,2006 Applicant's Narrative of August 1, 2006 Applicant's Appeal Letter of August 18,2006 Photos Plans FINDINGS OF DENIAL KAISER MEDICAL CENTER MOBILE CT IMAGING UNIT P06-0026 (As revised by City Staff on August 3rd , 2006) As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the following findings are be made in denial ofP06-0026 including UP06-0012 denying an application for a mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 El Camino Real, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Brewer Fraser Holland Lotito, Architects, dated February 24,2006; Photos submitted by the applicant; Design Review Board meeting dated April 3, 2006; Design Review Board minutes dated April 3, 2006; Planning Commission staffreport dated July 6,2006; and the Planning Commission meetings of July 6 and August 3, 2006: 1. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center will detrimental to the surrounding properties or improvements in that the proposed structures installed at the rear of the building will be highly visible from adjacent properties. The facility and screening wall will be visible from the back of properties fronting on Mission Road and future South San Francisco Linear Park that will lie across the Colma Creek channel. Section 20.24.070 (c) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code generally prohibits the use oftemporary trailers within the Planned Commercial Use District. Although the applicant has proposed the mobile CT imaging unit be painted to match the body of the abutting Medical Center, with a hedge to visually screen views from nearby properties, the Planning Commission finds that the trailer is incongruous with the surrounding properties, would not be adequately screened from views of neighboring properties, and would be more appropriately accommodated by a permanent expansion of the existing abutting hospital facility. ' 2. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center is inconsistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Implementing policy 3.4-1-13 of the Planning Sub-Areas element provides that in cooperation with Kaiser Hospital, the City shall undertake a program to alleviate the on- street parking shortage. During the public hearing on this matter, the applicant indicated that the placement of the mobile imaging unit would result in a net loss of parking spaces. 3. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center does not comply with all applicable development standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles ofthe South San Francisco Municipal Code. Section 20.24.070 generally limits the placement of temporary trailer structures as ancillary structures permitted only as construction office trailers subj ect to building division approval. The grant of a Use Permit for a Mobile Imaging Unit would be inconsistent with this general prohibition, as the structure would not be integrated into the adj acent building and made to appear as a permanent structure. * * * - 1- OPTIONAL ACTION -2- FINDINGS OF APPROVAL KAISER MEDICAL CENTER MOBILE CT IMAGING UNIT P06-0026 (As recommended by City Staff on October 11, 2006) As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the following findings can be made in support ofP06-0026 including UP06-0012 allowing a mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 El Camino Real, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Brewer Fraser Holland Lotito, Architects, dated February 24, 2006; Photos submitted by the applicant; Design Review Board meeting dated April3, 2006; Design Review Board minutes dated April 3, 2006; Planning Commission staff report dated July 6,2006; Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 2006; City Council Staff Report of September 27, 2006; City Council meeting of September 27,2006; City Council Staff Report of October 11, 2006; and City Council meeting of October 11, 2006: 1. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center will not be adverse to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; nor detrimental to the surrounding properties or improvements in that the proposed structures will be installed at the rear of the building away from El Camino Real where they will be less visible, the mobile CT imaging unit replaces an existing similar facility at the same site location, both new structures will be painted to match the body of the abutting Medical Center, and a hedge is required to visually screen views from nearby properties. 2. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan in that an imaging facility is considered ancillary to hospitals which are allowed uses at the subj ect site. 3. The mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles ofthe South San Francisco Municipal Code in that the wall is required to provide a high level of fire protection for the Medical Center and the facility requires a Use Permit approved by the South San Francisco Planning Commission. * * * - 3- PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL KAISER MEDICAL CENTER MOBILE CT IMAGING UNIT P06-0026 (As recommended by City Staff on October 11,2006) A. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions of approvaL 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the plans approved by the Planning Commission, prepared by Brewer Fraser Holland Lotito, Architects, dated February 24, 2006, as amended by the conditions of approval. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the final construction plans shall be include that the mobile CT imaging unit and the 18 foot tall fIre protection shall be fInished to match the building exterior, and that a continuous skirt be installed around the base of the mobile CT imaging unit fInished to match the mobile unit. The design and fInishes shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. Prior to the issuance ofthe Building Permit, the construction plans shall include a landscape pIan providing for a 6 foot tall evergreen hedge along the fence perimeter opposite the mobile CT imaging unit and portion of the adjacent Medical Center building and an automatic irrigation plan. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. (Planning Contact: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, (650) 877-8535) B. BUILDING DIVISION 1. Provide identification of all exit doors and exit paths passing by the new unit. 2. Description of the new 4 hour wall construction. 3. Additional comments at pIan review. (Building Contact: Jim Kirkman: Building Official, (650) 829-6670) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety -4- Proposed Conditions of Approval P06-0026 Page 2 of 2 conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailedlrevised building plans. 2. Miscellaneous Security Requirements This mobile trailer must be equipped with a centrally monitored audible alarm system, and secured when not in operation. On-site security personnel will make frequent and routine checks to assure this mobile facility is secure. (Police Department contact: Sergeant E. Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927) D. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 1. Plans should indicate if the mobile unit is connected to the sanitary sewer system. Plans should indicate how waste will be dealt with. 2. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system or collected and disposed of in sanitary sewer. (Water Quality Control: Cassie Prudhel, Water Quality Control Coordinator (650) 829-3840) -5- - .~\\ 5:1# ~&)\ O'"IFO#~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #7 DATE: September 27,2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMlvlISSION TO DENY A USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR A MOBILE COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) IMAGING UNIT WITH A NEW FIRE PROTECTION WALL AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING KAISER MEDICAL CENTER Case No.: P06-0026 (UP06-0012 & DR06-0071) Address 1200 El Camino Real Zone: Planned Commercial (P-C-L) SSFMC Chapters: 20.24 & 20.81 Owner & Applicant: Kaiser Permanente RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The project site is located at 1200 El Camino Real. A residential neighborhood lies directly across El Camino Real to the south and west, while commercial properties abut the site to the north and east. The Colma Creek Linear Park will be constructed along the creek. The proposed mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit would replace an existing mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit that has been at the same location for many years (albeit without apparent benefit of City approval). The project sponsor believes that the proposed site location is optimal given considerations for staff and patient access, as well as power requirements. Other possible locations on-site are apparently not as convenient and would likely result in reducing open at-grade parking spaces. Due to fire protection requirements, the project will necessitate the construction of an 18 foot tall fire protection wall between the trailer and the Medical Center building. The project site's General PIan Land Use designation, Office, allows Medical Centers and ancillary facilities. The proposed mobile CT imaging unit is consistent with the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District, subject to a Use Permit approved by the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Section 20.24.030). -6- Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 2 of 4 The SSFMC does not allow trailers for commercial uses except during construction or where it is made to appear as a permanent structure (SSFMC Section 20.24.070). The trailer and fire protection wall will be visible from the back of properties fronting on Mission Road and from the future Linear Park that will lie across the creek channel. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on April 3, 2006. The Board recommended that views of the trailer and the fire protection wall should be screened from the future Linear Park and properties fronting on Mission Road. The Board suggested that the applicant plant a 6 foot tall evergreen hedge along the perimeter property boundary fence to limit views of the CT trailer and fire wall. The applicant's revised plans include the Board's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION The proposed development, including the applicant's revised plans, were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 20, 2006. At the meeting the Commissioners repeatedly stated their support for the CT imaging facility, but expressed concerns regarding the use of a trailer and an 18 foot talI fire protection wall as permanent additions (as opposed to expanding the existing medical center), the design incompatibility with the Medical Center building and with the adverse views of the trailer and fire wall from users of the future Linear Park and neighboring properties. The Commissioners determined that the trailer itself and the lack of an internal access to the Medical Center were inappropriate and would be inconvenient, if not unsafe, for both patients and Kaiser Staff. The Commissioners similarly concluded that the fIre protection wall was unsightly and that the hedge screen would have little to no screening value. The Commissioners observed that the SSFMC does not allow permanent trailers that are not sufficiently designed to complement the existing development, and that it does allow temporary trailers for the duration of a closely associated construction project (SSFMC Section 20.24.070). To underscore the point the Commissioners noted that they had no concern with Kaiser's temporary trailer housing an MRI unit, located in a portion of the parking area facing El Camino Real structure, because it is temporary and will be removed at the completion of the renovation of the existing MRI facility within the Medical Center building. The Commissioners clearly understood and fully supported the need for the CT unit. Their focus was the quality of the design. The Commissioners reluctantly voted ll]1Hnimously to deny the approval and at the same time encouraged the applicant to fIle a much better and more appropriate design that the Commission could approve. Findings of Denial were adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 3, 2006. -7- Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 3 of 4 APPEAL The applicant filed an appeal on August 18, 2006. The appeal focuses on the need for the CT unit, but does not address any of the Planning Commission's design concerns. The applicant's letter contends that the Planning Commission did not understand the need for the project and made an error in arriving at their conclusion. The appeal letter contains several misrepresentations and errors as follows: 1. The adoption of the Findings of Denial occurred on August 3, 2006 and not July 6, 2006. 2. The Planning Commission understood the need for the project as evidenced in the applicant's letters of support addressed to the Commission, the Commission meeting minutes and the staff report (see the expanded discussion in the following section). 3. The Planning Commission did not err when it noted that parking spaces would be lost as the proposed CT trailer would occupy an area formerly devoted to truck parking. In response to questions and statements offered by both the Commissioners and the applicant's representatives, City Staff noted that several parking spaces have been temporarily "lost" on the El Camino Real parking area in association with the "MRI facility renovation - the temporary "MRI trailer occupies the parking spaces. 4. The current trailer at the back of the Medical Center (the project location) never had benefit of City approval (a Use Permit would have been required). 5. The Design Review Board did not approve the design as they are an advisory body and have no decision making authority and no expertise in or any authority to interpret the City's Zoning Regulations. The Board recommended that the Planning Commission consider the proposed design and suggestion of the addition of a hedge. As the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect, the need for the development was clearly understood and never in question; statements made by both the applicant's representatives and the Commissioners, reflected in the meeting minutes, underscore this point. The Commissioner's were simply concerned with the quality and appropriateness of the design. The applicant's representatives made it very clear at the meeting that they understood the Commissioner's concerns, but that this was a more "cost effective" design. Both the Commissioners and City Staff repeatedly expressed a desire and willingness to work with the applicant to develop a better design that the Commission could approve. The Planning Commissioners took great effort to express their concerns, so that there was no miscommunication or misunderstanding. The Commissioners were even open to the possibility of placing the trailer within a garage type enclosure that would blend with the Medical Center. The applicant's representative stated that while they had willingly added a hedge along the northerly property boundary, they were not going to make any other changes because it would exceed the project budget. Reluctantly, the Planning Commission denied the proposed project. The applicant's appeal letter, Planning Commission meeting minutes, Findings of Denial and the Staff Report are attached. -8- Staff Report Subject: Kaiser Appeal P06-0026 Page 4 of 4 Should the City Council decide on a different course of action than that recommended by the Planning Commission, Draft Findings of Approval and Conditions of Approval are attached. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Class 3, New Construction of Small Facilities, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Zoning Administrator is not required to taken action on an environmental document. CONCLUSION: The proposed trailer and fire protection wall are inconsistent with the City's Zoning Code Section 20.24.070, would result in the loss of parking, are inconsistent with the City's Design Guidelines and are incompatible with the design of the Medical Center and the future Linear Park. City Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. BY:~ Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager By: MD/SC ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Findings of Denial Optional Action Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report of July 6, 2006 Staff Report of August 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2006 Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2006 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of March 21,2006 Applicant's Narrative of August 1,2006 Applicant's Appeal Letter of August 18,2006 Photos Plans -9- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: July 6, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with a frre protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 EI Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C- L) Zoning District. SSFMC Chapters: 20.24 and 20.81 Owner & Applicant: Kaiser Permanente Case No.: P06-0026 (up06-0012 & DR06-0071) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 EI Camino Real, subject to making the required findings and adopting the recommended conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project site is located at 1200 El Camino Real. A residential neighborhood lies directly across El Camino Real to the south and west, while commercial properties abut the site to the north and east. Future development of the vacant lands across the Colma Creek channel (formerly a golf driving range) is intended to be median density multi-family residential (Transit Village District). The proposed mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit would replace an existing mobile magnetic resonance imaging (J\1R.I) unit that has been at the same location for many years. The project sponsor believes that the proposed site location is optimal given considerations for staff and patient access, and power requirements. Other possible locations on-site would not be as convenient and would likely result in reducing open at-grade parking spaces. Due to fire protection requirements, the project will necessitate the construction of an 18 foot tall fire protection wall between the mobile unit and the Medical Center building. ' The project site's General Plan Land Use designation, Office, allows Medical Centers and ancillary facilities. The proposed mobile CT imaging unit is consistent with the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District subject to a Use Permit approved by the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Section 20.24.030). The SSFMC does not allow trailers for commercial uses except during construction or where it is made to appear as a permanent structure (SSFMC Section 20.24.070). -10- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Kaiser Mobile CT Imaging Unit July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 3 The facility and wall will be visible from the back of properties fronting on Mission Road and the future South San Francisco Linear Park that will lie across the creek channel. Visual effects can be reduced by requiring that the mobile unit and the wall be finished to match the exterior of the adjacent building and that a skirt around the base of the mobile unit be required so that it appears more as a building (see condition # 3). DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed this application on April 3, 2006. The Board recommended that views of the mobile unit should be screened from the future linear park and properties fronting on Mission Road. The Board suggested adding a condition of approval requiring the applicant to add a 6 foot tall evergreen hedge along the perimeter property boundary fence on the opposite side of the drive aisle from a point in alignment with the southerly corner of the Medical Center building to a point extending several feet beyond the northwesterly corner of the proposed mobile unit. The Board's comments have been added as a condition of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staffhas determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Class 3, New Construction of Small Facilities, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Zoning Administrator is not required to taken action on an environmental document. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed development complies with the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the Zoning requirements and development standards. Conditions of approval are recommended to enhance the compatibility of the new mobile unit and the wall with the existing Medical Center and reduce views from nearby properties. Therefore, it is recommended that the planning Commission approve a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 El Camino Real, subject to making the required findings and adopting the recommended conditions of approval. ~.~~ S ve carl~ Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board minutes - March 21, 2006 -11- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Kaiser Mobile CT Imaging Unit July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Applicant's Narrative Photos Plans -12- " --- Planning Commission Staff ReEort DATE: August 3, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Adoption of Findings of Denial for a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 EI Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District. " SSFMC Chapters: 20.24 and 20.81 Owner & Applicant: Kaiser Permanente Case No.: P06-0026 (up06-0012 & DR06-0071) RECOlVIMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Denial for a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 EI Camino Real. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on July 6,2006. After careful consideration of the applicant's testimony and plans, the Commissioners determined that the proposed mobile unit and free standing fire wall were unattractive, inconsistent with the Medical Center design, inconsistent with the City's Design Guidelines, and detrimental to the surrounding area, and would result in a loss of the limited on-site parking. The Commissioners directed that City Staff prepare Findings of Denial and encou.raged the applicant to resubmit a design that would be attractive, functional, and integrated with the Medical Center. The Findings of Denial and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached. RECOlVIMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Denial of a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile CT imaging unit with a fire protection wall at the rear of an existing Kaiser Medical Center, situated at 1200 El Camino Real. ~~~ S ve Carlson, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Denial Planning Commission Minutes - July 6, 2006 -13- Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2006 Motion Sim I Second Prouty to adopt Resolution 2656-2006 recommending that the City Council certify EIR05- 0003 and approve P05-0035: PUD05-0003, UP05-0010, TDMO-0003, SIGNS05-0044 & DR05-0020. The Commission also recommended that the Council include the following: . Further stealthing of loading dock area. . Skin and texture the palette enclosure walls. . Inclusion of a pavement pattern to make the loading dock look more like a plaza. . Incorporate spandrel glazing along the fa<,(ade to pick up on detailing of surrounding office buildings to make it look like an office. . The parking garage should have a filter or screening to hide cars on the second floor from street view, . Eliminate all outside storage of lumber and returned items. . Consider adding Palm trees. . Include larger (ex 48" box size) trees near the loading dock area. . Amend Condition A7 to address outside storage and vendor issues. . Keep the site clean of boxes and debris. Roll Call: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke None None Commissioner Teglia Approved by majority roll call vote. 3. CT Mobile I Kaiser Facility Kaiser PermanentelOwner Kaiser Permanente/Applicant 1200 EI Camino Real P06-0026: UP06-0012 & DR06-0071 Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (a) imaging unit with a new fire protection wall at the rear of the Kaiser Medical Center situated at 1200 EI Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. David Sheston gave a powerpoint presentation. He noted that they have installed another mobile unit near the front of the hospital which will soon be receiving a final inspection. Commissioner Romero questioned what were the plans for the unimproved land between Colma Creek and Kaiser. Senior Planner Carlson noted that he does not know who owns the land and is not aware of any plans for that area. Commissioner Romero noted that this could possibly be used for additional parking. Commissioner Prouty noted that the plans lacked detail and asked for additional elevations. He questioned if there would be a covered walkway. Mr. Sheston noted that there will not be a covered walkway. Commissioner Romero and the project architect discussed who would be going to the MRI facility and how they would access it. Mr. Sheston explained that this is an in and out patient service with dressing rooms in the mobile unit and that there is an elevator lift that all the patients would be using. Commissioner Giusti questioned why the unit could not be incorporated within the hospital. Mr. Sheston noted that this is new technology. He added that there is not enough space within the building to accommodate the number of patients who need to be served. S:\ML""",tes\f'L"'IALLzecl ML",utes\o:r-o"--o"- Rope ML""",tes,cloc PlAge -4- of "- -14- Planning Commission Meeting of July 61 2006 Commissioner Prouty questioned if there would be power cables all over the area where the trailer would go. Mr. Sheston noted that there is an underground connection and the trailer will have a cord that connects to the hospital system. Commissioner Prouty reiterated his concern about the lack of information on the plans and was concerned about voting on a project with so little detail. Commissioner Romero asked who approved the previous trailer. Senior Planner Carlson noted that it was installed without benefit of City approval. Vice Chairperson Honan noted that the solid wall will be subject to graffiti. Senior Planner Carlson noted that Kaiser has onsite security. Mr. Sheston noted that the trailer would be located on a 24 hour access road. He noted that there are currently no issues with graffiti at the nearby parking structure. Commissioner Romero noted that there has been a "temporary/' trailer unit for 10 years at the site and questioned how long the new one is expected to be at this location. Ronaldo Beltran, Kaiser Permanente, noted that the trailer is for renovation of the CT-Scanner within the building. He pointed out that there is a need for a new scanner. Commissioner Romero asked if this unit would eventually be moved anywhere else. Mr. Beltran noted that this unit will not be moved unless it malfunctions. Commissioner Romero noted this is going to be a permanent structure and suggested adding onto the building to serve the needs of the hospital. Mr. Beltran noted that their inclination toward a mobile CT-unit is because it is reliable and cost effective. Commissioner Romero pointed out that the public using the future linear park will be looking at the back of the building and this trailer. Commissioner Sim questioned if Kaiser has a master plan projecting future growth. Mr. Beltran noted that there is a 10, 15 and 20 year plan for the Kaiser facility. He noted that this is the only change to the radiology department he foresees in the next 10 years. Commissioner Prouty also felt that this could be incorporated within the hospital and felt uneasy with the proposal. Mr. Sheston noted that the CT-unit within the building will be upgraded but this cannot occur until a replacement unit is onsite. Vice Chairperson Honan asked if the trailer would be removed once the upgrades were done. Mr. Beltran noted that they will have three CT-units on site and will leave this one onsite. Vice Chairperson Honan was concerned with allowing a major hospital in the City to have a trailer onsite. Commissioner Romero questioned why the hospital cannot have the mobile unit be temporary until the remodel is upgraded. He was concerned with granting a Use Permit taking into consideration that the first mobile unit was installed without the benefit of City approval. Mr. Beltran noted that the overall plan is that there needs to be 3 cr-units in the hospital. Commissioner Romero questioned how many parking spaces are going to be lost due to the trailers being onsite. Mr. Sheston noted that they lost some parallel parking spaces but have reconfigured the area to gain back some parking spaces. Vice Chairperson Honan noted that if the trailer were to be temporary she would not have any issue, but being that it will be a permanent structure she could not support approval of it. Motion Honan I Second Prouty continue the item to allow staff to draft Findings of Denial for Planning Commission adoption. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRAnvE BUSINESS None ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Prouty asked staff for an update on the activity at the Bell Market site. Senior Planner Carlson noted that an Asian market is planned for the site and that they are relocating their entryway to the northeast S:\Mt""uteS\FLvw:!lLzect Mt""utes\o:rOb-Ob R.'PC Mt""utes,ctoc 'PlAge 5 of b -15- ~'\'t\:l .SAN h 0'" 41!1!1.1- .f".q ~ C3",,:'" . ~~<f~ 0..... ""0 >-..1 'ft~ r-. I !,~ n - t,_.. . - ,_._ - "0 O~~ ~ n~~ 04l1FOi.~\.~ MINUTES August 3, 2006 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 'I' ":~ ~ J~i CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: TAPE 1 7:30 D.m. Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke ABSENT: None City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention. Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Brian Crossman, Assistant City Attorney Ray Razavi, City Engineer Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Bryan Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None No Changes None CONSENT CALENDAR None 1. Approval of regular meeting minutes of July 6, 2006. 2. CT Mobile I Kaiser Facility Kaiser Permanente/Owner Kaiser Permanente/Applicant 1200 EI Camino Real P06-0026: UP06-0012 & DR06-0071 (Continued from July 6, 2006) Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (a) imaging unit with a new fire protection wall at the rear of the Kaiser Medical Center situated at 1200 EI Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Items 1 and 2 pulled. 1 Approval of regular meeting minutes of July 6, 2006 - Commissioner Prouty clarified that he wanted to see 48 inc trees installed in the development near the loading dock and noted that the minutes can be approved with this change. Motion Prouty f Second Giusti to approve the minutes with corrections. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Teglia abstaining. 2 CT Mobile f Kaiser Facility Kaiser Permanente/Owner -16- Planning Commission Meeting of August 3, 2006 Kaiser Permanentel Applicant 1200 EI Camino Real P06-0026: UP06-0012 & DR06-0071 (Continued from July 6, 2006) Use Permit and Design Review allowing a mobile computerized tomography (a) imaging unit with a new fire protection wall at the rear of the Kaiser Medical Center situated at 1200 EI Camino Real in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Chairperson Zemke questioned if Kaiser will return with a new proposal. Senior Planner Carlson stated that he spoke to the Kaiser representative and noted that he did not allude to resubmitting their application. Motion Prouty I Second Honan to approve Findings of Denial for P06-0026: UP06-0012 & DR06-00n. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Teglia abstaining. PUBUC HEARING 3. Malcolm Building Malcolm Properties/Owner The Hagman Group/Applicant 200 Oyster Point Blvd P06-0033: TDM06-0002, VAR06-0002, UP06-0011 & DR06-0032 Planned Unit Development allowing parking spaces and a trash enclosure in a portion of the minimum required 15 foot deep rear setback. Use Permit & Design Review allowing a 56,300 square foot 4-story office and building generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, open at-grade & garage parking for a minimum of 158 vehicles & landscaping at 200 Oyster Point Blvd in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24,20.81 & 20.85 Variance to reduce parking to a rate of 2.83 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area instead of the minimum required rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.82 Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic impacts and allow a reduction in the minimum required parking in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.120 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Carlson gave a powerPoint presentation. Dennis Meitinger, Hagman Group Architects gave a presentation on the project's site conditions and the highly articulated architecture. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia noted that the office buildings in the area are maxed with parking and pointed out that this is why there are TOM Plans being adopted. He questioned why a variance was being applied for. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a variance would be granted in association with the TOM to reduce the parking requirements. Commissioner Teglia noted that ADMINISTRAnvE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION None None s:\MLVIolA.tes\OI$'-0:3-0,," RPc,cloc Pelge :<. of :3 -17- DRB Agenda March 21, 2006 Page 4 of9 9, 10. 11. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME ESTIMATED TIME Kaiser Permanente Kaiser Permanente 1200 EI Camino Real P06-0026 & UP06-0012 CT Mobile / Kaiser Facility (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Use Permit to allow a mobile imaging unit with a new fire protection wall to be installed in the parking lot of the Kaiser Medical Center in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24, 20.81 The Board had the following comments: 1. Add a 6' tall evergreen hedge along the fence to the corner of the building. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME California Water Service Co. Cingular Wireless 480 Grandview Dr P06-0020, UPM06-0002 & DR06-0028 Cingular Wireless Use Permit (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review allowing a wireless communication facility consisting of six (6) fence mounted antennas and an underground vault for equipment cabinets, situated at 488 Grandview Drive in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.81,20.85 & 20,105. The Board approved the application as submitted. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Steven P. Silvestri AKC Services, Inc 555 El Camino Real P05-0172 & Signs05-0059 Type C Sign - Dollar Tree (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Type "C" Sign Permit to install signs in excess of 1 00 sf of new signage situated at 555 El Camino Real in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22, 20.85 & 20.86. The Board had the following comments: 1. Use a maximum 6-inch wide raceway. 2. Consider replacement of planting "T-3" Toyon with a tree species, recommend Arbutus Marina. 3. Consider replacement of Azalea Formosa with a hardier plant. 4, Consider planting street trees along EI Camino Real, recommend Purple Leaf Plum DINNERBREAK 6:20P.M. -18- 1b.e Permanente Medical Group, Inc. 1200 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080-3299 (650) 742.2000 AJ:\ ;H CAN.t'BELL DAVIS FAIRFIELD FREMONT FRESNO GILROY HAYWARD MARTINEZ MILPITAS MOUNTAIN VIEW NAPA NOVATO OAKLAND PARK SHADELANDS PETALUMA PLEASANTON MICHELLE B, CAUGHEY, M,D, Physician -in -Chief TAMARA TREFZ Medical Group Administrator August 1, 2006 Judith M. Honan Vice Chair Planning Commissioner City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RANCHO CORDOVA REDWOOD CITY RICHMOND ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SAN RAFAEL SANTA CLARA SANTA ROSA S, SACRAJI'ffiNTO S, SAN FRANCISCO STOCKfON V ACA VILLE VALLEJO WALNUT CREEK RECEIVED PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Honan: We are writing to provide more detail regarding Kaiser Pennanente's permit request presented at your July 6 meeting (p06-0026 CT MobilelKaiser Facility - Use Permit allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit), and to ask you to reconsider your recommendation. Our representatives entered the meeting on July 6 with the belief that the permit would likely be approved. We had worked closely with the Design Review board, made changes to our plans at their request and that body had recommended approval on March 21,2006. Therefore, our presentation at the July 6 meeting focused on the design features and the changes we had made as a result ofDRB feedback, and did not include information about the clinical necessity to our medical center and our patients of having this pad. We believe there are certain compelling facts supporting our request which you should be aware of prior to making a [mal decision. They are: . Demand for scanning services has increased l5 percent per year for many years, and this trend is expected to continue. The upgraded pad is very much needed to provide additional MRI services to the medical center and to provide additional CT appointments as the need for them increases. We also pIan to use it to provide PET scanner services to our cancer patients. . A11 of these services are essential to the provision of high quality medical care. They are considered standard medical care and our patients would be seriously disadvantaged if they are not available on-site. . This trailer pad will upgrade one that has been in use at this 10cation for about 20 years. . There is no room within the hospital for these services. KP SSF is very constrained for space right now. We are striving to provide the best care in limited space. There will be no additional room until we are able to rebuild our hospital (to be complete as late as 2030 but we hope by 2019). ... ~"'~ '" ;::lI KAISER P~~MA.NENTE$ -19- 08904-1 (REV. "-00) Judith M. Honan August 1, 2006 Page 2 . Upon the Design Review Board's recommendation, we plan to install a six-foot tall evergreen hedge along the perimeter property boundary. We support the development of the Linear Park and understand the City's desire to conceal the trailer from view. Kaiser Permanente's goal is to continue to provide the best technology available to its 103,968 South San Francisco members, many of whom are City employees. Our organization has served South San Francisco since 1946 and we are committed to serving the people of this city for years to come. We sincerely hope you will reconsider your recommendation to deny of July 6. We would be glad to answer in person or by phone any questions that you may have regarding this request. Sincerely, ~J~ Michelle Caughey, MD Physician-in-Chief Phone: 650-742-2549 Linda Jensen Sr, Vice President and Area Manager Phone: 650-299-3122 MC-806/tb -20- 1be Permanente Medical Group, Inc. 1200 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080.3299 (650) 742-2000 A" , .0CH CAMPBELL DAVIS FAIRFIELD FREMONr FRESNO GILROY HAYWARD MARTINEZ MILPITAS MOUNrAIN VIEW NAPA NOVATO OAKLAND PARK SHADELANDS PETALDr.iA PLEASANTON MICHELLE B, CAUGHEY, M,D, Physician.in -Chief TAMARA TREFZ Medical Group Administrator August 18, 2006 City of South San Francisco Planning Division PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 To Whom It May Concern: RANCHO CORDOVA REDWOOD CI'IY RlCHMOND ROSEVlLLE SACRAMENrO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SAN RAFAEL SANTA CLARA SANTA ROSA S, SACRAMENrO S, SAN FRANCISCO STOCKTON VACA VILLE VALLEJO WALNUT CREEK This application for appeal is in regards to the decision made by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission on August 3,2006, to deny a use permit request (p06- 0026 CT MobilelKaiser Facility) allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with fIre protection to exist behind the Kaiser Pennanente Medical Center at 1200 El Camino Real. At this time, space for additional CT imaging units or other scanning units is not available in the facility. The demand for these services is increasing at a faster pace than we are able to build additional space. These services are essential to our members and patients, and it is imperative that we are able to meet growing demand and provide safe patient care to our patients. BACKGROUND For many years, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center has housed a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit behind the Medical Center, allowing patients to receive on-site imaging services. To meet demand for these services, Kaiser Permanente has recently added a state-of-the-art MRI suite, currently housed within the Radiology Department on the first floor of the Medical Center. In the meantime, demand for scanning services throughout the nation has increased 15 percent per year for many years, and this trend is expected to continue. In order to meet demand, Kaiser Permanente must continue to provide additional imaging services to the Medical Center. These services are essential to the provision of high quality medical care. We believe there are compelling facts supporting our request which you should consider when reviewing this appeal. ... ~m~ :s ~ KAISER - 21-ANENTElP) 08904-1 (AEV,11-<l01 1 Design Review Board Recommendation - Hedge Upon review of the permit request (p06-0026 CT MobilelKaiser Facility - Use Permit allowing a mobile computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit), the Design Review Board approved the request with one change: adding a "six-foot tall evergreen hedge along the fence to the corner of the building," The purpose of the evergreen hedge is to conceal the pad from adjacent properties year- round, and Kaiser Permanente will fulfill this recommendation upon approval of the permit request. We understand the City's concern of an "unattractive" structure being visible, but we believe that an evergreen hedge would significantly conceal the pad, as can be seen in the photographs included with this application. Correction: Parking Spaces In the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 3, 2006, the Background/ Discussion stated "that the proposed mobile unit and free standing fire wall .., would result in a loss of the limited on-site parking." This is an error made by the Planning Commission. Parking has never been allowed in the location of the current pad, and if the space were clear, parking would still not be allowed as it might interfere with ambulance traffic, Space Constraints The mobile CT imaging unit offers the flexibility of providing continuously changing modalities required for different procedures as well as keeping up with changes in technology, occurring more frequently. This flexibility is not as readily possible or cost effective when compared to changing out built-in modalities. Currently, there is not sufficient amount of space within the Medical Center to add these units. Although we agree that placing the CT imaging unit within the Medical Center would be ideal, it is not realistic at this time. The facility is constrained for space and we strive to provide the best care to our members and patients in limited space. There will not be additional room until we are able to rebuild our Medical Center (as late as 2030 or as early as 2019). In the meantime, this is the best solution to meet demands and patients' needs, especially those in the Emergency Department. Changing Technology - Changing Needs As mentioned earlier, the demand for scanning services has increased at all medical centers. Even more so, changing technology can be challenging for any medical center when demand for these services increase. In order to provide patients with the best medical care, it is essential that the services be available on-site. When the services are constantly evolving, the challenge is to efficiently provide state-of-the-art technology to our members within limited space. If the services are not available on-site, patients will be required to receive services elsewhere. 2 -22- SUMMARY On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, the City of South San Francisco Design Review Board reviewed Kaiser Permanente's request to replace a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit currently behind the Medical Center with a computerized tomography (CT) imaging unit with a new fire protection wall to be placed behind the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24,20.81. Kaiser Permanente worked closely with the Design Review Board to make changes to the plans to meet the request that the design be attractive, functional and integrated with the Medical Center at this time. Upon review, the Board had determined that the application will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines after the addition of a "six-foot tall evergreen hedge along the fence to the corner of the building" behind the Medical Center. Kaiser Permanente agreed to make this change. Kaiser Permanente's presentation on July 6, 2006, to the Planning Commission focused on the design features and the changes we had made as a result of the Design Review Board feedback, and did not include information about the clinical necessity of the pad to the Medical Center and our patients. On Thursday, July 6, 2006, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission voted (6-0-1) to adopt Findings of Denial to allow a CT imaging unit to replace the existing :MRI unit behind the Medical Center. Our organization has served South San Francisco since 1946. Kaiser Permanente South San Francisco serves 103,968 area residents, many of them City of South San Francisco employees. In addition to serving our subscribers and members, Kaiser Permanente serves the South San Francisco population through its Emergency Department, a commitment that we take very seriously as a community hospital. Our commitment to serving the community and the South San Francisco population is why our appeal should be seriously considered. Providing these services and having the equipment on-site is important for patients seeking health care services. . Sincerely, '.;vvD I ~ff.-ff~ Linda Jensen Senior Vice President and Area Manager Michelle Ca he Physician in Chief 3 -23- -24- V\EW 2 -25- ...___..... ol ~ --;:-. -----, - .- --..._~' ------=- ~-- --- - ~ --- --- --- --- --- 20' -0" LIMIT 0"";- 2 HOUR WALL --- 40'-0. r~ U~OF --- I --- ~ .--- -:::~:.;:=->>~::,.:,:.~.:~~x.:.~:-.:~~* . .. .' ,...:~.<;:.,l:, . .... ~ '_.~'::.. ,~. ::~.f' . .... .:.:~~~: '. ." .: ': .~ '. .'M'. .... .~ .,'::: ":,';, ::::,: i " : ,:; ::: :".~,::' '::,: :-:',,1' .....::~~\J ... '. ~:' ..' :'. ..... '.: :~. ' . '.: ::,.:.' .,: '. . ~ .:.:,;'.:1'..."...........,.:"..,:..:,.:,:.., ...... .:(. . -:. " .' ..' ~,' ':~i;~_~l.......,:....:..........:'................. ..,::.:-':'J. " . .' ~ :.~:. .;f . E" --- --- --- --- -- --- Ji ~ ",a: ,,0 cU I~ m'mm..' ..=+C HO~Plt~i, '. j~~~1i.. ~~~~~~~./f~~~~;it 41~~t~! . :t~~t~J ~~t~~~~. '.. I ' . ~ ~.. :. ~ ., ".:..:..... :...:~.";,:>:""::"<-,,,,,,,,,,,~<,~<-"::,,,:J' ..~_mc'.-_.l, t~ : . .'. .' t~ . L: r t~ . l'~"~' ,r", l .. t::-" ~ ' B REUOVED (E) AND (E) CURBFENCE ':. ',.,', MEDIC'AL" ~F~;~~ ' ,;,.BU[LDIN,G :~~f~f~f~~i: , :'. : ... r::.'::':~...:'".:.::......\' :-- '.: .,: :.::. .' .: ..M. .".,.:.:".,.:.:'...,t,::i ..,', " ..or . ," " ' . ::':"....__..:..,,'..: ' .....::..........:..... ::-...--.... " ".;. , ' :' " .' '. .. . .' " .' .....;.. .' '. ~ ' .. .' CD~P~\~~ CT !,.INtI PLAN Il 24 X 36 ' -26- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue, South San Franclisco, CA 94080* (650) 877-8535 CLERK AU6i3'eE~ Pt1 2:3~~ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Applicants who wish to file an appeal of a decision of the ChiefPlanner or the Planning Commission, or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letter or additional sheets may also be submitted): 3 If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 1/2" x II") of all exhibits (maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the original application. 4 Filing fee - See Fee Schedule Name: 171 J1 - nA .J' - f...,..-" , /"'f"LJJ2..fC-l:: /rJl/'t<r/-1J:::=:./ . .' C}'1? '7- i/71'lA A A "d(j- , Signatult{ 9,// Blob Mailing Address: .""" I 2. 00 l2. L t- ft ,!vi I-,;VO Kef) L- ,>av-rrl >AtJ FfZf'j.lCi,t,C..t)..Cfi C.l././OflO Date Phone No. vsD '7L;l-- 21 D3 *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 -27- TIle Permanente Medical Group, Inc. 1200 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORmA gl.l,OSO.S299 (650) 742-2000 ANTIc... CAMt'BELL DI\VIS l'AllU'IE'LD FB,'!i)IoN'f :FRES~O GtLRO'Y HAYW}.lU} )~NEZ MILPn'A.S 1I10UNTA.IN vIEW ~A NOV.\TO o~"D PARK 5HADau:..ns l"E'I'ALID-tr\ PLEASANTON T-117 P.002/002 F-341 ~Ltl.U Wj<,1JutJ\ REDWOOD CI'1'\' R1CHMOND ROSI:Nn,I.Ti, S.\.CRAJ.1K!'<TO SA.!': ~CISCO SA..'" JOSE s.\N RA.FAEL SAN'tl\ cr..OJ.<A SJ\NI'A ROSi\. S, s...C"/<AMEN'ro s. SAN FRANCISCO ~l'OCIcrON VAC.AVILLE VALLEJO WALNU1' CREEn: Sep-Zi-OG 10:35am From-Kaiser SSF Sr"+h West 650 742 3304 MICHElLE H. CAUGREt, M.D. Ph)'Mcian.in .Ch)ei TA.'M:ARA'IREFZ 'M:edice.l GTQtl;P AdmlnilOtTlIoUlt Ms. sylvia Payne. City Clerk City of South San Francisco City Clerks Office 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA. 94080 ~c. l?l}7Jt't S(p . . .1!j,.'JJ b 21?n J. tA ctlOO . 'Ji.!Vl~rr. . -'-l 'fiG . })ltl? ~ September 27, 2006 Regarding: City Council Hearing - September 27,2006 Public Hearing Item #8 Dear Ms. Payne. Kaiser Foundation Hospital South San Francisco requests a continuance to October 11, 2007t of the public hearing regarding our appea.l of the Planning Comxnission's decision to deny use permit. We appreciate your consideration as the continuance will allow us more time to gather information for our presentation to the City Council. I have spoken with Mr. Nagel and he is not opposed to granting the continuance. cc: Mr. Ba-.-ry M. Nagel Ms. Suz)' Kalkin owO..' (REV. '''..00) .-. &\'~ KAISER PERMAN'CNfEl8l -28- .I\ugust 18,1006 Steve Carlson Senior Planner Deparunent of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, Cl\ 94083 Re: .t\ppeal for planr.ing case #P06-0016, Application to Locate a l'/Iobile CT Unit Project: Kaiser Permanente Application to Locate a Mobile CT Unit Dear :NIt. Carlson, Kaiser Permanente and BFHL Architects are submitting this package for review by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, Please find enclosed 35 copies, 'with the following exhibits for the appeal process: Cover letter (submitted with original application) Sheets 1-6: Site photos (submitted with original application) Hospital site plan (submitted with original application) Sheet A1,O: Enlarged plan of project area (submitted with original application) Sheet A2,l: Revised plan of proj ect area (new) Sheets A3,O, A3,l, A3,2, A3,3: Photos of before and after conditions (new) Sheet AS,l: Mobile CT Elevation (submitted with original application) Sincerely, Benito Olguin cc: Renata Beltran Carolyn Van Niel Ralph Lotito .I\ndy Crocker Brewer Fraser Holland Lotito, Architects 11~ Sansom, Street, Suite 1300, San Francisco, C4 94104 (~/5) 981-2345 j(~15) 981-2343 tRANSAIITTLA FOR APPEAL doc . February 23, 2006 Steve Carlson Senior Planner Department of Economic and Cornmupity Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Application to Locate a Mobile CT Unit Project: Kaiser Pennanente P AF 135-639, KPSSF07 Dear Mr. Steve Carlson, Kaiser Pennanente and BFHL Architects are submitting this package for review by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, The project is to locate a Mobile CT Imaging Unit at the current location of a Mobile :MRI Imaging Unit. The current unit is connected to the Hospital "I" occupancy building. A new connection has been installed to provide power from the Medical Office Building, a "B" occupancy building. This requires a separation of "occupancies". Through code research and consultation with the hospital staff including, Inspector of Record (lOR), state OSHPD Area Compliance Officer (ACO), state Fire Marshall Representative, and City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall a 4 hour separation wall could be built to meet the separation requirements. The wall \Vill need to be 36'-0" long 18'-0" tall located 4'-0" from the Hospital. The approach is to make the wall as minimally invasive to the site as possible yet meeting all the structural requirements to construct the wall. We are providing a Hospital site plan, enlarged area of Mobile unit location, elevations, existing photos of the site, and photo rendered drawings approximating the appearance of the wall. Sincerely, ~$;~ David A. Sheston cc: Renato Beltran Carolyn Van Niel Ralph Lotito Andy Crocker Brewer Fraser Holland Lotito, Architects //4 SanJome Street, Suite /300, San FramiJco, C4 94/04 (4/5) 98/.2345 1(475) 987.2343 Letter ~ -0:5 ~ o I\) -- I\) ~ -- o Ol ('/) Q C::> ~(= "-t o ::r: -n en o c: -I J: en:z- )> ("> .... Z "- I cnm 33 () )> C::> 0 z :5: (") 111 -I - t:J (J) -- (") (j - QJt> i""'" "'C r (') l> rn Z :z Z --I - rn Z:D- G) :.... (") o S rn sr-c: Uic,Z o~ Z .::. - :D ;z -I m (:> < :0 - rn m )> ~ r- ('/) ::=- :t> ::::. zO "11 ~m s: )> G) r\) c:> c:> z G) ....1 - - - ---------- ____u -________ ____u______________________ _______h_____________h______, I I I I I I I I I ///:':,//,://,://////:/:!/ i 0 : ... ' . , . , . , , . , , , , . . , , .' " , , i ; 1~li ' , \, \ \, \, " " \, ~<!i1 ' , , , " , ....'.'.......'.....,_ I 1 I ; ....,.,..;~.._;,.>-... ).. ~. ....-... .)..m..~......... --:}. 'V- ,.,.:~...,.,;)--.....,}...,.;.;.. :.;->..-..,}..;.~;:)...',..,)._:.:,:,1. , ,'//"/)//~(J_~ - // ! i Of co! I ! ! i i i ! I i i i i! i i ! I i CL~! i I_~! i I i iH: Jf] !!j lit ~l ill U! \! i ! j ! i ! ' 1 U ~\' , ' , \, \ \. '\ 'oj) \ \ \. , \, , , , , ,-'" i i I r t,.) I I I i j. J! i I Ii! If r', ..II.....llfll-!II+......11 Ii H'il!! I I U f"l ..... (tl ;n <;) t;) t) ,< -.j -< ~ ~~ c:) -i '1"'1 i I I I I 1''') J --tit 1 1 I..........! ~J Ii1 ~ fil ~~ ~lt]J1JtItJl-~11~! '\'\\, '" \, "~~~ . r" "1' "'r''-'-T \:-'-1':::",,-,, () ::::0 I'l I'l ^ II ' . 'f' .1 . . ~;.'Il~":~,:'.,,:"":'~:'.""":\""~"'<:"':<"'",1,..:'.:'..::;"""'~~':'''''':''''''~'''' .~ ". ..,'... .' '. :;;~::.~r,;\,':~'\<,;,: :; '1....(. ::..t.:.. ,t.':;' '.,; . :'.(,..~.: '..\" < :'\:'.;",/:' ,.;J;,:"~'! 3.:. ." ~.'" .i AI, :'..'. :',',: ...~...':',.:...:I \:," . .(, '. :': r.II" ~ "~ :'.... j"<', .- :.~: ...:.....,,\........,... '0' "',', ...~.. I'''': ...~~. ,;,.; :4:';.. .) " .... ",' . ~ '. ,', r I I :', I 't'" , ,"" ' .., .. ",,' .~ : ",' '-'I ...... , . . of t. " . :':'t t';;' :",t' \ ".,: i''':, ",'. .~". .... ....., ot , I" ,\; r ! ,.' ,0' :,1 .~ ,'0' t I ~ 'to' ','. ...: I.:.. " . .:', I, fI" ",:- ..:' I, ':'. " ,:.: . :',' I' :'0:. :~';, . . . I. I' I \ , ~ ",' '" .:: I '.: '. :' ,t. .~., ....' .: ,",. ,,, .' .' ,,, I' t'..:. " ..~:' . '. ~~T~:~;-,'9i , ,:, ':. . ...,: .'.. ' .. . . . .OJ . , ", I . .' I'" , " ' , " " .~. I. , " .. :,,' t' ::.' . " . '0' .', .." .~' " . -.:... ,'. '. 'to. " ::. " , ' . I" .' , . . .' '. , . ~. . , , , .,. . " " '. , . .' '.' . '. ,'. . ' ,,' ..' .~ . " '. '.' .' " .' . ," .... ." .." .... . . . '. . " . .' '.' "" '. .. , " .. .. ',' . .. . '. .' .' .' .~,' '1' '. " " '...1 '. '.' . " .' ~~: ,to(/) . ' '. .1) =t. . )> '" .r' .' " " . ." /. " .' , ". . . " I " ,'. ... '. .': " .:" .' .. .' , .'. " I .' . '. ',' .. ". . ." .' '.' .' " ..' 'I , .", .. " . " ::1 ," . . :' .', '. .' ..' "" i.,' I"". .' .' .' . . ,,' ." . . .' '. .' .~ ., '. ' ,', " '. /'. ",.' .:' " .' . ..... ~ ,'I, . . ~ ,....' '.i' :t' .' .: ...., ,':: ,",: .~ ~I'" ':..1 ,. " " t. , 'J \". ,. .. .' .t:. ". '. . " . ,..oO . , I. " " ,I ., . , .' ,I' " ... I' .::" / , ! / / I I !I / i!i i / ,I i / ,I / / / / / / / / '. .. . /. . .~ . ,.' .' .' :.:. ~ .....T......--. --_.t.~.. -.. . t , t.' --.',.>. :\. '.' . . , I.... ..' ,'. .,. " ..... . ~ I '.' . . I"~ . ' ,,' -------------- \ C::::J --- -------- ~ I !! .. 9 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ i Il. R 5' 3. .. ; % Po ~ ':l; ~ 0 I 5 .. ~ a ~ 2 ~ m J: ~ II nq i ~" ,," c q - . ~ < . \l jg f o ~ - ~ ~ , I ;: o lnm ;;i~ ~o !j;..... zC: % :;l '" @ ~ () --< if ,. G'l Z G'l C Z ::; " a ..' ~ :t ~ ~ 1Il \l. g- (J).;' :i!g",g 1Il1'18:i! tO~rn~ b;;J~~z ~~z~;a QO ~ 1Il;lJ~() .B~ ~ or 0 ,. l;' ~ ~ 1 ~ 2 " i "U li~~ i !~~,; ~ "8!' ~ ~ ~,i - ;;~l ~ g'!t" t . S"af hi , It! Q1~ ~!l ~~f ;' ~::1Il<:i ~iil:!l~=ll ~~~~ fp~~ g~~~ .... UlZ _~iJ~ :,..",fll'" ~~_-i~ .,- CD ., :... '" '" '" "p~N"lJrr1mO :s~(:j~~~~ UlZ"-JZZ - (oS:z~Cl i ~g~Ol)i! ~ :::l",~ U1 8 g?1~ ~ [ _o;a ~ ~ ~~m ~ ~.Jlo.-t U) "''''''' .....,N 0....0 " 0 N <0 '" .l .. ~ 191919' " H o ~".., g~Q. P.~i ~~III !;:r ~,. ~ CON~ "''''!! ~;;;~ fl !I~:t ~ , r r r E f f . r- IIf "n[ at . r i~i . . ~ ")> I\) I . %" "{ .~ . .1. '. . ::: '""~L~l I ~ ,. /! / / 6: 'UJ '-0 --1 )> " ,r' .,' : . : ;:;::;:>::;7,-~:;z;::;::;ill:;:;:;~:;~:I(;::;~::;::;::;::;:;':;7.>::;~z;;::;:;.:;~:;:;::;::;:;:;r/h~~~'::;~::;7h::;::;:;::;~~;. :::. ~ "l. \ ~:. .=i '~ % .. ~:;.....;-:.~.;..:-:.......:...;--..n- >~ Z Pl o~ o B8 f:l~ ~~'J 1 e' z ~ s::' , 1'1 ' ',', 0" OJ -, <:; ~: 1- r- o ' zO G) ~ o 1'1 ~ --~ \ , / i '~ ~ ~ / ~ / / I , / / / / / / I / / I / / i o ~ rn '" <;1 ~ o sq C""" f.f) ~ ---jN 0 Ig~5 tn P1I )>~~U1 ~~0~b D;U-" (X)p.~n'l o 0 0 r'l ;0 QO~~b U1::u ~Tl n Bj;;{J~ or 0 )> [ I ~ ~ :~~~~ ~~OC"11 ~u~~ ~g:j35 I - "')> --'lJ1:::U' 8~"-<f'1 .p. V)C1 O---jl,) ~~:P ~ ~ -fl-lDfTlfTl y: ~.-4 ~ w~ ()) ~ en en N ~~~~~~g NrU)>G)"TIVl ~~~8D ~ lD--IPfTI~ ~ ~o~~~ ?, ~~L~ If) g OfTlD C ~ a?, ;0 g V1 < 0- ;~~~ ~; .-- ~' 0 ~:f2r~ ~ to Ul"t:t:; .p.WN 0--"0 N 0 N <D CD . [i>D>D>~ I o 2- ~1 g ~ 0. "- ~. ~ ~ , 1 ~ U1 m ~J: I ~ i'~ ~: o g o 0 ;.~ , ~ ~ iir oJ " .~ c 0 .n ~2 ~~ ~~ [ 4 ~ ;;: o <!' r rn " } ~ ! ;;: :0 (/lg m =1 r= < mm en "'0 r; --I m zC= o ;!: ~~ n -, c: " .. .~__~I- -~ f ~ )> o o C) c [] ---j " , . ...J.. fiUi'W g' Ii' l It..{!'lI ell ~ i i 11# .. lil '"' A 9 9,IIjf I)> ll\ii ~ I;, o J r i: !!!~ ril;= "m %0 0,-1 ac: (I)~ ~ !9 ! is! .. ~ 'I tn i g.... UJ ~ ~~ii::E ",Oa:i! :J>z~;::;'" '" ":po ~;;J~~Z ~~z~~ QOptZ ~A);oQ ,p'J,! ~ or- 0 )>0 a- ~ i ~ ... 5' ~ ~ .. ! " .'0:;;' ~_ a'h' " !:-.. ~ ~:!)I 9- r'3 i 1:1 It g-,!l.- f r!f I r; n 'c t;. -.. 'P~~~~ 'P~~;1!!2lDg ~::;g:::U'"1I ~;e:",:poc> 'I;l ! ~", C"II UtZ"-1Zz ;; g:~g!~ :~;z~lll ! f9-;;j~ e~ii::U1~ ~ g!<l~;:; ~m~ sa i ...IIlZ O. III :0 , ~~~~ ;;;~~ ~ . ~~-l:U ~...:.:; ::u ?'~. (/I l:;t;;"" '" w~ .floCD~ '!ll e-.J8 - ~ Of co ~ co 3:: o m' ~ i II o -l iE ~ z c> c z ::; .1 lor;: iJI ~~! ~~ h' ~h r r f r t B>D>B> ' " ~I il- l:. ~ J! a ii' 3' !' r I f...... !tll" g...~ "'!il- ia: hI 15''' fDN-3 ~ID. -" "'- f fffi~ li'",I:1n it." z '" ~ 1'1 ~ % 9 II itn @l~ ~ ~ rl!f f)> 1I.~ ~ ~;i ~ 'j i: f (/)0 =i!!! mr- "Urn :1:(') S-l gi -;I !9; ! I l:' ~ " ~ ... { Q '" X ~ "!f 1c';1 Q _~iii' !!~:t ~ 1~:~ ~ !.,! [ h; )> . S~4 ! . ~ ;'1 Il~ lLo 5F~ U ~ t>>-"";:j ~- ::et-o>'l>.....1 ~s;:n;il... ~>~~~~ UliilOc... (1I!Z....zz ~"'!:!~ ~~:z~-!ii i !D8:1::u P(,)~1Il1f) ':>t .!.: ~j!: ~:o~ 1JI !i el/l-<!l! o!:lz C i 0- o";u. ... eng - en ~ ",~fitz "'~~ -< . :!:;:<!3 ~~~ ~ 9'- ~ VI q) 01'" ~-4 ~~~ ~ i:J 0 (11 '" ~ q) >:: o '" ~ E !! II en io g~ (J)': -<N 0 :L83l:C: en",ei! <D~'O'" b;a~j!:~ ~~zSJ;a ooz~ iii:;ogn 15~ ~ or 0 :J> (') .... -if ~ z ,;, c: Z ::; .i & 'tr" ~ff ~- ~ ~a ;( i: i ih r i f i f 0>0>(3)' " U << f a>...... 15:00 g..~ J'-Of R~- --.., ~d zr"-8 ...fi9 1l:-! 0"'- ... JI !:a !f ... 0' ;s 5' !' f 1'( r f g l .g. ~ " .~5' ... Ul.~tJl... ... ;E.""}!...... .,. .1 (!:>{!>{!> f ~ if VI '" !l- i ill" !:!;;;;::il~ ioj!!;;;l)>~~ i il ;;:: lI- o - r lI- P'ii10~", ~~....~z f If i.,{flii !! 0 c- (/) ~ !d 1?"..., ~ ~ ! I III :: m a1 ~gs::g <. I :g",,:c! u:.....;z!a!fl - mo ~ " S' .&~. ~o<.. I Z;:S" g ~ Iii ! lIIp.1gj:r 1 _iiS g....g. ::j~ i"- 1- )>0 "':Ul> &. 0 <<>~ out ~ ~.o- --!.ll"'''' "'lj!'- <II P-ott i i fill"" -.. 8. -<I'l 0' Z c: i3t: " . :5 "Um .... i):;1l~~~ t 'Sf i 9 ::I:n iE i "" IIlZ O'. III ~ f;i ~ If!f 0.... )> g:~:zg;a .. ~r~ g:il.Q _o~ . If;' r x g~ !i:l ~ Ii =-" !:I~ ;,,> ~ . r )>~~ i z Q.o:Z~ ~ ~~....!a ......... iH r << li".s 9- 0 :g;&~Q '", tn.-'''.en pt..... en f co;;;3- !f Ii U) ~ " ~ c: 9~ ~ Ii!!. ",::: ~.~~ iff J it!!'! J! tv;' Z 2- ~ e~g f i"'- " =i o. 0 ~i i' J .. >>- - to.> Ii f ii: s- Ol <<> ~h !' I 01 U> I f N Illi i i .. !l 1:; ~ ~i'm: i " R 9 a iiil f:l> '1.-5' II' "" l.I .. . 1 i V) f 1 :l 3: ~ ~li fit", 'Urn :to 0-1 6~ 0- ';'I ! ;r ! :l if i VI _. g~ ~ q ~8~C VI",a~' q)~'O'c.-Il ~i1~;e~ ~~zf,l;a 0-0%> iii;:oiil~ ~~;u~ or 0 ". ;r ~~i!' ! j,,; J: 'a.g i! 9- I;~ ~ .~; ~ . S'! 1:'1 !:! '" !.o i:~ .1' ~~fIl~ 1" :ff~"12. f ~iii-g~~ ~~!::lig~l! . 0- I"c zZ i ~Ulg!C ~ -IjZ.!:jm .~ lO8::t;o pOJ;:,lJ)i::'~ .!.~!:j~ ~iR~'(I1 J 8.;'l-<!ii! 8~Z !Ii : ,,"~~g ....~~ ~ t '" "'z eo>'" ~ !:"'_...~!:l "'.(Jlcp~ ;:v. I" _ en ...Ui.... <f) (0..... ..CON 18 e"'8 - '" g: ... N. CO ~ i ~ .. ,.- ~ !l! ~ @ ~ 0- --t i: )> CO) Z Gl C :z ::; f ! IIf 'Hi' ~U :rg ~~t h~ r f I i i ~, I fl IE 9' 11 ... ? ;r !' ll' J tv.... !n ... '" :"~i alii' bl .. -8 wJ;:)3 ...CD! go;... ... f ~s: 00 OJ - r m o -I C Z - -I m r m < ~ - o z !~~[ ~ 1'1 ~ ~ 1\ 2 l? 1" · .. " .. ~ 2 "" ':(i I ~ t= :::.. ~~ @J l!!~ ~ ~ m r o < m Q nq g~ i6;"q~ z~ . ! IS ~ a ~ ~ " I ~ '" .: D 0 0 @ 0 D D w~~ [:J[] DD~ DI~~ [:JI] DD~ Ol~~ [:JI] DCI~ ~D~ 11[:=]11 11011 - II -II 01=:]1] [:J] OD~ ---...Jl 11011 IT[~ll 11011 I 001] [[:J[] [Il=:J1] = - = = frOll II[~II non = = OD~ [:JI] [ICI~ :3 " !i1 F;: 11011 11[=:]11 non 0 -t ~ [IDD [][:JIJ [ID~ ~'l [I1~~ [[:JIJ DI=:JD = = [] I[ ] IU - ~ ~~ ,",2 ?<g 1jJ m :r iii ~ ~ @ r '" () -t i:: ,. " Z <:> c z ::; 1 i 01" IJ) ~ !l- ~_. (1)';< ~ ~g""g (I)",,,,:i! J>rO r.oZ n~ ~ ;:jS?j!: z ~~~~;;J 00 ~ <n:>J;;l() om1;ii- P"f:. ~ 0" 0 ,. i ~ ." ~ Q ~ ~ l !!~ (t ~., a. ; 11 ~ i! 9- ~ 0..3 i =;~ .... g~ii' f ~~ i. .~ .. Ii" 3.~ ~!l. ~~ l' ~=U1~ l' ~~"U~~! :!:_m:;j.. CO j!:(H): g.. . fJ1rrta~'11 ~~-..J~z ~ ~~~~ ~.....;Z~ffi g !~p~~ ~Sl~(I)Vl ~ ~Ul)]r ",,,,- III _ 8:"-<'" g~Z C il .,.. VJ2 . Ul ::0 ~ ~;;j~ ,..0:;1 ~ g :;tO~~ ~:~ ~ ~~.-1~ ~tn: tn l\l~ M~ ~ ~ 0 U1 co ~ co . I D>D>D> J -: _ ~ II 0 i"'" g!.Q. P-oi ~~~ Hi r hi !H r : 0" 0 t r f "';O~ it [ ~~1 ~I i .. !. r &: hi ." I 1:1 f AGENDA ITEM #7 ort DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 11,2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager Terrabay Phase III Only Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR), Precise and Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Text and TDM Program, Appeal of Conditions of Approval A-17 and A-20. Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P06-0073: PP06-0002: SP06-0001: DR06-0060: ZA06-0001; EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt a resolution to certify the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) and Addendum; 2) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to approve the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District text amendments to Chapter 20.63 ofthe South San Francisco Municipal Code; 3) Adopt a resolution to approve the amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan to incorporate the 2006 Project into the Plan, the Precise Plan amendments and the Transportation Demand Management Program; and, 4) Deny the appeal request and uphold the Planning Commission conditions of project approval relating to the production of the moderate income housing units and the performing arts facility. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Proiect Description The proposed project ("2006 Project") is comprised ofthe construction of 665,000 square feet of office use in two towers, 24,000 square feet of commercial retail use, at least one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts facility, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site. (Please see Table 1 on the following page.) Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,896 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total of 1,952 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.81 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet of floor area. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of2.68/1 ,000 gross square feet of floor area and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 2 TABLE 1 2006 TERRABA Y PROJECT Gross Square Feet Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11,083 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase II 990 spaces PHASE I AND II TOTALS Office 665,028 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and II 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 1,952 spaces The applicant has indicated the project could be built in two phases. The child care and shared use performing arts facility would be provided in Phase I and the moderate income housing units would be under construction prior to a certificate of occupancy for the first phase office tower. There is the possibility that the project could be built entirely in one phase of construction Planning Commission Actions On September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the 2005 SEIR and approval of the 2006 Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) by a 5-2 vote (California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA" documents). A motion to approve the resolution for the project entitlements failed by a 3-3-1 vote. Subsequently, action on the 2006 Project entitlements and legislative actions was continued to September 21, 2006. As requested by the Commission, the Assistant City Attorney has prepared the following synopsis of their issues and the discussion: At the September 7th hearing, following an extended discussion amongst the Commissioners, Commissioner Teglia made two motions, one to recommend certification of the updated CEQA documents, and the second motion to recommend approval of the specific plan, precise plan and zoning code amendments, The motion on the CEQA documents passed 5-2, but the motion to approve the land use entitlements failed on a 3-3 tie vote with one abstention. Following the vote, several of the Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the phased construction of the proposed project, and Commissioner Sim, who had abstained from the initial motion, indicated a desire to get more information from the applicant as to how each phase of construction would look in sequence. Commissioner Teglia Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 3 then moved that the Commission continue the matter to its September 21 st meeting in order to accommodate this request, and the motion passed 4-3. At the September 21 st meeting, Commissioners Romero and Honan expressed concern regarding the continuance from the September th hearing. Commissioner Romero expressed his belief that such a motion was not in accordance with Roberts Rules of parliamentary procedure. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl conceded that under a strict interpretation of Roberts Rules, the motion to continue would have first required a "Motion to Reconsider," and that the motion could only be made by a member of the prevailing side of the vote. Spoerl noted that the Commission's bylaws provide that meetings shall be held "in accordance with Roberts Rules of Procedure and parliamentary law," and explained that more modern parliamentary treatises would allow the motion to continue the matter. Spoerl expressed his opinion that the motion to continue was thus generally in accordance with the Commission's bylaws. He noted that four of seven commissioners had voted to continue the matter for re-consideration, and stated his opinion that recognizing the motion would help to further one of the primary purposes of parliamentary procedure, which is to enforce the desire ofthe majority. Following this discussion, Chairperson Zemke indicated his agreement with the continuance, and the applicant presented a revised and updated proposal responsive to Commissioner Sim's request. Following discussion of the matter, Commissioner Teglia moved to approve the land use entitlements, and the motion passed 4-2-1. Commissioner Honan stated for the record that she refused to vote as she felt the continuance was procedurally improper, and her vote was thus tallied as an abstention. The Planning Commission's vote included the following modified conditions: 1) That the Below Market Rate housing be produced prior to a certificate of occupancy for the Phase I office tower; 2) That the southern portion of the parking garage be further stealthed with large-box specimen trees subject to the Chief Planner's approval; and, 3) That the tallest of the northwestern retaining walls not be constructed during Phase I and that the second smaller retaining wall either be buried or not constructed in Phase I, if possible, and that this area be landscaped and remain in a natural state. On the motion, Commissioner Sim emphasized the importance of keeping the northern portion of the site in as natural a state as possible. During the roll call vote, Commissioner Prouty voiced strong concern with respect to retaining the quality of the architecture that was being represented by the applicant. Planning Commission Meetings - Maior Issues The Planning Commission deliberated on the 2006 Project during three separate meetings: August 17, September 7, and September 21,2006. Many issues were discussed over the course of the deliberations. The following summarizes the major issues by topic as well as the revisions to the Project as a result ofthe deliberations. The type of statement that the architecture should make with respect to the site and the community. Commissioners expressed concern with the architectural statement, the visibility of the parking garage and the proximity of the North Tower to Airport Boulevard. Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 4 The South Tower was slightly widened (approximately 28 feet) to further screen the parking garage. The North Tower was moved 40 feet to the west to provide a greater setback from Airport Boulevard. The northeastern corner of the parking garage was reconfigured to reduce its visibility, and includes a metal "screen" (as discussed under Design Review, below), and additional landscaping to stealth and frame its view. Considerable changes have been made to the architecture of the towers also discussed under Design Review, below. The Planning Commission, during their September 21, 2006 meeting, noted strong appreciation for the architecture as well as concern that the project be built as it is represented (i.e., no value engineering). The Commission repeated this concern numerous times during the proceedings and during the discussion of the motion for approval. General Condition of Approval #3 addresses this issue to some degree. The condition requires a development retainer, should the Project be approved, to provide funding for both landscape and architectural peer review of construction plans, if needed. The phasing of the project and what would occur if only one phase were built. Considerable concern was expressed with respect to the potential for project phasing. The screening of the garage at its southern edge and the visibility of retaining walls in the northern area of the project site was repeatedly expressed as a concern. Commissioner Sim underscored this concern at all the meetings on the Project. With respect to screening, larger box size trees would be planted during Phase I along the frontage of Airport Boulevard, on the western property boundary and on the southern portion of the garage. A combination of trees, Lombardy Poplar and Coast Live Oak, would be planted. The Lombardy Poplar is a fast grower, but a smaller specimen tree (15 gallon). The Lombardy Poplar would be approximately 10 feet in height with an 18 inch spread when planted and would grow approximately six feet a year. The Coast Live Oak is a larger specimen tree (48"- box) approximately 16 feet tall at planting, and is a slower grower than the Poplar. The trees are proposed to be planted on landscape berms and in double-row triangulation which would stealth the garage and northern portion of the site during phasing. The landscaping would be required to be installed immediately after grading operations as a part of Condition of Approval A-22. Condition of Approval A-22 requires that the project be essentially a "complete project" should the project be phased. This condition requires landscaping, public art and outdoor areas on the North Tower area of the Project site to be in place at the end of Phase I construction should the Project be phased. Condition of Approval A-22 also requires that the child care, performing arts facility and moderate income units be completed in Phase L The appropriateness for an office use west of 101. Some earlier discussion focused on the appropriateness of an office use west of 101 and the desire to have a hotel on the site. The approved general plan land use and zoning designations for the site are office. Proposed revisions to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan language include the opportunity for a hotel on the site. (See the recommended zoning text amendments, below, and Attachments ILA and IlLB.) The reduced size of the child care center from that in the approved 2000 Project. The 2006 Project plans provide for a 100-child facility within 5,000 square feet of indoor space and 7,500 square feet of outdoor Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 5 play area. The 2000 Plan was sized for 9,000 square feet of interior space and 4,000 square feet of exterior space. Myers Development provided a plan within the 5,000 square feet of area proposed and presented it to the Planning Commission on September 7, 2006. The Planning Commission recommends Condition of Approval A-21 to require the applicant to submit evidence sufficient to the Chief Planner and Chief Building Official that the space as designed or expanded is adequate to meet state licensing requirements as a "turn-key" facility. A construction phasing plan that mitigates any impacts to the child care center is also required. The storage space, dressing area and size of the shared use performing artsfacilily and the potentialfor the allocated size to be inadequate. One Commissioner discussed the need for a larger performing arts facility including additional storage, stage and backstage area. Initially, the shared use performing arts facility was proposed to be 150 seats (as approved in the existing 2000 entitlements), but has now been expanded to 200 seats. The current 2000 entitlement did not specify backstage area, exclusive storage area or stage area. These items were anticipated to be negotiated through the "use agreement". The 2006 Project, as reviewed by the Planning Commission, includes 720 square feet of stage area, a shared 4,500 square foot pre- function area, 420 square feet of exclusive storage area (in addition to 320 square feet of shared storage), 500 square feet of back stage area and dedicated lights and sound equipment. The conditions of approval require the space to be constructed with "acoustic considerations", meaning an environment appropriate to performances. Planning staff added the condition to require fixed, stadium style seating to enhance and facilitate viewing of the stage. The Planning Commission did not modify this condition. In summary: TABLE 2 PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY COMPARISON 2000 Approved 2006 Project as Plan Modified by the Plannin2 Commission Seats 150 200 Dedicated Private Storage 0 420 square feet Shared Storage Not specified 320 square feet Stage Area Not specified 720 square feet mlmmum Pre-function Area Not specified 4,500 square feet shared lobby Backstage Area Not specified 500 square feet Lighting/Sound Not specified Dedicated sound and lighting booth The Applicant is requesting modification of condition A-I 7 to relieve the requirement for fixed, stadium style seating in the shared use performing arts facility. The Applicant states in the appeal request that non-fixed and non-stadium seating would provide more flexibility for a variety of art, cultural and office functions in the shared-use facility. The Planning Commission Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 6 did not express a strong opinion with respect to seating preferences during the Applicant's detailed presentation of the shared use performing arts facility and its movable seating program. Provision of the 32 moderate income housing units off-site. Discussions emphasized the importance of delivery of the moderate income housing units. Some Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction that the moderate income units were not already constructed. This concern is reflected in Commissioner Teglia's motion, the Commission discussion and vote, and Condition of Approval A-20. The Planning Commission motion of approval includes the requirement to produce the moderate income units prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase office tower. As a point of comparison, the current development agreement (DA) governing the existing entitlement, which is due to expire February 14,2007, stipulates that the units shall be produced within 15 months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the office tower. Therefore, the current Condition of Approval (A-20) is more restrictive than the existing DA. The Applicant is requesting an appeal of condition A-20, and requests that: Prior to certificate of occupancy on the first phase office tower: · Land for the 32 units will have been acquired. · Entitlements for the 32 units shall have been secured. · Construction of the 32 units shall have been commenced. · A Set Aside Letter from their construction lender assuring availability of the specific sums required to complete construction of the units shall be provided to the City. · The units will be completed within 15 months of the certificate of occupancy for the first office tower or the funds available from the lender for the production of the units would be available to the City for completion of the units. The Planning Commission's concern was to ensure the production ofthe moderate income units. Council may desire to consider requiring that the Set Aside Letter be in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of constructing the units and that the applicant execute an agreement (such as the Housing Agreement required by Condition of Approval A-20) with the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, that would authorize the City or its agent to enter the property and complete the improvements with the funds provided by the set aside letter of credit. Remaining Concerns: Other concerns focused on traffic and circulation questions and concerns. Crane Transportation Group, the environmental document and stipulations in the zoning ordinance address these concerns as shown in the minutes of the meetings (Attachment VII). Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 7 ANAL YSIS Design Review Architecture The "North Tower" is proposed at 21 stories with its highest elevation at 360 feet above mean sea level. The "South Tower" is proposed at 12 stories with its highest elevation at 250 feet above mean sea level. The highest points enhance a design element that the applicant states is in response to the concerns expresses by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission during their joint study session on the proposal August I, 2006. Other changes have been made to the original project submittal in response to Planning Commission concerns and direction. Most notably, the performing arts facility is proposed to include 200 seats as opposed to 150 seats. The placement of the North Tower has been moved to the west 40 feet to increase the setback from Airport Boulevard and additional landscaping and architectural treatment is proposed for the garage, as noted below. Additionally: 1. The translucent fin that runs up the North Tower has a diagonal geometry, sloping back to the south as the building rises. The angle of the fin on the North Tower is deliberately closer to vertical than the fin on the South Tower; a feature to provide a dynamic interplay between the towers. 2. The translucent fin that runs up the South Tower has a diagonal geometry, sloping forward and cantilevering to the south as the building rises. 3. The highest point of each building is where the fin meets the parapet; the height of the parapet varies and undulates around each building. 4. The north and east facing elevations of both towers are smooth, minimalist curtainwalls with a very high percentage of vision glass. The curtainwall becomes increasingly complex and detailed, with an increasingly dense series of horizontal aluminum elements providing solar shading, and casting shadows onto the facades as the curtainwalls transition around the buildings from east, to north, west, and south. This transition of the fac;ade creates a contrast where the curtainwalls overlap at the diagonal fins. 5. There is a single "punched" area that occurs only once on the lower floors in each office tower. These emblematic spaces provide an accessible balcony space for a tenant on that lower floor of the building. 6. The garage is proposed to include a "metal screen" attached to the fac;ade and four feet from the plane of the fayade of the garage. The metal screen will produce a shimmer and depth in response to the Planning Commission comments. The metal screen is designed to interplay with sunlight and will create a translucence in some area while remaining opaque in others. The transformation will occur as the angle of the sun changes. This design element, difficult to describe in words, will be demonstrated by the applicant during the October 11 meeting. The most visible areas of the garage are proposed to be treated with the screen. The southern portion of the garage, not a focal point, would be stealthed by additional large specimen landscaping as noted in the Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 8 "Background" discussion, above. A combination ofthe two garage treatments would either direct views or stealth views of the garage, where appropriate, while reducing its perceived mass. Landscape Architecture According to Cliff Lowe and Associates, their plant selection process began with reference to plant lists compiled by Friends of San Bruno Mountain, and "Flora of San Bruno Mountain" written by the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. The Mandalay Terrace project includes two planting zones: the steep hillside where "restoration" plantings are proposed, and the plaza surrounding the proposed two new buildings where a more "ornate" landscape palette is proposed. The plants selected for the hillside must therefore be particularly adaptable to the site. Native species such as Toyon and Coyote Bush, which are plants currently thriving on the mountain, are included in the landscape palette proposed for the hillside areas. Coast Live Oak, a native tree which is well-suited to the site, and Afghan Pine, a tree recommended by the City of South San Francisco Design Review Board, are also proposed for the hillside areas. Other native shrubs and grasses, such as Manzanita, California Fescue and other grassland species, are proposed to fill out the hillside planting scheme. The plaza area is defined by the Brisbane Box tree. Although it is not a native, it is suited to the conditions of the site and is an attractive, upright evergreen tree with flowers in summer and proper scale with the buildings, auto plaza and pedestrian spaces. The plaza shrub areas are proposed to be based on a native plant palette so it will be in keeping with the mountain landscape, use minimal water, and tolerate the windy conditions of the site. More ornamental plants are proposed to be used as transitional plantings between the more heavily used pedestrian areas. Additionally, since pedestrian areas would receive more maintenance and be a major part of the experience of the project, the plants selected are more refined. Flowering native shrubs such as Ribes, Penstemon, and Santolina define the primary pedestrian spaces of the project. The slope between the plaza and Airport Boulevard is conceived as a meadow of native grasses and flowering perennials, including California Fescue, Deer Grass, Pacific Coast Iris and California Poppy, and curving bands of Ceanothus, an attractive, mounding shrub with purple flowers. Environmental Documentation Staff prepared an addendum to the 2005 SEIR which tiers from the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) permits an addendum to a SEIR or EIR in certain circumstances. The circumstances are: No substantial changes in the environment have occurred; No major revisions are required to the SEIR; and No new or increased impacts or new information has occurred since the preparation of the SEIR. Therefore, an addendum was prepared to document the minor changes in the 2005 SEIR that are needed to address the 2006 Project. The Planning Commission resolution (Attachment IV) and the 2006 Addendum (Attachment VIII) document the required CEQA analysis and findings pursuant to Section 15164, noted above. The City's traffic consultant, Crane Transportation Group, conducted a traffic analysis for the 2006 Project and compared it to the impacts and mitigations identified in the 2005 SEIR. The proposed project has similar impacts to the 1998/99 SEIR and in every case impacts that are substantially less than those identified in the 2005 SEIR. Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 9 The 2006 Project would have the same air quality and traffic impacts associated with the entitled 2000 Project. The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations for Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality (Impact 4.5-3 998/99 SEIR), Traffic Impact Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-1 1998/99 SEIR), 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-4 1998/99 SEIR) and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps (Impact 4.4-5 1998/99 SEIR) on November 21,2000 by Resolution 147-2200 for these impacts. The environmental resolutions re-state the findings of overriding considerations for the 2006 Project. The recommended MMRP (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) is attached to the staff report as Attachment IX. The MMRP contains mitigations from the 1982 EIR and the 1996, 1998/99 and 2005 SEIR's that are applicable to the 2006 Project. In some cases the MMRP will reference a mitigation measure that has been completed for previous phases ofT errabay (particularly with respect to Geology and Soils) but is being carried over to the design aspects for Phase III. These mitigations have been proven to be successful and have been in place in some instances for 15 to 20 years. Some of the mitigations for Phase III have already been completed as a part of previous Terrabay phases (such as the payment of traffic improvement fees or the dedication ofland). The MMRP is a working document and will be implemented and updated by staff. Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) The draft TDM Program is included in Exhibit III.C. The TDM Program, recommended by the Planning Commission includes the provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.120. A Final TDM Program is required by Ordinance and the conditions of approval, to be submitted to the Chief Planner for final review and approval. The draft TDM Program includes the provisions for a Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs, etc. Financial incentives, bicycle parking, reduced parking supply, guaranteed ride home program and promotion of flex time are other elements of the TDM Program. A 30% mode shift is required for the 2006 Project. Zoning Text Amendments The proposed zoning text amendments include updating the Terrabay Specific Plan District to conform to the City's updated Municipal Code as well as development standards for the 2006 Project. Otherrevisions include minor corrections from typographical errors or names, sections that are out of date and not applicable and corrections on names of neighborhoods. Attachment II.C includes the recommended Terrabay Specific Plan District amendments in their context and entirety. The development standards for the 2006 Project allow for a maximum height of 260 feet for the North Tower which conforms to the City's General Plan. Other standards include a 200 seat shared-use performing arts facility, updated parking requirements at a 2.81/1,000 gross square foot ratio and retaining a hotel land use as a permitted use on the site. The Planning Commission emphasized the importance of quality retail including the restaurant(s). The Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District amendments recommended by the Planning Commission include the types and quality of restaurant, office and potential hotel uses that are permitted. The recommended zoning language is excerpted in the following: Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 10 (7) High quality commercial and restaurant uses recognized nationally by their name are permitted commercial retail uses on the Phase III Commercial site. Businesses such as Baja Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheesecake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and II Fornaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the Phase III site. Specialty services such as computer stores, office supply, book stores, retail dry cleaner outlets, shoe repair, florists, specialty high-end grocery and/or deli uses, sundry shops, boutiques and similar uses are permitted support uses. These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of retail uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the proposed use is substantially equivalent to the uses and retailers listed above. No fast food drive through restaurants are permitted on the Phase III site. Medical office and associated uses are not permitted on the ground floor. Retail oriented financial or business serving uses that support commercial retail such as Automatic Teller Machines (A TM's) are permitted with approval of a use permit on the ground floor and provided that these types of uses can be shown to be of benefit to the employees of the site and do not exceed 10 percent of the ground floor retail space. (8) Class A Office buildings for office gross square footage of 665,028 square feet; (11) Performing arts facility (200 seat minimum) within the office building; (12) Child care center serving a minimum of 100 children with outdoor play area; (13) Hotel, four star or better. Any hotel shall be developed, constructed and maintained to satisfy all requirements necessary to meet a four diamond rating as established by the Diamond Rating Guidelines published by the American Automobile Association in place as of the effective date. Specific Plan and Precise Plan Amendment Conformance with the City's General Plan The proposed specific plan land uses, Business Commercial and Retail Commercial, conform to the land uses identified for the site that are contained in the City's General Plan. The proposed land uses also conform to the approved Terrabay Final Specific Plan (adopted in 2000). The Terrabay Specific and Precise Plan amendments are required in order to configure the 665,000 square feet of office in two towers and to increase the retail component. Pursuant. to state law, the existing and approved 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan includes the distribution, location, and extent of the land uses within the area covered by the plan. The Specific Plan also shows the distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. The Specific Plan includes the standards and criteria by which the development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs are also either completed or contained in the Specific Plan. The Specific Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 11 Plan contains a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan. The amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan is shown in Attachment III, Exhibit C. The amendment would reflect the 2006 Project as shown in the 2006 Terrabay Precise Plan and would only amend the Phase III portion of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The August 17, 2006 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment IV), the Planning Commission resolution of September 21,2006 and the draft City Council resolution identify the 2006 Project conformance with various land use and land use policies contained in the General Plan. The 2006 Project implements land use, conservation, transportation, planning sub-area, parks, public facilities and services and open space and conservation guiding and implementing policies contained in the City's General Plan. Habitat Conservation Plan and Airport Land Use Plan Conformance Habitat Conservation Plan The boundaries ofthe Terrabay Specific Plan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (Plan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing were noticed pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. The proposed 2006 Terrabay Phase III Only Precise Plan identifies limits of grading on approximately 13 acres ofland which is within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III. The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (July 12,2006). Airport Land Use Plan Compliance The Terrabay Phase III Only project site is not located within the current Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman, C/CAG letter dated October 14, 2005 and Dave Carbone, letters dated June 16, 2005 and November 22,2005). Therefore ALUC compliance review is not required. Additionally, office land uses are not considered a "noise sensitive" land use. CONCLUSION The 2006 Project conforms to the City's General Plan. The proposed re-configuration of land use conforms to the types of land uses stipulated for the site in the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The zoning text amendments contain appropriate design requirements for the 2006 Project. The TDM Program complies with the City's Ordinance. The limits of grading conform to the Habitat Conservation Plan and the site is not within the Airport Land Use Commission Airport Influence Area boundary. The Terrabay Project over the years has dedicated land for open space and recreation, built a fire station and recreation center, constructed privately maintained streets, water, wastewater and storm Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 12 drain facilities and participated in the funding the Oyster Point Interchange improvements. The 2006 Project is the final phase of Terrabay. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2006 Project (5-1-1) and staff recommends upholding their recommendation as well as retaining Conditions of Approval A-17 and A-20 as recommended by the Commission. In doing so, the City Council would be approving the 2006 Project, certifying the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum, and denying the Applicant's appeal of the two conditions of approval. BY:~ Marty VanDuyn. Assistant City Manager Attachments: I. City Council Resolution Certifying the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Consideration of the 2006 Addendum with Exhibits: A. Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Impacts. B. Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in the 2005 SEIR II. City Council Ordinance Amending the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code with Exhibit: A. Text Amendments to Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code III. City Council Resolution Approving the 2006 Amendments to the Terrabay Final Specific Plan and Precise Plan with Conditions of approval with Exhibits. A. Conditions of Project Approval B. Specific Plan Amendments C. Draft Transportation Demand Management Program. IV. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2658-2006 Recommending Certification of the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Consideration of the 2006 Addendum. V. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2659-2006 Recommending Approval of the Terrabay 2006 Project Precise Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Text Amendments VI. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 21, September 7, and August 17, 2006. VII. Minutes a. Planning Commission Minutes from September 21, September 7, and August 17, 2006 Public Hearing. b. August 1, 2006 Joint Planning Commission/Design Review Board Meeting Staff Report: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project Page 13 c. Design Review Board of May 16, 2006 and June 20, 2006 VIII. 2005 Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum. IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. X. Plans XI. Applicant's appeal dated September 26,2006. RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS MODIFIED BY THE 2006 ADDENDUM FOR TERRABA Y, INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, ARE-STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE 1998/99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE 1996 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 1998-99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT NOT FURTHER ANAL YZED IN THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE REMAINING PHASE III PARCELOF THE TERRABA Y DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of the Terrabay Development ("the Proposal") as an office and retail commercial project (2006 Project) as the final segment of the three-phase development project ("the Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Project is divided into three separate phases, of which the 2006 Project is the third and final phase; and, WHEREAS, the entirety of the Terrabay/ Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents, including the 1982 Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report ("the 1982 EIR"), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement ("the 1996 SEIR") and the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 1998/99 SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, the 20056 Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining Terrabay Development parcel consisting of office and commercial land uses; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for 665,000 gross square feet of office, 24,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, a performing arts facility shared with the office conference room, a 100 child day care center, a Transportation Demand Management Program and a Public Arts Program as well as an option for a hotel; WHEREAS, the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 2005 SEIR") and its 2006 Addendum as submitted supplements and builds upon the previous 1 - 1 - environmental analyses, and focuses on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes three alternatives to the 2005 Project, including a existing conditions alternative, a hotel alternative, and a residential alternative to the 2005 Project; and, WHEREAS, previous 1996 and 1998/99 SEIR's and the 1982 EIR analyzed the following alternatives: No Development, assumes no development would occur on the site; Existing 1996 Specific Plan, assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant; Reduced Residential, assumes 316 residential units and no commercial; Reduced Commercial, assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential; Permanent Open Space, assumes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space; and Mitigated Plan Development, assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes the impacts of the 2005 Project in relation to the impacts identified in the 1998-1999 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR addresses the change in development intensity and the different impacts associated with the 2005 Project and its alternatives; and, WHEREAS, the public review period on the draft 2005 SEIR commenced on August 30, 2005 and closed on October 14, 2005. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft 2005 SEIR on October 6th, 2005. One public comment was received during the public hearing. Nine comment letters were received during the 45-day review period. All comments are responded to in the draft Final SEIR. Two letters, C/CAG and the San Francisco International Airport relate to noise. PG&E provided a standard comment letter with respect developer requirements. The Town of Colma and the San Mateo County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. California Department of Transportation sent a letter requesting 95th percentile analysis of the Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps, Bayshore/Central Project Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport, Oyster Point/Dubuque and Debuque/1 0 1 Ramps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the 2005 Final SEIR. Mountain Watch commented on protocols for planting, weeding and maintenance to be included in the CC&R' s for Phase III and a mowing regimen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comments underscore the objectives of the City. Two letters commented on the merits of the project and one of the two had an overall question on traffic; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft SEIR, providing a good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published in a Final ? -2- SEIR dated November 30, 2005, and were distributed or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies and other interested parties. WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA S21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are impacts of the 2005 Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon approval; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR , as a supplement to the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, did not reanalyze impacts of the 2005 project which were not significantly different from the 2000 Project impacts analyzed in the previous environmental analyses. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (public Resources Code g21166; CEQA Guidelines g 15163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 are made for each of these impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 ErR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the 2005 Project were examined and are deliberately different from the alternatives in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Project was withdrawn by the Applicant and a new application identified as the 2006 Project was submitted by the Applicant; and, WHEREAS, the 2006 Project was further analyzed in an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA which included an updated traffic and circulation analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group (August 21,2006); and, WHEREAS, based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Study it was found that the 2006 Project would result in less environmental impacts than the 2005 Project and Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, pursuant Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter an Addendum to an existing SEIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary < -3- to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements Section 15162 no substantial changes in the 2006 Project have occurred that would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the 2006 Project would be undertaken would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur; and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available that was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more sever than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter an Addendum to the 2005 SEIR was prepared for consideration along with the Final 2005 SEIR; and WHEREAS, there are no new significant unavoidable impacts associated with the 2006 Project beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations for Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality (Impact 4.5-3 998/99 SEIR), Traffic Impact Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-1 1998/99 SEIR), 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-4 1998/99 SEIR) and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps (Impact 4.4-5 1998/99 SEIR) on November 21,2000 by Resolution 147-2200 WHEREAS, CEQA 921081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be adopted upon 2006 Project approval, at the precise plan stage, to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, WHEREAS, the above-referenced mitigation and monitoring program shall be submitted concurrently with the precise plan for the Terrabay Phase III site; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision on entitlements relating to the 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, <1 -4- WHEREAS, the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 2005 SEIR as restated in the 2006 Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2006 Project will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby certifies the 2005 SEIR and the following relating to development of Phase III of the Terrabay project: 1. The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C should be adopted as Conditions of Project approval. 2. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. Exhibit A: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit C: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 2005 SEIR Exhibit D: 2005 Final SEIR and 2006 Addendum * * * * * * " -5- I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of , 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Sylvia Payne City Clerk fi -6- EXHIBIT A Terrabay Phase III Only 2006 Project Approvals Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Less Than Significant Impacts (As recommended by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) Pursuant to Public Resources Code g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091, the following findings address the Terrabay Phase III project's ("2006 Project") significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. The 2006 Project allows for a and office and commercial development that includes a 100 child day care center, 200 seat shared use performing arts center, public arts program, a Transportation Demand Management Program and 32 off site moderate income units (120% of median). In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the 2005 Project and the SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This City Council intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the 2006 Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings, or findings elsewhere in the record. 3. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the 2006 Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the 2006 Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of is impossible. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states that "the sufficiency of an SEIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the 2006 Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the City Council's analysis has Page 1 of15 -7 - had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to fonn accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of infonnation in the findings to follow are based on the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum, the 2006 Project and/or other evidence in the record as a whole. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and other evidence such as City Council resolutions or actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures recommended in the 2005 SEIR as they apply to the down sized 2006 Project for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the 2006 Project and others by adoption of standards in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan Amendment and/or as approval conditions that shall be incorporated in the Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Phase III. In its actions approving the 2006 Project, the City Council recommends adoption of those mitigation measures recommended in the 2005 SEIR, as revised the 2006 Addendum and by the City Council, that have not already been incorporated into the 2006 Project, except with respect to those that are rejected by the City Council in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified (e.g., if mitigation measures are identified as options or alternatives). This City Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the 2006 Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the 2006 Project in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be submitted concurrently with the Precise Plan. 6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The 2005 SEIR recommended mitigation measures for a more intense land use than that proposed by the Applicant in 2006. The 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum recommend mitigation measures to reduce -8- Page 2 of 15 most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum, revised some of the proposed mitigations, and agree with the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum conclusions, as revised by the City Council. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City Council finds that mitigation has occurred; the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 7. Findings Relate to Phase III and Cumulative Impacts of Phase III Only. The City Council is considering at this time recommending approval of the Phase III Only 2006 Project entitlements. Therefore, these findings relate to Phase III impacts and cumulative impacts. In assessing the cumulative impacts of the 2006 Project, the project considered include Phase I and Phase II of the Terrabay Project and those projects identified in the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. Phase III was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR on a project EIR level as a component of Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project. The level of analysis of Phase III in the 1998/99 SEIR went beyond the requirements of cumulative impacts under CEQA. The 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. For the purposes of these findings, the impacts of Phase III for the cumulative analysis will be evaluated based on the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan analyzed in the 2005 SEIR as modified in the 2006 Addendum. However, the SEIR includes information to analyze the 2005 Project and cumulative impacts of any of the included Phase III alternatives in the document. Based on this information and analysis, the City Council may approve any of the alternatives for Phase III in the 2005 SEIR, or any Phase III Project as long as the impacts of the project, as mitigated, do not exceed the impacts analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted at the time it considers the Phase III project or modifications thereto. 8. Incorporation and Use of Prior EIR's for Proiect. The 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum is a Supplemental EIR to the four prior environmental impact reports prepared for the Terrabay Project: the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project ("1982 EIR"), the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension ("1996 SEIR") the Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("1998/99 SEIR") and an 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR ("2000 Addendum"). The 2005 SEIR and its Addendum is a project EIR for Phase III of the Terrabay Project. The 2005 SEIR and its Addendum analyzes all potentially significant environmental effects resulting from proposed changes to the development for the Phase III 2006 Project of the Terrabay Project from the project approved under the Terrabay Specific Plan (as amended in 2000) and changes in environmental conditions under which the 2006 Project would be undertaken from those analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto. The 2005 SEIR and its Addendum does not re-analyze those impacts of the 2005 Project and subsequently the 2006 Project that are not significantly different from the impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, the1996 SEIR or the 1998/99 SEIR and - 9- Page 3 of 15 Addendum thereto. The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum thereto also incorporates by reference the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto and other prior environmental assessments and environmental impacts reports certified for the 2006 Project and related activities. The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22, 2005). Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (July 12, 2006). The Airport Land Use Commission concluded that the Phase III project site does not fall within the Airport Influence Area for the San Francisco International Airport as contained in letters dated June 16, 2005, October 14,2005 and November 22,2005. 9. Based on the foregoing, the impacts of the 2006 Project listed below are not significantly different from the 2000 Office Project impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR or the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto. No further analysis of these impacts was required in the 2005 SEIR and its Addendum thereto because the 2006 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code S 21166; CEQA Guidelines S 15091). The following impact analyses, determinations of significance, and mitigations are incorporated by reference from the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto to the extent they do not conflict with the analysis and mitigation measures in the SEIR: agricultural resources (1998/99 SEIR); biological resources (1998/99 SEIR); cultural resources (1998/99 SEIR), geology and soils (1998/99 SEIR), hazards and hazardous materials (1982 EIR and 1998/99 SEIR), hydrology/ water quality (1998/99 SEIR), land use planning (1998/99 SEIR), mineral resources (2002 General Plan); population! housing (1998/99 SEIR), and recreation (1998/99 SEIR). Attached hereto as Exhibit C are findings relating to these incorporated impacts analysis and mitigation measures in the previous environmental analyses. 10. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the 2006 Project, including without limitation, applications for the Phase III Only Specific Plan Amendment, Precise Plan Amendment, CC&Rs, and Amended and Restated Development Agreement submitted to the City; B. The 2006 Terrabay Phase III-Only Precise Plan, Development Agreement (1988) as amended, and Phase I Precise Plan (1989); C. The 1.982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto and other environmental reports referred to in the 2005 SEIR and its Addendum; -10- Page 4 of 15 D. The 2005 SEIR as certified by the City Council, consisting of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR (the Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR) and its Addendum; E. All staff reports on the Project and the SEIR; F. All studies conducted for the Project and SEIR including, but not limited to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or SEIR; G. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission; H. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and study sessions related to the Project and the SEIR before the Planning Commission and the City Council; I. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited to: 1. The City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. The City's fiscal status; 3. City policies and regulations; 4. Reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. Aesthetics Impact 3.5.1 Night lighting would be introduced at the Project site The 2005 SEIR analyzed a 2005 Project that would include two high-rise towers and a retail component which can be expected to include visible signage advertising the retail uses. Given the mix of residential, office and retail use, it is anticipated that night-lighting and glare could be potentially significant. The high-rise towers would be visible from nearby residential development and U.S. 101. Use of reflective materials could result in significant glare that could affect the visibility of drivers on U.S. 101. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 The 2006 Project shall not include reflective building materials. Windows shall be non-reflective glass. Metals shall be fmished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. - 11- Page 5 of 15 Street lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in compliance with the Terrabay Specific Plan. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project does not propose a 24/7 land use or residential uses and as such would reduce light spillage from the site. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The use of non-reflective materials will reduce the effect of glare that could potentially impact drivers on 101. Air Oualitv Impact 3.2.1 Construction Activities would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PMlO Construction activities would generate dust, especially during excavation and grading of hillsides and hauling of material. This type of activity has the potential to affect local air quality temporarily, as well as create a nuisance to existing and new residents. The primary pollutant of concern is PMIO which is a component of dust. Dust emissions would be generated primarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movement of material (both on- and off- site). This would be a potentially significant impact. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as 3.2-1 requires: · All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. · All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. -12- Page 6 of 15 . Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydro seeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. . Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. . Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph) . Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. . Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). . Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. . Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The numerous measures to be implemented to reduce dust and other air pollutant emissions will reduce construction-phase air pollution impacts to less than significant levels. The measures comport with guidelines as promulgated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and will reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than significant level. Noise Impact 3.3-1 Noise from construction activities could be elevated in the 2006 Project area during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 The following measures shall be required to reduce the project's short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: -13- Page 7 of 15 · Construction Scheduling Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic going to and from the site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be limited to the hours stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays. · Mujjlers and Maintenance All equipment used on the project site shall be adequately muffled and maintained. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers, which are in good condition. Use of good mufflers with quieted compressors on all non-impact tools should result in a maximum noise level of 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. · Idling Prohibitions Powered construction equipment shall be turned off when not III use. · Equipment Location and Shielding Stationary noise-generating construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from nearby residences. · Noise Disturbance Coordinator A project construction supervisor shall be designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise (as was done for Phase I site development). The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator also shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site Finding;. Construction noise impacts are unlikely given the dominate source of noise in the 2006 Project area generates from the freeway and that residential land uses are approximately 900 feet from the construction site. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Rationale. The 900 foot separation of construction activities from sensitive receptors along with restrictions on construction activities as identified in the mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Impact 3.3.2: The 2005 Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area or within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the C/CAG ALUC. Although the 2006 Project is not within a noise impact area, and is not proposing residential land uses, aircraft activities may still disturb some occupants, users and/or residents of the 2006 Terrabay Phase III Only Project site. Requiring an airport noise -14- Page 8 of 15 disclaimer as was required in Terrabay Phase I and II would serve to inform those that may be more sensitive to noise of the potential annoyance. Mitigation Measure 3.3.2: The City shall require an airport disclaimer in the CC&R's for 2006 Terrabay Phase III Only lease and sale documents that mirrors the language contained in the CC&R's for Phases I and II of Terra bay. Finding: The disclaimer, although not required under CEQA, would serve to inform those whom may be more sensitive to aircraft noise sources. No impact. Rationale. The airport disclaimer will allow the project applicant to inform those who may be more sensitive to aircraft related noise of the potential annoyance. The disclaimer was requested by the San Francisco International Airport on the 2005 Project. Public Services and Utilities Impact 3.4.1 Increased Demandfor Police Services The South San Francisco Police Department evaluated the 2006 Project. The 2006 Project would result in fewer impacts than that in the 2005 Project. However, there would still be a requirement to augment police staffing due to the location of the 2006 Project site and police response times. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 2005 SEIR (4.7-21998/99 SEIR) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR would be required for the 2006 Project. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. Rationale. Direct mechanisms for reimbursement for necessary additional police services and equipment ensure that related costs shall be borne by the Project applicant. Cooperation with the City's police department will ensure thoughtful and effective site design and configuration for security purposes. The timing for in lieu fees and costs for additional officers is identified as a condition of 2006 Project approval. -15- Page 9 of 15 Impact 4.7-6 Increased Demand for Police Services- Cumulative Impact Cumulative development (Terrabay Phases I, II and III) would impact police services to the site. Mitigation Measure 4. 7-6from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR Mitigations The Applicant shall fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cumulative development impacts. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. The timing of the funding for the staff and vehicle is identified in the conditions of 2006 Project approval. As mitigated this impact would be less than significant. Rationale. Direct mechanisms for reimbursement for necessary additional security services ensure that related costs shall be borne by the Project applicant. Cooperation with the City's police department will ensure thoughtful and effective site design and configuration for security purposes. The timing for in lieu fees for additional officers is identified in the conditions 2006 Project approval. Impact 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 The 2006 Project site is within the radio communication shadow of San Bruno Mountain. Poor signal strength and reception sites due to topography impede radio transmissions to the Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-41998/99 SEIR and 3.10-32005 SEIR The 2006 Project Applicant shall provide a rooftop communications repeater and related equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by SSFFD. Communication equipment shall be installed during Phase One of Phase III. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs of equipment for three years from the installation date. After the three-year period, the City of South San Francisco shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With -16- Page 10 of 15 the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The relay equipment is needed it shall be installed prior to the Applicant receiving a certificate of occupancy for the first office tower in the 2006 Project. Traffic and Circulation Impact. 3.1-5 (a) and (b) Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts Queuing impacts would occur at Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point and Dubuque Intersections for both the 50th and 95th percentiles occur. Mitigation 3.1-5 (b) Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 250 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. The mitigation measure shown below is increased to 325 feet to mitigate the 95th percentile for conditions in the year 2020. Finding: The impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the required mitigation measure. The Engineering Division has included this 325 foot lengthening and or re-striping of Sister Cities Boulevard as a condition of project approval. Impact 3.1-5 (a) and (b) was a significant unavoidable impact with the 2005 Project and can be mitigated in the 2006 Project. Rational: The Applicant shall provide a bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Engineer for the timing of the widening of the turn lane. Impact 3.1-9 (a) and (b) Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts Queuing impacts would occur at Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point and Dubuque Intersections for both the 50th and 95th percentiles occur. Queuing impacts could occur at the 2006 Project access and Airport Boulevard. Mitigation 3.1-9 (b) Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 325 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. The required mitigation is for the worst-case 95th percentile in the year 2020. Airport Project Access: Mitigations include lengthening the left turn lane on the Airport Boulevard approach to the 2006 Project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the left turn lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Oyster -17- Page 11 of 15 Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are 1) striping the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the Project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane and provide split phase signalization; or 2) widening Airport Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard Finding: The impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the required mitigation measure. The Engineering Division has included the widening of the left turn pocket as a condition of project approval. The Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District contains draft language to accommodate the widening of the Project driveway access and the first internal intersection on the Project site. The language will become law upon City Council adopting the Ordinance to approve the revisions. Impact 3.1-9 (a) and (b) was a significant unavoidable impact with the 2005 Project and can be mitigated in the 2006 Project. Rational: The Applicant shall provide a bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Engineer for the widening of the turn lane. The 2006 Project is designed to accommodate the right-of-way stipulated for additional turn lanes into the Project. Impact 3.1-11 on Site Circulation Pedestrian crossings at the first on-site 2006 Project intersection could disrupt traffic flow. Mitigation 3.1-11 A "walk/don't walk" signal for pedestrians is identified as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.1-102005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking impacts, the first intersection on the site shall be monitored after full project completion and occupancy. The monitoring shall be funded through a developer pass-through account. Backups off the project site or driver confusion will result in signalizing the internal intersection with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access intersection with Airport Boulevard. Additionally, as stated above, there is be adequate right-of-way area to provide either an exclusive right turn lane and/or an exclusive left turn lane on the inbound driveway approach to the first internal intersection should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so. Also, right-of-way will be provided on the outbound driveway approach to Airport Boulevard to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). The Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District contains draft language to accommodate the widening of this first internal intersection on the Project site, as well as the 2006 Project entry driveway. The language will become law upon City Council adopting the Ordinance to approve the revisions. -18- Page 12 of 15 Finding: The TDM Program requires monitoring of parking and circulation on the site which is in addition to the requirement of this mitigation measure. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance contains language requiring the adequate amount of right-of-way on the 2006 Project site to widen both the Airport!Project intersection and the internal intersection that is on the Project site. This impact would be less than significant with the mitigations required. Rational: There is adequate area for the required mitigation measures. The mitigations are stipulated in the TDM Program and the Zoning Ordinance for Terrabay. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The City Council finds that all other impacts of the 2006 Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIRs and their Addenda, and the 1982 EIR and/or supported by evidence elsewhere in the record as a whole. In some cases, the SEIR has suggested mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts. Therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. Some of the less than significant impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR are impacts that the SEIR identified as potentially significant or significant, but recommended mitigation measures reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE 2005 SEIR NOT APPLICABLE TO THE 2006 PROJECT Aesthetics Impact and Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 which addresses night lighting mitigations to protect residential uses on the Phase III site. Finding: The 2006 Project does not propose residential land uses. Noise Impact and Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Increases in Traffic Noise in 2020. The expected increase in traffic noise due to the 2005 Project generated traffic was calculated based on the traffic projections for a larger mixed-use project that included residential uses. Finding: The 2006 Project does not include residential uses and is similar in scope to that of the 2000 Project, not the 2005 Project. The 2006 Project would not increase noise above that identified in the 1998/99 SEIR due to the reductions size and the elimination of residential land uses in the 2006 Project. -19- Page 13 ofl5 Noise Impact and Mitigation 3.3.4 Project Generated Mechanical Equipment Noise The 2005 Project involved mixed use development which introduced the potential for stationary noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect the noise sensitive residential uses. The most likely sources of noise impact would be from outdoor mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. This is a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Finding: Noise mitigation is not required based upon the proposed land use. Additionally the City's Design Review Board required shielding of mechanical equipment. The City's Municipal Code requires 2006 Project conformance with the City's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night at multiple-family residential uses. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.1 Increased Demand for Police Services The 2005 Project was a larger more intense land use than the 2006 Project. FindingLThe Police Department has determined that absence of both the movie theatre and the 24/7 lifestyle activities proposed in the 2005 Project reduces the impacts to police services and six new officers are not needed. Additionally, the 2006 Project applicant shall incorporate recommendations from the SSFPD into their site design and operations that affect crime prevention, security, traffic safety and other concerns as a condition of 2006 Project approval. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.2 Increased Demand for Fire Services Development of the 2005 Project would increase call volumes, including rescue and medical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees and visitors to the site. The site location, construction type, occupancy type, and high concentration of occupants would severely affect the first fire unit responding to fire, medical, hazardous material, or other emergency calls. SSFFD would require one additional position (three personnel) for fire control, evacuation, medical scene management, care of injured persons, and other emergencies (Captain Niswonger 2005). Finding~ The 2006 Project is a less intense land use and the Fire Department (Fire Marshall Niswonger) has stated that the mitigations from the 1982 EIR and the 1996 and 1998/99 SEIR's are adequate to mitigate project impacts. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.4 Potentially poor signal strength and reception sites within proposed buildings and parking structures Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures would have dense building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal strength and reception sites. -20- Page 14 of15 Finding: The Police and Fire Departments through conditions of 2006 Project approval have stated that similar conditions of approval required for the Peninsula Mandalay Project shall apply to the 2006 Project. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.5 Wildland Fire Potential There exists the potential for an urban wildland fire. Finding: The Applicant shall be required through conditions of project approval and by law (the California Fire Code) to design the 2006 Project with a 100 foot fire buffer. The 2006 Project reflects the 100 foot buffer requirement. The Property Owners Association shall be required through the CC&R' s required by the City to maintain the fire buffer. (California Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4). Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection system in Airport Boulevard The mitigation measure required televising the sanitary sewer lines serving the project to identify capacity. Finding: The study was completed under the supervision of the Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer line was found to have adequate capacity for the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, and August 17, 2006). Traffic and Circulation Impact and Mitigation 3.1-11 On Site Parking applied to the 2005 Project. Finding: There is no parking impact associated with the 2006 Project as demonstrated in the 2006 Initial Study. Traffic and Circulation Impacts and Mitigations 3.1-2, and 3.1-6)006 Project impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation with the 2006 Project where mitigation was required for the 2005 Project:, Finding: Trip generation, Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Pointe/Dubuque/US 101 Northbound on-ramp for 2010 and 2020 was significant (and could be mitigated) with the 2005 Project and is less than significant with no mitigation required for the 2006 Project. -21- Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (As recommended by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) 1. General Pursuant to Public Resources Code ~ 21081 and CEQA Guidelines ~ 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Re- Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to its recommendation of approval of the entitlements for the final development parcel of Phase III of the Terrabay Project (hereinafter, "2006 Project" or "Project"). The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum (supplementing the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR) analyzed Phase III impacts on a project EIR level which is a much greater level than required for cumulative impacts under CEQA. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2006 Project to the City against the one adverse impact identified in the 2005 SEIR pertaining to air quality which is a re- statement of the 1998/99 SEIR identified impact and the three adverse impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR pertaining to traffic as significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts are: (1) Air Quality Impact 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality; (2) Traffic Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts; (2) Traffic Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III --Freev.ay Impacts; and (3) Traffic Impact 1.1 5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. The following significant unavoidable impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR do not apply to the 2006 Project as demonstrated by the 2006 traffic analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group for the City of South San Francisco and incorporated into the 2006 Initial Study prepared for the 2006 Project: (1) Traffic Impact 3.1.5: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts; (2) Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts;and (3) Traffic Impact 3.1.9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum in reaching its decision to approve the 2006 Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the 2006 Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance potential impacts. Although the City Council believes that the three unavoidable traffic environmental impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the one air quality impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and re-stated in the 2005 SEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and incorporated into the -22- Page 1 of7 2006 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the 2006 Project carries with it these four potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. With regard to each of the four significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impacts have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the 2005, 1998/99 and 1996 SEIR's and the 1982 EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the 2006 Project which outweigh the four significant unavoidable effects on the environment. The City Council further finds that anyone of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the 2006 Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures The following are unavoidable significant 2006 Project impacts. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the 2006 Project or the imposition of further mitigation measures. The impacts associated with the 2006 Project are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower. The 2006 Project would eliminate four significant off-site traffic impacts and three significant unavoidable traffic impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR based upon the 2005 Project. Therefore, the 2006 Project has been revised to eliminate seven traffic related impacts. The 2006 Project would not increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. Three significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic and one air quality would result from implementation of the 2006 Project. These impacts are: Traffic Impact 4.4.1 : Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2006 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000 Project on certain segments of US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by more than 1 % or changing the level of service from LOS E to F. Six of the eight identified impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segments of US 101 of approximately 1.25% to 2.76%. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1 % or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. The 2006 Project incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a Transportation Demand Management Program. The City has constructed the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements and the Applicant has contributed 8.5 million to these improvements. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 64% reduction in the size of the -23- Page 2 of7 Project or widening of US 1 0 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these measures are infeasible. Traffic Impact 4.4.4: Year 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2006 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000 Project on certain segments of US 101 freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than 1 % at segments already operating at LOS F. Six of the eight identified impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segments of US 101 of approximately 1.10% to 2.41%. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1 % or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. The 2006 Project incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a Transportation Demand Management Program. The City has constructed the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements and the Applicant has contributed 8.5 million to these improvements. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 59% reduction in the size of the Project or widening of US 1 01 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these measures are infeasible. The 2006 Project has been reduced in size from that previously analyzed. Traffic Impact 4.4-5 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts Development of Phase II and III in the year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on the PM peak hour operation on the Northbound US 101 on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. This on ramp would already be operating at over-capacity and unacceptable levels in 2010 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips by approximately 6.8% on this on-ramp. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the on-ramp of 1 % or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on this on-ramp and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. The 2006 Project has contributed 8.5 million to traffic improvements in the area. The 2006 Project includes a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard as well as and a Transportation Demand Management Program. A 85% reduction in the size of the Project would be required to reduce this impact to less-tah-significant which in light of the whole of the record and the objectives of the Project is infeasible. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMJO. This is the same impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2006 Project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the -24- Page 3 of7 mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. In addition, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to Project: 1) electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided, 2) the project will include sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops and/or a community-wide network, 3) provision of secure and conveniently located bicycle storage, 4) preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles. 5) implementation of feasible TDM measures including ride-sharing, coordination with regional ride sharing programs and provision of transit information, 6) the above-referenced bus turnouts and benches, and 7) direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent development. 3. Findings of Infeasibilitv of Miti€!ation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable Impacts a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures Traffic Impacts 4.4.1 and 4: Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts and Traffic Impact 4.4.5 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps An overall reduction in project size between 64% to 85% would be required in order to reach a less than significant impact. A reduction of this nature would render the project economically infeasible. The economic benefit realized through a critical mass of office and commercial retail uses in order to capitalize the 2006 Project and the tax return to the City would not be realized. Reductions in the 2006 Project is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure improvements required for the 2006 Project and those already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of office and retail to finance the project and provide a tax benefit to the City and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the 2006 Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the 2006 Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development Agreement and Specific Plan as amended. These documents require 1) the restoration and dedication of over 400 acres of property to the County and the City as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) construction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of Phase I); 5) construction of a child-care facility; 6) construction of a 200 seat Performing Arts Center 7) construction of 32 moderate income housing units off-site at 120% of the median; 8) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 9) a $8.5 million financial contribution to the construction of the hook ramps; 10) construction of the water tank and distribution lines and the Terrabay pump station as a part of Phase I; 11) construction of the sound wall along Sister -25- Page 4 on Cities Boulevard; 12) construction of recreational improvements to Hillside School; and, 13) and other improvements and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the 2006 Project. The construction of required infrastructure in the 2006 Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the amount of square footage constructed. A 60 _ 84% reduction in density to reduce impacts to a less than significant level could not support the development costs of the 2006 Project and would render the 2006 Project economically infeasible. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, widening of US 101 or a reduction of the size of the 2006 Project are not feasible. (4) Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAOMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMJO.:. Reduction of the 2006 Project as identified above (approximately by 75%) could potentially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The 2006 Project would be economically infeasible, as noted above, with such a reduction. The benefits of the 2006 Project would then not be realized. b. Infeasibility of Alternatives "Which Would Reduce Impacts Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the 2006 Project, the only alternative identified in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Development Alternative. In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the cumulative impacts of building out the project as proposed in the 2006 Project is the No Development Alternative for the remaining parcels of Phase III. This alternative is infeasible. The Terrabay Project already incorporates many of the alternatives proposed under the 1998-99 SEIR. First, the Project provides for a 25+ acre of preserve land (The Preservation Parcel) for the protection of endangered species habitat and a 6.3 acre parcel offered to the City for recreational purposes (The Recreation Parcel). Additionally, a buffer area is proposed to shield the archeological site from the proposed development. The project also incorporates more area into the HCP. The Project has contributed 8.5 million to transportation improvements the majority of which mitigates impacts associated with Phase III development. As a result of the foregoing, the developable footprint on the remaining parcel has been significantly reduced (from 47 to 10 acres). Moreover, the benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if each phase is built as proposed in the 2006 Project. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of each phase. Therefore, since the No Development Alternative for Phase III does not accomplish most of the objectives -26- Page 5 of? of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and, therefore, rejects this alternative as it relates to the remaining parcels of Phase III. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the 2006 Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the 2006 Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts ofthe Terrabay 2006 Project: . Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries; . Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues; . Provide below market rate housing; . Reduce overall environmental impacts and preserve open space by building on 10 acres of land out of the original 47 acres of Phase III most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility-related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space; . Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the 2006 Project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and commercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the remainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perimeter of the site and the planting of a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings; . Develop the "Buffer Parcel" with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity; . Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park; . Offset Project Sponsor's burden and City burden and costs created by the development of Phase I and II and the public amenities already constructed by the developer including the construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, fIre station, recreation center, private streets, water system and holding tank, Hillside School recreation facilities, payment of a child care in-lieu fee ($700,000), payment of Oyster Point Flyover fees (8.5 million), restoration and dedication of 26 acres of open space (Preservation Parcel), restoration and dedication of a six acre plus parcel to the -27- Page 6 of? City (the Recreation Parcel), restoration and dedication of 400 acres of open space (Juncus Ravine and remainder lands), construction of the linear park and offer of dedication of the park to the City, by allowing the project to be completed and tax benefits to the City to be realized. -28- Page 7 of7 EXHmIT C FINDINGS ON IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING FROM THE 2006 PROJECT THAT DO NOT REQIDRE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FROM 1998/99 SEIR AND ADDENDUM, THE 2005 SEIR AND THE 2006 ADDENDUM THERETO NOT FURTHER ANALYZED IN 2005 SEIR AND THE 2006 ADDENDUM (As Recommended by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) This section contains findings on the environmental impacts of the Proposed Phase III Project (2006 Project) that were not further analyzed in the 2005 SEIR because the impacts of the 2005 Project for Phase III were not significantly different from the impacts of the Phase III Project under the Terrabay Specific Plan as amended in 2000. An Initial Study was prepared for the 2006 Project and through the analysis it was found that the 2006 Project poses less environmental impacts than those identified for the 2005 Project and that some of the mitigation measures required in previous documents have been completed. An Addendum to the 2005 SEIR was prepared. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2006 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas for the entire Terrabay Project (public Resources Code S 21166; CEQA Guidelines S 15091). Prior City Council findings on the environmental impacts of Phase III under the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR, and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto are incorporated herein by reference. Mitigation measures already completed or incorporated into the 2006 Project design are only addressed as necessary for the finding. Aesthetics: (2005 SEIR) The 2006 Project slightly reduces lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR. There would be no conflict between night lighting and residential uses associated with the 2006 Project as no residential land uses are proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Additionally, the 2006 Project would be clustered on eight acres as opposed to 20 acres proposed and analyzed in the 2005 SEIR leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Af!ricultural Resources: The 2006 Project site contains no lands designated as prime farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999). Biolo!!ical Resources: (1998/99 SEIR) The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources of the project and re-evaluated potential impacts on sensitive resources. The 2006 Project would result in no impacts to special status species that are identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 Project has been substantially revised to avoid all the Callippee Silverspot habitat (Viola penduncula) and to take only 1/1 Oth of an acre of freshwater march, seeps, and riparian habitat. In doing so, a 26-acre plus Preservation -29- Page 1 of? Parcel (containing wetlands and critical butterfly habitat) was offered by the applicant and designated as permanent open space by the City Council on November 24, 2000 (Resolution #48-2000). The dedication and conveyance of the land on August 11, 2004, to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/Sate Park preserves the wetlands and habitat and furthers the objectives of the HCP for San Bruno Mountain. A Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Research Associates, on behalf of the City and Myers Development Company, approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers mitigates the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook ramp project and the 1/l0th acre wetland take on the 2006 Project site. These modifications serve to provide compliance with mitigation measure 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which calls for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible. The 2006 Project conforms to mitigation measures contained in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to wetlands preservation and species habitat preservation. Environmental Collaborative (City's biologist of record for review of Terrabay) reviewed the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Plan and found it to be in compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 Initial Study and 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Initial Study contained in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project would increase the distance of construction further from biologically sensitive areas from that analyzed in the 2005 Initial Study as shown in the 2006 Initial Study and Addendum. The 2006 Project would slightly reduce potential impacts on the northern portion of the Buffer Parcel in that area where as identified in 2005, it was thought to contain emergent wetlands. The USACE determined in 2005 that this area did not constitute wetlands (February 1,2006). The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific Plan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (plan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing was noticed pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. The Terrabay Plan boundaries and limits of grading included Phase III as well as the dedication of the Preservation Parcel. The proposed 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan identifies limits of grading within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III (Figure 3, Initial Study in DSEIR, p 2-4 DSEIR and Figure 15 Phase III Only Terrabay Specific Plan). The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence and the HCP requirements. Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the 2005 Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22, 2005). The 2006 Project was found to be in compliance with the HCP Boundaries on July 12, 2006 (Ms. Miesel, Thomas Reid and Associates). Miti!!ation Measure Section 4.3 Biology of the 1998/99 SEIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the 1998/99 SEIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1. from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address landscape compatibility, a restoration plan and salvage plan. Mitigation Measure -30- Page 2 of? 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR avoidance of habitat has been accomplished by the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel however, dust control and trail signage are applicable to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR which identifies avoiding wetlands take to the maximum extent feasible which has been accomplished with the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County containing wetlands and enhanced wetlands pursuant to an approved USACE Section 404 permit which mitigates the loss of 0.10 acres of intermittent stream the only take of wetlands associated with the 2006 Project. FindinJ! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. , The impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures. Rationale The 2006 Project conforms with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and enhancement and preservation efforts will greatly improve habitat values on this portion of the site. No significant impacts on wildlife are anticipated from the 2006 Project. Cultural Resources: (1998/99 SEIR) There are no Historic Resources (as defined under section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) on the Terrabay Phase III Only site. One prehistoric archeological site is located adjacent to the project site, a sheUmound which contains a number of organic, shellfish and human remains. The 2006 Project completely avoids this site, fulfilling the requirements of Mitigation measure 4.9-1(b) of the 1998/99 SEIR. The archaeological site is a part of the "Preservation Parcel" containing wetlands, archaeological remains and endangered species habitat. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed by the applicant to the County of San Mateo August 2004 for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. Additionally, Holman Associates, Archaeologists (City's archaeologist of record for review of Terrabay) reviewed the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only plan and found it to be in compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 Initial Study contained in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project does not decrease the distance of development from the Preservation Parcel and would not impact the prehistoric archaeological site. The 2006 Project keeps within the limits set by the 2005 Project. MitiJ!ation Measure The 2006 Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan would implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b) of the 1998/99 SEIR. Potential impacts are thus reduced to a less than significant level. FindinJ! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. -31- Page 3 of7 The impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures. Rationale The impacts of the 2006 Project on cultural resources are less than significant because there are no historical resources on the Development or Buffer Parcels, the only identified site of archeological significance is located off-site, and because potential impacts on Native American burial sites are ameliorated by a limitation of development on the Buffer Parcel to roads, retaining walls, surface parking, landscaping and an informational kiosk. Based on the foregoing, the 2006 Project impact is less than significant. Geolo!!V and Soils: (1998/99 SEIR) Geology, soils and seismicity were thoroughly analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The limits of grading proposed by the 2006 Project are substantially less (approximately half of the area) those analyzed in 1998/99 and approximately half of that analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Therefore, approximately 10 acres of the original 47 acre site would be disturbed by grading and construction. Additionally, a geotechnical investigation was conducted by URS Corporation for the Phase III Development site. The engineering analyses of this study were documented in a second geotechnical report. Additional field exploration as a requirement of the building permit issuance will be conducted to address design level specifications pertaining to standard building issues such as foundations, compaction and drainage. The potential geologic impacts identified in 1998/99 such as seismicity, rock and land slides, debris flows, liquefaction and settlement do not differ from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitiflation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1.1 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which stipulates that all grading shall be in conformance with the Agreement with Respect to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation also requires state and federal agency permitting prior to grading. The 2006 Project is in compliance with this requirement. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which stipulates maximum slope grades, benches and drainage and slope engineering design to insure slope stability and minimize erosion. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Additionally, implementation of this mitigation measure requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 from the 1998/99 SE1R shall apply to the 2006 Project which required rockslide and rockfall mitigations including such measures as flatter slopes with benches, rock anchors, subdrains, revegetation, slope monitoring -32- Page 4 on instrumentation, sealing off loose rocks, netting and encapsulating rocks, fencing rocks, annual inspection of outcrops prior to the rainy season, slope maintenance plans and implementation of the plans through the CC&R's for the property. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the project which addresses the secondary effects of seismic shaking. The above identified mitigation measures will mitigate potential issues of rock slope stability, land and debris slides, liquefaction and settlement to less than significant levels. Findinf! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, and with the implementation of the additional studies and data collection discussed more fully above, the impact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geology and soils impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project Rationale The implementation of mitigation measures related to slope stability, the establishment of a slope maintenance plan, and other mitigation measures contained in the 1998/99 SEIR, and as required and incorporated into Phases I and II of Terrabay which have proven successful, will reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rock sliding impacts to a less than significant level, and the removal of debris material, addition of buttressing walls and retaining walls will mitigate possible activity in active slide areas. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: (1998/99 SEIR and 2005) The undeveloped and vacant project site contains no hazardous or toxic materials as documented in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified in the 2005 Initial Study for the 2005 Project. The mixed use project would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The General Plan identifies the site as a 'Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit," and no mitigation measures are required. Conditions have not changed since the evaluation of the 2005 Project that would result in an impact to or from the 2006 Project. Water and Hvdrolo!!V: (1998/99 SEIR) The 2006 Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The 2006 Project would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces by about 75 percent from the 1998 Project development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, resulting in an increase in groundwater re-charge and the reduction in the scope of the 2006 Project from that proposed in the 2005 Project. The amount of surface and storm water runoff would be less than in the previous development plan. Future development at the site will not -33- Page 5 of7 degrade water quality, and the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. The 2006 Project will result in a reduction of storm water runoff, which is addressed in the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. Mitiflation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR refers to debris basins that are required on the Phase III parcel and does apply to the 2006 Project. No additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR are required. Findinfl As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 EIR. The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did re-evaluate storm water/waste water and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing storm drain/sanitary sewer infrastructure for the 2006 Project and cumulative development. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Rationale The amount of surface runoff and storm water runoff under the 2006 Project is less than that of the plan analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The site is not located within a flood plain. The impacts of the 2006 Project are less than significant and less than the project analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Land Use and Planninfl: There are no land use impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Mineral Resources: There are no mineral resources on the Terrabay site and therefore there are no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Impacts on Noise: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to noise from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR which did re-evaluate noise. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR. The mitigation measure requires construction scheduling and limits hours of construction activity, muffling and shielding of equipment, stipulates location of equipment (furthest from residential uses) and equipment idling prohibitions to reduce temporary noise impacts. The mitigations also require "Disturbance Coordinator" which in practice on Terrabay Phase I and II has been entitled a "Mitigation Monitor". -34- Page 6 of7 Pooulation Housim!: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing nor did the 1998/99 SEIR identify any impacts associated with population and housing. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate population and housing impacts based upon the analysis contained in the initial study for the 2005 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project Public Services: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did evaluate impacts associated with a more intense land plan and both police and fire has indicated that the mitigations identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 SEIR adequately address the 2006 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. Mitigation Measure Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the funding of one new police position. Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fire communications on the first building constructed on the Phase III site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cumulative development impacts are required for the 2006 Project. Recreation: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. The 2006 Project proposes, as required by ordinance, the construction of a 100 child day care center. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Utilities: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. -35- Page 7 of7 ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.63 (TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT) WHEREAS, the existing Terrabay Specific Plans, Chapter 20.63 and the Terrabay Development Agreement allow development of the Terrabay Project (together, "the existing entitlements"), subject to further approvals and entitlements; and, WHEREAS, in November 2000, the City Council approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, on September ih and September 21St, 2006, the Planning Commission held duly-noticed Public Hearings to consider a recommendation of approval of an application for a 2006 Terrabay Phase III-Only Precise Plan (2006 Project) amending the approved 2000 Specific and Precise Plans for the Phase III site, which addresses the 21 acres of land approved for a 665, I 000 square foot office tower and roadways in the 2000 Plan, which the 2006 Project would construct in two office towers along with 24,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail, a 200 seat shared use performing arts facility, a 100 child day care center, a public art program to be constructed on approximately 10 acres of the 21 acre site and 32 moderate income units (120% of median) off site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution dated September 21st, 2006, recommended approval of the amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for Phase III only, the Terrabay Precise Plan, a Transportation Demand Management program and certain zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance are necessary to allow for the revised 2006 Plan land uses; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.63 is proposed to be amended to reflect the changes approved in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan; and, SFDOCS 6153538vl -36- WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) and addendum thereto was prepared, which together with the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982 (1982 EIR), analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed development, and the City Council, by Resolution dated October 11 th, 2006, certified the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as modified by the 2006 Addendum for Terrabay, including findings regarding significant and potentially significant impacts, a re-statement of overriding considerations from the 1998/99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, findings on impacts and mitigation measures from the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report not further analyzed in the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the remaining phase III..Qarce1.ofthe Terrabay development; and, WHEREAS;the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project in accordance with the EIR's, SEIR's and Addenda thereto; and, "WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required; and, WHEREAS, on September 21 st, 2006, following a properly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63; and, "WHEREAS, on October 11th, 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution and environmental findings to approve an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for Phase III Only, ther Terrabay Precise Plan and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 20.63, to reflect the Final Terrabay Specific Plan as amended; and, WHEREAS, the present amendments will provide for a modification of the permitted land uses to include the office, site-specific retail and commercial uses and performing arts center uses contemplated in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan; and ? -37- WHEREAS, on October 11 th, 2006, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.63. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. A. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan, specifically the policies for the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area under Chapter 3.8 of the Planning Sub-Areas Element and the High Density land use designation for the project area as amended by City Council Resolution dated . The project provides approximately 665,000 square feet of office space in two towers, along with 24,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail. This is consistent with the high density designation for the property. B. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the proposed development includes office space and commercial uses and the Amended Specific Plan prescribes office and commercial development for the area. The proposed development meets the density standards prescribed in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan and other development standards including but not limited to the quantity, size and location of parking, building setbacks, design and height. C. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). Section 2: Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, "Terrabay Specific Plan District" is hereby amended to read as follows (line-outs shall indicate deleted text) Chapter 20.63 TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 20.63.005 Terrabay specific plan district established. ~ -38- A zoning district entitled "Terrabay specific plan district" is established consisting of, and in all respects consistent with, the regulations contained in the Terrabay specific plan. The district boundaries shall be as described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 915-83 and as shown on the map which is Exhibit B to Ordinance 915-83, on file in the office of the city clerk and incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the specific plan map is reproduced at the end of this chapter. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D) (part) , 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 1050 S 29 (part), 1989) 20.63.010 Definitions. The following definitions supplement those contained in Chapters 1.04, 19.08 and 20.06 of this code. (a) "Accessory structure" refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, decks, and fences. (b) "Assisted parking" refers to incoming passenger vehicles that are parked by their own drivers until all or most of the striped spaces in the garage are utilized. From that point, until the garage empties out to avail adequate striped spaces, incoming/outgoing driver~/owners drop-off/pick-up their cars at a designated drop-off/pick-up point within the garage to/from valet parking personnel. (c)"Building" means the principal structure or structures on any site, including all projections or extensions thereof, and all garages, outside platforms, outbuildings, docks and other similar structures. (d)"Buffer parcel" refers to the 2.69 acre parcel located adjacent to and south of the preservation parcel. Permitted uses in the "buffer parcel" may include, for example, landscaping, roadway and limited surface parking. No structures are permitted on the parcel other than a small interpretative structure, i.e. a kiosk that informs persons of the resources at the site. (e) "CA-SMa-40" refers to approximately two acres which contain archaeological resources carbon dated back five thousand years plus before present as mapped and studied by Holman and Associates, archaeologists and David Chavez, archaeologist and as analyzed in the 1998-99 Terrabay supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR). (f)"Development agreement" means any agreement(s) including amendments and restatements thereto, entered into by and among the city of South San Francisco and a project sponsor, in accordance with Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 2.5, Section 65864 et seq., of the California Government Code. (g)"General plan" means the general plan adopted on April 21, 1969 by the city council of the city of South San Francisco by Resolution No. 5073, as amended, and such elements as may be adopted and amended from time to time. (h) "Habitat conservation plan (HCP)" means a method of conserving, managing and enhancing the natural resources necessary for the perpetuation of endangered species as such plan was approved by the city on November 15, 1982, and as such plan is lawfully amended from time to time. (i) "Mutual release and settlement agreement" is that a document executed in March 2000 between Terrabay Partners. L.L.C., Myers/Sunchase I, L.L.C., The Center for Biological Diversity, -San Bruno Mountain Watch and the city of South San Francisco which resolved a lawsuit provided the parties perform certain acts involving the site. It requires, at a minimum, the creation of the preservation and buffer parcels (referred to as preservation parcel and buffer zone, A. -39- respectively, in the agreement). The document is available for review at the city clerk's office of the city of South San Francisco. (j) "Office Towers" refer to the North Office Tower and the South Office Tower on the Phase III site. (k)"Owner" means, at any particular time or times, any person, partnership, firm, corporation or other legal entity (including sponsor) which owns fee title to one or more sites, as shown by the official records of the county of San Mateo; provided, however, that a person or entity holding a security interest in any site or sites will not be deemed an owner so long as its interest in the particular site or sites is for purposes of security only. (l)"Precise plan" means plans and drawings, which present detailed site and building information for each building phase of a project. (m)"Preservation parcel" refers to a 25.73 acre parcel in the central and northern portion of the Terrabay area along Airport Buyshor6 Boulevard. The preservation parcel, created by the mutual release and settlement agreement includes CA-SMa-40, butterfly habitat and wetlands. The Preservation Parcel was conveved into public ownership in 2004. (n) Project sponsor" means any person, partnership, firm, corporation or other legal entity attempting to subdivide or in any way develop any site with the Terrabay specific plan district. (o)"Project sponsor" includes but is not limited to W.W. Dean and Associates and their successors in interest of any description. (p )"Property line" means a line bounding a site as shown on any final subdivision or parcel map then in effect. The property line along a street shall be the respective right-of-way line shown on the final subdivision or parcel map. (q)"Recreation parcel" refers to the 6.3 acre parcel (or less as modified by the habitat conservation plan). The parcel is historically referred to as the Commons West parcel. (r)"Recreational vehicle" means, for purposes of this chapter, a vehicular unit, regardless of size, primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use; it either has its own motive power or is designed to be mounted on or drawn by a motorized vehicle. (s)"Recreational vehicles" include but are not limited to, motor homes, truck campers, travel trailers, camping trailers, and boats. For the purpose ofthis definition, a boat shall be a recreational vehicle regardless of whether or not its design includes temporary living quarters. (t) "Site" means a contiguous area ofland within the Terrabay specific plan district which is owned of record by the same owner, whether shown as one or more lots or parcels or portions of lots or parcels on any recorded subdivision parcel map affecting the specific plan area. (u) "Terrabay commercial district" means all of the real property described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 1288-01, on file in the office of the city clerk and incorporated herein by reference. (v)"Terrabay open space district" means all the real property described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 1288-01, on file in the office ofthe city clerk and incorporated herein by reference. (w)"Terrabay open space/recreation district" means all the real property described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 1288-01, on file in the office of the city clerk and incorporated herein by reference. (x)"Terrabay residential district" means all of the real property described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 1288-01, on file in the office of the city clerk and incorporated herein by reference. (y) "Terrabay specific plan" refers to the original Terrabay specific plan adopted in 1982 by the South San Francisco city council, and amended in 1996. The Terrabay specific plan, until 1999, was the governing document for all the lands within the Terrabay plan area. The 1982/1996 Terrabay specific plan is the governing document for the Phase I Terrabay village and park neighborhoods. " -40- (z)"Terrabay Specific Plan - Woods Only" adopted by the South San Francisco city council in May, 1999 is the governing document for the "Woods Phase II" portion of Terrabay. (aa) "Final Terrabay Specific Plan" adopted by the South San Francisco city council in November, 2000, and amended from time to time, is the governing document for the Phase II/III Mandalay Point and Heritage residential neighborhoods; the commercial area identified as "+fie Peninsula;" "Mandalay Terrace" and the recreation and preservation parcels. (bb )"Trailer" means a vehicle without motive power, designed so that it can be drawn by a motor vehicle, to be used for the carrying of persons or property or as human habitation. (cc)"Transportation demand management program" (TDM program) refers to a plan approved by the city and required primarily for the performance of the offioe development designed in order to reduce traffic trips to and from the effi€e site. The TDM program shall also serve the residential portions of all three phases of Terrabay. (dd)"Valet parking" refers to a process of parking cars whereby valet parking personnel meet incoming and outgoing passenger vehicles at a designated drop-off/pick-up point where they drop-off/pick-up their cars and keys at all times. (Ord. 1318 S 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.020 (a) district. (b) Whenever this chapter or the Terrabay specific plan do not provide specific standards and/or procedures for the approval and/or administration of development projects within the Terrabay specific plan district or for appeals concerning such approvals or administration of development projects, the standards and procedures outlined in Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in effect as of the effective date of any applicable development agreement for the project shall apply. (c) Whenever a subdivision map or parcel map is required to be filed in connection with a project within the Terrabay specific plan district, the standards and procedures contained in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code shall apply to the project unless those procedures and standards are inconsistent with specific standards or procedures set forth in this chapter or those contained in the applicable development agreement. (d) Whenever a subdivision map or parcel map is required to be filed in connection with a project within the Terrabay specific plan district, no building permit shall be issued for the project unless and until all of the requirements (including but not limited to recordation) related to final subdivision or parcel maps have been met, except as modified in Section 20.63.150 of this chapter for the development of the final Terrabay special plan lands. (Ord. 1288 9 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) Regulations generally. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply in the Terrabay specific plan 20.63.030 Uses permitted. The following uses are permitted subject to the regulations contained in this chapter, the Terrabay specific plans and applicable sections of TitIes 19 and 20 of this code as set forth in Section 20.63.020 and subject to further approvals as required. h -41- (a) Terrabay Residential District (Residential Parcels). (1) Public and private open space areas; (2) Habitat conservation areas; (3) Public and private parks, playgrounds, tot lots, recreation/community buildings, and fire stations; (4) Schools; (5) Child care centers; (6) Public and private utilities, and facilities; (7) Single-family detached dwellings consisting of one hundred twenty-five units in the Park and one hundred thirty-five units in Woods East and Woods West (collectively) neighborhoods only; (8) Townhomes consisting of one hundred sixty-five * units in the Village neighborhood in two, three and four unit clusters only; (9) One condominium/apartment tower consisting of one hundred twelve one, two and three bedroom units in the Peninsula Mandalay Tower Heritage neighborhood, only; (10) Single-family paired residential units consisting of seventy single-family units attached in thirty-five structures, paired in two side-by-side attached units (i.e., side by side duplex design) in the Mandalay Point neighborhood, only; (11) Home occupations; (12) Accessory buildings and uses. (b) Terrabay Commercial District (Office Development and Baffer Parcel). (1) Public and private open space area; (2) Habitat conservation areas; (3) Public and private utilities and facilities; ( 4) Reserved; (5) Health clubs associated with the office use as an office-worker support use and a TDM measure; (6) Reserved; (7) High quality commercial and restaurant uses recognized nationally by their name are permitted commercial retail uses on the Phase III Commercial site. Businesses such as Baia Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheescake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and II Fornaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the Phase III site. Specialty services such as computer stores, office supply, bookstore stores, retail dry cleaner outlets, shoe repair, florists, specialty high-end grocery and/or deli uses, sundry shops, boutiques and similar uses are permitted support uses. These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of retail uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the proposed use is Foot note:_ * 161 units were built in Phase 1. Pursuant to City Ordinance 1191-96 a subdivision may be applied for and, in accordance with the City's discretionary and environmental review procedures, may be approved to construct an additional four units in the Village Neighborhood on Lot 179 The City avproved an additional three lots on this site in 2006. substantially equivalent to the uses and retailers listed above. No fast food drive through restaurants are permitted on the Phase III site. Medical office and associated uses are not '7 -42- permitted on the ground floor. Retail oriented fmancial or business serving uses that suPport commercial retail such as Automatic Teller Machines (ATM's) are permitted with approval ofa use permit on the ground floor and provided that these types of uses can be shown to be of benefit to the employees of the site and do not exceed 10 percent of the ground floor retail space. Sit down restaurants, but not including fast food restaurants "'lith or without drive through 'Nindows associated with the office use an offiee vlOrker support use and a TDM measure; (8) Class A Office buildings for office gross square footage of 665,028 square feet; (9) Meeting and conference rooms within the office building; (10) Accessory service and retail uses associated with the office use as an office- worker support use and a TDM measure and retail commercial uses that serve the area as noted in 7 above; (11) Performing arts center (200 seat minimum) within the office building; (12) Child care center serving a minimum of 100 children with outdoor play area vlithin the office tower or podium structure; .QIl HoteL four star or better. Any hotel shall be developed, constructed and maintained to satisfy all requirements necessary to meet a four diamond rating as established by the Diamond Rating Guidelines published by the American Automobile Association in place as of the effective date. [Q) Buffer Zone Permitted Uses. Notwithstanding the permitted uses in the Terrabay commercial district generally, uses permitted in the buffer parcel are limited to the following: (1) Landscaping (limited to native San Bruno Mountain plant species), (2) Pedestrian seating areas, (3) Surface parking, roads, emergency access road, turn around and maintenance lets to facilitate access to thc adjacent preseria-tion parcel and San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, (D) (4) (i.e., a kiosk), (5) Retaining walls. (D) Terrabay Open Space District (Preservation Parcel). Open space uses in conformance with the General Plan and mutual release and settlement agreement, including wetlands preservation and mitigation, habitat preservation and preservation of CA-SMa-10 and trailhead for hiking. (E) Terrabay Open Space/Recreation District (Recreation Parcel). (1) Open space as defined in Section 20.63.030(c) of this chapter; (2) Community oriented recreation facility; (3) Child care facility. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (Part), 1999: Ord. 1051 S 6, 1989; Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) Playground for the ehild care facility, A single small structure which provides interpretive information about the site 20.63.050 Site design and grading. (a) No building permits shall be issued by the city for any phase of construction within the Terrabay specific plan district until the project sponsor obtains detailed soil and geotechnical studies for each phase of construction and implements the recommendations contained in said studies for each phase of proposed construction. The project sponsor shall 5/ -43- provide the city engineer with satisfactory evidence that all grading and drainage work was accomplished in accordance with approved soils and geotechnical studies. (b) Prior to approval of any precise plan or the issuance of any grading or building permit within the Terrabay specific plan district, the project sponsor shall provide the city engineer with satisfactory evidence that all elements of the project are designed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved soils and geotechnical studies relating to ground slippage, landslides, erosion, and storm drainage. (c) The project sponsor shall obtain the city engineer's approval of detailed grading and utility plans prior to approval of any grading or building permit. precise plan or tentati'le subdivision map. (d) All grading plans and operations shall be in compliance with the provisions of the habitat conservation plan. (e) All approved grading plans for all phases of Terrabay shall be in compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the city. No grading permit for any development on Terrabay lands shall be issued by the city until any required wetlands mitigation plan is reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board, subject to their authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 401 Certification, respectively. (f) Winterization programs acceptable to the city engineer and the director of parks, recreation and maintenance services and consistent with the Terrabay specific plan, the habitat conservation plan and other applicable provisions of this code shall be implemented for all graded areas prior to October 15th of each year. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.060 Street standards. The streets within the Terrabay specific plan district shall conform to the design standards set forth in the specific plan. The minimum dimensions authorized for streets located in the Terrabay specific plan district are: (a) The minimum street grades for public and private streets in the Terrabay specific plan district shall be one percent. The maximum grades for public and private streets shall be ten percent and twelve percent, respectively, unless steeper grades on limited segments of such streets are approved by the city engineer. In no case shall the city engineer approve street grades in excess of fifteen percent for any private streets. (b) The Hillside Boulevard extension shall be designed in accordance with city council Resolution No. 141-78 adopted November 1, 1978. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D) (part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.070 Transportation demand management. Prior to issuance of a building permit the approval of any precise plans or tentatiye subdivision or parcel maps for de'/elopment 'v'lithin the Terrabay commercial district, the project sponsor shall obtain from the director of community deyelopment and the city engineer approval of a transportation demand management plan. The transportation demand management plan shall be consistent "'lith the requirements ofthe Terrabay specific plan. Proiect sponsors shall prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Progarm) to reduce vehicle Q -44- trips in accordance with the regulations of SSF MC 20.120. The TDM Program shall conatin the requirements for monitoring and auditing the performance of the measures within the TDM Program and shall be amended as needed to meet the performance obiectives ofthe Plan. (Ord. 1288 ~ 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 94 (part), 1983) 20.63.080 Parking generally. (a) Parking areas shall be constructed with the number of spaces, location and phasing indicated in the Terrabay specific plan and this chapter. (b) On-street parking shall not be permitted along the public collector road proposed within the Terrabay residential district. Parallel parking spaces located along private roads shall be a minimum of eight feet in width. (c) The approval of any tentative subdivision or parcel map for residential development of property in the Terrabay specific plan district shall be conditioned upon the project sponsor executing and recording C.C.&R. 's which shall include a provision prohibiting the parking or storage of recreational vehicles and boats, whether stored on trailers or not, in such residential area. Said CC&R's shall be subject to review and approval by the city attorney prior to recordation. (Ord. 12889 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 9 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.090 Utilities. (a) Sanitary Sewers. (1) Sanitary sewerage services in the Terrabay specific plan district will be provided through a system of on-site gravity sewer mains, where possible, and interceptors which will connect to the city sewer system. The city sewer system will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the city engineer. The sewer trunk lines will, wherever possible, be located within the public or private streets. (2) Sanitary sewers will be designed to handle wastewater flows of two hundred gallons per day per residential unit, with a peaking factor of 3.0. Infiltration/inflow will be calculated at five hundred gallons per day, per inch diameter, per mile. Commercial wastewater flows will be calculated on a case-by-case basis. (b) Storm Drainage System. (1) A storm drainage system shall be provided in the Terrabay specific plan district and shall include a storm-drain trunk system to intercept runoff from the open space upstream of the project, and transport it through the project. The trunk system shall also collect in-tract runoff from the on-site collection system. (2) The storm-drain trunk system shall be designed to handle runoff of an intensity equal to the worst storm of record or a one-hundred-year return period, whichever is worse. The inlet structures at the heads of the ravines shall be designed to pass the runoff from a one- hundred-year return period storm without utilizing the overflow system. The overflow system at the inlet structure shall be designed to handle runoff from storms in excess of the one-hundred- year return period utilizing the public street system and hydraulically designed overflow catchment structures within the public streets so as to protect residential or commercial structures from potential damage from storm runoff and from the planned storm period indicated above. 1() -45- (3) The storm drainage system shall intercept a majority of the existing runoff and transport it via the approved storm drainage system to San Francisco Bay. (4) Storm-drain catch basins, manholes and storm-drain pipes shall be constructed in accordance with city standards and the requirements of the city engineer. (c) Water System. (1) A water system shall be designed and constructed by the project sponsor in accordance with the standards of the California Water Service Company or its successor in interest. The water mains shall be underground and located within public rights-of-way or public easements. (2) The new water system shall be designed with fire protection facilities installed at the locations, and flowing sufficient water, as required by the city of South San Francisco fire chief. (3) The new water system shall, where feasible, be interconnected to the existing city of South San Francisco water systems to provide a continuous loop. The design of the water system shall be approved by the fire chief. (d) Other Utilities. (1) Solid waste storage and pick-up areas shall be designed in accordance with the Terrabay specific plan. (2) All natural gas, electricity, telephone and cable television and similar facilities shall be installed as underground systems. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.100 Landscaping. Prior to approval of any precise plan or tentative subdivision map, the project sponsor shall obtain from the director of parks, recreation and maintenance services, approval of a landscape plan which adopts the standards set forth in the Terrabay specific plan and is consistent with the habitat conservation plan. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.110 Parks and recreation facilities. All parks and recreation facilities at the Terrabay specific plan district shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the Terrabay specific plan. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.120 Environmental quality. All measures necessary to protect environmental quality shall be implemented as set forth in the Terrabay specific plans, the environmental impact reports for the Terrabay specific plans (1982 ErR, 1996 SEIR, aOO 1998-99 and 2005 SEIR) and the habitat conservation plan, including any amendments to the plans and any supplemental or subsequent environmental impact reports. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 11 -46- 20.63.130 Special regulations applicable within the Terrabay residential district. The following special regulations shall apply to development within the Terrabay residential district: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks: (i) Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback offive feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed twelve feet in height at the ridge. Gazebos, arbors and similar structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. No garden shed or similar structure shall exceed one hundred and twenty square feet in total area. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the chief planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such type of structures include fixed and solid patio covers. (x) If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the city determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect drainage or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a minor use permit which may, based on an initial study, necessitate further environmental review. (b) No part of permitted structure shall be constructed within five feet of any projected curbline for a private road. (c) Accessory buildings, as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.05.050(b), are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed. (d) Accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.01O(a) of this chapter may be constructed upon obtaining city review and any required building permits. (e) One sign not over four square feet in area and unlighted, pertaining only to the sale, lease or rental of the property upon which the sign is to be located. (f) Permitted Height. (1) Phase I Village and Park Neighborhoods (Single-Family Detached and Townhomes). (A) Maximum permitted height shall not exceed thirty feet. 1'") -47- (B) Height is measured from the roofline to the ground directly beneath it. (2) Phrase II Woods Neighborhood (Single-Family Detached). (A) Maximum permitted height shall not exceed thirty-five feet with sixty percent of the roof plate being at or below thirty feet. (B) Height is measured from the highest point of the roof structure to a point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects the finished grade. (3) Phase IIfIH Residential Heritage Peninsula Mandalay Neighborhood (Condominium/.^..par.ment Tower). (A) The maximum height shall not exceed one hundred sixty-five feet. (B) Height is measured from the top of the uppermost parapet down to finished grade at the point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects the finished grade. (C) Below finished grade parking structures are not included in the maximum height calculation. (4) Mandalay Point Neighborhood (Single-family Paired Units). (A) Maximum height shall not exceed forty feet. (B) Height is measured from the highest point of the roof structure to a point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects finished grade. (g) Materials used in the Terrabay residential district shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable Terrabay specific plan and the city's design review process. (h) Internal Roadway Systems Standards. (1) A public residential collector street shall be constructed in the Terrabay residential district as part of the subdivision improvements and shall be dedicated to the city. No parking shall be permitted along either side of said public collector street, per the previously approved plan. The street shall have a curb-to-curb width of thirty-six feet, consisting of two thirteen-foot travel lanes and two five-foot wide bicycle lanes. (2) The private minor roadways shall have a minimum thirty-five-foot right-of-way. The minimum curb-to-curb widths of all private roadways and lanes within the residential district shall be twenty-five feet unless, after a review of detailed soil and geotechnical studies and/or HCP requirements, the city engineer determines that said width is not feasible. In no case shall the city engineer approve a curb-to-curb width ofless than twenty-two feet. (3) Sidewalks and/or walkways shall be provided at a minimum on at least one side of all private and public roadways to residential groupings within a project, provided adequate access is afforded all residential units. (4) All dead-end roadways within the Terrabay residential district shall be provided with bulbs or turn-around areas to the satisfaction of the city engineer. (i) Parking Standards. The parking standards for the residential neighborhoods shall be: (1) Phase I Village and Park Neighborhoods (Single-Family Detached and Townhomes). (A) Parking garages for two vehicles shall be provided for each unit. (B) On-street visitor parking shall be provided at a minimum ratio of three spaces for each four units. The additional on-street parking shall be provided through the use of parking bays adjacent to each cluster of units and/or parallel along the private roadways and lanes. (2) Phase II Woods Neighborhood (Single-Family Detached). 11 -48- (A) Residential parking shall be provided in the Terrabay Woods East at a minimum of 5.59 spaces per unit. Residential parking shall be provided in the Terrabay Woods West at a minimum of 5.36 spaces per unit. (B) On-street guest parking shall be a minimum of eighteen feet in length and eight and one-half feet in width and one side of each street in the residential areas shall provide parking. (C) Two car garages shall measure twenty feet in width by twenty feet in depth free and clear of any obstruction. Three car garages shall measure thirty feet in width by twenty feet in depth free and clear of any obstructions. (D) Residential units including two thousand five hundred square feet of floor area (excluding the garage) or including five bedrooms shall provide three car garages and three car driveway aprons. Three car parking garages shall measure thirty feet in width and twenty feet in depth free and clear of obstructions. The Woods No.3 floor plan may provide one of three parking spaces to a length of eighteen feet and shall provide a three car parking apron. No more than thirty-five units total in both Woods East and West shall be Woods No.3 floor plan. (E) The parking ratios calculated for Terrabay Woods include the required garage spaces, driveway aprons and on-street parking. (F) Driveway aprons in Woods Neighborhood shall measure eighteen feet in length from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk or face of the curb in absence ofa sidewalk. (3) Phase IUIII Residential Area Parking Standards. (A) Condominium/Apartment Tower Heritage Neighborhood Peninsula Mandalav Tower. (i) A total of two hundred thirty-eight parking spaces shall be provided. Parking shall be provided at a ratio of two spaces reserved for each residential unit and guest parking .13 spaces per unit No four bedroom units are permitted. (ii) The guest parking may be provided in the parking garage and on-street within the condominium/apartment tower parcel, only. (iii) The CC&R's for the tower and the rental or sale agreements shall identify the parking spaces assigned to each unit. (iv) Parking in the garage shall measure a minimum of eight and one-half feet in width and eighteen feet in length with twenty-five-foot wide aisles. (v) On-street guest parking shall measure a minimum of eight and one-half feet in width and eighteen feet in length. Two feet of the required eighteen feet may overhang into a landscape area provided that the landscape area is a minimum of six feet in width and the overhang does not interfere with shrub or tree growth. Parallel parking shall measure a minimum of eight and one-half feet in width and twenty feet in length with a four foot separation between the spaces. (B) Paired Single-FamiIy-Mandalay Point Neighborhood. (i) Two hundred ninety-eight parking spaces shall be provided in this neighborhood. The parking quantity includes the required garage spaces at two per unit driveway aprons at two per unit, and eighteen off street guest parking spaces. (ii) The parking requirement is based upon units that are two thousand four hundred ninety-nine square feet or less in area (excluding garage space); and four or less bedrooms. Five bedroom units and units consisting of two thousand five hundred square feet or more (excluding garage space) are not permitted in this neighborhood. 1.1 -49- (iii) All units shall include two car garages which shall measure twenty feet in width by twenty feet in depth free and clear of any obstruction. (iv) All units shall include a driveway apron measuring, at a minimum, sixteen feet in width and twenty feet in length, capable of parking two vehicles. (v) Driveway aprons shall measure twenty feet in length from the face ofthe garage to the back of the sidewalk or face of the curb in absence of a sidewalk. (vi) Off-street guest parking shall be a minimum of eight and one-half feet in width and eighteen feet in length. Eighteen guest parking spaces shall be provided off-street in landscape pockets, and within close proximity to the units they are intended to serve. (vii) No on-street parking shall be permitted in the Mandalay Point neighborhood. G) Residential Density. (1) Approximately one hundred fourteen acres (fifty-one percent of the residential land area of two hundred twenty-five acres) may be developed with not more than six hundred seven residential units. (2) The mix and location of residential units shall be consistent with the standards contained in the applicable Terrabay specific plan; (3) Residential building densities shall, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, be in accordance with the applicable Terrabay specific plan; (4) The density in the Terrabay residential district may be reduced by the city, if detailed geological characteristics of each development site and/or implementation of city development requirements indicates that building to the existing permitted density would pose a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. (k) Drainage. No owner shall alter the slope or contour of any lot or construct or alter any drainage pattern or facility without the approval of the city engineer. (Ord. 1318 S 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 1310~2; Ord. 12R8S1(D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.140 Special regulations applicable within tlte Terrabay commercial district. The following special regulations shall apply to the development within the Terrabay commercial district. (a) Building Height Limits. (1) Office. The North Tower shall not exceed 360 feet above mean sea level and the South Tower shall not exceed 275 feet above mean sea level. The parking structure shall not exceed 160 feet above mean sea level (2) Height is ineasured from the top of the uppermost parapet down to finished grade at the point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects the finished grade from mean sea level. (b) Entry / Exit Drive. A privately maintained entry drive shall be constructed to serve the Terrabay commercial district. The drive shall have an 88 foot right-of-way at the intersection of Airport Boulevard which will accommodate two inbound lanes, three outbound lanes and a median. The additional right of way will also accommodate an additional outbound lane if warranted by the circulation monitoring required bv the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. fifty six foot curb to curb v;idth und shull provide two hvelve foot wide travellunes in und out of the project. No parking shall be permitted along the entry drive. 1 " -50- (c) Internal Intersection: The first internal inbound driveway shall include a minimum of 52 feet of right-of-way to accommodate two inbound traffic lanes and the potential for an additional exclusive right turn and left turn lane pocket. The outbound portion of the driveway shall include a minimum of 48 feet of right-of-way to accommodate three outbound lanes of traffic and the potential for an additional lane should circulation monitoring: warrant the addition of the lane. (d) Roadway Improvements. In keeping with the requirements of the Terrabay specific plans and development agreements, development in the Terrabay commercial district shall proceed only to the extent that the project sponsor improves the adjacent roadways in accordance with the Terrabay specific plan. Adjacent roadways are not able to carry the traffic generated by each phase of the development if the public improvements identified in the Terrabay specific plan as necessary for each phase are not constructed concurrently with that phase. (~) Parking Requirements - Office. (1) A parking capacity of one thousand seven hundred eighty five 1,952 cars in striped stalls is required based upon the parking requirements of ~ 2.81 spaces per one thousand gross square feet of floor area as set forth in the final Terrabay specific plan. Parking shall be provided as follows: (/..) Valet and/or assisted parking shall be used. (I..) Valet and/or assisted parking attendants shall be on the site during the peak use times of the day and the Vlcek as spccified in the TDM program, '.vhich may be f{)rmally amonded from time to time as specified in the final Terrabay specific plan. (B) Valet and/or assisted parking shall not be used in the surface parking lot. (C) Valet and/or assisted parking shall be used to the maximWll extent feasible during special events and or during peak seasons in the parking structures. (2) Striped stalls in the parking structures shall measure eight and one-half feet in width and eighteen feet in length and otherwise meet the requirements of SSF MC 20.74 Parking. Parking adjacent to columns shall be 9 feet in width. (3) Striped stalls in the surface lots shall measure a minimum of eight and one-half feet in width and eighteen feet in length. Two feet of the required eighteen feet may overhang in a landscape area provided that the area is a minimum of six feet in width and the overhang does not interfere with shrub or tree growth. Parallel parking shall measure eight and one-half feet in width and twenty feet in length with four feet of separation between the spaces. (4) Parking and parking services, including valet and/or assisted parking and the size of striped parking for van pool, car pool, shuttle bus and motorcycle parking shall conform to the requirements of the TDM program identified in the final Terrabay specific plan and Chapter 20.74 of the Municipal Code, "Off-Street Parking and Loading." (e) Parking Requirements Child Cnre (','lithin the Terrabay Commercial District). (1) Twenty on or off street parking stalls shall be pro'.'ided for tho day care facility. (2) Striped stalls for surface parking shall measure eight and one half feet in '.vidth by eighteen feet in length. Two feet of the required eighteen feet may overhang in a landscape area pro'.'idcd that the area is a minimum of six feet in width and the overhang does not interfere \vith slL.-ub or tree grow+.h. Parallel parking shall measure eight and one half feet in width and twenty feet in length vlith four feet of separation bet\veen the spaces. 1h -51- (J)ill A childcare drop-off and pickup area shall be provided that is protected from the flow of traffic and does not impede the flow of traffic. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.150 Development procedure-Generally. (a) After the Terrabay specific plan district has been annexed to the city, for all land within the 1982/1996 Terrabay specific plan area village and park, commencing after annexation, the Terrabay Phase II Woods specific plan area commencing May 1999; and the final Terrabay specific plan area commencing on January 1,2005, all maps, plans and permits shall be submitted, processed and approved in the following order: (1 ) Specific plan; (2) Tentative subdivision map, vesting tentative map or parcel map; (3) Precise plan; (4) Final subdivision map (if applicable); (5) Grading (and any associated retaining wall permits) permits; (6) Building or occupancy permits. The city shall not process or approve land use entitlements or permits in any other order. For example, the city shall not process or approve a precise plan for any land within the Terrabay specific plan district which does not have an approved tentative or parcel map. (b) For the final Terrabay fuJecific flan area only, and up to and ending on December 31, 2001 all maps plans and permits shall be submitted, processed and approved in the following order: (1) Specific plan; (2) Tentati'/e subdiyision map, vesting tentati','e map or parcel map; (3) Precise plan; ( 1) Rough grading permit; (5) Final subdiyision map (if applicable); (6) Final grading permit; (7) Building or occupancy permits. (c) The parcel map or final subdivision maps and the final precise plans for de'o'elopment of the Terrabay specific plan district shall conform to the standards, criteria and requirements of the applicable Terrabay speeific plan. (d) Unless otherwise stipulated in the Terrabay specific plan, all applicable provisions of this code shall be followed including, but not limited to, the payment of all applicable fees as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city. (e) Building permits shall expire as provided in the Uniform Building Code, as approved and amended by the city. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.160 Precise plan and subdivision maps-Generally. No person shall commence any use or erect any structure or make exterior modifications to any existing use, and no grading permit, building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any new use or structure or modification thereof until a final subdivision or parcel maprand precise plan has been approved by the city council, and said final subdivision or parcel map 17 -52- has been recorded in accordance with the requirements of the Terrabay specific plan and of Title 19 of this code except as provided for in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.63.150(B). (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.165 Tentative subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps or parcel maps- Submittal-Processing. (a) Tentative subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps or parcel maps for development in the Terrabay specific plan district shall be submitted to the secretary of the planning commission. The secretary shall check each application for completeness and conformance with the Terrabay specific plan. (b) If the tentative subdivision map, vesting tentative map or parcel map is found incorrect, incomplete or not in conformance with the Terrabay specific plan, the secretary will notify the applicant of the deficiency within thirty days of submission of the tentative subdivision map or parcel map. (c) Tentative subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, parcel maps and final subdivision maps shall otherwise be processed as set forth in Title 19 of this code and the Subdivision Map Act (Sections 66410, et seq., of the Government Code) except that a planned unit development procedure is not required for vesting tentative maps. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001) 20.63.170 Precise plan-Submittal-Initial review. (a) Precise plans for development in the Terrabay specific plan district shall be submitted to the secretary of the planning commission. The secretary shall check each application for completeness and conformance with the Terrabay specific plan. (b) If the precise plan is found incorrect, incomplete or not in conformance with the Terrabay specific plan, the secretary will notify the applicant of the deficiency within thirty days of submission of the precise plan. (c) If the precise plan is found to be complete and correct, the secretary shall proceed as set forth in Sections 20.63.190 and 20.63.200 of this code. (d) Subdivision and parcel maps shall be processed as set forth in Title 19 of this code and the Subdivision Map Act (Sections 66410, et seq., of the Government Code) except that a planned unit development procedure is not required for a subdivision or vesting tentative map. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D) (part) , 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.180 Precise plan-Contents. The following information and drawings related to precise plans shall be required for submittal to the secretary of the planning commission at least thirty-five days prior to the planning commission meeting at which the precise plan is to be considered, together with the required filing fees as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city adopted by resolution of the city council: 1~ -53- (a) Ten full-sized and twenty-five, eight and one-half inches by eleven inches reduction copies of the precise plan; (b) All tentative subdivision, vesting tentative map or parcel maps within the area covered by the precise plan. The maps shall in every case already be approved as required by Title 19 of this code and the Subdivision Map Act; (c) A legal and physical description of the site, including boundaries, easements, existing topography, natural features, existing buildings, structures and utilities; (d) A plot or site plan, drawn to scale which depicts all proposed on-site improvements, and utilities and the locations of same, in accordance with the standard established in the Terrabay specific plan; (e) A landscape plan drawn to scale which sets forth detailed information in accordance with the landscape requirements of the Terrabay specific plan and the habitat conservation plan, and the director of parks and recreation and maintenance services; (f) Grading, drainage and grading/erosion maintenance plans; (g) Architectural plans and detailed exterior elevations indicating profiles, glazing and materials drawn to scale. The applicant shall submit ten black and white full-size print set(s) drawn to one-quarter scale and ten eight and one-half inches by eleven inches reductions showing all land use and buildings, for each precise plan; (h) Scale drawings of all signs and light standards, with details of height, area, color and materials; (i) Plans for off-site improvements associated with the precise plan; and G) Any other drawings or additional information necessary to show that the precise plans are in conformance with the Terrabay specific plan, as required by the city. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.190 Precise plan-Action by secretary ofplanning commission. Upon receipt of the complete precise plan, the secretary of the planning commission shall transmit complete copies to the following departments or officers: director of economic and community development, director of public works, city engineer, chief building inspector, director of parks, recreation and maintenance services, police chief, fire chief, and, if affected, the superintendent of the South San Francisco Unified School District, and each serving utility company. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.200 Planning commission report on precise plan. (a) The date of the actual filing of the precise plan, for purposes of this chapter, shall be the date of the next succeeding closing of the agenda of the planning commission meeting following the presentation of the complete precise plan to the secretary of the planning commlSSlOn. (b) The secretary of the planning commission shall assemble the various reviews of the precise plan. Upon completion of the city review and consultations, the secretary to the planning commission shall submit the precise plan to the planning commission and shall 10 -54- recommend that the precise plan be approved, conditionally approved or disapproved or suggest modifications. ( c) The planning commission shall submit to the city council its written report advising approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the precise plan within thirty days after the actual date of filing, unless that time period is extended by written consent of both the project sponsor and the planning commission. Such report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the recommendations made and shall state all specific conditions recommended for a conditional approval. The report will indicate whether or not the precise plan is consistent with the specific plan and the tentative subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps or parcel maps within the area covered by the precise plan. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.210 Precise plan-Action by city council. (a) At the next regular meeting of the city council following the filing of the planning commission report with the city council, the city council shall fix a meeting at which the precise plan will be considered, which meeting date shall be within thirty days thereafter. The city council shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the precise plan within such thirty- day period. (b) Any conditions imposed will be reasonable and designed to assure attainment of the standards established in the Terrabay specific plan. No approval will be unreasonably withheld by the city council if the precise plan complies with the standards, conditions and requirements of the specific plan. If the city council disapproves the precise plan, it will specify the standards or conditions which have not been met. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.220 Mandatory findings for approval of precise plan. The city council shall make the following findings before approving or conditionally approving any precise plan: (a) The project proposed in the precise plan is consistent with the city of South San Francisco general plan and the applicable Terrabay specific plan; and (b) The proposed development and/or construction standards of the precise plan are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of the applicable Terrabay specific plan; and (c) that the development proposed in the precise plan is consistent with the applicable development agreement should one be in effect. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.230 Amendments to approved precise plan. (a) If major amendments to the precise plan are desired by the applicant, an application will be submitted to the secretary of the planning commission and processed in accordance with procedures established herein for approval of the original precise plan. (b) Revisions which are minor in nature, other than those imposed as specific condition of plan approval, shall be reviewed and approved by the director of economic and ')() -55- community development. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.240 Expiration of precise plan approval. Any precise plan which has been approved, conditionally approved or modified will lapse and shall be deemed void two years after the date thereof if a building permit has not been issued therefor and/or construction has not commenced or has not proceeded with due diligence thereafter. Reasonable extensions oftime may be granted by the city council. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D) (part) , 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.250 Permits from other agencies. No development proposal which requires a permit or an approval of any sort to be issued by any local, state or federal agency, may be approved by the city until proof of such other permit, license or approval is on file in the department of economic and community development. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.260 Permissible types of construction. All construction within the boundaries of the Terrabay specific plan district shall at a minimum comply with all applicable provisions of state law and this code. Terrabay specific plan requirements will prevail where more restrictive. (Ord. 1288 S 1 (D)(Part), 2001: Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 S 4 (part), 1983) Section 3: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. '11 -56- Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 11 th day of October, 2006. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the _ day of _' 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _ day of , 2006 Mayor ?? -57- RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PHASE III ONLY, TERRABA Y PRECISE PLAN AND TDM PROGRAM AND ADOPTION OF A ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980's; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development on December 13,2000; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Company, L.L.C. ('the Applicant"), has prepared a 2006 Terrabay Phase III-Only Precise Plan (2006 Project) amending the approved 2000 Specific and Precise Plans for the Phase III site, which addresses the 21 acres ofland approved for a 665,000 square foot office tower and roadways in the 2000 Plan, which the 2006 Project would construct in two office towers along with 24,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail, a 200 seat shared use performing arts facility, a 100 child day care center, a public art program to be constructed on approximately 10 acres of the 21 acre site and 32 moderate income units (120% of median) off site; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's 2006 Terrabay Precise and Specific Plan amendment is proposed to modify Terrabay Phase III only to allow for the office to be constructed in two towers with approximately 24,000 square feet of retail commercial use on the Phase III Terrabay Commercial land in place of the originally planned and approved single office tower and 7,500 square feet of commercial retail; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Final Specific Plan approved in 2000 shall be amended to incorporate the land uses and the development intensities approved by the 2006 Terrabay Precise Plan amendment and as conditioned in Exhibit A, as shown in Exhibit B, as shown in the 2006 Terrabav Phase III Precise Plan and as directed by City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for only that portion of Terrabay known as Phase III, shall be amended, as shown in Exhibit B and including the development standards identified in Exhibit A of City Council Ordinance , by City Council action of adopting this resolution of approval for Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan approval of the 2006 Amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Final Terrabay Specific Plan shall require minor text and exhibit amendments to reflect the 2006 Precise Plan approvals to allow for 1) two office towers totaling 1 -58- 665,000 gross square feet as opposed to the 2000 Plan approval allowing one 665,000 gross square foot office building, 2) 24,000 square feet of retail commercial use as opposed to the 2000 Plan approval of 7,500 square feet of retail commercial use, 3) a 200 seat performing arts facility shared with the office use as opposed to a 150 seat performing arts center shared with the office allowed by the 2000 Plan, 4) a 100 child day care center which is the same as the 2000 Plan; 5) a public arts program on site which is the same as the 2000 Plan, 6) 32 moderate income housing units off site at 120% of median which is the same as the 2000 Plan, and 7) various development standards contained in the zoning text amendment as identified in Exhibit A attached to City Council Ordinance ; and, WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, shown in Exhibit A attached to City Council Ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are necessary to allow for the revised 2006 Plan land uses; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum, which supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR1 is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics, has been recommended for approval to the City Council via separate resolution, and is stated in its entirety as a part of the recommendation for certification in that entirety in that Resolution's recommendation; and, WHEREAS, should the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR and approve its 2006 Addendum and approve the Terrabay Phase III Only Precise and Specific Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments recommended herein, and should the City Council determine that a development agreement is necessary, the City Manager and City Attorney, at the direction of the City Council, will negotiate with the applicant the terms of a Restated'and Amended Development Agreement (DA), to be followed by the action ofthe City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, Planning Commission subcommittee and Planning Commission have requested various refinements to the 2006 Project which amends the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plans. City Council directs staff to incorporate these changes into the Final Terrabay Specific Plan document after City Council action on the2006 Project, should the City Council fmd in favor of approval. The refinements will reflect the revisions of the Design Review Board, sub-committee, Planning Commission and City Council as approved, and would include any necessary amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District that emerge as a result of final City Council action on this 2006 Precise and Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the 2006 Project on May 16 and June 20,2006, on July 26, 2006 a sub-committee of the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the 2006 Project, on August 1, 2006 the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission conducted a joint properly noticed meeting on the 2006 Project, the Planning Commission conducted properly noticed public hearings on August 17, 2006, September 7, 2006 and September 21,2006 and modifications to the 2006 Project have been made by the Applicant 2 -59- in response to direction given; the August 17 and September 7, 2006 properly noticed Planning Commission meetings were also held to consider the proposed amendments to the Terrabay Precise Plan, Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The 2000 approved and the 2006 proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) the 2006 proposed Precise Plan; 4) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, 4) the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum, 5)Testimony and materials submitted at the City Council study session on April 24, 2000; 6) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission study sessions of June 1,2000 and September 14,2000; 7) Testimony and materials submitted at the Design Review Board meeting on June 20,2000; 8) Testimony and materials submitted at the Historic Preservation Commission on June 8, 2000; 9) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 2000; and 10) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 11) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on March 14,2001, 12) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the October, 2004 joint study session conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission, 13) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the three City Council subcommittee meetings and one joint City Council/ Planning Commission conducted between February of 2004 and July of2005, 14) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee meetings of October 5th and 24th, 2005, 15) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the Planning Commission at hearings dated November 1 th, 2005, December 1S\ 2005, and December 15th, 2005, 16) Testimony and Materials including the 2006 Project revision presented to the Design Review Board in May 16, June 20, 2006, the July 26, 2006 sub-committee meeting of the Planning Commission on the 2006 Project, the August 1,2006 Design Review Board and the Planning Commission joint properly noticed meeting on the 2006 Project and the Planning Commission properly noticed public hearings on August 17, 2006, September 7, 2006 and September 21, 2006, and Testimony and Materials including the 2006 Project Revision submitted to the City Council properly noticed public hearing on October 11th, 2006. 1. Proposed 2006 Terrabay Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan ~ -60- The proposed land uses identified in the 2006 Project that amend the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as identified in the following. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses in the 2006 Amendment the Final Terrabay Specific Plan conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies Guiding and Implementing Policies 2-G-I: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Analysis: The 2006 Project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The 2006 Project will compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by providing office uses, and office supporting and area- wide retail uses on the site. 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and area-wide clientele for the 2006 Project which will add to the City's tax base and support the office use. The 2006 Project proposes office and retail land use with a 0.78 FAR under the 1.0 FAR maximum for Business Commercial land use designations with structured parking. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM Program for the 2006 Project. The measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed office and retail mix and the 2006 Project location and size. The TDM Program stipulates annual audits and modifications as necessary to ensure the success of the program at the mode established by Ordinance. 2-1-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. Analvsis: The 2006 Project is unique and it is a planned development. The site is 4 -61- unique within the City of South San Francisco as well as the northern peninsula. The 21 acre (18 acres developable) site is undeveloped on the west of 10 1 and in the lee of San Bruno Mountain. The relatively large size of the site and its protection from the windy elements of the Mountain enable a successful office and commercial retail project to be developed. Outdoor cafes and plazas, the proposed walk to the sanctuary will all be sheltered from the elements and provide a setting for people to converge and interact. The 2006 Project will be developed on approximately 10 acres leaving the remainder of the site in open space, landscaping and land restoration. The 2006 Project includes a public art program. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode useage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the 2006 Project. The 2006 project, based upon its floor area, is required to achieve a 30% mode shift. 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas, require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The 2006 Project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Remainder parcels are landscaped with seed mix approved by the HCP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the project and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete. The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay (Heights and Pointe) and Phase III parcels. The lands have been restored and offered for dedication to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/State Park. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise Valley/Terrabay Guiding Policy 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Analysis: The 2006 Project proposes office, restaurant and retail land uses and a performing arts center. Chapter 4: Transportation Guiding and Implementing Polices 4-2-G-7: Provide afair and equitable meansfor payingfor fUture street improvements. .1:\ -62- Analysis: ramps. The project sponsor contributed land and $8.5 million to construct the hook 4-2-1-6: Incorporate as part of the City's CIP needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and Us. 101 Hook Ramps Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Bouleyard. The project sponsor will also contribute to additional roadway and pedestrian improvements as identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The 2006 Project includes pedestrian walkways to Airport and Sister Cities Boulevard and to the bus stop on Airport Boulevard. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The project implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase III 2006 Project. 4-3-1-4: Require provision ofsecure and covered bicycle parking. Analysis: The project includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Implementing Policy 5-I-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-ol-ways. Analysis: T errabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase III site. The 2006 Project includes a trail to the western portion of the site with an overlook area. The project proposes walk ways throughout and around the site. Chapter 6: Economic Development Guiding and Implementing Policies 6-G-1: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. 6 -63- Analysis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: . The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. . Myers Development Company, City leaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation ofland and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. . Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". . The Terrabay Project as a whole has constructed housing, water facilities, linear parks, a sound wall, storm drain and sanitary server infrastructure, landscaping, a recreation center, a fire station, outdoor recreation improvements to the Hillside School, public and private roadways and restored and dedicated open space. The 2006 Project proposes an office and retail land use that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for police and fire personnel and equipment as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and will pay for its own infrastructure. Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-/-G-]: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the 2006 Project for Phase III on the 18-acre parcel known as the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase III was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open space and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 Viola Pendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. 7-J-G-l: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. 7 -64- The 2006 Project includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase III Terrabay affects less than 1/10th of an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel The Terrabay Project as an entirety has dedicated a 26 acre preserve and has restored or provided funding for restoration and offered for dedication over 400 acres of land for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and to the City of South San Francisco. Additionally a recreation was constructed in Phase 1. Phase I, II and III and include passive recreation opportunities. The project has installed a water system and holding tank in Phase I, privately maintained streets in Phases I and II and proposes the same in Phase III. Storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements were constructed by the developer in Phase I and II and maintained by the homeowner's associations of Phases I and II, and the same with the addition of a commercial property owners association is proposed for Phase III. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: A. Approve the 2006 Terrabay Modified Precise Plan as approved by Council and as conditioned attached hereto in Exhibit A. B. Approve the Terrabay 2006 Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for the Phase III site only and directs staff to incorporate the text and exhibit changes into the Final Terrabay Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto, in Exhibit A attached to City Council Ordinance and as shown in the Precise Plan drawings. C. Approve the Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, attached hereto in Exhibit C. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of , 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: 8 -65- Attest: Sylvia Payne City Clerk q -66- EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MANDALA Y TERRACE TERRABA Y DEVELOPMENT - PHASE III COMMERCIAL OFFICE TOWERS, AIRPORT BOULEVARD) P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 (As recommended by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) General Conditions 1. The following conditions shall be Precise Plan for Terrabay Phase III. Should in the determination of the Chief Planner, implementation, or incorporation of any conditions require substantial revision to the design of the project, the project shall be referred back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and action. 2. The applicant shall comply with the City of South San Francisco's Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of the affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions. 3. Cost Recovery: The Applicant shall provide the City with a $75,000 cash deposit within 48 hours of City Council approval of the 2006 Project for on-going cost recovery. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City and the Applicant shall enter into a formal cost recovery agreement for City services. The "Development Account" and the agreement shall be maintained from the date of City Council approval and at all times until project construction is finalized and all the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Conditions of Project Approval are satisfied. Services to be billed shall include but are not limited to work efforts required in order to implement and monitor the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Conditions of Project Approval, perform plan checks, site visits and field condition and final inspections, and any supplemental architectural, landscaping and land restoration or traffic consulting services. All costs associated with the City's geotechnical and civil engineering consulting services to review the development improvement plans, technical reports, specifications, plan revisions and related documents shall be billed to the account. All legal and support costs applicable to the 2006 Project shall be billed to the account. Any and all costs associated with finalizing the TDM Program shall be billed to the Development Account. A Planning Division Conditions shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program from the 2005 SEIR and Addendum, 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR adopted by City Council as a part of the Precise Plan action. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City final plans which substantially comply with the site and precise plans date stamped September 1, 2006 except as modified herein, as approved by City Council. 3. Parking requirements, maximum building heights and required building set backs shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 20.63 (Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopted by City Council as a Dart of the Precise Plan entitlement action. -67- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 2 of 26 4. Project sponsor shall (1) submit FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" to the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office in Los Angeles, for an FAA airspace evaluation, and (2) incorporate the findings of the FAA airspace evaluation into the final plans for the project, if applicable. 5. Retaining walls in common areas shall be maintained in good condition and kept free of graffiti and damage. The property owners association and/or management group shall be responsible for keeping the retaining walls in common areas and the sound wall/fence in good condition and kept free of graffiti and damage. 6. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the Phase III 2006 Project shall be required and shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner and City Attorney prior to issuance of building permits for the project. The CC&R's shall address owner and occupant obligations such as the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program and all remaining obligations such as, but not limited to the use and access of the performing arts center and road, building, debris basin and building maintenance. The CC&R's will also contain a requirement of the association to notify and update the City on the prime contact for the association. 7. The surface treatment of the retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of any building permits. The Chief Planner may require additional landscaping and surface treatment of the walls to insure that the walls are screened adequately and are compatible with the architecture of the buildings and transition appropriately to San Bruno Mountain and the native landscape. This review is in addition to any structural review required by the Department of Public Works and/or Engineering Division. 8. A licensed archaeologist and a geologist shall be on site during the rough grading of the Buffer and Office Parcels. Should Native American remains or artifacts be discovered all grading and site activity shall cease in the affected area. The Native American Heritage Commission (Commission) shall be contacted and an appropriate plan (Plan), agreeable to the City, the Commission and the Developer shall be implemented. Said Plan shall address the treatment and disposition of any artifacts and/or remains. 9. The remediation and clean-up program ("Exotics Control and Management Plan for the Recreation, Office, Buffer, Residential and Remainder Lands Parcels Phase III Terrabay Parcels", West Coast Wildlands December 2001) approved by the City to control the presence and spread of exotic plant material on and from the Terrabay lands shall be implemented and completed to the performance objectives stated in the Plan. 10. The Applicant shall remediate, repair and stabilize the historic slide area on the Phase III site in accordance with URS engineering recommendations and as modified and approved by the City Engineer. The majority of the slide area is off the Phase III site; however, the entire slide area shall be mitigated. The mitigation and repair shall occur prior to conveyance of the remainder lands to the County. The property owner/ management association shall monitor and maintain the repairs as stipulated by the Engineering Division. The procedure for monitoring and -68- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 3 of26 maintaining the mitigations shall be incorporated into the covenants running with the project which shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner, City Engineer and City Attorney prior to issuance of any grading permits for any phase of the 2006 Project.. 11. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) management fees shall be remitted to the HCP Plan Administrator in accordance with the HCP for San Bruno Mountain. 12. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the project applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). No grading permit shall be issued until a grading plan and permit application is reviewed by the HCP Administrator and the Plan is found to be in conformance with the grading regulations contained in the "Agreement with Respect to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan" and as indicated in Figure 2-04 South Slope Project Grading Phases. No grading permit shall be issued by the City until the applicant provides the written documentation to the Chief Planner that all other County, state and federal regulations pertaining to wetlands and endangered or threatened species have been satisfied. Notice of satisfaction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board subject to their authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Endangered Species Act must be provided. A site meeting and HCP Permit shall be issued by the Plan Administrator prior to any grading or construction on the 2006 Project site. 13. All the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) contained in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and shown in Exhibit D of the resolution of approval and in accordance with SSF Municipal Code Chapter 20.120 shall be implemented into the project. Monitoring shall occur in accordance with SSF Municipal Code 20.120 and updates (as needed) of the TDM Program shall occur in order to assure that the performance objectives (30 % mode shift) are met. The 2006 Project, as noted in the TDM Program, shall incorporate shuttle bus service into the Project. The shuttle bus service can either be a stand alone serving the project, connect with the Alliance shuttle bus service serving the East of 101 areas, or another similar shuttle service such as the one serving the Peninsula Mandalay Tower. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City in the development and implementation of a regional shuttle service if such service is considered by the City. 14. All proposed signage for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. 15. Any modifications to the plans required by either the Planning Commission and/or City Council during the public hearing process shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of building permits 16. An "operating agreement" between the City and the Developer and his successors and assigns for the use of the Performing Arts Facility shall be executed prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any phase of the 2006 Project. The operating agreement at a minimum shall stipulate that the facility is for use of the City, civic groups and performing arts groups free of charge. Square footages of uses such as stage, seating and storage shall be stipulated in -69- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-000 1 & ZA06-000 1 Page 4 of 26 the agreement. The hours and days the facility shall be available to the aforementioned groups shall also be stipulated in the agreement. 17. A minimum of eight dedicated theatre lights and a dedicated theatre control booth as well as a theatre sound system shall be provided in the performing arts facility for exclusive use of the performing arts and civic groups as stipulated in the operating agreement. The performing arts facility shall be developed in consideration of acoustical performance. The seating shall be fixed seating and angled (as in stadium seating) to facilitate view of the stage. 18. A final landscape plan including revegetation and restoration of the Point of San Bruno Mountain shall be approved by the Chief Planner and City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any grading or construction on the Phase III site related to the office towers, garage or commercial development. Funds from the deposit required in General Condition 3 may as necessary be used to assure the performance of the landscaping and restoration. Any emergency grading or grading associated with geotechnical repair is exempt from this requirement. 19. No take of the Viola is anticipated nor shall any take occur. 20. The Applicant shall have completed construction of the 32 off-site moderate income housing units prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any phase of the Phase III 2006 Project. A "Housing Agreement" required by City Ordinance shall be executed between the Developer and the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the 2006 Project (Phase III). 21. The applicant shall submit evidence sufficient to the Chief Planner and Building Official that the space as designed or expanded is adequate to meet state licensing requirements for the Child Care Center. Space shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of 100 children. The evidence may require a letter from the state. A construction phasing plan that mitigates any impacts to the child care center is required as part of the condition identified below. The tenant improvements for the Child Care facility shall be included in the first phase building permit drawings and shall be in compliance with state licensing requirements to ensure a "turn-key" facility . 22. The 2006 Project shall be an essentially "complete project" should the project be constructed in two phases. Therefore, notwithstanding which office tower may be constructed first, the day care, performing arts, landscaping, Point of San Bruno Mountain land replanting and public art program shall be in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first phase of construction. The remaining yet-to-be developed portion of the project shall be landscaped, include outdoor seating areas and outdoor art, such as sculpture. A plan that represents a "complete project" shall be submitted along with the building permits for the fIrst phase of construction should the project be phased. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner and shall include at a minimum the requirements of this condition. A plan that mitigates any impacts to the outdoor area for the day care center shall also be included as a part of this plan. The taller of the two northwestern retaining walls shall not be constructed prior to construction of the North Tower. This area shall also remain in a "natural state" which -70- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 5 of 26 involves either burying the smaller of the two retaining walls (if constructed in the first phase) or deferring its construction to the second phase and landscaping the area in either case. 23. The emergency access road shall be constructed of grass/turf crete or an integral color (stained) concrete to compliment the landscaping and color of the earth. 24. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall provide written verification that the Transportation Demand Management Program complies with the requirements of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). 25. The southern portion of the parking garage shall be landscaped (stealthed) with larger size specimen trees subject to the approval of the Chief Planner. (Planning Division contact: Allison Knapp 650-829-6633) B Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. UTILITIES A. Electrical and Gas Facilities 1. All new and existing electrical power and gas mains, services, facilities and appurtenances shall be installed underground within the limits of the entire Terrabay development (except for the existing P.G.& E. Tower Line facilities that provide electricity to San Francisco). 2. All utilities for power and gas shall be located within appropriate easements, dedicated to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their designated successor in interest and shall conform to their requirements. B. Water Facilities 1. All water mains, services and appurtenances shall be installed underground and designed and installed to the standards and requirements of the California Water Service Company and the South San Francisco Fire Chief. They shall be located within appropriate easements, acceptable to the California Water Service Company and shall conform to their requirements. 2. The Developer shall install City standard fire hydrants at locations, and flowing sufficient water, as specified by the South San Francisco Fire Chief. The design of the water system shall be supported by appropriate calculations. 3. The design, phasing and construction staging of the water system shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. The -71- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 6 of 26 new water system shall, where feasible, be interconnected to the existing California Water Service Company facilities to provide a continuous loop. C. Communication Facilities 1. All telephone, communication and cable TV lines, services, facilities and appurtenances shall be installed underground within the limits of the Terrabay Development. 2. All communication and cable TV facilities shall be located within appropriate easements dedicated to AT&T, RCN, Comcast, or other City franchised utilities and shall conform to their requirements. II. STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A. Private (and public where accepted by the City) improvements intended to accommodate and convey storm water runoff from the Terrabay project and its drainage basin on San Bruno Mountain shall be designed by the applicant's civil engineering consultant, in accordance with City standards and the requirements of the Terrabay Specific Plan Ordinance, the State Department of Transportation and the County of San Mateo (as appropriate). Surface storm drains, excluding the trunk system carrying runoff from the San Bruno Mountain catchment basins, shall be designed to accommodate at least a 25-year storm without surcharging the pipes. At low points, where overflow would result in property damage, the drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year design storm. Inlets shall be placed and located so as to relieve private streets of all storm water generated by a 10-year design storm. The maximum width of gutter flow within the streets shall not exceed 8' from the face of the curb. The storm drainage system improvements, appurtenances and construction details shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Storm drain pipes shall be designed to achieve a velocity of 3 fps when flowing half full under gravity flow conditions. All drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. The overflow system at the inlet structure shall be designed to handle runoff from storms in excess of the hundred year return period, utilizing the private street system and hydraulically designed overflow drainage facilities, as may be necessary to protect structures from potential damage from storm runoff and from the approved design storm. The storm system shall intercept all runoff from the improved portions of the site and transport it via the public storm drain system to the San Francisco Bay. -72- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 7 of 26 B. The City will not accept any drainage facilities for ownership or maintenance within the Phase III project, except storm drainage facilities, if any, which accept flow from catchment basin(s) owned and maintained by a public entity. Only storm drainage improvements located within a public street, or a dedicated storm drainage easement, accepted by the City Council, shall be owned and maintained by the City. The minimum pipe size within the public right-of-way or City easements shall be 12" diameter. Where flow velocity within the pipe is anticipated to exceed 11 fps, when flowing half full under gravity flow conditions, at least two inches of cover over the reinforcing steel in the concrete pipes shall be specified, unless a lesser standard is approved in writing by the City Engineer. C. Unless specifically approved by the City Engineer, all storm drain pipes within public or private streets, or public drainage easements, shall be manufactured of reinforced concrete with water tight, neoprene, gasketed joints. Corrugated plastic or metal pipes shall only be used for temporary winterization improvements and their associated downdrains. All storm drain manholes shall be spaced at intervals not exceeding 300 feet. D. Storm drains installed within earth slopes with a ratio of 2: 1 or greater, shall be provided with pressure treated wooden, concrete, or metal check dams installed at 20 foot intervals, of a design approved by the City Engineer. E. Storm drain laterals shall be connected to the main at a manhole, catch basin, junction box or other accessible structure. No "blind" connections are permitted to storm drains. Laterals shall be connected so that their inverts are no higher than the top of the main. F. Two copies of the storm drainage and catchment basin calculations and drainage basin key map, justifying the design of the storm drain trunk system improvements (conforming to the approved construction plans), shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and for City records. G. Adequate maintenance access to all storm drainage facilities, meeting the approval of the City Engineer, shall be provided by the developer. Drainage facilities maintained by the homeowners association or property owner (and all public storm drainage facilities, if any) shall be located so as to facilitate and accommodate equipment access to man holes or turning structures at each end of the main and shall provide for safe personnel access to intermediate inlets, structures and other facilities that may need to be periodically maintained. H. Catch basins up to 4' deep shall be a minimum of 24" square. Inlets over 4' deep shall have a minimum inside dimension of 36" square. All grates shall have a "bicycle proof' waffle pattern. Access structures shall not be placed more than 300 feet apart for conduits smaller than 48" in diameter or 400 feet apart on conduits larger than 48" in diameter. -73- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 8 of 26 1. Reinforced concrete lining, a minimum of 4" in thickness, shall be required for all drainage channels, other than pre-existing natural drainage swales. All lined channels shall include a cut-off-wall at the beginning and termination of the lining, unless it is contiguous with a lined channel. The cut-off-wall shall not be less than two and one- half (2.5) feet below the invert of the line channel, and shall extend to a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) feet outside of the side walls to the top of the lining. The freeboard of any lined channel shall not be less than 0.5 feet. The depth and width of lined channels shall be supported by engineering calculations, submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. J. All projects within the Phase III development shall be provided with a storm drainage system incorporating approved Best Management Practices and/or approved pollution control filters of a type that are centrally located, accessible and require cleaning and maintenance no more than once a year. The design and location of these filters shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator. III. SANITARY SEWERS A. All sanitary sewers shall be designed to function during peak wet weather flows without surcharging the sewer pipes. The design of both the on and off-site sewer systems shall conform to the requirements of the Municipal Code and shall be supported by appropriate pipe capacity calculations prepared by the applicant's civil engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Calculated pipe flows shall exceed 3 feet per second. B. In accordance with the Terrabay Specific Plan requirements: Sanitary sewer trunk lines shall, wherever possible, be located within parking lots, paved walks, or streets. Where sanitary sewers are located parallel or longitudinal to slopes, they shall be installed under a minimum 10 foot wide bench, service road, path or similar facility of the width and structural section acceptable to the City Engineer, as required to accommodate the type of vehicles and equipment needed to access these utilities. The sanitary sewer main, which serves only the Phase III commercial development, shall be installed within the commercial site as a private sewer line. It shall be installed by the developers at their cost and shall be maintained by the future owners of the commercial parcel and their successors-in- interest. C. All public sanitary sewers shall be constructed of vitrified clay, plastic, ductile iron or cast iron pipe with water tight joints conforming to City standards. Private sewer mains shall be constructed of materials approved by the Plumbing Code, as adopted by the City. All joints shall be watertight. Sewer lateral clean outs shall be installed at property lines and at other locations, as required by the Plumbing Code. D. Drop manholes shall not be installed, except where necessary due to unavoidable utility conflicts. Manholes shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart. Manholes shall be -74- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 9 of26 provided at each change in direction, slope or pipe size. All dead end sewer mains shall terminate at a manhole structure. E. Adequate maintenance access to all sanitary sewer facilities, meeting the approval of the City Engineer, shall be provided by the developer. Sewer facilities maintained by the homeowner association shall be located so as to facilitate and accommodate equipment access to man holes at each end of the main and shall provide for safe personnel access to intermediate clean outs, structures and other facilities that may need to be periodically maintained or accessed. F. Only sanitary sewer improvements located within a public street, or a public sanitary sewer easement, shall be owned and maintained by the City. G. Sanitary sewers shall be designed and installed as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code, the South San Francisco Municipal Code and as approved by the City's civil engineering plan check consultant and the City's Building Division. IV. TRAFFIC / TRANSPORTATION A. In order to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project, the Developer shall, at his expense and at no cost to the City, lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities' (at Airport Boulevard) left hand turn lane from 55 feet up to at least 325 feet subject to the approval of the City Engineer, per "Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project) prepared by Crane Transportation Group dated July 31, 2006. The lane modification may require the Developer to dedicate additional public street right-of-way as may be necessary to construct the improvements. All right-of-way dedications shall be made without cost to the City and the easement document shall be approved by the City Attorney. Alternatively subject to the approval of the City Engineer, pursuant to the findings stated in the memorandum, re-striping of eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard as an exclusive left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane could serve as a mitigation. Additionally, a combination of these two approaches could be implemented. B. The Developer shall mitigate the traffic impacts at the Airport Boulevard/Project Access intersection to reduce the impact of queuing in the northbound left turn lane. C. The City shall independently monitor traffic flow through the first intersection internal to the site after full project completion and occupancy. The Developer shall fund the monitoring program. If driver confusion is observed, signalization shall be provided at this location, with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access intersection with Airport Boulevard. D. The Developer, at his expense, shall interconnect and time the Airport BoulevardlUS 101 Hookramp, Airport Boulevard/Project Access and Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard traffic signals. The Developer shall contact all agencies and receive all appropriate permits to perform the work. -75- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 10 of26 V. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS A. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer, for review and approval, complete improvement plans and specifications designed by a civil engineer registered in the State of California for all of the Terrabay project improvement work. The applicant's civil engineer shall sign, date and stamp each improvement, grading and construction plan prior to its approval by the City Engineer. All traffic, channelization, detour and signal plans shall also be designed, signed, dated and stamped by a traffic engineer, registered in the State of California. The design of roadway improvements shall be supported by soils test results, including R-values, lighting intensity analyses and drainage calculations. The City Standard Plans used for the subject project shall be those plans and specifications shown in the "Standards for Public Improvements" booklet, dated August 2005, and all approved revisions. B. Staging of improvements and utilities (placing portions of the improvements in service prior to the completion of the entire infrastructure) shall be approved by the City Engineer and other City staff, as appropriate. C. The developer shall furnish the City Engineer with two copies of all final documents, studies, reports, analysis, calculations and related material used by the developer's consultants to design the project infrastructure. D. At the time of requesting an occupancy permit for structures within each phase of the project, the developer shall submit a set of "as-built" plans of all public and private utility and improvement plans to the City Engineer. The "as-built" plans shall be the original tracings or permanent "Mylar" transparencies of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer and two paper copies of the plans. VI. PRIV A TE PROPERTY AND COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS A. Surfaced areas within private property and any common areas, shall be designed for structures adequately based on soil tests for R- Values. The minimum traffic index shall be 6.0. Emergency vehicle access, dead-end turn-a-round areas, fire lanes, fire mains and hydrants shall meet the approval of the Fire Marshal. The proposed interior driveway configurations shall be designed to accommodate the Fire Department's maneuvering and turn-around requirements for their fire fighting equipment. Street intersection radii design shall be justified by turning movement analysis. B. Private roadway grades shall not exceed 12%. The City Engineer may approve a maximum street grade of 15% for service roads that do not need to accommodate emergency fire equipment and trucks. Storm water runoff shall not be discharged in a concentrated flow across, or over, street curbs and pavements, or pedestrian walks. Sidewalks, a minimum of 4 feet in width, clear, shall be provided on at least one side of -76- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 11 of26 each street, connecting the new sidewalk with the existing sidewalk located in the vicinity of Airport Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard. C. Lighting shall conform to Police Department requirements and light standards and equipment shall be selected for both performance and durability, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Planning Division and the Police Department. D. Reflectorized barricades shall be provided at the end of stub streets. E. Each building structure shall be connected to a private sanitary sewer system discharging into the public sewer system. F. Traffic control signs shall be installed by the Developer in conformance with the approved plans. All streets shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time" (except in designated parking areas). Stop signs and crosswalks shall be installed at each street intersection where required for traffic and pedestrian safety. Intersection curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 30'. Adjacent property lines shall be concentric with the corresponding curb return. G. All roof leaders shall discharge directly into an approved drainage facility, or an underground rigid pipe, connected to the site's drainage system. The site drainage design shall be designed by the applicant's civil engineer and approved by the applicant's soils engineer and the City Engineer H. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into adjacent public or private property or streets. Area drains shall be provided with clean outs, inlets, manholes or other structures, as required to provide access for maintenance to all portions of the drainage system. 1. Storm drains, surfaced areas, planted areas, sprinkler systems and their controls, area lighting, water lines and utility lines and facilities shall be shown on the project site improvement plans and submitted to the City for review and approval. 1. All common and private property areas shall be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with plans approved by the City's Planning Division, or the City's Park and Recreation Department, as appropriate. K. The individual property owner, a property owners association, or similar entity, shall maintain all on-site improvements. Utility easements shall be dedicated and accepted by the utility company requiring said easements to maintain its facilities. L. Building and garage floors shall be protected from flooding caused by a 100-year design storm. M. All retaining walls shall be designed for the specific location where the wall is intended to be used. All retaining walls supporting private property shall be constructed on -77- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 12 of 26 private property and not on City lands or rights-of-way. The project soils engineer shall approve wall locations and design parameters. The applicant shall submit structural computations for every retaining wall and for lined ditches (channels) with side slopes steeper than 1-1/2:1. The applicant shall apply to the Building Division for a building permit for each wall to be constructed. N. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for each individual structure within the Terrabay project from the Building Division, the developer shall require his civil engineer to inspect the finish grading surrounding each building and certify, in writing, that it conforms to the approved site plans, that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of each building and that all drainage facilities within the site have been installed, in accordance with their approved improvement plans. The developer shall make any modifications to the grading or drainage facilities required by the project civil engineer to conform to intent of his plans. All approved field revisions to the approved site plans shall be shown on a record drawing prepared by the applicant's design consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division for the City's records. O. At the time of making a request for occupancy of each phase of the development, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the project grading, drainage, improvement, irrigation and utility plans marked "record drawing" by the developer's civil engineer. The "record drawing" plans shall be permanent plastic film transparencies of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer. P. Building permits for habitable structures downstream of natural drainage channels shall not be issued until the catchment/debris basin above the site requiring permits, has been constructed and is functional, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Q. The developer shall landscape and irrigate the slope between the project improvements and along Airport Boulevard, between Sister Cities Boulevard and north toward the City limits, to the north property line of their property, in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer, Chief Planner and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. These slopes shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner, property owner's association, or other appropriate entity, unless formally accepted for maintenance by the City Council. R. Catchment (or Debris) basins, protecting the private, improved, property within the Phase III development, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Terrabay Specific Plan Ordinance, the Terrabay Environmental Impact Report and the Joint Powers Authority (for the Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain) standards. VII. DEDICATIONS A. Airport Boulevard, within the boundary of the subject tentative map shall be dedicated by the Subdivider to the City of South San Francisco for public street and utility purposes, at no cost to the City. In accordance with the right-of-way and easement -78- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-000 1 & ZA06-000 1 Page 13 of26 agreement between the subdivider and the City, as approved by the City Council on October 11,2000 and any approved amendments. The extent of this dedication shall be determined by the City Engineer based upon the needs of the City of South San Francisco to accommodate vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic along Airport Boulevard. VIII. GRADING A. Soils, Geologic and Geotechnical Reports The subdivider shall submit three copies of all final project soils, geologic and geotechnical reports and addenda prepared for the Terrabay Development, to be filed in the City's permanent records. These reports shall address all deviations from the latest, adopted, Uniform Building Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. At the Developer's expense, the final reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's geotechnical consultants. The URS Geotechnical Reports submitted for the subject site indicate that additional information needs to be gathered and analyzed within the Phase III area. This information must be submitted to the City's geotechnical consultants to be reviewed and approved. These additional reports and the subsequent review may result in the imposition of additional soils, geological or geotechnical studies or requirements for the project. B. Grading Permit A grading permit for new grading within the boundaries of the TerraBay Phase III site shall not be issued by the City Engineer until after the City Council has approved the Phase III Precise Plan for the subject project and the Developer has submitted a cash security deposit, as provided for by Section 19.44.110 of the Municipal Code, and pursuant to General Condition 3 of this document to guarantee the prompt payment of the City's inspection, construction monitoring, plan checking and administrative costs. C. Grading Plans 1. The developer's project Geotechnical Consultant shall either sign the project grading plans or submit a signed and stamped letter stating that they have reviewed the rough grading or final grading (as appropriate) plans and that they conform to the intent of their recommendations and are acceptable to be used for the grading of the site. 2. The reshaping/restoration of the "Point" above the proposed parking garage shall be completed along with the grading/restoration above the Residential Parcel. This will allow an integrated drainage divide, physically identify areas of maintenance responsibility and provide a head-start for the restoration of the existing scared slope on the Point. -79- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 14 of26 3. Benches, walls and/or lined ditches shall be designed in to the lower portion of the major slopes to trap siltation and/or raveling of earth materials from the slope areas. These devices shall be placed along the sidewalks, roads and at the rear of the residential lots, that abut the base of the existing and new slopes. D. Grading Operations 1. The grading operations shall be accomplished in accordance with the terms of a grading permit, the requirements of the project soils reports, the approved plans and specifications and the direction of the project soils engineer in the field. The grading permit will not be approved until the applicant has obtained building permits, from the City's Building Division, for all retaining walls needed to complete the approved grading plans. 2. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled to prevent dust, covered with tarps, or equally effective dust palliative, to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried into the adjacent developed areas of South San Francisco. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day until the property is fullv developed. 3. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets. 4. The developer shall provide the City Engineer with a clear written statement that he understands the potential for increased costs and delays during the grading operations, due to potential geotechnical conditions identified in the project soils and geotechnical reports, and has made provisions for these potential costs and delays in his project budgeting and scheduling. 5. The developer shall provide a commitment to take maximum geotechnical care and attention in the field performance of the grading and that he will correct any geotechnical problems which develop during construction at his expense. Particular attention shall be given to compaction adjacent to utility structures, manholes, storm drain inlets, maintenance access areas, concrete gutters, etc. 6. An adequate performance bond to cover the dust and erosion impacts of grading operations, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and of an amount specified by the City Engineer, shall be provided to the City by the developer, prior to receiving a grading permit. 7. The Developer shall prepare, and submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a construction grading schedule with specific dates for completion of grading milestones by which the progress of the work can be evaluated.c -80- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 15 of26 8. The developer shall have his civil engineer design and submit, for review and approval by the City staff and consultants, a Site Winterization Plan, Best Management Practices Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the grading work and other construction activities, prior to receiving a grading permit for any phase of the project. The approved winterization plan shall be placed in effect and maintained to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, between October 15 and April 15 of each year that the finish grading and improvement work remains incomplete. 9. All work activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Friday (and excluding all City recognized holidays), unless other hours and days are specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer. C. INSPECTION 1. The Developer shall provide continuous on-site grading inspection services by his geotechnical consultant. At a minimum, inspection services shall be provided at a level that will permit the consultant to state that all grading work was performed in accordance with the requirements of the project soils and geotechnical reports and in accordance with their recommendations. 2. The City shall provide construction compliance monitoring of the grading inspection services provided by the developer's consultants. The compliance monitoring requirements are set forth in another section of these recommendations. Funding for this service shall be provided by the developer. D. MAINTENANCE OF UNIMPROVED GRADED AREAS 1. The Developer shall provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week maintenance of all graded, or otherwise disturbed areas, until these areas are fully developed. The maintenance work shall include the control of dust and erosion, the repair and cleaning of drainage and silt retention facilities, the irrigation of erosion control plantings, and the repair of slope failures, slumps and potentially hazardous conditions. 2. A regular maintenance program for unimproved graded areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The maintenance program shall be implemented by the developer's contractor to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. E. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVED SLOPE AREAS 1. The Developer, their successor's in interest, and the future owners of both any common areas and the improved development, shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of all slope areas within their properties. The developer shall prepare a written maintenance plan, with specifications, schedules and -81- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 16 of26 illustrative exhibits for the maintenance and repair of slope areas, drainage facilities, benches, gutters and sub drains for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The developer and future property owners shall be required to maintain their property in accordance with the approved maintenance plan. This requirement shall be incorporated into the Terrabay Phase III D.C.C. & R's. F. LOT PAD AND GRADING APPROVALS 1. Prior to receiving a Building Permit for any building or structure within the Terrabay Phase III Development, the project soils engineer shall verify in writing that the grading and earthwork within the building pad area is complete and in conformance with the approved soils report and his recommendations. The soils engineer's compaction and civil engineer's elevation, lot pad certifications, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the City's geotechnical consultant for review and approval. 2. Each grading plan shall be signed and stamped by the project geotechnical consultant, prior to its approval by the City Engineer, in connection with the issuance of a grading permit. IX. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM A. In order to provide assurance to the City that the grading, drainage, improvements, landscaping and site construction work within the property on San Bruno Mountain have been properly constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, project requirements and conditions of approval, the applicant shall develop a quality control program to inspect the work. The quality control program shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Developer's consultants shall inspect the project work and supply daily written documentation of all inspections and testing performed by the consultants to verify compliance with the approved plans. The consultants shall coordinate their activities with the City's representatives, the developer's contractors, and subcontractors, public utilities and the Habitat Plan Operator. The quality control program shall be funded entirely by the project sponsor. B. The City shall retain a contract employee and one or more assistants (if needed) to represent the City Engineer during the construction of the Terrabay Phase III development. This employee(s) shall inspect the public improvement construction work, as well as monitor the activities of the developer's quality assurance program, respond to citizen inquires, attend construction field meetings, organize, review and file project related correspondence, logs, test results and similar documents, coordinate with public utilities and perform other services for the City Engineer in connection with the development of the Terrabay Phase III projects. The City's representative(s) will be -82- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 17 of26 assisted by geotechnical and civil engineering consultants as necessary to perform the inspection and monitoring services. The project sponsor shall fund the City's costs for the City's inspection/monitoring program. The developer shall also provide a desk, telephone and access to a copy and fax machine in the contractor's field office to be used by the City staff while at the job site and either provide a vehicle for the inspector, or reimburse the inspector (or City) for the cost of a leased vehicle for the inspector's use. C. The Developer shall prepare a detailed geotechnical quality assurance program to provide an independent review and confirmation of all geotechnical decisions and reviews during construction, including, but not limited to, the installation and interpretation of instrumentation, field trials of excavation and fill materials, drainage installations, application of slope stabilization techniques and construction monitoring. This quality control program must be acceptable to the City and the developer must commit to its implementation, prior to receiving a grading permit. The quality control program will be monitored by the City Engineer through his field representative(s) and contract consultants. In the course of construction, differences of opinion may occur between the developer and the City as to the interpretation of the approved plans and specifications, geotechnical solutions to unexpected field conditions, the acceptability of particular methods of construction, safety related improvements, and similar matters. In the event of a dispute between the construction and field monitoring personnel, the City Engineer will make every effort to resolve the differences to all parties satisfaction. However, the City Engineer shall make the final decision regarding disputes, which shall be binding on the developer, his contractors and consultants. D. The Developer shall assign a project construction coordinator during both the design and construction phases of the project who will be the single point of contact with the City and its authorized agents. In the event that this person leaves, or is reassigned, these duties shall be assigned to a new person who shall continue to represent the developer and his engineers and contractors. E. The Developer shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the potential for future slope maintenance and slope correction work has been fully considered, and that adequately funded procedures for the efficient maintenance of slopes and correction of failures after construction have been provided. F. The Developer shall install geotechnical instrumentation on the major cut slopes above the project. These instruments shall be monitored during grading and after grading, as required by the City's geotechnical consultant. G. Prior to performing any blasting within the site, the developer's blasting contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the Fire Department and shall provide a minimum of 48 hours notice, in writing, to the City Engineer and all City departments and other -83- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 18 of26 government agencies that may be affected by the work, advising them of the date and time that such blasting will occur. H. Building permits for all retaining walls shall be obtained by the developer from the Building Division, prior to commencing foundation excavation and construction of the walls. XI. MITIGATION MEASURES AND OTHER AGENCIES A. The Terrabay developer shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the 2005 SEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.. B. The Terrabay developer(s) shall not commence work at the site until they have obtained all permits from any federal, state and county agencies required by law to perform the work needed to develop the subject projects. XII. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT OCCUPANCY The Developer will likely request occupancy of one of the office towers before the remaining tower is complete. If this request is made, the following conditions shall apply: A. Prior to receiving permanent occupancy permits of one of the towers within the project, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address, at a minimum, the following items: 1. All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from the portion of the site occupied by the new residents. All streets and sidewalks accessible to the public shall be clear of all trailers, equipment, materials, debris, and other obstructions, and cleaned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. All street lights within the portion of the subdivision accessible to the public shall be fully operational. 3. All traffic signs and pavement markings within the portion of the site accessible by the public shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. 4. All site improvements within areas subject to public access shall be complete in accordance with the approved subdivision improvement, grading, drainage and utility plans. 5. Hours of construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). (Engineering Division contact: Sam Bautista 650-829-6652) -84- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 19 of26 C Police Department requirements shall be as follows: A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. C. Building Security 1. Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 Ibs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock) with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. c. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock 1 with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Overhead roll-up doors shall be so secured on the inside that the lock cannot be defeated from the outside and shall also be secured with a cylinder lock or padlock from the inside. e. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent I The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defmed by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. -85- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 20 of 26 removal of the door. f. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing2 or the equivalent, if double- cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. g. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic-equipped doors. h. All entrance and exit doors for individual tenant spaces shall have a deadbolt lock. 1. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. j . Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. b. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. c. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material? or: 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. -86- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 21 of26 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. or: 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non- removable pins when using pin-type hinges. c. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting a. Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports) driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of business darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. A lighting level of .50 to 1 foot-candles minimum, maintained at ground level is required. The lighting level for the parking garage shall be 5 foot candles in the drive areas and 10 foot candles in the stairway areas. b. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be -87- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 22 of 26 adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. c. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. d. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. e. Parking lot lights shall remain on anytime there are employees in the building. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Lighting plans shall include photometric and distribution data attesting to the required illumination level. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. b. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. c. Posted at the main entrance to the building/complex shall be a monument sign (directory) showing the addresses and businesses within the complex. Said sign shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness and shall be protected by use of vandal-resistant covers or materials. d. Each different unit within the building shall have its particular address prominently displayed on its front and rear doors. (Rear door numbers only need to be one inch in height.) e. Fencing should be of an open design (e.g. bars and columns), to aid in natural surveillance. 6. Alarms and other security measures a. The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. -88- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 23 of 26 b. The business shall be equipped with a central station monitored silent robbery alarm. c. All individual businesses within the complex will be/may be required to have an alarm system before occupancy. The type of alarm is dependent upon the nature of the individual business. Tenants should be advised to make contact with Crime Prevention Bureau well in advance of requested business occupancy for further details. d. The Garage area will be protected by CCTV applications that will be monitored by the security officers. There will also be interactive speaker systems on each floor that will enable persons to call for assistance without having to dial a telephone. e. The Garage area shall incorporate an open design to maximize natural surveillance. The interior walls shall be painted white to maximize light reflection. The lighting level for the parking garage shall be 5 foot candles in the drive areas and 10 foot candles in the stairway areas. Mirrors or walls with reflective surfaces may be utilized to aid in 350 degree visibility for pedestrians in the garage. f. The Police Department recommends that there be 24-hour security provided for the entire commercial complex. During the normal business hours these guards will staff an entry desk that will monitor the entry of persons into the complex. This station will also monitor the CCTV applications in the garage and the emergency call stations. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the fmal inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan a. All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. b. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau at 829-3934. 8. Misc. Security Measures a. Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. -89- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 24 of 26 b. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. c. The fence surrounding the storage yard should be topped with triple-strand barbed wire or razor ribbon. (Police Department contact: Sergeant E. Alan Normandy 650-877-8927) D Building Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code. E Water Quality Control Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. 3. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters, and other removal devices) are required. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. If possible, incorporate the following: . vegetated/grass swale along perimeter . catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area . notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale . roof drainage directed to landscape . use of planter boxes instead of tree grates for stormwater treatment Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part of a treatment train. One of the following must be used in series with each manufactured unit: swales, detention basins, media (sand) filters, bioretention areas, or vegetated buffer strips. 4. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible. 5. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance schedule for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. -90- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 25 of 26 6. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Permit Requirements prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Environmental Compliance Coordinator at the RWQCP. 7. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 8. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 9. Loading dock area must be covered and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 10. Install separate water meters for the building and landscape. 11. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 12. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a permit. 13. Plans must include location of concrete washout area and location of entrance/outlet of tire wash. 14. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 15. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 16. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. (Water Quality Control contact: Cassie Prudhel 650-829-3840) F Fire Prevention requirements shall be as follows: 1. Communications (external, internal) a. The developer shall provide a communications repeater and all related equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by South San Francisco Fire Department. Communication equipment shall be installed at a location to be determined by the City of South San Francisco communications representative. Funding shall take place for communications equipment on approval of development by the South San Francisco City Council. b. The developer shall provide a radio communications study to determine internal radio communication need based on individual building types in development. If study finds -91- Conditions of Approval P06-0073: DR06-0060, PP06-0002, SP06-0001 & ZA06-0001 Page 26 of 26 internal radio communications are deficient, developer shall provide for mitigation. Costs for internal communications wiring, signal booster, antennae and any other related equipment to mitigate deficiencies would be incurred by developer. Evaluation of the system performance will be to the City of South San Francisco communications representative specifications. Any and all continued maintenance costs will be incurred by the building owner. 2. Wildland Urban Interface a. The developer shall install and maintain a one hundred foot buffer in the urban interface area; this shall consist of a fifty-foot wide green belt area with fire resistive plantings and an additional fifty-foot clear area maintained clear of hazardous fire growth, Public Resources Code 4291. 3. Emergency response traffic signal (Opticom) a. The developer shall provide for a traffic release system (Opticom). The traffic release system shall be incorporated into the traffic signals in areas directly impacted by the development. 4. Specialized Equipment a. The developer shall provide for the purchase of a vehicle to be equipped with specialized heavy rescue equipment and anon board air compressor. Other specialized equipment will include air units that can allow for increased air supply so personnel can reach all areas of the limited access parking structure and high-rise. Developer will provide funding for vehicle and equipment on City Council approval of development (vehicle manufacture contract will determine payment schedule). 5. Fire Access Roads a. Fire department access roads, pullouts, staging areas and vehicle turning radii shall meet requirements as set forth in "Mandalay Terrace Fire Department Access Exhibit" dated July 31, 2006. 6. Development must meet all Federal, State and Local codes and ordinances. 7. The service/maintenance access road leading to the catchment basin shall accommodate a 10,000 pound vehicle. (Fire Prevention contact: Bryan Niswonger 650-829-6645) -92- EXHIBIT B TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS (As recommended by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) The land uses, densities and intensities shown in the following table will upon modification by the Planning Commission and City Council and as directed by the City Council be incorporated by staff into the Pinal Terrabay Specific the following table. 2006 TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Gross Square Feet Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11,083 Child Care 5,000* 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase IT 990 spaces PHASE I AND II TOTALS Office 665,028** 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000* 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and IT 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 1,952 spaces *The square footage may be increased pursuant to state licensing requirements to provide for 100 children. **One of the office towers may be replaced with a four star or better hotel as defined in the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. -93- EXHIBITC Transportation Demand Management fTDM} Proe:ram for Terrabay Phase III fMandalav Terrace} in South San Francisco (As recommended by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2006 and Adopted by the City Council on October 11, 2006) The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for Terrabay Phase III includes on-site transportation coordination, expanded transit, improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities, coordination with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance programs, incorporation of City conditions of approval and mitigation measures and support services. Specifically there will be: 1. An on-site Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; 2. Financial incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent Terrabay neighborhoods; 3. Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; 4. Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and preferential, designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; 5. Guaranteed Ride Home program; 6. Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite; 7. Project design that promotes walking and pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods; and, City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific PIan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B-1 October 2006 -94- 8. Annual City Monitoring and Program Update to assure program success and amendment as necessary to meet the needs of Terrabay Phase III. 9. Traffic and circulation monitoring at full project build out and occupancy as required by Traffic Mitigation 3.1-11 of the 2005 SEIR and installation of an internal traffic light if needed. The following is a detailed explanation of each of the strategies listed, including the projected trip reduction where a trip reduction will result from a particular strategy. 1. Transportation Coordinator A part-time on-site Transportation Coordinator will be provided in Terrabay Phase III project and will coordinate the transportation programs and provide information and marketing materials to employees at Terrabay Phase III. The Transportation Coordinator will have a small office in the project, and may be an employee of the building property management organization. The office will include area sufficient to display copies of transportation services and schedules, a bulletin board, a desk, a computer and a telephone. The use may be a shared facility such as in the lobby of a building, or a portion of the property management office. Multiple tenants occupy Terrabay Phase III. Lessee/tenant fees will offset the cost of the Transportation Coordinator service. Each lessee/tenant will be required to designate an employee to serve as a point of contact for the Transportation Coordinator. Each lessee/tenant will cooperate with the Transportation Coordinator to share information about their employees that will be useful to TDM programming (e.g. employee home zip codes and/or cross-streets). Compliance will be required through the lease agreements for office and commercial tenants. The Transportation Coordinator's marketing efforts will include at a minimum the following features: A. Coordination with the services of The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance ("Alliance"). The Transportation City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B-2 October 2006 -95- Coordinator will assure the availability of the following services of the Alliance (or equivalent services from successor or comparable organizations): 1. A web portal with descriptions of all TDM programs, program forms, links to the regional rideshare agency's on- line ride matching system, transit/ shuttle schedule information, and links to transit providers. 11. "Stock" materials (i.e. materials prepared by other agencies) that will be provided to the tenants of Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for distributing them to employees. 111. Customized materials that explain the TDM program at Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will distribute the materials to Terrabay tenants who will in turn be responsible for distributing them to employees on an on-going basis as well as at new employee orientations. IV. An annual transportation event, such as a transportation information fair or piggy-back on a regional transportation event sponsored by the Regional Rideshare Program. v. A quarterly on-line newsletter which provides rideshare information. The Transportation Coordinator will assure that the newsletter is available to Phase III tenants and employees. B. The Transportation Coordinator will hold an annual carpool registration drive to get names into the rideshare matching database. C. The Transportation Coordinator will maintain a permanent information board or kiosk that displays information pertaining to transit and rideshare services, bicycle programs and facilities, and other relevant programs or services. D. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for and required to conduct annual audits of the tenants of Terrabay Phase III to insure that rideshare information and matching City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B-3 October 2006 -96- services are being provided to ernployees and tenants of Terrabay Phase III. E. The Transportation Coordinator will conduct annual transportation surveys (within a 95% confidence level) to identify the travel needs of the occupants of Terrabay Phase III. These surveys and reports shall be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council through a City Coordinator who will be a designated contact at the City of South San Francisco. F. The Transportation Coordinator will conduct transportation surveys addressing the opinions on the transit service. G. The Transportation Coordinator will orchestrate an annual transportation fair, which may be coordinated through the Alliance (or its successor organization). H. The Transportation Coordinator will submit all required audits to the City Coordinator. 2. Financial Incentives for Usine: Transit Employees of Terrabay Phase III will be provided convenient access to transit and may receive a significant transit subsidy. Leases will be structured so that tenants shall be required to implement the TDM measures necessary to meet the City's TDM goal. This could include tenant/ employer funded transit subsidies. The leases shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as to form with respect to the requirements to the TDM Program. Transit and shuttle stops shall be secure and easily accessible to all tenants and employees. There will be a designated bus and/ or shuttle stop. The expanded transit service and possible subsidy will begin with the "Primary Plan" identified below. An "Alternate Plan", described below, may be substituted for the Primary Plan. The Alternate Plan shall not be implemented without verification by the City Coordinator that parameters outlined below (or substantially equivalent parameters) are being met. ~ Primary Plan Required at Onset of Occupancy: A private shuttle, such as the one that serves the Peninsula Mandalay Condominium Tower, shall be provided. The shuttle program City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific PIan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B - 4 October 2006 -97- will be funded by tenant/ employer subscriptions. The shuttle would be available to employees and visitors of the Terrabay Phase III development (with no additional usage charge) and would provide a direct connection to Caltrain and BART with frequent service (3D-minute headways). ~ Alternate Plan Based Upon SamTrans Bus Schedules and Services: The Alternate Plan would be for SamTrans to directly serve the site with its regular service and for the tenants of the Terrabay Phase III development to offer Commuter Checks to employees. Commuter Checks are vouchers that would be used to purchase transit passes from any transit agency. Such subsidy would provide employees at Terrabay Phase III with savings in the purchase of SamTrans monthly passes The site is served by regional buses traveling along Airport Boulevard between the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco and points as far south as the Stanford Shopping Center. SamTrans Route 292 provides half-hourly service on Airport Boulevard connecting to downtown San Francisco, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans Route 297/397 provides one- hour headways connecting to downtown San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport and various Caltrain stations. SamTrans Routes 130 and 132 provide 10 to 15-minute headways (combination of both routes to the Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue stop) local service within South San Francisco and connect to the South San Francisco BART Station. These routes could better serve the Terrabay Phase III development if one or both were re-routed to travel on Sister Cities Boulevard, rather than Linden Avenue. If possible, this service change should be negotiated with SamTrans upon project approval. The Transportation Coordinator will administer the expanded transit program. Funding for the Primary Plan would be an employer-funded monthly subsidy to employees who ride transit three or more days per week. The employer-based subsidy (as described above) will be required as a part of any sale or leasing agreement in the commercial portion of City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B - 5 October 2006 -98- the project The transit subsidy would be provided as needed, to meet the City's TDM goal per the TDM ordinance. The Transportation Coordinator will administer any private shuttle to the Terrabay Phase III development. The shuttle would be funded through the same employer fees described above, however, under this Plan, the collected fees would be used to fund a private shuttle and, thus, might reduce the funding to provide Commuter Checks. 3. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities To encourage bicycle commuting, Terrabay Phase III will offer the following bike services: A. Terrabay Phase III will be designed to foster a pedestrian- friendly environment, including generous sidewalk areas, attractive pedestrian plazas and urban streetscape environments. B. The development will provide enough covered, enclosed bicycle parking to accommodate 1.5% of the employee population commuting by bicycle as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. The development will also provide short-term bicycle rack spaces along the commercial streets as shown in Exhibit A. Bicycle parking will conform with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 20.120 Municipal Code) and shall be located in a controlled, locked access room or area, monitored by security cameras and within the garage or within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard. C. The South Tower (Phase I) of the development will include two (2) showers, one (1) toilet, one (1) lavatory and an adjoining changing facility for men, as well as two (2) showers, one (1) toilet) and one (1) lavatory and an adjoining changing facility for women Showers and changing facilities shall be provided free of charge to the user. The entry doors to the changing facilities shall be located within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard station. City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B - 6 October 2006 -99- D. The development will provide one (1) clothing locker per 25,000 square feet of commercial building space (at least 13 clothing lockers for Phase I and the balance of 14 lockers added for Phase II), all of which might be located in the South Tower (Phase I). Lockers will be equally dispersed between the men's and woman's changing facilities.). Lockers will also be large enough to hold roller blades. 4. Parkine Strate des The ground floor components of the project will employ shared parking concepts to reduce the total supply of on-site parking. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools shall be provided where applicable. Ten percent of parking spaces shall be reserved for rideshare vehicles (minimum of one space) and be located in close proximity to favorable and secure access points. Marketing efforts by the Transportation Coordinator will target all site employees, regardless of their origins. Marketing efforts alone can increase the number of employees using transportation alternatives about one percent (1%). They also enhance the effectiveness of other measures. This enhancement becomes apparent when the remaining strategies in this plan achieve their high-end trip reduction estimates. 5. Guaranteed Ride Home The Transportation Coordinator will work with the Alliance and tenant contacts to register all businesses for the Guaranteed Ride Horne (GRH) program. 8. Site Plan Connectivity The Site plan promotes walking and pathway connections to public transit. The Terrabay Phase III site plan includes internal walkways and walkways around the perimeter of the project. The internal walkways lead pedestrians to open space amenities and retail services. The combination of internal and external walkways leads pedestrians to a City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan Appendix B - TOM Program Page B - 7 October 2006 -100- SamTrans bus stop directly in front of Terrabay Phase III. The onsite amenities, restaurants, and ATM machines will facilitate reductions in vehicle use. 9. Annual Citv Monitorin~ and Pro~ram Update The City will review the annual traffic data and surveys provided by the Transportation Coordinator. The TDM Program will be modified as necessary to become and remain effective in meeting the needs of the Terrabay Phase III project. This monitoring program shall be consistent with the methods and features that are described in Section 1 of this TDM program. The TDM Program shall be memorialized in all tenant lease or sale agreements. City Council Terrabay Phase III Only Specific PIan Appendix B - TDM Program Page B - 8 October 2006 -101- EXHIBIT A -- TOM - BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Bicycle ParkinQ Space Calculation USE NSF 300,482 11,083 5,000 316,565 PHASE I EMPLOYEES 1,054 25 11 1,090 NSF 337,945 11,958 o 349,903 PHASE \I EMPLOYEES 1,186 27 o 1,212 Office 1 Cornmercial2 Child care Center3 TOTAL 16 18 NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED AT 1.5% OF TOTAL POPULATION 35 TOTAL Notes: 1. Office employee population assumes 285 square feet per person (per CBRE Economic Benefits Analysis dated 8/17/06). 2. Commercial employee population assumes 450 square feet per person (per CBRE Economic Benefits Analysis dated 8/17/06). 3. Childcare Center employee population assumes 450 square feet per person (per CBRE Economic Benefits Analysis dated 8/17/06). Bicycle and Pedestrian Locker Calculation USE PHASE I NSF 300,482 11 ,083 5,000 316,565 PHASE \I NSF 337,945 11,958 o 349.903 Office Commercial Childcare Center TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCKERS REQUIRED AT ONE LOCKER PER 25,000 NSF 13 14 TOTAL 27 -102- RESOLUTION NO. 2658-2006 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS MODIFIED BY THE 2006 ADDENDUM FOR TERRABA Y, INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALL Y SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, A RE-STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TIONS FROM THE 1998/99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE 1996 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 1998-99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT FURTHER ANALYZED IN THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REMAINING PHASE III_PARCEL_OF THE TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of the Terrabay Development" ("the Proposal") as an office and retail commercial project (2006 Project) as the final segment of the three-phase development project ("the Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Project is divided into three separate phases, of which the 2006 Project is the third and final phase; and, ' WHEREAS, the entirety of the Terrabay/ Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents, including the 1982 Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report ("the 1982 EIR"), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement ("the 1996 SEIR") and the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 1998/99 SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, the 20056 Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining Terrabay Development parcel consisting of office and commercial land uses; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for 665,000 gross square feet of office, 24,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, a performing arts facility shared with the office conference room, a 100 child day care center, a Transportation Demand Management Program and a Public Arts Program as well as an option for a hotel; 1 -103- \VHEREAS, the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 2005 SEIR") and its 2006 Addendum as submitted supplements and builds upon the previous environmental analyses, and focuses on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes three alternatives to the 2005 Project, including a existing conditions alternative, a hotel alternative, and a residential alternative to the 2005 Project; and, WHEREAS, previous 1996 and 1998/99 SEIRs and the 1982 EIR analyzed the following alternatives: No Development, assumes no development would occur on the site; Existing 1996 Specific Plan, assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant; Reduced Residential, assumes 316 residential units and no commercial; Reduced Commercial, assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential; Permanent Open Space, assumes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space; and Mitigated Plan Development, assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes the impacts of the 2005 Project in relation to the impacts identified in the 1998-1999 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR addresses the change in development intensity and the different impacts associated with the 2005 Project and its alternatives; and, WHEREAS, the public review period on the draft 2005 SEIR commenced on August 30, 2005 and closed on October 14,2005. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft 2005 SEIR on October 6th, 2005. One public comment was received during the public hearing. Nine comment letters were received during the 45-day review period. All comments are responded to in the draft Pinal SEIR. Two letters, C/CAG and the San Francisco International Airport relate to noise. PG&E provided a standard comment letter with respect developer requirements. The Town of Colma and the San Mateo County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. California Department of Transportation sent a letter requesting 95th percentile analysis of the Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps, Bayshore/Central Project Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport, Oyster PointlDubuque and Debuque/1 0 1 Ramps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the 2005 Final SEIR. Mountain Watch commented on protocols for planting, weeding and maintenance to be included in the CC&R's for Phase III and a mowing regimen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comments underscore the objectives of the City. Two letters commented on the merits of the project and one of the two had an overall question on traffic; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft SEIR, providing a good faith reasoned analysis supported .., -104- by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published in a Pinal SEIR dated November 30,2005, and were distributed or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies and other interested parties. WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA S21081 and CEQA Guidelines 915091 upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are impacts of the 2005 Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon approval; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR, as a supplement to the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, did not reanalyze impacts of the 2005 project which were not significantly different from the 2000 Project impacts analyzed in the previous environmental analyses. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code 921166; CEQA Guidelines 915163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA 921081 and CEQA Guidelines 915091 are made for each of these impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the 2005 Project were examined and are deliberately different from the alternatives in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Project was withdrawn by the Applicant and a new application identified as the 2006 Project was submitted by the Applicant; and, WHEREAS, the 2006 Project was further analyzed in an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA which included an updated traffic and circulation analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group (August 21,2006); and, WHEREAS, based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Study it was found that the 2006 Project would result in less environmental impacts than the 2005 Project and Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, ... -105- WHEREAS, pursuant Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter an Addendum to an existing SEIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements Section 15162 no substantial changes in the 2006 Project have occurred that would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the 2006 Project would be undertaken would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur; and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available that was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more sever than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter an Addendum to the 2005 SEIR was prepared for consideration along with the Final 2005 SEIR; and WHEREAS, there are no new significant unavoidable impacts associated with the 2006 Project beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations for Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality (Impact 4.5-3 998/99 SEIR), Traffic Impact Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-1 1998/99 SEIR), 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway (Impact 4.4-4 1998/99 SEIR) and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps (Impact 4.4-5 1998/99 SEIR) on November 21,2000 by Resolution 147-2200 'WHEREAS, CEQA 921081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be adopted upon 2006 Project approval, at the precise plan stage, to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, 'WHEREAS, the above-referenced mitigation and monitoring program shall be submitted concurrently with the precise plan for the Terrabay Phase III site; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision on entitlements relating to the 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, A -106- WHEREAS, the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 2005 SEIR as restated in the 2006 Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2006 Project will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR and the following relating to development of Phase III of the Terrabay project: I. The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C should be adopted as conditions of Project approval. 2. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. Exhibit A: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit C: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 2005 SEIR Exhibit D: 2005 Final SEIR and 2006 Addendum * * * * * * :: -107- I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the _ih _ day of _September_, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti. Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Zemke NOES: Commissioner Romero and Vice Chairperson Honan ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Attest: ~p~ Susy Kalkin Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission , -108- RESOLUTION NO. 2659-2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PHASE In ONLY, TERRABA Y PRECISE PLAN AND TDM PROGRAM AND ADOPTION OF A ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980's; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development on December 13,2000; and, WHEREAS, the City and Myers Peninsula Company, L.L.C. ('the Applicant"), have prepared a 2006 Terrabay Phase III-Only Precise Plan (2006 Project) amending the approved 2000 Specific and Precise Plans for the Phase III site, which addresses the 21 acres ofland approved for a 665,000 square foot office tower and roadways in the 2000 Plan, which the 2006 Project would construct in two office towers along with 24,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail, a 200 seat shared use performing arts facility, a 100 child day care center, a public art program to be constructed on approximately 10 acres of the 21 acre site and 32 moderate income units (120% of median) off site; and , WHEREAS, the Applicant's 2006 Terrabay Precise and Specific Plan amendment is proposed to modify Terrabay Phase III only to allow for the office to be constructed in two towers with approximately 24,000 square feet of retail commercial use on the Phase III Terrabay Commercial land in place of the originally planned and approved single office tower and 7,500 square feet of commercial retail; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Final Specific Plan approved in 2000 shall be revised to incorporate the land uses and the development intensities approved by the 2006 Terrabay Precise Plan amendment and as conditioned in Exhibit A and as directed by City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Final Terrabay Specific Plan shall require minor text and exhibit amendments to reflect the 2006 Precise Plan approvals to allow for 1) two office towers totaling 665,000 gross square feet as opposed to the 2000 Plan approval allowing one 665,000 gross square foot office building, 2) 24,000 square feet of retail commercial use as opposed to the 2000 Plan approval of7,500 square feet of retail commercial use, 3) a 200 seat performing arts facility shared with the office use as opposed to a 150 seat performing arts center shared with the office allowed by the 2000 Plan, 4) a 100 child day care center which is the same as the 2000 Plan; and 5) a public arts program on site which is the same as the 2000 Plan and 6) 32 moderate income housing units off site at 120% of median which is the same as the 2000 Plan, as generally -109- shown in Exhibit B attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, shown in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are necessary to allow for the revised 2006 Plan land uses; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum, which supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR1 is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics, and is being recommended for approval to the City Council via separate resolution, and is stated in its entirety as a part of the recommendation for certification in that entirety in that Resolution's recommendation; and, WHEREAS, should the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR and approve its 2006 Addendum and approve the Terrabay Phase III Only Precise and Specific Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments recommended herein, and should the City Council determine that a development agreement is necessary, the City Manager and City Attorney, at the direction of the City Council, will negotiate with the applicant the terms of a Restated and Amended Development Agreement (DA), to be followed by the action of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, Planning Commission subcommittee and Planning Commission have requested various refinements to the 2006 Project which amends the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plans. City Council directs staff to incorporate these changes into the Final Terrabay Specific Plan document after City Council action on the2006 Project, should the City Council find in favor of approval. The refinements will reflect the revisions of the Design Review Board, sub-committee, Planning Commission and City Council as approved, and would include any necessary amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District that emerge as a result of final City Council action on this 2006 Precise and Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the 2006 Project in May 16 and June 20,2006, on July 26, 2006 a sub-committee of the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the 2006 Project, on August 1,2006 the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission conducted a joint properly noticed meeting on the 2006 Project, the Planning Commission conducted properly noticed public hearings on August 17, 2006, September 7, 2006 and September 21,2006 and modifications to the 2006 Project have been made by the Applicant in response to direction given; the August 17 and September 7,2006 properly noticed Planning Commission meetings were also held to consider the proposed amendments to the Terrabay Precise Plan, Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following fmdings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The 2000 -110- approved and the 2006 proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) the 2006 proposed Precise Plan; 4) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, 4) the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum, 5)Testimony and materials submitted at the City Council study session on April 24, 2000; 6) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission study sessions of June 1,2000 and September 14,2000; 7) Testimony and materials submitted at the Design Review Board meeting on June 20, 2000; 8) Testimony and materials submitted at the Historic Preservation Commission on June 8, 2000; 9) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 2000; and 10) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 11) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on March 14,2001, 12) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the October, 2004 joint study session conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission, 13) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the three City Council subcommittee meetings and one joint City Council/ Planning Commission conducted between February of 2004 and July of 2005, 14) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the joint City . Council and Planning Commission subcommittee meetings of October 5th and 24th, 2005, 15) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the Planning Commission at hearings dated November 1 ih, 2005, December 1st, 2005, and December 15th, 2005, 16) Testimony and Materials including the 2006 Project revision presented to the Design Review Board in May 16, June 20, 2006, the July 26, 2006 sub-committee meeting of the Planning Commission on the 2006 Project, the August 1, 2006 Design Review Board and the Planning Commission joint properly noticed meeting on the 2006 Project and the Planning Commission properly noticed public hearings on August 17,2006, September 7, 2006 and September 21, 2006 1. Proposed 2006 Terrabay Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the 2006 Project that amend the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as identified in the following. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses in the 2006 Amendment the Final Terrabay Specific Plan conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. -111- Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies Guiding and Implementing Policies 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Analysis: The 2006 Project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The 2006 Proj ect will compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by providing office uses, and office supporting and area- wide retail uses on the site. 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and area-wide clientele for the 2006 Project which will add to the City's tax base and support the office use. The 2006 Project proposes office and retail land use with a 0.78 FAR under the 1.0 FAR maximum for Business Commercial land use designations with structured parking. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM Program for the 2006 Project. The measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed office and retail mix and the 2006 Project location and size. The TDM Program stipulates annual audits and modifications as necessary to ensure the success of the program at the mode established by Ordinance. 2-1-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. Analvsis: The 2006 Project is unique and it is a planned development. The site is unique within the City of South San Francisco as well as the northern peninsula. The 21 acre (18 acres developable) site is undeveloped on the west of 101 and in the lee of San Bruno Mountain. The relatively large size of the site and its protection from the windy elements of the Mountain enable a successful office and commercial retail project to be developed. Outdoor cafes and plazas, the proposed walk to the sanctuary will all be sheltered from the elements and provide a setting for people to converge and interact. The 2006 Project will be -112- developed on approximately 10 acres leaving the remainder of the site in open space, landscaping and land restoration. The 2006 Project includes a public art program. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode useage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) ofthe City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the 2006 Project. 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas, require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The 2006 Project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Remainder parcels are landscaped with seed mix approved by the H CP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the project and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete: The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay (Heights and Pointe) and Phase III parcels. The lands have been restored and offered for dedication to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/State Park. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise Valley/Terrabay Guiding Policy 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Analysis: The 2006 Project proposes office, restaurant and retail land uses and a performing arts center. Chapter 4: Transportation Guiding and Implementing Polices 4-2-G-7: Provide afair and equitable meansfor payingfor future street improvements. Analysis: ramps. The project sponsor contributed land and $8.5 million to construct the hook 4-2-1-6: Incorporate as part of the City's eIP needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and Us. 101 Hook Ramps -113- Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Boulevard. The project sponsor will also contribute to additional roadway and pedestrian improvements as identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The 2006 Project includes pedestrian walkways to Airport and Sister Cities Boulevard and to the bus stop on Airport Boulevard. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The project implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase III 2006 Project. 4-3-1-4: Require provision of secure and covered bicycle parking. Analysis: The project includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services . Implementing Policy 5-1-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-of-ways. Analysis: Terrabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase III site. The 2006 Project includes a trail to the western portion of the site with an overlook area. The project proposes walk ways throughout and around the site. Chapter 6: Economic Development Guiding and Implementing Policies 6-G-I: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. Analvsis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: -114- · The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. · Myers Development Company, City leaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation ofland and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. · Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". · The Terrabay Project as a whole has constructed housing, water facilities, linear parks, a sound wall, storm drain and sanitary server infrastructure, landscaping, a recreation center, a fire station, outdoor recreation improvements to the Hillside School, public and private roadways and restored and dedicated open space. The 2006 Project proposes an office and retail land use that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for police and fire personnel and equipment as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and will pay for its own infrastructure. Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-I-G-l: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the 2006 Project for Phase III on the 18-acre parcel known as the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase III was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open space and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 Viola Pendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. 7-I-G-l: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. The 2006 Project includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase III Terrabayaffects less than 1/10th of an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel -115- The Terrabay Project as an entirety has dedicated a 26 acre preserve and has restored or provided funding for restoration and offered for dedication over 400 acres of land for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and to the City of South San Francisco. Additionally a recreation was constructed in Phase 1. Phase I, II and III and include passive recreation opportunities. The project has installed a water system and holding tank in Phase I, privately maintained streets in Phases I and II and proposes the same in Phase III. Storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements were constructed by the developer in Phase I and II and maintained by the homeowner's associations of Phases I and II, and the same with the addition of a commercial property owners association is proposed for Phase III. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: D. Recommend approval of the 2006 Terrabay Modified Precise Plan as approved by Council and as conditioned attached hereto in Exhibit A. E. Recommend approval of the Terrabay 2006 Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for the Phase III site only with the recommendation that City Council direct staff to incorporate the text and exhibit changes into the Final Terrabay Specific as shown in general form in Exhibit B. F. Recommend adoption of the amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit C. G. Recommend approval of the Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, attached hereto in Exhibit D. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the ~day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Sim. Commissioner Giusti. Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Prouty and Chairperson Zemke NOES: Commissioner Romero ABSTENTIONS: Vice Chairperson Honan ABSENT: None Atte~: ~~~b-' Susy Kalkin Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission -116- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: September 21,2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consulting Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase ill Only Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR), Precise and Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Text and TDM Program Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development. San Bruno Mountain P06-0073, PP06-0002, SP06-0001, DR06-0060, ZA06-000l, DAA06- 0001, EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION · Review and consider the modifications Myers Development proposes to address Planning Commission concerns; · Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve the zoning text amendment and specific and precise plan amendments subject to the conditions and requirements identified in the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the 2005 SEIR and Addendum and 2006 Project on September 7, 2006. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council Certify the 2005 SElR and consider the 2006 Addendum (5-2) and continued the entitlements, legislative actions and design issues to the September 21 st public hearing. DISCUSSION Myers Development will present modifications to the site plan and architecture at the September 21 st meeting. The changes include relocating the North Tower approximately 40 feet to the west to place it further from Airport Boulevard. Myers will also graphically demonstrate views of the garage and retaining walls that would result if the proj ect were to be phased. The relocation of the North Tower is proposed by the Applicant to address site planning concerns identified by some members of the Planning Commission. Moving the tower back (west) from Airport Boulevard does provide an additional setback along the project frontage. The North Plaza would not be relocated due to site and circulation constraints. Therefore, the entrance to the North Tower and its view corridor would be off center from the North Plaza. The conceptual plan provided by the applicant also -117- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific PIan, Precise PIan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 21,2006 Page 2 of2 indicates that some retail space could be lost. The Applicant indicates that a plan showing that the site will accommodate the 24,000 square feet of commercial retail will be presented at the meeting on the 21st. Staff has modified some conditions of approval to either clarify or address Planning Commission concerns and added two conditions of approval. The new planning condition of approval A. 23 stipulates that the emergency access road shall be turf crete or an integral color (stained) concrete to compliment the landscaping and earth color to be approved by the Chief Planner (p 5). An additional fire condition was added to insure that the access road to the debris basin would accommodate the weight of a battalion chief vehicle (10,000 pounds) (p 23). The modified conditions are General Condition 3 (p 1) addressing land restoration; Planning Condition 18 (p 4) addressing restoration of the point and Engineering Condition IV A. (p 9) which adds re-striping and/or lengthening Sister Cities Boulevard left turn lane lengthening as stated in the environmental document. The modifications and additions are underlined. CONCLUSION The 2006 Project conforms to the City's General Plan. Many conditions of approval have been recommended that address the various concerns of City officials. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council: 1) approve the specific plan and zoning text amendments; and, 3) approve the precise plan amendment and the preliminary TDM Progr . ioned. Allison Knapp, Planning Consultant Attachments: 1. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Terrabay 2006 Project Precise Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Text Amendments with Exhibits: A Conditions of Project Approval B Proposed Specific Plan Amendments C Terrabay Specific Plan District Amendments (proposed) D Draft Transportation Demand Management Program. II. Planning Commission Staff Report September 7,2006. -118- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: September 7, 2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consulting Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase ill Only Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR), Precise and Specific PIan Amendment and Zoning Text and TDM Program Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P06-0073: PP06-0002: SP06-0001: DR06-0060: ZA06-0001; DAA06- 0001: EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION · Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Terrabay Precise PIan, Specific PIan and Zoning Text Amendments and the draft Transportation Demand Management Program. · Consider the 2006 Addendum to the 2005 SEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (M:MRP). · Recommend that the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR., consider the 2006 Addendum and adopt the MMRP and approve the entitlement and legislative actions subject to the conditions and requirements identified in the conditions ofproject approval. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the 2006 Project on August 17, 2006. The Planning Commission continued the item to the September 7th public hearing. The Commission did not express a clear consensus with respect to the 2006 Project. Some Commissioner's questioned the appropriateness of an office use of this magnitude west of US 101. Two of the Commissioners from the City Council/Planning Commission sub-committee both stated that the 2006 Project is preferable to the currently entitled 2000 Office Project. There was a consensus with respect to appreciation for the refinements made to the 2006 Project as a result of the direction from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Planning Commission discussion and concern was expressed with respect to: 1) The phasing of the proj ect and what would occur if only one phase were built. 2) The reduced size of child care center from that in the approved 2000 Proj ect. -119- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific PIan, Precise PIan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7,2006 Page 2 of 13 3) The storage space, dressing area and size of the performing arts center and the potential for the allocated size to be inadequate. 4) The terms of an operating agreement for the performing arts center with respect to its availability and the responsibility for maintenance of the facility. 5) The type of seating in the performing arts center. 6) The dollar value of the public art program. 7) The screening of the garage and need to step the structures more into the hillside. 8) The types of retail uses that would occupy the retail commercial component of the 2006 Project and their potential quality and viability. 9) The potential for circulation impacts at the 2006 Project driveway onto Airport Boulevard. 10) The type of statement that the architecture should make with respect to the site and the community. 11) The desire to have a hotel on the Phase III site. Project Description: The parking for the 2006 Proj ect has been changed by the Applicant since the August 17th meeting. The Applicant proposes to construct 1,952 parking spaces (as opposed to 2052) on the site. The parking ratio would be 2.81/1,000 gross square feet of floor area excluding the performing arts center. The parking ratio is still in excess of the 2.6811,000 gross square feet of floor area currently entitled and appropriate for Transportation Demand Management measures. The Applicant will present the proposed modifications to the architecture at the September 7th public hearing. DISCUSSION Environmental Documentation Staffprepared an addendum to the 2005 Supplemental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) which tiers from the 1998/99 SEIR., the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR.. The Addendum is attached to this report in a bound document (Attachment V). Crane Transportation Group conducted a traffic analysis for the 2006 Project and compared it to the impacts and mitigations identified in the 2005 SEIR. The proposed project has similar impacts to the 1998/99 SEIR and in every case impacts that are substantially less than those identified in the 2005 SEIR.. The following impacts and mitigation measures from the 2005 SEIR do not apply to the 2006 Project: -120- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7,2006 Page 3 of 13 1. Aesthetics Impact and Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 which addresses night lighting mitigations to protect residential uses on the Phase ill site. The 2006 Project does not propose residential land uses. 2. Noise Impact and Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Increases in Traffic Noise in 2020. The expected increase in traffic noise due to the 2005 Proj ect generated traffic was calculated based on the traffic projections for a larger mixed-use project that included residential uses. The 2006 Project does not include residential uses and is similar in scope to that of the 2000 Project. The 2006 Project would not increase noise above that identified in the 1998/99 SEIR due to the reductions size and the elimination of residential land uses in the 2006 Project. 3. Noise Impact and Mitigation 3.3.4 Project Generated Mechanical Equipment Noise The 2005 Proj ect involved mixed use development which introduced the potential for stationary noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect noise sensitive residential uses. The most likely source of noise impact would be from outdoor mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. Noise mitigation is not required based upon the 2006 Project proposed land use. Additionally the City's Design Review Board required shielding of mechanical equipment. The City's Municipal Code requires 2006 Project conformance with the City's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night. 4. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.1 Increased Demand for Police Services The 2005 Project was a larger more intense land use than the 2006 Project. The Police Department has determined that absence of both the movie theatre and the 24/7 lifestyle activities proposed in the 2005 Proj ect reduces the impacts to police services and six new . officers are not needed. Additionally, the 2006 Project applicant shall incorporate recommendations from the SSFPD into their site design and operations that affect crime prevention, security, traffic safety and other concerns as a condition of2006 Project approval. 5. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.2 Increased Demand for Fire Services Development of the 2005 Project would have increased call volumes, including rescue and medical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees and visitors to the site. The site 10cation, construction type, occupancy type, and high concentration of occupants would have severely affected the first fire unit responding to fire, medical, hazardous material, or other emergency calls. SSFFD would require one additional position (three personnel) for fire control, evacuation, medical scene management, care of injured persons, and other emergencies. The 2006 Project is a less intense land use and the Fire -121- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific PIan, Precise PIan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 4 of 13 Department (Fire Marshall Niswonger) has stated that the mitigations from the 1982 EIR and the 1996 and 1998/99 SEIR.'s are adequate to mitigate project impacts. 6. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.4 Potentially poor signal strength and reception sites within proposed buildings and parking structures Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures in the 2005 Project would have dense building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal strength and reception sites. The Police and Fire Departments through conditions of 2006 Proj ect approval have stated that similar conditions of approval required for the Peninsula Mandalay Project shall apply to the 2006 Project. Therefore, mitigation through the CEQA process is not necessary. 7. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.5 Wildland Fire Potential There exists the potential for an urban wildland fire. The Applicant shall be required through conditions of project approval and by law (California Fire Code) to design the 2006 Project with a 100 foot fire buffer. The 2006 Project reflects the 100 foot buffer requirement. The Property Owners Association shall be required through CC&R's required by the City to maintain the fire buffer. (California Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4). 8. Public Services and Utilities Impact and Mitigation 3.10.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection system in Airport Boulevard The mitigation measure required televising the sanitary sewer lines serving the project to identify its capacity. The study was completed under the supervision of the Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer line was found to have adequate capacity for the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17, 2006). 9. Traffic and Circulation Impact and Mitigation 3.1-11 On Site Parking applied to the 2005 Project. There is no parking impact associated with the 2006 Project as demonstrated in the 2006 Initial Study. 10. Traffic and Circulation Impacts and Mitigations 3.1-2, and 3.1-6 2006 Project impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation where mitigation was required for the 2005 Project Trip generation, Intersection Level of Service at Oyster PointelDubuquelUS 101 Northbound on- ramp for 2010 and 2020 was significant (and could be mitigated) with the 2005 Project and is less than significant with no mitigation required for the 2006 Proj ect. Additionally, vehicle queuing impacts at Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point and Dubuque Boulevards for both the 2010 and 2020 years can be mitigated to less than significant with the 2006 Project. These same impacts for the 2005 Project could not be mitigated. The 2006 Project would have the same air quality and traffic impacts associated with the entitled 2000 Project. The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations for Changes in Regional Long-Term -122- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 5 of 13 Air Quality (Impact 4.5-3 998/99 SEIR) , Traffic Impact Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and ill Freeway (Impact 4.4-1 1998/99 SEIR), 2010 Base Case Plus Phases IT and ill Freeway (Impact 4.4-4 1998/99 SEIR) and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and ill Ramps (Impact 4.4-5 1998/99 SEIR) on November 21, 2000 by Resolution 147-2200 for these impacts. The environmental resolutions re-state the findings of overriding considerations for the 2006 Project. The proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS attached to the staff report as Attachment VI. EVALUATION Project Phasing Concerns were expressed that the project would 10se its "impact" or be out of balance should it be constructed in phases. The following condition of approval is included for Planning Commission consideration with respect to project phasing. The 2006 Project shall be an essentially "complete project" should the project be constructed in two phases. Therefore, notwithstanding which office tower may be constructed first, the day care, performing arts, landscaping, Point of San Bruno Mountain land replanting and public art program shall be in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first phase of construction. The remaining yet-to-be developed portion of the project shall be landscaped, include outdoor seating areas and outdoor art, such as sculpture. A plan that represents a "complete proj ect" shall be submitted along with the building permits for the first phase of construction should the project be phased. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner and shall include at a minimum the requirements of this condition. A plan that mitigates any future construction impacts to the day care center shall also be included as a part of this plan. Child Care Center The 2006 Project plans for a 100-child care facility within 5,000 square feet of indoor space and 7,500 square feet of outdoor play area. The 2000 PIan was sized for 9,000 square feet of interior space and 4,000 square feet of exterior space. Staff includes the following condition of approval to address this issue that the Planning Commission raised. The applicant shall submit evidence sufficient to the Chief Planner and Building Official that the space as designed or expanded is adequate to meet state licensing requirements for the Child Care Center. Space shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of 100 children. The evidence may require a letter from the state. A construction phasing plan that mitigates any impacts to the child care center is required as part of the condition identified below. The -123- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 6 of 13 tenant improvements for the Child Care facility shall be included in the first phase building permit drawings and shall be in compliance with state licensing requirements to ensure a "turn-key" facility. Additionally, the proposed language in the Specific Plan (see Exhibit B) would stipulate that 5,000 square feet is the minimum area for the child care facility, with the understanding that more area may be needed to comply with state licensing requirements. Performing Arts Facility The performing arts center has been increased from a ISO-seat, 2,080 square foot shared facility to a 200-seat, 3,100 square foot shared facility, in response to Planning Commission and Steering Committee comments. The stage is proposed to be 720 square feet with an additional 300 square feet of storage. An additional shared use pre-function area (office 10bby and performing arts pre-function) of 4,500 square feet is also proposed. The 2000 Project included a 5,000 square foot performing arts facility. The following conditions of approval are included for Planning Commission consideration with respect to performing arts facility. An "operating agreement" between the City and the Developer and his successors and assigns for the use of the Performing Arts Facility shall be executed prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any phase of the 2006 Proj ect. The operating agreement at a minimum shall stipulate that the facility is for the use of the City, civic groups and performing arts groups free of charge. Square footages of uses such as stage, seating and storage shall be stipulated in the agreement. The hours and days the facility shall be available to the aforementioned groups shall also be stipulated in the agreement. A minimum of eight dedicated theatre lights and a dedicated theatre control booth as well as a theatre sound system shall be provided in the performing arts facility for exclusive use of the performing arts and civic groups as stipulated in the operating agreement. The performing arts facility shall be developed in consideration of acoustical performance. The seating shall be fixed seating and angled (as in stadium seating) to facilitate view of the stage. Restaurant and Business Quality and the Option for a Hotel Use An important element of the project is the quality of the retail and the restaurant(s). Good quality restaurants and retail will bring consumers to the site nights and weekends as well as provide services for the office users during the week. Businesses such as Baja Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheescake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and n Fomaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the site. Specialty services such as computer stores or bookstores would also be appropriate support uses. -124- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 7 of 13 The Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District proposed amendments include the types and quality of restaurant, office and potential hotel uses that are permitted. The proposed language shown in context of the Ordinance in Exhibit B is excerpted in the following: (7) High quality commercial and restaurant uses recognized nationally by their name are permitted commercial retail uses on the Phase ill Commercial site. Businesses such as Baja Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheescake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and n Fornaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the Phase ill site. Specialty services such as computer stores, office supply, bookstore stores, retail dry cleaner outlets, shoe repair, florists, specialty high-end grocery and/or deli uses, sundry shops, boutiques and similar uses are permitted support uses. These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of retail uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the proposed use is substantially equivalent to the uses and retailers listed above. No fast food drive through restaurants are permitted on the Phase III site. Medical office and associated uses are not permitted on the ground floor. Retail oriented financial or business serving uses that support commercial retail such as Automatic Teller Machines (ATM's) are permitted with approval of a use permit on the ground floor and provided that these types of uses can be shown to be of benefit to the employees of the site and do not exceed 10 percent of the ground floor retail space. (8) Class A Office buildings for office gross square footage of 665,028 square feet; (11) Performing arts center (200 seat minimum) within the office building; (12) Child care center serving a minimum of 100 children with outdoor play area; (13) Hotel, four star or better. Any hotel shall be developed, constructed and maintained to satisfy all requirements necessary to meet a four diamond rating as established by the Diamond Rating Guidelines published by the American Automobile Association in place as of the effective date. Circulation Impacts onto Airport Boulevard The traffic and circulation analysis prepared for the 2006 Project (included in the 2006 Addendum and in Attachment V, herein) identified the potential for queuing impacts onto Airport Boulevard (Impact 3- 1-10 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum). The proposed Terrabay Specific PIan District zoning text amendments and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro gram (M:MRP) both address this concern. In particular, the Jv.[MRp requires monitoring of the performance of the intersection at build-out and occupancy to identify if queuing impacts occur. The mitigation measure requires that: -125- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR. and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise PIan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 8 of 13 The first intersection on the site shall be monitored after full project completion and occupancy. The monitoring shall be funded through a developer pass-through account. Backups off the project site or driver confusion will result in signalizing the intersection with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access intersection with Airport Boulevard. Additionally, there will be adequate right-of-way area to provide either an exclusive right turn lane and/or an exclusive left turn lane on the inbound driveway approach to the first internal intersection should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so. Also, right-of-way will be provided on the outbound driveway approach to Airport Boulevard to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so (Iv.1:itigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). The 2006 Project is designed to accommodate future widening in this area. Additionally the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance ensure compliance with the spatial requirements. The proposed text amendments state: (b) Entry 1 Exit Drive. A privately maintained entry drive shall be constructed to serve the Terrabay commercial district. The drive shall have an 88 foot right-of-way at the intersection of Airport Boulevard which will accommodate two inbound lanes, three outbound lanes and a median. The additional right of way will also accommodate an additional outbound lane if warranted by the circulation monitoring required by the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. (c) Internal Intersection: The first internal inbound driveway shall include a minimum of 52 feet of right-of-way to accommodate two inbound traffic lanes and the potential for an additional exclusive right turn and left turn lane pocket. The outbound portion of the driveway shall include a minimum of 48 feet of right-of-way to accommodate three outbound lanes of traffic and the potential for an additional lane should circulation monitoring warrant the addition of the lane. 32 Moderate Income Units The 2000 Project was approved with the requirement to provide 32 units of moderate income (120% of median) housing. The 2006 Project proposes 32 units of moderate income housing to be under construction at an off-site location within the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Phase I office tower. A ''Housing Agreement" shall be entered into between the Applicant and the City pursuant to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Staff has also included the following recommended condition of approval. The Applicant shall have completed construction of the 32 off-site moderate income housing units prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any phase of the Phase III 2006 -126- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise PIan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7,2006 Page 9 of 13 Project. As an alternative the Applicant shall provide a performance bond in favor of the City for construction costs to ensure completion of the 32 units within one year of occupancy of any Phase III building. A "Housing Agreement" required by City Ordinance shall be executed between the Developer and the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the 2006 Project (phase III). Garage Screening, Architectural Design and the Public Art Program The Applicant will address these concerns at the September ih meeting. Development Agreement There have been some discussions that a development agreement may not be necessary for the Phase III 2006 Project. Therefore, the conditions of project approval, specific pIan language and zoning text amendments have been crafted to cover the concerns that various City officials have raised as important, to date. However, the Planning Commission may desire to express an opinion as to the preference or lack thereof for a development agreement Fiscal Analysis Myers Development acquired the services of a consultant to quantify the economic and fiscal impacts of Phase III, Terrabay. The City's Finance Director reviewed their analysis and believes the revenue estimates are overstated due to the following assumptions that the consultant or Myers Development made: . The City will receive approximately 11.8% of property taxes that the finished development will generate, as the consultant projected. However, property taxes on new construction are not based on operating revenues, as the consultant assumed. In a phone conversation with the County of San Mateo's Deputy Assessor, the Finance Director confirmed that the County bases assessed value on new construction on solely the value of that construction. The consultant's estimate is therefore overstated. A more precise estimate would not be possible without knowing if Myers was intending to sell the land after the project is completed (after which, the land would be reassessed), or whether he would be leasing the buildings out (in which case the land would not be reassessed). . The consultant assumed the City's sales tax revenues from office workers based on a national average of office worker spending during the workday. However, it would not be reasonable to assume that all of the office worker's spending during the work week would occur in South San Francisco; some of it would spill over to surrounding communities with regional shopping centers, for example. -127- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR. and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 10 of 13 · The consultant also assumed a per capita allocation of franchise fee revenue. However, a large portion of the City's franchise fee revenue comes from cable television subscription revenue, which would not be much of a factor in office development. That portion of franchise fees would need to be backed out of the consultant's numbers for a more realistic estimate. · One-time revenues are assumed for construction sales taxes. The City has used a sales tax consultant that has not seen a city earn more than $50,000 or so from this type of arrangement, but Myers asked the consultant here to assume $644,000, which does not seem reasonable. Transportation Demand Management Program The draft TDM Program is included in Exhibit D. The TDM Program includes the following: · Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; · Financial incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent Terrabay neighborhoods; · Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; · Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and take advantage of shared-parking opportunities generated by mixed use development, the use of valet parking and designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; . Paid parking; · Guaranteed Ride Home program; · Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite; · Proj ect design that promotes walking and pathway connections to mixed use facilities that provides goods and services; and, · Annual City Monitoring and Program Update. In accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance, a final TDM pIan shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit which shall be reviewed for compliance with the City's Ordinance requirements, including shower and locker facilities, as shown in Exhibit D. .. -128- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 11 of 13 Zoning Text Amendments The proposed zoning text amendments include updating the Terrabay Specific Plan District to conform to the City's updated Municipal Code. Other revisions include minor corrections from typographical errors or names, sections that are out of date and not applicable and corrections on names of neighborhoods. Attachment II.C includes the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan District amendments in their context and entirety. Specific Plan Amendment State Law Requirements California Government Code Section 65451 governs the content of specific plans. The requirements include a text and diagram which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the land uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the pIan. 2. The proposed distribution, 10cation and extent and intensitY of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be 10cated within the area covered by the pIan and needed to support the land uses described in the pIan. 3. Standards and criteria by which the development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). 5. The specific pIan shall contain a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. The proposed precise plan contains this information along with the existing approved 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project, direction will be given to staff to make the modifications to the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan (text and diagram) that reflect the 2006 precise pIan as approved. 2006 Project Conformance with the City's General Plan The proposed 2006 Project conforms to the land uses identified in the approved and in-effect 2000 Final Terrabay Specific PIan. The proposed 2006 Project conforms to the City's General Plan as identified in -129- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR. and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 12 of 13 the August 17, 2006 staff report (Attachment III) and as shown in the resolution recommending approval of the Terrabay 2006 Project Precise PIan, Specific Plan and Zoning Text Amendments and draft TDM Program in Attachment II. CONCLUSION The 2006 Project conforms to the City's General Plan. Many conditions of approval have been recommended that address the various concerns of City officials. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council: 1) certify the 2005 SEIR and consider~6 Addendum; 2) approv~ ~e specific plan and zoning te~~ amendments; and, 3) approve the p~eclse pIan amendment and the preliminary TDM Program, as conditlOned. ,. ".../'/ /,/' /' /// // B~ ~----- .. f..:-/ Allison Knapp, Planning Consultant ________ Attachments: I. Resolution Recommending Certification of the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Consideration of the 2006 Addendum with Exhibits: A Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Impacts. B Statement of Overriding Considerations. C Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in the 2005 SEIR II. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Terrabay 2006 Project Precise Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Text Amendments with Exhibits: A Conditions of Project Approval B Proposed Specific Plan Amendments C Terrabay Specific Plan District amendments (proposed) D Draft Transportation Demand Management Program. ill. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 17,2006. IV. Minutes a. August 1, 2006 Joint Planning CommissionlDesign Review Board Meeting b. Planning Commission Minutes from August 17, 2006 Public Hearing. c. Design Review Board of May 16, 2006 and June 20,2006 -130- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only-2006 Project SEIR and Addendum, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment and TDM Program September 7, 2006 Page 13 of 13 V. 2005 Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum. VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. VII. Plans -131- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: August 17,2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consulting Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase ill Only Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR/1998/99 SEIR), Precise and Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 11 7: EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION · Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Terrabay Precise PIan, Specific PIan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement amendments. · Continue the item to the Public Hearing of September 7, 2006 to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR/1998/99 SEIR), Precise PIan, Specific Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendments. Staff will return on the 7tl1 with the appropriate resolutions and findings for Planning Commission consideration and action. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is aware that the mixed-use lifestyle retail project proposed by Myers Development in 2005 was essentially economically infeasible to build most notably due to the extensive site work needed (grading and retaining walls) and the rising overall costs in the construction market. Therefore, Myers is returning with a request to modify the existing office entitlement on the Phase ill site which as currently entitled permits 665,000 square feet of office in one tower, 7,500 square feet of office supporting commercial retail, a shared use 150-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site (2000 Proj ect). Project Description: The proposed project is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use I 50-seat performing arts center, a I OO-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site (2006 Project). Please see the following Table 1. -132- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SElR., Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 14 TABLE I 2006 TERRABA Y PROJECT Gross Square Feet Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11,083 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase II 1,090 spaces PHASE I AND II TOTALS Office 665,028 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000 5,000 . Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and II 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 2,052 spaces Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,996 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total, as noted above, of 2,052 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of 2.68/1,000 gross square feet and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. The applicant has indicated that the proj ect could be built in two phases and that the child care and performing arts center would be provided in Phase I. There is the possibility that the proj ect could be built entirely in one phase of construction. Architecture The "North Tower" is proposed at 21 stories with its highest elevation at 359 feet above mean sea level. The "South Tower" is proposed at 12 stories with its highest elevation at 250 feet above mean sea level. The highest points noted are to enhance a design element that the applicant states is in response to the concerns expresses by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission during their joint study session on the proposal August I, 2006. The proposed changes are outlines in the following text. -133- Staff Report Subj ect: Terrabay Phase ill Only SEIR, Specific PIan, Precise PIan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 3 of 14 1. The translucent fin that runs up the North Tower now has a diagonal geometry, sloping back to the south as the building rises. 2. The translucent fin that runs up the South Tower now has a diagonal geometry, sloping forward and cantilevering to the south as the building rises. 3. The highest point of each building is where the fin meets the parapet; the height of the parapet varies and undulates around each building. 4. The South Tower is proposed to be 27 feet seven inches wider than before to better screen the garage. The south facade (in plan view) now has a subtle and visible new inward curve. This refinement creates a point of differentiation from the design of the North Tower. The South Tower also is now 12 stories instead of 13 stories. The increase in width on the tower does not alter the site circulation pattern. 5. The north and east facing elevations of both Towers are smooth, minimalist curtainwalls with a very high percentage of vision glass. As the curtainwalls transition around the buildings from east, to north, to west, and south, the curtainwall becomes increasingly complex and detailed, with an increasingly dense series of horizontal aluminum elements that provide solar shading, and cast interesting shadows onto the facades. This transition of the fayade creates a contrast where the curtainwalls overlap at the diagonal fins. 6. In each office tower, there is a single "punched" area that occurs only once on the lower floors. These emblematic spaces provide an accessible balcony space for a tenant on that 10wer floor of the building. Staff recommends that the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District text be amended to allow maximum heights for the two towers to be 360 feet above mean sea level (North Tower) and 275 feet above mean sea level (South Tower) in order to provide flexibility in architectural detail and to allow an increase in floor level of the South Tower which would correspondingly relate to a decrease in the height of the North Tower. Landscape Architecture According to Cliff Lowe and Associates, their plant selection process began with reference to plant lists compiled by Friends of San Bruno Mountain, and the ''Flora of San Bruno Mountain" by the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. The Mandalay Terrace project includes two planting zones; the steep hillside where "restoration" plantings are proposed, and the plaza surrounding the proposed two new buildings where a more "ornate" landscape palette is proposed. The plants selected for the hillside must therefore be particularly adaptable to the site. Native species such as Toyon and Coyote Bush, which are plants currently thriving on the mountain, is the landscape palette proposed for the hillside areas. Coast Live Oak, a native tree which is well-suited to the site and Afghan Pine, a tree recommended to us by the City of South San Francisco Design Review Board are also proposed for the hillside areas. -134- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific PIan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 4 of 14 Other native shrubs and grasses, such as Manzanita, California Fescue and other grassland species, are proposed to fill out the bil1side planting scheme. The plaza area is defined by the Brisbane Box tree. Although it is not a native, it is suited to the conditions of the site and is an attractive, upright evergreen tree with flowers in summer and proper scale with the buildings, auto plaza and pedestrian spaces. The plaza shrub areas are proposed to be based on a native plant palette so that it will be in keeping with the mountain landscape, use minimal water, and tolerate the windy conditions of the site. More ornamental plants are proposed to be used as transitional plantings between the more heavily used pedestrian areas. Additionally, since pedestrian areas would receive more maintenance and be a major part of the experience of the project, the plants selected are more refined. Flowering native shrubs such as Ribes, Penstemon, and Santolina define the primary pedestrian spaces of the project. The slope between the plaza and Bayshore Boulevard is conceived as meadow of native grasses and flowering perennials, including California Fescue, Deer Grass, Pacific Coast Iris and California Poppy, and curving bands of Ceanothus, an attractive, mounding shrub with purple flowers. DISCUSSION Environmental Documentation Staff is preparing an addendum to the 2005 Supplemental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) which tiers from the 1998/99 SEIR. The Addendum will be presented to the Planning CoJJJDJ.ission on September 7, 2006. Crane Transportation Group conducted a traffic analysis of the proposed project and compared it to the impacts and mitigations identified in the 2005 SEIR. No significant unavoidable impacts are identified. The proposed project has similar impacts to the 1998/99 SEIR and in every case impacts that are substantially less than those identified in the 2005 SEIR. Staff is preparing an Addendum to the 2005 SEIR for Planning Commission review on September 7, 2006. Previous/Current Actions and Certifications Design Review Board and Planning Commission Comments Joint Study Session: The Design Review Board and Planning Commission conducted ajoint study session on August 1, 2006. In summary the Design Review Board stated that it has been more a site planning issue and a concern that the office buildings should be on the East side of 101 and not on the Terrabay Phase III site. The Design Review Board stated that architecture is high quality and some members stated that the architects did a "terrific" job in responding to the issues the Board brought forth. A comment was made about terracing the North Tower to make it more sensitive to the Mountain. Favorable comments were made with respect to the landscape pIan. One Board member stated that Mr. Lowe's planting plan ties the building to the Mountain and would like to see legal obligations on the owner to for performance of the landscaping for 10 years henceforth to assure the establishment and success of the p1antings. (Note: Staff will include a condition of approval to this affect in the September 7, 2006 staff report). -135- Staff Report Subject: TerrabayPhase ill Only SEIR., Specific PIan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 5 of 14 The Planning Commission stated that the parking garage should be screened more than is shown, consideration should be given to placing the office tower on top of the parking structure and concern that two office buildings will not support the retail. Some Commissioners stated that the architecture did not look "signature", expressed a desire to see the landscaping "through the building" and that the building needs to twist with the landscape and show movement. One Commissioner stated that the architecture is "great" but does not like the proposed location of the North Tower and that office should be east of 101. One Commissioner stated that the performing arts facility should be larger. Planning Commission Sub-Committee Meeting: Two members of the Planning Commission sub- committee met and reviewed the 2006 Project on July 26, 2006. One member, Commissioner Romero, stated that the two towers did not compliment one and other and that office is not an appropriate use of the site. Commissioner Romero also stated that the site would be a ghost town at night. Commissioner Romero also noted that the 2006 Project is "much better" than the 2000 Project. Commissioner Honan stated that the 2006 Project is "definitely better than the existing entitlement". Commissioner Honan expressed concern that the retail uses need to be high quality and that the performing arts facility should be larger. Habitat Conservation Plan Conformance The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific PIan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. Fish and Wild.life Service, State Department of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (pIan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing was noticed pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. The Terrabay Plan boundaries and limits of grading included Phase ill as well as the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was designated as permanent open space by the City Council on November 24, 2000. (Resolution #48-2000). The dedication of the land and conveyance to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/Sate Park furthered the objectives of the HCP. The conveyance and protection of the land preserved wetlands and critical butterfly habitat. The proposed 2006 Terrabay Phase ill Only Precise Plan identifies limits of grading on approximately 13 acres of land which is within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III. The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Ms. Autumn Meisel Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase ill project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (July 12, 2006). Airport Land Use PIan Compliance The Terrabay Phase III Only project site is not located within the current Airport Land Use Commission (CICAG) Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman, CICAG letter dated October 14, 2005 and Dave Carbone, letters dated June 16, 2005 and -136- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SEIR, Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 6 of 14 November 22, 2005). Therefore ALUC compliance review is not required. Additionally, office land uses are not considered a "noise sensitive" land use. EVALUATION Performing Arts Facility The performing arts center has been increased from a ISO-seat (2,080 square foot) shared facility to a 200- seat (3,100 square foot) shared facility, in response to Planning Commission and Steering Committee comments. The stage is proposed to be 720 square feet with an additional 300 square feet of storage. An additional shared use pre-function area (office lobby and performing arts pre-function) of 4,500 square feet is also proposed. The 2000 Project included a 5,000 square foot performing arts facility with pre-function area. Staff recommends a minimum of eight dedicated theatre lights and a dedicated theatre control booth be provided in the performing arts facility, which is comparable to that proposed in 2005. An "operations agreement" should also be a condition of approval for the performing arts facility. The agreement between the developer and its successors or assigns and the City should at a minimum identify that the facility will be free of charge to the City and/or community arts groups for performances and functions as well as the number of times per year that it shall be available to those groups. The Planning Commission may desire to discuss this issue and provide direction with respect to the items or furnishings the developer should install in the facility. Staff, based upon the Commission's direction, will prepare conditions of approval accordingly. Child Care Facility The 2006 Project plans for a 100-child care facility within 5,000 square feet of indoor space and 7,500 square feet of outdoor play area. Myers development indicates that they will provide a plan within the 5,000 square feet of area proposed for a presentation to the Planning Commission during the August 17th meeting. Myers has indicated that the interior space may be increased if necessary to accommodate a 100- child facility that is state licensed. The 2000 PIan was sized for 9,000 square feet of interior space and 4,000 square feet of exterior space. Staff will be crafting a condition of approval for the September 7th staff report that will require the applicant to submit evidence sufficient to the Chief Planner and Building Official that the space as designed or expanded is adequate to meet state licensing. The evidence may require a letter from the state. A construction phasing plan that mitigates any impacts to the child care center will also be required. Restaurant and Business Quality An important element of the project is the quality of the retail and the restaurant(s). Good quality restaurants and retail will bring consumers to the site nights and weekends as well as provide services for the office users during the week. Businesses such as Baja Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheescake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and n -137- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SEIR., Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 7 of 14 Fomaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the site. Specialty services such as computer stores or bookstores would also be appropriate support uses. The Terrabay Specific plan Zoning District could be amended to identify types of office support and area serving retail uses that are permitted. The language could also state that: These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of retail uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Conditional Use permit. The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the proposed use is substantially equivalent to the uses and retailers listed above. 32 Moderate Income Units The 2000 Project was approved with the requirement to provide 32 units of moderate (120% of median) housing. The 2006 Project proposes 32 units of moderate income housing off-site to be under construction prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C of 0) for the Phase I office tower. The conditions of approval will also require that the 32 units of moderate income housing be under construction prior to a C of 0 on the Phase I office tower. The conditions of approval could also include stringent performance requirements such as: 1. Requiring the units to have a C of 0 prior to a C of 0 being issued for the office tower; or 2. Requiring a fiscal penalty ifthe units are not completed within a stipulated amount oftime after issuance of a C of 0 for the office tower; or, 3. Requiring a performance bond for the completion of the units (C of 0) at a stipulated time with the City's ability to call the bond should the units not be completed within the stated period of time. Staff offers these ideas to initiate discussion and is requesting direction from the Planning Commission. Public Art Program Public art is not shown on the plans but is described in general in the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Mr. Myers will be presenting some public art concepts at the meeting of the 17th of August. Development Agreement The Office of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Council are discussion points of the Development Agreement (DA). The DA would address (at a minimum) the provision of the 32-moderate income housing units, performing arts facility, day care and restaurant and retail quality. All of these items can be addressed in the conditions of approval for the project and the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission may want to identify issues to be addressed in the DA. -138- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SEIR, Specific PIan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 8 of 14 Project Phasing Myers Development has indicated that the South Tower would be constructed first if the construction were to be phased. Members of the Design Review Board expressed concern with the order of phasing, given that the South Tower does not necessarily have the architectural impact that the North Tower expresses. Additionally, the two towers work in tandem as an architectural statement. Therefore, there is a concern that the South Tower may be constructed and the North Tower may not follow for years, or may never be constructed. The Planning Commission may want to address this issue. Parking Requirements A key component to the reducing vehicle trips from a land use is the reduction of the parking supply at the site. The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance identifies parking supply reduction as an element of such a program and it is included in the proposed TDM Plan discussed below. The 2006 Project proposes 2.94 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of use (2.94/1,000). The approved 2000 Final Terrabay Specific PIan stipulates a 2.68/1,000 square feet. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) recommends a ratio of 2.79/1,000 for office buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet with no TDM Program in place. The City has approved parking ratios of 2.68/1,000 to 3.211,000. The proposed 2.94 is not out of line however, 2.79 for the office use and 75 additional spaces for the commercial uses for a total of 1,930 parking spaces would be more aggressive(i.e., closer to a 2.8/1,000). Transportation Demand Management Program Every aspect identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM for the project. In particular the TDM Plan requires: · Defined Targeted Project Marketing Program to 10cal residents, employers and employees to reduce aggregate trip generation and travel distances; · Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; · Financial incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent T errabay neighborhoods; · Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; -139- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SElR, Specific Plan, Precise PIan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17,2006 Page 9 of 14 · Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and take advantage of shared-parking opportunities generated by mixed use development, the use of valet parking and designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; . Paid parking; · Guaranteed Ride Home program; · Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount ofvebicle trips to the worksite; · Project design that promotes walking and pathway connections to mixed use facilities that provides goods and services; and, · Annual City Monitoring and Program Update. Already installed as a part of the Oyster Point Flyover and Bayshore Boulevard improvements is a south bound bus pullout in front of the project site and crosswalks. The applicant proposes to install additional sidewalks to provide pedestrian linkages to transportation. The draft TDM Program is included in the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and will be modified as required by Ordinance to create a final TDM Program. The final TDM Program will include the items identified above which are from Appendix B the 2005 proposed Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. Specific Plan Amendment State Law Requirements California Government Code Section 65451 governs the content of specific plans. The requirements include a text and diagram which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the land uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which the development will proceed and standards for the conservation,adevelopment, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. -140- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR., Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 10 of 14 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). 5. The specific plan shall contain a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. The proposed precise plan contains this information along with the existing approved 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project a direction will be recommended in the resolution to instruct staff to make the modifications to the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan (text and diagram) that reflect the precise plan as approved. Proposed Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as discussed in the following section of this report. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed precise plan and specific pIan amendment conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies Guiding and Implementing Policies 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Analysis: The proposed project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by providing office uses, and office supporting and area-wide retail uses on the site. 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and area-wide clientele for the project which will add to the City's tax base and -141- Staff Report Subject: TerrabayPhase III Only SEIR, Specific PIan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 11 of 14 support the office use. The Project proposes office and retail land use with a 0.78 FAR under the 1.0 FAR maximum for Business Commercial land use designations with structured parking. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeldng an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20. 120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the project. 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The proposed project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in April 2004. Remainder parcels are landscapes with seed mix approved by the HCP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the proj ect and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete. The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay and Phase ill parcels. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise Valley/Terrabay Guiding Policy 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Analysis: The project proposes office, restaurant and retail land uses and a performing arts center. Chapter 4: Transportation Guiding and Implementing Polices 4-2-G-7: Provide afair and equitable means for payingfor future street improvements. Analysis: The project sponsor contributed land and $8.5 million to construct the hook ramps. 4-2-1-6: InC07porate as part of the City's CIP needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and US. 101 Hook Ramps Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Boulevard. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. -142- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SElR, Specific PIan, Precise PIan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 12 of 14 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The proposed project includes pedestrian walkways to Airport and Sister Cities Boulevard and to the bus stop on Airport Boulevard. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The proj ect implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase ill proj ect. 4-3-1-4: Require provision of secure and covered bicycle parking. The project as conditioned includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Implementing Policy 5-I-G-5: . Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-of-ways. Analysis: Terrabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase ill site. The project includes a trail to the western portion of the site for an overlook area. Chapter 6: Economic Development Guiding and Implementing Policies 6-G-I' In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. Analysis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: . The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. . Myers Development, City leaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation of land and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County -143- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SElR, Specific Plan, Precise PIan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 13 of 14 and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. · Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". The project proposes an office and retail land use that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for police and fire services and pay for its own infrastructure. Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and hnplementing Policies 7-I-G-l: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the project for Phase ill on the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase ill was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open space and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 Viola Pendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. 7-I-G-I: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. The proposed Eroject includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase ill Terrabay affects less than 1/10 an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel. The project proposes to incorporate water features and a History Walk on the site to honor the seasonal creeks and streams. CONCLUSION Continue the item to the September 7, 2006 Public Hearing to make the recommendation to the City Council. Staff will return on the 7th with the draft Addendum and final SElR and appropriate resolutions and findings for Planning Commission consideration and action. -144- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only SEIR, Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Zoning Text and Development Agreement Amendment August 17, 2006 Page 14 of 14 .//' " By: ...~/- Allison Kn~lanning Consultant -...--- Attachment: Architectural Drawings '-'" -145- Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2006 8. MANDALAY TERRACE - Terrabay Phase III Mandalay Terrace (PHlllf Bayshore Blvd) Myers Development Co. LLC fOwner & Applicant San Bruno Mountain - Bayshore Blvd P06-0073: PP06-0002, SP06-0001, DR06-0060, ZA06-0001 & EIR04-0002 (Continued from September 7, 2006) Precise Plan, Specific Plan, Design Review, Zoning Text Amendment amending Chapter 20.63 of the SSFMC and Final Environmental Impact Report with Addendum for a re-entitlement of an existing 665,000 square feet office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers and an increase in commercial uses. The project would consist of: 665,000 square feet of office in two high rise towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial space, a 1 DO-child day care center and a 200 seat performing arts shared with office space. Consultant Planner Knapp presented a brief staff report. Commissioners Romero and Honan expressed concern regarding the continuance from the September 7th hearing. Commissioner Romero expressed his belief that such a motion was not in accordance with Roberts Rules of parliamentary procedure. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl conceded that under a strict interpretation of Roberts Rules, the motion to continue would have first required a "Motion to Reconsider," and that the motion could only be made by a member of the prevailing side of the vote. Spoerl noted that the Commission's bylaws provide that meetings shall be held "in accordance with Roberts Rules of Procedure and parliamentary law," and explained that more modern parliamentary treatises would allow the motion to continue the matter. Spoerl expressed his opinion that the motion to continue was thus generally in accordance with the Commission's bylaws. He noted that four of seven commissioners had voted to continue the matter for re-consideration, and stated his opinion that recognizing the motion would help to further one of the primary purposes of parliamentary procedure, which is to enforce the desire of the majority. Vice Chairperson Honan felt that Assistant City Attorney Spoerl, as the Commission's legal advisor, should tell the Commission that they are not following parliamentary procedure and felt that this had not been the case in the past. She pointed out that she refused to vote again because there had been a vote which should have been the final decision. Chairperson Zemke noted that after no further comments with regards to the previous meeting's voting process, the applicant would be allowed to give his presentation and the Commission could make a decision after the presentation. Jack Myers, Myers Development, noted that they believe that all the comments of the Commission have been responded to and allowed Michael Duncan, Cliff Lowe and Craig Hartman to present the changes to the Commission. The changes were: · Phase I - the parking garage has been almost completely concealed. They showed a sample of the perforated luminous steel to be used on the garage. · Phase II - the taller office tower was pushed back and into the mountain by 40 feet without losing any of the square footage in the retail aspect of the project. · The lobby lost some square footage due to moving back the taller building. · They presented images of the Mandalay tower and how it would look with the two new towers fully constructed. · The plaza was extended and more landscaping added. · The translucent glass wall was raised by 10 feet. · They showed examples of the garage material being used in other projects and photomontages of the way the towers would like at night. Public Hearing closed. S:WLVI.",tes\03-:2:l.-0';; R.PC.clOC -146- p~ge -4- of G Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2006 Commissioner Teglia felt that his concerns on the closeness of the tower to Airport Boulevard had been addressed. Commissioner Sim noted that there were some renderings that showed a small portion of the garage and questioned if it could be further screened. Mr. Duncan noted that they can cover those areas with landscaping as much as possible. Mr. Lowe noted that they will plant poplar trees, which grow fast and will max out at 50 to 60 feet tall. Commissioner Sim questioned if the retaining wall would be completed with the first phase and if it would be visible during the first phase. Mr. Duncan noted that the finished grade is at 50 feet, and the top of the wall is another 18 and 20 feet. He pointed out that this is the back wall where the future retail is going to go. Commissioner Sim noted that the building is beautiful and does not want to lose the wrap around idea. Mr. Myers noted that they could eliminate the grading for the retaining wall in Phase I or substantially reduce it by changing the characteristic on the slope. He noted that they could bring the retaining wall down and not just rely on the landscaping to bring down the impact on the area. Mr. Duncan noted that they could berm up against it and bury the shorter of the two retaining walls. Commissioner Prouty noted that moving the building back has a better effect on the area. He added that the parking structure needs to be further landscaped to stealth it. He questioned if the design of the buildings is something that could actually be built. Mr. Myers noted that they have checked with Benson Industries, a glazing manufacturer and has confirmed that this is doable. Commissioner Prouty noted that the building is distinctive and wants to see the project completed as presented to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the economic benefit to the City went from 1.8 million dollars in the 2005 proposal to $700,000 and this is a major difference. He pointed out that this is not an easy decision. Chairperson Zemke also complimented the developer on the proposal and for responding to all their needs. He asked staff how to proceed with the motions. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that if the Commission recommends approval to the City Council, staff will make sure that the staff report reflects the earlier (September 7th) motion with the full results of the vote and a description of the procedural posture of the motion. Motion Teglia I Second Giusti to approve a resolution recommending that the City Council approve P06-0073: PP06-0002, SP06-0001, DR06-0060, TDM06-000 and ZA06-0001 subject to the conditions of approval including the revised conditions submitted by staff; and with the following recommendation of the Planning Commission: . That the Below Market Rate housing be produced prior to a certificate of occupancy for the Phase I office tower; . That the southern portion of the parking garage be further stealthed with large-box specimen trees subject to the Chief Planner's approval; and, . That the tallest of the northwestern retaining walls not be constructed during Phase I and that the second smaller retaining wall either be buried or not constructed in Phase I, if possible, and that this area be landscaped and remain in a natural state. Roll Call: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Zemke Commissioner Romero Vice Chairperson Honan* None NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: * Commissioner Honan stated for the record that she refused to vote as she felt the continuance was procedurally improper, and her vote was thus tallied as an abstention. Commissioner Prouty also stated for the record that he voted in favor because he expects Myers Development to deliver on the proposal. s:\MlVl.utes\03-::2i-OiO "R.Pc.c.:oc -147- "pl<ge 5 of ., Planning Commission Meeting of September 21,2006 Commissioner Sim made it clear that because of the architects' compelling design and the way the detail was presented he voted in favor and expressed his desire for the developer to deliver on the proposal. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. FedEx Distribution Center Bacon, John W. & Lynn J./Owner Michael Nilmeyer/Applicant 220 Shaw Rd. P05-0064: UP05-0014 Use Permit and Design Review allowing the conversion of a two-story 65,694 square foot industrial building into commercial postal facility with exterior building improvements, landscaping upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 66 parking spaces, loading spaces and 9 truck trailer parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily Continued to October 19, 2006 by consensus of the Commission after discussing items 6 and 7. ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 10:38 P.M. Susy Kall<in Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Zemke, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla .s:\Ml'^''''tes\~-::2:l-0G "RPc.oloc -148- page G of G Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 2006 Recess called at 9:08. Recalled to order at 9:23 p.m. 7. MANDALA Y TERRACE - Terrabay Phase III Mandalay Terrace (PHIIII Bayshore Blvd) Myers Development Co. LLC IOwner & Applicant San Bruno Mountain - Bayshore Blvd P06-0073: PP06-0002, SP06-0001, DR06-0060, ZA06-0001 & EIR04-0002 Precise Plan, Specific Plan, Design Review, Zoning Text Amendment amending Chapter 20.63 of the SSFMC and Final Environmental Impact Report with Addendum for a re-entitlement of an existing 665,000 square feet office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers and an increase in commercial uses. The project would consist of: 665,000 square feet of office in two high rise towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial space, a 100-child day care center and a 200 seat performing arts shared with office space. Public hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Mr. Meyers noted that they would be addressing the changes to the design since their last meeting. He pointed out that the Commission had received a set of revised drawings, a modified financial report in response to the City's comments from the Director of Finance, and a working draft of the performing arts center shared use agreement. He pointed out that there will be a video from Kazuko Morgan of Cushman and Wakefield with regard to the types of uses in the commercial aspect of the project. Cliff Lowe, Cliff Lowe & Associates, went through some of the landscaping details in terms of the species, location and creating people spaces. He added that they will have an ecological Firm do the planting and maintenance of the plants because they are specialists restoring areas to their original vegetation. Mr. Myers noted that they will phase the project and added that all the City benefits will be constructed in Phase 1. Michael Duncan, SOM Architects, spoke in detail on the garage and the corrugated metal material that will give a shimmering effect to the garage. He added that the traffic configuration will be 2 lanes in and 2 lanes out. He also noted that if the project needs additional traffic flow, the median could be reduced to allow for a right and left turn at the First intersection without interrupting the landscaping. Mr. Myers noted that there will be public art throughout the project and then proceeded to show a video of Kazuko Morgan of Cushman and Wakefield explaining the commercial tenants they will market for the retail component. Mr. Myers proceeded to give details on the chairs and seating arrangements for the performing arts center and closed the presentation with a video drive by of the project from northbound and southbound 101. SDeakers Michael Valencia noted that Mr. Myers presented his project to the Chamber of Commerce and thanked him for keeping the Chamber informed on his plans in South San Francisco. He clarified that the Chamber of Commerce does not endorse a project of any sort but they do commend him for using the Chamber's resources to educate the community on his project. T,ARE~i Lance Huntley spoke in favor of the proposal and added that the performing arts theatre is needed in the area because there is a lack of venues in San Mateo County. William Nack, Building Trades Council, spoke in favor of the project and added that the proposed project will create jobs. He also presented a letter from the Housing Leadership Council in favor of the project because it will S:\Jv\l,^,L<tes\O_'l-Or-O" R."pC.cloc -149- "page 3 of " Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 2006 provide 32 below market rate homes. Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned why a development agreement was not being recommended by staff. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the direction came from the City Manager's office and staff incorporated the comments and issues in the Conditions of Approval, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan to try and address the issues that would remain if there is not a development agreement. She added that the City Council may want a development agreement. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned how many large projects similar to this one have been approved without a development agreement. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin noted that there have been several, notably the Gateway projects, that did not have development agreements. She clarified that the development agreement extends the entitlements out for many years and the City does not see the benefit of a Development Agreement since all the issues are covered in the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned if the 32 units should be required or a placement of a bond required. Consultant Planner Knapp clarified that the condition of approval states that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first tower the 32 moderate income units should be completely constructed. She added that if the recommended Condition of Approval requires a performance bond for the 32 units as an option to the requirement for the units to be constructed prior to the office Certificate of Occupancy. Consultant Planner Knapp further noted that the "housing agreement" would also be required of the project. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin added that the bond is to guarantee a date certain when the units would be completed. Commissioner Teglia asked if it would be beneficial to have the units built before Certificate of Occupancy. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin replied affirmatively and added that staff was trying to provide an option to have a bond issued if they could not provide them at the same time of the Certificate of Occupancy on the office building. Commissioner Teglia added that the Commission has been adamant that the units be built, especially because it was part of the Conditions of Approval on the previous project and questioned if the materials had changed on the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Myers noted that they had not changed since the previous meeting. Commissioner Teglia noted that the banding proposed on the towers looked reflective on the video. Mr. Myers noted that they had a limited amount of time to put the video together but the banding is translucent. Mr. Duncan noted that the banding will be back lit by night and translucent by day. Commissioner Teglia was unsure on the painting of the garage and the proposed screening materials. Mr. Duncan noted that the material will have a relationship to the translucence of the buildings. Commissioner Teglia questioned if there would be any glazing on the sides of the garage. Mr. Duncan pointed out that the screen would be pulled away from the garage face and garage users would be able to see through it from the inside out. He added that they did not want it to look like the other office buildings. Commissioner Teglia noted that he wanted to see an example of the metal material for the parking garage. Commissioner Romero noted that he was not enthused on the project and preferred the previously submitted (2005) project. He felt that the site could accommodate a superior project and felt that this project does not fit on the site. Commissioner Sim questioned how the performing arts center compares to the venue in Pacifica. Mr. Myers noted that this will be a nice performing arts center and added that the lobby is large and of high quality. Commissioner Giusti questioned if there will be an onsite kitchen at the performing arts center. Mr. Myers pointed out that there will be a small kitchen for setup but not for cooking. He pointed out that the restaurants in the commercial portion of the project could cater for the functions in the project. Commissioner Sim noted that he was keeping an open mind on the project but was not entirely convinced on the phasing. He was unsure on the length of time that one building would stand alone as well as how one building would look by itself. Mr. Myers noted that he plans to start the second building as soon as the Certificate of Occupancy on the first building is issued. s:\/VIL""utes\o)-o:r-o"" R."pC.ctoc -150- "PClge 4 of "" Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 2006 Commissioner Prouty noted that he was uncomfortable with the placement of the second building, the type of chairs that will be used and wanted to make sure that the parking is tucked Into the hill a bit more. Mr. Myers pointed out that the market called for two floor plans because the entire project would not have fit in one building. He added that they tried to develop one small and one large tower to offset the view of two tall towers. Commissioner Teglia suggested adding more curve to the buildings and asked that a requirement that the hotel option needs to be aggressively marketed before the second building is constructed. Chairperson Zemke pointed out that he liked the landscaping detail and recognized that there is a problem with the phasing. Motion Teglia I Second Sim to approve a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR (EIR04-0002), consider the 2006 Addendum and adopt the MMRP Roll Call: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Zemke Commissioner Romero and Vice Chairperson Honan None None NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Resolution 2658-2006 adopted by roll call vote. Motion Teglia I Second Sim to approve a resolution recommending that the City Council approve P06-0073: PP06-0002, SP06-000l, DR06-0060, TDM06-000 and ZA06-0001 subject to the conditions of approval and with the requirements that a mock up of the garage be provided prior to installation and a marketing program be submitted to staff showing that the developer will pursue a hotel on the site. Roll Call: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Zemke NOES: Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero and Vice Chairperson Honan ABSTAIN: Commissioner Sim ABSENT: None Motion Failed. Commissioner Teglia questioned if there was a modification of the motion that would help Commissioner Sim in determining his vote. Commissioner Sim noted that he was concerned with Phase I and how it will look. He added that he would like to see renderings on how it will look. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission can make another vote taking into consideration Commissioner Sim's comments, let the developer continue with the Commission's current vote to Council or continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that the Commission can make another motion at a subsequent meeting or at this meeting also. Commissioner Sim was concerned with how much more of the garage will be seen as someone drives on 101 during the first phase of the project. Commissioner Romero noted that the vote had been taken. Chairperson Zemke questioned what the next step is for the project. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that this would go to the Council with a negative recommendation and the Commission has the option of entertaining another motion, or continuing to a date certain to allow for the applicant to respond to the concerns. Mr. Myers pointed out that he would like to address some of the Commissioners comments and would prefer to go forward to the City Council with a recommendation to approve than with a denial. S:\M.",uteS\O_'l-OT-OlO R."C.doc -151- "~ge 5 of Ii> Planning Commission Meeting of September 7,2006 Motion Teglia I Second Giusti to continue the item to allow the developer to provide a Phase I fly by for both sides from highway 101 and renditions of what Phase I will look like without the second phase. Roll Call: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Zemke NOES: Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero and Vice Chairperson Honan ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Approved by roll call vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. AGS Linens expansion Elisa Sandoval/Owner Elisa Sandoval/Applicant 915 Linden Ave. P04-0103: UP04-0029 Review of Use Permit to allow an existing linen supply service to expand into three adjacent tenant spaces at 915 Linden Avenue in the C-1 Retail Commercial Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81. Reviewed prior to item # 7. ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION None ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 11:52 P.M. Motion Teglia I Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Susy Kalkin Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Zemke, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla S:\MlV\.lA.tes\~'J-OT-OIi> R"Pc.cloc -152- "P~ge '"" of Ii> Planning Commission Meeting of August 17,2006 PUBLIC HEARING 3. MANDALA Y TERRACE - Terrabay Phase III Mandalay Terrace (PH III I Bayshore Blvd) Myers Development Co. LLC IOwner & Applicant San Bruno Mountain - Bayshore Blvd POS-0073: PPOS-0002, SPOS-0001, DROS-OOSO, ZAOS-0001, DAAOS-0001 & EIR04-0002 Precise Plan, Specific Plan, Design Review, Zoning Text Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report with Addendum for a re-entitlement of an existing 665,000 square foot office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers and an increase in commercial uses. The project would consist of: 665,000 square feet office in two high rise towers (352,000 and 313,000 square feet), 25,000 square feet of commercial space, a 10Q-child day care center and a 150 seat performing arts center shared with office space. Public Hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp gave a brief staff report and noted that the City's Traffic Engineer is present to answer any question the Commission might have. Jack Myers of Myers Development Company, Michael Duncan, and Cliff Lowe gave a presentation on the changes made to the proposal as a response to the Commission's comments of the August 1, 2006 study session. Del Schembari spoke in favor of the project and added that the smaller footprint is much better. He was concerned that the highrise would not have a breakroom on each floor and noted that it was important to have this. Commissioner Teglia asked for some discussion on the screening and blending of the parking structure. Mr. Myers noted that they lowered smaller building and widened it by 27 feet to cover more of the garage. He added that they articulated more of the fagade of the garage creating a bay window effect. Commissioner Teglia added that the developer could include a glass screen wall on the corner and try to tie the view between the two buildings. Chairperson Zemke asked if the development would create a wind tunnel between the two buildings and if this had been looked into. Mr. Myers noted that they were asked by the Design Review Board to perform a wind study. The wind study found the need to relocate the tower that is now located on the north and noted that the new position of the building did not have too much wind impact. Chairperson Zemke also questioned if the plant species to be used will be adaptable to the wind conditions of the area. Cliff Lowe, Landscape Architect, noted that all the plant species chosen will withstand the wind conditions and the soil type. Chairperson Zemke asked how tall the trees along Airport Boulevard would get once they are fully matured. Mr. Lowe noted that the tree types are going to be the London Plane Tree and will be the same type that is along the southern part of Airport Boulevard and will get as tall as 40 to 45 feet. Commissioner Giusti asked who would be contracting the stores that would go into the retail portion of the project. Mr. Myers noted that they have retained the seNices of Cushman & Wakefield to outreach to retailers and added that there already is a tremendous amount of interest in getting into the development. Vice Chairperson Honan noted that the performing arts center would be in the south tower which is the smaller of the two. She asked what the hours of operations for the performing arts center would be. Mr. Myers responded that the performing arts center is going to be subject to a lease agreement between the owner and the City for a specific use rights. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned who would prepare the use agreement. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that an use agreement would be entered into between the City and the applicant. Vice Chairperson Honan pointed out that the City should be able to have top priority in terms of the use of the center. 5:\MLV\.lA.tes\Ol?-:l.rOG R."pC.oIoc -153- "p"'ge ::? of G Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2006 Vice Chairperson Honan asked if the seating would be folding chairs or theatre seating. Mr. Myers noted that they have been working on all the details and will return with those on September 7,2006. Vice Chairperson Honan asked who pays to maintain the performing arts center. Mr. Myers noted that the owner of the building maintains the performing arts center but the use of the center for the City is free of charge and the number of days of use throughout a year is going to be outlined in the use agreement. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned how large the storage area would be. Mr. Myers noted that it is about 300 square feet in size. Commissioner Giusti questioned if the dressing rooms would be included in the storage space. Mr. Myers noted that he would return with the details of the performing arts center on September 7th. Vice Chairperson Honan asked what the size of the childcare facility was on the inside and outside. Mr. Myers noted that the play area is 7,500 square feet and the interior 5,000 square feet interior space. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the 2000 project approval had a 9,000 square foot area in the interior and the staff report stated the difference in size. Vice Chairperson Honan questioned why the childcare center lost 4,000 square feet. Mr. Myers noted that they researched all the State requirements and they current proposal meets the minimum requirements. Andrew Kawahara, Myers Development Project Manager, noted that the State of California's minimum requirements for open space per child are 35 square feet and they allocated 50 square feet per child. Vice Chairperson Honan asked what kind of public art the developer was going to propose. Mr. Myers noted that they have a group of artists with whom they work and will make sure that there is quality art in the development. Vice Chairperson Honan noted that some projects have had a stipulated dollar amount on public art. Mr. Myers noted that they would prefer not to have a dollar amount on the public art and would rather look for the best price since they will have several pieces throughout the development. Vice Chairperson Honan pointed out that there is only one picture that shows the top of the Peninsula Mandalay tower and asked for more pictures to help her visualize the new proposal with the current tower. Mr. Myers noted that he will work on getting a photomontage of the area which will give the Commission a better idea of what the project will look like with the surrounding buildings. He also stated that they will have the materials from the Peninsula Mandalay and the materials that will be used in the new proposal to help the Commission visualize the difference in colors. Vice Chairperson Honan stated that she would prefer the project to be built in one phase rather than two. Commissioner Prouty reiterated Vice Chairperson Honan's comments with regard to phasing and public art. He asked for the distance between the fin and the building structure. Mr. Duncan noted that it is a 10 foot distance and a height of about 30 feet. Commissioner Prouty asked if the design was buildable. Mr. Myers noted that they have hired Hathaway Dinwiddie as the contractor and are confident that this is going to be built as shown to the Commission. He added that he will show the Commission some examples of public art. Commissioner Prouty noted his concern with the height of the taller tower and asked City Engineer if he felt that it could be built. City Engineer Razavi replied that based on the results of the geological survey it can be built. Commissioner Prouty asked the City's Traffic Engineer to explain if the three lanes will work and how they will work. Marc Crane, Crane Transportation Group, pointed out that there are two in bound lanes through Bayshore Boulevard which will continue through a first major internal intersection and then precede into access the garage. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the traffic would backup into Bayshore Boulevard. Mr. Crane noted that they were concerned with traffic backing up to the signal on Bayshore and they added a condition to keep the traffic flowing through the first intersection on the site because of traffic backup. He pointed out that the Engineering Division has added a condition to monitor the traffic and see how it is operating. If there is a problem with this intersection, it will be signalized and coordinated with the signal on Bayshore. Commissioner Prouty was concerned with backup occurring at the first intersection that leads to the surface S:\MLv..Utes\OS-1}<-OG R"PC.ctoc -154- "PClge :3 of G Planning Commission Meeting of August 17,2006 parking and the childcare center. He asked if the site could accommodate designating one of the lanes a direct left or right turn lane. Mr. Crane riOted that there should not be any stop and go traffic through the first intersection without a stop sign control and the driver can make a left or right without stopping. Commissioner Prouty asked if a third lane could be added to accommodate a right only lane with two lanes that go straight into the parking structure. Mr. Crane pointed out that this could be done and it would be added as a result of the monitoring process. Commissioner Romero noted that the project has significantly improved in comparison with the previous entitlements approved. He pointed out that he is not convinced that this is the appropriate use for the site. He felt that the mixed use proposal was a better option for the site and suggested that the applicant reconsider a hotel rather than an office tower. He pointed out that the retail aspect of the project needs to be enhanced. Commissioner Sim complimented the project team for responding to the issues on the design of the building. He and Mr. Duncan discussed the architectural features of the translucent glass. Commissioner Sim stated that the parking structure needs more stealthing. Mr. Duncan noted that they have widened the building to hide as much of the garage as possible. Commissioner Giusti asked how many floors would be in the garage. Mr. Duncan replied that there would be 6 floors of parking available. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that other parking structures tie into the building more and added that this parking structure could tie in with color. Mr. Duncan noted that they could improve the finish of the parking structure. Commissioner Sim asked that the architect show the back elevations of the buildings. Mr. Duncan noted that the same system will be in the rear. Commissioner Sim asked if the retaining wall could be reduced. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the Fire Department is not present at the meeting due to illness, but informed the Commission that various City officials and the developer met to work out emergency access at the site. She pointed out that the site has many constraints and this design works with respect to the emergency access to the site and the retaining wall may not be able to be reduced without impacting emergency access. She pointed out that Fire Chief White requested that she inform the Commission that considerable effort was expended to arrive at this design which works. Commissioner Prouty asked that the applicant include a drive by video into their presentation at the next Planning Commission meeting and look into adding a turn pocket. Mr. Myers replied that they would have a presentation ready for the Commission. Consultant Planner Knapp added that per the traffic consultant another third pocket could be added and this can be determined if the traffic monitoring results show a need for it. Mr. Crane added that a fourth lane could also be accommodated if the median is reduced. Commissioner Teglia added that the hotel is the highest and best use for the site. He pointed out that the northbound and southbound views are important for the Commission. He suggested that the taller building have another fin on the northbound fin. Mr. Duncan noted that there is simplicity in the design of the building and is worried about too many moves complicating the building. Commissioner Teglia suggested that the architect think more about adding more of the wavelike design into the taller building on the northbound view. Commissioner Teglia added that some of the landscaping and art could be a bold water feature in front. He stated that he does not have any issue with phasing the construction of the site. He suggested that the phasing include the complete site if one building is not constructed, the point and the landscaping could be put in and stand on its own. He asked for details on the treatment and rehabilitation of the point. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that the performing arts center should also be available for other civic organizations. Commissioner Giusti and Commissioner Sim stated that they would prefer a one phased construction project in conjunction with the comments of the Design Review Board. Mr. Myers added that they have designed it that the buildings will look nice one at a time. Chairperson Zemke pointed out that if the project s:\ML""Ktes\D!?-iY-OG "RPc.oIoc -155- pt;!ge 4 of G Planning Commission Meeting of August 17,2006 is phased he would like to see that it the rest of the site look presentable until the second construction phase takes place. Mr. Myers assured the Commission that he would not leave the rest of the site looking like a construction site if only phase one can be built for the time being. Commissioner Prouty asked how to se how much of the landscaping is real landscaping that will survive the site conditions. Mr. Myers pointed out that they would return with a detailed presentation of the landscaping on September 7,2006. Vice Chairperson Honan asked if the developer was still looking at installing an overlook area at the top of the site. Mr. Myers noted that they still are entertaining the lookout and think of putting a historical marker at the site. Chairperson Zemke asked to have pictures that show how the project will look with if it phased. Commissioner Sim reminded the applicant to articulate the corners and embellish the cuts of the buildings. Concurrence of the Commission to continue the Public Hearina to September 7. 2006. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Tam-Leung/Owner Mira Lee/Applicant 425 Eccles Avenue P06-0010: UP06-0006 Review of Revised Exterior Building Elevation and Landscape Plan associated with a previously approved Use Permit and Design Review of a conversion of a recreation building into a printing facility. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Tam Leung, applicant noted that he was sensitive to the Planning Commission's concerns on the roll up door and used glass as part of the material. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the canopy is used for shade only or if it is part of the roll up box. Mr. Leung noted that there is no roll up box and just a canopy. Chairperson Zemke asked if the landscaping was new or if they were using some existing landscaping. Mr. Leung noted that they will put in new landscaping. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the trash enclosure is in the back of the property and it may be difficult for the Scavenger's trucks to get into the site to pick up the trash. He asked that the Commission consider other options. The Commission discussed having the Scavenger company pull out that trash bin and empty it in the driveway but was not in favor of having the trash enclosure in front of the property. Mr. Leung noted that he does not generate a lot of trash because of the nature of his business; most of his waste is recycled and kept inside the building. He added that he would have his employees push out that trash container for pickup. The Commission accepted the report. ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Teglia was concerned with public access to the bay trail from the Genentech campus and opening up after hours parking along the shoreline. s:\Mlv\'IAtes\Og-:l:T-O,," R.pC-.c(oc -156- PCl0tSof "" ~'t1l ~~N .p, ~C 4- -L~ ~ ":,::;.c; itt. .'..-k C.;,..., .,:...~. --~ .5 I'-:'~'~"-'L._ .1"'= =;8 .~'i~~ ~~ ()~ . .4Z1FO'R~\.'t-- 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Planning Commissioners Present: Planning Commissioners Absent: Design Review Boardmembers Present: Design Review Boardmembers Absent: Staff Present: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 1, 2006 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 p.m. TAPE 1 Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke Commissioner Romero Boardmember Harris, Boardmember Nelson, Boardmember Nilmeyer, Boardmember Ruiz and Boardmember Williams None Acting Chief Planner Kalkin, Consultant Planner Knapp, Admin. Asst. II Aguilar, Planning Liaison - Sergeant Normandy and City Engineer Razavi 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Study Session - Terrabay Phase III Mandalay Terrace project Jack Myers, Michael Duncan and Cliff Lowe presented the new proposal to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Boardmember Nilmeyer felt that the building belonged in the East of 101 Area because all the office towers are located in this area. He noted that he could not justify the locations of the buildings at this point. He suggested that a smaller scale development that terraces into the hillside could work better on the site. Boardmember Ruiz noted that the applicant had responded to many of the Boards comments. He concurred with Boardmember Nilmeyer in that the project would best fit in the East of 101 Area. He also noted that the Peninsula Mandalay tower would be more visible if this current proposal weren't built. He was concerned with the phasing of the project because the smaller building is scheduled to be built first without a guarantee of when the taller tower will be built. Mr. Myers noted that he has the opportunity to phase the development and projects that once the first building is 70% leased they will commence the second building. Boardmember Williams pointed out that the first iteration of the project was not to the Design Review Board's liking but some changes have been made in terms of people space, circulation and other issues. He noted that the buildings will be very prominent and that the 21 story building is a signature building. He suggested that the signature building needs more detail and should be more of a landmark to the City, -157- Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2006 like the Transamerica Building in San Francisco. He noted that the architecture should be making a statement and drawing positive comments to the development. Boardmember Harris also pointed out that the project improved from the first time the Design Review Board reviewed it. He recommended that the building needs to be integrated with the landscaping and that there needs to be a legal obligation to ensure that the planting is maintained. He noted that it is a difficult site for the landscaping to survive on and that there needs to be a maintenance program to mitigate any environmental impacts for the project as well as a monitoring program to ensure the survival of these plants. Boardmember Nelson noted that the applicant redesigned the project in response to the Board's comments. He felt that Airport Boulevard serves as a buffer for the building to not look so massive on the mountain and out that there are medians on the center of the street and rows of trees should be added to soften the area as well as keep the landscaping continuous with what is further south on Airport Boulevard. He suggested that the developer should go back and look at the landscaping of the Peninsula Mandalay tower and revise it because most of the plants are not being successful as first projected. Commissioner Teglia noted that trying to tie the project with the residential tower is not a good idea. He noted that some of the examples of Skidmore's buildings were much cleaner. He added that the developer needs to move away from the green building skin and move towards a blue that articulates the architecture better. He explained how the original entitlements for the project had the buildings tucked back into the mountain. Commissioner Teglia added that the parking is good in its location and added that it could be hidden more by widening one of the two towers, decreasing the height of the parking structure and adding curves to the architecture of the other buildings to hide the garage. He pointed out that two office towers would not be able to keep retail alive and they need a critical draw to keep the retail alive such as a movie theater. Mr. Myers noted that they will bring forward the curtain wall system at the next meeting and pointed out that the theatres and top of the market retail is not a feasible for them. He added that they are looking at uses that will be supported by office, such as are Starbuck's and Jamba Juice type uses. Commissioner Prouty noted that the Peninsula Mandalay tower stands out and was uncomfortable with the current proposal because it will also stand out. He stated that the taller building should be set into the mountain and blend in with it more. He further noted that this building needs more to become a signature building of the City. Commissioner Giusti pointed outh that the tall building will look very large as people approach it. She added that the performing arts theatre should seat more than 150 people. Mr. Myers pointed out that Vice Chairperson Honan had also asked for more seating at the theater and is looking into the feasibility of this. Commissioner Sim questioned if they had evaluated other ideas with regards to the core. Mr. Myers stated that depending on the use of the building a side core is inefficient. Mr. Duncan added that they wanted to have a vertical expression on the tall building. Commissioner Sim noted that although this is an office building, a unique and creative design could be given to it which makes it an entryway into the City as well as gives a lasting image to the City. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the Lowe's proposal changed from a big box retail look to an office look by adding certain details. He stated that the illumination of the fa9ade is a good start. He added that the first building should be reflected or inflected based on the topography and relate more to the landscaping. Mr. Myers noted that the appearance of the building is a result of the comments by the Design Review Board and they are going to refine the appearance more based on the comments of the Commission. Commissioner Sim asked if there was another retaining wall. Mr. Duncan noted that they needed to move the retaining wall further in order to accommodate the fire department requests for turnarounds at the cul- de-sac. He added that the wall is from 15 to 20 feet high. Commissioner Sim was concerned with the height of the retaining wall and asked that the fire department explain their need for it. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the Fire Department looked at the plans and has approved them as shown to the S:\Ml""",tes\Fl""/Allzeci Ml""",tes\ol?-O:!. -0", Jol""t pc-t>R.B.cioc -158- P/Agf ~ of 3 Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2006 Commission. She pointed out that the cul-de-sac was created as a response to the Fire Department's issues. Mr. Myers added that the landscaping and the stone that will be installed will buffer the impact. Commissioner Sim noted that he can see the parking between the buildings and suggested that the architect include a mechanism to be able to see it through the building. Commissioner Teglia asked if there was roof parking in the parking structure. Mr. Myers replied affirmatively and added that they have developed a pattern on top so that the individuals looking down on the parking structure can see something other than a pad of concrete. Commissioner TegUa asked if there would be landscaping on the parking structure. Mr. Myers noted that it is difficult to install landscaping. Commissioner Teglia added that the parking structure will be prominent and will be visible from those traveling on the hookramp. He suggested that the applicant look into softening the visual impact it has from various points. Mr. Myers pointed out that they moved the building in response to the comments of the Design Review Board and also widened the building's size. Mr. Duncan added that one of the reasons they dropped the building was to obscure more of the parking garage. Commissioner Teglia suggested tiering the buildings. Mr. Myers noted that they will take the Commission's comments and return with a revised set of plans. Commissioner TegUa noted that the Commission is looking for something that has less mass and that will be a signature building for the City. Chairperson Zemke stated his appreciation for the Design Review Board's comments on the proposal and noted that the landscaping is key to the development. With no further comments the meeting was adjourned. 5. Adjournment Joint Design Review Board and Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Susy Kallan Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Zemke, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla S:\MtVloute5\Ftvw::!Ltzed MtVlot.d:es\ol?-O:l.-ObJotVlot PC-DR.lS.cioc -159- "p~ge 3 of 3 DRB Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 9 of9 The Board had the following comments: 1. The project is generally insensitive to the natural context at the site in terms of location, massing, design and scope. 2. Incorporate design elements from the main buildings. such as finish materials and methods of articulation, into the design of the parking structure. 3. Explore the possibility of redesigning the Cal Water building to coordinate with the proposed buildings' design and add landscape - screen trees and shrubs - to soften the view of the building from the office tower. 4. Include pedestrian-scaled lighting in the plaza and other outdoor areas. 5. Reconfigure the site plan to: a) Increase the distance between the buildings and the highway. b) Integrate the buildings into the surrounding mountain landforms. c) Provide a more prominent, formal landscaped entrance to the site from the City sidewalk. d) Improve pedestrian flows and ADA accessibility to the sidewalk both physically and visually. e) Improve access to building service areas. f) Reduce pedestrian-vehicular conflicts; suggest a sub grade or elevated passageway from the parking garage to the buildings. g) Use site design to account for environmental conditions including wind and sunlight (See comment NO.6. a-b. below) especially as regards the childcare play area. h) Include turn lanes and vehicle stacking areas where warranted (See comment No. 6.c., below). i) Provide more useable outdoor space 6. Provide more detailed information as follows, and revise the plans accordingly: a) A wind study, to determine if the pedestrian areas shown will be located in low wind areas, or to determine if wind attenuating structures are required. b) A shadow/sunlight study to determine if people spaces will be comfortable, and if the children's play area is bright and sunny. c) A vehicular circulation study, to determine if the 2,000+ vehicles anticipated to access the site will work with the traffic flows along Airport Blvd., and if congestion can be mitigated at the building entry and parking structure entrance and exits. d) Include a higher level of detail on the project plans in order to allow the Design Review Board to provide more specific comments. 7. Revise the landscape plan as follows: a) Coordinate the plant list with environmental conditions at the site. Suggest the plantings around the towers be specifically wind tolerant and planting on the more "wild" portions of the site on San Bruno Mountain be native plantings. Separate planting schedules may be required for these two distinctly different microclimate areas. b) Use 36, 48 or 60-gallon tree sizes at the time of installation to add scale to the site and to ensure tree caliper will be large enough to withstand high wind breakage. c) Replace shrubs and small trees with larger trees scaled to the building sizes. d) Redesign the landscaping to be more sensitive to the natural landforms on and around the site. e) Redesign the various retaining walls around the site with a "stepped" design or green "Verdura" type walls to soften their appearance. 22. MISCELLANEOUS \s\Susv Kalkin Acting Chief Planner -160- DRB Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 80f9 21. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION: Myers Development Myers Development T errabay P06-0073 & DR06-0060 Mandalay Terrace (PHIII! Bayshore Blvd) (Case Planner: Allison Knapp) Modification to the existing entitlements for Phase III which would allow construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two office towers as opposed to the entitled one office tower. Project would include two office towers: a North Tower consisting of 15 floors totaling 315,290 gross square feet, a 150-seat shared use performing arts auditorium, a child care facility accommodating 100 children and 17,562 square feet of ground-floor retail including a restaurant; and a South Tower consisting of 21 floors totaling 341,880 gross square feet of office and 6,085 gross square feet of ground floor retail. The applicant is requesting flexibility to allow the height and square footages of the two towers to vary (but not to exceed 665,000 gross square feet total) to suit the needs of the office user. The flexibility would allow the North Tower to increase by three stories while the South Tower decreased by the same amount. -161- DRB Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 1 of7 MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting of June 20,2006 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 4:00 P.M. Harris., Nelson, Nilmeyer, Ruiz and Williams none Susy Kalkin, Acting ChiefPlanner Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner Chad Smalley, Associate Planner Patti Cabano, Administrative Assistant 1. ADMINISTRA TNE BUSINESS 2. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Myers Peninsula-Shepherd Heery Myers Development Co., LLC Terrabay - Bayshore Blvd P06-0073 & DR06-0060 Mandalay Terrace (PH ill 1 Bayshore Blvd) (Case Planner: Allison Knapp) DESCRIPTION Design Review for a re-entitlement of existing 665,000 square foot office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers and an increase in commercial uses. The project would consist of: a 665,000 square foot office (352,000 and 313,000 square feet), 25,000 square feet commercial, 100-child day care center and 150 seat performing arts center shared with office space. In general, the Design Review Board members felt that the changes made to the proj ect were significant improvements compared to the proj ect that was reviewed at the May 16th DRB meeting. The plans included more detailed information and the site planning was improved. However, some of the DRB members still commented that the proposed development is incompatible and inappropriate for the site and the surrounding topography. Specifically, the buildings proposed are too tall and too close to Highway 101. It was noted that buildings of the proposed scale are more appropriate east of Highway 101 in South San Francisco. Suggestions to reduce the visual impact of the development at this location included: introducing three smaller office buildings, rather than the two office buildings proposed; and/or setting the proposed buildings farther from Highway 101, possibly building on top of the parking garage. . Boardmember Harris bad to leave at 6: 15 PM -162- DRB Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 2 of7 Recognizing that the project is likely to continue in a form similar to what was presented at the June 20th meeting, and acknowledging that aside from the above issues the architecture of the buildings was of very high quality, the DRB members had the following comments: 1. Continue to develop plans for the useable outdoor spaces. Include landscape plantings and hardscape features that separate pedestrian and automobile traffic. Further, human spaces should be designed to create private areas as well as more open areas. 2. Submit a planting plan and proposed plant list (inlcuding specimen sizes) for City review. The plan should include ground level plantings in the pedestrian areas (shrubs, groundcovers, and ornamental grasses three feet and lower). 3. Create pedestrian connections from the north building to the public sidewalk going to the north and to the south of the development site (similar to the treatment proposed for the pedestrian connection from the south building to the sidewalk). 4. Remove "Holly Oak" trees from the planting list and plans and consider a tree such as Quercus viriginiana (Southern Live Oak) or similar, which are more likely to grow to a healthier size in South San Francisco. Quercus ilex (Holly Oak) is not a very successful or attractive tree in the Bay Area, and may not grow well at this location. 5. Create a roof plan for the parking structure that includes an aesthetically pleasing paving pattern since the parking deck will be visible from the new office towers, and potentially visible from other buildings east of 101 and the upper levels of San Bruno mountain. The paving pattern should include colors and/or design elements that are similar to other hardscape found within the project. Consider elements such as landscape plantings and trellises with vines to soften the view of the deck from above and to better integrate the parking garage with the surrounding mountain. 6. Integrate the design of the parking structure with the design proposed for the office buildings by using materials from the office buildings on the parking structure. For example, move the stair-towers on the entry side of the parking garage to the exterior of the building and wrap them in the same glass as the office buildings are wrapped in. 7. Increase the size of the parking garage lobby to accommodate anticipated peak pedestrian traffic flows. 8. Create a high-quality interior design for the proposed pedestrian tunnels leading from the parking garage to the buildings. The tunnels should contain as much natural light as possible (through the use of skylights and/or the like), and should contain wall graphics or artwork to ensure that the tunnel space is pedestrian-friendly. 9. Include all trees, including those which extend up the hillside, shown on the project model (presented at the meeting) into all future plans for City review. The proposed trees on San Bruno mountain were 60-70% pinus elderica and a mix of other hardy trees and native shrubs, such as Toyon. These trees and shrubs will have to be supported by an irrigation system and maintained by the developer. Approved with conditions and requires further review by Planning Commission. 3. OWNER APPLICANT Slough SSF LLC Jon Bergschneider -163- ~~.t\,l!l4.!I... ~..~IJ,Il'f~ !!,i . ~ ~ ~ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY September 26, 2006 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting Planner City of South San Francisco City Hall- 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Appeal of Two Conditions of Approval Dear Ms. Knapp, In reviewing the Conditions of Approval following the Planning Commission's vote last Thursday evening (September 21, 2006) two items have been identified that we believe need further consideration. Specifically, we would like to appeal to the South San Francisco City Council (the "City") to reconsider: 1.) The Performing Arts Center Our concern, which should also be a concern of the City, pertains to the last sentence in Conditions of Approval number 17 on page 4 stating: "The seating shall be fixed seating and angled (as in stadium seating to facilitate view of the stage.)" We have demonstrated that both the City's and building owner's interests would benefit greatly from having the facility designed and constructed as a flat floor, flexible seating space that: . Now provides for a professionally designed 200 seat traditional theater facility (with optional fixed-seating capability) including a full compliment of lighting, sound, acoustics, projection and ELEVATED STAGE (42 inches) permitting uninterrupted viewing from each seat within the theater; . Is more compatible to the variety of art-based uses -like theater-in- the-round, Speaker's Series, recital, film festival, and other such engagements; and, . Enables the City and office tenants to utilize the Performing Arts Center as a banquet area, lecture and presentation facility without 101 Second SlTCCI, Suire 'i'i'i . San I'rancisco. CA 94 J O'j . Telephone; (4] 'i) 777-3.130 . Fax; (41 'i) 777-.~331 www.mycrsdcvcloplllcnt.com -164- Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco September 26,2006 Page 2 of 2 affecting, in any way, the Performing Art's stage and/or related facilities. 2.) Construction of 32 Below Market Rate Units We recognize the importance that the City puts on having the 32 units of BMR housing actually built. The City understands the financing implications and necessity for the building owner to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy upon the completion of the first building. As constituted the Conditions of Approval in this area creates very serious financing problems. To assure that both the City and building owner issues are adequately addressed, we are seeking the City's approval to modify the Conditions of Approval to require that - prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building - the building owner demonstrate, to the City's satisfaction that: · The land for development of the 32 BMR units has been acquired; · The entitlements for 32 BMR units are completed; · Construction of the 32 BMR units has commenced; and, · A Set Aside Letter from our construction lender assuring availability of the specific sums required to complete the construction of the 32 BMR units and that such sums will only be used to pay for such construction. The set aside funds will be irrevocably available from the lender for the construction of the BMR units, and will be available to the City and can be drawn upon by the City upon default of Developer with respect to the construction of the BMR's; · The BMR units will be completed within fifteen (15) months of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first office tower. Thank you for your consideration of these two matters. Respectfu lIy, /?~ ~S~AL-F" (;; Jack E. Myers Chairman & Chief Executive Officer -165- TERRABA Y PHASE III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 1997082077 City of South San Francisco August 2005 + TERRABAY PHASE III DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page SUMMARY S.l Project Overview S.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigations S.3 Alternatives to the Project S-l S-l S-2 S-2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose and Use of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) 1.3 Environmental Review Process 1.4 Contents of this Draft EIR 1-1 1-1 1-3 1-3 1-5 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Sponsor's Objectives 2.2 Project Location 2.3 Project Site Characteristics 2.4 Project Characteristics 2.5 Project Approval Process 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-9 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Introduction 3.1 Traffic and Circulation 3.2 Air Quality 3.3 Noise 3.4 Public Services and Utilities 3.5 Aesthetics 3-1 3-1 3.1-1 3.2-1 3.3-1 3.4-1 3.5-1 4. ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Alternatives Not Selected 4.2 Alternatives Comparison 4.3 No Project Alternative 4.4 Hotel Tower Alternative 4.5 Two Residential Towers Alternative 4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-4 4-12 4-21 TerrabC!J Phase III Project Draft SHjJpkmental Em,;ronmental Impact Report - Table of Contents 5. OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5.5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 6. PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT PREPARATION 7. REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Notice of Prep arationl Initial Study B. Comments Received on NOP lIS C. Project Traffic Tables D. Project Alternatives Traffic Tables E. Air Quality Model F. California Water Service Company Will Serve Letter LIST OF TABLES S.l Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program S.2 Summary of Impacts and :Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 1.1 Phase III 1998/99 SEIRLand Use Program 1.2 2000 Addendum Land Use Program 2.1-1 Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program 3.1-1 Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project, AM Peak Hour 3.1-2 Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project, PM Peak Hour 3.1-3 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, AM Peak Hour 3.1-4 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, PM Peak Hour 3.1-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base and Year 2010 Base Case + Project, Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base and Year 2020 Base Case + Project, Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-7 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange (50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), AM Peak Hour 3.1-8 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange (50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), PM Peak Hour 3.1-9 Trip Generation of Approved Development Within South San Francisco East Of 101 Area Expected to Be Built and Occupied By 2010 3.1-10 Home Depot Trip Generation 3.1-11 Home Depot Site Net Change in Trip Generation, Home Depot :Minus Existing Site Use (Levitz Furniture) 3.1-12 Lowe's Site Trip Generation Page 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-3 .... 6-1 7-1 -, A-l B-1 C-l D-l E-l F-l - S-2 S-3 1-2 1-2 2-7 3.1-12 3.1-13 3.1-15 3.1-15 3.1-17 3.1-17 3.1-18 3.1-19 3.1-23 3.1-24 3.1-24 3.1-24 Terrabqy Phase III P/T?J,ct Draji Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 11 - Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 3.1-13 Lowe's Site Net Change in Trip Generation Lowe's & West Marine Building Minus Existing Site Uses 3.1-14 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase III Approved Use 3.1-15 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase II-Remaining Residential Development (as of February 2005) 3.1-16 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research & Development 3.1-17 Project Passby and Diverted Linked Trips 3.1-18 Terrabay Phase III Change in Peak Hour Trip Generation Currently Proposed Versus Approved Project 3.1-19 Proposed Parking Spaces 3.2-1 Federal and State Ambient.Air Quality Standards 3.2-2 .Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood, City, 2002-2004 3.2-3 Predicted Curbside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, in Parts Per Million 3.2-4 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day 3.3-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 3.4-1 Estimated Demand for Water and Wastewater 4.1 No Project Alternative - Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.2 Hotel Tower Alternative - Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.3 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Hotel Tower Alternative (ferrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) 4.4 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative, AM Peak Hour 4.5 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative, PM Peak Hour 4.6 Two Residential Towers Alternative -Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.7 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Two Residential Towers Alternative (ferrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) 4.8 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative, AM Peak Hour 4.9 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative, PM Peak Hour 4.10 Comparison ofImpacts of Project With Alternatives LIST OF FIGURES Page 3.1-25 3.1-25 3.1-25 3.1-26 3.1-36 3.1-37 3.1-51 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2-7 3.2-8 3.3-3 3.4-13 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-10 4-11 4-13 4-13 4-18 4-19 4-22 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map 2-3 2.1-2 Project Site Plan 2-4 2.1-3 Project Development Area 2-6 3.1-1 Area Map 3.1-3 3.1-2 Location ofIntersection, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis 3.1-5 3.1-3 Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour 3.1-7 3.1-4 Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 3.1-8 Terrabqy Phase lIT Pr'!Ject Draft Supplemental Em,;ronmental Impact Report 111 .. Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 3.1-5 Existing Lane Geometries and Intersection Control 3.1-6 2010 & 2020 Base Case (Without Project) Lane Geometries and Intersection Control 3.1-7 2010 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-8 2010 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-9 2020 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-10 2020 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-11 2010 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-12 2010 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-13 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-14 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-15 2010 & 2020 Base Case + Project Lane Geometries and Intersection Control 3.3-1 Noise Measurement Locations 3.3-2 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, 10-11 May 2005 3.3-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 4.2-1 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-2 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-3 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-4 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-1 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-2 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-3 2020 Base. Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-4 2020 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes Page 3.1-9 3.1-22 3.1-27 3.1-28 3.1-32 3.1-33 3.1-38 3.1-39 3.1-40 3.1-41 - - 3.1-43 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-7 4-6 4-7 . 4-8 4-9 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report tv SUMMARY S.l PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco. The site fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II to the west. The Project site comprises 21.2 acres. The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking. Access would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard and one from Sister Cities Boulevard. Project development would conform to the Wedands Mitigation Plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2002 for the Terrabay development. The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entidement phases. Phase A consists of an amendment to the General Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan and portions of the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B, following City action on the Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and potentially minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase B, actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. Table s.t presents a breakdown ofland use by type and building square footage. T,rrab'!J' Phase III Pro/eet Draft SHjJplemental Environmental Impact Report S-l .. Summary S.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATIONS Table S.2 at the end of this section provides a summary of environmental impacts, the level of significance of those impacts, identified mitigation measures and level of significance after the implementation of mitigation measures. TABLE S.l: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use Phase A Retail - 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex Cinema, Grocery Store Residential Market Rate 475,000 248 Dwelling Units Below Market Rate Service Areas 70,000 103 Dwelling Units Loading, Storage, Mechanical, Restrooms, Supervised Play Area Phase B Office Total 295,500 1,198,000 Office CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cwnulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant. The Project would result in significant cumulative impacts. The 2005 DSEIR discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 5. UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Unavoidable significant impacts relating to traffic and circulation and air quality have been identified in this DSEIR. Please see Chapter 5 for a discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts. S.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 DSEIR include: No Project Alternative (development plan approved by the City in 2.000); a Hotel Tower Alternative and a Two Residential Towers Alternative. Based on an evaluation of each alternative compared with the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative and a comparison of each alternative with the proposed Project is presented in Chapter 4. Terrab'!)! Phase ill Prqject Draft S uppfemenfal ElIlironmenta/ Impact &port S-2 t ~ 0' ~ ~ Cl ~ rJl 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ :I: f-4 ~ 0 p:., rJl ~ ::J rJl -< ~ ~ Z 0 ..... ~ C-' ..... ~ ..... ~ Cl ~ rJl t -< ~ ~ ..... p:., 0 ~ ;:: '" '-/:t -.S1 ~ ~ ::J 0 rJl ""<::l N ;:: <:l u'i % ~ ~ ~ h ..... ~ ~ Q) "0" ...: ~U 0 > -S ~\:IS~""'$ \:I .... 5~~:c!J"O .g ~ ~ 5! -S ~ ~ ~ ~:::S:A --'Ocnr\-l\-ol ~ 'i5 u"O @""i).o.u ~ ~ 0. ~ Q) ~.:= ~ S ::S'S Q) ",,,,u .Q)"O...... bIl \:I';l \:I 'i5 u Q) 0 1 Q) '" ~ 8 ~ 13 2. ~] ~ ~ 'B '"~....~soat5~ c::1aO,","~;:l bIlO Q) 5lJ bIl ~ 5lJ;.:::I \:I 0 ~,.,d 5 8.~::E 8 1l.s ~ u ~ 0. 0. 0"0 0...... ..e- ~ ..... Q) .S ~~ ~ ~ 8'B 13.B; ~ ~.~ Q) ~ ~ ~::E S ~ ,.,dCuQ Q) ",0 '" ~ : c:: ~ \:I0-S Q)f-< 5lJ~ ~ ~ d:: .g ~ Cj j,.,d 8 ~ Ul'< '"u""'Q)uO'.... ;.:::I Q) \:I..... ~."O '" "':; .... 0. bIl '" ........... ",,';:j Q) ~ Ll) 0. '" C/J 8,u.S OIl"" 0 Ll) : ~ -S Cl B ~ Cj ..8 f-< +00 u::E::lC<lQ)\:I......"O'" I...: Q) 0...._0""" Q) Q)Q)U '0'"0 C/J f-<..o Q) U :;jg -S .S:!.. ".... ~.....o .IS..o.......u~;.;J..... 8 _"ONO'..... ....::lQ)~ Q) I'< .t:'~ Q) '" Q) u 0 '" ~QU~~S~]~~.s "0 . Q) ....g-B-S ,.,d ~ u '" 0 u ~ Q) 0 ..... Q).-,:j 1:: "'.... "-S,.J;;l 2 '" &1l .... ~ "0 ~ '" 1l i3 !J' ~'> ~ Q) \:I \:I > o'p \:1"0 Q) aJ \-01....-4 ~ \-I e "3 p... u ...... '" Q) O-d~"O~~vi ~....t:;~"3S.... '" '",-'p: 0 ~ . Q) ~ C/J 0 ~ \:1'14 .E "3"0 .... '" .8 "0 U 0 f3 o..~ I ..... .... ~ o..oQ).....;:J i:l ~ ..... ..0 U .~ tn~"""O\-ol~O ~EE~~1:lo. 11.:';:: Q)"O U'i ~ E ~--..: -S"3 "0:2"0 vl1\:lil '"~ "3,"O",~oU o > Q) "';.:::I ..... ::l ~-B~c::..o211 v 0 -- Q) .....p 0 .... ~ \:I ~ ::J U u il..... ~ tl~ ~..oV ~ .S ;: .E.. ~ ~ '"O....."OO.....s ~ p... ~ ~ \:I.S ~ . ..... \:I '" u LP .~ ;;j ~ u LP .~ ;;j "0 f3 o :;S .... o \:I v -S \:I o ~..c: '" u - '" E ~ E g. 11"0 - .... "0 ~ \:I Q) 0"3 u 0 ~~ '" ..... .... v 0 !Z '" "0 \:I o u v '" . N 00 <<') d VJ o .....l .... ::l o ::r:: ..;<I '" v ~ ::E p... i:i o 'p '" .... v 0. . 03 ..... Q) \:1"0 '" v 1] ~ ~ ol:l v ..e,.... :;:s 0 0 -S '0 15. '" ~ ~ ~ S"O ..... ~ 15...9 'So. ~ '""0 V1 v u '" '" ~. '" .... ~ Q) Ll) ~ .S:!...~ \:I 0 Q) H Q) !O<) \:I > CO .... O';::l 0 '","0 ::J v..o .~ ~ 8 t!- & 0. t= .s .~ j .s il ..0 ~ ~"O&....'"1lB...~Q).....~Bo .~J ~ ~.s 8. ~..8 2 l.B 15.] ~ ~ ~-S..;<l \:I oj ~U(j Q) ~:-!p ..... t::.ol '" ... V \:I ~ .... V ~ o i:l '" V -S 0."0;.:::1 '" Cj ::J \:1'0' o .~-<:l 0..... v';:j V ~ ~ E:::l ~....: ..... 0":j;J::E ::l -S OIl:O ~ U vol ..... \:I ~.t: o.p... il ..... "0 0 <<') ....... t:; V '[ 13 ~ 1l'S V..;<l.B ~ g ~ g ~'S 0. " '" ~ -S '" '" vi N '-" I'< 'p 0 ~ 8, ~ bIl 15. ~ .~ 'B.s ~ E'8 g ~ .~ 8 ..... .g ::E .~ ~ to..... 5lJ.g s :: ~ . ~ o.~.gp... V o.~ 0 oy ~ ~ V U '" Q) Q) .... ," \:I \:I ,,'" ~ '" Ll:I -<:l '" l:i~O.....-<:l"'U 0......"'..... -.:lo. \j r-< 0 i:l -.:l :.E ~ "t 'p ......0 t:: Q) p... ~ ~ '0' bIlf-< U \:I .IS 5 ::I a..9..o.:= .~ s ~ .....S ............ \:I S:.:;- Q) ;@bIl"O'i5 E..:.:i '" -<:l p... ;:l""':"U 0 V V 13 ...... ~ '" :!:-.:lQ)"OU to"'" SbIlO....O '"u "t:: Q)U vPUV'"_ ::l....u:l .~ -.ll1 .... lr.l "'.~ 0 lto. t:: .....:tl u ~';:I ~ ~ ~ O'B~:B.S.S ~.B ~.g ~.~ o V ~ '" ;fVJ U V ...: \:I 11 .... 0 S -S ~ U t:: .'" ..... 0 ::I V '" Q) V U '" j~~.....02~.....l~~"O"OB~~ sP :=\ .IS ~ .S :;S 'p .S'~ ~""'"3"O V ~ ~ o. -< 0. g & .... ~ V S ~ 0 s:"3.g';l ..... ..t: ~ .~u....ov"'v opo i:l \:IC/J ~ U .... Q) Z 0. i3 .... gp 0 \:I ~ 'C' ~ .- V 0 0 ~ '" ::l..... 0.... "0 .~ 0 0 - ;;;::. -<:l 0.... .P.....l "9.. t:: 0 ~ ~ .... i:l"3 g N.p ~ '<l: -.:l o.il ..... u ~ ."@,.,do;3o::l"O 0"0"0 ~ v"'" ~ "'" " ~ ~ ...... ..... ...>d . to 0 V ~ - '-" .... p....~ ......0 "'t::olVVJ,.,d"OP...>15.v.....~::J'"ov'" '~'"@ 15. -S ::::i ~ 2 \:I 0. 8 0 a 5 v il ~ p... S 0- '" S ............ v u.g t) 0......E B..o...>d v ~. ~ '-; "0 ::E ~ 15 0. ~ ~.S:!.. g. 5 0 v:g '" -S t:; 11 U tJ ~"3 p... . \:I::;g Ll) v 0 Q),.,d > 0. 5 15. ~ p... ~ g '" ~ s: 11 ~ ~ < +1 g-.t: -S ~ ~ ~ ~::E \:I 2. ~ ~ @" "-I '" 8 \:I '" bIl v '" 0. > \:I:.E p....p Q) 0 ..... ;:: g::2 p... 15.g -S ::l ~ -S "':; 0 '" i-< ~ ~:E ~ B ~ .~ 'p <"0 0-' u.~ 0 0. ~ V -S -.:l v U ~ U :.l U bIlvj ~::>..9 0"8~..9 '" tl bIlg..... oUlr.l ~ ~.~ 8.8 ~ ~~. ~'t @vu,." Jl .~.~ ~ .E .~o :~ ~ ....."0 o........s .... ~ -<:l 0. VJ p......."O '" Cf.l <.....l '" S .... "0 0.- -.:l '" 0 ..0 ~ 5lJ .............. v '" ~~2~~fr~~0~ ......l"O"O~vl1l1~Q) o Q) -<:l > 1'<.:= ..... "'0' v v >"0 '" '" ,"..0 ~ N'~ -.:l V P2 "0 ~ V bIl u.~ ~ (3 v"O ~ lJ ..... "0 l:i ~ ~ ..9"3 .!. "3 :.E .g .s .~" l:l 0.0 ~"3"3"3 fr"3 '" t:: 0.'1::! 0 .... 0 v '-";:l ... I' ~ 0 ~ > ~ "0 ~ l:l.S o.::r:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ....-: <<') C'J ..... r<1 1:: ct .,.. ~ ! - .:; " ~ " .~ ;; ~ - .:; " ~ t " ...., '% o "1:l .~ Q., S ~ ~ g t.:: ~ ~ ~ ..- 't:l <l.l ::I ;:: .... ..... ;:: o U '-' t3 ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ r;n o ~ o ~ ~ ~ :r: E-t ~ o ~ r;n ~ ~ ;:J r;n -< ~ ::E Z o - ~ c.:I - E-t - ::E o ~ .... ~ ~ !:: '" '" ~U ~ s!:: ~ ~ jl ~ ..... .g ~ "'<:l UJ"S '" ~i=Ql50~l:J ~~>-1""0... 00 ~"Oo...... --:"':::~~"S~~ ~~UJu~J1~ ::J ~ 0 v .... .~ .~ >.P-. >-1 ~ u S 5'.0 ~ :::s ~ i=Q 's >.'ljl d 0... ~ v .... '" = .;:::j .... .lS ~ 0... ~ '" .:s 0 fr"'::: "E ~-s tI'J ~ U 0 CI} cl:: ~ ~~~~8...~ obOSE8uv = .g, = ~ 0..$ ~ "0 = "'.- ~ is "0 "3 "'08-S...."S 0"':::"0... dO ~ U = '" !::..;:::j ~ ....... 0 ..... 0 lU tI'J .... =':0 ='.:0 gj .... ~ V '" V '" ~ U .- a .... a .... .... s:; o 5'.0 ~ 5'.0 V u ...... ....vO"'~O"vl=: P-. ", 0 '" 0 "0 .~ r;n E-t U ~ ::E - N u5 ~ ...:l ~ E-t .;:; V '3 0-' ~ = o ':0 ~ ':0 's o Z ~ u l.J:l .~ U3 ~ ~ '" ", V >-1 bO'"d .~ ~ V S ~ '"d '" '" ", -s 'v ~ v...:::~~cr~"S '" 0... u I'i 0 V 0 8.. S.S "":0 !J ~ o '" ", .... '" ........v>.l:J~~ o...>.a~o... u 0~3"ot'" .r:........o =0... J:-lvl?~~",s:: o .... '-"< UJ .~ ~ <.ti 0 0 O.S = .... >. '" ", 0 ~ cJ '" 0 >-1 ..:!::l ':0 -s..",U-s 0 ~ is ~.S ~ l5 gj ~ g. ~""~~U'"d 0 li:~~ .~"So... ~~O]~~~~'i:l r..~.....t:I CJ~"""'~ ~' 8 ~. ~ ~ ~dj ~ "0 vb...:::'O' ~ .~ ...."S o....u 0 .... v 5'.0 ~ 0"" '" .... P-. v..... <::l "'" 0.. .... ", _~P-'","O'"d~cJ ~~ u8~.C': C'\j~l5v~ou-s \.. ._~ 1>._ 0...$ ~o 000",::; >=;d:: ~ ~~~~ ""': ..... <"i 1l~ "'~ .... '" ~:-g u 0 l.J:l I> .~ a .- ::J UJ t) ~ Q) t.t: v '"d~ v bO~-s .... ~ 'E 3 0 ~ .S a:l .s Vv = v OUi v 0"'......<Ji =-s~~~'E~~=~ S....~~8", cJ '" l:J ='s ~ "'::l 0 0 ~'"d ~ Qj.~ 0...] tl 0 v a:l v.s "'-s 0 0...:5 l'< "0 -Fi"S -s 0-' t 1t"O:: &-Fi] o.~ v ~ ~ ...."5"00000... ="'v"5"o",Vtl"':::",.o !;' Si=QUi'"dii .s S rJ'E = v~ V'"d"O >. ~ >-1 .rJ ';;;'] ~ "E ~ ~ S ~ e .":] ~ ~ o ..:o~~o""""'''''''uCil::l'''o~s::v "0'- U ....d..., ..d.... = 0-' 0...... .. iJ v ~ ~ u :.E .'" <:l 5 ~ <:l g..o 0 ~ ~"O'''O <.ti .~ ~ E ~:.s.2 E's .2 -s ~ 'E ......~ ~ ~ ~Jl .- "S :!l <') v. S 8 v 0 "0 = v...... S <:l U 0 en ..... 'U ~ 0 0...7.1 Ui '" tl ~ El 0 = ti=Q1l E:.E is ~ v.;::EJl:g t v ~a = ~ = 1:: ::I '" v .s ",. u <:l '" o...-s l=: v u U:l 0 0 "8 t ", '" E Qj v 0 -s d'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0..... . v c:: ~ .... Ui.;:::j 0............ .. "0' = 0... 0 R ", ..!:! "0 v 0, = .. '"d ...::: .'" ~ a:l 0 t t ~ ~ . El 0.1;1 v.g ~ S gp;.a ~~vu~~l~aS~-f3iS"'oo~ g!;'-S ~Ui~ s:; ~t.t: g 0 ~~ a:l:@~ S v = 0C"l<') 0...... vu "''"d v Eit:< 0 i=Q"S0....... .::lv......uCilo~ 0"0= ~ 0 v-a<"@<<.<:a-ao '" ~~"O"E = S 0 Oi=Q~",r...o ."''''....d 0"'''00:a ...l:I ......... 0 V':O 0 i5. 0 '--' I'i 'U 0 = ~ '" "'S~""::I~::Io""bObO'~o...o=~ '" '0 g; ~ "0 ~ ~ g; g .u.... ~ ~ 8 ~ !,J I> i=Q0... "'0-''''0-'''''''...... "'i>o...",~", . 1l~ "'~ .... '" ~:-g J:l ~ .~ a ..... ::J UJ ", ci ~ ~.g 0 :.E 0 0...'U "Ov::l~:.E v ~I>o-'~o ~ OV~Oi>v.r: o...:a.u v E I> J:-l 8.lS--5S"'J'3o 0...0...1>..d ~ 0..... 00 <:lj:;'~""o .r: ~ ~.~ 5:O'"d C"l J:-l"'l:j."'Ell . @ ~ "0 U ... ~ ~] "'::l V "'" '" >. '" ;;l 0....f1 -s..~i=Q' ~lj~.l!i ~SV~u"'::IU !?<J' t ~ ~ = C'" a .1!; .:s ...l:I .lS ~.g ~ l=: :;: ", ~ fr ~ '" "'.~ :>l V '" U U U ..... Ql~g~t..9o~ ~ 8'.:0 ~ .$:!..Cil gj J:l :..<:; ",. 8 t i=Q .~ """Og 0...1>05'.0 ~ "S .......>::! ..... V --;:i ._ o ....... ::s: '0-04 tI'J......, Cf) ~ ~ '" v.g ~ .lS v <::l .... bO~;.a '" fr~ C'\j ~.~ '"d "0 v U "0 ~ '0' 0"3 '" e ~"S ~d:: &~..s &S ~ 1.1') ..... <"i '" 5 .... Ei 1;1 oUJ ~-f3'"d ..... .... ::l = 00...0 ::l ..... l=: UJ 0 u:i .:= ..... ~ . Cil 0...::: ::Jubt:< o 'ao 8 2.:0 >'v o o...~-s ~ 8 S c:: V':O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ 0 E 0 8 R'~ ::l ~':.sg !;'g~"E Q)~QJt-4 "3 I ...... 0 o c::.s .... i=QOgjl:t:: rl'"d~.lS .;:::j @ "0 '" ,,0 0 0 0 ...... t u .... :@ "0 ,19 ~ t:i'1i3 C ", 0 c:: '" OzScl:: - '<t I CI) - "l:: ~ 1:: ~ ! ..... ~ " ~ .~ " Ul ..... '" " ~ ~ ~ ~ a .,. .~ Q, t:; ~ ~ ~ !' E ~ r ~ ..-.. "'d ll.I ::l = .... .... = o U -- t ~ 0' ~ p.,. Q ~ rJ) o Po< o ~ Po< ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ rJ) ~ ::J rJ) ~ ~ z o io--4 ~ ~ io--4 f-4 io--4 ~ Q ~ '"0 @ o ~ o d .s d o 0.0 .~ vi gt O"'d CLl..!:l ~..!:l '"O..c CLl " ~c. ... ~ ~ U " " ~ .8 8-6 '0 " ;l ~ ... 0.. ~ " rJ) t < Po< ~ io--4 ~ o ~ ~ ::J rJ) N en ~ ....:l ~ f-4 d ... " ~ p~ ~ .~ .....1i:J3 . ... 2:l '" ~ ~ ~ '1:: oS -6 "S ~ B......:E o d 0.0'"0 ..... ~ P=l " ::I d ~ "t:f "" '" . 0 ::I d ... ... CLl '" ... 0 CLl " Q .~ ~ -S..c ::i I> CLl .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ u-"'2,,~;3 CLl t ... [OJ ... CLl._ 0 I> I> CLl .. " CLl '"0 1=0 0'1:: .~ E ~..s ~ '" S '"0 en ~ " 0 '"O'~ E t) '"0 ..!:l '"0 ... .~ .u.... "" CLl d d '" 0 ..,'- ;j~"15.........!,8 o ::; CLl CLl 0.. 2:l ...., p... ~ CLl ;l S ~.~ ~ ;.... "'"O_CLl_en,,..c CLl .~ A I> C<l...... '" '"0 CLlO 0.0 8 '"0 0 ~ CLl ..s .... ::I 0.."S CLl 0 t) ~CLl 6'g].2j~.g ...i:l "'..cod ACLlV..cl-j...O l;lUI>Qu::l .U d "..... " " U '"0 CLl OO~-O,..qCLl..c u t.u d o.,t::"'2 S ~ ~ ~ E ~ 8 ~.~ IX! o '"0 ... " I> -3 JI"E ~ ~ :E -3 U 0 "'1=0 ~ ~ (13 0 '"0' ... " 1>'"0 -3 ~ o ~ 1=0;3 CLl 0 tll=O ..c... '" .S " 0 1=Op... '"0 @ o 1 3 d en CLl 0 ..s .....1 d ... o g CLl...t:i ::r:: j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... It ::E ...... '"0 p... ..!:l ~ ..;.... '"01> g..:s d ~ '~-15 0;:;> " u 0 ... CLl ~I=O ~u ,,~O~ CLl 0 ... I> .g< ~ d '" .....~ ~ "tj en 1 g CLl U ~ ~ . B-g..!:l ..."..c Q ... " " Q '"0 u ~....-l t.z:l U 0 'r:l t.z:l I> 50';:! " ..... Oo~ (/J .~ ........ ell I d ... - " a .<>"c; u t: r< t.z:l iil "";:! ~ ~ @J ,-;.....1(13 . ...!<I o o ::r:: '"0 @ o :;S ;j o en '" .... '" u ~ :i'5- CLl ...... 0 ~ '-l " ~ p... 0 '" '"0 CLl..c 15d..s~ CLl;j '" SoBI=O ~~~gf o..;:l 0 0 S o.o~ C<l ....~ U Q u. ::Eo .~ oj '<=1 o ... tl u P: .~ '"0 CLl '"Os@g @ CLl 0 u 0]09 ~ 09 ~ ::l ~ ;j . 0 CLl OQ::=I> . CLl 0 "'1:: '"0 ~'<=I ... '"0 ~ j~~"""1> . '" '" l:i CLl '-<d...."S . 2:l l:i 5 0 ~ .S I- ... CLl " tl "S .:!l ,..q 0 ;.... '" P=l " " CLl ~ Q) ~ ~ '"000 .~ ~.!.. 8 ~~ p... P=l '1:: .~ iil ~ '-; . ... ...t... ......'0' -4-l ~ ~ ....... ::I"'::l CLl ::l ~ ~ 0 .- 2:l d ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ -S ..c .-: '0' CLl'" S 8 S 0 e ..c ..c 0 ,..q ~ a o.o~ C I p: ~ tl.S '"0 +;.... p... 0 S ~ ::1 ~ CLl ~ "V ~'E 15 ~ ::; ,..q ~ "S ..c CLl ';;;- ~ ;.... r:l '< q CLl -S 8 CLl ""0"0 ::l oen CLl..s t.... ~... f2 ~ ~..s 0.. CLl ..c .g, . '@ 0.. _ 0..... I> (", U I I> " " CLl ;> "" ~ 0.0 0.0 '" -l:1"'~~v.i~ CLl""OH.....1 t '" CLl "'P=l'" dU CLl ~ @ d S CLl ~ . q ::;': "'" .....; ~.~ d ..,.l q 0.. ~ ~ t) ~ ~ 0 CLl tJ ..... p::: 1l . gj ..c ~ @...... .....,""'..." d'@ ...... 0 ""'" 0'<=1 '" [OJ ... ...!::E ... 0.. '"0 ... 0.0... ... 0 " 0 ... 0 '"0 '" t f2 -< p... ~ ~ ~ ~ CLl"S -5 .il.g ~,..q ~"t:f U ~ "11 ~ a ~ '-;;> '"O-<~en"'CLlo ;3"tu...!<l"S...en",d;jd~CLl ~ ~ ~ ~ CLl 2:l 0 ~.B ~ ~ '" g. a3 0 ~ 0 a ~ o.g...... p ~ 0';:J 8. g..a .....1 ... ... d..!:l 2:l""" o..P=l CLl.....1 ~ 'C':;S " ~ . .s'~"d 8] ['~ g g.g ~'"O,~'~~.~g ~"O~;j ~..s~ ;; '" Q o..::l " s..;J..;J l:i CLl.8 ... U CLl u..... P=l l3 I> 0 J5 O'~ ~ <>tOCLlQp:::CLl CLltJCLl,,::l-<o'" "d- . l.f) 'i;1 i=!'~..s---- I "'$$o...s 0..t)"8~ tl tl ~ ~'::'8 g~,::, ~..;:l ... -<0 "8 d ""0 CLl CLl 0 CLl"", 0.0... ~" . d - '<=1 en q ~ "d ~ ~ "O"S '" '" ....~ a 0.. o...q.~. ~ ~ ~ u:i U 0 ~ ~ CLl .-)::! I> "d 0 " " ;j ;:;>'p ::i "d 0 en den.... Q) ... '-< NO::> Q) d ~ 2:l 2:l 0 0 .~ o-:l ;j ____ ---- .. 0 CLl;:::J ~ .....1 Q) .E:;- Q) "'"S::l U u,..q ~. '" ... ;:;> '"0 ""0 '"0 0 0..____ Q) 0 0.. ~ '":0 q 0 0 q Q) Q)...>:l "'~ Q ~ "'''' ...~.....1 0 CLl S'" 0 ~ ~ .'S .g P=l ..c .g ~ ~ a3 CLl o.o~ U g ~ ~ ~ t) ~ .2 '''' Q ~ B ~~ ~ ~1.@ ..sztl ill; ~.~ .~~.~ g g] 1 j ~ g 0 j g. ..... i:l '" U p... 0;>;> p... I> ""0 ';;l .... ...... P=l P=l U p... ~ P=l ".....1 ~ .~ ~ ....... c<) l.f) I Vl o u-i l.f) ~ ---- Q en o .....1 ;:J o ::r:: ~ CLl p... ::E p... .. ;.... d " .g :g ~ CLl CLl'U 0..;E o CLl ... I> E~ 1 g CLl U p::: ~ 1: " 1:;.. 0:: ~ ! .... .\l " ~ " .~ i1 >ti .... .\l " ~ 1 ~ ~ l:: Cl "t: .~ Q., ...... :::: ~ j' ~ ,.:: ~ ~ c:; ..-.. "t:l Q) :l ::: ... .... ::: o U '-" F-; u ~ 0' ~ Pot Cl ~ en o Pot o ~ Pot ~ ::r: F-; ~ o ~ en ga ;:J en < ~ ~ Z o """l ~ <.;i """l F-; """l ~ Cl ~ en t3 ~ ~ """l ~ o ~ ~ ;:J en ~ en ~ ...:l ~ I ~ ..... '" " ~ .<>".c; ~ ~!-<~ ~ CIl ~ ~~~ . '" .<> ~ ~ ~ 'C~ 3 E 2 S 0\ ..... ~ 0 ::l 0 e S 6 ~~ r/) 13Jj 3 o CIl .D a ~ .S .... 0 ';;;'1-< ~ ~ ~ui~ ~ u 0... u ~ S" ~ tJ ~ E ~ .S:!....!<l.o, p., 00.... >t..@p., ::::ioc;l " -B tl o ~ ..... 0 0 j".t:: u . (S 0 . o...-B w g. 8 .. >-. ~ Ol .g ~ el 0 0- 0..1l o 0 ..... ~ ~ CIl -IS"'Cl "3 ~ CIl 0 o u ~ ~ "'Cl ;~ I......D ~ d Ol "., 0l"'Cl .~ J:j '0 ':l'~ ~ l::: " '" ~ c;U3~ . <'<"\ .<> ~ l::: ~ ~ o ..s S o o.ti ......... 8 ~ o cz:l "'Cl 3 o il ::l o >. -g ~ Ol ~ l:@ 2 ~ .S tl .~ ~ ..... u d .S:!.. '(il 0 ::E>t >-. ~ o '6 "'Cl ..... u . 0"'Cl 's ~ p., ~ 0"3 -B 0 ~~ o l:l o 0 ~...d Ol CIl - >-. ."'Cl Ol ~~ Ol...d o u "'Cl Ol .~ 8 o 0.. >t~ "'Cl 3 .~ o >-. .D Ol -B ~ ::l...:. o 0 CIl I ]~ ......tl d...... 0..... o ...d' E ~ d 8 j:j 0.. +:: ~ ....."'Cl -fo.... .tl ~ t; 0 0"3 ...d 0 CIl~ . ~ l:l v "'Clo:o '~...d Ol o ~~ .... Ol ~ p., ~ Ol .....0.. Ol i=l 0.. r€ o:S~ s_ ... c:d tI') t:: ~ ~,,;::! lI,) 0.. 0'''' 0...... ......... \0 ~ .... "fi'.:;j 0 ::::: 5 0 0 ug-Bel"'Cl~~o>-'~ 0\ ~ ...d .~ &. 3 ~ -B 0.. ~ ~ ~ 010 OOO...."'Clo~ r/) ...d~~.......Do.tio~~o' 0 CIl 0 0 '" -B <...::; Ol.tl -'" CIl , o d'.:;j a::l 0 0 '-""d <:l 0 ...... U 0 ~.... 0 -B a ~o ..... CIl -5 .... .~'J:j ::l CIl CIl O'p. ~ Ol Ol ::l ~ 0l._"'Cl _ ..... ._:::l 0 ~ Olg5~oCll~~8~~..... "'- u ~~ e-~ Op.,;> o....!<l ~ CIl ., r/) .... !i:o 0 CIl Ol "<<I ; :5.s ~::i ~"'Cl !i:o.5 ~ 5 ~ r/) ~ t:l ~ 0.D 0 13 .... ~'J:j ::E -B ~ o.~ -B ~:g ~..s 8 ~ p., ::l000....::l0l"'Cl,-...0..~ 0'J:j d .... Ol...... "0 0 CIl 0.. 0 r/) Ol ::1 o.....!:l U".c; '" g. Ol ..... ...... ::1.;::: h u ~!-<.S..!<l ~.S 00..0l...d~0.. .....uO"'Cl .e- 0 >-. 0.. r; 0 v"3] '.:;ju ~ ..... r. Ol 0 ;> ..... i '" .... U-"'ClCllc;lu' 0....0tt:) 0r/)..!<l0 !.l:l '" ~~"3 ".c; 0 l:J] s 'i;l 'r:! S ~ ~ 0 !-< >-1 ~ 0.. ~ tl I:l ~..sa.S ~ .. >-. ~ Ol .g ~ el 0 0"0 o..;.s o 0 ..... ~ d '" -IS] "3 0 CIl u ~ ~ -d o 'S C"' ~ d o '.:;j ~ 'J:j 'S o Z ..... d Ol 1 U3 d Ol ~ '" '" j Ol 00 0 0 .~ " 0" ~ 13 ......... S ",- CIl ~ 0 OJ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.. 0 "'..... u ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ .S 'aJ 0........ ~ l:l u u 0_ <-="'Cli:E ~ ~;:;fJ"3el"'Cl (1)::10....."3 .;::i::is~~~ ~ ~...... ~ ~ ~ ~ C.S 0 ::1 ..... ...... <-= 0 a 0... c ll! .S p., ~ 0 0 ~ ..joool ~ V,l ~ .;: "3 ~ 0 0 0 ':l CIl "'z...... CIl ~o>-. 0 .::: 0 . CIl 0. ~ootJ-B~ ~C-BOld~ ~"'Cl g. ~ o.ti ~"3 5.~ d; 0 c::>&c~~-B ~.....~~-B~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~.a ~ 0 EbEbOj"'Cl :>::; p:; ~';jl -B a l-; - n - \0 I U) ~ ~ 't: '" ! ....... <:1 '" ~ .~ ii I.l.1 ....... <:1 '" ~ 1: """' ~ Cl 't: .~ J; :::: ~ g ~ ~ t\ I ":l -. "l:l ~ :l = 'J:l = o U -- ~ ....... <'"i -g~ "'.!:J .... '" \:I"'tl '" .... U 0 l:;:l > .~ a C/lo .... ~ .... III o "'tl .... ~ ~ e ~ iil o "'tl ~ 1=0 ~.g ~ > t:< 'p ~ ~ ....;3 III Uo...... ~I=O~ .... t:: ~ Jlo~ ~. ~ '" ~ "'tl ~ ;3 ~ III o > "\:i I=O~~ ~;3 e .... 0 ~ .8 ~ 0 IIl.S .... '" 0 ~ 1=0 p., . ~ t ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ rJ) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ::c: E-< ~ o ~ rJ) ~ ::> rJ) -< ~ ::g z o ~ ~ C-' ~ E-< ~ ::g o ~ rJ) t -< ~ ::g ~ ~ o ~ ::;g ::> rJ) N cr.i ~ ...J ~ f:-4 -d ~ '3 C'" ~ .... \:I o 'p '" 00 'p '8 o 2 . "\:i '" U l:;:l .~ C/l \:I '" P -g~ "'.!:J .... '" \:I"'tl '" .... J:.j ~ .~ a C/lo III III ~ .....4 .... .... <l.l~~0l~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 'B \:I e . 'C5 0 ~ C/J 'c;l 5.g ;:l ~ "il ~ '" "'tl u..,;cr'\:I..... 1;; E~~::g~.:sjj'O' ~ o~ 0.."'1 E~.E ~~ -B-eo5:g~E~E~~ ~a3~"'l:l~~EBO ~ ~ ~ B l5..o5 5 .... III 1;; -<:i...><lo5 ~-<:i '". ...... ~~ -.:l 'c.l :l -.:l.;:l 0 ~ ",.!:J \:I:::E O'IIl Ui \:I .... "'tl - '" o 'c;lOO\OO\:l.J::'a III . "'tl "'tl O'p !:l ;:l 00 > O-eOOo5~IIlOg'" ~",e..!!lo~a3~!:lovi - 8 s;:'tii 13 S t<i:lo5 ~ E g;@ s-g~13 g-g B t" E '" ~ 0 III ;:l.... > ~"'tlo.e- '00]000 o ~ ..... 'u'" 0 .~. 0..0 0.!:J \:I >. ~>b.O ,..J:j U~~cd ~~\:Ipotl~~~~.E~ ,e;;:J.Q "'0.... ;>-0 0,Q.... .s s~~o~<.tj "'tl....... o. 0 -.:l 0 III d .s ~ J:l ~.R III O. u a3 i,j ~ o 'p 0 0 "E"o"'tl 0 E tl S-.:l "'.... u.... 0 ;:l 5 \:I,..c:: ~ 0 0 \:I .... N cr'_ '" t-< III "'tl "'tl 0 \:I .... 0 tj 'p .-'" o .... .... 0 p., 0... "'tl 0 o 0 &~ ~ o'~ '" ~sJj ~ ~.~ -.:l ~';;j OJ) 0 \:I .~ ~ ..s O-iAcn e ..... III o ~ ~ u.- ~ \:I 8.!:J ~ o..."'tl ~1l;3 ,-,,>0 III 0 ~ ~ ~e ~ ;- ~ u 0 0... ~o5 .s o .W] ~ ~ "'tl '" '" IIlo5 tj o,..c::~o..-"'tl III 0... u S g ..... 8. s.S ",'p ~ e~~~~cd 0... ~ a ~ l5.. ~ o~..aooo5 p l:l e ~ u..'il . .... .......... C/J u -ti...... ~ ~ 0 .S lE " >. '" 0.....4 ..... '" !~uo5o;3tl ~ ,S ~ .... ~ ~.S '" 0 u .... 0 ~ 1l1=O u.. "1:i 00 ~IIl!:l .1A;3~ 0::; ~ o.~ ~ ~..g ~o~] ~ t)~ ;, \:I '" '" 0.!:J "''''tl 0 b.J::'-'" ~;3 O"'.d 0 8 !:l O~",.....p.,IIl ~ ~ p., ft"'tl "'tl ai C-l-'~U~~S C'.ltjootjoo l:i .O'~ ~ '0' g- \:I ~p::-<~ ~ltc) "1:i OJ);3 .~ 0 "\:i ~ ~ 13 "'tl ;:l III t) l:;:l ~ ~ QJ Q,)....-I o ~ e .O'~ Cl-tu :1.....~ 0,) 8 ~ O"'p., 0 > 0 o...~~ d'.....,.aN o>UOlll 0 ,..c:: 0 ~'p ~ .s N t-<::ao~e >. , .is > "1:i ;:l 13 .!:J .;:0...0"'0"'.....00 ~ 0 ~ \:I ~ tj.~ ~ tl u H.~ ~ 0 ,-,"'ovi..<<o;:l \:I Ill.... 0 - !O<I;:l '" 'E > III .... .!:; 0 1=0 II 0 g ~ ~ ~ 0 'c;l'p '" ~l "'tl ~ ~ ~ 13 U '-'Io.J::.!:Jj;',,00 ~ ~ ~ ~ 51)-' ~ ~ 0...\:1 fr","B~ ....."':g 0 U "'tl ~ 0 ~ 5'~ ~;3 ~::a c ~ U .S 0 III .is ~......9:s~'c;lfr ~ .~ g .~ J:.j..!!l e ':! 0 0 ::>...... 0 '" ~P::'c;l]~~E 0; .-: <'1 ...... o ...... en :::i r-- I V) III "'tl \:I t) o '" '" .... en 0.. ~ ~ .... 05 .:= 13 g OJ) 8 en .~ Ill...... 0 ..... 0 ;:l 5.e-0"' e .... ..... o U tj > >"- 0.J:: 8 .... \:I p., 50..00 . 'p U III . u;:l \:I c;l ~ "'tl .g .~ ~ ~ ~ >..... 0 \:I .J::.s.... 0 0... III i::::: u 0:B '" 0 ... ....- ... IIl.!:J ~ ~ 0 .fS '" 0 ~ 0... OJ :C'u ~ ........ d u (lJ CI"J Cd cd ,..c:: '" .... t-<J:lu..B "'tl ~ ~ ~~ o \:I 1=00 ...."'tl .g E p., 0 ....!:J ~..s III .... o 02 . ~. j- .,. " ]' -. .':l " ~ " .~ ;: Ltl -. .':l " ~ ~ ~ '" "'" E Cl '<: .~ c.. S ~ '" 2; s. 1 ~ a '" ~ .., '-:l .- ~ Q.l :l .5 .... :: o U '-" f-4 U ~ 0' ~ p., o ~ rJJ o p., o ~ p., ~ ::r: f-4 ~ o ~ rJJ ~ ;:J rJJ -< ~ ::s z o J-4 ~ ~ J-4 f-4 J-4 ::s o ~ rJJ b -< p., ::s J-4 ~ o ~ ::s ;:J rJJ N CI5 ~ ...:l ~ .... t:: '" U 1.:t:l .~ U3 ~ F: '" j .... 0.0..8 1l t:: .8 ..!::! ,S t::" ::::I - ~ --d o .J:l ..c '" 00:1 0 '" .... 'P U 6,.g ~ 'P t.J:l.t:l.... v t:; ~ 1 ~ ~'0:I::l ~ "Q) ~ a. ~~ 06 v u .... v '" ~ "'"I:l 11 ~ o.o"l:l v '" -S '0 ~ :g ~ t:; ~ ~ .Q t:; ~ ~ ~ :: .s ~ ~ ;j.~ ~ 06 ol:j . 0... 06 0.0 '" 0 '" 0 Q) .~ .~~ .-. S ~ e r/)"'= ~ ~ g'~ ~ f .s ] ~ ~.s ~ S] ~ 5 i Q) -'!:l -.d ~ .... ..c 0 '" _ '!-.d '" t::"I:l";:1", "'s v'" U::::I ~"" '" ::I "v O"'.~ ~ 0 '~ ~ Qj b "'.~ Q)""" ~ ] ,~ B v ~ ~ o.o~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ .;:j - '" 0.0 0 .....fl S u;9 0.0 00 t:: 8 s ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ . >.~ 1il ~ j B ,g 0... ~ ~"".tl o.o~ ~ '" ~ ,..!::! ~ ~ '" i:l ~ '" v"l:l 0.0 0 0... Q) ;g..c 'tl 0... l:J E ~ ;9 ~ ~j ~ B 11 "U .0 :~"'d ....,~ 0 .... I=i 0 'tl ~ >. v ~ ~ ~ ~..8"1:l u ~ ~ i:l. ~ o...:a ~ t:: ~ t:; ~ '" ~ 0.0 ~ U 5'0 t:: V'~ ... Q) ... '" ~..c t:: ~ :.::l 0 S Q);9 1:l "'.J:l ~ Q).J:l 0 '" 'P Q) ~ l::.~.... 0;9 ~ o.o"';l"l:l u.::l'~ > ;-' - .... ..8 '0 0... '" '" '" > t:: t:: ~ v.tl ~~ "t:j->-'~OJ~<1.I""O'-I""'d t 5;9 5.!!l t:: ~.g Q);9"1:l B >...8 1:; '~6 >.'P ~ ~~ Q) 6 0 ~ Q)::::I"I:l Q) 8 Q) '" '" Q) 0.0 0.0 '" 60 ... "Eb 0.0 ~ v '"2 0... ~ ~ E ~ j j ~ ,;j ~:.::l ~ g"~ ~ ~ ~,~..8 0 .... .... '" 5'0::1 ~ > Q) 0 t:: f-< S"I:l ,S;9 a. a. l'L'~ 8 ~ 8 ~ i:l. 8 .... t:: '" U 1.:t:l '~ U3 "I:l ~ ~ ~ El ,.g ~ ~1:l J5 .S ~ 0 ~ ~ t.j-O . .J:l >.;9 .... "2 ....::::I'~ 0 0 t:: '" Q) "{;j"p ",g.,Ot::u u .... .... 0 Q) :.::l Q) '" 'P E 2:1l 5 i:l 0 '" 'p E U t ~ i:l o"l:l .~ '" a U 3 8 v 0 Q) 0 o...:9u~..c Q) Q) >.ii'S ~"'g:,-",Q) J:-i'~ po 'ij c:: ,~~;;2..- .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..8..."3~ ilto.oUOQ) ~ .fl ,~I::Q "':::l d:J<l8Q)~ ~;;p..ElI::Q 0.::; 0...::::I.J:l '" I ~ (l:f ~.~ ;: II i:l "'.~ o ~ '.. ~ u o ~ ..-< ,....; - ~ U 1.:t:l '~ U3 t:: '" ~ 00 I u:J '" '" Q) ~ .... o.oJ3 ~ OQ)S" v 5 .J:l .... :a '1:l 5 ~"O ~ .... "E! '~~ 5,.g ~] 1:1 ~ ~ ~ 1l Cl ~ "3V -.do:lu~ "~Q)o...o.oo ~ U .... v ~ ~ '" ~ 13 ~ o.o"l:l v '" S-s '0..8 :g ~ t:; 6 t:: S..... ~ t::;9"';1 ~ ~ v 0.0 0.0''8 0 8 H "a Cl ~: '0 ~ -.:J .~ .;j ,fl 00 6 ""6 ...-:... 6 6 ~ ~ ",.J:l B, ~o I 5'o:J<l >. v :::3 v V -.:J Q) Q:l '" 6 5'~ ;; 31 ;9 ~ ~ v;9...... 6 ~ 0.0 Q) ~ Q) 0....15 -.d '" ..... ..c 0 '" _ '!-.d ~ d"l:l" ;:1-.:JQ)"'sQ)",u::::l -.:J"" 0:1 ::I "v O"'.~ 0.0 o,~ ~ Qj b "'.~ Q)...... ~ ] ,~ B Q) ~ ~ 0.0:B ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ B ~. '";l ~ ~ 0 .... ,fl ,S U ii 0.0 00 5 ~s 2:l ~ ~,~ ~ ~.b~ ~ ~ ~ .8 'p - ~. .tl 0.0~::::I "'.... Q) Q).... U ~ ~ .v"l:l 0.0 0 Zl ~] .;;:s.~ a. E @ ~ ;9 ~ .~~ ~ .8 ~ ~ .g ,~"I:l El'~ 0 .... S 0 tl ;; >. Q) > '" '" ~I..::i"l:l u ~ '" i:l. ~ o...:a ~ t:: ~ t:; ~ "'..!::! 0.0 ~ ~ gas 5 ~ '~ ~] '" t.a g ~:13 ~ 0....... ~ .... '" 0;9 ~ ~"';I"I:l u ,::l ~ > ;- 0... .... ..8 '0 0... '" '" '" > t:: t:: ~ Q).tl ....'" "I:l->.1:lv"'Q)"I:l...."I:l ~ 5;9.6 ~ a ~.g ~ ii 11 B >...8 1:1 .- S >. p > '-"'- V I'i 0 .... v::::l"l:l Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ :g 60 :; ~ ~ ~ ~ '"2 '" v tl ~:J<I;1;3...>d.;j ~:.::l l:J g".~ ~ ~ ~,~..8 0 ~ ~'a:l 5'0::1 ~ > Q) 0 t:: f-< S '"'0 .S ii 0... 0... o....~ 8 ~ 8 ~ i:l. 8 1:1 '" u 1.:t:l '~ U3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;: o ~ ;: :~ '" ~ "l:; ~ 1;:; " ]' 11 ~ ~ .~ cii 11 " ~ l '-:l ~ 1::' Cl ..-< ..-< ..-< ,....; ,.. .~ ~ E:: ~ J! "'- ~ ...., ~ ~ - ~ fl co -. "tl Qj ;) ;: .... ... ;: o U '-" t ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ CJ) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ::r: ~ ~ o ~ CJ) ~ ::> CJ) ~ ~ Z o 1-1 ~ ~ 1-1 ~ 1-1 ~ o ~ CJ) t -< ~ ~ 1-1 ~ o ~ ~ ::> CJ) N CJ5 :s ~ ~ .... d 0:1 U Lz:I '~ CiJ d 0:1 ~ '" '" v .....:l ~ H ri1 U) 0\ 0\ ........ 00 0\ 0\ ....... V .:; ,51 -0 v Lz:I 'P d v :g ....... I l/'l -.io-d v v ~ t:: '" v 0:1 S o V ::80- g .S 'p V ~..o 'p ::a ~~ ~ u Lz:I .~ CiJ ~ & .\... ~ -0 0"S .... 0 "';l ~ 'P ~'" d 2;l o 0.. '" v~ ':;p... V -0 . ~ d tl ..d:ll ~ ;.s o -0 .... ~ B ~ ~-oJ:5 'p 2;l'~ 'S: ~ 5b 'B ~ 'tn 0:1 V:5- d u", o d.p 'p tl1 d u"S V E d '0 '" V 0.. g ; ~ ur:l..o N r<l ....... c--l <"i -0 V ~:a .... 0:1 ~:-g J:5 ~ '~ a CiJ:::> o-d V '3 cr' V .... V d o Z ~1l-o 'a ~~l~~ O\..c;"o.ov 0\ -0 tl . 51 .:; ........ 0:1 V ~ g; ~'c.g B ;::5lp'::.s1l v~-ov~ .:; S ~.:; 0.. d dO. 0:1 .;::! 0 0.. ~ V -o'p 8 0..0 Jj ~ 0.. 'fi 0 'p 'P V .... .... 5 '8 P ~ ~ -0 '" ~ ;;~~~~ I tn Q) Q) u: .::l~st -.T -0 "';l '" d,~ V 2;l.p 0:1 0 0 .... d d ",'p .... ~ V V V 0:1 p... 0:1 s:-g ;.gf v ~ -a ~ 'a '8 ~ dd-o"t.......O o.l:l d .... 0:1 '" 'p V 0:1 V g d 0:1..0 v -o.p 0 .gf= u .E ~ '€ ~o:ISU-oO ~ ~ 0 ,51 0:1 0.. .... d 0:1 U Lz:I .~ CiJ -0 v ~:a ..... 0:1 ~:-g U 0 Lz:I po '~a .~ :::> U) ~ ~ '" '" v .....:l ...... U 0:1 0.. -0 ,S d ~ .... 0:1 '>< ~ ~0J:5 ~ g,~ "0 s'liJ po d I U 0 d ,~..o 0:1 ~.....:; g r:l .), vo.o~ 0.0 ,!=l ....... d So 0:1 0:1 d '" ..d 0:I'~ u..d '" u~ -0 . "S.2l o v . "" po '" ? V d ........... 0 a3 d'~ 'c.g tl .... '" d p... v v <)o.ou P d d o 0 u u -0 d d o 0:1 ,~ '" .~ ~ ~ ~0'8 a < ~ 0<0.. '&>0 ~ .... <) 0 0:1':; ~ .51 -0 .... ..... ::l.s "S u '" ~~:sl .... -0 0 -O"S..d "S 0 ~ o ~ !:l ~....'tl .... 0:1 v .~.:; g o v 0:1 .... '" U p... 0:1 Lz:I 6 <) ~ '~i ~ .51 ';;l p... N c--l <"i <"l c--l <"i <Ii d o 'p 0:1 .... '" 0.0 .~ .... 0:1 ..d u o U ;j <) po u 'S u o Q) <) -0 .s: o .... p... t:: <) U 0:1 ;.o-v 0:1-0 B'~ -ot- ~ .~ g ~ u 0 . u ~ ~ 0:1........ 0..-0 ~ ~ ::0 ",. d 0.. 0:1 B '" '" ::s .t:: 0:1 '" ~ ~ :-gtl Cf.l UJr. . <) V ~ -0 '" .... 'S: ::l ~ o-o~ .... a v p..........d . . ~ u CJ :E -0 <) .... 0:1 U ..Q oS d <) 'E o ~ o u -0 d 0:1 <) .... ::l u <) '" ....... 0:1 'p d o . .... '" ~~ ~;j 0.. v o . 0 po ~~~1l 0.... 0 Q) p':: ~ p'::..E . . I .e-- o .f; 0:1 d .... o .... "';l .... o u 'S u <) Q) .... .s 0.0 ~ .... 0:1 0.. ....... a .~ o '" o:l '0'0 d o.ovg ~~~ ::l':; 0 u'~ d ,51 d.9 '" o.;!l V'p ... ~ o:l 0 ~;.@ 0- o ....-0 S g ~ ::8 u. l3 o S.,8 !-< o:l 0:1 ~ ~'a .~ ~ ~ o:l 0.0.... <2:l ,fl 0 . ....:.a 0.0 d 5 ~ .@ .g S o:l o:l o:l ~ 9 ~ S ~~ ~ .s ,..:: '1:1 '1:1 .51 . '" ::l ..0 ........ '" .... ::l o ~ '" ::l ..0 '" o:l "8 5l u '" .... v <) 'p ..' 'E ;:< <) <) S'=: o:l~ .t:: tn '" . ~ ~ tl"8 .... d g 1l. '" '" g~ U..o s o o.t: '" '" 8 t:: u <) 0:1 U ~~ 'S o:l ",-0 ~ ~ <) '" 0..0.. o 0 po .... 'B .~ o:l '" tJ ~ o:l tl ~" .8 o:l '" '" <) . '" tl ::i ~ ~<) -0 d , d <) o:l S <)....... 0.. -0 tl 0 'S: .~Q) o 0 po .... .... <) p... 0.. -0 . . <l) .:; <) -0-0 d .s: o:l 0 g 0 .~ '0 .... d ~:sl ~g '5 ~ ~~ -0 . <)~ go -o~ Ol/'l ~.5 .... '" ::l d ~ .~ ~ 'g po 0 0....... ~ a <) ,~ P ~ 0\ I r.f) .,.. ! .,.. '5 ! - .:; " i!1 " .~ ;; '-Il - .:; " i!1 l '" ~ ~ .,.. .~ c., ...... ::::: ~ ..... ",. l b: ~ ~ '" '--:l Vl r-- u ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ::J Vl N I:I:i ~ ....:l ~ .- "0 QJ = :: '.0 :: o U '-" r-- u ~ 0' ~ p., o ~ Vl o p., o ~ p., ~ ::r: r-- ~ o ~ Vl ~ ::J Vl -< ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ o ~ '" "tJ '0 .~ ~ c= o u 0 ~ '5-'~ ~ "" ..... ..s p.., ~ ~ 55 8 ~ ....,,,~ 11~g.. .... u.~ O l<=l "" '1'1 ~ ..... 5.0..... ],c;;;~ 11 ~ i=J ~...d EJ t:i~l<=l = ~.~ o ~ So ......-...... '" '" '" '~ .~.~ ui ~..s8~ .S ~ ~ ~ 8~"O~ '.0 -"3 8 u ~ 0 ;:l 0 ~ t:i ] ~ ~.g "" u u ~ -;;;. [[.~ ~.E.E 's '" .~ ~ r<'l <"ri .S -3 '" ~ .... >. 'tl ~ "" o S" ~ "0 "3 ~ ~ .~ aJ 8 's t:i t:i .g .S u '" E & '" ~ t:i ~ 8.s - 0"') <"l -d ~ "" '3 0"' ~ t:i o '.0 bb '.0 's o Z ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ U3 ~ f:l 3 ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ U3 t:i ~ f:l '" ~ -d ~ '3 0"' ~ "" t:i o '.0 ~ OIJ '.0 's o Z .S .~ 0 ..... u u '" .~...u o t:i .... ~ p..,~ ~ ~ ; "'UJ ~..s o ;:l ..... 0 "OUJ ~'O ITb ~u ~"O ..0 t:i ::::I ~ ~ ~ ~E CIlUJ ~..s ui E'~ "E '" ~ ~ -u"O EJ t:i ~ .~~. t; ;:l 0... ~ o 8.~ < 8 8 ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ ~ U) J9 ; .~ f:l U3 '" '" ~ H ~ '" '0 Z <t< e: ~ ..s ;:l o vUJ ..0...... "0 0 "3,~ ~u v i=J..s v OIJ [~ . o ~ ..... Qj v 5 ~ ~ 8 "0 ~ v ~~~ '.0 ~ v 5 ~'S :'Q&Z ~'o 0 .... t:i u ..... '" u 0'.-.4 V ..... U .~ t:i 0"0 ~ .... ~ "" p..,o~ v 0... t:i .r: >< ~ t-<vUJ B v ~ '" o 0... &l N <'"i <'"i <"l ..-j <"l ~ '" '0 t:i u tE ~ tI .S ~ '" ~ v "" u ,S ; v ..0 "0 "3 ~ ~ "" v t5 -.:t <'"i <'"i ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ U3 t:i ~ t5 '" '" ~ H N I \0 of ~ ~ '" ~ ~ t:i o '.0 ~ OIJ '.0 . ~ ~ '" 'g ~ .....~ ~U) 80- ~o- ............... 0...00 .E g: ::::1- ~ ~ ~..s tJ .S .$!..."O o v ""l<=l p..,'.o ~ t:i t5~ ~ u l<=l .~ U3 ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ en o '" '0 Z ..... t:i v 8 0... '3 0'" ~ ~ u .~ ..g v ~ "0 v ~ ... v t:i v o ..... u v '0 ... p.., '<l: <<") <"l ..... t:i .. u l<=l '~ en t:i .. f:l CIl ~ ~ 0... "0 'g ~ ~ ..s ..... v v 8 B '" ..... t:i v '" S"E ~ ~ ~"O -~ o '" tI v t:i u o t:i u .. .~ E 0..8 t:i "" v v '3 e- 0"'"0 v 0 >r<U ..... t:i ~ u l<=l .~ U3 t:i ~ f:l '" '" ~ H Q ......p.., ......"O~~ ot:i..oUJ ~ I UJ b CIl ~ V , D88t5] ~ ~"O . t:i ...d...... t:i ... 0 "'o~V", ~ vJ:J"" -:;j ,::S t:i...... g, "'..:oo~ ~ 0 B tJ ~ 0... t; o...;.::f t:i 8 0 ;:l 0...... o u '" 0... 0 u ~ v ~ ~ ::::l..s..!<lv~ o:l Zl t:i"O ~15.....~v ....'..:i H t:i.!:! t:i 0 ui 'OJ ~ El~~tlv ;.::f'o.u"O..s ~ t:i ~ t:i ~ ~ ~ :> ~.S ..... ~ v ~ 8 i:l t:i.u.!:! "" .~ ~;.::f ~ v 8UJoot p..,..s e-:;"O ~ ;:l v ~ ~ t5a.s ~~ d ..... t:i .. u l<=l .~ en .~ :\::l :-;:: ::) "':l ~ :>l .i::l ~ ~ ~ ~ '<l: r<'l ui v u 'f v '" v u ;.::f o 0... "" <B "0 ; 8 v "0 "0 v '" ~ ~ "" u ..s - of <'"i .€o '0 '" . vb b "0'0 ~..... ' v::j"OU:l ,t; u ;:l "" t:i V,) cu 13 0 Q.) .~ "'..S ': S ..s.~ ~ ~ a v B t:i 8 g,Q -:;j.S ~:.E ~ 15 Q ~ 1-< ';::. ,~ frp.., e- ui ~ ~ o ~ E t:i';:1"O uUJ ""c::t:i .S UJ. V '" ~ v u ~ t:i v ~..stJo.fjJS ..;l8i2~oo ..... 0""" v;.ap.., ;~~..s~8 U t/:l. .t":10 ~ en ;.::f t:i..s ~ ..... 0... 0 "0...... u 0.....0 '" ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ t:i "" tJ "0 .g b 8 ~ ~ t:i ~ ~'.o t:i .~ v "" ~ u ~ 88g,"';:IUJ p..,80utJ..s ~o"OtE(g::l ;C::~t:itl~oo t-<i::;~ UUJ ..ci "" ...... . 0 o i=J'J:! ~ . t:i ~ o....r: ~o8"Ot-< l1.J 'V,l ~ OJ v5 u '~'3.$ i=J tEo0"'8~ o "" ~ "" 8 Q.l 0.. fJ'}" ~ Il.) u~~v~ ;g ,g :g ~ '13 0... OIJ~..o V Ol~:>::::lu t:i . ~ l<=l o ~ ..... ..0 '0 '.0 OIJ i:l '" ~ ;.a ~.O' S ~ ~C1~~tJ .~fi: ~:;.g :.aU)~t:i8 .,... U) 0 .. p.., ? V .... '" ~ 8,gt:itJE' 0... .o'r: ~ .... 0 .0 j:, ...... o .... i:l ~ 0 l..o=i~.....tnGJ :l;8t~ (3 .... o.....s ~ u 11:J 0 ;:; ~ t:i;.::f"O.~ ..c:l 0 ~ t:i 0 ~ U """""of ~ .... u - o - I C/) 1: '" -e. ~ .,. i ~ ..... <; " ~ " .l: ~ ";; "il ~ l .., ~ !? Cl .,. .~ 0., ~ j 0., S> -<> ~ ~ ~ ~ ::< '-J :;- ~ = d .... .... d o U -- b ~ 5' ~ p.; o ~ rJ) o p.; o ~ p.; ~ :I: f-4 ~ o ~ rJ) ~ ;:; rJ) -< ~ ::;g z o ~ ~ c;l ~ f-4 ~ ::;g o ~ 5 ~ 2"'0 Q) ~ " ""<a ~ Q) .~ ... ",...c: El ~ c8'O~ g- ~ OJ 23 0.0 ~QJ o ..0 ';:l ~..o I> "'= t::' '" Q) =] t, EO s "'. ::: "'0 !-< "E Q) ..... ..., Q Q) "'0 I> ~.g i:<j -B t:: ou"Ot:: Q) "'~"'oSEl g. ~ 5b';jJ .... ~ .l:l '" '0 '> c8 Q) .swv~"'O-B .......S:!... ~ ~ "'0 o 8 '" J:l '> ~ t::~5l1-<0 .Q Q).~ ...; ~j .;::l -B B ~ '" ~ po >, .- '" 8..o~81l.l..g 0.."'0 'I:: ~ ..0 '0 ....<a 0.. v = Il.l c8 0.. "'0 -B ] a- "E Q)QJOJl..4-lcn QJ :3..o~o~.qEl "dO~vul:<ll.l Il.l .......0 '" 'J:: 0 Il.l -e ~.~] E::: 5b ",,-,,,vo..,,,......<:: rJ) b ~ ::;g ~ ~ o ~ ::;g ;:; rJ) ~ rJ) ~ ~ f-4 ~ u t.+:I .~ CJ3 Q '" ~ '" j . 0 Il.l Il.l..... ,-<:l ~.::I l-l Q) "P o...c:o v>, '" ...... 'J:l OJ:):i..o Il.l ~ 0 o..,S ~ "'0 Il.l ~ 0 Il.l '" ~ Il.l Il.l ~~ u ~-B"d-B a -B >,~"d t:: !:l ... S '-"~ v~ o'tl ~ ~ t:: 0.. t::.p El '" ~ '" . 0 El ~ ';:l .el ~ <:: Il.l .'9 0 .l:l '" '" ...0 '" u "'0 Il.l o"d s::; &Il.l~-B""'oll.l...c: ~ .~ ~ El g. ~"'g ~ o.:"'o>;o~~ Il.l ~ o.l:: ;::l u....... 0 "d OJ:)= '" u u v u 9 g.. ... u '" ~ ..... ...e '> '" 0 0 4. t.+:I . ='S ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ Il.l 8 '" '" g Il.l El ~ Il.l 5.~ ~~::Il.l~o~..o~ =~--;-5 E v-a"g... ~Il.l~~o~""""'~ ~-<:l""''-''''''...c:vll.l': 0..":j:J .: _ ... ~ -<:l OJ:) '" 0..... '" Il.l v......-.:;l ~CIl "'c8~ E~o ~ .-B ~Qg:~ 0 a::: "8 g ._ Il.l '" ... ~'p V'I:: CIl 8 E w l5.~..!:l E Il.l...... ~Oll.lll.l 0..00..0 J:l E'[ ~,~ g E 5 'ufE' 1-< o..~ ~::r: u 0.. >, ..... .: '" u t.+:I '~ CJ3 .; v u 'E Il.l '" Il.l ~ ... c8 "d ~ El Il.l "'0 "'0 Il.l '" '" V ... u .: ...... N ..,f <<i .., ~ Q.)R~ _. "E;: 5 ~ v..o 0': 5 V~1-<~~-B= S .:. .; ~..o......]::: v 8 ~ .~ E3 0 CI'l ~ OJ '" Il.l 5 ~ ~ Il.l '" v 5b t ~ El ... Il.l ~ ~ ~ <:: 0.."'0 Il.l o..o...c:'E...c: ..... a~]~::; ~Il.l~~ =Q':..o':"''''1:< ,O.i:<j Il.l Il.l '" "'"d..o 0.. J:1...c: u El ...... ... . <a .~ 0 ""OCI'l~Q.ldOU)~- "d ""0 I> i:<j '-"'...... Il.l ~ "'ElIl.lOU"'O!-<v OJ:) ~ ~ t, ~.~ OJ:) Il.l 0 ~ .: tl.s g< Il.l 'E -B "E '> Jj .S:!... Il.l W o...iJ .S "'0 8":j:J 8 -B Il.l OJ:)"d ... 5 o...g ~ ...... .O'.g Q c8 S ... >,0"'''0 Oi"d...... c8 ~ .: .: ~ lS_ .: Il.l ....... ."'Oll.l 000"'0 v ~ ..... ...... ';jJ -B ...... ';jJ '> -B '" .: 0'> 0'> 0 0~1l.l0>'1l.l0..."d U I:< u.....o u... 0..': "d . 0...: 0.. "d .: 0.. '" '" ~ E ~ ....<a ~ v '" ~ U) ~~Ja ~~~]- "d ...... V Il.l..... 1-< ~ ~ Q)"'0:3..o0;..l' U ~~::"'d.s::~ ~ '!:j 0 Q) 0 ,- Il.l U J:l i3 'J:l...c: 1l.l.'1:: 8 ~ l5. 1- 0.. ~ ~ 0.. ~ "d CIl ..... .: '" U t.+:I .~ CJ3 Q '" ~ ....... ....... I V) '" '" Il.l H ~ 0 ~ 8 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;..l 0~0J:)~~cl:: 5 ..... ..o,~ 5 .: .: El .., ~ ..... 0 C': OJ .: ~ _ t:;.p CIl U QJ en ...., ';S ~ Cl:I 0..0 El ;:l"d ,,= -B -a 0..",1l.l1:<"';:l1l.l ..t: ':3 - = "'0 ~ 0 ... oO"'Il.l.lSgECIl"d 8 ~ ~.s...e 'Il.l '0 ; '" Il.l...c: Il.l=-B,e.v ~ ~ u..o] El..... ~ '> ~ a::; '" 0 u '" o ~ 'p ...c: ~ o.l::.s 5 t,Q~:~~ .= :::I ""j:! .: ~ "'"d'@ .....Sll.lo..Il.lOEl ~ ~ ssg< ~'E ...... ..... Il.l S ,g...... ~ 0.. 0 ;2-0;:J~-<:l"'~ U ... U 0"'._":j:J '" '" ~",=1l.l8"'~0 o..Q"'a~c8qj~ g<,g ~'p Il.l ..... Il.l Q) ....."'''''''~5l:l1> ~ u"8'~ 1-< ,,-.:;l 0 .O"j:! ~ S . E. v J;l ... S " <:: '!:j -B '" ~ El I:< Il.l ;:J ... ..... vEl8g~g"~::; ~8~ut:'O~~ ..... Q '" U t.+:I '~ CJ3 ..... U Il.l '0' ... ~ Il.l -B o ..... Q o 'p '" U '~ ' ~ '3 o s U 0 o~ ~ '" 0 ~ ~ 01=0 13 ; ;CIl "'0 >, Il.l..o 0..1l.l e .~ ...... '" ~ .t I '-' ..... -Sl " ~ .~ ;;: Ul ..... -Sl " ~ l '-1 ~ E; Ci "l: .~ Q., ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ <'i ~ <'i ~ ~ '-> ,-.. "'d Q,) := c .... .... c o U '-' f-I U ~ -. o ~ ~ Cl ~ rJ) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ::r: f-I ~ o ~ rJ) ~ ~ rJ) ~ :g Z o ~ ~ c.:l ~ f-I ~ :g Cl ~ rJ) f-I U ~ :g ~ ~ o ~ :g ~ rJ) ~ rJ) ~ ....;l ~ f-I ~ ~ ~...--; ~ en" o ,~.... '" '~ ~ .~ .~ 8 ~ 8 u o..l.l:l '" '" V ~ ~ ';:! 0 .e- V <'l <'l U V <'l i3;.o b.O"Cl " "~ V ~ S IS ~ ~.W.g 5.B.~ s;n 8 ~ '3 ",'~ gb ~ tl S ~ u S..o g V :~ '"@ <t:...... V . 0 ~ ~ '~1l e S < 0 1l ~ ,51 .g ,u Ei"Cl"Cl .B ~ U vi ... ~.,... ;:! ... ~ El <'l 0 V S <'l <:J . i> i3 0.. <'l ce"Cl u.!:l ~ tl v;.o S"Cl ~= ~...~ ~ ;::I '~.s S ; ~ 1l.g ~.~ UJ 11 ~O"Cl""'<'lOtl~ ... ou~o......= 00 o V 0 'S ~ <'l J;j <..::< .~ u...."Cl"" ....<'l~<'l:..::lU = V V"O '"' U ~ .... 'o:j V <'l"Cl ~ <'l = V:..::l.;;:j.... U .... ...d 0 ... 'o:j ... 0.. - 0 '" .... ..0 ~ ~ ~ o..~ 1l ... ,,'" ........"'0 <:J<'l<:J"'v...... ~. "-< ~ l-i ~ 0 tl S '" -g V e ~ ~ ~ <'l "V 0 tl ;::I.!:l :..::l <'l.... 5 J:j ~'o..ti ~ .... ~ o.....d ~' 0.. ~... ~ ~...... ~p.., 0..0 0.. ~ p.., rl 0 ~ 0 o.o'~ ~ <'l V V <'l I'< V 1j ,;:1 .e l.l:l tl ~..c ~.~ 8 ~ .~ a ;:! >, V r-< v;..a <'l <'l 8"Clg i3]'[!f"E ~ '3 fr ~ p..,>, ",p..,"'"Cl'tl..o"'~ V "Cl.a V V 0 V ... v"Cl'"@ ~",8-B-B.8~<B-B;~ ~ <'l U l.l:l .~ en '" V vi .~ dJ '" ... ~ .a o u '&.9 V '" u b.O ~ .f! "Cl~ ; <'l t: ~ ~ 1E ~ ~~ ~'3 'Ci3 ...c ..."Cl o Il.l 8..~ >,0.. ::a S .~ 0.. ~~ ~ .~ '<t ~ ("I") ~ u l.l:l .~ en ; ~ '" '" Il.l H ...d'~ ~ .........jo.oI .S - 0 rl <'l Il.l'~ 3"Cl 13 a ;::: Il.l .~ ~ ~ 0 ~ l.l:l .g Il.l U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 'g;.o 0 J:l ~ O'"@ V .... 0 0.. 1l.l"Cl El '" 8 s ~ 11 ~ ~~ <'l i:: 5 8 0= 8 ~i=Op.., ~~i=O"8~ ::r:ll't~a~~d;~Il.l" 43 ;: ~ O'OUJ...... ~..!'S UJ 1l "8 a .5 ~ V Jl <'l p.., -g ...... u -g 0.. c: .~ -B r-< ..; ,.ij : ~ Il.l <'l S '" .. ~ . .!:l.... - <'l.!:l ::0 0..0 .... .:;;:j IS:' V U Il.l V ~ '$5 u ~ g"Cl U ~ [.g 'U <'l '" .... "Cl 'f t15::r: s UJ 1l.l"Cl ';::l .5 5 c U') '~ "-' >, Il.l V tl = S ~ C\l E a .~"i3 bb.~ ~ o:j Il.l:-;:l ol"Cl-;..aO Il.l....~ ~ ~.~ '0 ';;; p.., l:l:=: -B .~ u ~all.l""o.og",......c~o <'l ~..d.~ ~.... 8 Il.l l:l .. .... u .. <:J ",.~ ...."Cl '" R iU b.O :a ~.s 8 j e E~ "5 ~ ~ 0.. <J tl 0.. ~ ..0 <'l ... : g.ttl ~ ~ g -g ~ ~ ~ 8 i:j ... ;::I o.~ U <'l..o ... ~ ~ .~ 0....0 b. '" '" IS <'l. o "-l ..... ?""" ...- 0.0 ~....... 1" ... 0 0 ... ~ <'l C Il.l 0 ~ p.., ......... <B ~ ... ,!;; .~ b <B ;::I ~ 1 ~ ] ~ ~ .[43 ~ ~ ~ .... ~ <'l U l.l:l .~ en "Cl ~ <'l .~ ] .... 0.. 3 ~ O-B ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ i=O '" ~ 0 '" 0.. UJ tl ...... v' o ... <'ll.l:l v...... ... 0 <'l . "Cl~tl a 'l:l.~ ~"f.os l:E~ ~ol-B V "'...... o..~ 0 o Il.l ,'" Il.l '" Il.l ..cV"Cl ~ a'~ U') -<i r<"i -d Il.l '3 C" v ... Il.l C o Z .... ~ <'l U l.l:l .~ en ~ <'l -B '" '" v H gf"Cl 'U'l a ~~ tlUJ .5 i=O " v ~-B ~ .5 .ai:t: '" <'l ~ t; v"Cl ~ ~ v <'l E s v 0 ~ 0 Il.l ... 0.0'" '" "Cl <'l "3'U ~ g tl-gd .~ '" CI) o s::r: p::1l.l~ Il.l "Cl ........ ~4343 'D -<i r<"i .... ~ <'l U l.l:l .~ en a ~ '" '" v H '" ... Il.l tl ~ c ~..o '" 0 0.0 <'l= 0.. ., = 'U'l b.O.... ~ <'l C ~ 0 Il.l E <'l .......d ,::I ~ <..:. O"Cl' -B ~ '" ~ =....... Q.) '+0. ~ ~ ~13..o 43 ~ @;B B ~~""""'~og...9............ 1liSd~~""su.g~o M 0 b.O <'l .... ... 0 0 ~ .... fr'U'l J:j 5 '" ~ -B <..:. v 5'" 0 ~ 0..'", ~ ~ v 13 ~ , ;;....o..vgpS"'_ .:::l.;:j i:j :.~ <'l "'"Cl ::l l<'l ;::l ::0 .~ U U ~ C 0 Il.l. ~o:j 0 Il.l <'l .. Il.l ",..0 ... ~ P:: '0'" c S '" = . ........ ... p.., 0 0.. Il.l <'l ... g i:j ~ p.., ~ .~ ...9 .~ ~ "Cl .~ <:J ~ V ~ Il.l Il.l ~ ~ "ClOO<:JCI-<>"ClO<'l g P:: .~ u" ~ ~ ~ tl'~..; ~ 43 ~ g: a 8 43 -B e '5 tJ ~p~ ~o~~. .~..e:. '" U,.<:< tl 0 -g ~ S E 8 8:: ~ -B t; ~ C <'l 8 t: '0... p.., ;::I s.~ Il.l ~. 0 ",n ... V <'l v'" ..i=Oo.o:d....vSu ..d"'CC"'CBuv~, ..0 <:J v 0 0 un.~ U b....... C ...d ~'~':d <'l ;::I? 0 <'l o.o~ ol <'lUJ "'19~ vv- 5 v t "3 ~ 8.. 0 "," '0 ~ .5 -'""''''u...'u....S "Cl ..s<:J C C Il.l 8"Cl~ 0 4.i Il.l ~ 2 8 8 -B.S a 2 it ~ ~ ~ U l.l:l '~ en c <'l ..s '" '" Il.l H ~ 0.. g. '" ... ~ ~ v :0 <'l 'a > <'l ~ o "Cl a s Il.l "Cl "Cl v '" '" Il.l ... U C ...... t- - - "0 QJ = = .... ... = o U "-' t) ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ rJ) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ :r: f-" ~ o j:.I.; rJ) ~ ;:J rJ) ~ ~ z o !oo-l ~ c.:l !oo-l f-" !oo-l ~ o ~ 00 .,f <"'i .... 1=1 .to U t.;:l .~ U3 1=1 to P '" ~ ....l:: "t:I 1=1 '-4t:u~. ~ on 0 ::::l ~ o.S to Jj 1l..o 0.0';; ~ .; ~ ..a 1i frJ, q) 1-< to ~ 'E.{j ~ q) ~ ~ "t:I '" , .......... 1=1 . '" ~ "'..... -<:j > q)........ e- e- q);.:I ~ 1=1 'Vl '>< 0 11 -.:0 q) q) 0 15 '13 to r;:l.f:1 q).!:i. 0 ~ 0 >>-.:0 0"3 -s 0.. 0.. t:i ~13~......f:1~~oq)u~~o""'o~q) cO ,- 0 ~ 1=1 u c;:l -s cO ... - ~ 0.... 0.. '" ~ b.O,;::l t.;:l ..9 ::l q) 0.. '" I>.. 0.."t:I b.O q):' b.O..... u '" q) 0 ..... "t:I 1=I.!:i ..s ~ ,€j b..s b.O ,E 0 ~ 0 .... :;(2 ~ to ~ : B t:: ..... ,€j ,'" ~ q) .... ] U g. b.O gf to .S ~'13 b.O 0 B H 0 -s ,!;, '" .... U I=I'Q En e-"t:I 0 'E t:: '13 q) c;:l 0 ~ .... ~ ,'~ B >> '0 8 s.~ 8. ~ P 50,;3 g. g.U3 t:l '>< '13 ~ 8. u ~ q) ~ I ,';; S u iJ s ~ q) ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ q) 1=1 ~ ~.{j ~ '5 ~ 8 1i ~ ~ 8 q)...l:: ~.f:1 0 t:: '" "t:I 0 ,- "t:I .....] 1=1 0 1=1 ...."'I:;O~ ",o"t:lU '" 0- g .... .... ~'Q ~ q) ~ 0 i:E 11 q) u...... g cT~..8' ~oa:lE""::l-.:o~ oo~ Q.l U ~ -' ~ d. UJ In.... -'-'..... ~ ...... . Q) \-l ;,',,", .......... ~...... f--l --g;.:l 0.. q) -<:j 0.. '" '" I=I.S 1=1 q) q).... 0 0.. ....-.:oO"cOOq)"'q):,q)l=Iui.... ,~ g.~ .{j 'J::! to..!d 0 S.- S !J tl.~ ~ .... q) ...l:: i='S....-So..oo.."'UJuoo ~ tJ '" B e-'~ ~...d..9 ~..9 e-"; i:E t:: 'R -<:j 0 .... .... ,- ? -.:0 q).f:1 q) to 1=1 ::l .... -.:0 '0' g. 0 U ~ 0 'J::! > >... 0:1 '" q) "t:I J....o~q)q).f:1i='q)~q)'13Uq)~~ o.._q)...d!:i "t:I"t:I "t:ItO...d..oOq) Q) Q) tr.l "-.:;I '00 Q) Q) >-. r,r; >-. fJ'J '"iJ tI) ...... 1=1 -S ~ e-.{j 1=1 ,;!! ~ II ~ II b.O 15 ~ e- S o . "t:I to'p: ~ ... 0.. to F1 cO ,E z to 0 U ~ q) 'E 0 e- g. S tl 'P t:: '" 0 ~'E u o 1=1"<:: cO .... ,- ::l 0 q) '" q) '><...d 1=1 cO q) 1-< ;.:I 1-< '" o..U '" u f-< q) f-< 0 -.:0;.:1 ",..0 .... 1=1 cO u t.;:l '~ U3 1=1 o '<=l u q) ::::= o u .... ~ ~ .... '" '" ' ~'E q) '" -S ~ 1=1"3 o 0 "t:I~ 1=1 t:: '" 0 ~~ "5.S ~ Ei ~ ~ u '" 1=1 >> ...... '" rJ) t; -< ~ ~ !oo-l j:.I.; o ~ ~ ;:J rJ) ~ rJ) ~ ~ f-; --d q) '3 cT o .... q) 1=1 o Z t= to U t.;:l '~ U3 1=1 cO P ~ ~ b.O cO .~ .... Q Ei .... o .... u:I 1=1 o "t:I 1=1 '" Ei q) "t:I "t:I q) '" '" q) .... u 1=1 ...... 0- ~ ""' ... 1=1 to Jl '~ U3 1=1 to P '" ~ ~ gp ~ to '<=l ::l 'E q) ~ c55 .....0;.:1 ..... to ::::= 0 Ei to ~ .S e- b.O';; .t:J q).- ~"'u:I~~ ~]oj"'Ebt:l ::l q) u q) to ..o~~~~ o , l:l "t:I u .e ~ '" ~ t.;:l ..... cd -. ....-.4 ~ Ob.~ B ~ O~~~UJ ~ 'B to..9 10' 1 ~ ] o.~ -q)~q)"" u.... ..!d.... ,S ~ 0 "t:I ~ 88B~l;S q)...."t:I-.:oo ~"08Jj-s~ .;; ~ '" g 'S 0 .......l:: to 1=1 ~ U '" 0 0 8 ,- .~ '" '" U 1=1 U O~"t:Iq)tO~ d:: .g lJ ..0 % d:: o ,S 'Ej ~ Ei 1=1 P~ltl';;8J3 .... 1=1 '" U t.;:l '~ U3 ~ .-=: '" .... U o '0' .... 0.. o -S tJ .~ '" i:: ~ ~ .... to "t:I o u ::l "t:I o tl ,S q) ..0 "t:I "3 o i:l b.O ,E ~ :.= i Z Lf'l ..-i ...... 1.1'\ <"'i ~ u t.;:l '~ U3 1=1 to P ~ ..... I C/) '" '" o ....:1 tJ o '0' '" .... '" 0..- q) to -S ~ .... .... 0.. ..80.. '" "t:I"t:I~ ~ 1=1 u to '" 1=1 0.. '" q) ~ ~ .... q) o..'p: .... q) q) 0 ::~5o c; ..s . en ...l:: e- '" ~ .- "e- I:; u.- tOq)U En -S q) 8 o-S 0......>> 1=I"t:I..o b.O q) .... ,- ~ 0 u:I '8 ~ !1..o"5 '" ::l "t:I to ""p: ~"t:I0 ...,.< 1=1 .... ....... to 0.. ~ U t.;:l :~ u:I - to '<=l 1=1 q) ~ '" o .... q) ,-=: '" I 1=1 o -S 'S l: ~ ,.. ~ .... ..... "l " ~ " .~ " LI:I ..... "l " ~ ~ ~ '" ~ a '" .... u ciS 1=1 o U b.O . .E '5 ~Ei :'=0.. I 0 i~ .- ~ Z"t:l ,.. .~ ~ t:i ~ ~ l ~ N 1.1'\ <"'i This Page Intentionally Left Blank - INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The proposed Project is the third and fmalphase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase I Terrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single- family residences in townhome and detached configurations. The Village and Park was completed in 1997 and is 100 percent occupied. Phase I also includes the construction and furnishing of the Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for day care services. Phase II consists of Terra bay Woods (.Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family detached units; Peninsula Mandalay, 112-unit condominium; Mandalay Pointe consisting of 70 paired units (35 side-by-side duplexes). Mandalay Heights, Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe are constructed and fully occupied. Phase II includes the conveyance of the 26-acre "Preservation Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004. Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6.22-acre "Recreation Parcel" to the City of South San Francisco. Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have been installed and include: geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches, hydroseeding and creation and compaction of a development pad. The conveyance of the Recreation Parcel is anticipated to occur in 2005. Phase III, the proposed Project, is a mixed use development. The entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. 1. In 1982, the Terrabqy Development Project EnvironmentalImpact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan. Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Snppkmentaf Environmental Impact Reporl 1-1 1. Introduction 2. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR a supplement to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the Terrabay Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. In 1998/99, the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III, the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment and impacts and mitigations for wetlands and cultural resources.. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial development including a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use. Table 1-1 shows the proposed commercial development program for Phase III. TABLE 1.1: PHASE III 1998/99 SEIR LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage . Land Use Hotels (3) Restaurants (4) Retail (3) lvUxed Use Parking 235,000 - 280,000 12,000 - 18, 000 6,000 -10,000 30,000 - 35,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms 450 Seats Service Retail Retail, Restaurant, Office 1,760 Parking Spaces ..-. Total 283,000 - 343,000 4. An Addendum to the 1998-99 Terrabqy Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR (2000 Addendum) resulted in the City entitling the Phase III site as shown in Table 1-2. TABLE 1.2: 2000 ADDENDUM LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage Land Use Office 657,500 Office, 150-seat performing arts theatre, 100-child day care center 7,500 Ground floor support retail 1,785 Parking Spaces Retail Parking Total 665,000 Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR and approval of the 2000 Addendum, approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the - Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S upp/ementa/ Emironmenta/ Impact Report 1-2 - 1. Introduction City of South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. 1.2 PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT (DSEIR) This 2005 DSEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project that could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program from what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The Initial Study (2005) prepared on the proposed Project focused out environmental topics that needed no further analysis from that in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to the current development proposal for Phase III. This 2005 DSEIR identifies potential new or intensified effects which are specific to the proposed Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Additionally, this 2005 DSEIR identifies effects that are anticipated to be less than those that would have resulted from the project proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. This DSEIR tiers off of the 1998/99 SEIR. As allowed under Section 21093 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports will avoid repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports. The CEQA Guidelines and statutes encourage tiering. The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous environmental documents from Terrabay, in particular the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 DSEIR is intended to be used as an informational document and is subject to public review, agency review and consideration by the City of South San Francisco. The purpose of this 2005 DSEIR is to identify potentially significant effects of the Project on the physical environment, to determine the extent to which these effects could be reduced or avoided and to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives to the Project. The EIR need not be exhaustive in its analysis of a project (Section 15151 CEQA Guidelines) but should analyze important issues to a sufficient degree that permitting and approving agencies can make informed decisions. The EIR is an information document that in itself does not determine whether a project will be approved. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study (2005) on the Project (Section 15063 CEQA Guidelines). On the basis of the Initial Study, the City determined that a SEIR was required. A copy Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 1. Introduction of the Initial Study is included in Appendix A. Effects found not to be significant in the Initial Study and thus omitted from analysis in the SEIR addressed aesthetics (except for light and glare); agricultural resources; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; population and housing; and recreation. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this DSEIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse and Responsible Agencies on May 9, 2005 in accordance with Sections 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines and is included in Appendix A. The NOP was circulated to local, state and federal agencies and other interested parties. The responses to the NOP helped to identify the major environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR. A copy of the public comment letters in response to the NOP is included in Appendix B. PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT SEIR The 2005 DSEIR will be distributed for public review for 45 days, during which time comments on its accuracy and completeness may be submitted by local, state and federal agencies, public interest groups, and concerned individuals. Written comments should be submitted to: Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, California 94083 All comments on the 2005 DSEIR received during the public comment period will be addressed in a Response to Comments docume~t. That document and this DSEIR combined will form the Final SEIR (FSEIR) to be considered by the City for certification as complete and accurate. PROJECT APPROVALS Approval of the Project, as proposed or revised, would be accompanied by written findings for each significant adverse environmental effect identified in the DSEIR. Findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding and will indicate that: 1) mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect; 2) mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and either have been or should be adopted by that public agency; or 3) specific impacts are unavoidable and substantially unmitigable, but Terralx:J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 1. Introduction are considered acceptable because overriding considerations indicate the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects. The City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at the time the City makes findings to approve the Project. The:M1v1RP identifies all the mitigation measures required to construct, implement and operate the Project in order to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The :M1v1RP will be prepared in conjunction "With the FSEIR. This program is not required to be adopted until the time of approval of the Project. The Project would require City approval of the following: . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000 . General Plan Amendment . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) . Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site . Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III . Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 . Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components . Design review for Phase III . Grading Permits for Phase III Approvals, actions and permits would be needed from State agencies and regional utility providers in addition to City actions. For more information regarding Project approvals, see Chapter 2, Section 2.5. 1.4 CONTENTS OF THIS DRAFT EIR This DSEIR contains the following chapters: . Summary chapter presents a Project overview including the Project description, environmental consequences and mitigation measures, Project alternatives and issues of public concern. A table is included which summarizes DSEIR findings. . Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the DSEIR and the review and certification process. Terrabqy Phase III Pro/eet Draft Supplemental Environmental Impat't RBportn 1-5 ,. Introduction . Chapter 2 provides a description of the Project, its location, the applicant's objectives in proposing the Project, specific land planning features and required approvals. · Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the environmental effects of the Project. The "Setting" sections of this chapter identify existing conditions relevant to each topic (e.g. traffic, air quality, etc.). The "Impacts and 11.itigation" section includes a discussion of potential impacts. Each impact has been numbered to correspond to the mitigation measure. · Chapter 4 discusses alternatives to the Project. · Chapter 5 provides CEQA-required discussions regarding cumulative impacts; growth-inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; and effects found not to be significant. . Chapter 6 identifies persons involved in the DSEIR preparation. · Chapter 7 lists references and persons consulted during the DSEIR preparation. Terrabqy Phase III Proj".t Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &pOrl 1-6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of Terrabay, the third and final phase of a planned mixed use community. The Project sponsor's objectives are to: . Develop one of the most important and highly visible sites in South San Francisco into a high quality gateway Project. . Create a genuine community gathering place that promotes synergy of living, working, shopping and playing. . Anticipate and meet specific market demands for real estate, while being responsive to City policy objectives. . Derive ecological and transportation benefits and other efficiencies inherent in a mixed use Project. . Meet residential and employee lifestyle needs in the geographical areas served by the Project. . Foster a comfortable and traditional experience by creating a sense of place. . Deliver a destination mixed-use Project that serves both local and regional needs. . Produce a Project that is consistent with the objectives of the South San Francisco General Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco at the base of San Bruno Mountain. The site fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded Terrabqy Phase III Pro/ed Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 2-1 - 2. Project Description by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II to the west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. Access to the Project site is from Bayshore Boulevard (see Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map, and Figure 2.1-2 Project Site Plan). 2.3 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point F1yover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping. 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases. Phase A consists of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The development standards applicable to the Project will be contained in the Terrabay Specific Plan. Should the City Council adopt the Specific Plan by Ordinance, the development standards will govern the Project and will serve to amend the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. The environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B, follO\ving City action on the Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and any remaining minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase B, actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. In general, in response to the Project site's topography, the development would be stepped into the hillside. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard. All vehicular entrances would access the parking garage. A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard. Mandalay Terrace would be accessed from two separate entrances at each end of the development. Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way. At its north end, Mandalay Terrace would include one traffic lane providing ingress (13 feet wide) and three 12-foot wide traffic lanes providing one right turn, one through and one left turn lane. As Mandalay Terrace continues to the south, it becomes a 26-foot drive aisle with surface parking on both sides, then a 23-foot wide drive aisle with parking on one side, and then returns to a 26-foot wide drive aisle with parking on both sides where it then enters the lower level parking structure. Two entrances (located south of the Mandalay Terrace entrance) along Bayshore Boulevard provide direct access to the parking structure. The first of these two entrances consists of two traffic lanes providing ingress Terrabqy Phase III Prrject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-2 /,"'1 \ t \ !\ \:-:: ~ t .~ j-~\""", -+~ i\\ ), \ . \ ~~~( c~.. .-".- .,~~&\, .( \ \ \ \ '--.. \ \..'-- J \\\ i , .......,,,., / I ~ -....,'-~"" "~l.:'=~ .- \iL"'------/).\ I~ "I ? /!~ '",J --::::-" !.. ~r \'" .1 '--,F'/ ~ "v (r ;^) '-- "",......~ // II I ( ~ /"' }.'~-k-,,;::::;;::::... / JV \ )\ /'[:!:tY.~ G i/", i ( ! ( (~-:::-X' \. " v').~,___/ ;1J'l~::::~{ (, ~~~""-'- I~ J ~'0.,~~~~W'/ ~\ \ \ '\ y... L"\''- y 1\ ~-; Project Site N ~ ~ B ~ T errabay Preservation Parcel dedicated to County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain County and State Park.. August 11. 2004 o 1000 2000 --- Scale in Feet Source: Placemakers + Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map " " < "' ~. ,~. '" . c .., .~ .....~...~.es.... 0-- "'ilO:!5>/.\~.., :.:.0'" . "" ...~. ~,,' Q, . , . " .. ;<-.." "~...",..." "<< 't ,"'... ) ~ "'''''- ~/"' "' ..... t"~A ~."'" ~ ". i l ,~". . '" tZ"~. i iC .'. . . II~ z .' _ .;..~..~..:;e.. ...;. it :,-.~,Ig-~ ..~, \ \ \ \ \ \; \ \" \ " '.' \ \ \ \ \ \ I L~~- \ ". . .~.........:.: cJF <> ~ N~ li:l; ~ Q) No+-' + G./eJi a~ -P"l --., ~ 0 l-< i:l; ~ 1 " ~ ~ IX> ~ '" 2. Project Description (26 six feet wide) and two traffic lanes providing egress (26 feet wide) separated by a median. A second entrance located farther to the south consists of one traffic lane providing ingress (13 feet wide) and one lane providing egress (13 feet wide) separated by a median. Figure 2.1-3 Project Development Area shows Mandalay Terrace and the vehicular entrances. Project development would conform to the Wetlands Mitigation Plan (WMP) for the Terrabay development. The WMP was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 3, 2001. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency with respect to implementing the WMP. The WMP mitigates the 0.10 acre of wetlands on the Project site that would be filled and the 0.68 acre of wetlands that was filled as a result of the City's Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp improvement project. The wetlands are being mitigated on the Preservation Parcel As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters are currently being mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the Preservation Parcel which was evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. The current site plan indicates a small area of approximately 500 square feet of newly establishing potential wetlands could also be affected by improvements at the Mandalay Terrace intersection with Bayshore Boulevard. This small area of potential wetland was created following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where surface water was diverted along the base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings and rushes were planted in the area. Because access improvements at Mandalay Terrace would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would be relocated during installation of the created wetlands on the Preservation Parcel as part of implementing the WMP. The loss of this small area of newly forming potential wetlands is not considered significant. It is worthy of note that the plantings were to have been placed entirely on the Preservation Parcel and while plantings were made there, some were inadvertently planted on the Buffer Parcel, the location of the 500 square feet in question. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR require a wetlands mitigation plan and salvage plantings. These mitigation measures apply to the currently proposed Project. Therefore, the plantings placed on the Buffer Parcel will, in compliance with the mitigation measures, be placed on the Preservation Parcel as a part of the WMP. Table 2.1-1 presents a breakdown oEland uses. RETAIL COMPONENT Restaurants would be located near the central plaza which includes a garden and water feature. A multiplex cinema and a grocery store (below the cinema) are proposed south of the central plaza and retail space is situated along a north-south axis. Typical retail Terrabcg Phase III Pro/eet Draft SlIjJplemental Em,;ronmental Impa,.t Report 2-5 u ~ ~: ~ tl...5.. '" 15 .. &'" ~... g:~ ~ ... I 1 I I 1. I li t ,! ca CIJ < "E <<:? CIJ '""! S .+ N P-. :+ ~.Q So~ '9"l CIJ ~Q .... u CIJ '0' ~ ~ i ~ ~ o OIl 2. Project Description TABLE 2.1-1: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use Phase A Retail 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex Cinema, Grocery Store Residential 475,000 Market Rate 248 Dwelling Units Below Market Rate 103 Dwelling Units Service Areas 70,000 Loading, Storage, Mechanical, Restrooms, Supervised Play Area Phase B Office Total 295,500 1,198,000 Office spaces would be 20 feet from floor-to-floor with 24 to 28 feet of street frontage. Sidewalk widths would vary from 20 to 25- feet and provide tenants with an opportunity to join the streets cape with display, planting and seating. Streets capes would be rendered primarily in glass, fabricated metals and stone. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The residential component of the Project would include a 22-story high-rise tower containing 180 market rate condominium units. The tower would rise to a height of about 250 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 360 feet above msl due to its hillside location. The tower would be constructed of concrete, glass and metal. The base of the tower would include retail space and possibly a restaurant. The residential tower would be located at the northern portion of the site. Two low-rise residential buildings would be located at the westerly portion of the Project site. The south building would contain 68 market rate Townhome units. The units would contain two and three bedrooms. The townhome units would be of a contemporary architectural design in four, five and six-story arrangements over one- story of retail and one level of parking. Visually, these units frame the west side of the development and would appear as five- to six-story buildings. The north building would contain 88 one and two bedroom flats of which 67 would be priced and available for moderate income households. The 21 market rate units would be income restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180 residential tower. The flats would also be a Terrabqy Phase III Project DraJi Supplemental Em.ronmental Impact fuport 2-7 - 2. Project Description contemporary architectural design in one four-story building over retail. The north wing would be adjacent to and at the heart of the town center. A lS-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower. OFFICE COMPONENT A 17-story high-rise building containing office space would be located at the southerly portion of the Project site. The top of the building would be approximately 220 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level (msl) due to its hillside location. The fa~ade would be comprised of a glass curtain wall system with metal and stone detail. Project Phasing Mter Final Legislation and Entitlement Actions Project construction would be organized into two phases after successful completion of all legislative, entidement and environmental requirements. Phase A would include retail and residential. Phase A would include some parking for the future Phase B. Specifically, below the Main Street level, four floors of parking for the office, together with the service/loading area for the grocery store would be constructed in Phase A. Therefore, Phase A would need to include the structural foundations supporting these Phase A uses, as well as the subsequent Phase B Phase A is estimated to start construction in mid 2006 with completion in the end of 2009. Phase B would start construction within one year of the completion of Phase A with completion in 2010. Project Amenities Phase A · A Public Art Program; · Water Features and Fountains; · An Outdoor Performance Area; · A 1 50-seat Performing Arts Center shared with -a cinema use; · 67 Moderate Income (Below Market Rate) units; · Transportation Demand Management Plan; · Childcare fees for the retail and residential elements; · A Valley Trail; · Supervised play area for children; Terrabqy Phase III Pro/eel Draft S "Pplemental Environmental Impael Report 2-8. 2. Project Description . An emergency operations/training facility shared with the lobby of the Phase B hotel, office building or residential building . History markers at various vantage points within the Project site; and . A history walk along the western boundary of the site. Phase B would include one of the following amenities: . Childcare fee associated with the Project; or, . A childcare center developed with the office building (if desired by the office building user). 2.5 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Phase A . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000 . General Plan Amendment . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) Phase B . Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site . Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III . Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 . Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components . . Design review for Phase III . Grading Permits for Phase III ACTIONS BY THE STATE Department of Fish and Game . Stream Alteration Agreement Caltrans . Encroachment Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board . NPDES General Permit . Approval of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Terrabay Phase III P"!fect Draft 5 uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 2-9 - 2. Prq/ect Description ACTIONS BY UTILITIES California Water Service Company · Water main and access easements San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S "PPlemental Environmental Impact Report 2-10 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCTION This chapter of the 2005 DSEIR addresses specific topics to be evaluated in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. For each topic discussed (e.g., Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality), the following two subsections are included: "Setting" and Impacts and Mitigation Measures." Under "Setting" the text provides a discussion of existing conditions. Under "Impacts and Mitigation Measures," the text includes sections on: 1) Significance Criteria; 2) Impact Overview; and 3) Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures section includes numbered impacts which correspond to specific mitigation measures. Unless the impacts are noted as significant and unavoidable (SU), the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the identified impacts to less than significant. Thus, after each mitigation measure, the reader will find (L TS). The specific criteria for determining if the impacts would be significant are identified under "Significance Criteria." These criteria are taken from the CEQ.-4 Guidelines, City of South San Francisco standards and responsible and trustee agencies. Terrabqy Phase III Pro/eet Drcift S IIfJpkmental Environmental Impact &port 3-1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project on this network in contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum), and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. \V'here 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 Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group. For the analysis of the currently proposed Terrabay Phase III Project, local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: · Existing (spring 2005) · Year 2010 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development on the Terrabay Phase III site) · Year 2010 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently proposed Project replacing the approved project) · Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development on the Terrabay Phase III site) · Year 2020 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently proposed Project replacing the approved project) For year 2010 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Terrabay site: · 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. Terrobtry Phase III Pro/eet Draft S npplemental Environmental Impact &pori 3.1-1 Local Circulation System 3.1 Traffic and Circulation SETTING The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated on Figure 3.1-1 and described below. u.s. Highway 101 (U.S.101) 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.101, as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue 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.101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard along the Terrabay Phase III 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.101 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. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.1 01 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 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. Hillside Boulevardis a four-lane roadway in the Project area along the base of San Bruno Mountain. The roadway intersects Sister Cities Boulevard about one-third of the distance along the Terrabay Phase I and II site boundary and then extends to the southeast as a two-lane roadway through a residential neighborhood towards downtown South San Francisco. It ends at an intersection with Linden Avenue which connects directly to Airport Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard has signalized intersections with Stonegate Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Linden Avenue. It also has an all-way-stop intersection with Lincoln Street. From just east of Lincoln Street to Sister Cities Boulevard, the four-lane section of roadway with a raised median located immediately adjacent to the Terrabay Phases 1 and 2 sites is designated the "Hillside Boulevard Extension." The two-lane roadway running just south and parallel to the extension (adjacent to the single family units on Terrab'!J' Phase III Pro/eel Drtift S upplemenlal Environmenlal Impael &porl 3.1-2 .Ql ] A:r. en LJ ... 0,= I- 0 '0 Z z + t"'"l 10-. t1 ell M::;E ~ ell 6hQ) .~ < ~ g. 8 i.:l a: 0: W ~ C'? .. (I) 1:: ~ t a. ~ ~ II ~ o tIl 3.1 Traffic and Circulation the south side of the street) is designated Hillside Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard Extension has signalized intersections with] efferson Street/South San Francisco Drive (the Terrabay Phase I site access) and Sister Cities Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway located along the southern Terrabay Phase II site boundary. It extends from its signalized intersection with Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard on the east to its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension/Hillside Boulevard on the west. The one intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard (with South San Francisco Drive) is signalized and provides access into the Terrabay Phase II site. South San Francisco Drive extends west from this Phase II intersection into the Phase I site where it is paved and intersects with Hillside Boulevard Extension at] efferson Street. Bayshore Boulevardis 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 D.S.10l. South of Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Terrabay Phase III site, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the US.10l 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 US.10l. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area. Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the US.10l I 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 ofUS.10l from Oyster Point Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two to three travel lanes along its entire length except from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway northbound off-ramp/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. Study. Intersections In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project, the AM and/ or PM peak hour operations of seven existing or future intersections in South San Francisco and two existing intersections in the City of Calma have been studied (see Figure 3.1-2). Terrabcq Phase III Project Drafl511pplemental Enz,jronmental Impact &port 3.1-4 ------------- .., 5 .... .g ~~... ~ .&::,>Cl'J(t} "5~,~LB:l ~oit.9'Q .., < (z e c 0 . Gl ...... ....OOU) OJ: J: Q. .... 1:: ~ E WO 111 111 ::lZlO!I:: PNe 9.IOII~' ee ." .... c C f! ....1;jCllll m>-o> ::l0....< 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q, E III .. .., ~ OJ III "C > c< g~Q. ..c 0" E ~::I11I 'C..c.. O::l:t: zoO "C c ploJe ::I III 'tl 0 l- e. c ..coE ::I ~ .si<ll 0 Q, ::I >- I- ..c 0 E oea;:: .t:J: Cl)mo ...1Il 111 :I >- .. o 111 c lI)mo - - - - - - - - - - - - - aJOl./S: 1IIQ. ::l E O"<ll ....::l... ::l..c c o ::l C WOO Cll II) .S: 6 "2:0:: .- <....1 ~.~ Cll>' eCij LL c <3: II) C Q.O E:O:: <....1 <-c ftl 0 .0:;:: 11I1.l ~ f r-Ql i:5 UlM 8.ljl e ftl J:l...c: J:l.. "0 ::> Ci3 ., ~ (} I- ~ .~ CI) V '^" "0 Cll ~ "Rl c:: <( rn c:: o .n III ~ III - .s II . PAle 8p!SIl!H ~ CI) c o c;; o C!I .- CJ -0 lil...J e.!!? Cll III ->. c_ -<<\ c <3: g- e L? a:: 0: W ..g ~ 1 ~j I ~ r- ~ '" - -, + ~ ~ CI) P!: ..... >.~ nl"ii:l ~~ l-< >. ~~nl ~ cl ~ rf') 0 Q) .,p Q) ~ U l-< l-< Q) ~ 5h CI) Q) ..... ti:l1 ~ ... . ~. '"'"" o::;s ~"'Cl ..g a nl u o .....::l 3.1 Traffic and Circulation City of South San Francisco Intersections Signalized · Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension . Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US.IOl northbound on-ramp . Dubuque Avenue/US.101 northbound off-ramp/U.S.101 southbound on-ramp · Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound US.IOl freeway on- and off-hook ramps/Proposed Terrabay Phase III North Access (to be signalized)t,2 . Bayshore Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III Central access (to be signalized- proposed)! AII-wqy-stop Controlled (About to be Signalized) . Bayshore Boulevard/US.101 southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard2 Side Street Stop Sign Controlled · Bayshore Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III southern access (driveway right turn only approach to Bayshore Boulevard to be stop sign controlled) City of Colma Intersections Signalized . Lawndale Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard . Lawndale Boulevard/Mission Road Traffic Volumes Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 P:M:) turn counts were conducted for this study at all existing analysis intersections within South San Francisco in February 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp from the US.IOl freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection was in full operation. In addition, PM peak period counts were conducted at the two City of Colma intersections to be evaluated in June 2005. Only PM counts and analyses have been conducted at the Colma intersections as the proposed Project would only produce a measurable change in traffic (compared to the currently approved Phase III Project) at the Colma intersections during this time period. Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 3.1-3, while existing PM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 3.1-4. Figure 3.1-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed intersection. 1 The proposed Project provides for two signalized intersections with Bayshore Boulevard (the northern and central entrances) and a third unsignalized right-rum-in/ right-rum-out entrance located farther south on Bayshore Boulevard north of the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection. 2 Same intersection. Terrabqy Phase III Proje# Drcift S upplemen/al Em>ironmental Impact Report 3.1-6 ~d z c, . l() to -g ~- r-- g- J9/1Q'I.:i ,... o ...-~ P^lg aJOIlS eg o ~ 1O N "'-::2 l--t; ~f 0_ o r-- ~ o .Q ~ o Cf,) o 00 lONm Ji4. ("~ ~J ~tr+ to 1O~1O o -'0 r-- ~ '<l' g] ~ l() i- '" :=! ~ c:s '- .l!l '" Ci5 p/ljg IJO !'V a:: 10' ~ {g-Lg 0<') <') ~ 0<:: ..J N(,,)~ .?::l ~ t . \.; ~J 0 0 t r+ N 1O 1Oi- 0 08 ,... ,....... ...- t....~ 100 ~ ;;1;,... .(" t L,.. r+ 8 t 0 .~ 0 ~ .l!l 8 Ll:i ,... .gs" 1O "<3 "'- .... ~ ~...-o 1OLl)Ll) ;i t L,.. .. ~ ~ j ~ t tOo<D 0-+ cf) ~ ,... JS UOSJ8Jjar r+ ~t ...- ~ Ul S ~ ~ Cl{>oS '""!u::Cc:1 CI')~~oo c.l id ill b E; l-<,., ("fj bJ:l E-< .... t=..: ~~~~. ...... Ul ...... >< ~ ~. (z o <0 _0 Ol 1000 ..... l() 0 o l() ..... .J.C -L~ 1O n -"- "- ~ as S ~ \.,. .Sl ~ o ~-+ N <0 0 -L~ l() l() l() n CO r-- _N M ..... ..... ~ . ~ f"g ~-+ pille aJoqs ee ~j ~ t ~ "- ... l() -+ 1O l()1O "- M "- ~M 0 -.. ... M lO ~-- c: ~-.. ~ ~ o i;: g~~!3 ~.~ gj lo o __ N g-.. 0:: ~ {g-LlO o c: N r ~~ f" R t ~ lO -0 r- f"~ ~~ 00 MN .... -Lo C\l L{) _ 0 L{)N f"~ IS 1l0}SSIW ~ t ~ 100lO NO..... ..... ..... lO' (') L{)O co.... :..J .' l"lg ~j ~-.. ~ t o 0 .... ..- v ~~o L{) -L ~ .~\,,:l,0 (') L{) >(-.\ ~~ C\l t ~ f": c: t ~ ,Q lO ~ lO<O .sa 0 'r' Ll1 v ~ .l O~ '- lo t! r ~lo ~ j ~ t ~lS UOSlaJjer 0__ 0 L{)I.O <Jl ;::l; ..- g-.. ~ as 8 .\2 Q ~ IJ:.: t:; <0 CI.l :S ::. o CI.l 1.0 o l.()N .....- ..J t ~ "'0 3 o .0 :S :::: o C/) pille po IV g- El 0:: () W S M il Q) 1:: III 8.. t. ~ ", ~ ro ~ ~ ~ U f-- + U) (I) S .E I-< ... 0 ::l "I':> 08 ~u:r:('f) ~~~1i;5 1-<1-<(1)0 ~ E-- ~ C!1 ..-1 bO~ ~ ~ .,@ ~ ..... U) Ox ~ Qj ~ o '" (z \... -1 + \...\... PAle liiJOllS,{ee ..- ... j ... .... ... pAle JJ !V' 'R co ~ ~ o '- !!! ~ CI) + + \... '1ti c Cl U5 c Ol en 0- o 05 @[] <:: .Q ~ ]l ~ -2l 'Q; ~ ~ I>.. " e " 0:: 6 ill ",l:l ~ t ~ ~ 0. ~ E ~ '" ... l:: U ~ ~ <Il - o b l:: o U l:: o '€ OJ It') ~ ~ 002 rr)..E~ + ~.til "'0 ~'x ~ .f"! ~ CI) ~ u ...... b OJ S o OJ Cj OJ ~ t-J Existing Circulation System Operating Conditions 3 .1 Traffic and Circulation 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, indicating 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 [TRB] Highwqy Capaci!J Manual [HCM] 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 LOS/ control delay relationship is provided in Appendix C Table C-l. Unsignalized 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 Capaci!J 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 Capaci!J 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 C Table C-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized 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 unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from private driveways. The City of Colma also considers Level of Service D to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized intersections. 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. Intersections within the City of Colma as well as at the Sister Terrabt!)' Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-10 - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension intersection in South San Francisco have been evaluated as individual "stand alone" locations. Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the existing AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All operations are either LOS A, B or C. LOS D is considered acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. Freeway Operation Analysis Methodology Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwqy Capacity Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMF). 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 ofU.S.l0l 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 county boarder, 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 1990/91 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 CMF-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMF baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMF-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 Terrab'!)' Phase III Prqject Draft S tpplemental Emironmental Impact ~port 3.1-11 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROTECT, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.SolOl NB Off- A-9olI D-36.5 C-29.0 D-46.6 D-36.0 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-I06.1 F-81.3 F-I00A F-80.9 Ave./U.SolOl NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-29.31 C-29.3 C-30.3 C-29.6 D-44.8 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-I0ol B-12.3 B-12.8 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB Off- B-I0.22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.SolOl SB On- NA B-13.91 NA C-24.1 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U .Sol 01 SB On- NA NA C-30.11 NA C-30.0 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-24.11 A-8.8 B-19.5 A-7.6 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA NA B-l1.63 NA B-12ol (Outbound RT. Stop Sign ContIol) Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Enviranmental Impact &port 3.1-12 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROTECT, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 C-23.4 C-29.8 B-46.3 D-51.5 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-137 F-137 F-269 F-264 Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd'/Sister Cities C-30.51 C-26.7 F-273 C-26.1 F-248 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 A-9.6 B-10.1 B-12.3 B-12.1 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA C-22.51 NA D-48.1 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA D-SO.81 NA F-101 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.71 B-13.1 B-19.9 B-13.2 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-19.23 NA C-24.9 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.91 A-9.4 A-9.8 B-11.8 B-12.0 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2 C-31.7 D-3S.3 D-36.7 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stoplevel of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Pro/ect Draft S "/JPkmentol Environmental Impact &port 3.1-13 3.1 Traffic and Circulation 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.101 freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.1 01 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Figure 3.1-2 shows the freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study. Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005 traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below. AM Peak Hour Southbound: LOSE LOSD LOSD LOSD Northbound: PM Peak Hour Southbound: LOSD LOSD LOSD LOSE Northbound: North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange The San Mateo Counry Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers, July 29,2003), identified AM peak period LOS 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 Highwcry Capaciry 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). 3.1-14 Terrab'!J Phas, III Project Drajt S uppkmen/al Enrironmental Impact &port - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-3: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9930 F -111 -1.1% 9819 F Bayshore Blvd./ (A) Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (199) (196) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8860 E 11 +0.1% 8871 E On Ramp and Grandi Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (177) (A) (177) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8195 D 9920 E -212 -2.1% 9708 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (7043) (C) (6893) (C) North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D 2 +0.02% 8722 D On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (6191) (C) (6193) (C) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-4: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North ofSB Off-Ramp 6965 D 7570 D 26 +0.3% 7596 D to Bayshore Blvd.! Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (303) (A) (304) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 9435 E -192 -2.0% 9243 E On-Ramp and Grandi Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onfy) (377) (A) (370) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 9355 E 6 +0.06% 9361 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (8045) (D) (8050) (D) North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -93 -.9% 10,517 F On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onjy) (9125) (D) (9045) (D) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J PhaJe III Prqject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-15 3. 1 Traffic and Circulation These capacities reflect LOS E operation, the same service level, which is acceptable for freeway operation. Existing Freeway Ramp Operation Figure 3.1-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows 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. Existing Transit Service Queuing Standards Based upon direction from South San Francisco staff, vehicle storage should accommodate the 50th percentile queue. 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/San 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. Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, field observations conflnn that the theoretically predicted queuing intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain movements. Local Bus Routes The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. There is currently SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Bayshore Boulevard, but not east of the U .S.l 01 freeway. Local area bus service is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva 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. Yerrabqy Phase III Project Draft S"/JPkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-16 - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-5: EXISTING, YEAR 2010 BASE AND YEAR 2010 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)1 PEAK HOUR Year 20tO Base Case + Pro 'ect Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity Existi Under/ Over Capacity2 V olume2 Capacity U.S.tOt Ramp SB Off-Ramp to Ba shore SB On-Ramp From Ba shore NB On-Ramp From Oyster Point NB Off-Ramp to Dubu ue SB On-Ramp from Dubuque 1900 1900 2100 [2600]4 2100 2100 [2600]4 Base Case Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity 740 (1325) Under (Under) 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600] =Capacity with two-lane on-ramp. Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-6: EXISTING, YEAR 2020 BASE AND YEAR 2020 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)1 PEAK HOUR U.S.tOt Ramp Capacity2 SB Off-Ramp 1900 to Ba shore SB On-Ramp 1900 From Ba shore NB On-Ramp 2100 From Oyster [2600](4) Point NB Off-Ramp 2100 to Dubu ue SB On-Ramp 2100 from Dubuque [2600](4) Existin Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity Year 2020 Base Case + Pro' ect Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity Base Case Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600] = Capacity with two-lane on-ramp. Source: Crane Transportation Group Yerrab'!J Phase III Prryect Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-17 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-7: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 queues Year 2020 queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case (in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps WB off-ramp left turn 600 69 127 161 182 WB off-ramp left/ right 600 69 129 161 186 Bayshore/Central Project Access NB left turn 300 207 34 327 35 NB through 945 19 10 16 16 SB right turn 300 2 5 28 4 SB through 540 257 194 260 224 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 29 110 134 189 240 SB left turn 325 154 43 135 149 250 SB through 660 52 9 64 58 132 SB right turn 310 0 0 19 21 49 WB left turn 80 18 62 69 57 74 WB through 255 44 92 162 79 161 WB right turn 255 209 10 167 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 58 87 58 132 110 EB through 255 128 402 447 467 525 EB right turn 255 70 27 46 50 136 NB left turn 135 43 257 198 273 195 NB left/through 255 46 281 215 296 211 NB right turn 210 190 633 665 575 619 Dubuque/lOt Ramps Off-ramp left turn 700 35 415 335 496 358 Off-ramp left/through 700 35 415 335 496 358 SB right turn 255 0 SB through 255 13 100 99 187 163 * All capacities and demand are per lane. Source: Crane Transportation Group Yerrab'!J Phase III P1T!Ject Draft S upp!ementol Environmental Impact &port 3.1-18 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-8: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case (in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps WE off-ramp left turn 600 85 207 276 449 WE off-ramp left/right 600 85 213 276 464 Bayshore/Central Project Access NB left turn 300 53 171 48 205 NB through 945 69 10 100 36 SB right turn 300 1 SB through 540 225 68 168 81 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 50 91 319 101 404 SB left turn 325 154 133 213 94 247 SB through 660 115 147 200 112 343 SB right turn 310 100 113 287 80 664 WE left turn 80 33 93 59 133 160 WE through 255 151 65 482 367 657 WE right turn 255 37 57 15 112 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 92 224 196 314 370 EB through 255 67 82 50 88 110 EB right turn 255 124 160 159 202 161 NB left turn 135 155 357 350 437 586 NB left/ through 255 166 384 375 468 624 NB right turn 210 31 40 38 60 75 Dubuque/101 Ramps Off-ramp left turn 700 37 118 171 282 262 Off-ramp left/through 700 38 118 171 282 262 SB right turn 255 19 13 32 126 116 SB through 255 13 65 74 131 126 * All capacities and demand are per lane. Source: Crane Transportation Group Yerrab'!Y Phase III Projert Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact fuport 3.1-19 Planned Transportation System Improvements 3. 1 Traffic and Circulation Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South 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 60-minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El 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 Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale 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 Francisco-Palo 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. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. The City of South San Francisco has completed construction on the fInal ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replaces the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.101 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.101 from the same intersection. The hook ramps significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and divert additional traffIc from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West 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/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane). Yerrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmentoi Environmental Impact &port 3.1-20 Base Case (Without Project) Traffic Analysis Approved Development Trip Generation - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these are the only improvements that were assumed in place at study intersections by 2010. Figure 3.1-6 presents year 2010 and 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control. 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 2010 and 2020. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes South San Francisco. Trip generation was estimated for approved indus trial/ office/R&D developments in the Project area (see Table 3.1-9). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's home improvement stores recently proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Tables 3.1-10, 3.1- 11,3.1-12 and 3.1-13). It should be noted that 2010 Base Case development includes construction of the approved 665,000-square-foot office/10,000-square-foot retail development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant trip generation from this approved use is presented in Table 3.1-14. Finally, trip generation projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase II residential development at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 highrise condo units (see Table 3.1-15). Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D/hotel development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft 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 (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan 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 2010 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard. Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S IIflplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-21 (z ..... ..... , ,. pAle vo IV ~ 10 ., .S1 (3 "- <J) ~ CI) ..... ........ , ~ ~~ ~c: ..,J .S1 ~ ~ "Hl.~ t J IS UOfSS!W ...4 ~ t c.. o U5 >- ~ c: OJ U5 0- S <( (f) II II ~DIJ ro c: OJ CiS II ....... """""0 u.tJ .~ ~ o 0 '""U p... ~ "!:: 0 0::0 -:S ~ ''''; Ul \0>,"" I ;> QJ ~............... ~QJ..s + QJ~"d '"" U ~ foQJ ..... Ul Ul ~ eel U p:\ 0"'; o.tJ C"I QJ o S C"I 0 ~~ o QJ 8 ~ C"I....J g- 8 0:: ~ ill ..g (') '" 4Il 1:: III 8.. ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o en 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-9: TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2010 Project Size Resultant Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Pm Peak Hour 445 426 (- 46) ~ Net 399 374 188 180 1,207 1,201 - ( - 170) ( - 191) Net 1,037 1,010 61 131 234 225 1,623 1,636 1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd. Office/R&D (replacing light industrial) 315,444 sq.ft. (-94,990 sq.ft.) 2. East Jamie Court Office/R&D 3. Britannia East Grand Office/R&D Retail Child Care Fitness Center (replacing light industrial) 133,000 sq.ft. 783,530 sq. ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. (-354,880 sq.ft.) 4. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 garage 5. Genentech Building 31 Office/R&D 6. Bqy West Cove (part alrea4J c011Jtructed) Office Retail Restaurant Hotel 7. 180 Oyster Point Office 8.200 Oyster Point Office 9.345 East Grand R&D (replacing warehouse uses) 125,000 sq. ft. 150,972 sq.ft. 600,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 350 rooms 105,000 sq.ft. 155,000 sq.ft. 210,560 sq. ft. 10.285 East GrandAve./ 349 Allerton Ave. Office/R&D (replacing existing site uses) 100 90 147 133 124 115 ( - 31) ~ Net 93 Net 70 122 111 .(:..l8). !::..lID Net 84 Net 83 11. 249 East Grand Ave. Office/R&D . 540,000 SO.FT. 756 729 1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004 Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005 2. East Jamie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Miti~ted Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002 3. Britannia East Grand Project (l'uller 0 'Brien PropertY) Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse AssoClates) February 2002 4. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37 Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003 5. Genentech Building 31-Admin Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005 6. Bt!J' West Cove Commercial &port Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002 7., 8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 9. Traffic Impact RBport 345 East GrandAvenue R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001 10. T rajJic Impact &port 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002 11. 249 East Grand Avenue Administrative Draft ElR (Lamphier-Gregory/Crane Transportation Group) June 2005 Yerrab<lJ Phase III Project Draft S "/JPkmentai Em>ironmental Impact &port 3.1-23 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-10: HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION Daily Am Peak Hour Trips Pm Peak Hour Trips 2-Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Home 125,794 29.8 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164 Depot sq. ft. (40) + 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41 TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-11: HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION, HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE (Levitz Furniture) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Home Depot 103 86 181 205 Existing Site Use 4 2 20 19 Net Change in Site Trip Generation 99 84 161 186 Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-12: LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 2-way trips Inbound Outbound 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.ft. West Marine 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12 Bldg.-North sq.ft. Area Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205 + 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51 + Existing West Marine - NAI 2 0 14 12 Store (No Change) GRAND TOTAL 59082 130 106 243 268 1 NA = Not surveyed for daily trip generation. 2 Does not include existing West Marine store. Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabqy Phase III Prqject Draft S upp/emental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-24 Regional Traffic Growth on D.S.l0l Freeway - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-13: LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. Existing Site Uses (including West lvfarine Bldg.) Net Change in Site Trip Generation 130 - 42 +88 106 - 37 +69 243 ::..1.QE +135 268 ~ +182 Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-14: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III APPROVED USE Use Daily inbound + Outbound trips Rate Vol Pm Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Rate Vol Rate Vol Am Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Rate Vol Rate Vol Size Office 665,000 11.01 sq. ft. 7322 1.23a 818 .17a 113 .23a 153 1.12a 745 a 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated IDM program. Planning level trip rates for office qevelopment used in the above table (rather than fitted curve equation trip rates) are projected to also reflect the minor level of traffic associated with 10,000 square feet of office serving retail use on ground level of building. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-15: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAY PHASE II-REMAINING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (AS OF FEBRUARY 2005) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use # Units Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol T ownhomes 12 .07 1 .37 4 .35 4 .17 2 Condominiums 61 .07 1 .37 23 .35 22 .17 10 TOTAL 5 27 26 12 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.l01 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 2010. Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-25 Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution 3.1 Traffic and Circulation The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D/hotel 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, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 3.1-16. New Terrabay Phase II residential trip distribution was based upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing Terrabay Phase I and II developments. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2010 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-7 and 3.1-8. TABLE 3.1-16: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION, OFFICE/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Direction South San Francisco Development Year 2005 US 101 North/San Francisco US 101 South South San Francisco (central area) Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. Daly City/Calma 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 North/San Francisco US 101 South South San Francisco (central area) Daly City/ Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. Daly City/ Colma via Guadalupe Parkway Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) via Railroad A venue Extension Brisbane Airport area via South Airport Blvd. San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue Local east of US 101 TOTAL 29 48 2 1 o 8 7 2 1 2 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &porl 3.1-26 _'., _"..A~'.",~_~__"____"._'~"_.~~"~"'" ... ._._...__"__~..,,__~~,.,,,~r~~_. ~ 1< z . o o ,.... N LO ..J ~ -- CO o ~ R ,..., .... ...., ..)C'l t l. o N -"- CO ~ iii <: & ... Ql 't; B Ul "- -:::: 0_ g) (() LO -t..~ LO-..... r::: .... Ji1.o10Aj.... Il'l -gj ,~ oRLO (ONm '<t" ..) + l. Il'l ~ -~ ,~ o ~J ~t,. ~~~ ~~or- pAle aJoqs ee ~ iii i Q ... .l!! CI) "1 o N ,:g aA\1' anbnqna ~t,. 11'>00 g ~ N 'tl '3 o ..0 % b3 PAle IJO !V "g~ ::l Cll 2Q: -!::~ 50 ~ 0:: [jj - 'Z' u CIl.~ Q) 0 S H ::l~ as :> Q) Q) CIl CIl C'I:l dt: ~ Q) :>, I CIl C'I:l ~C'I:l,..Q rf')j:O~ (l,I H H ~ ::l Q) bJjoF-< .~ ::c '"d ~~ & Q) 0 P..~ ~~ o 5 8.;; C'\l ..... ~ ........... ~+ ~<z C % 0 'L Il) 0 I.() 0 <0 Il) I.() (") .<0 ~ l,. -'<t 0 N 0 0 GO J ...- (') Ln -+ u:; o o 0 O'<t'<t ..Jtl,. ~J ~- N In. (') ~ <0 _0 ...- 0-.0. M (') J<l-lQ 1:1 I.() _ co In o f"~ PIIJ8 <l.JOl./s,{e8 o -~ In f"~ <: ....l .S1 {3 ~ ....l ""'l~ o a:l~ 'Lo <"lll) _ O'l N <D ..C::- IS UOISS!W ~ t ~ \l:l \l:l \2 N ~-r- Il)o ll) ..... -d!; g- ll) ..... '0 g .8 '€ c5l o 00 00 <"l ~"'-N ..J+l,. gJ '<t ""'lt~ PI\/8JJ 000 '<to<O "'-'<t Vi Vi 'L~ Il) g r- \l:l,N :! '<t ... + l,.g t ~ '1;j <: 0 .S! ;:g U'i .g '(;j "" 5: ~ "OQ. g E <:> '" .00: .c:~ 50 z lit ~ e::: " jjj ] <"l .. ~ I { ! 2l 5 E ... Q; U I- 'Z' u OJ ct:J '0' Srt .E~ 0_ > OJ ct:J OJ ro ~f u co OJ >. I ct:J ro ~ro~ ('f')~1-i Q,l I-i I-i I-i ::l OJ 6boE-< .... ::r:: "d ~ ~ ~ ro 0 OJ p.. p... 0 ~rt p........ o ::l rl 0 00:8 N ...... ~ + ~ '" - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Year 2010 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2010 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours with one exception. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp intersection would be operating at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Operation Table 3.1-3 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 3.1-4 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), with the exception of northbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F. Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Table 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows 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 2010 with two 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 would also be above theoretical capacity limits. Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Table 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2010 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 Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 1 01 Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM Peak Hour · Bcryshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. · Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than available storage distance (one to five car lengths longer for the left turn and combined left turn/through movements; 17 car lengths longer than available storage (per lane) for the right turn movement. In addition, the eastbound through movement would have a storage demand (per lane) about six car lengths longer than available storage. Yerrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-29 3. 1 Traffic and Circulatio n PM Peak Hour . Bcryshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point westbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand at most one car length longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left and combined left/through lanes would have storage demands from five to nine car lengths greater than available storage. Year 2020 Base Case TrafDe 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 C Tables C-3 and C-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 Draft 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 ofEIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see Table 3.1-9 reference list). The proposed Project in the 2001 DSEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (fDM) 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 of101 Transportation Improvements Plan (IIP). 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. Year 2020 projections developed in 2001 were then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development proposals. Specific projects include: . 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco) . Home Depot store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use (South San Francisco) Yerrob'!J Phase III Prqjecl Draft S uppkmentol Environmental Impact &port 3.1-30 ~,~~,"~,_,~_",_",,"~__""~'~".'______"_"__~_"_~'.'_~'_",~~k~'~'.'._'_' - 3. 1 Traffic and Circttlation · Lowe's Home Improvement store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D 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 + potential Phase II plan. Since Brisbane 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/South San Francisco border were used as guidance to adjust future projections along Bayshore Boulevard in the vicinity of the Terrabay project. Year 2020 Base Case traffic projections also include development of the approved 665,000-square-foot office development on the Project site, in a manner similar to 2010 Base Case conditions. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-9 and 3.1-10. Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with one exception. AM Peak Hour .. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation PM Peak Hour · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows 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 Yerrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-31 !< z z It'l ~ R ..J o ~j ~ CO o 0" o CO -L~ o ._ <0 ,,~ :::r:o> ~ ~ ~<O <010 1; ~ & ~ ~ o -g~ ::> ~ ..80: -C:ll!: '80 <: -La " -~ "<t-. ;;; ~. r- o_ r:: .... ~ :2 ~ .If)AO-1;::/ o -L~ 00 00').... ('.IN.... It'l ..J+~ o -;:2; ,-~ 10 L.. - ~ '-:is ""'l t ~ :is:!:g (t)~,- PAlEl lJO lit -. PllffI aJDl/S es ~ co '" <]) "" t5 'Q; ;;; V; t.:!: o 0 ~ '" + L.. ~ '0; <:: <]) ;n ~ ~ :r: g. e 0:: " ill g M ., ~ t f. ~ ~ E-< ~ ~ iii II I- ~ en .J. -- tJ CIl.~ OJ 0 S l-< ;:i~ 'oS :> OJ OJ CIl CIl ro ro..c: U~ C'\ OJ >- I CIl ro. ~ro~ Cf)~l-< QJ l-< l-< l-< ;:i OJ 6bOE-; ..... ::r: '"d ~~~ OJ p.... ~ 0 ~~ o ;:i C"ol 0 oofj C"ol ..... ~ (z 10 0 0 <'? '<l" N N ;: !;: ...J .~ l.,. Lo o _<"l '<l" l"gJ N .., er r-bnqna 0101t'l CO ~ en N ~ (Q c: & ~ .l!l '" o l.tl It'l L 0 It'l I'- 0 It'l .CD It'l 0 L() N - CD '<l" ~ It'l -'<l" <'? Ol CO It'l ~ N N ...J l,.. LO t~ ...J + ("~ - (Xl l.,. LO Plt/8 Q/Ol/s..fe8 0 lI'l .., r- '" .., t ,.- PAI8 JjO IV It'l J <'? -. ~J "l" "l" ~ olt'l "'0'" LO - ",. <')~ 0-. I'-I'-CO (Q "l"<"l ~ 1.0 ~LO LO "'. It) 1?J- ~. .5 ~ .!!1 ~ ~ o <a o~",-J ,... "'l" ...J + l,. ~J LO I'- -+ N ~. '" -~ ~ t~ ..,r- 00 '<l"L() ~ <') L1.O <') 1.0 - CO OM l"~ IS UO!SS!W ..,t,.- 1.000 N~~ l! .!!1 CI) L() ~ Ol 0 ~ CD t l,. .~ CO t: .l!l d1 -2J ~ ;:f ~ !;- 8 0:: l'l W 5 '" '!il Ql 1:: '" 0 '" Cl.. ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ o en - +1. ....... -I-' U {J) OJ S '[ ::iP-. as :> OJ OJ {J) {J) ctl odE: ,.-.I OJ ;:.... I {J) ctl ~ctl,..Q Cf:lP=lctl OJ l-< ~ /004 ::l OJ 6hOE-< .... ~ "0 ~~OJ ctl {J) OJ 0 P-.g. ~P:: P-.-I-' o ::i N 0 00:5 N ..... ~ '-' - Standards of Significance for Project Impacts 3 .1 Traffic and Circulation on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical capacity limits. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2020 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 Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand about five to six car lengths longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through . and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than available storage (six car lengths longer for the left turn lane; two car lengths longer for the through/left turn lane and 15 car lengths longer (per lane) than available storage for the right turn lanes). The eastbound through lanes would have a storage demand about nine car lengths longer than available storage. PM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a demand about five car lengths greater (per lane) than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths greater than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and combined left/ through lanes would have storage demands from nine to 12 car lengths greater than available storage. IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County to determine when their Congestion Management Program policies and guidelines must be followed for new projects. Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqjeel Draft S IIjJpkmenlal Environmental Impacl Report 3.1-34 ___,_.....~~,.~......=...~"~,........._-'->~~....._'_~'~';o-. Project Trip Generation - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation · Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, Cor D to LOS E or F and volumes would be increased by at lest two 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 two 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. · Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway or a freeway ramp from LOS E to LOS F, 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. · The Project would not provide City code required parking. · 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 was developed using a multistage process standard to the traffic engineering profession when evaluating impacts from a multiuse development. The proposed Project will contain the following uses. · 2,038-seat multi-screen movie theater complex · 307,710 gross square-foot retail center · 295,500 gross square-foot office · 171 townhouse units · 180 highrise condominium units (condo tower) Project trip generation projections were developed as follows. Terrab'!Y Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-35 3 .1 Traffic and Circulation Gross Trip Generation Projections Gross trip generation was determined from each Project component using trip rates from the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Please see Appendix C Table C-5 for Project gross trip generation. Movie theater trip rates for a Friday rather than a midweek evening were used in order to provide a conservative evaluation. Internal Trip Capture A projection was next developed of the likely number of gross trips from each project component that would not occur as people would walk between uses rather than drive (i.e. residents going to/from retail/movie/ office uses, etc.). Elimination of some trips due to internal capture results in net new external trip generation due to the Project. Appendix C Tables C-6 and C-7 present the Project's AM and PM peak hour internal trip captures estimates as well as resultant net new external trips. Overall, after allowance for internal trips only, the proposed Project would be expected to result in the following net new trips traveling external to the Project site. AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 533 242 PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 762 989 Passby and Diverted Linked Trip Capture A certain level of traffic from some of the Project uses would likely be attracted from traffic already on the local surface street system or the U.S.101 freeway. The amount of capture would vary between the AM and PM peak hours. Based upon data contained in the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Gune 2004), Table 3.1-17 shows the levels of passby and diverted linked trip capture were used in the analysis. Passby capture would come from vehicles traveling along either Bayshore Boulevard or Sister Cities Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, while diverted linked trips would come from the U.S.l0l freeway or other surface streets within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. TABLE 3.1-17: PROJECT PASSBY AND DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips % Diverted % Diverted % Passby Linked Trip Net % Passby Linked Trip Net Use Capture Capture New Capture Capture New Movie Theater 0 0 100% 3 30 67% Retail 10 13 77% 20 35 45% Office 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Residential 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Source: Crane Transportation Group/Trip Generation Handbook (2004) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmenlal Environmental Impact &porl 3.1-36 Project Trip Distribution - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 show details of Project passby and diverted linked trip estimates. Net Change in Terrabay Phase III Net New Trip Generation: Proposed Versus Approved Use Table 3.1-18 presents the change in AM and PM peak hour net new external trip generation from the Terrabay Phase III site when comparing the currently proposed Project to the 665,000-square-foot office development previously approved. As shown, the currently proposed Project would result in an overall reduction of about 160 two- way trips during the AM peak traffic, but an increase of about 855 two-way trips during the PM peak hour. TABLE 3.1-18: TERRABAY PHASE III CHANGE IN PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CURRENTLY PROPOSED VERSUS APPROVED PROJECT AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 240 773 762 989 1751 Approved Project 818 113 931 153 745 898 Net Change- Proposed Vetsus (-285) +127 (-158) +609 +244 +853 Approved Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 present AM and PM peak hour distribution patterns for each component of Project traffic. Project office traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101 office/R&D development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 3.1-16). Project residential trip distribution patterns were based upon current AM and PM peak hour counts of traffic flow to/ from the existing Terrabay Phase I and II residential developments served by Sister Cities Boulevard and the Hillside Boulevard Extension. Project commercial and movie theater traffic distribution patterns were based upon market area projections by the Project applicant. Resultant weekday year 2010 Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-11 and 3.1-12, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-13 and 3.1-14, respectively. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S IIJ>pkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-37 (z N N -+- t- <Xl <Xl -L$ N 0 CO CO -+- OJ N OJ ('") N ~ + ~ U'l OJ _U'l ,-;: N Pll/fJ QIOI./SAeg 0:> ~ t ~ ~- ~ ,. '" ~ U'l j N_ '" OJ 0 t-~~ C\I~ ~ t- OJ N - ...-10...... ~. N<O ~. t- (0 ~. ,... -L~ o ~ (iI; ~ or- '" .J + ~ ~ Cii ~ al.1t anbnqna . t ~ ~og <Xl .... .... o t- _ t- t- .- ~ '- ~ ~ o ~- o CO U'l ",NI{) o>~OJ ~ + ~ ~ _ 10 .... ,fB to gJ ~- C') 10. N fl~t~ ~~~~ -~-- PlI1fJ lJO lit co ;;)N N l!) .; + ~ Cii II) ,!l1 G '- ~ II) i:i5 o ..,. g '" t.~ + ~ ~ '0; <:: ~ Uj ~ ]2 :f "0 5~ .8~ .t::th 1:::0 ~ (X) o _t- O> g- O 0:: 13 w c:: M ] ~ I i F:: '" ~ ~ LJ ~ !3 o tJ) +1. "E .gj '0' ~ l-<......... !-lp..,o '7+:>- ~ OJ l-< Cf') C/) ::i Q.I ctl 0 ~U::r:: .~~~ ~j:QOJ op.., ~~ !( z r- u:; -;:! (") -~ o U') U') .... -Lo N -r;; (D m_ ID r- .... It) 0'<1'<') <')....It) Ol -L~ r-_ gs r- g -.. JOl11Q 1:1 '" (D U')o coo", CDOC-N (") ..Jtl. U') '<I' N r- co .... ...... t ~ iii '" ~ C,) ~ ii; '<l' Cii (0 r- If) r- ..- '" -Sl U') ..~ t l. '" .12 '" '" J!! Qj .g 'lij "" 5: ~. / I ~ <5 ..Q S ~ f)~tr'" o to.... g (J) 1:J ~ pille IJO IV -+-N '<I' ..J t l. 12 j ~ 1 ~ M O>N_ r- _ It)N.... '" '<I' ~. -LC"l C"llt) __ OJ N It) ..~ is tlOISS!W ~ t ~ U') co :g N ~ ~ -Llri o co ..N t~ It) .... r- eo ~ o 0_ '<l' Ll). ..5 (X) f5 s: <5 o -J N (") r-'<l''<I' .Jtl. ~j ~- N ~. g. e c::: l:1 - 0:: W .,g '" ~ ; 8- ~ j <1l ~ ~ ~ l:l t- .. ~ o U) + tI ~ .~ S o ::i H...... t'l~O '7+> l""l Q) H . ctl ;::l Cf) cd 0 ~ U ::r: 6bQ)~ .1"4 ~cd ~r::oQ) o~ T'""l:2l ~~ CO"- ~~ co ~~ 0 - C"l I{) 1.0 0 N Olg 1.0 I{) "<t ..- 0 "<t _ CO +~ N a> ... ..- ..- ~ _"<t .;: ~ + ~ .'$ M plI/e QlO!JSAfle CO ~ t ~ M ~ ~ ~- ~ CO fl~ t ~ a> J ~- r::.J <'i C"l ..- ..- f'-- f'--..-"<t N..- f'-- ~- 0 NC"l 0 CO - "-1{)"- ~+ NCO ~+ f'-- CO Nf'-- 0 f'-- "<t C"l"<t ..- ~+ ~+ ..- N /'- C;; CO N on ~ + ~< Z f'-- ~~ -g .~ ~ ~t /'- CiS tol8~ <:: N & ..- '- Q) ~ o o ~ "<t g N ~ ~~t. ~ c:: ::! ~ :; o CI) pille /l ~ 5~ o III .QQ:: =Et::h ~o ~ ClJ ~ (.) '- .El .!(l CI) ~:53 O'l C"l 0 III "<t + t. c:: .~ 0.. ~ " .El e::: e U:1 jjj (.) 0: ~ C"l 0 <lJ 'J:l .. .!Q Ul 1:: <ll 8.. :t' s:: a.. ~ (ll ~ ,Q ~ ~ a; U I- ~ 0 en !'rI .}+ .. tIl U QJ .~ S 8.8 fI':lP-to '7+> l""j IV I-< fI':l tIl ::l IV ltl 0 I-<U:t .~~ ~ ~j:OQJ oP-t ~~ (z ~ ~ ~ N ;: ~ ...JJ.1. lDj g-+ N o. to .... In<"l.... ...JJ.L. ~~tco i'ii 13;J!; ~ :s N & .... ~ '" o .... .... -L~ -~ N In '<t 0 N In -~ <'? .... Q) <Xl 0 N Ii) -"" Q) CO .... N N ....J J. l. '<t f"g + f"~ In ...J L. P/\/8 aJOt{SAeg 0 ~ t ~ 0 ~ ~ (J) '<t fl~ t ~ ~j u;-+ ....-+ ~ ~J I'- Q)tON .... .... CO ""N In te-+ 0 C>>..-l.() '<t -+ U?N.... ~. <XlC"'l ~. I'- (J) COco CO l.O N .... N N U? Nl.O ~. ~. 0> o :8-+ ~. l:: .... -' .!!! .g ~ o <6 I'-CO<Xl-' r--l.()..q ...J+l. ~J lD I'- -+ N ~. to ..--~ .... f"~ ~,.. 0<') '<t<Xl .... '" <Xl N <Xl CO N .... ...J J. ~ i'ii .~ "" t) .Si '" In ii5 E N N (J) t L. l:: .S1 '" l:: J!l Uj ~ ~ ;f 11 Lo N -~ f"~ M ~ T' (C. nqna glDln o .... .... N '0 S o .0 :5 '" o II) PAIS 110 IV LtO p.. "" " - lD a: e CO [jj U 0(') C f"~ <'l 0 :t:l '" t IS UO!SS!W tll .<= ~ t ~ Cl. ~ >. <II ~ u'l MO .0 N MlD 11l ~ '<tN l: I- ~ <Jl - + .. tI) ~ QJ '0' S I-< ::l -:t4P-.'O '7+> ~ ~ ~ CJ (lj 0 I-< U :r: ::s CJ bOCI)~ ..... (lj . cd ~ ~ QJ oP-t ~~ Year 2020 Base Case + Project Intersection Geometries and Control Impact Overview 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Figure 3.1-15 presents year 2020 Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control. As shown, intersection geometrics and control are projected to remain the same at all locations with the exception of the three Project access driveway intersections along Bayshore Boulevard and the Project inbound access intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard. The proposed Project would generate more than 100 additional vehicular trips than the approved project. Approximately 855 + more trips would be generated during the PM peak hour. This would exceed CjCAG thresholds and would be a significant impact. However, this impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level through a TDM plan acceptable to C/CAG. For year 2010 conditions, the project would degrade operation at one intersection to unacceptable levels. This would be a significant impact, but conditions could be mitigated to a less than significant level. At the only intersection with Base Case LOS F operation, the project would reduce AM peak hour volumes and result in less than a two percent increase in PM peak hour volumes. This would be a less than significant impact. In addition, no freeway segment or ramp would receive a significant impact due to project traffic. The Project would, however, aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 and to produce unacceptable queuing at one location with acceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation would not be possible to reduce Project queuing impacts to a less than significant level. For year 2020 conditions, two intersections would receive significant impacts during the PM peak hour. Mitigation could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level at one, but not at the other location. In addition, the Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at one location where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable litnits and aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation would not be possible to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The Project would not result in significant impacts to either freeway mainline or ramp operations. A plan for on-site circulation management has not been proposed by the Project applicant. This could result in inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking, which is considered a potentially significant impact. However, mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. The Project would meet City parking code requirements, but without an on-site circulation management plan, various parking levels could have high demand and congestion while other levels would be consistently underutilized. This would also be a significant impact that could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Terrab'!)' Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-42 ,--------".........~~-~~~~".-----"-------~--" --. ~.,".._._N'_.___.._,,~____....,~,____.._,.,.__._,.~~_.,....~_.,,,,_____"_~,..,, ~.,_,_,.,'.._. ~._,.,~>>.~^'d_______'""'_,____~._' (2 .-- .-- r ~ ~,.. -r-<: -J .!l! i'l ~ 1~l.~ t- J lS UOfSS!W ... 4~ t :J ~ T T .JH ttt ~ (/) .S! D ~ .!!1 V) ll~ c:: .9 V) <: ..!!! Ui ~ ~ "" ~ t: 01 i:i5 0.. o (J') ~ (J') @[] (ij t: .Ql p^le /.10 IV ~ Cl 0:: = ill ~ M ~ ~ 8. & ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ o CJl ....... o .t:l i:: ..... 0 ~U .0' i:: 1-< 0 P-4'.l:l + ~ Lt') Q) ttl ~ ~ 1i1 l""lU..... ~. cri Q) ~ .. QJttl"'d ~ ~ ~ .~O ttl ~ ~.~ C'l.t:l ~ S o 0 I""'l Q) ~l? Q) i:: !tl ,....J 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures YEAR 2010 Impact 3.1.1 Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During the PM Peak Hour (5) The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than the approved 2000 Office Project during the PM peak hour (::1: 855 more trips during the PM peak hour than the approved 2000 Office Project). This requires that the proposed project follow C/CAG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of net new trips. Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/ or tenants will mitiga,te 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 3.1.1 The Project applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (IDM) program consistent v.rith the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, 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 C Table C-l0 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the ::1: 855 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. (LTS). Impact 3.1.2 Year 2010 Intersection Level of5ervice Impacts (5) All but two analyzed intersections 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, AM peak hour operation would improve v.rith a ::1:25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4%) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. . Provide a second left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities approach. Adjustments should also be provided, if needed, to the north curb line of Sister Terrabqy Phase III Prqjeel Draft S"Pplemental Emironmenlal Impa'1 &port 3.1-44 - 3. 1 Traffic and Circulation Cities Boulevard near the intersection to allow safe U-turn movements, which will be conducted by project drivers. . Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-38.2 seconds vehicle delay (LTS) Impact 3.1.3 Year 2010 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS) 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. For those segments projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in a net decrease in traffic. AM Peak Hour Southbound U.S.l0l (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 1.1 %. PM Peak Hour Northbound U.S.l0l (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 0.9%. Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1.3 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.4 Year 2010 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS) 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 Project would result in a net decrease in traffic. AM Peak Hour U.S.l01 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,145 down to about 1,940 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. PM Peak Hour U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes decreased from about 2,135 down to about 2,105 vehicles per hour, with operation remaining LOS F. Freeway ramp operation impacts would be less than significant. Terrab'!'J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-45 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 3.1.4 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.5 Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU) The proposed Project would not result in any unacceptable vehicle queuing at locations where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits, with one exception. In addition, project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010. AM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a :t 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a :t 135% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a :t6 percent increase in traffic and Base Case queuing would be extended beyond available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 1 01 Northbound On-Ramp. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through/left turn lanes would receive a :t 12% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing reduced due to the proposed Project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.101 Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard and the left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound on-ramp. Mitigation Measure 3.1.5 . Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City may also desire to add additional length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue and some vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes. The other proposed measure to improve level Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact Rtport 3.1-46 - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) · Ovster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.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 on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SU) YEAR 2020 Impact 3.1.6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts (SU) All but three analyzed intersections 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, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F but driver delay would decrease by about 20 seconds and volumes would decrease by about three percent. During the PM peak hour, operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent (1.1 %) during this time period, resulting in a less-than-significant impact at this location. However, Project traffic would produce significant impacts at two locations during the PM peak hour. At Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, operation would change from Base Case LOS C to Base Case + Project LOS F, and volumes would increase by more than two percent (10.7%). In addition, at the Bayshore/U.S.l01 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project access intersection, operation would change from LOS D to LOS F, with volumes increasing by more than two percent (5.6%). These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.1.6 · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard 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, which will be conducted by Project drivers. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay (LTS) · Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.l01 Southbound Hook Ramps/Proiect Access Scenario 1 Eliminate outbound Project movements at this intersection, while maintaining inbound flow. Transfer all outbound traffic flow to the Project's central driveway connection along Bayshore Boulevard. Terrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S npplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-47 3.1 T rciffic and Circulation Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection approach, if right-of-way is available. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D /E-55.0 seconds vehicle delay (L TS) Scenario 2 Eliminate all Project access (inbound or outbound) opposite the hook ramps. Transfer all movements to the central Project access. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-SO.9 seconds vehicle delay (L TS) Scenario 3 Maintain inbound and outbound flow to/from the Project access driveway. Provide a third lane on the Project driveway approach to Bayshore Boulevard. Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard approach, if right-of-way is available. The City of South San Francisco shall accept LOS F operation at this location one hour each weekday afternoon. In conjunction with this philosophy, provide actuated signal operation that will always clear the U.S.10l southbound off-ramp traffic to preclude backups to the freeway mainline. The added green time for the off-ramp will result in reduced green time (and potential longer backups) for the Project driveway intersection approach as well as the Bayshore Boulevard intersection approaches. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS F-90.6 seconds vehicle delay (SU) Impact 3.1. 7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS) The proposed Project would not result in any U.S.10l freeway segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact. No segment would receive more than a three-tenths of one percent traffic increase, and half the freeway segments would receive volume decreases (when comparing the proposed Project to the approved project). Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1.7 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS) 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 Project would result in either a net decrease or no measurable change in traffic. Terrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-48 ....~..~~.~-,,_.--.---,~'"""'-"""""""-~."'.._^._,.,.. ~,-,~,,,~--,~",,,,-,-,---~,-,,~-,~,--~,.","~"-"'-~"-'------~-~ 3. 1 Traffic and Circulation AM Peak Hour · U.S.l01 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,220 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. (LTS) PM Peak Hour · U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes decreased from about 2,990 down to about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. (LTS) · U.S.l01 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes increased less than one percent (0.7%) with the proposed Project. Operation would remain LOS F. (LTS) Mitigation Measure 3.1.8 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU) The proposed Project would produce unacceptable vehicle queuing at one location where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues to significant levels at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. AM Peak Hour Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection · The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a :t 9% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection · The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a :t 10.5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. · The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would receive a :t 24% increase in traffic and would experience unacceptable queuing. · The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a :t 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 1 01 Northbound On-Ramp · The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined left/through lanes would receive a :t 9% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Yerrabqy Phase III Prqject Draft S"Pplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-49 3.1 Traffic and Circulation It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing reduced due to the proposed Project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.l0l Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as left turns on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. Make each lane at least 200 feet long to accommodate the 50th percentile queue. The City may also desire to add additional length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue and some vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes. The other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l01 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 acceptable conditions. (SU) Impact 3.1.10 On-Site Circulation (S) The Project applicant has indicated that parking for all site uses will be equally accessible via all Project driveway connections to either Bayshore Boulevard (three connections) or to Sister Cities Boulevard (one inbound connection). Project residents and employees should quickly learn the easiest and most direct routes between their assigned parking areas and the driveway connections to the local street system. However, retail .customers, movie patrons and visitors to the residential and office uses who may not be that familiar with the multi-level parking garage will be confronted with numerous decisions when entering the site (by any driveway) in regards to which levels of the garage are available for parking (for their activity) as well as which level(s) of the garage will have the most available spaces. No plan has yet been provided by the applicant in regards to the type of "easy-to-read" and "real time information" system that will be provided along each entrance driveway and at each garage entry location to provide decision-making input to drivers. It is probable that a disproportionate number of drivers may opt to initially access surface (top level) parking rather than proceed into one of the lower garage levels. This could lead to a situation whereby the overall site has a sufficient number of parking spaces, but inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking may lead to pockets of congestion along certain parking aisles, while other areas of the garage remain mosdy empty. This would be a significant impact. Yerrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S upplemenlal Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-50 - 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 3.1.10 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS) Impact 3.1.11 Provision of On-Site Parking (S) Table 3.1-19 shows the parking to be provided by the proposed Project, which would meet City Municipal Code and/ or Terrabay Zoning Ordinance requirements. TABLE 3.1-19 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES Project Use Total Spaces Provided Total # of Vehicles Parked With Valet Parking Retail/Movie Theater Office Residential Units TOTAL 1,440 411 562 2,413 1,870 570 650 3,090 There is no available on-street parking within easy walking distance of the Project. Therefore, valet parking has been incorporated into the Project plan for peak use time periods. Valet parking would be expected to increase total on-site parking supply by about 28 percent. In addition, for times of peak parking demand, valet stations will be in contact with each other to provide real time information about space availability. In the rare instances when demand will exceed parking supply (even with valet parking), the valet service shall immediately inform drivers that no parking is available on the site (on a temporary basis) to prevent drivers from wandering from floor to floor in the parking garage. The different Project uses will have their peak parking demands occurring at different times of the day and evening on weekdays and on weekends. For example, office activities will have their peak parking demand on weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, with little use on weekday evenings or on weekends; retail uses will have their peak parking demands on weekday afternoons into the early evening and on weekend afternoons; while the movie theater will have its peak parking demand during evenings, Yerrabf!)l Phase III Project Droft S upplementa! Environmental Impact &porl 3.1-51 3.1 Traffie and Circulation particularly on Friday and Saturday night. This will allow shared use of the same parking stalls for office, retail and movie activities. As previously detailed within the "Internal Circulation" section, no plan has yet been provided by the applicant detailing how retail and movie patron drivers will be quickly guided to the various levels of the parking garage to find available parking. Even with the total on-site parking supply meeting City code and Terrabay ordinance requirements, if clear and real time parking space information is not transmitted to drivers, there is the possibility that certain levels of the garage (particularly the surface parking) will always have high demand and congestion (even during non-peak parking demand times), while other areas of the parking garage will be consistently underutilized. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.1.11 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet stations. Allleve1s of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS) Terrab'!J Phase III Pro/eel Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-52 _^_._.."..,",._......M_..M_..__.-'" . --_.~".."_..,~,~-.._..~-~.,---_...~,----' - 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING Air Pollution Climatology The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Air Quality Standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EP A) to identify air quality standards. California has also adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for some pollutants. Table 3.2-1 summarizes current state and national standards. Ambient Air Quality The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 3.2-2 summarizes Yerrab'!)' Phase III Project Droft Suppkmental Emironmental Impact &port 3.2-1 3.2 Air Quality exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. Table 3.2-2 shows that TABLE 3.2-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Averaging Time Pollutant Ozone I-Hour 8-Hour 8-Hour I-Hour J\nnualAverage I-Hour Annual Average 24-Hour I-Hour Annual Average 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour Calendar Quarter 30 Day Average 24 Hour Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide PM10 PM2.5 Lead Sulfates Hydrogen Sulfide I-Hour Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour PPM = Parts per Million Ilg/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Federal Primary Standard State Standard 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM 0.08 PPM 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM 0.05 PPM 0.25 PPM 0.03 PPM 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM 0.25 PPM 50 f-lg/ m3 20 flg/m3 150 f-lg/m3 50 f-lg/ m3 15 flg/m3 12 f-lg/m3 65 f-lg/ m3 1.5 flg/ m3 1.5 f-lg/ m3 25 f-lg/m3 0.03 PPM 0.01 PPM Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards r /9 /03) http://www.arb.ca.g-ov.aqs/ aaqs2.pdf most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception of the state standard for PMlO and ozone. The federal ozone standard is also exceeded in other parts of the Bay Area air basin. Attainment Status The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas ". Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay is currendy a nonattainment for i-hour ozone standard. However, in April 2004, U.S. EP A made a fInal finding that the Bay Area has attained the national i-hour ozone standard. The fInding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has been reclassifIed as an attainment area for the I-hour standard. The region must submit a re-designation request to EP A in order to be reclassifIed as an attainment area. Yerrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S uppkmentaL Environmental Impoct &porl 3.2-2 Standards of Significance - 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-2: AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD, CITY, 2002-2004 Days Standard Exceeded Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site 2002 2003 2004 Ozone Federal 1- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 1 Ozone Federal 8- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 PMlo Federal 24- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 PMlo State 24-Hour San Francisco 4 1 1 Redwood City 1 0 1 PM25 Federal 24- San Francisco 4 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Carbon State/Fed. San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2005. (http:/ /www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-hin/adamtop/d2wstart) The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable/ attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards. Under the CaliforrUa Clean Air Act San Mateo County is a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: · Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site · A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. · A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Yerrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.2-3 3.2 Air Quality Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM10. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. . Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. . Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PMlO exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMlO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. Impact Overview Air quality impacts of the project were analyzed in Chapter 4.5 of the 1998/99 SEIR and in the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. This chapter re-examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds based on the current Terrabay Phase III Project description, utilizes updated methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic forecasts that reflect changes in roadway improvements and travel patterns that have occurred since certification of the earlier EIRs. This supplement also accounts for changes in the regulatory standards since certification of the previous EIRs. The Project would generate air pollutant emissions during construction and operation. Operational emissions would primarily be from the generation of vehicle trips. This analysis is intended to meet the requirements of the BAAQMD's guidance for environmental documents (BAAQMD 1996). It addresses the impacts of the project during construction as well as operational impacts on both the local and regional scale. Carbon monoxide concentrations would slightly increase but would not exceed state/ federal ambient air quality standards. The Project would result in regional emission increases that are significant and unavoidable as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Impact 3.2.1 Construction activities would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PM1Il' (5). Construction activities would generate dust, especially during excavation and grading of hillsides and hauling of material. This type of activity has the potential to affect local air Yerrab'!J' Phase III Project Draft S IIjJpkmental Emironmental Impact &porl 3.2-4 - 3.2 Air Quality quality temporarily, as well as create a nuisance to existing and new residents. The primary pollutant of concern is PMlO which is a component of dust. Dust emissions would be generated primarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movement of material (both on- and off-site). This would be a potentially significant impact. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR required the implementation of the following construction mitigation measures: · All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. · All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). · Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. · Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. · Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph) · Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. · Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). · Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. · Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction Yerrab'!)' PhoJe III Prqject Draft S "/JPkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.2-5 3.2 Air Quality site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or installation of wind fences). . Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions warrant, to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site. . The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at anyone time. . A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. According the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. (LTS) Impact 3.2.2 The Project would change traffic volumes and congestion levels, changing carbon monoxide concentrations. This is a less-than-significant impact. (LTS) On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site. Carbon monoxide concentrations under worst-case meteorological conditions have been predicted for the two signalized intersections most impacted by project traffic. Peak hour traffic volumes were applied to the a screening form of the CALINE-4 dispersion model to predict maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations near these intersections for existing conditions and project conditions in the years 2010 and 2020. Appendix E provides a description of the model and a discussion of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis. The model results were used to predict the maximum 1- and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Yerrabqy Phase III Project Draft SHjJplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.2-6 3.2 Air Quality Table 3.2-3 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak I-hour and 8- hour traffic periods in parts per million (pPM). The 1-hour values are to be compared to the federall-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8- hour values in Table 3.2-3 are to be compared to the state and federal standard of 9 PPM. TABLE 3.2-3: PREDICTED CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS, IN PARTS PER MILLION Forecast Concentration Intersection Scenario 8-Hour Concentration 1-Hour Concentration Sister Cities/ Bayshore/ Airport/ Oyster Point Existing (2005) Base Case (2010) Base Case + Project (2010) Base Case + AIt 1 (2010) Base Case + AIt 2 (2010) Base Case (2020) Base Case + Project (2020) Base Case + Alt 1 (2020) Base Case + AIt 2 (2020) Existing (2005) Base Case (2010) Base Case + Project (2010) Base Case + Alt 1 (2010) Base Case + Alt 2 (2010) Base Case (2020) Base Case + Project (2020) Base Case + AIt 1 (2020) Base Case + Alt 2 (2020) Bayshore/ SB 101 Ramps Most Stringent Standard 8.1 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.3 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 6.1 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 20.0 5.8 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 9.0 Table 3.2-3 shows that Project traffic would increase concentrations by up to 0.2 PPM, but concentrations would remain below the most stringent state or federal standards. Concentrations with project would not exceed the state/federal ambient air quality standards_ Since project traffic would not cause any new violations of the 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide, nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation, project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less- Yerrab'!)' Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 3.2 Air Quality than-significant, confIrming the conclusions of the 1998/99 SEIR and the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.2.2 None required. Impact 3.2.3 The project would result in a regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMo. (SU) Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model. The URBEMIS-2002 model and the conditions assumed in its use are described in Appendix E. The incremental daily emission increases associated with project operational trip generation are identified in Table 3.2-4 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM10, Also shown are the emission estimates from the 1998/99 SEIR. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds of significance for these pollutants are also shown. TABLE 3.2-4: PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY Scenario ROG NOx PMI0 1998 SEIR Emissions for Phase III 46 97 92 94 104 105 Project Emissions Difference +51 +2 +1 BAAQ:NID Threshold of Significance 80 80 80 The 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR concluded that full build out of the T errabay Plan would result in emissions of ozone precursors and PM10 exceeding 150 pounds per day which, at that time, was the significance threshold. Subsequently, the BAAQMD has adopted stricter signifIcance thresholds of 80 pounds per day for each regional pollutant. The 1998/99 SEIR found that regional pollutant emissions (based on the URBEMIS-5 program) from full buildout of the proposed Terrabay Plan would exceed 80 pounds per day for each of the pollutants. Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 3.2-4 would exceed those calculated for the 1998 SEIR, and Phase III emissions alone would exceed the thresholds of significance for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PMlO. This would constitute a significant impact to regional air quality. Terrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S "Ppkmental Environmental Impact &porl 3.2-8 3.2 Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3.2.3 Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. This mitigation measure addressed office and retail uses on the Phase III portion of the site and office, retail and residential on the Phase II and Phase III portions of Terra bay. The proposed Project would include residential uses as well. The following are additional mitigation measures to be applied to the retail portions of the Project: . Provide electric vehicle charging stations. . Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/ or community-wide network. . Provide secure and conveniendy located bicycle storage. . Provide preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles. . Implement feasible TDM measures including a ride-matching program, coordination with regional ride sharing organizations and provision of transit information. . Construct transit amenities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc. . Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent development. The above measures reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions by 5-10%. This would not provide the 24% reduction in emissions needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant, so Project impacts would remain significant after implementation of mitigation measures. Yermb'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &porl 3.2-9 Fundamentals of Noise 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3 NOISE SETIING Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and it is commonly measured with a sound level meter. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting fIlter is used. A weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high- frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EP A, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is commonly used when the A weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lma.x) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a train passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to one hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Lin) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a ten dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a fIve dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of three dBA is considered a just noticeable difference. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A ten dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. Noise Measurements To quantify the existing noise environment two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements and four short-term (15-minute) noise measurements were made. The locations were chosen to represent the location of noise sensitive project uses and existing noise sensitive receivers that may be affected by Project generated noise. Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of short-term and long-term noise measurements. Yerrab'!)' Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.3-1 ! tll\ \ I 'II \. iI, ; \n !\!11l\ \\ J I " Jp\\il\!\W,1 \ \ 'hll!!!!!I!!I! V. j~. .1\\\. \ i\\\. r,! \. \ \ \ 1\ !~\\ \\\ Il~ \ I,. I\'j\\ 11 l. U~ \. ! 1 t. '\q"l " d\!\ni;~H' 1.1.... Ii \I \...~,d \.1\. ! f 11,I!l\!lq;!\ 11H\I\l!\!l.\ 1\\ \ \ \I\\U \ 'It 11\\.' '11.1 .( I, II " . J\\\\\~\\\~ !~ Illll! '.~.uq \ '\" \ll\V'! HI! \\1.1\\ j ill: !j \ I II i l \ I,. 1 \ij\.. 11'. iI., I r"l. Ii i! ,; I ill i \ np~ lil il i 1..li: '.11.1\',\ !II I"]'! I " , I . i'I' 1'1 :'. .\ i! . I , .! i l~' 1'1' II! 11 !i" .'; \ \ 1.1. J l ~.ll.. I: I ~ I lit,:" '.j' .111.1.. J 11 d l\\,' !I" ", 'Il )11/1'1' \ II i it II p-y,"* I d!/J i i! I ~., I! i.i.i. J Ii. 1...,1 I \ j' Jr ! I re iI~IIII" f jl ,1, Ii . . I ,)'! I! t iI, 41' I ,j I i "jll[:,';,'/ ....~i I ' :,_.;:~.~~ ~, .. ,...~..~~ -t.. .....-...;;: '. ,'" "'" ........... '... ....... < I~.., :::j:: 1" ' ~ ~''j'~~..... j .. '}/.i 1111l~-J ~ , 11}1' 'IJ : l:::t., 0 f_ I en - - - ~ !:: o ~ co u o ","....3 I .... (f') !:: . Cl) ..t. ~ S .. l-I Cl) 6h~ ..... ~ ~ co Cl) ~ Cl) ~ ..... o Z 3.3 Noise Figure 3.3-2 shows the results of the long-term noise measurements; and Table 3.3-1 shows the results of the short-term noise measurements. FIGURE 3.3-2: LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS, 10-11 MAY 2005 80 <( !g 70 ____ Location A, CNEL 76 dBA 60 ...::; 01' ::!. Qj > Q) .....I Q) rJl '0 Z ~ 40 ~ Q) > <( >. "t:: :J o :r: 50 30 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 r- eo a; 0 ~ N C') 0 N C') "<t I.C) <0 r- eo en 0 ~ N C') "<t I.C) <0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Time of Day TABLE 3.3-1: SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Location Date/ A-weighted Sound Level, dBA Time Leq L10 L33 Lso ~o CNELa 1 On hillside at edge 5/10/05 of bench. 610ft. from centerlirie of 15:30 - 70 72 71 70 69 76 US 101. 15:45 2 South corner of site near proposed 5/10/05 office tower. 300 ft. 16:00 - 73 74 73 73 72 78 from centerline of 16:15 US 101. 3 On hillside near north end of site. 5/10/05 460 feet from 16:30 - 70 72 71 70 68 75 centerline of 16:45 US 101. 4 Near existing 5/11/05 townhomes on 15:32 - 60 62 61 60 58 66 Mandalay PI. 15:47 a L.in based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at long-term measurement location. Termbqy Phase III Pro/ut Draft S "Pplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.3-3 Regulatory Framework - 3.3 Noise The dominant noise source during the measurements was traffic on US 101. Other noise sources include traffic on Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard as well as aircraft. Noise from road construction was audible at times but did not contribute significantly to the CNEL. Traffic. The freeway is depressed in a cut adjacent to the site. As a result, locations close to the freeway and at the bottom of the hillside (e.g. Location A) are somewhat shielded from freeway noise by the terrain. Locations on the hillside (e.g. Location 1) have a direct view of the freeway and do not benefit from the acoustical shielding. This acoustical shielding is the reason that the CNEL at Location A is the same as Location 1 even though Location A is much closer to the freeway. The CNELs at Locations B and Location 1 differ by two dBA because Location B was setback from the edge of a level "bench" area and benefited from acoustical shielding provided by the existing terrain. Location 1 was at the edge of the bench and did not have this acoustical shielding. Aircraft. Noise from aircraft departing San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) was clearly audible at times. Based on the long term noise measurement data, the maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lm..,:) from jet flyovers were up to 80 dBA. There were a total of six jets that generated an Lmax greater than 75 dBA. These overflights were likely from aircraft using either the Shoreline or Porte departure routes. Because the events are relatively infrequent, the jet noise did not significantly contribute to the measured CNEL. - Yearly average noise levels from aircraft activity are quantified in noise contour maps that are published by San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Neither the existing nor the future CNEL 60 dBA contour reaches the Project site (SFIA 2001). City of South San Francisco The City's General Plan Noise Element contains Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas (General Plan Table 9.2-1). These criteria consider residential land use to be "satisfactory" when exposed to aircraft noise of CNEL 65 dBA or less. This is consistent with the criteria of the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. For addressing traffic noise the Noise Element has the following implementing policies: 9-1-4. Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. Yerrabay Phare III Prqjeet Draft S IIppl,mental Emironmental Impact &port 3.3-4 3.3 Noise 9-I-5. Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design 0 f mitigation measures. 9-I-6. Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. The City of South San Francisco has Noise Regulations in its Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32). These regulations address land uses that produce noise by specifying property line noise limits and interior noise limits. The regulations also address construction noise. State of California The California Noise Insulation Standards (CBC Section 1208A.8.2) require new multi- family residential project to provide in interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA or less due to exterior sources. An acoustical report is required for new developments with in the CNEL 60 dBA contour. The report must specify what measures will be used to achieve the interior noise level requirement. If the windows need to be in the closed position to meet this requirement, then an alternate form of ventilation must be provided to maintain a habitable environment when the windows are closed for noise control. Aircraft Noise (San Mateo County ALUC and State An 2776). The current Airport. Land Use Policy Plan was adopted by the San Mateo County ALUC in 1996. The ALUC Plan also contains noise contour maps and aircraft noise/land use compatibility standards. In 2004, The California Assembly adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires disclosure of all eXisting and proposed- airports within two statute miles of a residential subdivision. The disclosure documents must also include a statement regarding noise from aircraft overflights if the subdivision is located within an Airport Influence Area (AIA). According to discussion with ALUC staff (Carbone 2005), the Project site is not within the AIA which is generally the same as the FAR Part 77 outer boundary configuration and CNEL 65 dBA contour. However, Staff did note that under certain wind conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly directly over the site when using the Shoreline departure route. Yerrab'!)' Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact fuport 3.3-5 -; 3.3 Noise - IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of The Project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: Significance 1. Generate construction noise levels in excess of the limits contained the City of South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (8.32.050). This regulation states that construction equipment shall not produce a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment or at any point outside the property plane. 2. Expose Project uses to noise levels greater than those considered satisfactory by the criteria of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan or expose residential uses to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA. The impact would be less-than-significant if the noise level inside Project homes does not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA due to exterior noise sources (CBC Section 1208A.8.2 and South San Francisco General Plan). - 3. Expose existing noise sensitive land use to an increase in CNEL of more than five dBA; or greater than three dBA and not more than five dBA if the future noise level will be greater than considered satisfactory for the receiving land use according to South San Francisco Noise Element (Table 9.2-1). Noise level increases of 3 dBA or less in the CNEL are considered less than significant regardless of the noise level at the receiving land use. 4. Expose existing or project land uses to noise from stationary sources such as mechanical equipment in excess of the noise levels standards contained in the City of South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (Table 8.32.030). Impact Overview The noise analysis evaluates potentially significant noise impacts associated with the proposed Project. While the development program has been modified from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Project impacts would be similar. Temporary construction impacts are considered less than significant. Exposure of residential development to traffic noise is considered a significant impact. Detailed design of the commercial buildings is not available at this time, therefore, the extent of noise generated from mechanical equipment (e.g. ventilation and air conditioning) cannot be determined. Noise from the mechanical systems of commercial development is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.3.1 Construction noise would temporarily result in increases in noise. (LTS) The noisiest construction activities are typically those associated with grading and foundation work. During these phases there are heavy diesel equipment such as trucks, graders, loaders and scrapers. A rock drill and hoe-ram may be used as part of Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmenta! Environmental Impact &port 3.3-6 3.3 Noise excavation and retaining wall. Pile driving or blasting are not expected to be necessary. Figure 3.3-3 shows the expected noise levels from the various types of equipment. Hoe-ram noise levels are comparable to the rock-drill noise levels shown in Figure 3.3-3. FIGURE 3.3-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVEL (66Al AT 50 FT $0 70 80 90 100 110 COMPACTC((t { ROtURSl H fRONT l.OAtenS . . <It . . w ;z: ..., ;; z BACKl!OES % ;;: l&j 0 % :l! TR/lCl0HS 0 .x: . j::: .... '" 0:: . ::> <l SCRAf'EIIS. t,nAOtiRS --. 1Il W lE 0 I'AVEFiS H u ,J <'l . :z: TrtUC1<.S ,. II: W .... " . :: z CONCrlfTt; Mlr.CllS . :i ~ 0 Q ~ CONCRETE PVMI"$ H ... :r 0:: 1Il . . w <t CRAIIES (MOVABL!!) ~ ii: . . 0 Go W I- ~ CRA"'ES (PEllfllCl<1 H z :l1 w ::E 1:;:' PUMPS .~ ll. :5 <'l 0 % . 0 ... ~ GENERATORS , l- . <Il COM PRES sons . 1 .... PNEUMATIC WRENCHES l--I ...% uW ot;E JACK HAMMERS ANO ROCK ORILLS I , ll.c.. :z- -:> . D PILE ORIVERS (PEAKS) '" . c: VIBRATOR .l<J x l- I, 0 SAWS I' The nearest noise sensitive receivers are the existing single-family homes across Sister Cities Boulevard and the new townhomes that are part of Phase II of the Terrabay development. The single-family homes are at least 100 feet from the limit of grading and about 250 feet from the nearest proposed building. At these distances the grading noise levels are at least six dBA quieter, and the foundation work would be at least 14 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2. The townhomes are at least 200 feet from the limit of grading and about 300 feet from the nearest proposed building. At these distances the grading noise levels will be at least 12 dBA quieter and the foundation work would be at least 16 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2. Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S "PPkmental Emironmental Impact &port 3.3-7 - 3.3 Noise Though there will be times when construction noise is clearly audible at the nearest residences, it is not expected to regularly exceed the 90 dBA limit in the City's Municipal Code. Most of the time, noise from construction activities will tend to blend in with the ambient freeway noise. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR is adequate to address any construction related noise. The mitigation that will be carried forward requires construction scheduling, mufflers and maintenance of equipment, idling prohibitions, equipment location and shielding and a "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" . Mitigation Measure 3.3.1 No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.3.2 Exposure to Aircraft Noise (LTS) The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain . situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft may fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City could consider adding a requirement that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that a disclosure statement be included in residential deeds. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. Mitigation Measure 3.3.2 No mitigation required. Impact 3.3.3 The Project residential development would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City of South San Francisco Noise Element. (5) Measured noise levels on the site range from a CNEL of74 dBAto 78 dBA and are dominated by freeway.traffic. Based on future freeway traffic volume projections, noise level could increase by up to two dBA by the year 2020. Based on the latest site plan, most of the land uses nearest the freeway are commercial including offices, retail and a multiplex cinema. The city does not have spe'cific standards for commercial development exposed to traffic noise. According to the city's Noise Element, exposure of commercial land uses to a CNEL of70 to 80 dBA, "requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed." Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings. This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of 65 dBA to 70 dBA. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. Terrab'!)' Phase III Pro/eel Draft S uppkmental Emironmenlal Impact &port 3.3-8 3.3 Noise The proposed residential tower would be about 400 feet from the centerline of US 101. The future CNEL at this residential land use would be up to 79 dBA for the upper. levels that have a full view of the freeway. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 Acoustical studies shall be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with State and City of South San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies should be prepared during the architectural design of the Project. In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard should be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significant level. Impact 3.3.4 There would be an increase in traffic noise. (S) The expected increase in traffic noise due to Project generated traffic was calculated based on the traffic projections (Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation). The Project would increase noise by one dBA or less along Sister Cities Boulevard. In the year 2020, traffic volume increases along Sister Cities Boulevard are expected to increase traffic noise by up to three dBA. However, the contribution from Project generated traffic results in an increase of less than one dBA. Since the threshold for a significant impact is an increase of greater than three dBA, the Project and cumulative noise increases result in less-than- significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.3.4 . The Project shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. (L TS) Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqjul Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.3-9 - 3.3 Noise Impact 3.3.5 Project Generated Mechanical Equipment Noise. (5) Since the Project involves mixed use development, there is the potential for stationary noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect the noise sensitive residential uses. The most likely sources of noise impact would be from outdoor mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. At this time not enough is known about the design of the commercial buildings to prepare estimates of mechanical equipment noise at the residences. This is a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5 Require noise control treatments to meet the Municipal Code performance standards. During the design of the commercial buildings a qualified acoustical consultant shall review the Project for conformance with the maximum permissible sound levels in the city's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night at multiple-family residential uses. (LTS) - Yerrab'!J Phase III P,,!/ect Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 3. Environmental S effing, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES SETTING This section evaluates public services and utilities related to development at the Project site, including police and fire protection services, schools, water supply, wastewater disposal and treatment, and storm drainage. As part of this analysis, individual service and utility providers were contacted and provided with information regarding the proposed Project. Police Protection The City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is at 33 Arroyo Drive, Suite C in South San Francisco. SSFPD provides crime prevention, protection, and apprehension services for the Project site. They are also responsible for enforcement of . traffic safety. The SSFPD has 113 persons, including 79 sworn police officers. The sworn officer-to- population ratio is approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.16 officers per 1,000 residents involved in field activities and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents. To provide adequate service for cumulative development, SSFPD's goal is to have approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.18 officers per 1,000 residents involved in field activities, and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents. The SSFPD has an average of 40,000 calls annually, with a daytime population of about 100,000 and a nighttime population of about 67,000 (Sergeant Normandy 2005). The SSFPD has four beats. The Project site is located within Beat #4. There are three, ten-hour work shifts assigned to each beat, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The shifts overlap, with the most overlap coverage from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with six to nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units, available for back-up and overlap. The SSFPD has 31 marked police units, which includes 19 patrol units, four police service technician units, five motorcycles, two parking enforcement vehicles, and a S.W.A.T. response vehicle (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Response times depend on the type of call and the location of the officers at the time the call is dispatched. SSFPD prioritizes crimes against people over property crimes. Police officers are usually in the field at the time a call for service is received. The average response time throughout the City of South San Francisco is about five to six minutes (Sergeant Normandy 2005). The SSFPD uses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles for projects. The three CPTED Principles are Natural Access Control, Natural Surveillance, and Territorial Reinforcement, to aid in the creation of Defensible Yerrab'!J Phase III Prqiect Draft S "ppkmental Emlironmental Impact Report 3.4-1 - 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Space. The SSFPD utilizes an integrated Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) Philosophy and approach. The Community Relations Sergeant and COPPS Coordinator oversee programs to inform the public on safety and quality of life concerns, including Neighborhood Meetings, Homeowners Association Meetings, Neighborhood Watch Meetings, Press Releases, Neighborhood Walking Patrols, Business Owner Meetings, and Intranet and Crime Watch web sites (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Fire Protection The City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response services for the Project site. SSFPD operates five fire stations with a fire-fighting staff of 70, two ambulances and crew. They are operating at their limit for personnel and equipment. Station 55, at 1151 South San Francisco Drive, is the primary responder to the Project site and Station 62, at 249 Harbor Way, is the secondary responder. Estimated response time from both Station 55 and Station 62 is five minutes. Station 61 responds with the unit from Station 65 because Station 65 is understaffed. Station 61 will relocate further from the Project site at the end of 2005 and will have a response time of up to seven minutes. There is an automatic response agreement with other fire departments in San Mateo County to provide mutual aid (Captain Niswonger 2005). The first arriving engine company to the Project site would be staffed with three personnel. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 requires that a minimum staffing of four personnel respond to emergency calls (Captain Niswonger 2005). The San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center in Redwood City handles fire unit and paramedic communications for SSPFD. Within the City of South San Francisco, some high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures designed with concrete and steel have experienced poor on-site signal strength. Portable radio devices used to contact the San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center have also experienced reception problems. During an emergency (medical, hazardous material, and fIre) it is required that communication systems be operational, for the safety of building occupants and firefighters (Captain Niswonger 2005). Schools The Brisbane School District (BSD) provides elementary and middle school services, kindergarten through 8th grade, to students in the Project area. Jefferson Union High School District OUHSD) provides high school services. The Brisbane School District (BSD) provides elementary and middle school education for students who live within the district and students outside the district, as capacity permits. Currently, more students are transferring into BSD than transferring out. The BSD operates three schools, two in the City of Brisbane and one in the City of Daly City (Waterman 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S "Pplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-2 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Students in the Project area attend Brisbane Elementary School, with a capacity of 240 and Lipman :Middle School, with a capacity of 270 (Schoolhouse Services 2001). In 1997, when the BSD reduced kindergarten to third grade class sizes, the capacity of Brisbane Elementary School significantly decreased. During 2004 to 2005, the enrollment was 210 students at Brisbane Elementary School and 214 students at Lipman :Middle School (Waterman 2005). Typically, within five years from completion of a new residential development, BSD will experience significant enrollment effects. Brisbane Elementary School is now experiencing enrollment increases as a result of the most recently completed phase of the Terrabay Project. When students from Terrabay Phase III enroll, cumulatively the entire Terrabay development would require two additional classrooms at Brisbane Elementary School and approximately 30 new students would be accommodated at Lipman School. It will cost approximately $600,000 to add two modular classrooms to Brisbane Elementary School (Waterman 2005). The JUHSD is a "district of choice" with open enrollment. This allows students, including those living in the Terrabay Point and Commons neighborhoods, to attend any of the schools, Jefferson and Westrnoor High Schools in Daly City, and Oceana and Terra Nova High Schools in Pacifica. Students in the Terrabay Project would normally be within the traditional boundaries of Jefferson High School (Crilly 2005). The JUHSD, using proceeds from a local bond, modernized schools during the last seven years. The JUHSD converted many existing classroom spaces to computer labs, and reconfigured classrooms to accommodate lower class sizes in English and mathematics at the freshmen level, as encouraged by the State. Jefferson High School also reduced class size in literacy classes, further impacting existing space. While these configurations essentially occurred within the footprint of the schools, they reduced the capacities of the schools. As a result of class size reduction and the need for multiple computer labs at each school, the same space has the capacity to serve fewer students. Westrnoor High School is the only school that increased in capacity, the result of additional portable classrooms (Crilly 2005). As of September 2004, the JUHSD had 5,437 students including 5,245 students assigned to four high schools and 192 in continuation education, independent study or other programs based at the district office or other facilities. Jefferson High School has a capacity of 1,450 students (an enrollment of 1,295 students in the 2004 to 2005 school year), Oceana High School has a capacity of 900 students (an enrollment of 697 students), Terra Nova High School has a capacity of 1,500 students (an enrollment of 1,440 students), and Westrnoor High School has a capacity of 1,750 students (an enrollment of 1,820 students). These school capacities represent 92% of actual space Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-3 - 3.4 Public Services and Utilities and assume use of classrooms for five periods per day but do not include additional special use rooms. While student population has increased in Daly City and other areas in the eastern portion of the District, coast-side schools (Terra Nova High School and Oceana High School) on the western side of the District have accommodated student growth (Crilly, 2005). Water Supply California Water Service Company (CWSC) will serve the Project. The connection is immediately in front of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) has two main transmission pipelines in Bayshore Boulevard, Crystal Springs No.1 (48-inch diameter) and Crystal Springs No.2 (60-inch diameter). CWSC has an 8-inch pipe and a 12-inch pipe from the connection point to CWSC's pump station (located within the Project boundary), which are part of the water supply system designed and built to serve the Terrabay Project. (Corlett 2005) CWSC provides potable water to the City of South Francisco. CWSC also serves Colma, a portion of Daly City, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, known as Broadmoor. CWSC purchases most of its water supply from the SFWD. CWSC owns and operates the storage and distribution system that conveys water from the SFWD aqueducts. Applications for new water service are processed through CWSC (Bolzowski 2005). CWSC distributes water through three principal service districts, which have separate distribution and supply connections to the San Francisco Aqueduct. In the South San Francisco Service District, CWSC normally draws water from turnouts on two of the three SFWD aqueducts that run through South San Francisco. CWSC maintains a turnout on the third aqueduct in the event of an interruption in flow on the other two connections. CWSC also has wells that supply about 10 to 15 percent of total demand. The wells are not in production due to a demonstration project with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Bolzowski 2005). CWSC's Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP). states that water demand throughout the South San Francisco Service District in 2002 was 8.55 million gallons per day (mgd). The U'W'11P bases growth on the amount of services within the district for five and ten years. The servkes had a steady growth since 1970, and projects almost 22,000 services in 2030. The UW"MP used the 10-year growth rate for the service amount, multiplied by the demand per service, to estimate water demand. CWSC addresses the potential water shortages for the future in the district UWMP, the Water Supply Assessment for Land Use/Transportation Corridor Plan and Bay Meadows II Specific Plan, City of San Mateo. Water planning for cumulative development will also be addressed in the Water System and Facilities Master Plans for the three water districts (Bolzowski 2005). - Terrab'!'J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.4-4 3.4 PublicS ervices and Utilities Wastewater Wastewater Collection An existing lO-inch diameter sanitary sewer pipeline runs east along Sister Cities Boulevard and joins the newly constructed lO-inch sanitary sewer line that runs south in Bayshore Boulevard at the intersection of the two streets. The 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer line was sized and installed specifically for the Project as part of the Bayshore Boulevard Hook Ramps Project. The existing lO-inch line is stubbed and ready for connection to the Project at the main entrance. Further downstream, the City's sanitary sewer system was designed to accommodate wastewater flows from the entire Terrabay Project. An existing 16-inch sanitary sewer line continues south along Airport Boulevard. This line was constructed in 1991 for the sole use of the Terrabay development. This is documented in the plans, Terrabqy Development Olfsite Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project, dated February 1990. CREM Engineers prepared the plans as City-required off-site improvements for the first phase of the Terrabay development. It joins the City's 27-inch trunk sewer line at North Canal Street, which runs to the San Mateo Pump Station and then to the treatment plant. The peak discharge (per City sewage generation standards) is approximately 0.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Sister Cities Boulevard and 0.7 cfs from Bayshore Boulevard (The Terraces), for a total of 1.3 cfs. The pipe immediately downstream of Sister Cities Boulevard is a 16-inch diameter ductile iron at a slope of 0.24%, with a capacity of approximately 3.5 cfs. Its capacity will accommodate the total peak discharge from the Terrabay development with the pipe flowing approximately half full. The pipe size and slope do not decrease downstream, so the system maintains this capacity to the City truck sewer at North Canal Street. (Corlett 2005) The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department will review the Project's wastewater system plans and the Department's requirements and standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sanitary sewer system (White 2005). Wastewater Treatment Wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (wQCP), located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The plant has a dry weather treatment capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd) and a wet weather peak capacity of 62 mgd (Chuck, 2005). The WQCP is owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Wastewater produced in both cities is treated at the plant. In addition, the WQCP treats most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion produced by the City of Daly City (Castagnola 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4--5 - 3.4 Public S mAces and Utilities The discharge of treated wastewater effluent into San Francisco Bay is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a federal program authorized by the Clean Water Act. Throughout California, NPDES permits are issued and enforced by the State's Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). In addition, the permit also requires that the plant's treated effluent meet specific water quality requirements designed to protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay (Castagnola 2005). In 1994, the WQCP had a dry weather capacity of 8 mgd. An expansion program increased this capacity to 13 mgd. Of this total, approximately 4.3 mgd is reserved for San Bruno, Colma, and Daly City, leaving South San Francisco with a total allocation of 8.7 mgd. In 2004 South San Francisco's average daily flow (ADF) was roughly 6.1 mgd, which leaves approximately 2.6 mgd available for cumulative development. When this upgrade was designed in 1995, the City's wastewater consultants projected it would meet the service area's needs until 2015. However, industrial development and wastewater flow rates have increased more rapidly, so additional improvements may be needed (Castagnola 2005). The WQCP upgrade also significantly increased the plant's wet weather capacity, improving the plant's compliance with NPDES wet weather permit conditions. During major rainstorms, a combination of infiltration and inflow (1&1) causes wet weather flows to increase far beyond dry weather conditions. Capacity limitations in the pump stations that deliver wastewater to the plant restrict these instantaneous flow rates to approximately 35 mgd, with total maximum day discharges that can exceed 25 mgd. Prior to completion of the treatment plant upgrades, higher flows could have flushed out the plant, washing the bacteria that are the foundation of the secondary treatment process out of the aeration tanks. Until the bacteria reestablish, the plant cannot fully treat the incoming wastewater, resulting in partially treated effluent discharges (Castagnola 2005). The plant's hydraulic capacity was increased to 62 mgd, so phase 2 of the City's wet weather capacity enhancement program includes the upgrade of two pump stations and installation of several relief sewers west of the freeway, where 1&1 is a significant problem throughout the aging collection system, as well as reliability upgrades at an aging pump station east of the freeway. These improvements will comply with a Cease and Desist order issued by the RWQCB, which requires South San Francisco and San Bruno to stop discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater by 2007. It is expected that the increased collection system pumping capacity, combined with increased treatment and hydraulic capacity at the WQCP, will enable the City to comply with the terms of this order and reduce the occurrence of overflows of raw sewage into streams and drainage channels that drain to San Francisco Bay (Castagnola 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S Hj>plemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-6 3.4 Public S ewices and U tifities Treated Wastewater Disposal The fmal component of the City's wastewater treatment operation is discharge of the treated effluent to San Francisco Bay. This effluent is combined at the WQCP with treated effluent from the San Francisco Airport and from the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae. These public agencies comprise the North Bayside System Unit (NBSU), which operates an effluent pumping station at the WQCP. The station pumps into a 51-inch diameter force main that runs overland to Point San Bruno and then continues approximately 4,500 feet into the Bay. Discharge is through a 654-foot off-shore diffuser pipe that distributes the effluent over a wide area of open water (Castagnola 2005). During peak winter flows, the pump station and overland force main lack sufficient capacity to deliver all the effluent to the deep-water outfall. This causes overflows into Colma Creek, adjacent to the WQCP. There is not enough water exchange in Colma Creek and along the Bay shoreline to adequately dilute the treated effluent and maintain acceptable water quality in these receiving water bodies. To address this situation, the NBSU pumps were replaced to improve the station's reliability, and a holding basin was constructed to store the WQCP's treated effluent when wet weather flow rates exceed the capacity of the NBSU force main. This allows the cities to fully utilize the upgraded plant's 62 mgd wet weather capacity without contributing to overflows that could result when its discharge is combined with peak flows from other NBSU members (Castagnola 2005). Storm Drainage Hydrology is analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. The amount of surface runoff from the proposed Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. BKF Engineers prepared the storm drain study, Description of Calculations Supporting the Update to the Storm Drainage Report for the Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point West dated March 13, 2001. In 2001, BKF Engineers also prepared Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Monitoring Program for Terrabqy Development - The Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point Wes~. The Project developer "Will be required to implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize potential impacts to water quality. The Project developer will be required to treat storm water runoff in conformance with NPDES C3 standards as required by the City. Detailed specification "Will occur later in the Project design phase (Corlett 2005). The City of South San Francisco recommends that the Project developer incorporate landscape-based treatment controls in addition to manufactured controls (such as vault-based separators and media filters) (prudhel2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-7 -'!>' 3.4 Public S ernces and Utilities As part of the Bayshore Boulevard Hook Ramps Project and Phase 1 of the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements, the City installed new public storm drain infrastructure in Bayshore Boulevard to serve the Terrabay Project. The system was designed to accommodate a Phase III development proposal with a larger footprint (an area covering the Preservation Parcel). The storm drain system is designed to accommodate a 100-year event. Actual operating levels vary by time of year or at what point during a storm a flow reading would be taken. The storm drain infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the Terrabay Phase III Project. (Corlett 2005) - The existing storm drain system in Bayshore Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year runoff from the Terrabay development. It is stubbed and ready for connection at several points along the Project frontage. The system then runs under the freeway to discharge into the Bay. The downstream system is sized to accommodate the 100-year event. Additionally, storm water separators are required as a standard condition of approval. The separators are required to be designed to accommodate peak runoff. ... IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance For the purposes of this DSEIR, development of the Project site would present a significant impact if it: . Results in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public services. . Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. . Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effect. . Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Impact Overview The Project would increase the need for public services from the City of South San Francisco Police Department and City of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Project impact to police services would be the same as analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Terrab'!J Phase III Pro/ect Draft S IIJ1pkme~tal Emtironmenta! Impact &porl 3.4-8 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The Project would increase the student population of the BSD and the JUHSD. There would be fewer students generated in the BSD and greater students in the JUHSD under the new Terrabay Phase III Project. The public utilities that would be potentially affected by the Project include water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal, and storm drainage. CWSC would be responsible for providing the Project's water supply. The Project would increase the need for sewage treatment and disposal provided by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. It would be required to comply with wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.4.1 Increased demand for police services. (5) As part of the Project, the proposed retail and commercial establishments would provide private security. The response time to the Project site would be approximately five to six minutes, depending on traffic conditions. The proposed movie theater would especially attract a large number of visitors. The increase in demand for police services has the potential to significantly impact the SSFPD (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The SSFPD estimates that an additional beat would be required with six police officers. The officers would staff the beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition, three police vehicles would be needed to serve the Project (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The Project impact to police services would be the same as analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Phase III would require 2.81 to 2.31 new officers (1.9 to 1.4 officers for residential, and 0.91 officers for commercial) and one new vehicle. The 1998/99 SEIR identified radio transmissions would be inhibited by San Bruno Mountain and within proposed structures. This condition would also exist with the proposed Project and would be a potentially significant impact. The Project would be subject to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles. Applying CPTED Principals, the following Project components will be analyzed: residential tower, office tower, parking structure, elevators, staircases, the movie theater, retail stores, and other features (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppkmental Environmen/al Impact &port 3.4-9 -. 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 3.4.1a The Project applicant shall compensate the City of South San Francisco for the cost of six officers and three police vehicles. It takes up to one and one-half years to hire and train a new police officer. The SSFPD shall determine the hire date of new personnel. (ITS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.1b The Project applicant shall incorporate recommendations from the SSFPD into their site design and operations that affect crime prevention, security, traffic safety and other concerns. This may include construction of a radio transmitter/repeater for City of South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments. (LTS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.1c The costs for providing additional police officers, consultants to the SSFPD regarding the provision of police protection to the Project, vehicles, equipment, and other services and items shall be determined prior to issuance of any Project specific entitlements. The schedule for provision of the improvements or an in-lieu fee, to be paid by the Project applicant, shall be established prior to issuance of grading permits for any phase of the Project. The provision and timing of said services shall be as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Amended Development Agreement determined by the SSFPD. (LTS) Impact 3.4.2 Increased demand for fire services. (5) Development of the Project would increase call volumes, including rescue and medical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees and visitors to the site. The site location, construction type, occupancy type, and high concentration of occupants would severely affect the first fire unit responding to Ere, medical, hazardous material, or other emergency calls. SSFPD would require one additional position (three personnel) for fire control, evacuation, medical scene management, care of injured persons, and other emergencies (Captain Niswonger 2005). The SSFFD would review the site plan to ensure that the Project meets design standards, including adequate emergency vehicle access, turnarounds, ceiling heights within parking structures, as well as road grade, capacity, and width. The Prqject applicant will be required to install automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other Ere protection features as recommended by the SSFFD. The water supply, water pressure, Ere apparatus access, air supply, smoke control, standby emergency power source, and. other fire protection features shall meet standards of the California Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 The Project applicant shall fund one position (three personneD for the first arriving engine company. The Project applicant shall incu~ all wage and benefit costs of three personnel for three years from the initial date of hire. Hire date of personnel may occur up to six months prior to completion of Phase One to accommodate scheduling Terrab'!J Phase III Prqjed Draft S IIjJpkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-10 3.4 Public S eroices and Utilities personnel for the 16-week Fire Academy. After the three-year period, wage and benefit costs shall be assumed by the City of South San Francisco. The needs and costs for providing additional personnel, vehicles, equipment, and other items shall be determined prior to issuance of any Project specific entitlements. The schedule for provision of the improvements or an in-lieu fee, to be paid by the Project applicant, shall be established prior to issuance of grading permits for any phase of the Project. The provision and timing of said services shall be determined as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Amended Development Agreement. (L TS) Impact 3.4.3 Impedance of radio communication to the Project site by San Bruno Mountain. (S) The Project site is within the radio communication shadow of San Bruno Mountain. Poor signal strength and reception sites due to topography impede radio transmissions to the Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.4.3 The Project applicant shall provide a rooftop communications repeater and related equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by SSFFD. Communication equipment shall be installed during Phase A. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs of equipment for three years from the installation date. After the three-year period, the City of South San Francisco shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement. (LTS) Impact 3.4.4 Potentially poor signal strength and reception sites within proposed buildings and parking structures. (S) Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures would have dense building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal strength and reception sites. Mitigation Measure 3.4.4 The Project applicant shall conduct a radio communications study during Phase A to determine the internal radio communication issues based on individual building types. If the study finds internal radio communications are deficient, the Project applicant shall fund and provide wiring, a signal booster, antennae, other equipment and mitigation, as needed. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs for three years from the installation date. After three years, the building owners shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement under California Fire Code 1997, Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems. (LTS) Impact 3.4.5 The open wildland area of San Bruno Mountain presents a high risk offire exposure on the uphill and sides of the Project. (S) Terrab'D' Phase III Project Draft S uppkmenlal Emtironmental Impact &port 3.4-11 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The ability of the current SSFFD personnel and resources to suppress a wildland fire would be compromised by the large wildland urban interface area abutting the Project. Mitigation Measure 3.4.5 The Project applicant shall install and the Homeowners and/ or property management company shall maintain a 50-foot buffer in the wildland urban interface area. The buffer would consist of a 25-foot wide greenbelt area with fire resistive plantings identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP approved plantings and hydroseecling materials are also identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. An additional 25-foot area between the greenbelt and San Bruno Mountain shall be maintained clear of hazardous fire growth, according to California Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4. (LTS) Impact 3.4.6 The Project would generate new students, increasing the demand on classrooms and staffin the BSD and the JUHSD. (LTS) BSD's student yield factors are 0.01 to 0.10 students per condominium and 0.05 to 0.17 students per townhouse. Based on these factors, the Project would generate 6 to 40 elementary/middle school students. This estimate was calculated as follows: [180 condominiums x (0.01 to 0.10 students) + 68 townhouses x (0.05 to 0.17 students) + 103 flats x (0.01 to 0.10 students)]. As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 88 new students would be generated in the BSD. JUHSD's student yield factors are 0.08 high school students per condominium and 0.04 high school students per multi-family unit. Based on these factors, the Project would generate 26 high school students (180 condominiums x 0.08 students + 68 townhouses x 0.04 students + 103 flats x 0.08 students). As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 21 new students would be generated in the JUHSD. ....,. The Project applicant would be required to pay the mandated school impact fees applicable for building permits. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on schools would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 None required. Impact 3.4. 7 Increased demand on available water supply. (LTS) The Project would generate an estimated water demand of 256,875 gallons per day. Table 3.4-1 shows the water generation factors and calculations to estimate water demand. Water would be needed for residential, retail, restaurant, commercial, office, landscaping, and other uses. The Project applicant would install a water system with adequate water pressure, water supply lines, fire hydrants, and other specifications in accordance with CWSC standards. Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft S uppiemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-12 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The Project will be served by CWSC facilities and would connect immediately in front of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. The Project would be supplied water from CWSC's 8-inch and 12-inch pipes from the connection point to the on-site pump station, which was designed and built to serve the entire Terrabay project. The CWSC has indicated there is adequate water supply to serve the Project. A copy of the CWSC "will serve" letter is included in Appendix F. TABLE 3.4-1: ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER Land Use Bldg Area (sf) Units Demand Rate Estimated Average Daily Demand Water Residential Retail/Restaurant Office 351 300 gpd/unit 0.30 gpd/ sf 0.15 gpd/sf 105,300 gpd 107,250 gpd 44,325 gpd 256,875 gpd 357,500 295,500 Total Wastewater Residential Retail/Restaurant Office 351 200 gpd/unit 0.2 gal! sf/ day 0.1 gal! sf/day 70,200 gpd 71,500 gpd 29,550 gpd 171,250 gpd 357,500 295,500 Total Source: BKF Engineers, 2005. Mitigation Measure 3.4.7 Although the Project would not result in significant impacts to the water supply, the Project shall incorporate water conservation measures into the Project design. In consultation withCWSC, the Project applicant shall follow the CWSC's Best Management Practices in regards to incorporating water conservation measures into the design and construction of the development. Water conserving toilets, faucets, and other devices and methodology that promote water conservation shall be used for efficient water use. Use of inert materials and minimal areas of turf shall be used in landscaping. (L TS) Impact 3.4.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection system in Airport Boulevard. (5) Based on standard wastewater projection data by BKF Engineers, the Project would generate an estimated 171,250 gpd of wastewater. Table 3.4-1 shows the generation factors and calculations to estimate wastewater flows. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department would adequately provide sewage treatment and disposal for the Project. The treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the Project's wastewater (Castagnola 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact fuporl 3.4-13 - 3.4 Public Seroices and Utilities The 16-inch sanitary sewer line in Airport Boulevard was constructed in 1991 for the sole use of the Terrabay development (Corlett 2005). However, other projects may have tied into the 16-inch line and the Project may generate wastewater flows to overcapacity of the existing conveyance system. (Razavi 2005). The Public Works Department would review the Project's wastewater system plans. The Project applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's requirements and standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sewer system. Mitigation Measure 3.4.8 To confirm there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer lines, the Project applicant shall perform flow monitoring of the 16-inch sanitary sewer to determine the existing flow in the line and provide the City with a report of the findings. The City Engineer will approve flow-monitoring locations and supervise the work as necessary. The existing flow shall be compared with the estimated design flows of the existing Terrabay developments to determine the accuracy of design estimates. If there is insufficient capacity to serve the new Terrabay development, the developer shall replace the existing sanitary sewer lines from Sister Cities Boulevard to the North Canal Street trunk sewers. Capacity of the new lines will be sufficient to convey existing and proposed sanitary sewer flows. The flow monitoring and report shall be completed prior to issuance of any grading permit. (LTS) Impact 3.4.9 Increased demand on Storm Drainage. (LTS) The existing 48-inch diameter storm drain system in Bayshore Blvd was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year runoff from the Terrabay development. It is stubbed and ready for connection at several points along the Project frontage. The storm drain system in Bayshore Boulevard goes to a 60-inchculvert that crosses under Highway 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete-lined channel that discharges stormwater into the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the 100-year event. (Corlett, 2005) Project runoff can adequately be accommodated in the existing storm drain system. The Project applicant will comply with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits, including Provision C.3, since the City of South San Francisco is part of the County's program. (Corlett 2005) Mitigation Measure 3.4.9 None required. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Emironmental Impact &port 3.4-14 Standards of Significance Impact Overview Impact 3.5.1 Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.5 AESTHETICS SETTING The Project site is undeveloped and there are no improvements that generate light or glare. The Project is the third development phase of Terra bay. Phase I contains single-family residences including townhomes and detached residences that are two-stories in height. Phase II includes a mix of low-rise single family detached residential and a high rise condominium tower. The low-rise development contributes night lighting from residences and street lights which merges with the night lighting in the northern portion of South San Francisco. The existing high-rise tower consists of light colored materials consisting of cement plaster with a curtain wall on the main fa<;:ade. Glass windows are metal-framed. Night-lighting from the high-rise is visible from the Project area. There is light but no glare resulting from Phases I and II. Within the Project area, development to the east of the Project site, across U.S. 101 includes high-rise office towers which contribute night-lighting to the northern portion of South San Francisco. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A significant impact is identified as one that would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area. The Project would increase night-lighting at Terrabay. Night lighting would be introduced at the Project site. (5) The Project would include two high-rise towers and a retail component which can be expected to include visible signage advertising the retail uses. Given the mix of residential, office and retail use, it is anticipated that night-lighting and glare could be potentially significant. The high-rise towers would be visible from nearby residential development and u.s. 101. Use of reflective materials could result in significant glare that could affect the visibility of drivers on U.S. 101. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The Project shall not include reflective building materials. Windows shall be non- reflective glass. Metals shall be fmished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. Street lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in compliance with the Terrabqy Specific Plan (Ciry oj South San Francisco 2000). (LTS) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S IlJipkmental Environmental Impact &port 3.5-1 3.5 Aesthetics Impact 3.5.2 Night-lighting conflicts with on-site residential development. (S) The Project includes low- to mid-rise residential development adjacent to and above retail development. Signage for retail uses could result in intrusive lighting that would adversely affect the low- to mid-rise residential units during nighttime hours. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.5.2 A Master Sign Program shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval as provided for by the City's sign ordinance. (LTS) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S IIjJplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.5-2 ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant affects of the Project. The EIR should focus on alternatives that would eliminate significant adverse environmental effects or would reduce these effects to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would somewhat impede the attainment of Project objectives or would be more costly. The range of potential alternatives should include those that can feasibly accomplish most of the purposes of the Project. Sufficient information about each alternative should all be included to allow a meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed Project. If alternatives cause one or more significant effects in addition to those caused by the proposed Project, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects for the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d)). The evaluation of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" under which an EIR must consider a reasonable range of options that could accomplish the basic purpose and need for the Project. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f). 4.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED Another site for the proposed Project was not considered because: . The Project is the third and final phase of a planned mixed use community. The mixed-use concept of the proposed Project builds upon Phases I and II of Terra bay and integrates both phases to that of Terrabay Phase III. Terrab'!J Phase III Prqjecl Draft SlIfJpiemental Environmental Impact &port 4-1 4. Alternatives . There are no other vacant sites within the City of South San Francisco of sufficient size (20 acres plus) to construct a mixed-use development designed to serve the local and regional markets. . The planning and entitlement process for Terrabay began in 1980 with an accompanying development agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP vests some development rights in exchange for land restoration and conveyance of land that is set aside and dedicated as permanent open space for habitat preservation. Such land dedication has transpired and continues to transpire which includes the "remainder lands", the Juncus Parcel, the Recreation Parcel and the Preservation Parcel, totaling more than 300 acres in land restoration and/ or dedication and conveyance. . The construction of infrastructure and public service improvements including the Terrabay Fire Station, the Terrabay Recreation Center and the Highway 101 "Hook Ramps" (under construction) were designed to accommodate all three phases of Terrabay. The Project site was previously evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. However, changes in the 1998/99 SEIR Project description have since occurred and this 2005 SEIR will evaluate the Project changes. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Three alternatives to the proposed Project have been analyzed in this 2005 SEIR: the No Project Alternative, the Hotel Tower Alternative and the Two Residential Towers Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA (Section 15126.6(e)). Each alternative would include the Buffer Parcel as with the proposed Project. The Preservation Parcel, adjacent to the Buffer Parcel, was dedicated to the County of San Mateo on August 11, 2004 to be incorporated in San Bruno Mountain County Park as permanent open space. Each alternative is described below and their impacts summarized in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 identifies each impact of the proposed Project (described in Chapter 3) and its level of significance before and after mitigation as Significant or Less than Significant. Table 4.10 compares the level of significance of each Project impact with that of each alternative. 4.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the development plan for Phase III of Terrabay approved by the City in 2000 would be constructed. Typically, the No Project Alternative assumes no action at the Project site. If no development were to occur at the site, conditions would rernain unchanged from what is described in the "Setting" sections of Chapter 3 of this 2005 DSEIR in addition to the No Project Alternative discussion contained on pages Terrabf!Y Phase III Prqject Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impact &port 4-2 4. Alternatives 306-309 of the 1998/99 SEIR. Therefore, for comparison purposes, the 2000 Specific Plan and Precise Plan entitlements granted for the Project site will be described and evaluated as the No Project Alternative. With this alternative, the site would be developed with one office tower containing 657,500 square feet of office space, 7,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and no residential development. The following amenities would be provided at the site: a public art program; a 150-seat performing arts center (located within the office building) as shared use with an office conference facility; an on-site child care center with a capacity for 100 children; and a transportation demand management plan. There would be no development phasing. Thirty-two Moderate Income Below Market Rate units would be constructed off site. Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of land use and building square footage for this alternative. TABLE 4.1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE - LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Use Units Square Footage Office Retail Residential* 657,500 7,500 Total 32 32 665,000 * Moderate Income Below Market Rate units constructed off site. Traffic and Circulation Traffic impacts associated with this alternative are evaluated in Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation as the Year 2010 Base Case and Year 2020 Base Case. With this alternative, there would be approximately 160 more AM peak hour trips and 855 fewer PM vehicle trips than with the proposed Project. The level of service impacts would be similar or slightly greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or slightly less than the Project during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing impacts would be similar or slightly greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or less than the Project during the PM peak hour. Freeway mainline and ramp impacts would be similar to or slightly greater than those due to the proposed Project. Air Quality Construction impacts would be similar to those for the proposed Project. Construction impacts would remain potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. This alternative would generate fewer trips than with the Project. Impacts on local carbon monoxide levels would be less than with the proposed Project, and thus would be less significant. Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft SlIjJpkmentai Em1ironmentai Impact Report 4-3 Noise Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics - 4. Alternatives The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be less than for the Project, but would still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. Construction noise impacts would be similar as for the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would be less than with the Project due to the absence of the residential use. However, acoustical studies would continue to be necessary to determine the noise sensitivity of the office use. Impacts to public services and utilities would be less than with the proposed Project. Because there would not be a residential component, there would be no impact to the Brisbane School District and the Jefferson Union High School District. Impacts on police and fire service would be less than with the Project. Due to the absence of households, water consumption and wastewater generation would be less than with the Project. Storm drainage impacts would be similar or less than with the proposed Project. The potential for light and glare would be less than with the proposed Project. Retail would be limited to the ground floor of the office building. The extent of retail signage expected with the Project would not occur with this alternative. 4.4 HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the retail and residential uses would be developed as with the proposed Project. The office tower would be replaced with a 300-roorn hotel tower. Development would be phased as with the proposed Project. This alternative would not include office development. Sixty-seven Moderate Income units would be constructed. Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project. Amenities would be the same as with the proposed Project. TABLE 4.2: HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE - LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Housing Hotel Use Units Rooms Square Footage Phase A Retail 357,000 Residential - Market Rate 284 Residential - Moderate Income 67 Phase B Hotel 300 Total 351 300 357,000 Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impact &port 4-4 4. Alternatives Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison to the proposed Project would generate about 22 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and about seven percent less traffic during the PM peak hour. Table 4.3 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM peak hour external trip generation of this alternative with the proposed Project. TABLE 4.3: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS, HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751 Hotel Tower Alternative 306 296 602 826 796 1622 Net Change Alternative 1 (-227) +54 (-173) +64 (-193) (-129) Versus Proposed Project Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D, Table D-l presents the Hotel Tower Alternative gross trip generation, while Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-3 present this alternative's internal trip capture and net new external trip projections. The Hotel Tower Alternative traffic distribution patterns, as well as passby and diverted linked trip projections are contained in Appendix C, Table C-8. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative traffic is presented in Figures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4, while year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative intersections levels of service are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project: . Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips - This alternative would also have more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same. . Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. . Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impact remaills significant. . Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. . On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant. . On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant. Terrab'!J Phase III Pro/ect Draft S uppkmmtal Em-ironmental Impact &port 4-5 (z o ~ ~ :;;...... '" .J+~ OO)N N'<;I";;t; ..J+~ t.~ CO _ 10 N N _ 0) N '" .~ 'Pille Q/ollsAeg ~j~tr-- COl'-CO "'-ION N g- ,. ...- g- O) ~. ..r-- COCO NCO <'l co. S! l:G- co ~. o I'- - I'- I'- ~- o co 0) &:j~:g .J ~ .~ Ol filj ~- ("') g. N '" ~;:ii .Jt I'- t.~ ~ co .s &. ... .$ !I) o t.~ 10 _ lO ... .<<; .f1..tr-- OlCOl"110 lOCOO'l'<;l" ...-(\1...- ... ~ i:6 tI) ~ i:3 '- s tI) i)) -Lie ~ <!:J ~ 10 ("') .N + L.. ~ t ~ ;g ~ ?;l ~ '<;I" Uj ...- ~ ~ ~ .. at' ~bnqna 00 o ...- , I I pillS 1J '1:> gg. o <ll .oil:: €:t: ~o !'rf ~ !r Ul I: l"l L? Ql IS l(l .,tl ~ t iG' ~ .0 F=: ~ ~ ~ ~ o tIl - .J+ <lJ ;> '..0 Cd 5 +- tI.l < S ~ ::J !>...... t""l 0;> 0 ~~> ..;......... H ClJ <lJ ::J 1-1150 ~~ ::c ~+1 &p-. Cd:=E ~< tI.l Cd f:O o M o N (z co M -(g .... o o _ 'V CO 8 ~ ~ U'l 0 U'l .J r c ~ ~t ~ ii5 ::;~q: :s ~ & ~ R o 0 o~~ -Lc::i I"-- co _ co COMo> 0 ("l")"-I.O CO U'l ~o~ _ 'V t - ..- CO ....N ~ .J ~ 'V -t~ .J t f"ffi PAlfJ 9JOQSAflfJ ~ .... 0 ~ t ~ 0 ~ N ~j f)~ t ~ PAlfIPO I'v ~j ~- ~ ....- ~ l"') CD CO 0 ....I,f) I,f) ~- 'V 1"--....0 0 - 'V N N g. co~ ..- 0> ..- .- N ~. N I,f)enco U'l 'V ~M ~. I,f). ro CO ~- N I"-- I,f) ~- ~-. .5 Q) ~ ~ N III i'-~M...J CO 'V ~tl.. ~j o 'V _ N ~. -~ en f"~ ~~ ore enN -LM l"') I,f) _ CD ll)N .~ is UO!SS!W ~t~ ID .... U'l N 0> CO N"- ~ (')<0 1'-1'- ......... ~ t ~ co u: ~ U '- o .Sl ~ 1"--.!(1 co .... 1"--1'./) f"~ t ~ ~ .~ t 0 c:: en QJ ~ ;B CO ~ .!!l :J: 11 0:: go jjj ~ '" 6 (I) ., ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ 4i U t- ~ o '" + Q) > ..0 ro S Q) ~ ....... CIl ~ E Q) ;:l N~O I 0....... l:'!E-<"""- ~o:l~ Q,l ~ 0 ~~~ ~+] ~~ c5~ Q)~ CIl ro o::l o ~ o N (z I"- t.~ -~ f"~ . ... C') ~ ~t <0 1ii**~ i:: N ~ ... ... .e ~ o o ~ :;'!: ~ N 't ..J + l.. co _C') I() C') f'";: ... I() 'I;,.. l;:j 't _ CO ... om~ -L~ N't't I() ..J+l..-~ ;gs;! T-('f)..... ..J + l.. f"ffi PAle aJoqs,{eg ... <O_ N ... ~J~t~ ~ _ COl"-f.O ~ "'I()N re+ ~- ~ C') ... C') <0+ ;! ~j fl~ t ~ ~~~8 ('I')~~ ~r"'" f.Ooo NCO \0- 't ~+ N ~+ '<t <a CO 0)1() ..J + PAIS 11 f\I ~ ctl '" ~ u ~ .l'l CIJ -L~ ..... I() &J '<t t L.. c: g. .Q '" e j a:: 1ii " tt = "" " '.jj ~ Gl .e III .!!? lG 8.. ~ .r: ~ 0.. >. ~ lG ~ .0 ~ U ... <1J ~ r- CIl - ~. cu > :0 ctl S cu ..... 00 < cu I-< S CU ;:l ~- rt:l 0;> 0 N~> ~....... I-< QJ OJ ;:l I-< 15 0 ~:r: :r: ~+~ &p., ctl;:;E ~< tf.l ctl r:o o N o N (z -L~ OlOlM ..- CJ) 0 ,... ~ f"-. N .... ..- .,)t~ lllj Cl ~- ~. I"-- .... -Lo I()M .... ~t~ .... _l'"l '<t ,~ N ~ at~lf an nqnG .10 ,. I() I() I() o .... ..- N ~ iii. :s & '- Q) ~ o I()~'<t -L~ l'"l M M..-al _'<t 00"<1" 0 Ol co lllNlll _ co t _l'"l 10 co.....N N ...J ~ I() ,~ t ,~ PillS aJOljSAeg .,) ~ 0 ~ t ,. '<t "'1 ,. ~~ ~J f}~ t ,. pilla /.10 !'if ~j ~~ I"-- ,. ClIDO ..- .....1() ..... l{) '<r 0 '<tNN gi- ION ..- ~- Cl....lll \D - Cl co 10 to l{) ..... ..... N ~. N 10 Nit) fB. ~. co 10 $~ ~. .5 ..... CIl <;; ~ N l'll I"--(l)co-.J I"-- ID ..,. ..) t l. ';/,J l() t:::i.- ~. o -~ ..... ,~ ~,. oeo '<tco .....l'"l -Lco l'"l U'l _ 00 OM ,e; IS ltO{SS{W ~t,. 10 (l) 0 NMU'l "<I"N 10 (") '<t r-- N ..- ~ t ~ 55 0) Q) ~ -L~ ;::: ~ Cl N.f!! ..... ClCl1 + ~ .~ ai ..... ;B 0; ~ ~ "'" :t: ~ g- o:: ~ jjj 8 l'"l "" Q) ~ fJ) 0 I'll 0.. t. ~ ~ 2' ~ E ~ .... Q) ij I- tl o t/) ~. OJ :> ..0 ro ~ l-< OJ .... ~ ~ OJ ~ ~~o I 0........ ME--<....... ~_ l-< ~ 2 ~ l-< 0 0 6b:r: :r: ~+~ OJ OJ eIlp... ro~ Up... OJ ell ro r:o o C'I o C'I 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.4: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.I0l NB Off- A-9.11 C-32.9 C-27.1 D-44.7 C-30.3 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-99.8 E-70.0 F-I02 E-68.3 Ave./D.S.I01 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-29.31 D-32.4 C-33.3 C-28.0 D-41.3 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-1 0.1 B-12.3 B-12.9 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB Off- B-1O.22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I01 SB On- NA B-14.91 NA C-23.4 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I01 SB On- NA NA C-27.81 NA C-21.5 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.81 A-9.4 B-16.6 A-5.9 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.cSouth Project NA NA B-l1.63 NA B-12.9 Access (Outbound RT. Stop Sign Control) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabqy Phase III Prqject Draft Stppkmental Environmental Impact &port 4-10 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.I01 NB Off- A-9.01 B-18.1 C-25.8 C-30.7 D-47.3 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-129.4 F-133 F-267 F-2S7 Ave./U.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.51 C-28.0 F-293 D-4S.7 F-246 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 B-I0.4 B-l1.0 B-14.0 B-14.9 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.l01 SB On- and NA C-22.81 NA D-S3.8 NA Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.10l SB On- and NA NA D-40.21 NA F-80.3 Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-20.4 B-14.41 B-18.4 B-13.1 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA NA C-15.83 NA C-17.6 (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-S.91 A-9.4 B-I0.1 B-l1.8 B-12.8 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2 C-31.8 D-35.3 D-36.9 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!'J Phase III Prqject Draft S"/JPkmental Environmental Impact &por/ 4-11 - 4. Alternatives Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to the proposed Project. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Noise Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics This alternative would generate a lower number of trips compared to the Project. Carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be somewhat less than for the Project, and would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would also be similar to or greater than for the proposed Project because a hotel use is considered more sensitive to noise than an office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. With this alternative, impacts on public schools, police and fire services would be similar to those for the proposed Project. Water consumption and wastewater generation would be greater than with the Project because the office tower would be replaced with a hotel tower which would have a higher demand for water and wastewater facilities. Stonn drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With this alternative, potential light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed Proj ect. 4.5 TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, there would be an increase of 180 market rate housing units contained in a second residential tower; Fifteen of the units constructed in Phase A would be income and occupancy restricted for low income households (50-80 percent median), 67 units would be income and occupancy restricted for moderate income households (120 percent median) and 21 units would be income and occupancy restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent median). Retail development would be the same as with the Project. This alternative would not include office or hotel development. Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project. Amenities would be the same as with the Project. Terrab'!J Phose III Prqject Draft Suppkmental Environmental Impcu:t &port 4-12 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.6: TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTRNATIVE -LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Use Housing Units Square Footage Phase A Retail Residential- Market Rate Residential- Low/Moderate Income 357,000 Residential- Low Income 248 67 21 15 Phase B Residential - Market Rate Total 180 531 357,000 Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison with the Project would generate about 38 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and about 13 percent less traffic during the PM peak hour. Table 4.7 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM hour external trip generation for this alternative in relation to the proposed Project. TABLE 4.7: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS, TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751 Two Residential 209 272 481 786 732 1518 Towers Alternative Net Change Alternative 2 Versus Proposed (-324) +30 (-294) +24 (-257) (-233) Project Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D, Table D-4 presents the Two Residential Towers Alternative gross trip generation, while Appendix D, Tables D-5 and D-6 present this alternative's internal trip capture and net new external trip projections. The Two Residential Towers Alternative traffic distribution patterns as well as passby and diverted linked trip projections are contained in Appendix C, Table C-9. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative is presented in Figures 4.3-1 through 4.3-4, while year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative intersection levels of service are presented in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. Terrab'!J Pbase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 4-13 (z .... N _ "'- (Xl 0 C;; .... t.Q:i N N '<l" _ Ol l:? N t ~ ,..J L.. -~ ,r: N AI aJo!js,{efJ !'- "") f ,.. lO- "") ,.. 0 ,.. ~ J C') _ <"l 0> ~ <"l (J)o>~ ~t '<l"CO <0 N - T'"'<l"or- NCO Mt (J) <0 Nt o~~ M~cn ..) t L.. !'- t.! 12- o <0 -g ,~ o !'- _!'- "'- 11"")fr-- co C;; T"" ~ S ~g~ &. .... ... ~ ., 6 ~ 16~~ ..) t .l.. ,;:g fl"*)tr-- ~ N M lO 1.O(J)'<l" "'~~ P"If1 fXJ 1'<1 co gj 0;-+ t') :;j:t N '<l" o~ "'-~ ..) t ~ 2i ., ~ <.) ... .!!: .~ CI,) t.~ .... a) ~ (') t L.. 0:: .Q g. ., 0:: 0:: W e ~ C,:l tt <"l 5 ~ Ql '.0 II) .. al 1:: ~ .c 8- ~ a. ~ m ~ ..0 m ~ .... .... <D I- ~ 0 CIl - OJ :> :0 co S OJ ..... ~ +1. Cf.l Io-! OJ Cf.l ~ OJ ~ ~ \""'l~O 1:0:>- ~ l:: Io-! ~ OJ ;::l (l.l "C 0 Io-! ...... ~~~ ..... p::; ~ ~ 0 OJ ~~ t~ Cf.l co U OJ Cf.l co ~ o ,.-! o N (z o~~ C')~ll'l t.~ -~ 'V ~.l. ~j~t~ o _ ~ gl g fi5 ~,.... to""). C') <'> 'V _0 .- (Xl o -65 ~- N r- r- 8- ~ (Xl~m ~.-~ PillS QJOI.jSAl1g ....J. ~ ~~~-~ ~j ('.I""'" r tO~ ~"").C\i _:8 ll'l <'> .~ 5l""). ll'l ~- :g""). 5 ~ ~ s: co <6 <o~C")-1 <0 'V 'V ....J+l. ~j o 'V _ N ~. -~ m .~ ~~ o~ mN -l.<'> <'> ll'l _ m U')N .~ IS UO[SSIW ~t~ lO~lD N 0) (Xl N'- N U') Ii) ~ gs ;1; ..J.C -l.~ 'l:) ~ ll:l & ~ ~ o -~ N otto ... fl~ t ~ ftl- 'V r-""). ,..- <0 8~C;;~ .-NC') N COM ~~ ....J + 'l:) ,. as ., ~ G '- 'V .!I:! to lO .~ .... r-U) . l. t.to c: .Q '" <:: .!I:! tlJ (I) 32 ., "" J: ~ PIl/SJ.I IV "" ~ ~ iii c ~ ..g Q) " l/) 1:: tIl 8.. t:. ~ >- F:: <II III D ;j ~ l:l ~ .. I- e !3 o '" Q) ;> '.0 CIS S Q) .. ~ + Cf.l ~ Q) ~ gj ~ ~ Nti1'Q I ..0 >- ~ g ~ aJ:'S! 0 ~gj~ ..... ~~ ~ 0 OJ ~p... ~:::s +p... OJ Cf.l CIS U Q) Cf.l CIS p:\ o rl o C"l -~ ~:g~ t.O __('l')-r- ..r:: I PAl QJO s,{eg ..J t l. ~J ~-+ [Dt N r(z <0 ~~;:! +-N "t "t ...J t L.. - ~ ,... ~ t ("- <Xl ~ r+ N-+ ~ Ol J ~-+ (") <'l ..... ..... C;; Olt))<!l "tCD <0 -+ ....."t..... ~i- N<!l "'t 0) ,.... Nt o g ;r g N "'" ...Jtl. 1.0 oO'l ,...1.0 ..J t ,.... t.~ -1.5 tg ~~tr-- cc fEm~ :s N & ..... ... ~ ~ o t.~ r-- -,... ..... 't:l 5 o .0 oS ;:, c55 ..m fl~ t r+ ~~f2g C')""''''''' ..... pilla 11 fit ~ Q3 ., .91 .... (J ... \l) ~ CIl t.&j 0 ,.... ('t) 1.0 "'" ~ ~ c: .1;1 '" c: .l9 a1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a:: () ill g (") :;; Q) t:: CIl 0 (lJ ~ &. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o en - - Q) > :p ctl E Q) "-' < ~. ell I-< Q) ell ~ Q) ~ ~ - - Cf':l ctl 0 ~:e> ....: !:: I-< "". Q) ~ Q) ~ 0 a1{J~ ..... ~~ ~ 0 OJ ~P-. ~~ ell ctl U OJ ell ctl ~ o C'l o C'l (z N N l.l) N eo 0 ~...... t- N ~ ~ ~tl. ",;$;C"'l (i)~~ ~+l. -L~ -~ LO C"'l -'<I' CO C"') f""~ w ~?=.l;:; W......N P^lg aJOllsJ(eg ~ t l. r 0 -*l t r N r '" ~J g-- ~ CO __ W C'l 0>0 ~ NI'- ...... 0> -- '<I' ~~ g. (00 '<T N ~. In l(;i- ...... N LO ~-- ~. .5 ...... Q) ~ S CO ~ fet8~ ~tl. ~j 10 1'-- N ~i- 10 -~ ..... f""~ -*lr oeo '<I'CO ....C"') La:> C'l I.tl _ CO oC'l f""~ JS UOISS!W ..tr LOCOO N ~ l(,J L~ _8 N f""~ co ~ ~t co [IJ ~g~ ~ N &. .... .e II) 6' I'- _ CO N f""~ ...... ~J ~-- ll'l r-. c;; f\~ t r I'- <X) 00 ~N ~ 4- It) ...... .0 N + ~ en '" .Ql G .... -L l8 Q) - 0 ~~ f";S; l. .~ .~ t 0 '" N 1fi 0 N ~ C;; ~ '0; === :r: 1; PAlg po !v 1t)I'-~1t) ot-ww ......Nll'l g- o: B Ui ~ M .,8 ell '" '" 1$ ro c.. [, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Iii ~ ~ '" OJ > .~ cd is OJ ..... =< ~. CIl ~ OJ ~ gJ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ cd 0 I .~ >- ~ ~ I-; ~ OJ ;:J QJ:'Q 0 ~gJ~ ..... ~~ ~ 0 OJ ~~ +~ OJ~ CIl cd U OJ CIl cd ~ o N o N - 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.8: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave.!U.S.I0l NB Off- A-9.11 C-32.9 C-26.5 D-44.7 C-29.6 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-99.8 E-62.6 F-I02 E-63.8 Ave./U.S.l0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-29.31 D-32.4 D-35.1 C-28.0 D-41.6 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-I0.1 B-12.3 B-12.8 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB Off- B-I0.22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.10l SB On- NA B-14.91 NA C-23.4 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA C-21.41 NA C-24.9 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.81 A-5.6 B-16.6 A-SA Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA B-12.23 NA B-13.0 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Prqiect Draft S uppkmen/al Environmental Impact &port 4-18 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.9: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.I01 NB Off- A-9.01 B-18.1 C-25.5 C-30.7 D-49.6 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-129A F-130 F-267 F-2S2 Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.51 C-28.0 F-292 D-45.7 F-403 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 B-I0A B-l1.0 B-14.0 B-1S.S (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.l0l SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- NA C-22.81 NA D-53.8 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA D-38.41 NA E-73.9 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-20AI B-13.3 B-18.4 B-13.8 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-15.63 NA C-19.7 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-S.91 A-9A B-I0.l B-l1.8 B-12.8 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.1I C-30.2 C-31.6 D-35.3 D-36.7 (Signal) Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Prqjecl Draft 5 uppkmental Environmental Impacl &port 4-19 - 4. Alternatives In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project: · Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips - This alternative would also have more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same. · Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impacts remain significant. · Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant. Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to those for the proposed Project. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but with mitigation could be reduced to a less than significant level. This alternative would have a trip generation less than the proposed Project. Carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the Project and would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. - Noise With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would be greater than with the proposed Project. The office tower would be replaced with a residential tower, a use more sensitive to noise than an office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. ....,., Public Services and Utilities This alternative has an additional 180 residences. This would result in greater impacts on public schools, police and fIre services than for the proposed Project. Water consumption and wastewater generation would also be greater than with the Project. Storm drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Aesthetics This alternative would result in similar light and glare impacts as with the proposed Project. Although a greater number of residences are proposed Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard with this alternative, these units would be located in a high-rise tower and would not be exposed Terrab'!)' Phase III Prqject Draft S "Pplemental Emtironmentol Impact &port 4-20 4. Alternatives to visual intrusion resulting from retail signage at the ground floor level. With mitigation, significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant. 4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative for a proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative would be the alternative that would have the least significant effects on the environment. If the No Project would be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR should also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives that were considered in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2). For this 2005 DSEIR, with mitigation, the Hotel Tower would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would result in less demand on public schools and a reduction in air quality impacts; with mitigation these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. Water consumption and wastewater generation would be greater with the Hotel Tower Alternative than with the Project, however, these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts for all alternatives would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Terrab'!J Phase III PT'o/'ect Draft SlIJ>pkmentoi Environmental Impact &port 4-21 ~ .~ E: ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ "'"' ~ ~ ~ ~ ::r: f-t ~ f-t U ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o 00 t ~ ::E "'"' ~ o Z o ~ ::E o u ,:; .-I ..; ~ ~ f-t ~ ....... UJ ~ ....... UJ UJ S ....... UJ UJ S ....... UJ ;:: .~ ~ ~ iJ l ~ l:: ~ iU I::i tJ' "c:: o:l '" d ....., r-<ilo... iUd'" o:l ~ ",'S d ;o.~ g S iU ~ ~ e:d ~ tI'J......-f ~....-.....o :r:'S ~ ~ 6' ~~ tl .p.~ 1~SFlj(3l32~~ ~1::il1"l........ t.t:l~o;> ~ t) ~ 't'U ~.O \ooi ~ . rn ~ d +1 iU '--'.... iU 0 ~ :..a '" 0 ,--,'0' ~ Q ~::a- Jj !-< -;:;;3 ~ t,58r~ iU E ~d Sl"O S;?, l3....-B iU .\:: o:l...... iU S q iU ~ il ~ > IIJ iU 13 o...~! Q lI.)e>iliU..9~o ..., ~ 0... o...r~ .....:-03 ~ ;j Qj .~ 0 """ o...v 0 11.)....... > r::;S,.::;o:l..... (j"OuiU lI.)p...iUOa II.)~"O <:::l ..... iU il d'p (j -.d II.) <:::lel-.d oo:l<+J"'il ,... II.) +J ~'Cl:l ..... U ~ 'So... ~ 5 ~o.o-B.o 5....... -B E' ~ 0.0' .... 0 S SJ iU ~"O ~ "0 ::J '" 11.)::......... 0 II.) ~"'S"O g~o..s i;l...d ~ ;::otJ...... Eo:ll::i~tJ .~ ~.~ ~ e-'iU 5'.0 II.) iU 5 . ~ tJ e l5..3il 8 ~ o...o.o~ ~ 'sp... ::8 (3 1:) r: 8 ~ B 0... \j ".... 1l p... ....... <..::. d ~ I::i o.S ~.-;> e-"'iU....::::i.......... 'i::'"O 0 ~..... II.) S. 0 o:l"O d N~t,+Ju13iUB~~~ .,... 0 0... 0.0 0 II.) ~"" o:l U t.t:l .., ~ o:l E 11.)"0 '"0 00 II.) .~ .~...... . ....3 d "'.... '~o 1::' 0 iU o:l o:l '0 ...... ~ t,-B.g :;s CJ ::8 .2- S t,'Jil ,...., ....; ,..... ,..... <'"i UJ S ....... UJ UJ S ....... UJ UJ S ....... UJ UJ S ....... UJ :;s 0... .8 p... gu.,ll.) "0 ~ UJ 0.0 ..0 "0 ; tJ r O'~ "0"0 I::i iU ..... d '::l "'S o:l ~:;s ~O""'"O ~ 0 ~-B o;1~O"O Suo ~ &'" ;iIl.)E.g~~Qje~ 11.)' iloll.)tll:l~O"'II.) I::i .......0> ......11.)..0 o"O<'tJ e ~~iUil"O ~ d . 0 o.....!:! "'" ~ 0 "'S ..0 .~ tJ Z g 0.0 p.......... ..... & :::l el's,.....:.o.8 ~II.) ~ ~ '" <:::iU....O"'S;j ::::i"OtJ ,.; o...p...,..... 0"0 o:l,,-..., o:l ~O"Ou:i",o tJ~o... l:liUiU .;>.... .>" R '9.,:a '" ~ d o....p. 0 "<l: .~ .!1 o:l Q"O-.o tJ ~ IIJ C iU ..... ......0 ;j P iU '~-.d ..... U ~ 0... d o:l'~ 0 +J C::'J:: ';:: II.) t, II.) tJ e.... "iU t< ~ l:J iU > o...p... o...u., ~ ~ '--Jo:lil<O"01lUJiU..... 't"d 1I.)~II.)>Oo...o -.: 'B -B & 0 (; 8....:! ~ Qj ~ .~.~ ;j...d g- 8:.~ ,:::; lJ >--ld"'''3~....o:ldc::...... ;::..c::,.....IIJO"'iU..o:lc:: .;:l - 0 H 0... iU -.d !J. -.d 0 ~ v.P....... -.d +J _ +J 'p "''''S''''"O::8+J 0"0 '" u t: 0'"0......... 0 co"'S l3 iU ~~a~-"''''''-Bo''''''~ ~ c:: U-s o"~"O ~E~.....: ~.~ ~ o.il ~.o d"O..... ; <:::l U 0 (:Q U M 0.9 ~ .....: U C">.jll.)...d iU.....iU.....o:lUt ~ ~ ~ S ~ UJ 0... el ~ .~. ~ ~ l:l' 0 ~ O.;;J l5.. U e ;>:;.51 o...p....E H"::l o.S p... 'Jil C'! ....... <'"i t1 UJ S UJ S UJ S ..... 8~iUlI.) I>..~ "0 o:l '" ;> "'S iU 0 &~~.sJ:.....: ..... p... & c::" u 0 ~.... olEE) '[ i ~ .~ ~ ~ p... UJ.... 5'0 "0 < 0 &.51.... ~ ~H 0 ~ ~ o '50 iU u., o:l o:l g-1::i:aUJ tjil .....,arJOiU'" 0... U fr....:!"O l3 aJ"UQJ...,r-l "c:: c:: U '" ~ IIJ r-< iU o:l o:l...."O ";~EUo:l"O ~ II.) 0 ~.S "'S -e... '" co o:l ..... 0 li::~0(:Q"'S~ ":~""'IIJl3tl ;:: II.) I::i ~ .... U ~~.O...d"O[ .... <.;.;i ~ 0"'S c:: ~ ~ ~ ..... o.~ <;;3l5..1l~c:: ~0 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ '0"0' .... ~ ~u ~p':; & <:::l o:l ~ "'"0 0 C; .S ~ "'g ~ ill.) C">.j .......... IIJ O' ~ "'S ~ ~ g.. ~~]~t,8 <<"'! "-: <"l - N N I '7 OJ ~ "'0 '0 ~ c:: ;:J "'0 c:: o:l ... c:: '" u 1Q .~ Ul II ;:J Vl - ... u '" 0- .s c '" u 1Q :~ Vl II ell ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... '" I .~ " Ul ...... ..';! ., ~ l '-l ~ a c '" u u:: .~ Ul c:: '" -5 '" '" OJ ....1 ~~ ~tl " .~ 0: E:: ~ ~ ~ ~ t::: ~ <"i N ''ij I E v ~ "'" ~ ~ ;:l ;:l UJ UJ -. "C 4.l = ;:: .... .. ;:: o U '-" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :r: f-t ~ t ~ 5' ~ P-4 ~ o en t p:; ~ I-( ~ o Z o en ~ P-4 :::E o u .... '" i:l 0..'- ~ 0 ~ .... 0 .... p..,.p ;:... '"Cl " ~~~B[ l:j 0 0..0 to~80.. .!LA 0 0.. S 8...l4 '" 0 l:l p..,~~..g;:... '"Cl o..-.:J "" 0"", .... ~ ~ "''-::< 0 0 0 &p..,~'~ ~ 8l:Juit~ 0.. ""'].... 0.. ..g ... 0'-::< 0 "'"' ~ ..c:~' ~"" r< bJ:J.e- UJ tJ ..g 'a .~ .~ 0 .51 .~ I:! " ",.....:l 0.... i:l..A ~o '" '" .!;o..Ugj~~ ~ I=i .... " ~;~ui:l..g ~""..81A'"Cl", ~ ;>-. Cl1 COd ~ ~ ~g:'"Cl~1:!- ..... p 0 0 0 ~I 0 '" :> ",..cl .. 0 " " ..., ~ ~ ~ A .;:< ~ t.L;E;'u.8~o ~ ".5 '"Cl '" ~ c;.S ~ ~ ~ 23 ~ .... a i:l '"Cl U "-:3 :3.-:3 a ~Cf.l-'OOd ;,:; ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 6:) .... ...;. ~ ~ ~ f-t "': - ~ ;:l UJ ;:l UJ ;:l UJ o '" " u .... 0 o '" ~ " 0 '"Cl~~01A "";00-" 5t..g:.E~ ~ A'~ 0 0 ....~~:>::o ~ en 23" ~ .ES ._ ~] ol 0.. 8 ..8 ~ 8 p.., ol' l::'n U '"ClU 0 !iiS" o ..9::0 ol !3 (3 ~ ~ '"Cl 0 g< bJ:J frg ~ ~.@ ~ ~ A o 0 ol U .8 ..c: g...S S '"Cl ~ ofiC':1.fd ..; ...!:! .~ tJ U ~u~""""OJ l:!:.Eouo.. ~ ~ ,..cl '5- lj ..... 0'"Cl .... a ~::o:3 0.. 0 '!t ~ ~ ci"p ~ fr ",..8 1j C)lu o:.a...sa i! ~ i3'"Cl-;c:i .~ ~ ;::l ol ...._ '""" ;::l C'" d 00 S:;:"'OH~N Cu. en p... ~ Cd." c:::....,..cl - ..., """ 0 ol bJ:J ~.;:< ~'p '" fi ~.... 0.. 0 ';3 !31!1A8i30 ~~l3ljg..g.. l1') - ~ ;:l UJ ;:l UJ ;:l UJ .... 0.. '"Cl .... '"Cl~S g~ '"Cl .~o ..g'"Cl '"Cl ~ ~~ .... ~..8 0 :3 .;1 p.., gj '"Cl .~ g ~~~d]~tZ~~~~~g~",~~ -;~..gO~ao..o~Au"",~g~~~UJ1A d k" '"Cl UJ :3 "i' !.z:I .-::< 0 .... '" '" U 0 0 Cd .....,.... c::: 0'0 "-:5::; ~ p..,......... "" 0 c:::" ~ ..c: o .51 ~ o;:l , :> ~ '" 0 tJ 0 '"Cl 2cl. a 0 .....:l r-< uS ~ ocn- ~~~3'~~o' .s '"Cl tj :5 .f'8 A...!:! ol ~ bJ:J ~ j '0 :.a .~ .... ~ .... c:::.!L.... ..., ,,~ 1A.S '-0 ~ ~ U :> '"Cl ~ Q \0 ;::lOOO.."""ol ';;l ol~ . ,..cll~z~l~~l~'"Cl~~l,s~~~ :::! .......... _ '"Cl 0"'" U "..... ~. , ~ <: ~ 0 0:3 i:l!<::i.S:3 t '" '" ~ ~ ,.-:..,........... 0 ..;0"'~0",p..,'"Cl~:>8~PUJ~~S~ 't:: 0 &UJ ~ 0 ~:3 .... ~'p 0 c::: 0 r- ~ 0 0 a::o o:::i c::: N -.:J 0 "'0" 0 1j ......8.....:l c:i ...l4 ~ 0.. ~ ~ ~"'QJ.0 "'i5 ~bJ:J ~ .g ::r:: ..9 ~ l:l .... C 0 ~ ~ o..o;:lPO. "'0 0"'0i:l....0c:::.c; .~ 8...d c::: l:l,..cl ~o 0.. ci R U3 0..._ :;::r:: ol c::: ;:: -.:JOO"f"\ .c; Oo~ A ti ~...d :> 0..;:"'""' 0 ..8 ........." "'.... ~ 1 U ~ ~~~~O,..cl .'Oaol~"E'"Cl""'O;:l"'O-.:J ~'a ~ 0 ~ 1A E :>'P g !J " ~ + 0.. 0:3 ~ ~E",g..Ool8"'i5'~"""~~~1A~~~0 ~'a 8 ;:l A ~ ....,..cl "Zl:.E 0..:3:3 ol .c; -.:J S i--l S:P "@ .;1 ~ ~~" SO::: .s >8 >8 ~ ~ g 8 $' ~ .~ '"Cl ~ Q g,"'O ~ UJ';:j " d ~ t: gj..g ~.~ b.O ~ ~ g 8 ~ ""':3 ;::l q "'0 t 1j 0 to ~ 0 0 t.5 g-. ~ b .....-::< 0 0....... " op A 0 'l:J - 0.. gj ~ .:!l p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c::: ~ g-'E~' .... S 0 0 0..... ..!'; a g ~ c:::" ~ ;:..."; ~.~ ~~......... u ;:...0 c:::" t ~ ~ 0 - ;;l 0 ~,..cl El _ .... '", ..... "'0 UJ "'......... o.S U ~~...l40~000-~ -....o-o~"'op ;:? i:l 'i3 ~ i:l '"Cl ~..::: d U ~ ~ ~.....:l 1;l l:J i:l O'~ '':: ~ 0.. S ~ ~ ~"3 8 ~ ~ ... 1 0 ~ il ~ @.~ ~ ~ ~ '0 ~'O i:l 0 t 5'08 g 0 ~ t ~ ~ '0 ~ ;,:; .S p.., p.., .S "'d "'0 ~ 0...;;; o..A ~ U .S ~.5 :>,..cl ~ - ~ Il.J ~ "0 '0 :> '" t: ;:J "0 t: '" C '" u tP '~ V3 II ;:J Ul .... u '" 0.. .s c '" u tP :~ Ul II Ul l: ~ "<: " ]' -... .s " ~ .~ i; U1 -... .s " ~ ~ '-> ~ I:) c '" u tP '~ V3 t: '" ..s In In Il.J .. ....:l ~~ 'l:: .~ J: ~ ~ ~ oJ:> ~ ~ ~ .<:: " !:: ~ ~ ~ '? aJ = = .... .... = o U '-" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::r: f-; ~ t ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o en t ~ ::g """ ~ o Z o en ~ ~ ::g o u '0 1ldt>, .; cd"~~ ~ "tl~1~ o ....."3 ~ '-'~ ~.s ~ 1:1 ~ . . O;>d-"O'..... tJ ~ +-..;::l ~ U ~ !:!....... d U ~.!:!... U '0 ~ ~~~ U 0l;Q ~ [/'J - Q) '-"i"'E! p.. t>, cd"tl 0.. 5'.0 "tl 0 ~ tl ~"tl...... <lJ fI)..j....IaOJVJ '" ~ 0 d a ~ d &-tlz 1L.. 8~ 0.... tOo..", ....cd.....o..~o..'" o..~U ~cd'" ~ ..... 8, ~ .!:: 15 ~ ..c:dl:iO~"'~ t-< ~~.~..... ~ 0.D ..; .....O........."tl 't: d ","tl ..... ..." l:l~e-tl"3~5 ~ t>,L;:! d O'~ ~ ""'" ~'<=I ~ ~ ,,8 '" ~ ?~ cO U) 1""""4 tJ :J:t~r.n~"E"'Ocu .~ ~ ~.s ~ ~ g< "'" ,..... g cd 5'.0 o..'~ <; 0 .~ ~ 0 d !i'l~...... d '" .... 0 Oi tIJ ~ ~ t>, o..'<:j "':::> l:j-.:J ~ ~ S r~ t>,.... ~ &i-tl ~ ......d~O~ooO" ~ co r e ~.@ ~ c:, .S,..Q ~ 15 ell 1 "-l ..... ~.!:: ':j;J 0.. ~1!~8:=:S' :::: ~.S ~ 1l 8 s o .-I ...t ~ ...:l ~ f-; r-: ~ C"'l ~ UJ S UJ S UJ S ..... 11) (IJ ~ '0 ~ ~.- d U ~ 8.S "tl~....p..~ ~ ~ ~1l r ~ ~ ~ ~,..Q .....;:l~O"u..... ~0~8~d .~,..Q ~ 0...D co 8~"'~i.'1d:l p.. ~ jl-tl .~ ';:1 "tl 0.. '" "cd 5'.0 ~ ~ c; g ~'liJ o p.. ~'<:j I'i d 0.. .... ell 0 ell 80ui!:Jd-fj 0.. """]..... 0.. c; '" ~ "'" 0 '" ..c:-<' ~ ~~ t-< 00 bUJ cd ~ ..; g.... 0 ~.D ......~ U U "tl i:l cd 8,.....:l ~"3 '9-. ,..Q cd ~"tl 0 J1o..u~t~ .... e !;: U d '" ~So~ellt) ~ ~~ ~ ~ 8, !i'l ~ 1l !;:'iJ.5 ~~~elld~ ~ '-"i ~,..Q.;;::I ~ ~t>,tlo"3~ c:, ;.s,,; '" ~ ~.s ~ ~ ~ ~ "-l.....E!~"tlU ~ ~ a.~"3 l:E I:l "'...... 0 0 ell ::::~~~~tl OC! ,..... C"'l :::> UJ :::> UJ :::> UJ :::> UJ "~ 00 ~ d g en .g ~ ':3 "tl~:g~~ "3~ell""'C" o ~ d d ~ ~l.....egj t) . L;:! U ~ d "";:1 .~ 0]..... 5'.0 ~ 8'<:j .... ell p.. ell' '" ~ "tlg~.8~ ~""".D "'.D ~ ~ ell ~ ell o..gfr~fr 8~u&u o..oo~~~ ~ .@ .s] 3 t-<~-fj~~ ..; ::S'l:::! ~ ~ 't: C" ~ ell 1:l~~~,..Q '9.."U.D ~ .8 ~:.E"tlcd .~ !;: ~ gg] ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ '-'I.....::so~ ~fr'~~Q ~eC"uo ,- cd .... '<:j ..... d~ t::: ell c:,::sUcdU ~~lltl..9ci ~~~t)'"a8l ~"tl ~'5- t N ~... 8 ell .... ~ t>, ...... o..U p.. Ul.D c; ,..... <"i t/) S ......... UJ UJ S ......... UJ UJ S ......... UJ UJ S ......... UJ o OIl ..... j t>, c; ~~'";;;' 0.. !;: g ~~.~ "tl t) 13 ~.~ 0 ell 0 U . J:lP::~'2 '""0 ~ 0 .S ~ .s 'f) CI.l ~ '-" lU ell.,......... d ,..Q ... l:I d ..... ~ cd 0 d::a~u ] .~ -3 1l o..~o::s o..e~o cdell~.D t) ~ c; .S .!:!...t'l,..Q ~ o ::s Ul d P:: ar~~ ~~~"tl F5.Dt~ . s-fj ~ . ~ ~'iJ"3 ~~B~ ;; :i f/) Cf.l .t: d ~ (J .~ .~ :E '" '" U U .~ ~ 4.) ~ '7 .... 13 ~ ~<S8J3 o ,..... ,..... C"'l UJ S ......... UJ UJ S ......... UJ UJ S ......... UJ t/) S ......... UJ ~ ~ ~ ~ t? '" o ';;" '" :~ ;:: ~ 1: '" u c;::: .~ v.; .: '" -B '" en OJ ~~ ,..... ,..... ,..... <"i - ~ N ..J. ~ ~ "0 '0 > '" .: ;:J "0 .: " 1: " u l:;::l .~ v.; II ;:J (/) ~ u oj 0.. E ...... 1: oj u l:;::l .~ Vl II (/) \; ~ 1:: " ~ ..... ~ " ~ .~ ~ ..... .!l II ~ i '-'l ~ C ';: t ~ 1< 1) c.; f ;.:: :;, Lf"\ " N .~ I ~ E: ,:e; .... '\ Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl -.;: ~ Vl ~ VlVl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '- Vl '- '- '- '- '- '- Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl -. "t:l Q.l ::s ;:: 'i:l ;:: o U '-" U') ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o U') ~ ~ - ~ o Z' o U') ~ ~ ~ o u o ...-4 ~ ~ ...:i ~ f-c Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl ~ ~ ~ ,\... ~ N ...-i IIJ U e e t'l t'l '3~ ~ .~ ~ 'r;j ~~ O'p .... e ~~ 'p 0 5 0.. .... t'l o IIJ 0....0 IIJ"'O -S'"S ~ ~ ..0 III ~~ o ~ ~ ~::2 'p p.. :~] U t'l t'l .... g ~ 'p "'0 u 0 a.......,: .... "'0 U ~ ~ ~ 0...!S ;:r u f::,l:I ..... N <"i Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ Ill" ......, ~ e IIJ t'l ......-S e 1 o III 'p ~ III ...... IIJ t'l ~,~ o III ~~ ; , III III e IIJ 0 ~'~ ......~ o e > IIJ U U S e t'l 0 ~ U IIJ IIJ"'O 00"i< ; 0 ..0 e U 0 "1:l Ei ...,: '"SeU o 0 t'l t:::..o 0.. ~ ~.E u u .... '~OO ; 8 'i u o..e~ IIJ t'l So .l:l,..d ..... !-< U III N N <"i ~ Vl ::J Vl ::J Vl "1:l ~ '"S 0 o ~ t::: U ~ ~ -so.. o IIJ III e t'l 0 IIJ N tJ 0 ,S Cj et...::, .9~ III ...... III 0 'g~ IIJ IIJ ~~ g IIJ ...._ U a'fe .... ~ t'lll:l ,s'~ .:s .~ ~~ "1:lry g~ t:::j:O .... U IIJ , .~-S s 8 "1:l ::2 0..1IJp.. IIJ IIJ "1:l t5 ~ a "l N <"i ::: ~ rI") ...-i VlVl ~~ Vl Vl ~~ Vl ~ V III '0 e ,S III IIJ III t'l IIJ .... U .S .$ ~ III IIJ .... >- 'tl t'l .... o 0.. 5 .... "1:l '"S ~ IIJ III '0 Z e o 'p U g III e o U ..... <"i <"i Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ s '- Vl V III '0 Z ct t'l .... U ~ o .... IIJ !:l III o 0.. i>< ~ ...,: IIJ e III IIJ ''0 c::! e ~ B@ "1:l IIJ ~ 'S 8..z i>< 0 IIJ U IIJ III ..0 '0 "1:l e '"S ~ o~ t::: e .... t'l eVl 1IJ.,s S ;:1 0..0 .QVl ~...... IIJ 0 "1:le ]0 e IIJ ~-S ..... 00 ~~ t) ~ ,~u 8 ~ p.. III 0'0 t5~ ~ "l <"i ('t) <"i <"i Vl Vl ~ ~ '- '- Vl Vl Vl Vl ~ t3 '- '- Vl Vl s s '- '- Vl Vl V III '0 e U S t'l .... .... ,S IIJ III t'l f:: U ,S a IIJ ..0 "1:l '"S ~ o .... IIJ t5 '<I" <"i <"i V III '0 Z .... t::: IIJ S 0.. 'S CT' ~ ~ u '~ ,..d U ~ "1:l ~ t'l .... IIJ e o .... U IIJ '0' .... p.. "! ('t) <"i Vl Vl Vl ~ ~ ~ '- '- '- Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl ~ ~ ~ '- '- '- Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl t3 t3 ~ '- '- '- Vl C(.l Vl .~ ~ ..:: :::l ~ ;:: '::l ~ 'E c.::; ~ ...s:::. ~ ~ ...-i ui IIJ U 'E IIJ III G) U ;..::l IIJ 8.. J:l .... ..8 "1:l e t'l S o "1:l "1:l IIJ III t'l o .... U e ...... ..... N "l ...t ...t ...t <"i <"i <"i ui G) U 'E IIJ III o ~ j:O e t'l Vl >- ..0 .~ III .... U IIJ '0' .... p.. IIJ -s o .... e o 'p t'l U .~ ~ o U o ;.a ~ ...... o IIJ . ~.~ t'l .... ~ 3 0..0 ..5::2 .... ..8 "1:l e t'l S IIJ "1:l "1:l IIJ III t'l IIJ .... U e ...... OJ :0 '" "0 '0 ~ c ;:J "0 C '" = '" u c;:: .~ Ci5 II ;:J Vl ... u '" 0.- S - = '" u c;:: .~ Ci5 II Vl ~ ~ .,.. t ..... ..... .1:! ., ~ ., .~ ., L11 ..... .1:! ~ ~ ~ .;; ~ Cl .,.. '~ 0.; :::: ..... ~ ~ 0.; ~ ~ ,:: = '" u c;:: .~ Ci5 c '" .s III III OJ ~~ :;) ,," ~ ,:e; ~ -.;: -. "t:l Q.l ::s ;:: 'C ;:: o U '-" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-c - ~ f-c U ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o U') f-c U ~ ~ - ~ o Z o ~ ~ o u o ...-4 ~ ~ ...:i ~ ~ E '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl "'0 IIJ III o 0.. o .... 0.. ~ '~ III .~ III Q o 'P 0.. IIJ u IIJ .... "'0 ; ui -5 1:: 002 5 u ~g ~~ ,t~ .... t<l o 0.. 0"1:l ~a =::I III ,~ ~oo Q' IIJ '0'3 p....o '<I" ...t <"i Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ ...!<l III 't:1 ~ :.E oj III .... Q IIJ ....: III u f::,~ 0..8 .~ p.. .... IIJ 3-6 0...... ::2 ~ o~ ~ '1iJ j:O"g t::: t<l ~] 'Og. t<l IIJ ~-5 "1:l t::: a 0 :0 a ~ ~ Q 0.. IIJ i>< 0..1IJ o IIJ 1IJJ:l ~'O U") ...t <"i Vl ~ Q o "1:l Q t<l S IIJ "1:l IIJ -5 00 .S gjQ f::Vl u:r; .S ::J 1Il"-' .... IIJ 5'19 "1:l"'O ~ a t:::Q OVl t:::j:O ~ IIJ s-s 5 ,:1 00::::: ~~ ~l .... u III .~ S o 0 .... 0 p.. .... o ~ t=:.u '00 ...t <"i Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ ~ 0.. 0.. ;:1 III .... IIJ ~ '" ::a t<l 'a ~ Q o "'0 ~ Ei IIJ "'0 "'0 IIJ III oj IIJ .... u Q ...... r- ...t <"i Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl Vl ~ '- Vl .... .... ! .S S IIJ .... III t>- III Q o 'p u ~ o u .... IIJ ~ .... ~ IIJ -5 Q o "1:l Q t<l Ei '" "1:l . "1:l"'O '" .... III ~ t<l IIJ f::'"S u 0 .$j:O 00 ...t <"i Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ Vl ~ ~ oj .~ .... Q E o .... Vl C o "'0 Q t<l Ei IIJ "'0 "'0 IIJ III t<l IIJ .... u Q ...... 0- ...t <"i Vl Vl ~ ~ '- '- Vl Vl Vl Vl ~ ~ '- '- Vl Vl Vl ~ s Vl Vl Vl ~ ~ '- '- Vl Vl ....: c IIJ S 0.. o '0 ~ "'0 v ,~ III .... u '5- ~ .... '1:1 p.. C IIJ IIJ :-g '19 III IIJ .... IIJ .~ III I C o .,s .~ .... oj "'0 IIJ U ::l "1:l g ,S .~ ., ~ ~ ~ o ..0 "1:l '"S ~ 00 'E ~ ;..::l i z III .... u tE c o u 00 'E ~ ;..::l , i z U") ...-i ..... t.ri <"i N t.ri <"i - \0 N I '<I" '" :0 '" "0 '0 ~ c ;:J "0 C '" = '" u c;:: .~ Ci5 II ;:J Vl - ~ u '" 0.- Jj = '" u c;:: '~ Ci5 II Vl ~ ~ I ..... ..... .1:! ~ ., .~ ;; L11 ..... .1:! ., ~ ~ ...., ~ Cl '(l '~ ~ E:: 1< ~ l;'. l ,:: = '" u c;:: :~ Vl c '" .s III III OJ ..,...:j ~~ OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS This chapter addresses the following: cumulative impacts; growth inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; and effects found not to be significant. 5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Traffic and Circulation Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in Section 3,1 Traffic and Circulation - Year 2020 Impacts, With mitigation, significant impacts at the Bayshore Boulevard/U.S, 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access and vehicle queuing at Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S, 101 Northbound On-Ramp would remain significant and unavoidable, Air Quality As discussed in Section 3,2 Air Quality, Project-related mobile source emissions would have a significant impact to regional quality, Mitigation measures recommended for the Project would reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions but not to the extent needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant. Project cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant after mitigation, Noise The Project represents the fmal phase of development at Terrabay, Nearby planned construction projects have been completed including the Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp project and utility improvements in Bayshore Boulevard. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction are not anticipated in the Project area, Recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Noise associated with an increase in cumulative traffic would be long-term, Mitigation recommended for the Project and future cumulative projects would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Terrab'!J Phase III Pro/eel Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact fuport 5-1 Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics - 5. Other Statutory Considerations Development of the Project in conjunction with cumulative development would increase demand on the providers of services and utilities, The providers of services and utilities would be able to incrementally expand their services to accommodate cumulative development, provided that adequate funding is available, The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to a less than significant level, The Project would contribute to the overall visual alteration of the Project vicinity. City policies and development standards protect visual resources at the Project site and within the Project area, The mitigation measures recommended for the Project would reduce the Project's contribution to such impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Projects are considered to be growth inducing if they foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. The Project site is the third phase of the planned Terrabay development. The City approved a development program for the Project site in 2000, The approved project does not include residential development and includes a small amount of office-serving retail at the ground floor, The Project would be a mixed-use development that would provide housing opportunities for workers housed in the office and retail components of the development. It would also provide shopping and employment opportunities for the residents of Phase I and II of Terra bay, Existing infrastructure is in place including water and sewer line in Bayshore Boulevard to serve the Project. .,.." Increased employment and housing resulting from the Project would also increase the demand for retail goods and services, which would be provided through the retail uses on the Project site and at other retail centers in the Project area, - The Project is not considered growth inducing, The Project site is planned for development, it is the third and final phase of Terrabay, Adequate infrastructure is in place to serve the development. Provision of housing of would help to offset the demand for housing generated by the new jobs created, - 5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with development of the Project: - Terrabqy Phase III P"!ftct Draft 5 uppkmental Environmental Impact &port 5-2 - 5, Other Statutory Considerations . Project traffic would degrade the Bayshore/US, 101 Hook Ramps/Project Access Intersection from LOS D to LOS F with volumes increasing more than two percent, . Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US, 101 Northbound On-Ramp and is expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 and 2020, . Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMIO, 5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Irreversible commitments of resources would occur with development of the Project. The Project would commit future generations to having development on the Project site, Non-renewable resources such as natural gas and oil would be used during construction of the Project and during the Project's lifetime for heating and cooling Project facilities and other uses, Non-renewable energy resources would also be associated with transportation related to the Project, The Project is not used for agricultural purposes and is not under the Williamson Act, thus, potential loss of agricultural lands would not occur, The Project would preserve approximately 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) in perpetuity. 5.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The 2005 Initial Study identified the following environmental topics as not to be significant. Therefore, they were not discussed in this 2005 DSEIR, . Aesthetics - scenic resources . Agricultural Resources . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources . Geology and Soils . Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Hydrology and Water Quality . Land Use Planning . Mineral Resources . Population and Housing . Recreation A copy of the Initial Study is included as Appendix A. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Drtifl Supplemental Enzironmental Impact Report 5-3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT PREPARATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Contract Planner EIR CONSULTANTS PLACEMAKERS Patricia Jeffery, AICP, Project Manager Aesthetics Lori Cheung, Deputy Project Manager Public Services and Utilities Ron Teitel, Graphics Lisa Laxamana, Word Processing CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mark Crane, P,E, Dave Reed, Engineer Marcia Jacobs, Production DON BALLANTI Don Ballanti ROSEN GOLDBERG & DER Alan Rosen Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S spplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank REFERENCES INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco, 1982, Terrabqy Development Project Environmental Impact Report. City of South San Francisco, 1997, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report fir the Terrabcry Specific Plan and Development Agreement, City of South San Francisco, 1998, T errabqy Phase II and III Drcift Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning City of South San Francisco, 1999, Terrabqy Phase II and III Pinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning, City of South San Francisco, 2000, Addendum to 1998-99 Terrabcry Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects, Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 249 East Grand Draft EIR Circulation Analysis, Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project. Draft EIR (11orehouse Associates) September 2004, Final EIR (11orehouse Associates) February 2005, 1998 Terrabay SEIR Traffic Analyses, Crane Transportation Group, 1998, Bay West Cove Commercial Report, Supplemental EIR (11orehouse Associates) October 2002, Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property), Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2002, Terrab'!J Phase III PfY!iect Draft S1IjJplemental Environmental Impact &port 7-1 7, References City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan ElR. City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. EastJamie Court Office R&D, Draft Initial Study and :Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003. Genentech Building 31-Adrnin Draft. Initial Study and :Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005, Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines, San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report. Fehr and Peers, July 29, 2003, Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue, R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001, Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue, R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002, Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, Trciffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002, Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004, Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, Tom Sparks, Chief Planner, Planning Department, City of South San Francisco, P,O, Box 711, So, San Francisco, CA 94083,650/877-8535 Dennis Chuck, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department, City of South San Francisco, P,O, Box 711, So, San Francisco, CA 94083 AIR QUALITY Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996, revised 1999. NOISE Carone, David, San Francisco International Airport, Personal communication May 9, 2005, Terrab'!)' Phase III Prrject Draft S HJplemental Environmental Impact &port 7-2 7. References San Mateo County, 1996, San Mateo Counry LAd Use Po/if)! Plan, ALUC. 1996, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES BKF Engineers, 2001. Description olCaltulations Supporting the Update to the Storm Drainage Report for Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point Wes~, March 13, 2001. BKF Engineers, 2001, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Monitoring Program for Terrabqy Deve/opment- The Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point West). Bolzowski., Michael. Water Resource Planning Engineer, California Water Service Company, May 2005, Castagnola, Dave. Superintendent, City of South San Francisco, Water Quality Control Plant, 2005, Chuck, Dennis, Engineer, City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, June and July 2005, Corlett, Adrian, P,E. Associate/Project Manager, BKF Engineers, June and July 2005, CREM Engineers, 1990, Terrabqy Development Off-site Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project, February 1990, Crilly, Mike, Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District, May and June 2005. McCarthy, Julie, Payroll Officer, Brisbane School District, 2005, Niswonger, Bryan, Captain, City of South San Francisco Fire Department, May 2005, Normandy, E, Alan, Sergeant, City of South San Francisco Police Department, May 2005. Prudhel, Cassie, City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator, Telephone conversation on August 18, 2005, Razavi, Ray, City Engineer, City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, July 15, 2005, Salzano, Tom, Water Resource Planning Supervisor, California Water Service Company, May 2005, Schoolhouse Services. School Facilities Study, Prepared for the Brisbane School District, January 18, 2001. Waterman, Stephen J., Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, May 2005, White, Terry, Director of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, Telephone conversation on August 25, 2005, Temlb~ Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em-ironmental Impact &port 7-3 7. References AESTHETICS City of South San Francisco, 2000. Final Terrabqy Specific Plan, October 16, 2000, Terrabtry Phase III Pro/eel Draft Syppkmenlal Environmenlal Impact &porI 7-4 APPENDICES. A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY B, COM:MENTS RECEIVED ON NOP /IS C. PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC TABLES E, AIR QUALITI MODEL F. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WILL SERVE LE1TER Te"abqy Phase III PfY!iect Drrift Supplemental Environmental Impact &port - NOTICE OF PREPARATION! INITIAL STUDY Terrabqy Phase III Projecl Draft S uppkmental Enl'ironmenlal Impacl fuporl A-1 Notice of Preparation (NOP) TO: Affected Agencies FROM: City of South San Francisco - Lead Agency SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH: 1997082077 LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco CONSULTANT: Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 650,877,8535 Contact: Allison Knapp Wollam allison.knapp@ssf,net PLACEMAKERS 1500 Park Avenue - Loft #310 Emeryville, CA 94608 510.985.1784 Contact Patricia Jeffery, AICP placemakers@sbcglobal,net On April .21, 2005, the City of South San Francisco, Lead Agency, circulated aN otice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project, The Initial Study Project Description (under subheading "Project Characteristics and Process - Two Entitlement Phases'') stated the Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative entitlement phases: Phase I would consist of an amendment of the South San Francisco General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan and the environmental documentation would be a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and Phase II would consist of an amendment to the Te.r.rabay Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement. The Project Description incorrectly stated that Phase II entitlements would be analyzed through future project level environmental review, The SEIR is a project level environmental document and would cover both entitlement phases, The Initial Study Project Description has been revised accordingly. Additionally, under subheading "Project Phasing After Final Legislation and Entitlement Actions" of the Initial Study Project Description, Phase B would consist of the construction of the office building. There is the potential there will not be a market for office space when the Project applicant is ready to begin construction of Phase B, Therefore, the 2005 SEIR will analyze two Phase B alternatives to the proposed Project- the Hotel Alternative and the Second Residential Tower Alternative, The 2005 SEIR alternatives evaluation will also include a Reduced Density Alternative and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The Initial Study Project Description has been revised accordingly. The revisions to the Project Description would not result in new environmental impacts. Thus, changes to the ''Environmental Evaluation of Impacts" section of the Initial Study were not necessary, As a result of the changes to the Project Description, the NOP is being re-circulated for an additiona130-day public review period. \ The Project Description, location and probably environmental effects are contained in the attached Initial Study, Please send your comments by June 7, 2005, Due to the time limit mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Allison Knapp Wollam at the address shown above, We will need the name for a contact person in your agency, Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel, The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is. located 150 feet east of the site. DATE: May 5, 2005 SIGNATURE, ~~~.L Tom Sp s, Chief Planner t~ ? Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Tide: Terrabay Phase III Project Specific Plan 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner 650. 877,8535 4. Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site, (See Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map) APN: 007-650-100,007-650-110,007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150 5, Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Myers Development Company 101 Second Street - Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 6. General Plan Designation: Business Commercial 7, Zoning Designation: Terrabay Specific Plan District 8, Description of Project: Background The proposed Project is the third and final phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan (most recently amended in 2000) and the /~,\~ \ J~ ^\~ \ _____~(o"~,~':.:r--""-, , ':vJ{\ , \ "... (" "....:-:v_! ! \" \. --.,~ '\. \:- ,) "'--.........,.............. ~ >_._.......~! j ""',-., '-"-I---.--.__..L.......,, \ ! "- _._ ..,/'- / (-">-......... ....'" \ /'......, '\f. __' ') "-.. ~J ..__.~ I /.-. \\ r~ !\ ~"--"",,__.-p';~" -""~"-...<...;_ \; / I(//,! ~ '--- I' .t:;:'N:"'Z/...::x'Y7T;'. t" .J if fl ) } I "<1_3(.1 \ ) V" J (~ ~1>~..=:.50 ) '> l~J /j"~~___/ '( ( ! c"'-...... .......:/.-:-,'.... ;,~ J '-'"\',\ -./'.... ---::.....l))"- \ \ ) ..--..~._...,..~ t",/," '""'j \ \ "" y-../ I~',. -, ( j--....-.... \...-, \ 1: V . {~\ ,..\.,..... ~ Project Site E3 Terrabay ~ o 1000 2000 --- Scale in Feet + Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3 Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, Phase I Terrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single- family residences in townhome and detached configurations, The Village and Park was completed in 1997 and is 100 percent occupied, Phase I also includes the construction and furnishing of the Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for day care services, Phase II consists of Terrabay Woods (Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family detached units all of which are occupied, and Peninsula Mandalay, 112-unit condominium, Construction was completed on the condominium December 2004. Approximately 100 units of the condominium are occupied and all of the units are sold, Mandalay Point consists of 70 paired units (35 side-by-side duplexes). All 70 units are sold and occupied, Phase II includes the conveyance of the 26-acre "Preservation Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004. Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6,22-acre "Recreation Parcel" to the City of South San Francisco, Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have been installed and include: geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches and hydroseeding and creation and compaction of a development pad, The conveyance of the Recreation Parcel is scheduled to occur at the end of the 2005 wet weather season, Phase III, the proposed Project, is a mixed use development, The entirety of the Terrabay /Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982, 1, In 1982, the Terrabqy Development Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City), The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan, 2. ASupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996, The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Specific Plan and Development Agreement to February 2007, 3, In 1998/99, the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact '&port and Pinal EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999, The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial development including a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use, Table 1 shows the previous commercial development program for Phase III, - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 4 TABLE 1: PHASE III PREVIOUS LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage Land Use Hotels (3) 235,000 - 280,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms Restaurants (4) 12,000 - 18,000 450 Seats Retail (3) 6,000 - 10,000 Service Retail Mixed Use 30,000 - 35,000 Retail, Restaurant, Office Parking 1,760 Parking Spaces Total 283,000 - 343,000 Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR, approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement, The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel", The Buffer Parcel comprises about 2,7 acres, which would be ,used for roadways (allowed by the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan andZoning Ordinance), Mixed-use development would be located on the old "Office Parcel", now referred to as the "Development Parcel" which comprises approximately 18.5 acres, Figure 2 Project Site Plan shows the location of the parcels, The total acreage of the modified Phase III site is 21.2 acres, Table 2 presents a breakdown of the land areas, TABLE 2: PROJECT SITE LAND AREAS Land Area Acreage Buffer Parcel Development Parcel Open Space Building Area Total 2,7 6,3 14,9 21.2 This 2005 Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project that could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program from what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, This document builds upon the analysis contained in the 1998/99 SEIR. As applicable, information contained in the 1998/99 SEIR has been used to focus out environmental topics that were analyzed and need no further analysis from that in 1998/99 with respect to the current development proposal. This Initial Study identifies potential new or intensified effects which are specific to the proposed 2005 Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Additionally, this 2005 Initial Study and resultant 2005 Supplemental EIR (2005 SEIR) identifies effects that are anticipated to be less than those that would have resulted from the project proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. \ ~--~\\ \ \ ) \ ,/21\ \ ii ~ .~ : i \ I. ,: II f' I'" i" ~ ~ ,,/ /" ,.... ../ '" ~ w ~ <, is! s .> ~~!I / II i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .....) --- .. (' , \ \ L---- 1 " - Jb II i!<I' Il~ ill It:~ ~..a.m ...v! ... L \ o ~ ~ NP=: ~ ClJ .1. ~ cB b.O"-' ~ ~ .0' P:: e 1IJ 1IJ <= '6b &i !:l "" ~ j - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 6 - As allowed under Section 21093 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports will avoid repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports, The CEQA Guidelines and statutes encourage tiering, The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous environmental documents from Terrabay, in particular the 1998/99 SEIR Project Site Characteristics The Project site comprises approximately 21,2 acres, Portions of the site have been graded for a fIre road and drainage facilities, The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point Flyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping, Project Characteristics and ProceJs - Two Entitlement PhaseJ The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases. Phase I consists of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site, The environmental documentation is a project level Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the subject of this Initial Study, Phase II, following City action on the Phase I legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement, The City legislative action on Phase II would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. In response to the Project site's topography, the development would be stepped into the hillside, The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking, Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard, All vehicular entrances would directly access the parking garage. A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mandalay Terrace, a loop road, would be accessed from the entrances at each end of the development. Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way, Figure 3 shows the Project Development Area, Table 3 presents a breakdown of land uses, ... % ;:) ~ tl E ~ Q. ~ () ;; ~ ~ 15 Ul 5 m ::::l ., I 1 ; I: I I ~ I r ! 7.{/ y?' ~~ *~ ",,\ '\ \ ~1 \ /~~~ l' 0 .." .' ,/ -- - .. . ii . ... , .5 ~ o -; tX g is 111\ ,.,... .;c '" "- "- 'k(/ f~ ~ ~~ . ~.l}. 4.15 ~ ~ ctl Cl) < ..... ~ Cl) ct'.l S +.:. ~ g. =..... ooCl) ~ ~ o ..... u Cl) '5' P:: 12 " .a J1 ~ ~ o <J) Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 8 TABLE 3: PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use Office 295,500 Office Retail Residential 357,500 Restauant, Retail, Multiplex Cinema, Grocery Store Market Rate Below Market Rate Police Substation 343,000 73,000 250 248 Dwelling Units 88 Dwelling Units Service Areas 63,650 Total 1,132,900 Loading, Storage, Mechanical, Restrooms, Supervised Play Area Office Component A 17 -story high-rise building containing office space would be located at the southerly portion of the Project site. The top of the building would be approximately 220 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level (msl) due to its hillside location. The fa~ade would be comprised of a glass curtain wall system with metal and stone detail. Retail Component Restaurants would be located near the central plaza which includes a garden and water feature, A multiplex cinema and a grocery store (below the cinema) are proposed south of the central plaza and retail space is situated along a north-south axis, Typical retail spaces would be 20 feet from floor-to- floor with 24 to 28 feet of street frontage, Sidewalk. widths would vary from 20 to 25 feet and provide tenants with an opportunity to join the streets cape with display, planting and seating, Streets capes would be rendered primarily in glass, fabricated metals and stone, Residential Component The residential component of the Project would include a 22-story high-rise tower containing 180 market rate condominium units, The tower would rise to a height of about 250 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 360 feet above msl due to its hillside location, The tower would be constructed of concrete, glass and metal, The base of the tower would include retail space and possibly a restaurant, The residential tower would be located at the northern portion of the site, Two low-rise residential buildings would be located at the westerly portion of the Project site. The south wing would contain 68 market rate Townhome units. The units would contain two and three bedrooms, The townhome units would be of a contemporary architectural design in three- and four- Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 9 story arrangements over one-story of retail and one level of parking, Visually, these units frame the west side of the development and would appear as five- to six-story buildings, The north wing would contain 88 one and two bedroom flats and would be priced and available for moderate income households, The flats would also be a contemporary architectural design in one four-story building over retail, The north wing would be adjacent to and at the heart of the town center, Project Phasing After Pinal Legislation and Entitlement Actions Project construction, after successful completion of all legislative, entitlement and environmental requirements, would include all land uses except for the office building (phase A). Phase A would most likely include some parking for the future Phase B, Specifically, below the Main Street level, it is likely that four floors of parking for the office, together with the service/loading area for the grocery store would be constructed in Phase A. Therefore, Phase A would need to include the structural foundations supporting these Phase A uses, as well as the subsequent Phase B uses, Phase B would comprise the office building. Phase A is estimated to start construction in mid 2006 with completion in the end of 2009. Phase B would start construction within one year of the completion of Phase A with completion in 2010, There is the potential there will not be a market for office space when the Project applicant is ready to begin construction of Phase B, Therefore, the 2005 SEIR will analyze two Phase B alternatives to the proposed Project - the Hotel Alternative and the Second Residential Tower Alternative, The 2005 SEIR alternatives evaluation will also include a Reduced Density Alternative and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative, Amenities The original Office Development approved in 2000 included the following amenities: . A Public Art Program; . A 150-seat Performing Arts Center (shared with office conference room); . A Child Care Center with a capacity for 100 children; . 32 Moderate Income Below Market Rate units; and . Transportation Demand Management Plan, Phase A of the Project would include the following amenities: . A Public Art Program; . Water Features and Fountains; . An Outdoor Performance Area; . A 150-seat Performing Arts Center; . 88 Moderate Income (Below Market Rate) units; . Transportation Demand Management Plan; . Childcare fees for the retail and residential elements; . A Valley Trail; . Supervised play area for children; . History markers at various vantage points within the Project site; and . A history walk along the western boundary of the site, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 10 Phase B of the Project would include one of the following amenities: · Childcare fee associated with Project; or, · A child care center developed with the office building (if desired by the office building user), The Project would require City approval of the following: · Amendment of the Tetrabay Specific Plan of 2000 · General Plan Amendment · Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site · Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III · Amendment of the Tetrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) · Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 · Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components · Design review for Phase III · Grading Permits for Phase III 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is located west of the Project site, 10, Other public agencies whose approval is required: · San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department · California Water Service Company - water main and access easements · State Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Permit · California Department of Fish and Game - Stream Alteration Agreement · Caltrans - Encroachment Permit Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 11 ENVlRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAlLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, [gJ Urilities/Service Systems o Agricultural Resources [gJ Air Quality o Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Hydrology /Water. Quality 0 Land Use/Planning [gJ Noise 0 Population/Housing 0 Recreation [gJ Transportation/Traffic [gJ Mandatory Findings of Significance [gJ Aesthetics o Biological Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Miner.al Resources [gJ Public Services DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent A :MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required [gI I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier. EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~~~ 'sKi'r J:':J'-iJ..... Printed N e .d1~ -$, ZaQ5 Date / e ~ rI ~ b'- ;::.... ~ S-Q, For Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except ''No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources identified in the parentheses following each question and listed in the References section of this document. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Pntentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o o ~ o b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o o o ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? o o ~ o d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o ~ o o Discussion: a) The development Project would not significandy affect scenic vistas, The San Bruno Mountain County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site, Project development is concentrated at the southern portion of the property, adjacent to existing residential development (ferrabay Phase II), The 25,6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11, 2004, combined with the 2,7 Buffer Parcel, which would only be used for roadways, would maintain unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Bayshore Boulevard frontage. Additionally, the higher elevations of the Development Parcel comprising 6,3 acres of open space along the parcel's westerly boundary would limit development to the lower elevations of the Development Parcel. The development Project which would result after all legislative and entidement actions are acted on would increase the expanse of unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain from the previous Phase III development analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Potential impacts to scenic vistas is considered a less than significant impact. b) The Project site is not within a State scenic highway. Project development would not damage any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13 c) As stated in Item la above, the development Project which would result after all legislative and entitlement processes are acted on would result in less land disturbance than what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, The quality of the architectural design and its relationship to the Project site and surroundings would be similar, but larger in scale, to that approved for the site in 2000. The proposed residential tower would be similar to the approved, and constructed, Phase II Terrabay tower, The City has methods in place to address visual issues which include design review and modification by the City's Design Review Board. No additional analysis of visual issues, with the exception of light and glare (see Item d below) would be required, d) The Project would introduce a mix of land uses that would result in night lighting, Building materials could generate glare, particularly with the high rise towers, The commercial and retail uses would include signage which could also generate off-site light impacts. The introduction of night lighting, reflective building materials and sign age at the Project site could result in potentially significant adverse impacts and will be analyzed in this SEIR, Mitigation Measures: For items la, lb and lc, no mitigation measures are required, Mitigation measures to address significant light and glare impacts will be identified in the SEIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation SigniflClUlt No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluaiion and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the 0 0 California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 ~ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to thell: location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 ~ T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 14 Discussion: a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, b) The Project site is currently zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San Francisco 1999), Jv.litigation Measures: N one required. Potenti2lly Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3, AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? t8J o o D b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? t8J o o D c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? t8J o o D d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? t8J o o D e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o [Z] Discussion: a) Project development may result in potential conflicts with current Bay Area Air Quality Management plans. This will be evaluated in the SEIR. b) The 1998/99 SEIR identified significant short-term construction impacts associated with dust generated during construction activities, It is likely the Project would have similar short-term air Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 15 quality impacts to those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, This is considered a short-term significant impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, The 1998/99 SEIR determined local long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated this would be the case for the proposed Project as less development is proposed, The 2005 SEIR will identify local long-term air quality impacts and compare the results with the 1998/99 SEIR c) The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full buildout of Phases I, II and III of Terrabay would result in significant cumulative impacts, While it is anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a reduction in air emissions, full buildout of Terrabay may continue to exceed air quality standards, which could interfere with the region's efforts to reduce exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMlO' This is considered a significant air quality impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, d) The Project would introduce residential development. The previous Phase III development did not include residential development which is identified as a sensitive receptor, This will be evaluated in the 2005 SEIR, e) The Project would not include land uses that would generate objectionable odors. All restaurant spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that f1lter air before it is released outside of the building as a standard condition of Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (DBC), Mitigation Measures: For items 3e, no mitigation measures are required, Mitigation measures to address potentially significant air quality impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR, Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcdy or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? D D ~ D b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 16 the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? o o ~ o c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? o o ~ o d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 o ~ o e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? o o ~ o f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? o o ~ o Discussion: The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources of the Project and re-evaluated potential impacts on sensitive resources, Section 4,3 Biology of the Terrabcg 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7,3-8 of the Terrabcg 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucfy ftr North Peninsula Plaza Project South San Francisco, California (Environmental Collaborative 2005), a) The Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, Occurrences of the larval host plant for the federally-endangered callippe silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe) would be avoided based on mapping prepared as part of the 1998/99 SEIR No other special-status species are suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site, Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR would apply and would require the Project sponsor to comply -with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site, and the additional provisions to further minimize potential impacts on callippe silverspot. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4,3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the current proposed Project design and the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel, containing Johnny jumpup (Viola pedunculata), to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Therefore, no Viola pedunculata would be disturbed, Installation of signage along trails and use of appropriate dust control measures would be required as a standard condition of approval, a dust mitigation measure for Air Quality in the 2005 SEIR and part of the proposed Project, The provision of Mitigation Measure 4,3-2 for salvage oflarval host plants for callippe silverspot would no longer apply as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata) plants would be avoided. However, the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17 proposed Restoration Plan must still be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardclla) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot, as called for in Mitigation Measure 4,3-2. b) The proposed Project has been substantially revised to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site, which is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel. These modifications serve to provide compliance with the intent of Mitigation Measures 4,3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which called for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community types, Mitigation Measures 4,3-1 (b) and 4,3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR would remain applicable to the proposed Project, calling for revisions to the proposed Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. c) With regard to potential impacts on wetlands, the proposed Project generally conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4,3-3(a), 4,3-3(b) and 4,3-3(c). These include the avoidance of most of the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of the previous Phase III site evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR (now identified as the Preservation Parcel) preparation of a detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan to address unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which would be accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and development of the Project site, The WMP serves to address the filling of 0,68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps and anticipated filling of 0,10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Project site, As defmed in the W'MP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site, Necessary agency authorization was secured from the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and components of the W'MP have been implemented such as removal of invasive exotics and regrading of the two northern drainage channels at the Preservation Parcel. A subsequent memo by WRA in 2004 (WRA 2004) summarizes the status of the enhancement success and expanded wetland acreage adjacent to the northern portion of the site, While permit authorization from the Corps and RWQCB remain in effect, the Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG expired on December 31, 2004 and will have to be obtained again by the Project sponsor, The current site plan for the Project indicates that a small area of approximately 500 square feet of newly establishing potential wetlands could also be affected by improvements at the intersection of Mandalay Terrace with Bayshore Boulevard, This small area of potential wetland was created - T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 18 following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where surface water was diverted along the base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings and rushes were planted in the area. However, this potential wedand area was established through man-made planting executed during on-going maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation efforts, Because the access improvements at Mandalay Terrace would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would be relocated during installation of the created wedands on the Preservation Parcel as part of implementing the WMP, consistent -with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b), It should be noted that the area was to have been completely regraded to construct one of four wedand basins proposed by WRA as part of the WMP in 2000, but construction of this fourth basin was considered unnecessary during refinement of the W11P in 2004 because of the successful wetland enhancement effects on the Preservation Parcel. The loss of this small area of newly forming potential wedands is not considered significant given its man-made origin, required plant salvage efforts and net increase in created and enhanced wedands on the Preservation Parcel. Mitigation Measure 4,3-3(b) provides an adequate framework to address potential impacts on jurisdictional waters, and requires agency authorization and replacement mitigation prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Project, The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4,3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wetland mitigation plan and appropriate authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the currendy proposed Project, This includes re- securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the Corps and RQCB before they expire, if necessary, This would also include confirmation on the adequacy of the WMP in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wetlands affected by the Mandalay Terrace access improvements at Bayshore Boulevard, d) Consistent -with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR, no significant impacts on wildlife habitat are anticipated -with the proposed Project. e) The Project would conform to local plans and policies, f) The Project would conform -with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel would gready improve habitat values on this portion of the original site, Mitigation Measure 4,3-2 would ensure that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incotporated Impact Impact 5, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? D D D [8J b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064,5? D D [8J D c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? D D D [8J d) Disturb any human remains, including those D D [8J D interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: Section 4,9 Archaeology of the Terrabay 1998/99Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7,3-3, 7,3-4, 7.3-5, 7,3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabay 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference, The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005), a) There are no historic resources (as defined in Section 15064,5 of the CEQA Guidelines) located on the Project Site, b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the Project site, CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel, The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004, Extensive study of this site has occurred since 1950, Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional integrity and research significance of the site, Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is approximately 2,2 acres in size, Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates ranging from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the oldest documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area, The most abundant material present at the site was the remains of marine shellfish, Additional materials included those associated with cultural activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic artifacts and materials, The shellmound also contains human remains, While the number of human burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 20 The Project would completely avoid CA-SMa-40. The Project site plan (see Figure 2) shows the Preservation Parcel which contains CA-SMa-40, which fulfills the provision of Mitigation Measure 4,9-1(b), The Preservation Parcel is owned by the Trust for Public Lands and is to be conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer Parcel containing about 2,7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and is proposed as further assurance there is no disturbance to CA-SMa-40, Development on the Buffer Parcel is limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk. c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the Project Site, d) As discussed in Item 5b above, CA-SMa-40 contains Native American burials. The proposed Project specific plan and site plan would avoid CA-SMa-40. This would implement Mitigation Measure 4,9-1 (b) identified in the Terrabcry Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIR. As a result of the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4,9-1 (b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native American burials is reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005), Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required, Potentially SignifiClllt Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the nsk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 0 0 [gJ 0 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 [gJ 0 ill) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 [gJ 0 iv) Landslides? 0 0 rg] 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 rg] 0 - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 21 c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or 0 collapse? 0 cg] 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 cg] 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 0 ~ Discussion: Section 4,1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference, Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 2001a), The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 inclinometers, The investigation also included 10 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units, The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001b), Because the proposed Project differs from the project considered in 2001, additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis are required to fill data gaps and provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the proposed Project. This work will be required by' the City and incorporated into the final Project design and maps as a standard condition of approval, The Project site's topography has been modified as a result of previous quarrying activity. The bedrock type is predominandy Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits, The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls, a) No knO\Vt1 active faults are located within the Project site or the Terrabay development, Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast, According to the U.S, Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6,7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999), Two inactive faults located close to the Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west- - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 22 northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive, A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4,1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the Project site, Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the Project design: grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; install rock anchors; install subdrains; revegetate slopes; install slope monitoring instrumentation; locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and scale off loose rocks, These measures are listed in IYlitigation Measure 4,l-a and would reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impact to a less than significant level, The Project will be required by the City to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) which specifies that an annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking be included in the Slope Maintenance Plan that must be prepared for the project as specified by Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(b), Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(b) requires that the Project's CC&Rs establish and provide for the implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the Project's Property Owners Association, The Project Implementation of IYlitigation Measures 4,l-4(a) and 4,l-4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR will reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4,1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR and the following measures were incorporated into the Project design including: place keyways for fills through soft soils; grade flatter slopes with benches, install rock anchors; install subdrains; install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them, These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4,1-6 and would reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level. Stability analyses and geotechnical design recommendations identified in the URS reports (URS 200la and 2001 b) and required by the City will confirm the appropriateness of the previously adopted mitigation measures, The surficial soil deposits at the Project site consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines, These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction, Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b), Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the Project site, Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on Project development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR specifies that the Precise Plan for Phase III identify measure to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides that include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls, The Project design incorporates these measures and would thus implement Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(a), Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(b) requires a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) which would provide for ongoing monitoring and Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 23 maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures, Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4,l-3(a) and (b) would reduce potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. Grading plans for Phase III propose cutting into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain, Additionally, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake, Mitigation Measure 4,l-4(a) and 4,l-4(b) (see above) would reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. b) While the proposed Project would result in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high, Mitigation Measures 4,l-2(a) 4,l-2(b) and 4,l-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require the Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type A - ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads,. This would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. c) Because the Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading is considered very low (URS 2001), The site contains landslides which could adversely affect Project development. See Item 6a above, Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls be listed in the Precise Plan for Phase III. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4,l-3(b), which requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association shall establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures, This would reduce potential landslide impacts to a less than significant level. d) Future development would primarily be constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits, Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which would reduce potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4,l-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be incorporated into the Project design including: over-excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate settlement; postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction season; monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and place structures on deep pier foundations, The Project would avoid the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore, two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment". - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 24 e) The Project would be connected to the city sewer system, Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SignifiClll1t Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Imp.ct Impact 7, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? D D D [gJ b) 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? D D D [gJ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D D D [gJ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D D D [gJ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D D [gJ D f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D D D [gJ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? D D D [gJ g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? D D D [gJ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25 Discussion: a) The Project site is undeveloped vacant land, The site does not contain hazardous or toxic materials (pHASE ONE, Inc 2003). Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials, b) The Project would be a mixed use development including residential, office and retail uses, It would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0,75 mile from the Project site, See Items 7a and 7b above, d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list (DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962,5, e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site, The General Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, The Project site has a height limit of 361 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco 2002), f) The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports, It would not present a safety hazard for people residing or working at the Project, g) Development of the Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a ''Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit" (City of South San Francisco 2002), Mitigation Measures: N one required, Potenrially Significant Impact Potenrially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less 111aIl Significant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o ~ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e,g" the - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 26 production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) 0 0 I:g] 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 D. ~ 0 g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 ~ h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 ~ i) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 0 0 ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, .or mud flow? 0 0 ~ 0 Discussion: Section 4,2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR is hereby incorporated by reference. a) The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, b) Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25,6-acre Preservation Parcel. This would result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the Project site, c) A portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building area would be filled as a result of the Project. Mitigation for the fill of this drainage is addressed in the 'WMP, However, the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced by about 55 percent resulting in a reduction in storm water runoff. Storm water runoff would be collected into a pipe system that would convey storm water to Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 27 the existing storm drain facilities in Bayshore Boulevard, A debris basin would be installed to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris, This would fulfill Mitigation Measures 4,2-11 which requires a debris basin at the Phase III site, d) The amount of surface runoff from the proposed Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. The proposed Project would reduce the potential for flooding at the Project site, See Items 8c, 8g and 8h, e) The Project would result in a reduction of storm water runoff compared with the previous development plan, Project-related storm water runoff will be addressed in the 2005 SEIR under the Utilities and Services chapter, f) Future site development as a result of the Project would not degrade water quality, The Project will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SW'PP) that will identify erosion control and other measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality, g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco 2002), The proposed Project would convey storm water runoff into a pipe system that will connect to the storm water facilities located in Bayshore Boulevard, The construction of the storm water facilities in Bayshore Boulevard was a mitigation for the development of Terra bay, These facilities were designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay development. The previous design for Phase III included a system of benched concrete-lined drainage channels conveying surface drainage to a sump inlet with a proposed headwall but without a storm drain link to the adjacent street storm drain system, The proposed Project eliminates the channels and would convey storm water via a system of pipes that will connect to the City's storm water facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. The Project design eliminates the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4,2-4. (Corlett 2005), h) The Project would not locate any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect any flood flows, i) The Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams, See Items 8g and 8h above. j) The Project site is approximately 4,5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay, The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low, Mitigation Measures: With the exception ofItem 8e, No additional mitigation measures are required, Mitigation measures for storm water runoff will be identified in the Utilities and Services chapter of the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 28 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. LAND USE PLANNING, Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 0 mitigating an environmental effect? 0 ~ 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 ~ Discussion: a) The Project is the third and final phase of the development of Terra bay, The Project would complete this planned community. b) The Project would require amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement. The Project would change the current land use program to include residential development. The proposed Project would provide 88 moderate-income dwelling units which represents 26 percent of the total number of residential units proposed by the Project, The applicant would need to, and is currently pursuing options to, obtain an exception, pay an in-lieu fee or develop the low-income units off site. The Project would provide child care fees and a transportation demand management plan in compliance with Sections of 20,115 and 20.120 of the Municipal Code. c) The Project would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, See Section 4 Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required as part of the subdivision applicant procedure, The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for Hep compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fire break and exotic weed control, 11itigation Measures: N one required, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 29 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact o o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o Less Than Significant Impact o o No Impact ~ ~ a) The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or state (City of South San Francisco 2002), b) The Project site is not delineated as an area oflocally-important mineral resources under the General Plan (City of South San Francisco 2002), :Mitigation Measures: N one required, 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Potentially Significant Impa.ct ~ ~ ~ ~ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o No Impact o o o o - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 30 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? rgJ o o o f) 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? o o o rgJ Discussion: a) During Project construction, existing Phase I and II residential development would be exposed to temporary noise increases, Additionally, the first phase of Project development would include the residential tower, which would be exposed to construction noise associated with the second phase of Project development. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, b) Project construction may include construction activities that could result in impacts associated with groundbourne vibration. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. c) The potential for substantial permanent increases in ambient noise will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, d) Project development would result in temporary noise increases as a result of Project construction, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. e) Noise exposure associated with San Francisco International Airport will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, f) The Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, :Mitigation Measures: :Mitigation measures to address potentially significant noise impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. PotenrWly Significant PotenrWly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through 0 extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 rgJ 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 0 elsewhere? 0 0 rgJ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 31 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o Discussion: o o [2] a) Previously, Phase III was proposed for commercial and retail development. However, the current Project would include 336 dwelling units, The Project would not induce the extension of roads and other infrastructure, These improvements would occur with the previous development plan for Phase III. The proposed project would replace office development with residential development. b) The Project site is vacant. It would not displace any housing, c) The Project site would not displace any people. Mitigation Measures: N one required, Potentially Significant Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? [2] [2] [2] o o Discussion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorponted o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o [2] [2] No Impact o o o o o a) Project development may adversely affect fire protection services, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, b) Project development may adversely affect police protection services, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 32 c) Project development includes residential development which may adversely affect schools, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (Terrabay Recreation Center) The Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Phase III includes construction of a history walk and hiking trail to a sanctuary and open space plazas -within the Project, Any impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignificant. - e) There may be other public facilities that could be adversely affected as a result of the proposed Project, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to public services will be identified in the 2005 SEIR, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14, RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect 0 on the environment? 0 ~ 0 Discussion: a) See Item 13d above, b) See Item 13d above. Mitigation Measures: N one required, - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 Potentially Significan t Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e" result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to ~ capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? 0 0 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ~ 0 0 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 0 0 ~ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)? ~ 0 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ 0 0 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ~ 0 0 0 Discussion: a) Project development may result in traffic increases beyond those projected for the previous development plan, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, b) Project development may result in increases in the level of service associated with the previous development plan for Phase III. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, c) The Project would not affect air traffic levels. d) Project access and circulation design will be evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. e) Potential impacts associated with emergency access will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, f) The Project's parking adequacy and compliance with City requirements will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR, - Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 34 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ~ 0 0 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could ~ cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ~ are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's ~ existing commitments? 0 0 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ~ disposal needs? ) 0 0 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ~ 0 0 0 Discussion: a) With the introduction of residential development at the Project site, there would be an increase in wastewater generated at the Project site. Potential effects on RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. b) Residential development would increase water and wastewater demands at the Project site, Existing and planned capacities at water and wastewater treatment plants will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, c) The Project may have an impact on storm water facilities and this will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, d) Residential development at the Project site would increase water demand, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35 e) Residential development at the Project site would increase wastewater generation, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.. f) Residential development will increase solid waste generated by the proposed Project, This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, g) Project compliance with local, state and federal solid waste statutes will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to utilities and services will be identified in the 2005 SEIR, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant ' Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the nwnber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cwnulatively considerable? ("Cwnulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects,) ~ 0 0 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on hwnan beings, either direcdy or indirecdy? ~ 0 0 0 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 36 Discussion: The Project would result in the following potentially significant impacts: light and glare, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and service systems and transportation and circulation, These environmental topics will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 37 REFERENCES Corlett, Adrian, BKF. Email correspondence February 27,2005, Environmental Collaborative, 2005, Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucfy for North Peninsula Plaza Prqject South San Francisco, California, March 1,2005, Holman, Miley. Holman & Associates, Personal communication January 3, 2005, PHASE ONE, Inc, 2003, Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd, and Bayshore Blvd, South San Francisco, California, Prepared for Myers Development. February 24,2003, City of South San Francisco, 2002, South San Francisco General Plan, Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, Adopted October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002, City of South San Francisco, 1999 Terrabqy Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 1999, City of South San Francisco, 1998, Final Terrabqy Specific Plan, October 16, 2000, Prepared by Myers Development Company, City of South San Francisco. 1998, Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, July 1998. City of South San Francisco, 1996, T errabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 1996, Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates, City of South San Francisco, 1996, T errabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates, City of South San Francisco, 1982, Terrabqy Development Prrject Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 1982. Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group, URS, 2001a, Geotechnical Exploration, Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California, February 12, 2001. URS, 2001b, Report Geotechnical Design Criteria Tetrabqy Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California, March 16, 2001. U.S. Geologic Survey, 199, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 - A Summary of Findings, WorIring Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517, Wetland Research Associates, 2000, Wetland Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Francisco, California, COE File Number 23533S, September 2000, Wetland Research Associates, 2004, Letter to Mr, Ed Wylie, US, Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21, 2004, - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP lIS T errabqy Pha.re III Pro/eet Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port B-1 - Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM ..................... CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI ,650-828-6638 p. 1 . . ':'.: :":ST'A T E OF CA-L".FORNIA . . . . . :' " ,~.ov~.~~o~is ,..6ff~~e'..:~f.Pl.a~n,~~g::,~:~ci,. Resear.c~: . ..\' .:State Clea.ringhbus~':a.nd.. 'P~n:'ning Unit.. '. :: ". ~'"'~ ......(.~. . ,.'-: - '. ...~~,. . semWaish' '.Direc:tol' ' , 'Amold ,. ScliwaIZenegger' . G~vcmor" . . N-otfce orPrepar~tioD: " .... . ' Aptil ~.i~ 200S... '.'.." " ':., . 'R E' ':'C'E "V'E' "0 .,' '.. '., .' '. '.. . :.: ," '.' .' To' ....~~" ...... ..;..>.... "........".;,.,APR2;t~5 "/.' . . . .~. '. T~xpb.i.rti : ":::.;'> PLANNING> . ..... ' . . '. . . . #. .' ,.:. --. . .....:.. '. .SCH# . 19~70820F . . ..' . .-. . . .' '. .. - . .' . . . .! . . '~~bcd'f~ .~~~~ ~:'c~~is ~ N~~e ci~Pr~ti~ CN6P)'foi ~ 'i~riaba~'~~e ill ~ . .Envjr~iUIinpa,~l\~o.rt,~).;,..,:'. .' .': ", '. .':. '., ':.:' .... ...:.. " . , . . .' . .' : ~:. ',..' :',' . . ~ . . 0', ....f.-... " .:"" .: :,:,'~'" ""\:.:: ':. .' . ". '. ........ 'R~~ponsib1e,.~gcnciCs,~t traDStmftheir. c~inriien~ .on the .scoP~ ~ ~(lIiteirt'ofthe' NOP, fo-cushiii en;. ~e~~c . ,: ..' il1fOI'dtion.~lated to tbcU::ow'l{s1atutar)"rc5pon.~,ibil.ity...~tl:ii:n:30- davs':qfTeceipt:cifthe NOP ~ thd..eadAllen.cV; , . ,Tliis is a ~uItellY notice proVidedl?Y~. State' tlearlDgbOuac with a. rcininder for you to C01IlllJlmt in,'. timely . ,'. . " maDi1eJ:. .'0/" ~couragc ollie!: agci~. to. alSo .re~~d ~ tbi~' notice.~d cxprCsB their. c~_ ca1ly:in the: '. :~~o~~~,~.~ro~:~a.::,:::,>, .:> <......;.'<. ':.:":.:.::' .. ::',:'" ..... .:..... :< :'::" '.. ..'....' Please' ~e~~. Your ,~~~'.to::." :., . ~,: ::;'~...' '. ..' . . . .... . . ".. ..' ~." '.' ". >'. .....:.' AIii~~ bp~ ,: ,-:'.":.: ~ '. .,>:.,' ::.. '.~:. ::.... .,'. '. ., . . ."..;:" ~. .' South San Ftludseo Planning:Divisl~ri. .:'. .' _ . . .. ':. 315 ma.ple Street,. C'lty Hall Amiu'::'. .... . , . '... . . ..: ,...:.' ..~uth.$anF~~.D.c~.o,c;:A~O~.O...< .:.:' ..,'. .'. ......... . ..' . ,.. . . '. . '. ..' . :..' .' # ." ~.: . .... ." ...". .' . . '. .... . With a Copy to .the .S~tc Clcarlng]1.OUse iD:.thid)t'ftcc .of llIatiirlng' ~d RCsearch. Pl~asc' refer to the' 'SCH Uiunbcr, .,' . noted'ld:~Qvein.'~'coI1't~O~CO~~~sprojeck" . , .': .' rfyou"h&ve ~i,~~ a~o~~ theenVk~tai'ao~~~i~w~ro~s.:;ieaSe .c~'~'State' Clc~gh~1ise ai . {9-16)'44?..o6.13, . . ...., .... , ,. .' '.. '. . .' .'. . .. '. : '. .SinCtIel~, . '. . ., .., '.' . . :"C'~'~: . ..'..f1#.....:..............:. :. " .... ',..... .,' . . . ..... '. '. .:. ,'.. ;. . . '. ." Scott Morgan . AssOciate pia.nncr. State CieariIigbo'use . . . . . 'AttaclmumtS cc; Lead Agcw;y 1400 n;NTii srDET P.Q, BOX 3044' 8A~. CALIFORNIA 968~044 TEL (916) 445.00-13 F~ (916) 8~~0l8 . 'II'WW.opr:ca.gov . Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.c - Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base \ i , SCItt' 1997082077 Prole" T1tJe Terrabay Phase tII Lead Ag'ency South San Franclsoo. City of Type NOP No1ice of Preparation DescriptiOn Develop a mixed-use project that would include B 22-story residential tower and two 4-5 story residential b~lIdlngs. a 17-atorj office tower and retail including restaurants. shops 1 mUltiplex cinema and grocery, This developmen1ls the third and final ph~se of Tenabay, L.ead Agency Contact Name' Allison Knapp Agency S'?uth San FrancisCo Planning Division PholHl SS0-8n-8535 ' emalf : Ad,dress 31'5 -maple Street - City Hall Annex City South San Francisco Fax State CA ZIp' '9408'0 Project ,Location CDunty San Mateo ,City South San Francisco Region ' emu s.....'i Bayshore Voulevard Parr;el No. 007-650-100,007-650-.110. 007.a50-120 Township Rang''' Section Base Proximity to: HIghways 1-101, AIrports SFo' Railways Watetways San Francisco Bay Scbools LilndU$e Vacant LandfTerrabay Specific Plan Distrl~sfness Commericar Pl'Dject Issues AestheticNIsual: '* Quality; Arcnaeologle,""'lStoric; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic: Noise; Vegetation; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian; ~~~. . Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; , Agencies Department of Fish and Game. Region 3; Department of Health Services; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltr:ans. Djst~ict 4; Integrated Waste Management Board; Regional Water Quality Conltol Board. Region 2 DlliB Received 04121/2005 Start of Review 04/2112005 End of Review 05120/2005 Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.3 -~:::" " . :',E. 11: 4~ " - a) - :=0, ....:..A 'g. 0) Ill:> ,...\. C:>' ,S;{, ' , ,as, _= ;:'l~"'. I:IIt .Ii&!_ Cl,' . .... Q)' 0:: " " . _ _ E 'C'>I "It) 3 i -= j-' ,.....8 .....E I 0 - in IDO ~ 1!2. ~ -- ,M, ~ .....'6 a: , si 'i i je-I J Ilsi~ if I i ~fj iJ i Ie . lla; J ~] a:: >. m>Jl m>f 1!l 1111.1 III lS ' .. III II m.ll! t) 0 u - ii' 0 ' 1r ... :l: N.2 PI .., m 1O:e 'r:I C CJ lD a:: CJ ... Ii: lD .- :91 i J.cD ! 1 m. m t I Ill:> ~ I. !t i ID j ~ Ill] ID -B fI ~ m i ,-C5! € g I u.' ~ 1 8 .i 8]! iit~ ~ Ii: u a:: g ~ ~...J ~ 8 ~ CJ f ~15 I!~ 1a5,gj IS '1 ! I~.[J ,CJ IsCl, I~ 1"f2 .IM r:J .. CJ 0' 'r:J LI 0' 0 CJ II :S C! o In ~ ~ s I '8. ::l ~ ! u rn I = , '1' b j I t i I j S llf J.i f I~ I' ".! J: ~ III I. f. i ~ ,I. '_ 1. i 'Ii .... ~ I I .a I :. ~ Ii! fi', ~'!. J i i~ - ;'jj ), i~ .t' ~i! Ij~ II i !!b ~I.l'~j ~,ill ~ cj o~ .e ~.J ;s~~ts li!~~ II~ i~ ,I . 0 r:J '0 0 0 ., . ~ ; 'i i' i;' ~ ., Doe. I, ~ i. ~l'~1 ~i ~i' . ~ ,I~ g:'I~ II 'Ill, =.5 !15 I ~ I Q.~ !, il f ~ ' ~ I .iJ' i I S I' ~ J I, Ci ~ '[j _~Do.oo 0 ~ ~D. 2, 'i . -r- t ,~ . "fJ ~, ~ e .;' c ~ 8 ,~'= I. /J . ;. i! '~ 1 ;c- II - ~ f. I.ljt1i j~j = =.~ ,C!I., .a ! r:: i '0 1 5 I: i .!! 5i i I...c c.> ~ x:. .I 'II) 'jjIj ~ ...~' C) "0 '00 ,[j '0, ~ g . ! t 1 -i :; - Nn ~ . . ~. I '~ it i ~ 8- l ,I ',) e 1)1 0 j ~ ",pE . =tJ ~ ~n ..!. Q. QQ . h ~ ~ u j 2! i.o.'I~~ 1111 ~'.!~ Ii I Ii i; ii !~ t1.i.: ~! ~ ~ 8 I & ~! .J ~.i! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~:I ~ cS alO D. 0 11).0 '0' 0 . 0 D r:J Ii q f! j j ! 1 . " . ~. · j. t! I" . ) &J ~.B", i j ~ _ I' 'E i l . '... ' !' ,.,!." ,1. .s. i j.~ i ~ .._I '! .t '! (1)' ,l: I 'E ':! 3 r 'S j :z: ~ ! ~ I .:: Ii!'; aI ~] I CD ~i:~ ~ I i eaR ~ ..I: ra- j! l~ jlB!h U~ !U . in!l tfJl IiI ~, ~'~']i MJ '~if II' j J \I - >.J ~ 0 ~ II rtl ~ ~ ~ 'B CD ''0 l! 15 I J! l W 0 tic . . ': ~I it i~1 j,if ijlll~f II! !~ II Ii!' m f ~J ~f' ~I j~j jjl . 0 '[J" 0 Cl '0 0 0 D . -gso CJ 0 [j . ' " ~ 8 ! ' :I 0. II III 'It :i I 1 I: ,~ J I oj. i e 'I 'i'" <<: ' ," ,g ii, i ~ 11.0 ts e; ~' i'. i' i '18 h, ]! I J ~ : l J i I, ;:Ie 0 II. >E lit J ~ i - 'tl Jt~lI I !f;'c -Eli ~& 1.11 ill :I ~ I' i r; i <:5 ~ ~ 8 '; ~!' at i ! ! 1 ,i!i i ~ i i.! ! 8 i i ~ i E: _: i ~ . '; t ,eM '5~ E.!I lira:: 'Be"!- -'0;1 a~B ....c:; Ell :EC~ .-u~ '8~~ C!) '!~~ Cl~ t'!o .. !I i' .~ ii ,r~'~! fi ~fj ~ I i i.1~t t~ ,-2 i; ~=; i t~1 i~i ';1. if 8 .!:! IS'! c3uW oc!!& ~8.n'&.t< Oa3 J!ai.nCIJ .Ii! clJt).f fIO,~iii Q!Z aJ !rnw 1t8 ""m ~._ M ~ ~ ~ r-wf-l' I"'"'i _. ........ .... - - -- - en ::::i c -,2 - ~ .0 t:, - -II) Q :L. ::> Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.4 - .':,....:,: , , , . . .' . ' ' .. .. . : . '.~ , , ,,' ..' , ' ".. . .... . .'.,. - TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT , 1190 EI Camino Real- Colma, Callfomla94014 Phone: (650) 98&-2590 - FAX: (650) 985-2578 - April 27, 2005 - Sua)' Kalkln, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 RE: Notice of Preparation of a DSEIR -: Terrabay Phase III. RE'Cr:- c1VE APn D 2 B 2005 PlNiNING Dear Ms. Kalkln, Thank you for allowing the Town of Calma Planning Department to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Terrabay Phase III Project. The Town of Calma would strongly suggest that the Environmental Impact Report address potential impacts brought about by projected increases In traffic, specifically'in the vicinity of LawndaJe, Boulevard. The establishment of McLellan Drive and Lawndale Boulevard, leading from EI Camino Real east to Hillside Boulevard, provides an alternative access route to Sister Ctties Boulevard and Highway 101 from Highway 280. This alternative access could see an increase in use with the development of the proposed proj~. Please keep the Town of Calma informed during the environmental review process. Feel free to call me at (650) 985-2590 If you have any questions of wish to discuss the project. - - Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.5 /' TOWN OF COlMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1190 EI Camino Real, Colma, CA 94014 Phone: 650-985-2590 Fax 650-985-2578 May 16. 2005 RECEIVED HAY 1 7 2005 PLANNING Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Terra~ay PhC!se I!I. Dear Ms. Knapp: Sister Cities Boulevard, in conjunction with other arterial streets, provides an Important link to Highway 280. We are requesting that you document the traffic volumes and the current and future Peak Hour Levels of Service at the following two intersections 1n your Supplemental ErR: . Hillside Boulevard at Lawndale Boulevard . Lawndale Boulevard at Mission Road Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, .~l~~ Malcolm C. Ca nter, AICP City Planner ~ Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.4 - "./".. C/CAG RECEIVED MAY 2 7 20D5 PlANNING CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Ather/oil' Belmont. Brisbune . Bllr/ingrzme . C"lma . Daly City . East PIlJD Alto' Fostr.r Cry . Half Moon Bay . Hillsborough . Merrlo Pnrlr. . Millbrae Paciflca · Ponolo I"tJl'ey . Redwood City. &111 Bnmo . &111 CorloJ . San Motel) . San MlJteo COWl!} . South Sail Francisco' Woodside May 24. 2005 - Allison ~, Terrabay Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.Q, Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Knapp: SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Project Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project. Under the Congestion Management Program. the review of the project must include the identification of the traffic impacts on the State Highway System, If that review reveals that the project will generate 100 or more peak hour trips, the C/CAG land use policy and implementation guidelines must be followed. This includes the mitigation of all of the trips through Transportation Demand Management measures. I look fOIWard to seeing a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIR for this project. Thank you for your continued efforts on the reduction of congestion in our COWlty. Please let me know if you ~ave any qu.'estibns. - Flegards, , ~/O& ~~ Tom Madalena Planner II City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 650/363-1867 direct ' tmadalena@co.sanmateo.ca.us TM:fc - TAMP0592_ WFN.DOC 455 COUNTY CENTER, 2ND FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 ." 650/363-1867 · FAX: 650/363-4849 Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.2 Department of Public Works BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S, GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE TISS1ER NEIL R CULLEN DIRECTOR ,:-6\::_~:'!~i>" /~/'~-'. .. -',,-::,:\ ''i':c..( ., ~~~ ';:.~t=. .\::----1:'1 ,-\~..:- . ..~ 0 ,-v ;.~. ..........~-:'.,./ I~ \'~'D ]~-;:;".,~';,/ COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 1l!l5 CQUNTYCENTER. 5TH FLOOR' REDWOOD CITY' CALIFORNIA 9'0113-1885 . PHONE (1l5C) 383-4100 . FAX (650) 361-8220 May 24, 2005 Ms, Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 R~CfIVED HAr 3 1 (;;"i'~ Pi.ANNING Dear Ms, '\Vollam: Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase ill, South San Francisco We are in receipt of your letters dated April 21, 2005, and May 10, 2005, regarding the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator ofthe ColIna Creek Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the Environmental Review - Initial Study prepared for the project and offers the following comments: . Our records show that the proposed project site is located outside ofthe Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone), The lnitial Study indicates that the surface runoff from the proposed project will be conveyed into a pipe system that connects to the City's existing stann water facility in Bayshore Boulevard, We request that you provide us with additional information as to how the storm water , in the Bayshore Boulevard facility is directed. Does this storm water facility also serve as the conveyance system for runoff from the previous Terrabay developments that are within the Zone boundary? . Since the Terrabay Phase III project site is located outside of the Zone boundaries and properties within the project site do 110t contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance ofthe District's facilities, storm water runoff from this site must not be directed to drain into the District's flood control channel. Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-828-6639 p.3 - Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase In, South San Francisco May 24, 2005 Page 2 'I.. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417. Very truly yours, Ann M, Stil~an, P ,E, Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:JY :rnrny F :\US ERS\ADM I~\CITIES\SS f\2005\Terrabay Phase 3 - Notice of Prep, Review,doc O:\USERS\UTlLITY\Colma Creek FCD\WORD\Review External Project\2005\Terrabay Phase 3 - Notice of Prep. Rcvicw,doc File No: F-149 (9H) , cc: Mark Chow, P.E" Senior Civil Engineer, Ctilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection .:.,'- AI..ORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO GAVIN NEWSOM M~rOR LARRY MI\ZZOLA PRiSlDEHT MICHAEL 5. STRUN5KV VICE PRES1DErfT LINDA 5, CRAYTON CARVlITO ELEANOR JOHNS JOHN L. MARTIN ~IIlPDRT omECTOR ~'d SFO -~--- San Francisco International Airport June 7,2005 RECEIVED JUN 0: 8 2005 PlANNING P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco. CA 94128 Tel 650,821.5000 Fax 650,821.5005 www.flysfo.com Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner City of South. San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subj ect: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase HI Dear Ms., Knapp: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the T errabay Phase II I Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) , As described in the Initi8.1 Study, Terrabay Phase III is the third and final phase oftbe Terrabay Development. SFO notes however, that the Initial. Study indicates that there has been a change to Phase ill, from the 1998/1999 SEIR to the proposed project to be evaluated in this 2005 SEIR. Whereas Table 1 on page 4 of the Initial Study illustrates that no residential development was proposed in Phase III (1998/1999 SEIR), the current draft SEIR will consider the inclusion of 336 market and below market rate dwelling W1its (Table 3, Initial Study, page 8). This residential component would be developed in a 22- story condominium tower and five- or six-story low-rise buildings. The Initial Study indicates on page 30 that the DSEIR will analyze the noise exposure associated with the development's proximity to San Francisco International Airport. Although SFO understand that the Terrabay development represents a significant signature development in the city, and that the earlier phases of development included residential development, SFO bas concerns with the inclusion of residential development in Phase m. ~~qq-~~R-n~q I^IO ~~I~~Hld ~ss ~o AlI~ Wd6?:1 500Z BO unr Ms, Allison Knapp June 7, 20Q5 Page 20f3 The Terrabay development is located approximately two miles from the end of Runways 28UR, the primary departure runways for SFO. As such, residents of Terra bay will experience some level of noise impact from departing aircraft through the San Bruno Gap and along the Shoreline departure routes. While all three phases of the Terrabay development are located outside of the 65 CNEL noise exposure map, the SFO Noise Abatement Office has received noise complaints from South San Francisco residents at the Terrabay development area, Given the close proximity to the Airport, there is potential for single-event noise impacts associated with the pattern of aircraft flight paths, altitudes~ and airport operations. As an active member of the Airport/Community Roundtable" the City ofSouih San Francisco should be aware of the significant research and study that the Roundtable has sponsored with respect to development oflow frequency and single-event aircraft noise metrics. Inclusion of the residential component in Phase III would result in a significant new population in an area known to be subj~t to noise impacts from Highway 101 and aviation sources. Furthermore, the lniti.81 Study notes on page 13 that the building materials, particularly with the high rise towers, could generate glare. The height of the high rise towers and the light and glare from building materials, could pose adverse impacts on aircraft operations unless these concerns are addressed during the design stage. . Therefore, it is important that the DSEIR consider ,and evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts described above and include the following mitigation measures: . All project development sponsors shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an aco~tical ,study in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code, Title 24, Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls",and,with FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that construction achieves an indoor noise level of 45 dBA as measured for aircraft noise events. The,cost of reccmmended noise insulation measures shall be borne by the development project sponsor. . All project development sponsors shall meet'FAA regulations and prepare a FAA Form 7460-1 - Notice of fro posed Construction or Alteration, and incorporate the findings of the F M airspace evaluation into the project plans in compliance with FAA RegQlations FAR Part77 -Projects Affecting Navigable Airspace, to establish height restrictions and protect the airspace in proximity to San Francisco International Airport. E'd 6ESS-6ZB-OSS I^IU S~I~~~ld ~ss ~O A1I~ Wd6~:1 SOOZ BO unr ~....~ Ms, Allison Knapp June '" 2005 Page 3 of3 · All real property transfer activity shall include appropriate Real Estate Disclosures as requirecl by the California Department of Real Estate. indicatipg new residential development is within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. an active international commercial aiIport. P~ease keep SFO informed on this important project. We would appreciate, receiving a copy oithe DSEIR when it is available, and SFO reserves the right 'to provide additional comments at that time. If you have any questions regarding these comments.:please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 821-5347. Thank you for your attention to these issues of concern. SiJ:1cerely, Nixon Lam Senior Environmental Planner Planning, Design and Construction ....d SE99-S2B-OS9 I^IO ~~I~~Hld ~ss ~o AiI~ WdS...:t SD02 BO unr I - State of California-Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Services SANDRA SHEWAY Director ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER Governor Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Attention: Scott Morgan P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 REeE 1VtD JtJN 0 9 2005 ~/NG June 2, 2005 Dear Mr. Scott NOTICE OF PREPARATION -TERRABAV PHASE III DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, WATER SYSTEM NO. 4110009 (SCH# 19970820n) The Depal:tment of Health Services' (Department) comments on the. proposed project are as follows: The project area, as indicated in the Notice of Preparation (NaP) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, is within the service area of the California Water Service Company (CWSC) - South San. Francisco District, a public water system under the,jurisdiction of the Department of Health Services (Department) It was, indicated in the NOP that residential development would increase water demand in the Project site and this would be analyzed in th~ 2005 Suplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). In the event that any approved development project within the scope of Terrabay Phase III Project would require additional water facilities and capacities in order to me~t the water demands of the project, CWSC - South San Francisco District will need to apply for and obtain the necessary (amended) permits from the Department regarding any additions or changes to its system, in accordance with Section 116550 (a), Article 7, Chapter 4, California Health and Safety Code (CHSC). This section specifies that no person operating a water system shall modify, add to or change his or her s()urce of supply or method of treatment or change his or her distribution system as authorized by a valid permit Drinking Water RaId Operations Branch, 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 458, Berkeley, CA, 94704-1011 (510) 540.2158 FAX (510) 540-2152 DHS 'ntemet Address: www.dhs.ca.QOV Program Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.gov/os/ddwem 2'd SE99~S2B-OS9 I^IO ~~IWW~'d ~ss ~o A~I~ W~EO:ll soo~ so unr ".; Mr. Scott Morgan June 2 2005 Page 2 issued to him or her by, the Department, unless the person first submits an application to the Department and receives an amended permit as provided in this chapter authorizing the modification, addition or change in his or her source of supply or method of treatment. If you have any questions, please call Jose P. Lozano at (510) 540-2043 or myself at (510) 540-2413. 58: B Eric Lacy, P.E. ~ District Engineer Santa Clara District Drinking Water Field Operations Branch cc: SDWSRF-Environmental Coordinator 601 North ~ Street, MS 92 P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Mr. Chet Auckly Director of Water Quality and Environmental Affairs California Water Service Company 1720 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112-4598 South San Francisco Planning Division ,315 Maple Street - City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94080 San Mateo County Health Department - . _I ____ _-._ __...... T A Tn nlITlILlU...J ...JCC .In 1. I T" L...IU~n: T T cnn==, Rn un,... Jun 09 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 .. p.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA llUSlNE."~S TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GllVernor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. 0', BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 F~(610)286-5669 'ITY (BOO) 735-2929 RtCEIVtD J(JN 0 9 21J05 ~, @ Flex your powerl Be enerD s/ficiL.nt! June 6, 2005 SMI01259 SM-101-23.39 sea 199708207 Ms. Allison Knapp W oUam South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Street - City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. 'Wollam' , "',, .., . .'. ~ .' . :. :_..1..::.::"1\'__' :. ....;.:...~l:t..:.:ll.:. ". ;.:. f" ". .:'~: ....::...~.. .;'~":'. ,: Te~bay ,Phase In draft.. S1JPpl~m~~t@Ji'~~:v:ir.Q:Imlen~,l I~p~c.,~eP9rt,,7' Notice- 9f- Preparation, . h" "...;,: ' : :..' ': .':", ',', '. ,,::,~, ,;:', ,_ ...-' , , :", . '.. Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process, for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the recirculated Notice of Preparation for the Terrabay Phase III Project draft Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer: Our primary concern with the' project is the pot~ntially significant impact it may have ,to ti8ffic' vohime arid congestion. We reconimend a traffic imPaCi analysis ~ prepared. The traffic impact analysis should include. but not be limited 10 the following: 1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, d.istributio~ and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. 2. 'Avc:;rage Daily Traffic (AnT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly '. affected, streets. and highwaY$i~.~tqd.i~g"cf;Q.~srqad,s and~ co~qollil~g-, ~~er-sectjons. ..An analysis should be performed. specifically on the site entnulcelRoute lOr- off-' ramp/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. WCrdtnJ1ls improves mobility OC1'O&S Califrmuc" Jun OS 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 " p." MB, Allison Knapp WDllam June 6,2005 Page 2 3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative, and 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and roadway segments in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the ~tate highway facilities being evaluated. 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the deve19pment of alternate solutions to circulat~on problems that do not rely on increased higllWay'corlstruction. 6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. On Page 4, Table 2: Project Site Land Areas, the total acreage as shown in the table adds up to be more than the 21.2 acres mentioned in the second to last sentence. in the preceding paragraph. Please clarify which is correct.' Also on Page 4 in the first paragraph on line 9, it states that the "Development Parcel" is comprised of approximately 18.5 acres. Does this parcel include the .:Open Space as shown in Figure 2? Will this open space be reduced to provide more, building area? Please explain. On Page 6, in the last paragraph, it states: "A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR." 'What is the exact location of this fourth entrance? ,_ W"e, eJlco~~ge the (:ity of South San Francisco to coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies)) at the following website for more information: ' http://www.dot.ca.gov Ihqltraffops/developserv/operationalsystems/reportsltis(!:uide. pdf We look forward to reviewing the tr~ffic impact analysis and draft Environmental Impact Report for this project. Please send two copies to: Alice Jackson Office of TranSit and' Coinnlunity Planning Department of Transportation, Distri9t 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 "C/l.ltrlUls improufS mobility across California. , , '. ~ Jun 09 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-82S-663S - M.. Alliaon Knapp Wollam JUDe 6, 2005 Page 2 ~.b Should you require further infonnation or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, .e\UL TIMOT . SABLE District Branch Chief IGRlCEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Calt1"a.nlr improves mobility acroas California" CCAG CITY/COUNTY AsSOCIATION or OOVE:RNMBNTS OF SAN MATEO COtiNTY RECEIVED JUN 17 2005 PLANNING Athernm ',Belman! . Brilblme - Burlillgam. . Calma - Dilly Lity ~ Etut Pilla Alto' FfNtrv City . Hm/Moon Bay . Hil1rlJoTOugh - MenJC1 pcrric . Mi11bru PacifiCtJ -PoTrola Velley -Redwood City. San Bruno -San Carlos' Stl1lMoteo . San Mallo Colm9-' 'SCIlllh San FrtmcilCO . Woodside June 16, 2005 J Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner , City of South S an Francisco PlanniQg Department . 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Allison: RE: t. The following are the proposed project. 1.' , , Airp , daillriilill The proposed project Consists of a mixed-use development as follows: 336J'eSidential units in a hi~,-rise (180 units) and townhome (1-56 units) co:qfiguration, a 260,00 square-foot office/or 300 room hoteVor optional 180 unit condominium. and 357,500 square feet of retail uses. The 21-acre site at the comer 'of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard is not located within the most current federal airspace protection parameters for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) nor is it within the 65 dB 'CNEL aircraft noise contour, as shown on the most recent federal Noise "Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. Therefore, the project does not require formal review by the Airport Land Use Conunission (C/CAG). 2. Height of Structures, Use of Airspace, and Airspace Co.-npatibllity In my previous comments and analysis of the Terrabay project in 1998 and 2000, I noted that the project site was loCated within the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). However, the configuration of those surface~ has changed since then. Based on the current configuration of the FAR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for SFO (see enclosure), the project site is not located within the FAR Part 77 airspace protection boundary for SFO (see following comments). Therefore. no fOImal notification of the FAA, via FAA Fonn 7460-1, is required. , .. ij , '.r f T- ..f""'" ,~..., AI .d'..,.. ,,;.,-.,...f.~~. illJ <"jji1lJ,.'." "1- r.;,,r~l J~ . ""lil,a:~~~.~" .' fi....i...i;.r~!,.ril .fli.ti flI'l, l!f I r ,tit ~i;.J '..lftl.~~r.:;;' Mia .~.E:ui'..i:!" ~. ,r .\... i~!", ~.t:1ili.' ,~'fL~frt t ..1I....f'lfHittl~-i1 ,.~) l....~Qj~~ \!i....,..lt!.1f,if~,A~fA:,I.,~,~\:,'f!v .,II. 555 COUNTY CENTEJI.. S1R FLOO~ REDWOOD CITY, CA. 94063 · 6501599-1406 · 650/S9~9980 . (FRM00341'ooc) ."....J C~CC_C~D_ncc TATn ~UTUU~'~ ~~~ ~n ~IT~ w~~~:nT ~nn~ l~unr - Letter to Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner, C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALVe) Staff Comments of a Recirculation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmentallmvact Report (DSEIR) for Terrabay Phase III , June 16,2005 Page 2 3. Aircraft Noise Impacts The project site is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour, as shown on the most recent Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. AS noted in my previous comments (1998 and, 2000), the project site may be subject to aircraft noise and overflight impacts from aircraft ,using the Runways 28 Shoreline Departure Route from SFO. Th~t route is a noise abatement ' departure procedure that is designed to direct northbound and eastbound aircraft over the industrial area east of U.S. Highway 101. However;based on aircraft type, aircraft weight., and wind conditions, some aircraft make a ''wide'' Shoreline turn, that takes them over noise- sensitive areas west of U.S. Highway 101. In that situation, aircraft may fly directly over the Terrabay project site. Other aircraft noise impacts that may affect the site are from southbound aircraft on the PORTE Departure Route from Itunways 1. These aircraft generally follow the shoreline along the industrial area east of U.S. Highway loi before making a left turn in the viCinity of Candlestick Point. These aircraft will be clearly visible from the Terrabay site, especially from the taller residential and hotel structures. . Based on the aircraft routes described above, ALUC staff strongly suggests that ,the project sponsor incorporate sufficient noise insulation featlJ!es into all of the proposed noise sensitive land uses (residential and hotel uses) to achieve an interior noise level or not more than 45 dB in all habitable rooms, based on aircraft noi.se events. This interior noise standard is consistent. with state regulations for interior noise levels in multi-family buildings and other noise~ sensitive land uses. The AL UC staff comments above are consistent with my previous comments on the 1998 and 2000 amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan and related enVironmental documents. If you have y' uestions or c ents~ please contact me at 650/363-4417. ' David Enclosures cc: ALUC Members, wlEnc10sures Richard Napier, w! Enclosmes Joseph Rodriguez, FAA, Burlingame, w/enclosures Nixon Lam, SFO Planning, w/enclosures lI1uca1Affc:omlc:tlmabaypbsc:3nop,doc: E'd SE99-S2B-O~9 T^Jn ~~T~~~lrl dSS ~n AIT~ W~~~:nT cnn~ T~ unr . ....1 ,. o U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific RegiOl\ - Airporls DivIsion San Francisco Airports District Office 83,1 Mitten Road, SuIte 210. BurlIngame" CA 94010-1300 June 1.4, 2005 RECElveo JUN ~ 7 2005 ' , PLANNING Ms. Allison Knapp, Te~rabay Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Knapp: , RE":- lrotice- of' preparatld.il vi a Draft'.'S'dpP'l-ementa:j,," EnviroIiment1!d 'Impact.'.." .., Reporu - Terrabay Phase III I I ' ' , Our 0 fice received a copy of the June 7, 2005 letter from Mr. Nixon Lam, enior Environmental planner for the San Francisco International Airpo t regarding the subject project., We concur with all of the comme ts and mitigation measures listed in Mr. Lam's letter. The F South feder proje the S The with deral Aviation Administration (FAA) has provide~ the City 'of San Francisco grant funding for home insulation projects. The 1 grants contain a list of Assurances for the noise compatibility ts that ,were completed within the 65 CNEL noise sensitive area of n Francisco International Airport ('SFO) Noise B.X'posure Map (NEM). M must be used as a reference document to demonstrate compliance he a~rport gran~ agreement assurances, ty must take appropriate action to adopt zoning to restrict non- ible residential development or other building code requirements ieve an appropriate interior noise reduction level to mitigate. rport noise. New residential development will not be eligible deral funding fo( noise insulation. our age the City planner~ to continue to work with the SFO .Noise Abate ent and Planning Departments regarding future changes for ,residential land use within the limits of the FAA approved NEM. To assure consistency with established polices and practices of the San' Francisco International Airport Community Roundtable we recommend that your office work closely with the City's Community Roundtable representative. . It is advisable to consider the ,use of the cr.iteria contained in the State of California, Airports Land Use Handbook, to finalize dwelling Unit densities and floor area ratios for future development. We recommend the use of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise compatibility ,planning, Appendix A Table 1 as a guide for determining local code requirements for noise level reduction (NLR) thresholds ,for future building code enforcement. Future avigation easements should consider building height limitations based on the, civil airport surfaces described in FAR Part 77, Objects Effecting Navigable Airspace. - If you bave any questions ple~se contact me at (650) 876-2778, extension 610 or ~y electronic mail at joe.rodriguez@faa.gov. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JOSEPH R. RODRIGUEZ Joseph g, Rodriguez Supervisor, Environmental Planning and Compliance Section i Cc: :Nixon Lam, SFO Planner ~ Dave Carbone, ALue & Airport Community Roundtable Sandy Hesnard, ealtrans f"'...,J ~~nn_~~n_n""~ T....Tt'T nIITIIlIU-'--.J --.I~~ --.1M I I T" I"'''''~._'' PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES Terrabqy Phase III Prqjecl Draft S HPplemental Environmental Impact &port C-l - Appendix C Table C-l LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 10 B > 10 - 20 C > 20 - 35 D > 35 - 55 E > 55 - 80 F > 80 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to fIrst in line at the intersection, stopped delay as fIrst car in queue, and fmal,acceleration delay, Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board - Appendix C Table C-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 0-10 B > 10 - 15 c > 15 - 25 D > 25 - 35 E > 35 - 50 F > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and fmal acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix C Table C-3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION EAST OF 101 FREEWAY (2000-2020) Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0,95 300 0.86 271 Existin -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0,54 -76 Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office 0,95 260 0,86 235 Potential 11,400 SF Commercial 0,93 10 3,39 39 Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0,27 18 0.19 13 Existin -94,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0,54 -52 Oyster Point Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0,93 3 3,39 11 Potential 78,090 SF . Office 0;95 74 0,86 67 Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0,27 5 0,19 4 Pt. Grand Potential 2,110 SF Commercial 0,93 2 3,39 7 Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0,27 4 0,19 3 Pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0.95 380 0,86 344 Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0,93 23 3.39 81 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0,27 36 0,19 26 Existin -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107 Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0,95 713 0,86 645 Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0,59 165 0,54 151 Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36 Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0,27 16 0,19 11 Existin -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0,54 -198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0,95 2069 0,86 1874 Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0,93 85 3,39 308 Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0,27 140 0,19 99 Existin -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0,54 -432 MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19 Existin -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0,54 -9 Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371 Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Office 0,95 701 0,86 634 Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0,93 29 3,39 104 Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0,27 47 0,19 34 Existin -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0,54 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0,95 755 0.86 683 Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3,39 123 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0,27 36 0,19 26 Existin -21,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11 SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0 Potential 6341 6215 Existin -944 -1063 AL 5397 5152 Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April 2001), Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, ... Appendix C Table C-4 BRISBANE PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION (2000-2020) I, 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 0,67 23 2,93 102 3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5 66,500 SF Trade Corom. 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 Corom. 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/ A ts, 0.67 143 0,82 176 10, Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Corom, 0.98 224 1.24 283 11, Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 12, Baylands 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3,34 6,680 500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660 690,000 SF R&D/Educ, 1.07 738 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 (a , I mil. SF) SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868 13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 TOTALS 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, Ul/I ~ I :.aU = eJ eJ- c...Q c..~ -<~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ '-" z o ('f')~ ~~ oo~ -<~ =z ~~ ~C-' =~ ~~ ~oo ~o ~ C-' ~ u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ...:i '<:t ..... ..... ~~ 0 00 N M V) 0'1 V) ;;> 1.0 00 M N N ..... ..... ~O ~~ ~ E-4;;J .... ~O '<I" N '<I" t'- ~ C. C! ..... '""': '""': ,....; 0 t:l:1 ~ ~ - N '<I" li;I;l ~~ M N 00 M 0 1.0 - 1.0 '<:t 1.0 N ~ 0'1 :;g ~ 0 =:lli;l;l ZE-< ~ 1.0 ~ '<:t M V) ~~ c. C! ~ "'1 C"! ...:i 0 0'1 Q 0 N 1.0 0 0 "" 00 ~ ;;> - V) V) 1.0 N ~ 0 ~ =:l ~ E-4 ;;J ~ "" E-4 0 8 ~ 00 t'- ~ 0 t'- ~ C! '""': C"! "'1 0 t:l:1 ~ ...:i t'- '<I" 0 li;I;l 0 00 1.0 1.0 - N 00 ~ Q ;;> - M - - V) ~ ~ 0 =:l ~li;I;l ~ "" ~ E-< ~ 0 M 1.0 t'- ~ C! C"! C! C! - Q ~...:i 0 00 '<I" 1.0 0 N 00 - 00 V) N 0 0'1 V) C"!.. V) \0" =:l;;> '<1"" N" t- o "" - ..... :>-E-4 - N ~S Q+ ~~ - ;;JE-< ~ t'- C! 00 1.0 O~ ~ ~ - oq ..... ~ - - V) ~ ~ ~ II) u CI> ~ :::l 6' ..... 6' CI> CI> < ~ ..9 - 0 00 0 C; ~ - "" 0 0 - t- o V) 00 t- II) t-" N" V)" - - .... 0 0'1 <E "" N Il) ...0 '-" ....... s ~i .... o < ~ :1 Il) 00 ~ CI> E-< e ;:3 ,S II) 1 ~ U) G) 0.. G) ~...... ~ 0.. .... u ,.t:i"1:l O,S 1;1.) .8 "3 ~ oo:::l ~ .... ;;J ::s 4-< '..... 0 ~ ~ 0 :r:u c.:;<E s to o .... Q.. ::s ~ "1:l ~ ~ :::l S Z' Z" .-6"' ;:3 ;:3 u 000 ~~-;; 0'1 N ;:3 ""V)"1:l EE~ ~~-;; 000.... ~ ~,9< ",,;;;'o.t:l ooN~1l) viN""~ + + + ~ .-.....-...~> :><:><:><<<1 'E" 'E" ';;' . s ~ . S ....l....l....l 5....l ,~ V) 0 1.0 '.z:l ..... CI> I.Ol.Ol.Oug ...... c::ic::ic::i;:3':CI>g II II II "'2 z<<l ,9< '5' ..-...,-...,..-... lo-oI ~ ~ E-<f-<f-<~IIE-<~ 'E" 'E" 'E" ~ :::l II II ....l....l....lai....lE-<:>< _8~~ ~ ~ 6' ~ o o 0" ....; C:> C:> "'" 1:;' <\l <\l ,;:: So ~ ;:: .9 .... ~ c ~ ;:: ~ ~ 'C' ~ -i:! '.t::: '" ~ <\l ~ .2 ;:: c '- ,-:;: 9, ~ 5 ~c5 l-... ;:: ;:: c c '- '':: ~ E 1:: <\l C ;:: ~ <\l ;:: CJ ~ ,9o~ ~ <\l ;:: '. ~ <\l r'" ~'-J ::! " r55.2 ~'1;: ~~ t:l:::'~ ,90 :: ~c3 - Appendix C Table C-6 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION AM PEAK HOUR - SHOPPING IN OUT 187 Gross Trips l20 INTERNAL CAPTURE -8 Project Residential -4 -10 Project Office -20 169 Net New Trips 96 OFFICE IN OUT 364 Gross Trips 50 INTERNAL CAPTURE -5 Proj ect Residential 0 -20 Proj ect Shopping -lO 339 Net new trips 40 MOVIE IN OUT 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 0 6 All Net New Trips 6 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 23 Gross Trips 113 INTERNAL CAPTURE -4 Proj ect Shopping -8 0 Project Office -5 19 Net new trips lOO PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 533 242 Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix C Table C-7 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING IN OUT 631 Gross Trips 684 INTERNAL CAPTURE -17 Project Residential -l5 -45 Project Office -5 -30 Movie -30 539 Net New Trips 634 MOVIE IN OUT 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE -5 Project Residential 0 -10 Project Office 0 -30 Shopping -30 77 All Net New Trips 52 OFFICE IN OUT 68 Gross Trips 33l INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential -5 -5 Proj ect Shopping -45 0 Movie -10 63 Net New trips 271 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 103 Gross Trips 54 INTERNAL CAPTURE -15 Proj ect Shopping -17 -5 Project Office 0 0 Movie -5 83 Net New trips 32 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 762 989 Source: Crane Transportation Group - ,-.... u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('f'jZ QO~~~ uOOi"""'\~ :a~6Z0 eo: ~ == ~~8~ u<~< .~ = ~ ~ -g~=~ ~~ ~ ~ <~~< ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ z ;:l 0 0 0 Ir\ Ir\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:I N <"l - - N ..... - ~ Eo-< ... ;:l ~O ~ Eo-< O~ ==~ 0 0 0 0 Ir\ Ir\ Ir\ Ir\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N - N ..... N ..... - =:I ~ ~ Z ;:l 0 0 0 Ir\ Ir\ V'l V'l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:I ..... - - Ir\ ..... - ~ Eo-< ;:l 0 ~ ~ Z 0 ;:l 0 0 Ir\ Ir\ Ir\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Ir\ ..... ..... Ir\ - - =:I ~ ~ Z ;:l 0 0 0 N t- O'> N t- O <"l Ir\ Ir\ <"l 0 =:I ..... t- ..... <"l t- - - - ~ Eo-< ;:l 0 ~~ ~ t- o <"l 0 <"l r-- Ir\ r-- <"l N <"l Ir\ Ir\ 0 0 - - <"l t- ..... - - =:I ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0'> r-- ..... <"l 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:I N Ir\ ..... - N Eo-< ~ ;:l U 0 .... ""' ""' O~ Z ;:l 0 0 0 0'> r-- ~ <"l 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ir\ - - =:I ~ ~ Z ;:l 0 0 - 0 ~ 0 00 r-- V'l <"l r-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:I N N <"l ..... - Eo-< ;:l Eo-< 0 Z ~ S ~ Vl ~ Z ;:l 0 <"l 00 0 0 <"l r-- 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... 0'> "'" ..... -. =:I ~ CIl , , ::E . Vl =-- = -d -d E-< P-. ...l ~ I OJ..r:: ~ > ~ O....:l ,5 ,S ~ '€ -d ..r:: Vl.... 'CO ~ p:;0::1 ..r:: ::l 0::1 "s.... Eo-< > '5 .... 0 C ...l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ....:lCl 0 ~ 0 'CO 0 ::IVl III ~ ~ 0::1 ,- = '" ~~ E-< Z CIl o , .~ '5 ~>-~O Eo-< Vl ~.- ~ ~ I '" 1 Vl 0 ~ ~ 1a ~ ... ..... U U 0.- 0 00::1 == ~CIl ;:; ;:; ~p:; Z 0 - '" -.....r:: 0 ..r::..r:: 0 OJ '.... ... E-<~ Eo-<CIl CIl ~=-- - ..... .:= ~ ~ - ..... .l:: u St} <lJ ~~~~ ~~ Eo-< l:Ii ~t:: et.i = 1a ~~ ~~ l:Ii CIl -5~.E ~ 1il <lJ -~ OJ 0 ;::i '" ... U3~ ;::i ;::i >0..5 e,:, z ;::i o::1Z U~ O~ CIlZ CIlP-.Uo::1 ~Eo-< CIlCl -d > 'CO '" .~ u E III U3 bO = o o;a C IIJ ' SS 0..0 ON ~~ IIJ 0.- "'0<: ] "," .... u 5 1a ] ,5 ~~ bOO ,5 ::E .~~ IU"O == ~ ]~ :: E ~] OJ '" if ~ 0.. ~ 1a 25 ~-O t::~ !::: ~ ~ ,;:: o G) 'tt; .... 5 t:: ~CJ8. u 0 III 1a ~ 1a .l:: ,- ... =gE-< IIJ o! '" 1l.t1a ,5 1a U S CIl~ o.s~ U ::I til,;s ~J :g ~ 0.. 0.. o;a 25 u.... ... S5e,:, g 5 ,~ "Ec..d IIJ 0.. t:: 5b58. > <t:: III o ell 1a ~ SCSf:: e So'" Cj .a~1a::: 5 '(3 U ,9 o1a~~ ~&:E~ a'31a8.E;- ;>, 0.. Ul 0 l:: -a::E..r::o~ o~'5[;t:; -::E,;sCl~ "'...... <0.. III <::l ~...... 0 a:; 0 til:q.c~ Egi:3::E OJ .... l:: <_ _ _ 5 *:::..c.c. !:IS - ,-..... U i-oI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('f')Z ~ o;"~~~ uCIJZ;:J ~< 00 :Q=Z ~~o= u~E=~ .~ <~ ~ ~ -g ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~i-oI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ i:I Z ~ 0 0 0 "" 0 "" 0 "" "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = N - r--l - N ...... - ~ Eo< ::!. ~ ..:l 0 f.:l Eo< 0 i:I = ~ "" 0 "" "" "" 0 0 "" 0 0 "" "" 0 "" 0 - r--l - - t- - - r--l - = ~ i:I Z ~ 0 0 0 "" 0 "" t- O t- r') 0 0 0 0 0 = - - r') '-0 - - - r') - ~ Eo< ::!. ~ f.:l 0 ~ 0 ~ i:I Z ~ 0 0 t- t- O 0 0 0 0 0 .- "" - "" r') 0 '-0 r') ...... - - r') 0 = - ~ i:I Z ~ 0 r') "" 0 0 "" 0 "" 0 = "" "" "" "" r--l .- '<I" r--l - - - r') 0 - ::!. Eo< =3 ~ -< 0 Eo< ~ i:I ~ r') "" 0 0 "" 0 "" 0 0 "" "" "" "" r--l r--l "" r--l .- - .- r') 0 = - ~ i:I Z ~ 0 0 0- - 0 t- r') 00 r--l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = r--l "" - - !:!. Eo< ~ f.:l 0 U .... f;I;. f;I;. 0 i:I ~ 0'\ - 0 0 0 N t- "" r') 00 r--l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = - - ~ i:I Z ~ 0 0 - r--l - 00 0 "" r') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 = - - - "" - - Eo< ~ Eo< 0 Z f.:l e i:I tI.l ~ Z ~ N '-0 "" 0 0 0 '-0 "" t- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r--l r--l r') - - = ~ tI.l , , ..... ::E..j Vl j:l., ~ -ci -ci ~ ....:l ;! , "'...:: .!: .!: ~ ~~ ,S -< '€ -ci ...:: (/).... ~ ~ ,5 Eo< > '5 ...:: ::I ~ ' ...~ ..9.... ..... .... 0 ,5 .....l ~ i:I ~o 0 ~ 0 'a5 0 ;::l(/) III -< f.:l ~ ~ '~.5 ~ ~ '1 o I ,~ f-<>-~O Z (/) b~ ..... IIJ Vl 0 .... 0 ..... f-< ~ ~ a - ... - u U ~ 0 O~ ::r: =:tI.l - - ~ z 0 0 0 .- tI) l:i 0 0 -.....0 ~'€ '" '.... f-<~ f-<(/) (/) ~j:l., ~~ Eo< - - .j:: u tt) ~~~~ - - U ll.l U en en ~ a ~gj en en .- ....., .... f.:l ~o 1;; ll.l ~~ i:I~ ...:: III ll.l ;:j ;:j ll.l ... tf5~ ;:j ;:j ll.l >..... Z ~z U... o~ VlZ (/)~U~ >o.E VlO 0 -ci > 'a5 tI) .~ u ... .E tI) tf5 OIl ~ o ca 1: G) , So 0..0 Or--l ~'E ll.l 0.. "1:l-< ~ tUft 1: U ll.l a ] .5 IIJ'E ~O .5 ::E .~ ~ G)"O == ~ ~= ~ e IIJ"O ~ i:i ~~o.. >. ::I '" ~ 0 ~...!SC5 t:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ,S o (I.) ~ .... i:i t:: ~ 0 8. u 0 tI) a ~ a .j:: ,- ... ~g..... ll.l '" ll.l "2~a ,S aU "E Vl~ o..9~ U ;:l ~~ ~J ~- '" ~ go ~] e Si:iO g ~ ,$2 cc..~ IIJ 0.. t:: ~J38. > d::: III g f.':! a E} '" O~ ~ SOll.le,:, Z~a:: 5'0 u.9 o a ~ 't:l ~~Ej5 a3a8.E} ~i(/)..s ~ ~~~~~ CIJ ~ CIl t;::$ .E:; 0 6:l 0 "1;j ~.c ~, Eo'-"" 'l.i ll.l NU",:; U ~ S ......~ ~ ~ 0 *:::..C!.c- l%l - Appendix C Table C-IO MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS NUMBER OF TRIPS RECOMMENDED TOTAL TRIP TDM MEASURE CREDITED QUANTITY CREDITS Bicycle lockers and racks 1/3 per bike locker/rack 18 (1 per 50 parking 6 spaces) Showers and changing 2 trips per facility Install 3 showerllocker 6 rooms facilities (I per building) Operation of a shuttle 1 trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2 Implement Guaranteed 160 service to rail stations trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride Ride Home, Implement Home program. 5 trips will be new shuttles or fund credited if shuttle stops at a expansion of existing childcare facility en route to/from shuttles to provide 80 the worksite. additional round trip seats, Charge employees for 1 trip for each parking spot 0 parking charged at $20 per month Subsidize transit tickets for 1 trip per transit pass subsidized at Subsidizes 79 monthly 79 employees $20 per month, I additional trip if transit passes (I 0% of 790 subsidy increased to $75 for employees) parents using transit to take a child to childcare en route to work. Preferential parking for car 2 trips per reserved parking spot 26 carpool parking places 115 and vanpoolers for carpools; 7 trips per parking (3% of882 total); 9 spot for vanpools, vanpool parking places (1% of882) Implement a vanpool 7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with Implement Guaranteed 20 program Guaranteed Ride Home program Ride Home, Implement 2 vanpools, Operate commute I trip per features, plus 1 trip per Install information kiosks 3 assistance center hour staffed in each of 3 buildings with links to transit and rideshare information Installation of highband 1 trip per connection Coordinated with tenants to 40 width connections to install connections for 5% employees' homes of 90 employees Install a video conference 20 trips per center Install one video 20 center conference center Provision of on-site 1 trip per on-site feature 0 amenities Coordinate TDM programs 5 trips Coordinate with nearby 5 with existing buildings developments/ employers Provision of childcare 1 trip for every 2 childcare slots; 0 services as part of the increasing to 1 trip for each slot if development multiple age groups are selected (infants=0-2 yrs, preschool=3-4 VIS, school age=5-13 VIS), Combine 10 elements 5 trips 5 TOTAL 459 Source: City of South San Francisco PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC TABLES Terrab'!)' Pha.re III Project Draft S npplemental Environmental Impact &port D-l - "- $:' -< Q ~ ~ "-" z 0 ~ E-I ~~ ~~ ooZ ~~ ~tS ~ I ~~ ..... ~ ~ Q.l ~~ =- Q.l,.c c.co= =E-I c.E-- < ~~ ~~ E-I~ l'""'I ~ ~ E-I -< ~ ~ E-I ~ -< ..:l '<:t N 00 V) 0\ 00 ~O 00 0 N 00 N N 0\ ~:> \0 - 00 0 B = ~~ ~Eo.; ~ '<I" \0 '<I" I"- ~ o~ c, C! r'l '"'": '"'": 0 ~ ~ ..:l - N N l""l 0 00 0 l""l N 0 V) ~ '<I" \0 0\ ~ :> \0 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 '<I" '<I" V) C, C! r'l ~ r'l ...:i 0 '<I" 0 l""l l""l ~ 0 N \0 N - 00 V) \0 l""l ~ :> 00 0 ~ = ~ Eo.; ~ ~ Eo.; l""l 00 00 I"- 0 ~ C!- o ~ ~ r'l ~ C! 0 ~ ~ ...:i l"- I"- - N l""l ~~ 0 00 \0 - - - l""l :> - - l""l ~~ ~O = Z~ l""l ....Eo.; 0\ \0 l"- E!: 0 r'l C! C! ~ C! ~ 0 \0 N 00 ..:l 00 - 0 00 l"- N 0 0 0 ...... - V) \0 V) 0" = :> ~. N" N" r- - ~Eo.; - - N ..:l~ <0 ~~ ~~ l"- N 00 \0 ~ ~ 0; - ex: O~ - 00 ..f V) ~ ~. '" a 0 - '" '~ <IS .~ ,-... ~ lI.l 0 lI.l en '" 0 lI.l.E .... 0 00 .... 0 - en - l""l 0 00 r- .... ~ I"- 0 0 - - <20 r-" N" l""l lI.l 0.. 0 e',E l""l ..:l...... -< <IS E-< S <IS O~ .... S E-< ,S lI.l ~ 'E lI.l S~ (l) ,S '" u u '2 (l) '" 00 ~ 1A's ;::t 0 ,5 (l) ;:2 0 0 en = "S. 1 en ~ 0.. ',0 '0 ..o"1:l ~ 0.. ~..9 .8 "3 I~ 00= en '... 0 0 ~ en ~ :::r::u E-< Clc; -.9 -= ;::t o 0 ;:.,R~ ~~ ~11 ;:.,R~ o 00 -'<I" ~'--" l""lO\o ooN-.:t: .nNl""l + + + '-"''-'''R CC'-" 00 ,5 = = = 0 (l) HH H H .S:l ~~~c; :; ooo.a",i$ II II II z<lS .g.'8' ,-...-.,-... E-<~ ~~~~ [I II HHHHE-<:X: ~ ~ ~ ~t:!..c. ~ ~ o en o o o. ....; c C "l ~ Cll Cll ,I:: So ~ I:: ,9 ..... -E /0... C r;} I:: l::l Et; '& ~ ~ '-t: '" ~ Cll 'S .6- I:: C :-s 9- "1;j ~ ~ E 'S~ t'-... I:: I:: C 0'';:: '-t: l::l ~ 1:: Cll C I:: r;} Cll I:: ~ ~ .9- ~ Et; ~ " ~ CllU l: ~ " c55.6- Cll"1;j ..... Cll ~':";::: t:t:: 9... ,9- ~ Et;u - Appendix D Table D-2 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING IN OUT 187 Gross Trips 120 INTERNAL CAPTURE -8 Project Residential -4 -10 Project Hotel -5 l69 Net New Trips ll1 MOVIE IN OUT 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 0 6 All Net New Trips 6 HOTEL IN OUT 117 Gross, Trips 84 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential 0 -5 Project Shopping -l6 112 Net New trips 68 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 23 Gross Trips l13 INTERNAL CAPTURE -4 Project Shopping -8 0 Project Hotel 19 Net New trips 105 ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 306 296 Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D Table D-3 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING IN OUT 631 Gross Trips 684 INTERNAL CAPTURE -17 Project Residential -l5 -20 Project Hotel -10 -30 Movie -30 564 Net New Trips 629 HOTEL IN OUT 102 Gross Trips l08 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential 0 -10 Proj ect Shopping -20 0 Movie -5 92 Net New trips 83 MOVIE IN OUT 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE -5 Project Residential 0 -5 Proj ect Hotel 0 -30 Shopping -30 82 All Net New Trips 52 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT l03 Gross Trips 54 INTERNAL CAPTURE -15 Proj ect Shopping -17 0 Project Hotel 0 0 Movie -5 88 Net New Trips 32 ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 826 796 Source: Crane Transportation Group Q-.:J' ;.< I .... Q "t:l ~ =- ~.c Q.,~ Q.,E-4 < ~ -< ~ ~ ~ '-" z o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ oo.Z ~tS ~~ ~~ -<~ ~oo. ~~ ~~ ~" N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ..:l 01 iii '<I" N 0 '<I" ~~ 00 00 iii N 00 \0 ell 0 ~ =:l ~ ~~ r--- ~ '<I" '<I" ~ O~ c ~ .-; .-; 0 == ~ ..:l N 0 01 - \0 01 ~O M N 00 \0 00 I';I;l \0 - ~ ~> ~ ~ 0 =:ll';l;l ~ iii ~~ \0 C ~ C"'! l") ..:l - 0 0 t""l 01 ~ 0 N \0 0 \0 N - ~ > - ell 0 ~S ~ t""l 00 r- ~O !::!.. 0 C"'! l") ~ ~ ~ 0 == ~ ..:l N r- r- N N 0 00 \0 N - N 1';I;l~ > - ~~ ~O =:l Zl';l;l t""l \0 r--- ...~ !::!.. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..:l N \0 0 00 \0 01 0 00 0 0 - 00 - iii "l 0" 01" =:l> '<1"" N" - - - ~ - >c ~ ~ 0 + ~ ~1';I;l r--- 00 \0 O~ C"! - ~ ~~ ~ - .0:; iii ~ <I) U '" '" ~ = - ~ 6' ~ - ~ <I) '~ '~ Cf.l '" ..9 0 00 0 .- -; ... - t""l r- ell r- 0 \0 .- <I) t""l .... r-" N" <.E) 0 <I) M .0 '-" ~ ~ ! s 0 u .... f-< 0.. <I) ~ - <I) Po. '.E = = '" S <I) D <I) @ u ~ :; '" >< ;:S 00 <I) i ell .s <I) :& Cf.l ,5 0.. ..c:::"'O 0 0.. - I';I;l :3 OIl = ~ .... 0 '... 0 0 Cf.l ..c::: ::2 ::c:u f-< O<.E) ~ Cf.l ~~ o 0 ';.R*- ~~ ]:9 ';.R*- o 00 \O~ t""l ;;:' 0 OON"": , 't""l lliN+ + + ----- ----------;x: ;x: ;x: '-" OIl ,s '-" '-" = 0 <I) j j...:l...:l ,~ '" ~~~~ ti ci ci ci ~ "'.~ II II II Z ,go 8 -------------- f-<p.. t.. t.. t.. II II II j55jf-<;X: 26:6: - <.-i c::> c::> "'-l ~ ~ C/ Cf.l o o o. ~ (l) (l) l:: 'SiJ ~ l:: ,9 ..... f \:) ~ l:: ~ ~ ~ ~ :::! ;::: ..... '" ..::; (l) ';5 ,S l:: ,9 ~~ ~ ~ ';5\.j t'-. l:: 5..g '';:: ~ ~ :.... (l) \:) l:: ~ (l) l:: \.j ~ .9-E;:; ~ ~ " ~ ~U i::: :::! '. c5j,S ~1l ~':';:: i:z::: ~ ,9- ~ ~v Appendix D Table D-5 TERRABAY PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING IN OUT l87 Gross Trips l20 INTERNAL CAPTURE -12 Proi ect Residential -6 175 Net New Trips 114 MOVIE IN OUT 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 0 6 All Net New Trips 6 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 34 Gross Trips 164 INTERNAL CAPTURE -6 Proj ect Shopping -l2 28 Net New Trips l52 ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 209 272 Source: Crane Transportation Group - Appendix D Table D-6 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE - PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING IN OUT 63l Gross Trips 684 INTERNAL CAPTURE -24 Project Residential -22 -30 Movie -30 577 Net New Trips 632 MOVIE IN OUT 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE -7 Project Residential 0 -30 Shopping -30 85 All Net New Trips 52 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 146 Gross Trips 79 INTERNAL CAPTURE -22 Proj ect Shopping -24 0 Movie -7 124 Net New Trips 48 ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 786 732 Source: Crane Transportation Group AIR QUALITY MODEL Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S <<ppkmental Environmental Impact RBport E-l - URBEMIS-2002 Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called URBEMIS-2002.1 URBEMIS-2002 is a program that estimates the emissions that result from various land use development projects. Land use project can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial parks. URBEMIS-2002 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be used when it is available. Inputs to the URBEMIS-2002 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. Trip generation rates for project land uses were provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and vehicle mixes for the Bay Area were used. Average speed for all types of trips was assumed to be 30 MPH. The URBEMIS-2002 run assumed summertime conditions with an ambient temperature of 85 degrees F. The analysis was carried out assuming project build-out would occur by the year 2010. CALlNE-4 MODELING The CALlNE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALlNE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc. A screening-level form of the CALlNE-4 program was used to predict concentrations.2 Normalized concentrations for each roadway size (2 lanes, 4 lanes, etc.) are adjusted for the two-way traffic volume and emission factor. Calculations were made for a receptor at a corner of the intersection, located at the curb. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC7-2002 computer program based on a Bay Area vehicle mix. . The screening form of the CALlNE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level 1 Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 8.7, April 2005. 2 B3y Pr ea Pi r 0Ja1 i t Y Mnagernent 0 st r i ct, B6IOJD CB::J.. ru del i nes, 1999. - attributed to more distant traffic. The 1-hour background level in 2005 was taken as 4.4 PPM and the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 3.2 PPM. The 1-hour background level in 2010 and 2020 was taken as 3.9 PPM and the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 2.9 PPM. These backgrounds were estimated using isopleth maps and correction factors developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. . - Eight-hour concentrations were obtained from the 1-hour output of the CALlNE-4 model using a persistence factor of 0.7. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WILL SERVE LETTER Terrab'!Y Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl F-l - e CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 341 NORTH DELAWARE STREET. SAN MATEO, CA 94401-1727 (650) 343.1808 . FAX (650) 342-6865 BAYSHORE DISTRICT - July 13,2005 -, Mr. Adrian Corlett, PE BKF 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Re: The Mandalay Terrace, South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Corlett, California Water Service Company is prepared to provide water service to "The Mandalay Terrace" project located adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and the newly constructed Route 101 Hook Ramps in South San Francisco in accordance with all rules and regulations in effect and on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Those rules may be modified from time to time by the commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction. _. - An extension of our facilities will be necessary to serve this project. The specific water requirements for the proposed site can not be determined until fire department requirements, domestic requirements, and utility plans are submitted to California Water Company. - If! can be of further assistance, please call me at (650) 558-7862. ;;;~~ Leighton Low Construction Superintendent - - DISTRICT O"ICES: ANTELOPE VALLEY. BAKERSfIELD. BAYSHORE . BEAll GULCH. CHiCO. DIXON. EAST LOS ANGElES. KERN RIVER VALLEY. KING CITY. LIVERMORE' LOS ALTOS' MARYSVILLf . OROYlllE . RANCHO DOMINGUEZ. REDWOOD YAllEy . SAliNAS. SElMA. STOCKTON. YISAllA . WESTlAKE. WIllOwS TERRABAY PHASE III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 1997082077 City of South San Francisco November 2005 Prepared by: PLACEMAKERS in association with Crane Transportation Group Don Ballanti Rosen Goldberg & Der + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TERRABAY PHASE III FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review Process 1-1 1.3 Report Organization 1-2 2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 2-1 State Agencies A.1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) 2-2 A.2 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2-5 Local Agencies B.1 Town ofColma 2-19 B.2 Pacific Gas & Electric 2-21 B.3 San Francisco International Airport 2-25 BA City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) 2-30 B.5 County of San Mateo 2-33 Public and Citizens Groups C.l Lois Robin 2-36 C.2 Lou Hanhan 2-38 c.3 San Bruno Mountain Watch 2-40 City of South San Francisco Public Meeting Notes D.l Special Joint Meeting South San Francisco Council- Planning Commission 2-42 D.2 Planning Commission Public Hearing on DEIR 2-44 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-1 Terrab'!J Phase III Final S1IjJplementa/ Environmental Impact &port i .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) has been prepared in the form of an addendum to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project. During the public review period (August 31, 2005 to October 14, 2005), written comments were made on the DSEIR. These written comments and responses to the comments can be found in Chapter 2 of this FSEIR. The minutes from the Special Joint Meeting of the South San Francisco City Council and Planning Commission held on October 5, 2005 and the Planning Commission public hearing on October 6, 2005 are also included along with responses. Changes to the text of the DSEIR can be found in Chapter 3, with new text shown in underlining and deleted text shown by strikeout. This document together with the DSEIR will constitute the FSEIR, if the South San Francisco City Council certifies the FSEIR as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS According to CEQA, as the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed Project, and to provide the general public and Project applicant with an opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. This FSEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the DSEIR and to clarify any errors, omissions or misinterpretations of the analysis or findings in the DSEIR. The DSEIR was made available for a 45-day public review on August 31,2005 and distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The general public was Terrabc!J Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 1-1 - ,. 11Itroductioll - advised of the availability of the DSEIR through public notice by mail to property owners Qocated within 300 feet of the project site) and interested citizens. This FSEIR will be presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for their review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the FSEIR at which time the City Council may take action regarding the certification of the FSEIR as full disclosure of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. Certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the Project. - - - 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This FSEIR consists of the following chapters: - · Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter includes a discussion of the use and organization of the FSEIR. - · Chapter 2: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of letters received from the public on the DSEIR and the names of individuals and agencies commenting on the DSEIR. The comments are nwnbered in the margins of the comment letters and responses are keyed to the comment nwnbers. Where revisions to the DSEIR text are appropriate, these are summarized and the actual text changes are shown in Chapter 3. - - · Chapter 3: Revisions to the DSEIR. Text changes, corrections or clarifications based on comments received on the DSEIR are contained in this chapter, including language that has been added or deleted from the DSEIR. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the DSEIR; text strikeffilt has been deleted from the DSEIR. Errata are also shown in this chapter. - - - - - - - - Tcmz~ Phase III Final S tppkmcntal ElIvironmental Impact &Pori 1-2 - COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES This chapter includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review period that addressed the DSEIR. Comments on the DSEIR were received from state, and local agencies and the public as follows: Comment Number State Agencies Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Agencies Town ofColma Pacific Gas & Electric San Francisco International Airport City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County County of San Mateo Public and Citizens Groups Lois Robin Lou Hanhan San Bruno Mountain Watch City of South San Francisco Public Meeting Minutes Special Joint Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Planning Commission on Public Hearing on DSEIR A1.1 A2.1-2.l0 B1.1 B2.1-2.5 B3.1-3.4 B4.l-4.3 B5.l C1.l C2.1 C3.1-3.2 D1.l-1.2 D2.l-2.8 Te~ Phase III Final S upplementa/ Environmental Impact Repori 2-1 '. ." ... .~. . t:." . ..... ..... . .. .. . . e.d .' . '~..' " ...-....-.....:"...-:~.., .... ... .-. .' .... "!;.. . ."... . . J:h." ..':. '. . '" . .. . . .' . .' .:..:~~~'" ;......,..:' ::--'. :.:- .'... .~~~:<.".:<:: ......-. . ~ ., . . .;. ~ . . . . .' \ ..'..:." .... .'. . ." ..". :. ....: "; ".:' ...... ....:". '. :.:. .:=:::;~~.~~:..-. ;..:: .~. .:...... "" ':.: : ....::'- '. ':'.. >~. ~. ..."~ '. -" : ::. '. . ..' .' -' ,. .' . . . - LETTER At .- . ".:..... :'..,'. :'. "1 . . .... . " .... ."' " ,:' .-, .'~- -- . . :.- ." . ".:'" .-.... \' .- '. . - - . . '. . .. i400~~.p.oiB~.8Q44 ~.~~95B12-30~. '. .TJ:L.<~16) ~~ . . F~.(~~t1) ~.aO~ "",...~~.-ID .' '.' .'. G~99-S2B-n~g T~Tn ~~T~~~'~ ~~~ ~n il~~ u~n~:~ cnn~ 1~ ~on - . ; -.' '. .. .# ~ - .. ..... . .::.--::' ~::: ::::'~,"':~:D~~u~t D~t81i.:Repb.rt' '.: ::.' ":: .. . :.~tate C'I.arhighC)~~.oata aase ...... .'. . "- . . .... . . -. . ... ~ ... . .-. ... .. ;.".::==\$"~~c:,~;;'::;.;:':.i .... . .' ....::<.>.:.-...':"./:.: ..::.>:,..::~: ::.SI.R',.:. ~~~'~~'~~'~"~:'>~..':.:::L'.?;;..:::..:::."~:~::,:,:':-'::.::::,:<'~<~.~':.~.:;;..'::./.. :.:.:. '...:..:.... :..'.:.' :'. ~ >':,' : ;. '. ......-:-' ..... .;:. "..cifption .: D..~eIOlr8'mtxed-u~ ~~.thalwotild:i~ud6. 22~tc?'1~~esideli1lal toY,i8r.and lW9 4-a. story:'. ". /;:;;'\_"':::~~~~:':~m~?'f1;~r~~:;s~~t... ;..... "',>} .... '" ..LeadAgenc;y.COntact .......'...., ...."............. . . . '. . ..... ..; . .. .. .~~ .... , .' '. '. '-. '., . "J. ..' .-:. ....Piwcei ;,0:.. -:007-850-100; 007~5Q.1,ci,'o07.65()~j2G.-OO1~O.14o,. 007.65-150'. " '-. .:. .: .;........:. . .' .' .~:.,.. :~~: '.: '<::..:.::<.:T~Wn_~.' :'"'' .... :'.::':::"._ ':.~ ~"":':: ':'.:::: .::'.:....:> ',-':. ~;.:s.CtI~n::-.:::.., ..... :~.:./.<.... .~.-.: ':..:':.-:. .:......:.. ". :--: .::. '. ..:'. .', .' . .C' .' ~". ':"'. .' .' '" '. ". '.'., ".: '. ".'- :,: -. :....:.-..'.. . :" .: ':" '. "-' '." . . .'...' .' "ProXlmltY.to.. . . . '.' ,..". .... .' '.'. :::'. ,.... .... .... ::':'.:.' .'. :::.:. :..<:....: . ':,':~Q~,..>'1~1~'t :.~.-.:.~.: '/:.':.':.:~.:.(::.':: ..~::~>:.:;.....:....~...:.:.... ". ::-,!' ~':'-:. .>::.... . ..... . .' . ','". '.' .' ..n.... . .AlrPorts.... San.Franc!sco inti. Akport .',. . " .... .. . ...... ". ....,.. '" .. ,':. ;'C":./:;:;= ;,'~~;..d'C.~/\."'.,:,:, .. . . '. . ".' ..... '.' . :. .''-' ~ndU.. ...."'a~~:~n~~tTabaY~~~.Pian .D\s~~~lOess<:o~merk:8l.': .' . . .' .' . . . : - . . , .., . ..... ., . -' '. ": '. :. '. '.: :. .' .. . '.' >>..... . . ~ ....... '. . .,. '. .'. .' . .. . I'ro}8cr I'-11M! '. AesthetIcNIsual; Air 'Quallty; NolSe;.-PU.bllc ~Mce.~. Sawer ~ac1ty. Trefflciclrculatlon; Cumulative' ::. . ". '. . ....... .... '" ~....;.';:.?\./.", ...., '~" . ........' , R8~leWfng . ~"oU~'~~ncy; 'o~en~.d ~h ..~d:G.~e..~~n.3; Depa-rtnielit 'Of..P8rb Ind ~~~~;. :.'. 'A"'nr;l~'. OffIce of HlstoricP~~oli;'sarj'-F~Dci800 Bay CoRS8I:vation.and'.beVeiopmenJ Comm188!Oi1: .. . .' :::', :~.\ :::.....: ".;' ;..;._..' '..\.-.. .~:/:Dep~mOfw~,-~~~~.~.,:D~o~~~8utl~ipal.l(~rnta'H\gh~Y'~l; ~;><:: .':'.'- . ...... . . . ....,.. ;' ..' .;: .eanrans~ QfstriQt4;:.6~rtni.~oflieai~'SeN~}N~'~'; H8iitage:COm~iSsroti; Pubiic.:" . ':.' ,- . . ~ti1itiea com",lssi~; R!,gion~i VV. QualItY ~1'Bo.ar<l. R.eg~n 2' -: . ;" '. . . ; . ... : .. .. .'...... '.. . . .' '. .. . .... . . J' '1. . . :.: '\'.:';: ;:...:< ,.oa.e ~C8~ed:" Q813012tlcXi.::,. ...':.Sta~of.~~iew ':98131f2~05 ..'" EDd.o'R..VJ8w'.10J1~OO~: . .. . . '. .' ... . ...:' .... '. .., .. .: : . '. : )........ .... . . '. ... . .. - .... .' ~ . ";.. '...- . .-.. . ! .: :'" . . .-. .... . . .. : .' .' .... .: ....;. -",;~ ~'. .~: . ... . . .'d . 'Note: Blanks il;'ctatafflelds ntSult'from IniUfncl8t!l.'li1fo.m\at(6n p~ld~ by!ead 8oency. 'sE9s-6a8-'o~9' 'l^l'(l' '~W'HJ~~:'d' ~~s .::J~ ALl:)" . IolH~~P6 ~oo~ t~ ~oo - 2. C01111l1en! Letters and &sponses RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE) - - Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment A1.1 - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - Terra~ Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-4 - 1~/14/2ee5 14:16 5182865559 GAL 'fIW.IS PAGE 02 LETTER A2 !lTAft OJ' ~AI t~"llNl'" .US~ ftAN~'I'lOllt AND HOUllnrr.. ~,.~Nt'lV ARNOLD !~AUnnnCU. r-..- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 28810 OAKLAND. CA 9C628-08ec PHONE (610) 286-550& FAX (610) aB6-65CSt TTY (800) 785-2929 Flu 1IMU" ,..,.,/ .. tIl..." e/fII:irllfl October 14. 2005 SMI0l2S9 SM.tOl-23.39 SCH 199708207 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam Soutb 8811 Francisco PlamUns Dhision P.O. Box 71 ) South San Francisc:o, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Wollam: Terraba, Phase 18 Draft SupplelD.eDtd ED'WiroDlDentallmpact Report - Draft EnvlrolllDelitallmpaet Report (DEIR) Thank you for continuing to iD.Clude the California Department or Transpoltation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have teviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and have che following comments to offer: . In Table S.2 under TraffIC Circulation: The mentioned volume percentageB. both in text and figure forms" are not correlated to each other and should be eoneetecl. . Pages 2-7 and 2-8, RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. parapapbs 3 and 4. indicate that 21 of the 88 nats in the north low-rise building and all 15 units in a separate residential building would be i~ rcsuictcd for moderate income households and low income households ICSpcctivcl)', sbould Phae B be constructed wiCb a second l80-unit residential tower. If Phue B consU'UCtiotl doCa not include a 180-wUt residential towcf, these 21 and IS units wiD be available at market rate and oaly 61 of the 88 flats woald be priced IUld available far moderate income households. Phase B of the project. as shown in Table 2.1-1 is incomplete and only shows the construction of a 295,500 sq. ft. office building without any indication of a second ISO-unit residential tower and only lists 103 dwelling unit. in Phase A as below market tate reaideatial units. Please correct. . . For the pmposcs of clMity, the traffic: report should include a paragaph that clearly defines the difference between 'approved' versus 'proposed' Tarabay Phase fiI Projects. . Por consistency and comparison purposes between Figurel 3.1-4 ud 3.1.-3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes should provide existing tndJic volumes for Lawndale Lane interSections at MisaiOll Street &. Hillside Boulev.d. "CalfrMf trrynRIf' ~, lICroae CaliAH'." 1 I fit I A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 I A2.4 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF 18/14/2885 14:16 51a2865559 t"LHrtnlnb 1J1V.L OuU-U"" u"'~...., CAL TRANS PAGE 133 M.. AWIOD KDapp Wou. OetDlJer 18, 200$ Pate 2 · On page 3.1-16 and Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8. the vehicle queuing standard should be ' based. all · 95U1 percentile queue ad not on a soth percentile queue. As such, the Itaffic anaJysi. should 'be reevaluated and addressed in the report. H the 9S" percentile queue is used, IUOSt study intersections \Vil1 have sipificant impacts that need 10 be addlessed and miti&ated. · Pale 3.J-2S. Table 3.1-14, Trip Generation, Tenabay Phae m Approved Use. the trip generation of the 66S,000 aq. ft. Office BuiJdin. was. based 00 the 2000 Addendum Land Use Program on tho Terrabay ~ ID Site as iIIl acIdeIJ.dum to the 1998/99 Tenabay Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Report men.lioaed on page 1-2. Shouldn't the 10,000 square feet of retail use, as described in the footnote, be 7.500 sq. fl. as shown in Table 1.2 on pace 1-21 Please verify. · Pages 3.]-27,3.1-28, 3.1-32 and 3.1-33, the figures are labeled for Peak Hour Base Case Volumes for Years 2010 and 2020 "Without Proposed Tenabay Phase m Project. II would be clearer if theae figures did not include the traffic volume generated by the approved Terrabay Ph.le III devel~t of 665,000 141. fl. office spaces. . · On page 3.1-44, Pr.oject Impacts ~ Mitigation MeuW'e:l, although mitigation measures have been addressed, the report should state who will implement and fund these mealllt'es. Will the project sponsors contribute a fair-share for any facility improvements? · In Section 4.6. EnvironmenllJly Superior Alternative, clarify why the Hotel Tower A!tcrJlative is superior to the Two Residential Tower Akemative if the latei' generates less traffic rrips as indicated in Table 4.7 when complied 10 Table 4.J. · Please identify whether or not the project will have significant impacts based on the Cumulative Conditions. Should you require further. information or have any questions regarding this letter. please call A1ke Jackson of my staff at ('10) 286-S988. c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) -C."'*M ~ 1IWIb~ .ro.. OGIl/Wraio- - - - A2.5 - - A2.6 - A2.7 - - A2.8 - A2.9 - A2.10 - - - - - - - - Response to Comment A2.1 Response to Comment A2.2 2. Comment Letters and R4sponses . RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) Comment noted. The percent increase in traffic due to the Project at the Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection reported for year 2010 PM peak hour conditions should be 1.2 percent rather than the reported 1.4 percent. All other percent traffic increases due to the Project and presented in Table S.2 have been checked and are correct as reported. The change from 1.2 to 1.4 percent at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard results in no change in findings or conclusions. The following change is made to Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2: t&Jmpact 3.1.2 Year 2010 Intersection Levelof5ervice Impacts (5) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque A venue/U .S.l 01 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a :t2S second decrease in average vehicle dday, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume levd would be increased by less than two percent (1.~ 2 percent) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact." The Project's Phase B is proposed as an office tower. As a potential devdopment option if market conditions do not support the construction of the office tower, a 180- unit residential tower would be proposed. This is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative. Table 2.1-1 is correct. To provide clarity, the following change is made to the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 of the DSEIR: "A lS-unit residential building on as many as four levds over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative." Te~ Phase III Final SlIfJPlemental Environmental Impact &pori 2-7 Response to Comment A2.3 Response to Comment A2.4 Response to Comment A2.S - 2. Comment Letters and &sponses - Comment noted. The following change is made to the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 of the DSEIR: - "This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project (which includes 357.500 square feet of retail space. 351 dwelling units. 70.000 square feet of service area and 295.500 square feet of office space as presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIR) on this network in contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) (which contains 657.500 square feet of office space and 7.500 square feet of retail space as presented in Table 1.2 of the DSEIR). and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where 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 Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current T errabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group." - - - - - - The Lawndale Lane/Mission Street and Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane intersections in Colma were not evaluated for AM peak hour conditions because the proposed Project would be expected to contribute less than 25 new vehicles to the Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane intersection and less than 15 new vehicles to the Lawndale Lane/Mission Street intersection during this time period. These volume increases would result in less than significant impacts. Project volume increases would be much greater during the PM peak hour, the time period which has been analyzed. -, - - Comment noted. A 95th percentile vehicle queue evaluation has been conducted for the intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. Locations exceeding available storage lengths with Base Case AM and/or PM peak hour queues in years 2010 and 2020 are identified. Approaches or turn lanes receiving significant 95th percentile impacts due to the proposed Project are identified. Based upon the Crane Transportation Group's evaluation, there would be no additional intersections receiving a significant queuing impact using the 95th percentile criteria forthe year 2010 horizon. Both the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard intersections would be expected to receive significant unavoidable impacts using either the 50th or 95th percentile queue criteria in 2010. - - - - - T errabtrY Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 2-8 - 2. Comment Letters and Responses For the year 2020 horizon, one new intersection would receive a significant impact if using 95th rather than 50th percentile queue evaluation. Both the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections would be receiving significant unavoidable impacts in 2020 using either the 50th or 95th percentile queue evaluation criteria. The Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection would also be expected to receive a significant impact during PM peak hour conditions if using the 95th percentile criteria. The approaches with the potential significant Project impacts would be the southbound off-ramp, where vehicle queues would extend about four car lengths longer than available storage and the Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lanes, where vehicle queues would extend about one car length longer than available storage. Base Case conditions would have acceptable storage on both approaches. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand about nine car lengths longer than the turn pocket's 350-foot length. However, the Project would not produce a significant impact to this movement, as it would result in a reduction of southbound left turns. As discussed with Caltrans staff (Katie Yim, Senior Traffic Engineer, District 4, Division of operations, August 17, 2005) signal timing adjustments and activation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection could be set up such that off-ramp queues would be cleared and not back up to the freeway mainline. Also, in order to reduce the 95th percentile northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach queues to acceptable levds and to provide acceptable storage for southbound left turns, the existing 350-foot southbound left turn lane would need to be lengthened to 550 feet in conjunction with the adjusted signal timing. Based upon discussion with Brian Kangas Foulk, the applicant's civil engineer, lengthening this amount is feasible. The lengthening of the left turn lane by 200 feet would not result in adverse impacts to biological and archeological resources as confirmed by Jim Martin, biologist with Environmental Collaborative, and Miley Holman, archaeologist with Holman & Associates. Therefore, at this location the 95th percentile queues could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, whereas this would not be possible at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections (identified in the DSEIR) receiving significant queuing impacts in 2020. Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR: . "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 (Citqr of South San Francisco criteria)." Terrabtg Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 2-9 - 2. Comment Letters and Reponses ~, Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR: - · 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 unacceJ>table lengths. the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more. (Calttans criteria)" - - Change the following on page 3.1-29 of the DSEIR: ''Year 2010 Base Case V ehide Queuing" - - - - - - - - - - - - Te~ Phase III Final S IIJ>Plemental Environmental Impact &port 2-10 - 2. Comment Litters and Responses Add Table 3.1-7A following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18 of the DSEIR: TABLE 3.1-7A: VEHICLE OUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE OUEUE). AM PEAK HOUR y ear 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storaa:e Queues Base Base Case Base Base case (in feet) (in feet) ~ + Project case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn ~ ill JQQ 292 l15. NB through ill 47 90 106 196 WB off-ram.p left turn .@.Q ill 233 254 m WB off-ratl\P left/right .@.Q ill m 254 289 Bayshore / Central Project Access NB left turn ~ ill. 63 ill 43 NB through 945 27 45 12 18 SB tight turn ~ 45 19 Q 12 SB throu.gh 475 ill 211 ill 253 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ Ait;port EB left turn ~ .a1 177 227 265 439 SB left turn ill ill 1QQ 170 2M. 351 SB through @ 97 46 127 74 180 SB right turn ill. 21 Q 64 26 86 WB left turn !ill 21 64 li 23. 88 WB through ill ~ 88 162 78 178 WB right turn ill NA ill 12 149 Q Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 124 122 101 181 188 EB through 255 W. ~ ~ ill 612 EB right turn ill 216 1Q1 1M 121 119 NB left turn ill. 84 ill. ~ 452 361 NB left/through 255 ~ ~ ~ m 380 NB right turn Z1Q ~ "ill. ill Wi 764 Dubuque/1ot Ramps Off-ram,p left turn 1QQ 122 122 ill 822 644 Off-ram.,p left/throQgh 100 1Q.8. 790 ill 822 644 SB right turn lli 2 52 22 ~ .11 SB through ill .11 ~ ~ ~ 349 * All sto~ and qpeues are per lane. Source: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!Y Phase III Final Suppkmelltal Environmental Impact &porl 2-11 - - Terrabqy Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-12 - 2. Comment Letters and fusponses Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30 of the DSEIR: ''Tables 3.1-7A and 3.1-8A show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below. AM Peak Hour . Bavshore Boulevard/ AtJProved Proiect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound approach left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/ DubufJue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/ through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a: demand 23 car len~s longer than available storage. . Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 101 Northbound Of-RamtJI Southbound Of-Ramb. The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage PM Peak Hour . Bavshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/ DubufJue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage." Te~ Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 2-13 - 2. Comment utters and Responses .. Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34 of the DSEIR: "Tables 3.1-7A and 3.1-8A show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below. - - AM Peak Hour · Bqyshore Boulevard/Approved Proiect Main Access. The Barshore Boulevard northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than available storage. - · Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ OYSter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. - - · Ovster Point Boulevard/Dubuflue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage. - - · Dubuque Avenue! U. S. 101 Northbound Of-Ramp / Southbound On-Ramp Intersection. The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage. - - PM Peak Hour · Bqyshore Boulevard/ U. S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps / Proiect North Access Intersection. The Bay-shore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. - · Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. - - · Ovster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound right turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths - - - TefTUbqy Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &Porl 2-14 - 2. Comment Letters and Responses longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage. . Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/ Southbound On-Ramp Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of seven car lengths longer than available storage." Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSEIR: ~qmpact 3.1.5~ Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5()tb Percentile (SU)" Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46 DSEIR: ~qmpact 3.1.5b Year 2010 Vehicle Oueuing Impacts - 95th Percentile (SU)" The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition. Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. AM Peak Hour . Bcryshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qvster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour . B~vshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Q'YSter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storage). The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storage). . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSEIR: "Mitigation Measure 3.l.5,!!" . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per Terra"'-!Y Phase III Final Sttpplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-15 2. Comment Letters and &sponses vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City mllY also desire to llad lteldifloftalleagtJi to llE:eoffiffleaate die 95di pef'eefttfle fl1:le1:le llftd SOffle vehiele tkeelerafl6ft in the t1:lfti lll:fles. The other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5 of the DSEIR: "MitiJlation Measure 3.1.5b · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service. provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. ~ · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by Cit;y of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SU). Change the following on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIR: "Impact 3.L9Jl Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5()tb Percentile (SU)" Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIR: "ImDact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing ImDacts - 95d' Percentile (SUP' The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. AM Peak Hour · Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qvster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a T ~ Phase III Final Sspplemental Environmental Impact &Pori - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2-16 - 2. Comment Letters and Responses 9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storage). PM Peak Hour . Bavshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ram'bs/TerrabavAccess Intersection. The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage). The Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend from + 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage.) . Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a 105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Barshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage). The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storage).The westbound through lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would receive a 7.6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-50 of the DSEIR: &'Mitigation Measure 3.1.9~" Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50 of the DSEIR: &'Mitillation Measure 3.1.9b . Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access. Adjust sequel timing to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the southbound off- ramp lanes by 200 feet. ~ TS) . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95th percentile queue. In addition. lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left turn lane by 25 feet. However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also. the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU). Terrab'!Y Phase III Final SNjJplemental Environmental Impact &porl 2-17 Response to Comment A2.6 Response to Comment A2.7 Response to Comment .A2.8 Response to Comment A2.9 Response to CommentA2.10 - 2. Commerrt Letters and Responses - · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 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 acceptable conditions. (SU) - That is correct. The Table 3.1-14 footnote has been changed to show 7,500 square feet of office-serving retail space. - Traffic from the approved Terrabay Phase III office development was included as part of all "Base Case" traffic conditions because the proposed Project could be built without any additional CEQA analysis. Ultimate operating conditions with inclusion of "proposed" rather than "approved" project traffic would be the same regardless of whether "approved" project traffic was included in the Base Case analysis. - - - All listed Project traffic/parking mitigations will be fully implemented and funded by the Project applicant. - Determination of which alternative is the Environmentally Superior alternative is based on all environmental topics. The Two Residential Towers alternative would result in somewhat fewer vehicular trips than the Hotel Tower alternative. However, the Hotel Tower alternative was determined to be the Environmentally Superior alternative as it would result in a significant reduction on public services and utilities impacts. - - Project impacts to cumulative (year 2020) traffic conditions are presented on pages 3.1-47 to 3.1-50 of the DSEIR. - - - - - -- - Terrab'!Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-18 - Oc~ 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.6 LETTER B 1 ///~~ .. k\,'" ,ho:>; , TOWN OF CClMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1190 EI Camino Real, Calma, CA94014 Phone: 6~o-985-2590 Fax 650-985-2578 .----------,' September 13, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp City of SoLlth San Francisco Planning DIvision 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Draft Supplemental EIR Dear Ms. Knapp: The Town of CoIma has no com~ent on the above referenced subject. Please update your fifes to show Ms. Andrea J. Cuse. AICP, City Planner as the contact for the Bl.1 Town of Calma. Thank you. Sincerely, Response to Comment B1.1 - 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER Bl: TOWN OF COLMA ... Comment noted, no response necessary. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Terrablzy Phase III Final SlIj>plemental Environmental Impact &port - 2-20 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.8 LEITER B2 rJ PllCific GBs and Bectric t:mrpany. Land Servicls Corporate Real Esleta 111 Almadlll Boulevard, Room 814 San Jose, CA 95115.0005 Mlli/ing A ddms P.O. Box 150D5 Sin Jose, CA 95115.DOD5 Septenlber16,2005 Allison Knapp City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Tara~y ill Project, Environmental Impact Report Sister Cities Blvd & Bayshore Blvd., South San Francisco RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2. PlANNIHG Ms. Knapp: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Tarabay ill Project, Environmental Impact Report at Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. in South San Francisco. PG&E owns and opex:atesgas,and electric distribution facilities which are adjacent to the proposed project. To promote the, safe and reliable maintenance. and oper:ation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities arid surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PO&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities B2.1 Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as ,early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations ofPG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50:000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. Ifrequired, this approval PI'Qcess could tBke up to two years to cpmplete. Prop~>nents with development pl~ ,~~ch coUld aff~ct,such el~~q ,,~ssion faciijties should be refeIr,ed, to. pG~E .f()r additiopal. inforqm~Q:Q.,an(hssi$1ance:.iJ1 ,the development of their project sph~ules. ; , We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your General Plans will have a cumulative impact on' PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require. on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an lB2.2 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, ododzer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. We would like to recommend that environmental docJl1Dents for proposed development projects include adequate ~aluation ,of C\Dllulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serVe those developments and any pOtential environmental issues associated with ex<<mding utility service to the propo~ project This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City -to include infonnation about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Environmental Impact Report. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of infonnation which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request. PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to South San Francisco. Please contact CrystaJe, Service Planning Supervisor, at 650.598.7279 if you have any questions regarding our comments. We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding,this subject as this project develops. The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, COnstruction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. p.9 - - - - - - - - - B2.3 - - B2.4 - - B2.5 - - - - - Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.l0 Should you have any questions please call me at 408.282.7106. Sincerely, ~J~ Thomas J. Zlatunich Land Agent cc: Crystale I' .. I Response to Comment B2.1 Response to Comment B2.2 Response to Comment B2.3 Response to Comment B2.4 Response to Comment B2.5 - 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER B2: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC - Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E in the installation of applicable utilities and facilities to serve the Project. - Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E to determine if the expansion of existing gas or electric lines and related facilities to serve the Project is necessary. - - Significant impacts to gas and electric facilities were not identified in the Notic~ of Preparation/Initial Study (included in Appendix A of the DSEIR), therefore, gas and electric facilities are not evaluated in the DSEIR. - Comment noted, no response necessary. - - Comment noted, no response necessary. - - - - - - - - - - Temzb'!Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 2-24 - Oct 25 2005 7:06AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-82S-6638 p.2 LE1TER~ Alltl'ORT San Franclsco International Airport October 14,2005 p, O. Box 8097 San Francisco,CA 94128 rei 6SD,821.5000 FaK65D,821.500S www.lly5fu.com Ms. Allison Knapp TelTabay Project Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RECE'VED OCT 1 It 2005 PlANNING COMMUlIOM Subject: Comments on Ten-absy Phase 111 - Draft Suppumental EIB (EIR04- CITY AND COUNTY 0002) Of SAM FRANCISCO GAVIN NiWSOM AlAYOIl LARRY MAZZOLA PRIS/DfNT MICHAEL So STRUNSKY VICE ,.Rrs/OENT LINDA $. CRAYTON CARYLITO ELEANOR JOHNS JOHN L. MARTIN AIR/IORTDII!EcrOR Dear Ms. Knapp: Thank yoU for the opportunity to comment on the TelTabay Phase ill Draft Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report (DSEIR). As noted in the Airport's comment letter, dated June 7, 2005, responding to the Notice of Preparation for this project, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is concerned with potential aviation related noise impacts ~~ proposed future residents of this phase of the Terrabay project. Mter reviewing the DSEIR. SFO remains concerned that the issues are still not adequately addressed in the document. The development of 336 new residential units in close proximity to High way 101 and within two miles of SFO will locate new residents in an area that the DSEIR indicates will have noise impacts. The DSEIR noise analysis indicates that sources from ai~raft noise create less than significant impacts. However, according to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement Office, the new residents of the Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants, including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early moming transpacific wide-body aircraft. The proposed project location is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes ranging from 1,000 to 2.500 MSL using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the East of 101 area of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an increased noise signature for the departing aircraft. The DSEIR should more fully analyze and disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to the Airport. B3.1 On page 3.3-5, the last sentence on that page states, "However. Staff did note that under certain wind conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly directly over the site when using the Shoreline departure route." In fact, depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline from Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway I comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SPO departures. In addition. B3.2 Oct 25 2005 7:06AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 Ms. Allison Knapp October 14, 2005 Page 2 aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International AUport also directly overtly the proposed project site. DSElR Impact 3.3.3 and Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 indicate that Project residential development would be exposed to noise levels that exceed City of South San Francisco Noise Element, and recommend that' acoustical Studies be prepared to ensure compliance to State and City noise standards. The impact and mitigation discussion does not note whether this, mitigation measure was adopted for the earlier Terrabay Phases that bave been built, and what acoustiCal measures were implemented in the design and constroction of those residential units. An analysis of those earlier acoustical improvements should be considered in the next acoustical study, taking into consideration the closer proximity to Highway 101, and the historical noise complaint and overflight information from the Airport's Noise Abatement Office. The DSEIR should also require a mitigation measure for real estate disclosure. The City of South San Francisco is a signatory to the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the Airport and neighboring cities who have received Noise Insulation Funds. To date, South San Francisco has received approximately $55 Million in nOise insulation grant funds. In retum, signatory cities of this MOUt including South San Francisco, agreed to support and promote actions to protect new purchasers of homes near the Airport, including adoption of an ordinance requiring that any realtor or person offering a home for sale to advise prospective purchaser of (a) the distance of the home from the outer perimeter of the Airport, and (b) the nature and scale of activity oftbe Airport. Therefore, DSEIR Impact 3.3.2 should be changed from "the City could consider adding a requirement... "to "the City ...shaU... add a requirement that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that a disclosure statement he included in residential deeds. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. " This mitigation measure would be consistent with the 1992 MOV, and should be added as Mitigation Measure 3.3.2. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call Nixon Lam. Senior Environmental Planner, at (650) 821-5347. Thank you. Very truly fJi( IO~~ lU:k DUecror c: Andy Richards, FM ADO Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO Dave Carbone, San Mateo CountyALUC Rich Newm~ ALUC p.3 - - - ... - B3.3 - - - - - B3.4 - - - - - - - - - Response to Comment B3.1 Response to Comment B3.2 Response to Comment B3.3 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER B3: SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT The DSEIR analyzes impacts according to adopted thresholds of significance. For aircraft noise, the DSEIR uses thresholds promulgated by the City of South San Francisco and State of California. No significant impacts were identified based on these thresholds of significance as they are not exceeded at the site. Mitigation measures, however, are required to address roadway noise since it does exceed applicable standards at the site. This requirement for roadway noise mitigation will necessitate use of sound rated windows in many units in order to meet an indoor noise goal of a CNEL of 45 dBA. Therefore, in addition to reducing roadway noise, the installation of sound rated windows would further reduce aircraft noise levels (beyond that required by City or State standards) in many units. To more fully disclose the effect of aircraft noise on the site the following is added after the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4 of the DSEIR: "According to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement office. residents of the existing Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants. including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide- body aircraft. The proposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted basis. visual departure procedure and is overflown on a daily basis. at altitudes ranging from 1.000 to 2.500 mean sea level using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the east ofD.S. 101 area of South San Francisco." Comment noted Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.3-5 of the DSEIR: ''Depending on weather conditions. the Shoreline departure procedures from Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. Also. aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International Airport (OAK) direcdy overfly the proposed Project site. However. the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend to the Project site." Comment noted. The City required the preparation of design level acoustical studies for Terrabay Phases I and II. The recommendations of the studies were incorporated into the project design as part of the building permit process. TermlxfY Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-27 2. Comment Letters and Responses Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows: "Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (15 to 20 dBA). 1bis shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of 9;. 50 dBA to 70 dBA depending on the location of intervening building attenuation; According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA." Change Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9 of the DSEIR as follows: &~coustical studies sbaD be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with State and City ofSoutb San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II. for Phase III. the Ci\y requires the study to be incorporated into Project desigp. prior to issuance of a building permit In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies sftetHe will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project ~ required by the Ci\y. In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard sftetHe shall be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significant level. Terralx!Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &POri - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2-28 - Response to Comment B3.4 2. Comment Letters and &sponses Comment noted. The Terrabay development Phases I and II include Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) includes an airport disclosure statement. The same disclosure would be required in the Phase III CC&Rs. Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows: "The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft may fly clirecdy over the site. Therefore, the City eS1:HB esssia~ llBatag II reqairemest tftllt aiselsst:H:e Bseamest:(l Be l'teflaed al:lfing sitle sf tftel:1ftits llSB t:ftllt II aiselsst:H:e satemest Be if!.el1:laeB if!. re(liaeat:iitl aeeBs. shall require the following language in the Conditions. Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Terrabay Phase III: Ail;port Disclosure: San Francisco International Ail;port. which is the fifth largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh largest by volume in the world. is located approximately three (3) miles to the southeast of the Project. The City has required that residences be desigped to reduce noise and vibration levels within the residences resulting from airport operations and air traffic. Depending upon the cost and effectiveness of these desigps. different methods or designs which may be more or less effective may be used as construction of the Project proiUesses. The noise and vibration may increase or decrease depending upon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns. Some owners may find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a condominium shall include a covenant (acc~table to the City Attorney of the City of South San Francisco) requiring that the iUantee be furnished with a copy of a disclosure statement (acceptable to the City of South San Francisco) to be recorded with the deed which warns the gtantee of the noise and vibration impacts associated with airport operations. The covenant shall also require the disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notary public) by purchaser of a condominium before or concurrendy with close of escrow for the sale of the condominium. In addition. California Civil Code Section 1353(a) requires that the following disclosure be made in this declaration: Notice of Ail;port in Vicinity: This property is presendy located in the vicinity of an airport. within what is known as an airport irifluence area. For that reason. the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise. vibration. odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances. if any. are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The language is the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs." Termb'!Y Phase III Final S upplementaf Environmental Impact &pori 2-29 Oct 20 2005 10:32AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.12 .. - , "CCAG .'- CrrY/COUNIY AsSOClAnON OF GoVBRNMEN'I'$' , "OF,SANMATBo.CoUN1Y , LEITER B4 ' . - AtJ.mo" 4 ~ 4 BrVbItM . ~ . Co/';'a . ~'CiI} . bit PfIlo .411';' '051e/' Chy · Htd{Moon Bay. HUIII1orotIgIt . MM;' />"'k . Milllmle PtIcIjlCG -1'ortoI1I J'tIlJq'~ a,y.~.B1'IIIIO -Sa c.rlar ~&I1IM.. .8f-MtIttID ~.South SdI'lFtcrllCi.tco. WCIOd.rida - October 14, 2005'; " HAND DELIVERED ~s. Allison.Knapp . Terrabay Project Planner , .City of South San FranciscO Planning Division P..O;B.ox 711 . ". $outh ~~ Francisc~:j, CA 94083 ' ... -.\ . - Dear Ms. Knapp: RE: Comin~nts OD Terrabay Phase DI ,... Draft Supplemental EIR (D~EIR) (EIR04-0002) - ,. - - - .", ". · Aircraft Ove sed to aircraft overflight fro n e Shoreline . ,Departure ro . ~ 0 . o~ on the Sky arture route. The AirportlCommuni~ Roundtable. of which the City of So~ San Francisco is a fOUndioS and cwrent'm,emberJ worked long and hard 'with the FAA and'the Airport to establish this route as a noise abaiement ~eparture. procedure to provide some aircraft noise relief for thousands of B4.1 resi~nts living Wlder the Gap DePartUre, a route that affects PQmons of San Bruno, South ' sait Francisco, Daly City, and P.acifica: 'the Shoreline Departure route was established to fiy over non':'~sidentiaJ areas. When this .route was created, thCre was no residential development, existing or p~po8ed, 'in, the vic~ity .of San Bruno h.~ountain in South San Francisco. The text in the DSEIR should be reviSed to ~ore'~y aDalyZ~ and-disclose the noise impacts fr9m this overflight activity and identify appropriate and suffi~ient mitigation actions. . · Acousti.:al St1l~,.II.terior Noi.~ Level :- The .text of the DSEIR'should clearly state, as a mitigation measure, that an acoustic study shall be conducted to identify aircraft noise levels, and specify th.e approp~a~ level.of acoUstic treatment to be included in the ,construction of - the'residential unit$ to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 4s dB CNEL. based on B4.2 aircraft noise events. This standard is corisistent with ,the State of California, City of South San FranciscO, and thC Airport Land Use Commission.(CCAG) interior noise level standards . for residential development, based on aircraft nOise events..' . , A ti"n ort. L Q.,i71.'i' .[I{1 {J r tj'~~IEtl$ft(J e', lJl. d, r '\. - , ~ _.." ",J~ '\..ilL .,!- .11 ." ""' w SSS CoUNTYCBNTER. STHFi.ooR, REowoooCrrY, CA. 94063. 6SOlS99.14Q6,. ~S94-!)!)80 (F)M00341 W.OOC) , " - - - - - - Oct 20 2005 10:32AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.13 Letter to AUison Knapp, Terrabay Projett Planner, City of Soutb San Francisco Planuing Division, Re: Comments of Terrabay Phase m - Draft Supplemental EIR (EIR04-0002) Odober 14, 2005 Page 2 of2 . Real Estate Disclosure - Based on the close proximity of the project site to the Airport and the exposure of the site to frequent aircraft overflights and related noise impacts. as described above. it is only common senSe to reQuire ,sufficient-and appropriate disclosure of the proximity of the Airport and the presenc~ oftbe frequent aircraft flyovers and related noise impacts. as part of the real estate transaction process. History has shown us in this county and across the country that there can never be enough disclosure when it comes to real estate transactions near airports. B4.3 The comments above are intended to reinforCe the comments submitted by Mr. Martin. The'CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) would have submitted similar comments, Juld the project been located within the formal project review boundary for San Francisco International Airport. If you have any questions. please contact Dave Carbone, ALUC staff, at 650/363-4417. s{fL; !~r Richard Newman, Chair CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Members Richard Napier. CCAG Executive Director Jolm Martin. Airport Director, ,San Francisco International Airport Ivar Satero, Nixon Lam. SFO Planning Mike McCarron, SFO Bureau of Comm1U1ity Affairs Andy Richards, Manager, F AA ADO~ Burlingame Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO, Burlingame mcwmancOll1lettcnabayphate3dscir.doc - 2. Comment Letters and Responses - RESPONSE TO LETTER B4: CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (CCAG) - Response to See Response to Comments B3.1 and B3.2. Comment B4.1 Response to See Response to Comment B3.3. Comment B4.2 - Response to See Response to Comment B3.4. Comment B4.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - Terra~ Phase III Final Stpplemental Environmental Impact Repori 2-32 - Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING OIVI 650-829-6639 p.2 LEITER BS .~~..~~.~ _._,-.",.,."""'0- _"",,,,,..,,,, ......"',"','~ ~~~:," Department of Public Works BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE T1SSIER NEil R. CUlLEN DIRECTOR ~)\'_SI,;I .;;:'~/'.. '..2~): i~~;l~Jg,) !~'::/l~,~: :./j ",' -i4~1 '\ "',,~ .. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 555 COUNTY CENTER. 5"'fLOOR. REDWOOD CITY. CALlFORNIA94083-11111!l' PHONE (650) 363-<4100. FAX (llSOI3111-8220 September 28, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 RECEIVED OCT 0 3 ZIIlJ5 PLANNING Dear Ms. Knapp: Subjed: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase ill, South San Francisco Thank you for providing us with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public WorIes, in its capacity as the Administrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the document. We have also obtained drainage system maps from the City of South San Francisco showing the storm water facility in Bayshore Boulevard. The maps show that drainage facilities tying into the Bayshore Boulevard system will direct storm runoff to an area outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Therefore, the District will not be commenting further on this project. BS.1 Please note that correspondence for future projects 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 Department of Public Works , 555 County Center, 5th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVl 65U-~~~-~~~~ p.~ - Ms. Allison Knapp, City of South San Francisco. Planning Division Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase m, South San Francisco September 28, 2005 - - Page 2 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:mmy P:\USERS\ADMIN\Ulilily\Colma Creek FCD\auppIm.Bnvil'Oll1l1mlBUrDplCtRpl\2OO5\TenablyPl.seJ-OSBRRcview.doc G:\USERS\UTDJTY'CoJrna Cleek FCO\WORD\RevicwExlemalProjlll:t\2OO5',Tembay Phue3 - DSEIll&vi~.clDC File No: F-149 (9H) - co: Mark Chow, P .E., Senior Civil Engineer,'Utilities-Flood Colltrol-Watershed Protection - - - 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER B5: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Response to Commented noted, no response necessary. Comment B5.1 Temzbqy Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &pori 2-35 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 10/13/2685 e6:64 8314&41184 LOIS ROBIN 650-829-6639 LETTER Cl Lois Robin 4701 NovaDr. Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Attention: Allison.. Plannng Department Re: Em for Terra Bay r was among the many people wh~ urged that the shell mounds on, San Bnmo Mountain be retained. as a park or preserve. This has been done. 1 am grateful. The karma on the Mountain is stiJ) good. I cringe at the ,thought of ~ development of a mall adjacent to this protected property t distracting from the importance of the . site and leading to an erosion of respect for this historical and honored place. The world is too full of malls. They have ceased 10 bring nurturance and value to our midst. They bring about a sameness from one end of America to the otber. Located by the Bay, and adjacent to 8 protected Native American site, the land has a special promil1ence and value beyond the short range commercial. Wjtb a garden or even a musewn or arboretUJl1-()r any nwnber of other cultural or natUral possibilities-the site under consideration could add to the life and culture of the community. The bistori.cal site-sight needs enhan"",ent from the sitcs-sights sUlTounding it The uses under CQ,nsideraticm do not accomplish that Yours truly, l~~ /f o--t~ ~~ Lois Robin p.7 - PAGE 01 - - - !\ - Ct.l - - Response to Comment Cl.l 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER Cl: LOIS ROBIN Commented noted. The Project includes a buffer zone that would separate the residential, retail and office buildings from the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. The buffer zone would be restricted to access driveways and landscaping. Figure 2.1-1 has been corrected to include the buffer zone in the area designated as Project Site. Terra~ Phase III Final Stppkmental Environmental 1111JxKt &port 2-37 - LEITER C2 " ... LOU HAN1L4N 1 Mandalay Place #701 So.San Francisco. CA 94080 415-730-7242 IlECEIVED OCT 2 0_ PLANNING October 12. 2005 City BaB Annex 315 Maple Ave South San Francisco Attn: Al1U9n KltIlJ'P - Dear M,. Kiwpp: I would like to express my excitement and enthusiasm in the projected developments for Mandala, Terrace. 1 am a homeowner at The Peninsula Monda1ay and I welcome the plfD'lS to develop 'and expand. ()U1' community. It i$ my hope thot nBrJIJ"e will see the benejlts this new development wUl offer to "ot only our community but the SII17'Oamding communities tIS welL In Q quickly changing ecD1I01fI}I it is comforting to know this development will creDle many new job openings. it . will provide more available housing tmd existing retail businesses will prOsper from the public interest this developPllfml will generate. Any which way)'Ou look at it - the approval and expansion of Mandalay Terrace is a positive one. If there is anything I can do to aulstyou in a "faster" city approval. please do not hesitate to call me. 1 am confident Q project approval il forthcoming. Hopefully. it will be soontlr t .". so that an Il1IUCeDII1y IIIfIDIIIII oflillu tIIulllUJlln tr "tit wtI6tt!4. C2.1 --">-. .:.~~ :.... : :..-"':..-...... '.' ,,,-7''''-':.'' . . . . . ~ ., .-:__u _~-:--'''___' " l..od SESS-Saa-QSS I^IO 9~I~~~ld ~ss ~o ^lI~ W~la:s sooa la ~oo 2. Comment Letters and &sponses RESPONSE TO LETTER C2: LOU HANHAN Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment C2.t Te~ Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 2-39 - LElTER C3 San Bruno Mountain Watch. PO Box 53 . Brisbane. CA 94005 .anhrunollmountamwatcb.ollf . www.mountainwatch.org , tel / {ax 415-461-6631 17 October ;LQOS Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco Planning Oepartm'ent 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, <A 94-083 RECEIVED Ocr 20_ PLANNING Dear Ms. Knapp Wollam, Please accept this brief comment in consideration ~f the DSEI R for Terrabay Phase 3. It Is perhaps more applicable to the coming discussion over (C&Rs for the project, but it a'lso refers to an impOrtant mitigation. Prntt'lcnlc; for Pbmtlng. WflIPding. ~nd ~intpnancp -- A major lesson of almost every wildland/buffer/flrescape planting and weed control project on the Mountain has been that failure is very likely when suitable installation protocols are not specified (i.e. planting methods, timing, plant choice), and especially when maintenance is not planned for at Je.a.s.t ten years' duration. Whichever 'entity is responsible for maintaining the ptantlngs in the interface betw~en development and open space and for controlling invasive species should h~ve an ongoing responsibility. to meet or ex~eed ttl~,level of performance Myers has met on the Preservation ParceL (C&Rs or other mech~nisms sno.uld, have effective ,- . . ' - , . enforcement provisions. Ou'r goal wUI be to enlist locarresid~nts in all phases of Terrabay In an ongoing education and site stewardship program; hopefully there.will be no need for such rules and enforcement. C3.1_ Mitigation measure 3.4.5 (p.S4J.), regarding the need for a fire protection buffer, states that a;LS foot swath Is to be kept free of "hazardous fire growth." We suggest that a regular mowing regimen (perhaps twice a year), timed in accordance with the flight seasons of the rare species, should satisfy the mitigation goal, and we strongly urge that the area not be broadly treated with herbicides to eliminate vegetation altogether. C3.2 - Thank you, ~\. O~ philip Batchelder - - a.elI SE99-saa-oss I^IG DWIWW~ld ~ss ~o ^lI~ w~oa:6 sooa la ~oo Response to Comment C3.1 Response to Comment C3.2 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER C3: SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH Comment noted. The CC&Rs for Phase III shall include the same language with respect to the fire buffer and Habitat Conservation Plan requirements as for Phases I and II. In particular, weed whacking (mowing) is required at a minimum at the start of the fire season for weed and exotics controL The maintenance program also requires the selective use of herbicide treatment on individual invasive plants. Broad application of herbicides is not permitted Additionally, there is an approved exotics control plan for the leftover pockets of undeveloped and open space lands on the Project site that prescribes the same treatment. See Response to Comment C3.2. Terrab'!Y Phase ill Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-41 Uct ~u ~uu~ JU:~C:H'" l...l1T UI"' ;>>0)1"' rLnnn~I1U I.I~V'" g..u.-u~v '-#""......... .-. .. . - LETTER Dl In the matter of Lowe's Home Improvement Center. 600-790 Dubuque Ave Home Dep~ 900 Dubuque Avenue Tenaba). Phase m . What criteria were used in selecting Lamphier & Gregory to do the ElR? What distancelmileage will the EIR cover? Will Sister Cities B~ Hillside. Spiuce, Grand Ave and additional streets be included in this report? Is noise, light and air pollution included in this report? When: is the 'unavoidable cumulativet expected traffic and customers expected 10 come from? SPECIAL JOINT MEETING S8F City Councll- PJamling Commission October 5, 200S - How will city deal with the Grand Ave onIoff ramps and Oyster Pt onIoff ramps with this additional. trafJic'? How will traffic from East Orand businesses be a:tfectedladdressed'! How will traffic be addressed with the proposed Meyers Phase m? - D1.1 What impact would Lowes mdler Home Depot have on our own Grand Ave Hardware or South Cit)' Lumbar'! What is the expected revenue to the city and what is that time frame .'J Lowes? Home Depot What t}-pe at altemative euergy is being planned for these new businesses? What is the cost to this cit.)'? (EIR, Consults. StaffTim~ etc) - D1.2 - - Response to Comment Dt.t Response to Comment Dt.2 2. Comment Letters and RJsponses RESPONSE TO LETTER Dl: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation of the DSEIR. The Project applicant pays for the costs associated with preparation of the SEIR including staff and consultant time. Terrab'!Y Phase III Final S upplementaf Environmental Impact Repori 2-43 MINUTES October 6;. 2005 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION - CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: 7:30 D.m. Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia ABSENT: Commissioner Romero STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Peter Spoerl, Assistant Oty Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall City Attorney: Engineering Division: Fire Prevention: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Sue Kantor and Jack Kantor spoke in regards to 942 Unden Avenue. She noted that they have been trying to get their application before the Planning Commission for a year. She noted that they were having issues in renting the building and made minor repairs to the property. She noted that although they had interested renters after the repairs none wanted to go through Planning due to rezoning. Mr. Kantor noted that the zoning has been changed several of times and when Peninsula Battery was approved to go into the location they could not because the driveway was too narrow. He noted that when they finally were able to get a company to go into the building that was similar to the previous use they were told by the City that the building was deemed abandoned because more than one year had gone by without a use in there. Mr. Kantor pointed out that they are seeking a one year extension as explained in the abandonment clause. Chairperson Teglia noted that there was a non-conforming use and they are seeking a non-conforming use. He directed staff to look at resolving the issue. He stated that staff would get back to Mr. & Ms. Kantor in one week. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of special joint City Council and Planning Commission minutes of April 20, 2005 and Planning Commission regular meeting minutes of May 19, 2005 2. BKF - Dan Schaefer/applicant Gateway Center Llc/owner 601-651 Gateway Blvd. P05-0109: PM05-0003 Approved Approved Tentative Parcel map to resubclivide an existing 14.11 acre parcel into two lots: Parcell - 7.93 acres and Parcel 2 - 6.18 acres, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19 and the State Map Act. - - Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005 3. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/ Owner George Corey/Applicant 344 Victory Ave P05-0142: AP05-0001 Continued to November 3, 3005 (Continue to November 3, 2006) Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Motion Sim I Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar with necessary modifications to the minutes of April 20, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant / Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: EIR04-0002 No Action Necessary Public Hearina to allow comments on the Draft Environmental rmDact ReDort fErR04-0002J project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office! or 300 room hotel! or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Public Hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Del Schembari gave the following comments on the EIR: . Address light pollution and impact on wildlife (Ie how lights have affected the wildlife in Yosemite) . Look at the grading and improve from how it was handled in the Point. . Revegitate the habitat with native plant species. . Green material used in development D2.1 D2.2 D2.3 D2.4 D2.5 Commissioner Prouty asked that the comments by Ms. Kamala Wolf presented at the Study Session is included into the comments and Response to Comments for the EIR. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments on the EIR: . Address light . Address Impact on community with regards to traffic. . Explore having controlled bum because it is necessary for the habitat. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that a burn got out of hand in Brisbane and plans were made to do another controlled bum. She noted that CDF then informed the City that they were no longer in the business of controlled bums. D2.6 D2.7 D2.8 Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the public review period ends on October 14, 2005. c.:\t>OCLof.IM.t"'t;s ~"-Ct settL'^'0s\1>~tri.eUl Jtfftrl:J\Loe~L SettL'^'0S\ n""l'or~rl:J I",terv..et FLLes\OLKSj\:1.o-0b-05 R,1>C ML"'Lof.tes,c;loc 1>~ge :2 of 3 Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005 5. Jon Bergschneider/applicant Slough BTC, LLC/owner 333 Oyster Point Blvd. P03-0138: UPM05-0002 & EIR03-0001 (Previously certified) Approved Use Permit Modification of the approved development plan to construct a three building, 315,444 sf officejR&D campus by replacing the approved 6-level parking garage with subterranean parking and adjusting the location of Building Bat 333 Oyster Point Boulevard, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. 6. Jesus Ontiveros/applicant Ruth L. Bushman/owner 435 EI Camino Real P05-0124: DR05-0070 & UP05-0025 Use Permit allowing a drive-thru window addition to an existing restaurant situated at 435 EI Camino Real in the Retail Commercial Zoning District (C-1), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81. Design Review of an addition to an existing restaurant including a drive-thru window, revised parking lot and upgraded landscaping, situated at 435 EI Camino Real, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION None ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M. Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Marc C. Teglia, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco TCSjbla C:\Docu""'-el'l-ts a1M'! settL~s\patYLc(aJefful:l\LccaL settL~s\Te""'-l'oyaYl:lIV\.teYIIIott Fu.es\OL~\1.0-0~-05 RoPC MLV\Mtes,ctoc page 3 of 3 - - - - - - - - l l I L I Response to Comment D2.1 Response to Comment D2.2 Response to Comment D2.3 Response to Comment D2.4 Response to Comment D2.5 Response to Comment D2.6 Response to Comment D2.7 Response to Comment D2.8 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER D2: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Wildlife would acclimate to the night lighting generated by retail signage. Additionally, the Project site includes open space area that separates the developed portion of the Project from the HCP area. Project grading and site improvements would be undertaken according to City standards. Final maps will be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any grading permits. The Project landscape plan would include native plant species and drought tolerant plants. See also Response to Comment C3.1. It is unknown if the Project developer intends to use Green Building techniques and materials in Project construction. The City does not require their use. See Response to Comments D1.1 and Dl.2. Project lighting is addressed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 Aesthetics of the DSEIR. The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation of the DSEIR The City has been working with the California Department of Forestry (CDF), local fire agencies, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Fish and Wtldlife Service, California Highway Patrol, Mountain Watch and the Trustees for San Bruno Mountain in efforts to conduct a control bum for species preservation on Terrabay lands. CDF has indicated a reluctance to conduct control bums largely due to the unfortunate experience with the Brisbane control bum. In the meantime chemical, mechanical and grazing activities continue to be used to preserve habitat and reduce fire loads on San Bruno Mountain. Terrab'!Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 2-47 - - This page intentionally left blank - - -, - - - - - - REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following text identifies changes made to the DSEIR, as addressed in Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document. The new text is shown with underlining and deleted text is shown with strikeout. Change Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2 as follows: &'Impact 3.1.2 Year 2010 Intersection Level of Service Impacts (5) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/D.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a :t25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4% 2 percent) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact." Change Figure 2.1-1 as shown on the following page. Terrabt!J Phase III Pinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 3-1 ~ Project Site B Terrabay ~ Preservation Parcel dedicated to County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain County and State Park - August 11, 2004 N ~ o 1000 2000 --- Scale in Feet Source: P1acemakers + Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map - - - - - - - - - - - 3. Revisions to the Draft ElR Change the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 as follows: "A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative." Change the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 as follows: "lbis section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project (which includes 357.500 square feet of retail space. 351 dwelling units. 70.000 square feet of service area and 295.500 square feet of office space as presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIR) on this network in contrast to the currendy approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) (which contains 657.500 square feet of office space and 7.500 square feet of retail space as presented in Table 1.2 of the DSEIR), and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where 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 Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group." Table 3.1-7A is added following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18, as shown on the following page. Terrabqy Phase III Final SlIfJPkmental Environmental Impact &Pori 3-3 - T errabC!)' Phase III Final Supplemental Enviro_ental Impact &porl 3-4 - 3. &visions to the Draft EIR Table 3.1-8A is added following Table 3.1-8 on page 3.1-19: TABLE 3.1-8A: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE). PM PEAK HOUR y ear 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case (in feet:) (in feet) ~ + project ~ + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 233 ~ 463 5Q1 NB through 475 12Q 258 462 497 WB off-ramp left turn 600 148 ill 400 .ill WB off-ramp left/right 600 148 ~ 400 691 Bayshore/ Central Project Access NB left turn 300 ill 132 103 196 NB through ~ 1ill 12 160 5.Q SB ri,ght turn 300 1 1 2 .Q SB through ill. 277 222 192 94 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ Aiqlort EB left turn .52 93 lJill 489 224 473 SB left turn 325 210 122 ~ 142 ill SB through 660 1M 171 298 318 456 SB right turn ill ill 124 51Q ill 764 WB left turn 1m 52 176 95 lJill 153 WB through 255 205 102 474 330 571 WB right turn 252 NA 52 .52 15 103 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 162 330 192 426 382 EB through 255 107 114 71 142 124 EB right turn 255 285 213 59 265 .ill NB left turn ill 281 550 ID Q18 586 NB left/through 255 302 ill 562 672 ill NB right turn 210 5.Q 67 60 1ili 75 Dubuque/lot Ramps Off-ramp left turn 700 95 229 ill ~ 432 Off-ramp left/through 700 95 229 ill ~ 432 SB right turn ill 69 ill 221 ill 395 SB through 255 41 HQ ill 228 226 * All sto~ and queues are per lane. Source: Crane Transportation Group Termb'!Y Phase m Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 3-5 _. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR - Change the following on page 3.1-29: ''Year 2OtO Base Case Vehicle Queuing" - Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30: "Tables 3.t-7A and 3.t-SA show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below. - AM Peak Hour · Bf!Jshore Boulevard/Approved Prq/ect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound approach left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. - · Bf!Jshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airpott Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 23 car lengths longer than available storage. - · Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Notthbound Off-Ramp/Southbound Off-Ramp. The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage - PM Peak Hour · Bf!Jshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qvster Point Boulevard/ Airpott Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. - - - · Qyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage." - T erra~ Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &POri 3-6 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34: "T abIes 3.t-7 A and 3.t-8A show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below. AM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/Approved Proiect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than available storage. . B,!-vshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. . Qvster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage. . Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection. The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage. PM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Prqiect North Access Intersection. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. . Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left tum lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound ~ht turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths Terrabc[j Phase III Final Supplemental Envirottmentaf Impact &port 3-7 - 3. Revisions to the Draft ElR - longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage. - · DubuqueAvenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-RamJ) Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of seven car lengths longer than available storage." - Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35: - · "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)." Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35: · '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)" - Change the following on page 3.1-46: - "Impact 3.1.51l Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5(;/1 Percentile (SUP' Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46: - "ImDact 3.1.5b Year 2010 Vehicle Oueuing Impacts - 95th Percentile (SU)" - The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition. Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. - AM Peak Hour - · Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour - · Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Aitport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound tight turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storage). - T mub'!Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-8 - 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storage). . Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn and throqgh/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-46: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.5~" . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City ffilt)" also ae3H:e to llaa llaettioaalleagtR to lleeOffl:m08ate tfte 95th pereeatHe qtletle ftfI.a 30ffie vehicle aeeelerlltiOa in tfte txlffi lftfl.e3. The other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5: t~itillation Measure 3.1.5b . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service. provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound throqgh lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. .cs.m. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SU). T mrlh'!Y Phase III Final S IIJrPlemental Environmental Impact &port 3-9 - 3. Revisions tQ the Drcift EIR Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5: '~itigation Measure 3.1.5b · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service. provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. .csm - - - - - · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SU). - - Change the following on page 3.1-49: "Impact 3.1.911 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts ~ 5(;b Percentile (SUP' Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49: "Impact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 9SCb Percentile (SU)" The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. - ........ AM Peak Hour - · BtfYshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a 9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storage). - - PM Peak Hour · BtfYshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/TefTabt:!YAccess Intersection. _ The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage). The Bayshore TerrabtrJ Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repori 3-10 - 3. Revisions to the Draft ElR Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend from + 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage.) . Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qvster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a 105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage). The Bay-shore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storage).The westbound through lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would receive a 7.6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-50: ~~itigation Measure 3.1.9;l" Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50: ~~itigation Measure 3.1.9b . Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access. Adjust sequel timing to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the south bound off-ramp lanes by 200 feet. (L TS) . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Provide two left lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95th percentile queue. In addition. lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left turn lane by 25 feet. However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also. the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (Sm. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 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 acceptable conditions. (SU) Terrah'!Y Phase III Final Stpplemental Environmental Impact &pori 3-11 - 3. Revisio1/S to the Draft EIR - The following is added after the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4: "According to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement office. residents of the existing Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants. including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide- body aircraft. The proposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted basis. visual departure procedure and is overflown on a daily basis. at altitudes rangj,ng from 1.000 to 2.500 mean sea level using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the east ofV.S. 101 area of South San Francisco." - - - - Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.3-5: - "Depending on weather conditions. the Shoreline departure procedures from Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. Also. aircraft using the Skyline departure route origj,nating from Oakland International Airport (OAK) directly overfly the proposed Project site. However. the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend to the Project site." - - Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 : -- "Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (15 to 20 dBA). This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of 65 50 dBA to 70 dBA depending on the location of intervening building attenuation. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA." - - - - Change :Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9: .~coustica1 studies shall be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with State and City of South San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II. for Phase III. the City requires the study to be incorporated into Project design prior to issuance of a building permit. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of TerrabC[Y Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3-12 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies ~ will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project ~ required by the Ci1q". In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard ~ shall be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significant level." Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8: "The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft may fly direcdy over the site. Therefore, the City coma €:oftsider adaiflg a rel:).l:li:remeat that al3elosme 80el:'lffieat3 be pro riaea fft1:rifig 31ll€: of the ttnit3 aaa that a alsele3t:1:fe 3tatem.eat be i:eehuka i:e resitkatiti deea3. shall require the following 1 a e in the Conditions Covenants and Restrictions CC&Rs for Terraba Phase III: Ai.rport Disclosure: San Francisco International Ai.rport. which is the fifth largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh largest by volume in the world. is located approximately three (3) miles to the southeast of the Project. The Ci1q" has required that residences be designed to reduce noise and vibration levels within the residences resulting from airport operations and air traffic. Depending upon the cost and effectiveness of these designs. different methods or designs which may be more or less effective may be used as construction of the Project progresses. The noise and vibration may increase or decrease depending upon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns. Some owners may find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a condominium shall include a covenant (acceptable to the Ci1q" Attorney of the Ci of South San Francisco re uirin that the antee be furnished with a co of a disclosure statement acce table to the Ci of South San Francisco to be recorded with the deed which warns the grantee of the noise and vibration im acts associated with . ort 0 erations. The covenant shall also re uire the T ermbqy Phase III Final S 1IJ>Plemental Environmental Impact Report 3-13 .-. 3. ReviJions to the Droft EIR - disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notary ublic b urchaser of a condominium before or concurrend with close of escrow for the sale of the condominium. In addition. California Civil Code Section 1353(a) requires that the following disclosure be made in this declaration: - Notice of Airport in Vicinit;y: This property is presendy located in the vicinity of an airport. within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason. the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise. vibration. odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can var.y from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances if any. are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and detennine whether they are acceptable to you. - - The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The language is the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs:' - - In addition to changes made to the DSEIR as a result of public comments, staff initiated changes were also made to the DSEIR and are presented below. Change Mitigation Measures 3.3.2 on page S-lO and 3.3-8: - "No mitigation required. Although no mitigation measure is required the City will require an airport disclosure in the CC&Rs for Phase III of Terra bay. The language will be the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs." Change last paragraph under Impact 3.4.6 on page 3.3-12: - "The Project applicant would be required to pay the State mandated school impact fees ltf'Pliellble fOf' prior to issuance of City building permits. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on schools would be less than significant." - Change Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 on pages S-12 and 3.4-12: - With payment of State mandated school impact fees. no additional mitigation would be N6fte-required. - - - Termb'!} Phase III FilltJl Supplemental Environmental Impact &Pori 3-14 - ,- .- - - TERRABA Y PHASE III ,- - ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SUPPLEMENT AL ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR04-0002) SCH: 1997082077 .- - - ,- - ..... .- - August 20, 2006 - ,- TERRABA Y PHASE III ONLY 2006 PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIR August 20, 2006 INTRODUCTION The attached Initial Study (IS) evaluates the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project (2006 Project) environmental impacts and mitigation measures and compares them to the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR). The 2005 SEIR supplements, as permitted by law, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. The 2005 SEIR was prepared for a Terrabay Phase III only application received by the City of South San Francisco in the same year. The 2005 SEIR is tiered upon the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998/99 SEIR). The original Terrabay Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified in 1982 (1982 EIR) 'and a supplemental to that document was prepared and certified in 1996 (1996 SEIR). 2006 Project Description The 2006 Project is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site. Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,996 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total, as noted above, of 2,052 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of 2.68/1 ,000 gross square feet and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. The applicant has indicated that the project could be built in two phases and that the child care and performing arts center would be provided in Phase I. There is the possibility that the project could be built entirely in one phase of construction. The following table breaks down the square footage of each tower. Please note that the 2006 traffic analysis was performed using 25,000 square feet of commercial. Subsequently the commercial square footage was reduced to accommodate a larger performing arts facility as shown in the following table. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 1 TABLE 1 2006 TERRABA Y PROJECT Gross Square Feet Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11 ,083 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase Il I ,090 spaces PHASE lAND II TOTALS Office 665,028 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and Il 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 2,052 spaces Changes in Project Description from 2000 Entitlement The Terrabay Phase III site is currently entitled with an approved Precise and Specific Plan that conforms with the City's General Plan which permits the construction of a 665,000 square foot office building in a single tower, 7,500 square feet of office supporting retail commercial use, a ISO-seat performing arts facility shared with the office conference room and a 100-child day care center. The 2006 Project consists of a re-entitlement of existing 665,000 square foot office building to allow the office square footage to be constructed in two towers. The 2006 Project also proposes an increase in commercial uses to 24,000 square feet, a 100-child day care center and 200 seat performing arts center shared with office space. BACKGROUND Previous Environmental Analysis The Terrabay project was first envisioned in 1980 and the land was within the County of San Mateo's jurisdiction. The project required annexation to the City of South San Francisco, the formation of a Habitat Conservation Plan and the evaluation of project impacts on the three proposed phases of construction. The phasing is identified as: Phase Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 2 I Village and Park residential, Phase II Woods, Pointe and Commons East and West residential and Phase III commercial. 1982 Environmental Analysis The following table outlines the development proposal analyzed in the 1982 EIR. TABLE 2 1982 TERRABA Y EIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase I Approved 1982 As-Built 2005 Village 181 161 units Park 136 125 units Phase II Woods 200 135 units Commons East 57 o (Recreation Parcel for City) Commons West 77 182 units (Commons West Point 99 and Point merged into one area in 2000 referred to as "The Pointe") Commercial Phase III 663,000 Sq. ft. office, 0 health club, restaurants, hotel, seminar and high technology center Alternatives analyzed in the 1982 EIR include: . No project/no development ofthe site. . Mixed use consisting of 745 dwelling units, 200 room hotel inclusive of a 150 seat restaurant/bar, two additional restaurants consisting of 300 seats and 150 seats and a 210,000 square foot office. . 1,036 residential units and a 10.4 acre shopping center of undefined square footage. . 985 dwelling units including 30% for seniors and 20% for low and moderate income households. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17, 2006 Page 3 1996 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The 1996 SEIR analyzed the impacts associated with extending the terms of the development agreement for the Terrabay Project. Phase I Terrabay was under construction which includes the Village and Park residential subdivisions, the Terrabay Fire Station, Terrabay Recreation Center, Sister Cities Boulevard (completed), the Terrabay water tank (potable), linear park, grading improvements to Hillside School and construction of South San Francisco Drive. The 1996 SEIR analyzed the un-constructed Terrabay Phases II and III as shown in Table 2, above. The 1996 SEIR noted, but did not analyze the impacts to wetlands present on the Phase III site and noted but did not analyze the impacts to special species habitat and an historic resource (archaeological) on the Phase III lands. 1998/99 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The 1998/99 SEIR was prepared in response to an application form Sunchase, G.A.. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed the following development proposal. TABLE 3 1998/99 SEIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase II Number of Units/Type of Units or Square Footage Woods 135 single family (detached) Commons 32 duplex (attached) Pointe 181 duplex and triplex (attached) TOTAL PHASE II 348 units Phase III Commercial Hotel 235,000-280,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 12,000-18,000 sq. ft. Retail 6,000-10,000 sq. ft. Mixed Use 30,000-35,000 sq. ft. TOTAL PHASE III 283,000-343,000 sq. ft. In response to City of South San Francisco direction the Final 1998/99 SEIR analyzed a "Mitigated Plan Alternative". The Mitigated Plan Alternative concentrated development on three "pads" (avoiding disturbance of a 5,000 year old archaeological site entirely), avoided some wetlands and special species habitat and consisted of the following: . A 4.9 acre development pad with 340,000 square feet of office and a five level parking garage (situated in front of the office tower); . A 1.8 acre development pad with a hotel, 7,500 square foot restaurant or office use and surface parking; and Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 4 . A 2.9 acre development pad with up to a 150 room hotel. The project analyzed would have disturbed approximately 12 acres of the 37 acre phase III site. Additionally the following alternatives were analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. . No Development - Analyzes the impacts of no development on the Terrabay Phase III and II sites. . Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Analyzes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. . Reduced Residential - Analyzes 316 residential units and no commercial. . Reduced Commercial- Analyzes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. . Permanent Open Space - Analyzes the impacts associated with dedicating Phase II and III parcels as permanent open space. The 1998/99 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #97-82077) was certified by South San Francisco City Council Resolution # 19-99. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzes geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services (police and fire) and hazards as well as the wetlands, biological and archaeological resources that were not analyzed previously. 2000 Environmental Analysis In 2000, Myers Development submitted an application to the City requesting entitlements and legislative approvals to develop a 665,000 square foot office in a single tower, 7,500 square feet support retail and 100 child day care center on the Phase III parcel. The application also included a request for a 96 unit condominium tower (later approved for 112 units) and 70 paired units on a portion of the Phase II site. A request for lot line reconfigurations and a change in the land use designation of the "Commons Parcel" to Open Space/Recreation and approximately 26 acres of the Phase III site to Open Space for conveyance to the County of San Mateo. The conveyance to the County stipulates that the land will be incorporated into San Bruno County and State Park. The open space request implemented biological and archaeological mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR given that wetlands, special species habitat and an archaeological resource would be protected in perpetuity with the dedication of the property as permanent open space coupled with its conveyance to the County for inclusion in the Park. Specifically the mitigation measures are: Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17, 2006 Page 5 · Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 avoidance of take of callippee silverspot butterfly habitat. · Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 avoidance of take of wetlands. · Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-40. · Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-92. The 2000Addendum analyzed the following project and found that an addendum to the 1998/99SEIR was the appropriate environmental documentation. The 2000 Project had fewer impacts that those associated with the project analyzed in 1998/99, as proposed implemented mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and that minor technical changes were all that was needed to the previously certified SEIR (Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). TABLE 4 2000 ADDENDUM PARCEL LAND USE ACRES Preservation Parcel Open Space Preserve 25.73 Buffer Parcel Surface Parking 2.69 Office Parcel 665,000/ Office (child care and performing 18.08 arts theatre) Residential Parcel 96Condominiuml Apartments 14.96 70 single family attached Recreation Parcel 25,000-30,000 6.48 Recreation Center TOTAL 67.94 PORTION DEVELOP ABLE 35.73 PORTION OPEN SPACE 32.21 2005 Environmental Analysis In 2005 Myers Development submitted an application to the City for a mixed-use development on the Phase III lands only. Phase II was built out in 2005 with a I 12-unit condominium tower and 70 paired units. The 2005 Project application requested entitlements for 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 295,500 gross square foot office building and 351 residential units. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) was prepared for the project. The 2005 SEIR analyzed two alternatives intended to build upon the alternatives analyzed in the previous environmental documents. The two alternatives analyzed are: · 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 300-room hotel and 351 residential units. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 6 . 357,500 gross square feet ofretail and 531 residential units. The 2005 SEIR underwent public review and a response to comments document (draft Final 2005 SEIR) was prepared. Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the document (October 6, 2005) and recommended certification to the City Council on December 1,2005. The Applicant, prior to the hearing before the City Council, withdrew the application stating that the project was too expensive to build. The above referenced environmental documents and the supporting and background documents and references contained therein are incorporated herein by reference. Changes in Environment since the Preparation of the 1998/99 SEIR Environmental conditions as well as models used to predict project impacts have changed since the preparation of the 1998/99 SEIR. The changes include: . Hook ramps and Oyster Point Flyover are constructed and are in operation for 2005 analysis and were not for 1998 analysis. . Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in 2005 SEIR and not 1998 SEIR. . BART is in and included in analysis for 2005 SEIR and not for 1998 SEIR. . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SEIR documentation was established as was in and operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes are not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR and are included in the 2005 SEIR. . East of 101 cumulative impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR and was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 2005 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1997 . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004 Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 7 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Only Specific and Precise Plan Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner 650. 877.8535 4. Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. APN: 007-650-100,007-650-110,007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Myers Development Company 101 Second Street - Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 6. General Plan Designation: Business Commercial 7. Zoning Designation: Terrabay Specific Plan District 8, Description of Project: 2006 Project The 2006 Project is the third and fmal phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan (most recently amended in 2000),the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 2 The 2006 Project is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off site. The following table breaks down the square footage of each tower. Please note that the 2006 traffic analysis was performed using 25,000 square feet of commercial. Subsequently the commercial square footage was reduced to accommodate a larger performing arts facility as shown in the following table. TABLE! 2006 TERRABAY PROJECT Gross Square Feet Net Square Feet PHASE I - SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 300,482 Commercial 11,544 11,083 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Sub Total Phase I 332,646 319,665 Parking Phase I 962 spaces PHASE II - NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 337,945 Commercial 12,465 11,958 Sub Total Phase II 364,482 349,903 Parking Phase II 1,090 spaces PHASE I AND II TOTALS Office 665,028 638,427 Commercial 24,009 23,041 Child Care 5,000 5,000 Performing Arts 3,100 3,100 Total Phase I and II 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 2,052 spaces Parking is proposed to be predominately in an eight level garage which would include 1,996 spaces. An additional 56 surface parking spaces would be provided for visitors for a total, as noted above, of 2,052 spaces. Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. The existing approved Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan stipulates a parking ratio of 2.68/1,000 gross square feet and does not include the performing arts shared use, day care or office support retail in the calculation. The applicant has indicated that the project could be built in two phases and that the child care and performing arts center would be provided in Phase. There is the possibility that the project could be built entirely in one phase of construction. Environmental Background- Documents Incorporated by Reference The entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3 1. In 1982, the Terrabqy Development Pro/ect Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan, 2. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabqy Spelifit Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Specific Plan and Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. In 1998/99, the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impatt Report and Final EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment. 4. 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR. 5. 2005 Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final) subject to City certification. These documents and all the background documents referenced and cited therein are incorporated herein by reference. Updated Conditions since 1998/99 SEIR Certification and drafting of2005 SEIR 1. Approximately 25,6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) were dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. 2. The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel", The Buffer Parcel comprises about 2.7 acres, which would be used for a roadway for emergency vehicle access which is a permitted use by the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed re- entitlement of the Phase III site would affect the Development Parcel and the Buffer Parcels only consisting of approximately 20,7 acres of what was once a 47 -acre site, T errabay Phases I and II are completely built out and occupied, 3. A Wetland :Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 4 development of the Terrabay Phase III Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wedands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (the City's Oyster Point Flyover Transportation Improvement Project) and anticipated filling of 0,10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the 2006 Project site. As defmed in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wedands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site (now the Preservation Parcel). 4. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued permits to conduct streambed alterations and wedands take and mitigation, The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. 5. The City completed the Oyster Point Interchange including the hook ramp construction in front of the project site. 6. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the review of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer). Project Site Characteristics The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point Flyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is located west of the Project site. 10, Other public agencies whose approval is required: . San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department . California Water Service Company - water main and access easements . State Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Permit . Caltrans - Encroachment Permit Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTI.AIL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be Dotentiallv affected by the Droject to a greater extent than that identified and analyzed in the 2005 SIER which is tiered upon the 1998/99 SEIR. 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality o Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning D Noise 0 Population/Housing 0 Recreation 0 T ransporta tion/T raffic D Mandatory Findings of Significance o Biological Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources D Public Services D Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, ~ I find that the proposed project impacts are equal to or less than the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 1998/99 SEIR and that an Addendum to the existing fmal SEIR's shall be prepared. This fmding is based upon the requirements of Section 15164, California Code oj Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 wherein an Addendum may be prepared if some changes or Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 6 additions are necessary to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred. I find that pursuant to Section 15161 there are no: (1) Substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. And that there is no: (3) New information of substantial importance that has become available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant. t~b ,~ Signa re ~ /'7 ~ 02~ 'Ut) ~ Date Susy Kalkin. Acting Chief Planner Printed Name Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following evaluates the 2006 Project in comparison to the impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR for the Terrabay Project. The 2005 SEIR augments, enhances and supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR as permitted by law where newer information is available and relevant. The 2005 SEIR contains an updated traffic and circulation analysis based on new build out and development assumptions, The 2005 SEIR also updates air quality and noise, aesthetics, hydrology and public services and utilities. The 1998/99 SEIR remains the governing document with respect to issues such as archaeology, biology and geology and soils. 'Where appropriate and needed these distinctions are identified in the appropriate environmental section. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 1 mpact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o o ~ o b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o o o ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? o o ~ o d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o ~ o o Analysis a and c) The 2006 Project would not significantly affect scenic vistas, although the office towers would be highly visible. The San Bruno Mountain County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site. Project development is concentrated at the northern portion of the property. The 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11, 2004, combined with the 2,7 Buffer Parcel, which would only be used for roadways, would maintain unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Airport Boulevard frontage. Additionally 50 percent less of the site would be developed with the 2006 Project than what was proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum (Entitled Project) and the 2005 SEIR, b) The site is not adjacent to a scenic highway. Development would be clustered on approximately eight acres leaving approximately 10 acres of land on the ''Development Parcel" with a clear view of the mountain. The Development Parcel is approximately 18 acres ofland where development is permitted which in previous documents has been referred to as the "Office Parcel". The 2,6 acre "Buffer Parcel" would be developed with an emergency access roadway and turn around which would consist of Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 8 pervious turf crete paving materials. The "Pointe" area south of the development would be landscaped in order to minimize the scars of previous grading. The 26 acre Preservation Parcel north of the Buffer Parcel would remain in open space. The majority of the rock outcropping on the Development and Buffer Parcels would remain in place. d) The Project would introduce building, pathway and parking lighting that would add light to the project area. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which restricts the use of reflective building materials and requires controlled and downcast lighting to reduce light spillage from the site, The unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR generally addresses the residential development. The Phase III 2006 Project does incorporate the applicable mitigation measure which includes clustering development, maintaining view lines to the Mountain, restricting development generally to the swales and use landscaping for screening and use of open spaces to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 from the 2005 SEIR which addresses night lighting mitigations to protect residential uses on the Phase III site. The 2006 Project does not propose residential land uses. Finding: The 2006 Project slightly reduces lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR as no residential land uses are proposed. There would be no conflict between night lighting and residential uses associated with the 2006 Project as no residential land uses are proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Additionally, the 2006 Project would be clustered on eight acres as opposed to 20 acres proposed and analyzed in the 2005 SEIR leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept, of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? o o o rgJ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 9 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 [gJ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 [gJ Analysis a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) The Project site is currently zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San Francisco 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None, Finding: There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant 1mpact Poten rially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations, Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [gJ o o o b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [gJ o o o c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 10 emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ~ o o o d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 o ~ o e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o ~ Analysis a, band c Both the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR found that short term construction impacts associated with dust without mitigation could exceed PMIO standards. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 1998/99 SEIR which is restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 shall be required of the 2006 Project and would reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 addresses dust and erosion control and is identified by the Bay Area Air Quality District as effective. The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full buildout of Phases I, II and III of Terrabay would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to ozone and PMIO. The impact is somewhat lessened but is still unavoidable with a Transportation Demand Management (IDM) Program in place. The City adopted a "Finding of Overriding Considerations" with respect to this air quality impact in 1999. The 2005 SEIR also identified this impact as significant and unavoidable. The proposed 2006 Project would result in a reduction in air emissions, given its reduction in scope. A TDM Program which is proposed by the 2006 Project (as well as required by ordinance) is also identified as Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 for the 2005 Project. The TDM Program will serve to reduce the severity of the impact; however, it will not eliminate it all together. Full build out of Terrabay will continue to exceed air quality standards, which will interfere with the region's efforts to reduce exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMIO. Therefore the same finding will need to be re-adopted for the 2006 Project. d) The proposed day care center is a sensitive receptor, The 2005 SEIR performed curbside carbon monoxide modeling on a considerably more vehicle-intense land use (see Traffic and Circulation Section) which was based on a mixed-use project with sensitive receptors on site. The 1998/99 SEIR also conducted carbon monoxide modeling, The analysis contained in both documents found that there would be no significant impacts associated with carbon monoxide. Table 3.2-3 on p 3.2-7 of the 2005 SEIR compares the curbside carbon monoxide concentrations associated with the more intense 2005 Project to the most stringent one- and eight-hour state and federal standards. The concentrations are below the state and federal standards. e) Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial land use activities, The 2006 Project would include office and commercial land uses which as a rule do not generate objectionable odors, All Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 11 restaurant spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that f1lter air before it is released outside of the building as a standard condition of the 2006 Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address dust and soil erosion. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which requires a TDM Program. Note that this mitigation is a re-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR. This mitigation will reduce impacts but not mitigate to a level of insignificance as discussed in the finding below. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project slightly reduces air quality impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR. However ozone and PMlO would remain a Significant and Unavoidable Impact as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. A Finding of Overriding Considerations will need to be re-adopted by the City Council. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SIgnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish ~ D and Game or U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service? D D b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US D D rgj D Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct removal, D D ~ D filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 12 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 0 [gJ 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 [gJ 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 0 0 [gJ 0 Analysis The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources on the Terrabay site and re-evaluated potential impacts on biological resources. Section 4.3 Biology of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucfy for North Peninsula Plaza Project South San Frandsl'o, California (Environmental Collaborative 2005) for the 2005 SEIR scoping. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate biological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. a) The 2006 Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and given the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel and the reduced site disturbance would likely result in slightly less impacts to status species. Occurrences of the larval host plant for the federally-endangered callippe silverspot (Spryeria callippe mllippe) would be avoided based on mapping prepared as part of the 1998/99 SEIR. No other special-status species are suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation Measure 4,3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR would apply (dust control, salvage and transplant of Monardella, posting signs al<;mg trails and vista points warning park users against illegal activities) and would require the 2006 Project sponsor to comply with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site, and the additional provisions to further minimize potential impacts on callippe silverspot. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the 2000 General, Precise and Specific Plan amendments, the 2006 Project design and the conveyance of habitat to the County as open space. As a result of the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel containing Johnny jumpup (Viola pedunmlata) to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park no Viola pedunmlata would be disturbed. Installation of signage along trails and use of appropriate dust control measures would be required as a standard condition of approval, A dust mitigation measure for Air Quality is identified in the 2005 SEIR and is required of the 2006 Project. The provision of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 for salvage of larval host plants for callippe silverspot would no longer apply as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunlulata) plants would be avoided. However, the proposed Restoration Plan must still be revised to include a Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13 component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot, as called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. b) The 2006 Project has been substantially revised to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site, The northern portion of the Phase III site is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel. These modifications serve to provide compliance with the intent of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which calls for avoidance offreshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community types. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(b) and 4.3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR would remain applicable to the 2006 Project, calling for revisions to the Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. c) The 2006 Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4,3- 3( c) with respect to wetlands. (CDFG) and components of the WMP have been implemented such as removal of invasive exotics and regrading of the two northern drainage channels at the Preservation Parcel. A subsequent memo by WRA in 2004 (WRA 2004) summarizes the status of the enhancement success and expanded wetland acreage adjacent These include the avoidance of most of the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of the previous Phase III site evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR (now identified as the Preservation Parcel) preparation of a detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan to address unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which would be accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and development of the Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps and anticipated filling of 0,10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site. Necessary agency authorization was secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game to the northern portion of the site. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. The pennit authorizations are attached. The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wetland mitigation plan and appropriate re-authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the currently proposed Project. This includes re-securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the Corps and RWQCB before they expire, if necessary. Reauthorization was received from the Corps July 31, 2005 and CDFG on September 22, 2005. This would also include confmnation of the adequacy of the WMP Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 14 in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wetlands affected by the Mandalay Terrace access improvements at Airport Boulevard, The Corps stated that this area does not constitute wetlands in a letter dated February 1, 2006 and that the existing plan is adequate. d) There are no significant impacts on wildlife habitat are anticipated with the 2006 Project which is consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR. e) The 2006 Project would conform to local plans and policies. f) The 2006 Project would conform to the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel would greatly improve habitat values on this portion of the original site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 would ensure that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conseroation Plan. Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (July 12,2006). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1. from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address landscape compatibility, a restoration plan and salvage plan. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR avoidance of habitat has been accomplished by the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel however, dust control and trail signage are applicable to the 2006 Project, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR which identifies avoiding wetlands take to the maximum extent feasible which has been accomplished with the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County containing wetlands and enhanced wetlands pursuant to an approved USACE Section 404 permit which mitigates the loss of 0.10 acres of intermittent stream the only take of wetlands associated with the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None, Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in additional impacts over what was identified in the 1998/99SEIR on biological resources, The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate biological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The majority of the wetlands on the Phase III site have been preserved, the viola has been preserved and wetlands have been enhanced. The requisite United States Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits has been secured by the Applicant. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064,5? 0 0 0 [g] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064,5? 0 0 0 [g] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 [g] d) Disturb any human remains, including tllOse 0 0 [g] 0 interred outside of formal cemeteries? Analysis Section 4,9 Archaeology of the Terrabcry 1998/ 99Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7.3-3, 7.3-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabcry 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the 2005 Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005), The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate cultural impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. a) There are no historic resources (as defmed in Section 15064,5 of the CEQA Guidelines) located on the 2006 Project Site. b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the 2006 Project site. CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004. Extensive study of this site has occurred since 1950. Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional integrity and research significance of the site. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is approximately 2,2 acres in size. Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates ranging from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the oldest documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area. The most abundant material present at the site was the remains of marine shellfish. Additional materials included those associated with cultural activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic artifacts and materials, The shellmound also contains human remains. While the number of human burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman & Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 16 Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The 2006 Project would completely avoid CA-SMa-40. The 2006 Project site plan shows the Preservation Parcel which contains CA-SMa-40, which fulfills the provision of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b). The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer Parcel containing about 2.7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and is proposed as further assurance there is no disturbance to CA-SMa-40. Development on the Buffer Parcel is limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk. c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the 2006 Project Site. d) As discussed in Item 5b above, CA-SMa-40 contains Native American burials. The 2006 Project specific plan and site plan would avoid CA-SMa-40, This would implement Mitigation Measure 4.9- 1 (b) identified in the TerrabCfY Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIR As a result of the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4,9-1 (b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native American burials is reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None, Mitigation Measures 4,9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR is implemented by the preservation of CA- SMA-40 on the Preservation Parcel and its conveyance to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park as open space in perpetuity. There is no impact to CA-SMA-92 off the 2006 Project site and on County land as there is no development on the Preservation Parcel and no trails connecting the two historic resources. Therefore Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR is not required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources on the 2006 Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources on the 2006 Project site. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any impacts to archaeological, cultural or historical resources. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate cultural impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR, No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6, GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, D D ~ D ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D ~ D ill) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D ~ 0 iv) Landslides? D D ~ D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D ~ 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D D ~ 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D D ~ 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? D D D ~ Analysis Section 4,1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 200la) , The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 18 inclinometers. The investigation also included 10 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units, The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001b). Additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis are required to fill data gaps and provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the 2006 Project. This work will be required by the City through standard conditions of approval and incorporated into the 2006 Project design and maps. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geology and soils impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon 20 years of field analysis and implementing and monitoring mitigation measures in Terrabay Phase I, identified a list of mitigations for each geological condition facing the site; therefore, minor refInements to the mitigations are all that is required for the 2006 Project. The topography of the Project has been modifIed as a result of previous quarrying activity, The bedrock type is predominantly Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls, The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geological impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR, a) No known active faults are located within the 2006 Project site or the Terrabay development. Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles nortl1east. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located close to the 2006 Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west-northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive. A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the 2006 Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4,1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the 2006 Project site. Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design: grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; install rock anchors; install subdrains; revegetate slopes; install slope monitoring instrumentation; locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure4.1-a and would reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than signifIcant level. The 2006 Project will be required by the City to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) which specifies that an annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking be included in the Slope Maintenance Plan, The Slope Maintenance Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19 Plan shall be prepared for the project as specified by Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires that the Project's CC&Rs establish and provide for the implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan and that the Project's Property Owners Association is the responsible party for maintenance. The 2006 Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(a) and 4.1- 4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR will reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the 2006 Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR and the following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design including: place keyways for fills through soft soils; grade flatter slopes with benches, install rock anchors; install subdrains; install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 and would reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level. Stability analyses and geotechnical design recommendations identified in the URS reports (URS 2001a and 2001b) and required by the City will confirm the appropriateness of the previously adopted mitigation measures. The surficial soil deposits at the 2006 Project site consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b). Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the 2006 Project site. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on 2006 Project development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR specifies that the Precise Plan for Phase III identify measure to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides that include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. The 2006 Project design incorporates these measures and would thus implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) which would provide for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) and (b) would reduce potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. Grading plans for Phase III propose cutting into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) (see above) would reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. b) While the 2006 Project would result in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high. Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) 4.1-2(b) and 4.1-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require the 2006 Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 20 A - ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads,. This would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. c) The 2006 Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction therefore the risk of lateral spreading is considered very low (URS 2001). The site contains landslides which could adversely affect 2006 Project development. See Item 6a above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls be listed in the Precise Plan for Phase III. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b), which requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association shall establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. This would reduce potential landslide impacts to a less than significant level. d) Future development would primarily be constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which would reduce potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be incorporated into the2006 Project design including: over-excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate settlement; postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction season; monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and place structures on deep pier foundations. The 2006 Project would avoid the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore, two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment". e) The Project would be connected to the city sewer system. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which stipulates that all grading shall be in conformance with the Agreement with Respeo'f to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation also requires state and federal agency permitting prior to grading. The 2006 Project is in compliance with this requirement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which stipulates maximum slope grades, benches and drainage and slope engineering design to insure slope stability and minimize erOSion. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 21 Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Additionally, implementation of this mitigation measure requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Mitigation Measure 4.14 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which required rockslide and rockfall mitigations including such measures as flatter slopes with benches, rock anchors, subdrains, revegetation, slope monitoring instrumentation, sealing off loose rocks, netting and encapsulating rocks, fencing rocks, annual inspection of outcrops prior to the rainy season, slope maintenance plans and implementation of the plans through the CC&R's for the property. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the project which addresses the secondary effects of seismic shaking. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 from the 1998/99 SEIRArtificial fill over CA-SMA-40. No fill would be placed over CA-SMA-40. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR Hook Ramp Mitigations. The City sponsored hook ramp project is complete and the mitigation was incorporated. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate geology and soils impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 0 r:8J b) 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? 0 0 0 r:8J Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 22 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 r:8J d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 0 r:8J e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 r:8J 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 r:8J f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 r:8J g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 r:8J Analysis a) The 2006 Project site is undeveloped vacant land. The site does not contain hazardous or toxic materials (pHASE ONE, Inc 2003). Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials. b) The 2006 Project is office and commercial uses which are land uses not associated with the use or release of hazardous materials into the environment c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0.75 miles from the Project site. See Items 7a and 7b above. d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list (DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962.5. e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site. The General Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 23 Plan. The Project site has a height limit of 360 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). f) The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports and would not present a safety hazard for people working at the 2006 Project. g) Development of the 2006 Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. The South San Francisco Fire Department has reviewed the plans and requested the emergency vehicle access and turn around on the buffer parcel. The 2006 project incorporates this request. h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a ''Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit" (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR Aerially deposited lead applied to the hook ramp project and the requisite field work and analysis was conducted as apart of the City's Oyster Point Flyovr transportation improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR from the Effect of EMF on future residents applied to the Commons neighborhood proposed in the 1998/99 Project. The Commons parcel is not designated open space/recreation. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hazards from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate hazard I impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than S1gnificant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Wauld the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o r:8J Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 24 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) 0 0 r:8J 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 r:8J 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 0 0 r:8J 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 r:8J 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 r:8J 0 g) 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? 0 0 0 r:8J h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 r:8J i) 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? 0 0 0 r:8J j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 r:8J 0 Analysis Section 4.2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR is hereby incorporated by reference. Water, wastewater and storm drainage is updated in the 2005 SEIR and discussed herein. a) The 2006 Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A swpp and compliance with the NPDES C-3 provisions is required as a standard condition of project approval. b) Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 50 percent from the 2000 Project (approved entitlement) as construction would be limited to eight of the 21 acres. Coupled with the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel impervious and disturbed areas on the site have Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25 been reduced approximately 75 percent over that analyzed in the1998/99 SEIR. This would result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the 2006 Project site. c) A portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building area would be filled as a result of the 2006 Project. Mitigation for the fill of this drainage is addressed in the WMP and has been permitted by the USACE, CDFG and RWCCB (as discussed under Biological Resources). As noted the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced which results in a reduction in storm water runoff. Storm water runoff would be collected into a pipe system that would convey storm water to the existing storm drain facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. A debris basin is proposed by the 2006 Project to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. This would fulfill Mitigation Measures 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR which requires a debris basin at the Phase III site. d) The amount of surface runoff from the 2006 Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. The 2006 Project would reduce the potential for flooding at the Project site. See Items 8c, 8g and 8h. e) The 2006 Project would result in a reduction of storm water runoff compared with the all the previous development plans. Project-related storm water runoff was also evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. The City Engineer conducted the analysis required by Mitigation Measure a 3.4-8 from the 2005 SEIR and found that there is adequate capacity for Terrabay Phase III and cumulative development in the existing infrastructure. f) Future site development as a result of the 2006 Project would not degrade water quality. The Project will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) and comply with NPDES C-3 standards as a condition of project approval which will result in implementation of erosion control and other measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality. g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). The 2006 Project would convey storm water runoff into a pipe system that will connect to the storm water facilities located in Airport Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard was mitigation for the development of Terrabay as a whole. These facilities were designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay development as a whole including the 2006 Project. The previous design for Phase III included a system of benched concrete-lined drainage channels conveying surface drainage to a sump inlet with a proposed headwall but without a storm drain link to the adjacent street storm drain system. The 2006 Project eliminates the channels and would convey storm water via a system of pipes that will connect to the City's storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard. The 2006 Project design eliminates the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-4. h) The 2006 Project would not locate any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect any flood flows. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 26 i) The 2006 Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. See Items 8g and 8h above. j) The 2006 Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR refers to debris basins that are required on the Phase III parcel and does apply to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 from the 19998/99 SEIR storm water and flooding applies to the design of Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR storm water drainage and flooding impact relates to Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to a storm water impact on the Commons parcel in Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.24 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the design analyzed in the 1998 Project (not approved or constructed) analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the completed City sponsored hook ramp project. The project is complete and the mitigations have been implemented. Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to erosion and sedimentation based upon the 1998 project (not approved or constructed) and does not apply to the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Woods Project. The mitigation measure is incorporated into the completed project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Commons parcel. The Commons is now the "Recreation and Open space" parcel. The sedimentation basin has been improved and abandoned roads have been re-vegetated. Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Pointe neighborhood which has been constructed and the mitigation measure is implemented. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR did re-evaluate storm water/waste water Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 27 and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the 2006 Project and cumulative development. The 2006 Project would result in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 r:8J b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 r:8J 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 r:8J Analysis a) The Project is the tl1ird and fmal phase of the development of Terrabay. The 2006 Project would complete this planned community. b) The Project would require minor text amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement pertaining to maximum height, parking and the types of retail land uses permitted. The 2006 Project would add approximately 17,000 square feet more commercial and construct two as opposed to one office tower for a total of 665,000 square feet of office. The 2006 Project would provide 32 moderate-income dwelling units off site which is required by the existing development agreement. The 2006 Project would construct a 100 child day care center and a performing arts facility both required by the development agreement, Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Zoning Ordinance. The 2006 Project would provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan in compliance with Sections of 20.115 and 20.120 of tl1e Municipal Code. c) The 2006 Project would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. See Section 4 Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required as part of the subdivision applicant procedure. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fire break and exotic weed control. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 28 Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: There are no land use impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? o o o r:8J b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? o o o r:8J Analysis a) The 2006 Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or state (City of South San Francisco general Plan 1999). b) The 2006 Project site is not delineated as an area of locally-important mineral resources under the General Plan (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: There are no mineral resources on the Terrabay site and therefore there are no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 r:8J 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 0 r:8J 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 r:8J 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 r:8J 0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 r:8J 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private aitstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 0 r:8J Analysis a, b, c and d) The dominant source of noise in the Project area is traffic from U.S. 101 and aircraft flyovers from San Francisco International Airport. The 2006 Project fronts Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101 entirely. The 2005 SEIR analyzed noise on a mixed use project that included 24/7 land uses inclusive of noise sensitive residential uses. The 2005 Project also proposed construction and land uses located on the point within approximately 200 feet of residential land uses. The 2006 Project clusters development in the northern portion of the site approximately 900 feet from residential land uses. The 2006 Project does not include residential land uses. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 30 Temporary Construction Impacts Pile driving and blasting are not anticipated for 2006 Project construction. Grading, concrete work and pneumatic equipment would be used during construction. Construction activity may on occasion be audible to nearby residential land uses however in all likelihood the majority of construction noise would be muffled by the traffic from the freeway. 2006 Project construction would also be approximately 900 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR would apply to the 2006 Project. The mitigation measures require construction scheduling and limits hours of construction activity, muffling and shielding of equipment, stipulates location of equipment (furthest from residential uses) and equipment idling prohibitions to reduce temporary noise impacts. The mitigations also require "Disturbance Coordinator" which in practice on Terrabay Phase I and II has been entitled a "Mitigation Monitor". The Monitor ensures tllat all mitigations are adhered to, inspects the site and reports on compliance to various departments, agencies and officials and has the authority to recommend to the Building Division to red tag construction should mitigations not be in place. Operational and Cumulative Impacts The 2005 SEIR analyzed increases to ambient noise levels based upon a substantially more intense project. The 2005 SEIR found that traffic related to the 2005 Project would increase the ambient noise levels by one db in the year 2020. A one db increase is not perceptible to the human ear and not considered an impact. Typically, a five db is considered a significant impact as identified in the 2005 SEIR. No cumulative noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the 2006 Project. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon measurements and modeling, did not identify an increase in ambient noise levels associated with the 1998 Project and cumulative development. Impacts to Occupants The project site is within a 74 - 78 dBA, CNEL contour. As a matter oflaw a design level acoustical analysis will be required for the 2006 Project that includes construction measures to reduce interior ambient noise levels for the office and day care uses prior to the City issuance of building permits. e and f) The 2006 Project site is within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The 2006 Project site is not within the current Airport Land Use Commission (CCAG) Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman Chair CCAG ALUC letter dated October 14, 2005). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR relating to temporary construction impacts. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 31 Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 from the 2005 SEIR requiring disclosure of the location of the airport on CC&R's for the 2006 Project Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 from the 2005 SEIR which requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR to the residential uses proposed in the 2005 Project. Residential land uses are not proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.34 from the 2005 SEIR Pertaining to noise from mechanical equipment. The 2006 Project would not impact residential land uses as none are proposed. The Design Review Board required shielding of mechanical equipment, as does a standard condition of approval. The City's Municipal Code restricts the level of noise generating from mechanical equipment to 55 DBA at the property line. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to noise from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR which did re-evaluate noise. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 o r:8J o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 o o r:8J c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 o o r:8J Analysis a) The 2006 Project would not induce the extension of roads and other infrastructure. The 2006 Project is the third and final phase of Terrabay which is a project that has provided housing, constructed a recreation centerin Phase I and a fIre station in Phase I a sound wall, donated open space, paid child care fees and developed project-specific and area-wide and regional infrastructure. b) The 2006 Project site is vacant and would not displace any housing. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 32 c) The 2006 Project site would not displace any people. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. N one required. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing nor did the 1998/99 SEIR identify any impacts associated with population and housing. The 2005 SEIR did not re-evaluate population and housing impacts based upon the analysis contained in the initial study for the 2005 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Signifieant Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governrnental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? o o o o o Analysis Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated r:8J r:8J o o o Less Than Signifieant Impact o o r:8J r:8J r:8J No Impact o o o o o a) The South San Francisco Fire Marshall, Brian Niswonger evaluated the 2006 Project and found that the mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR apply to the 2006 Project. The Mitigation Measure (unnumbered) requires the addition of one fire fighter position to Station I. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 b) The South San Francisco Police Department evaluated the 2006 Project. Sgt. Alan Normandy found that Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR would be required for the 2006 Project. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR would also be required. The mitigation requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and ftre communications. Cumulative development for police and ftre requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) c) The 2005 SEIR analyzed school impacts on a more intense and mixed-use project and found that there would be no impact to schools. The state required school impact fees required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits adequately addressed the more intense land plan. d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (ferrabay Recreation Center). The Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), tl1e Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Any impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignificant. e) There are no other public facilities affected. See the discussion under Utilities (# 16, below). A PG&E will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the funding of one new police position. Mitigation Measure 4.74 from the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and ftre communications on the ftrst building constructed on the Phase III site. Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cumulative development impacts. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 (a), (b) and Mfrom the 2005 SEIR which mitigates an more intense project that proposed in 2006 and requires the funding of six police officers and three vehicles, crime and safety Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 34 equipment specific to the 2005 Project, and the timing of the funding of the six positions and three vehicles. (please note, the Public Service Mitigation Measures from the 2005 SEIR are numbered 3.10- 1 through 9 on pages 3.4-8 through 3.4-13 and as 3.4- 1 through 9 in the summary table.). Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-2from the 2005 SEIR requiring additional Ere positions based upon the 2005 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.104 from the 2005 SEIR requiring a radio communications design and study based upon the 2005 Project. Communications issues for the 2006 Project if needed will be a part of the conditions of approval as they were required for the Peninsula Mandalay tower in Phase II. Mitigation Measure 3.10-6 from the 2005 SEIR addressing mitigations for wildland Ere which will be included as a condition of project approval. Additionally, pursuant to the Fire Code the Ere buffer area has increased from 50 to 100 feet from project structures. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR The 2005 SEIR did evaluate impacts associated with a more intense land plan and both police and Ere have indicated that the mitigations identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 SEIR adequately address the 2006 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels ( 400 acres) as open space. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 r:8J 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 r:8J 0 Analysis: a) See Item 13d above. b) See Item 13d above. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35 Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR that include: . 153 acres of open space dedication consisting of the remainder lands abutting Phases I, II and III. Phase I and II lands have been restored and have been offered to the County. Phase III will be offered when construction is complete. . Trail access to the Mountain- Completed to the satisfaction of the County in Phase I. The County has stated in writing that they do not want additional trails. . 2,000 square foot child care center- Completed September 25, 1996 when the City accepted a $700,000 in-lieu payment. . Improvement of Hillside School, grading and soccer fields and outdoor facilities- Completed in 1997 as a part of Phase I. . Construction of Terrabay Recreation Center- Completed in 1996 as a part of Phase I . Restoration and offer of dedication to the County of the 157-acre Juncus Ravine Parcel- Restoration complete and offered to the County in 2004. . Restoration and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County Phase III - Completed August 2004. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels ( 400 acres) as open space. The 2006 Project proposes, as required by ordinance, the construction of a 100 child day care center. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 36 Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impaet 15. TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? 0 r:8J 0 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 r:8J 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 0 0 r:8J d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 r:8J 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 r:8J 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 r:8J 0 Analysis Terrabay project traffic has been analyzed extensively since 1982. More recently updated studies have been conducted by Crane Transportation Group in 1996, 1998,2000 and 2005. The City again requested Crane Transportation Group to analyze the changes in the 2006 Project as compared to the Project and Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 SEIR The 2005 SEIR was used as the baseline because background, environmental and cumulative conditions have changed since the certification of the 1998/99 SEIR. The project analyzed in the 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR is closer to the 2006 Project in magnitude, however, due to the changes noted and re-iterated herein a 2006 Project comparison was made to the 2005 SEIR. A summary of the changes are that the: . U.S.101 Southbound Hook ramps and the Oyster Point Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover have been constructed and were in operation for the 2005 analysis, but were not for the 1998 analysis. . Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, but not in the 1998 SElR. . BART extension to South San Francisco and the Airport is in and included in analysis for the 2005 SEIR, but not for the 1998 SEIR. . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut A venue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SEIR documentation was established, but was in and operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes were not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR, but are included in the 2005 SEIR. . East of 101 cumulative impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR, but was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SElR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated, using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 37 . The 2005 SElR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1994. . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004. The analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group Guly 31, 2006) for the City is attached to this initial study, incorporated herein and summarized in the following. a and b) The 2006 Project would add approximately 17 inbound + outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 75 inbound + outbound trips in the PM peak hour beyond the currently entitled 2000 Project. The 2006 Project would eliminate three off site impacts and four significant unavoidable impacts associated with the 2005 Project. The 2006 Project off site circulation impacts are all queuing related and all 2006 Project off site circulation impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. The two locations with queuing impacts are: . Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Boulevards: Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 325 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. . The Project Access Driveway and Airport Boulevard: The queuing impact at the main project access intersection with Airport Boulevard can also be mitigated with the 2006 Project, where no mitigation was feasible with the 2005 Project. Mitigations include lengthening the left turn lane on the Airport Boulevard northbound approach to the Project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the left turn lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are 1) striping the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane in conjunction with north-south split phase signalization; or 2) widening Airport Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. An on-site circulation impact and mitigation measure is identified with the 2006 Project, similar to the 2005 SEIR impact. Pedestrian crossings at the fIrst on-site 2006 Project intersection could disrupt traffic flow. A "walk/don't walk" signal for pedestrians is identified as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking impacts, the first intersection on the site shall be monitored after full project completion and occupancy. The monitoring shall be funded through a developer pass-through account. Backups off the project site or driver confusion will result in signalizing the intersection with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access at Airport Boulevard. Additionally, there will be adequate right-of-way area to provide either an exclusive right turn lane and/ or an exclusive left turn lane on the inbound driveway approach to the fIrst internal intersection should the results of the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 38 monitoring indicate the necessity to do so. Also, right-of-way will be provided on the outbound driveway approach to Airport Boulevard to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). c) No change in traffic air patterns would result from the 2006 Project. The 2006 Project maximum height pursuant to the FAA is 360 feet above means ea level (as noted in the South San Francisco General Plan). The North Tower is proposed at 360 feet above "mean sea level". d) The 2006 Project site plan was reviewed by police, engineering, fire, planning and the City's traffic consultant. The on-site intersections are designed to be free flowing for traffic inbound to or outbound from the Project garage. Pedestrian walkways are mostly separated from high traffic flow locations. The parking garage proposes underground, well-lighted and appointed pedestrian tunnels separating pedestrian and vehicular movements. e) As a result of the review noted in d, above, the Buffer Parcel will include an emergency vehicle access road and turn around area for fire. Police and Fire comments have been incorporated into the 2006 Project as proposed. t) Parking is proposed at 2.94 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of land use (2.94/1,000 gsf). The existing entitlement is parked at 2.68/1,000 gsf. The 2006 Project is adequately parked as proposed and also includes a Transportation Demand Management Program, as required by ordinance. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Bayshore)requiring a fmancial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided 8.5 million and this mitigation is completed. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Dubuque) requiring a financial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided 8.5 million and this mitigation measure is completed. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5a and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2010. Mitigation Measure 3.1-9a and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2020. Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Circulation. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 39 Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR Roadway Widths. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Turnaround Sizes. Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Phase II Residential Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Overflow Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1-10 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Commercial Parking Shortfall. Mitigation Measure 4.1-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trail Head Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.1-12 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Storage Deficiencies Between Intersections. Mitigation Measure 4.1-13 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Mainline (required an override). Mitigation Measure 4.1-14 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Ramps (required an override). Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2010. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2020. Mitigation Measure 3.1-11 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Parking. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to Transportation and Circulation from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project would result in fewer impacts than those identified in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project would still rely on the Statement of the Overriding Considerations adopted in 1999 for the 1998 Project of which the 2000 Addendum relied upon. The impacts that required the Findings of Overriding Considerations are: Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. No significantly new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 40 Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. No significantly new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incotporated Impact Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 r:8J 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 r:8J 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 r:8J 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 r:8J 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 r:8J 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?) 0 0 r:8J 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 r:8J 0 Analysis a, b and e) The 2005 SEIR analyzed wastewater impacts on a more intense land use proposal. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the inspection (televising) of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17, 2006). c) The existing 48-inch storm drain system in Airport Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The line is stubbed and ready for connection at several points Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 41 along the 2006 Project frontage. The 48-inch line connects to a 60-inch culvert which crosses under U.S. 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete lined channel that discharges to the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the lOO-year event. (Corolett, 2005 whom was the City's engineer for the storm drain improvements). Additionally, as a matter oflaw, the 2006 Project shall comply with the NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permits including the C-3 requirements. d) The Terrabay Project installed a water tank for the Terrabay project as a part of Phase I. The project also constructed the water distribution system and pump house on the Phase III site. Cal Water has provided the project with a will serve letter (Appendix F of 2005 SEIR) which is based on a more intense land plan. Will serve letters are attached to this Initial Study. f and g) The project will be required as a condition of approval to provide recycling and waste diversion. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 from the SEIR is complete. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: None. Finding: The 2006 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California 0 history or prehistory? 0 0 r:8J b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 42 ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 0 o r:8J o c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o r:8J o Finding The 2006 Project would not result in any increases in identified impacts or new impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR. which supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. The two significant findings relate to air quality and would require a restatement of the Finding of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council February 1999. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 43 REFERENCES Corlett, Adrian. BKF. Email correspondence February 27, 2005. Environmental Collaborative. 2005. Review of Biological Issues Initial Study for North Peninsula PlaifJ Project South San Framim, California. March 1,2005. Holman, Miley. Holman & Associates. Personal communication January 3, 2005. PHASE ONE, Inc. 2003. Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. South San Francisco, California. Prepared for Myers Development. February 24,2003. City of South San Francisco. 2002. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. Adopted October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002. City of South San Francisco. 1999 Terrabqy Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. January 1999. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Final Terrabqy Specifit Plan. October 16, 2000. Prepared by Myers Development Company. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. July 1998. City of South San Francisco. 1996. T errabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Draft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. January 1996. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1996. Terrabqy Spetific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1982. Terrabqy Development Projed Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 1982. Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group. URS. 2001a. Geotethnic'al Exploration, Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Francim, California. February 12, 2001. URS. 2001b. Report Geotechnical Design Criteria Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Francism, California. March 16,2001. U.S. Geologic Survey. 199. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 - A Summary of Findings, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517. Wetland Research Associates. 2000. Wetland Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Francisco, California, COE File Number 23533S. September 2000. Wetland Research Associates. 2004. Letter to Mr. Ed Wylie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21, 2004. ATTACHMENT A USACE Section 404 Permit Extension, July 28, 2006 CDFG Streambed Alteration Permit Extension, September 22, 2005 USACE Wetlands Determination, February 1,2006 Crane Transportation Group 2006 Project Traffic Analysis PG&E will serve letter California Water Service will serve letter RCN will serve letter DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105.2197 ! l 1;) g 7.Bllf) RECEIVED JUL ;j 1 2006 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: File Number 258721S MYERS DEVELOPMENT CO. TIME EXTENSION Mr. Shepherd Heery Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Heery: This letter is written in response to your request dated July 21,2006 for a time extension of Permit Number 25872S, issued by this office on July 3, 2001 authorizing you to place earthen fill material into 1480 linear feet of intermittent stream channel for the construction of the Terra Bay Phase 3 project located in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. You are hereby granted Department of the Army authorization to extend to July 3, 2007 the completion date specified in General Condition No.1 of Department of the Army Permit Number 25872S. lfthe work authorized is not completed on or before July 3, 2007, this authorization, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. Except for General Condition No.1, all conditions of the original permit remain in full force and effect. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Mark D' Avignon of our Regulatory Branch at 415-977-8507. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch and refer to the File Number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, ~_-{Y\ . tk-c-h G-r-Craig W. Kiley Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Commanding 2 Copy Furnished: Mr. Tom Fraser WRA Environmental Consultants San Rafael, California CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL COAST REGION (707)944-5520 Mailing Address POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 Street Address 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94558 RECEIVED SEP 23 2005 September 22, 2005 MYERS DEVELOPMENT CO. Mr. S. Shepherd Heery Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Reery:. Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration Notification No. 1600-2005-0339-3 As the Department explained in its letter to you dated July 12, 2005 the Department had until September 9,2005, to submit a draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement to you or inform you that an agreement is not required. Due to staffing constraints, the Department was unable to meet that date. As a result, by law, you may now complete the project described in your notification without an agreement. In doing so, however, the project must be the same one and conducted in the same marmer as described in the notification. That includes completing the project within the proposed term and seasonal work period and implementing all mitigation and avoidance measures to protect fish and wildlife resources specified in the notification. [Fish and Game Code section 1602(a)(4)(D).] If your project differs from the one described in the notification, you may be in violation of Fish and Game Code section 1602. Also, even though you are entitled to complete the project without an agreement, you are still responsible for complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal laws, including, for example, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and Fish and Game Code sections 5650 (water pollution) and 5901 (fish passage). Finally, you must have a copy of this letter and your notification with all attachments available at all times at the work site. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dave Johnston, at (831) 475-9065. Sincerely, ,1 123 ~/>,p-e_____.. . Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region cc: D. Johnston W dn. Kavanagh Lt. Kelly I I I I I ..- I ~)J~-mtf ~~A~^~Y< DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Jt!. . L-\". "ELL1 NOTIFICATION OF LAKE OR STREAMBED ALTERATION . All fields must be completed unless otherwise indicated. See enclosures for instructions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY o .Timber Harvesting Plan (N9. ) o Water Application (No. ) CJ Commercial Gravel Extraction (No: ) o Other Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 Fax:415-777-3331 - WRA Business:415-454-8868 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Fax: 415-454-0129 Business: Fax: Business: Fax: Business: Fax: Three unnamed creeks draining the southeastern slope of San Bruno Mountian. (Effective January 12,2004) Form F02023 NOTIFICATION OF LAKE OR STREAMBED ALTERATION (Continued) Name of Applicant: Myers Development Company See Attachment 1 o Continued on separate page (s) g Map showing project location, including distances and/or directions from nearest city or town o Notice of Exemption 0 Negative Declaration " Draft or Final Environmental Impact Report o Local. Describe: expect CEQA in Fall 2005 j;j! Construction plans and drawings pertaining to the project o Mitigated Negative Declaration o Notice of Determination ~ State. Describe: RWQCB, 401 Certification for Terrabay Phase 3: CDFG 8M for Terrabay phase 3 (expired) i7 Federal. Describe: Wetland Mitigation Plan (#235335) and ACOE pennlt (#258725. expo 1 July '06) i hereby certify that all information contained in this notification is true and correct and that I am authorized to sign this document I undenrtand that in the event this infonnation is found to be untIUe or incorrect, 1 may be subject to civil or criminal prosecution and the Department may consider this notification to be incomplete and/or cancel any Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement issued pursuant to this notification. 1 understand that this notification is valid only for the project described herein and than may be 'subject to civil or criminal prosecution for undertaking a project that differs from the one described herein, unless I have notified the Department of that project in accordance with Fish and Game Code Section 1602. I understand that a Department representative may need to inspect the property where the project described herein will take place before issuing a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to this notification. In the event the Department detennines that a site inspection is necessary, I hereby authorize the Department to enter the property where the project described herein will take place to inspect the property at any reasonable time aild certify that I am authorized to grant the Department permission to access the ~perty. . o I request the Department to first contact me at (insert telephone number) to schedule a date and time to enter the property where the projeCt described herein will take place and understand that this mey delay the Department's evaluation of the project described herein. ~1~ Operator or Operator's Representative ~ -8 -()5 Date (Effective January 12, 2004) FormFG2023 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105.2197 FEB 0 1 2006 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: File Number 29616S Mr. Shepherd Beery Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suit 555 San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Heery: This letter is written in regard to a submittal on your behalf from WRA, Incorporated, dated June 7,2005, requesting Department of the Army (DA) authorization for plans to impact an approximately 0.023-acre portion of a partially constructed mitigation wetland adjacent to the Terrabay Phase III site. This project is located on Bayshore Boulevard, approximately 1200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard, in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. We have detelmined that a modification to your Department ofthe Army permit for the constl1lction of Terrabay Phase III, dated July 2, 2001, will not be required at this time. Because your pelmit is valid until July I, 2006, the wetland delineation verified by this office in July 1998 is still valid. The O.023-acre wetland in question was not in existence at that time and is therefore currently not regulated. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional delineations are valid for a period of five years. If your permit expires before the work has been completed, you will need to re-apply for DA authorization, at which point a currentjutisdictional delineation will be required to be verified as the previous one will have expired with the permit authorization. This emergent wetland would likely be found to be a jurisdictional wetland and would require DA authorization for any proposed fill. This determination does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State or local approvals required by law, including compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.). Even though this activity is not prohibited by, or otherwise subject to regulation under Section 404, the take of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA is not authorized. In the absence of a separate authorization from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-lethal takes of protected species are a violation of the ESA. Similarly, the appropriate State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board may still regulate your proposed activity because of impacts to a "water of the State", Therefore, you should also contact appropriate Federal, State 2 and locall'egulatory authorities to detennine whether your activity may require other authorizations or permits. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Holly Costa of our Regulatory Branch at 415-977-8438. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch and refer to the File Number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, 't-~ (Y). ~ Jane M. Hicks Chief, Regulatory Branch Copies furnished: US BPA, San Francisco, CA CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA WRA, Incorporated; Attn: Tom Fraser CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 545 Burnett Avenue, #101 San Francisco, CA 94131 (415) 282-9656 phone (415) 821-9837 fax 6220 Bay View Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94806 (510) 236-9375 phone (510) 236-5624fax MEMORANDUM TO: Allison Knapp FROM: Mark D. Crane, P.E. DATE: August 21, 2006 RE: ANALYSIS OF TERRABAY PHASE 3 REVISED PLAN (JUNE 2006) IN RELATION TO CURRENTLY PROPOSED DSEIR PROJECT Allison: Crane Transportation Group has conducted an analysis to determine significant circulation impacts resulting from the Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) which is replacing the currently proposed retail/movie theater/office/residential mix with a development containing 665,000 square feet of office use, a 7,000 square foot quality restaurant and up to 18,000 square feet of specialty retail use. Child care facilities and a 150-seat community theater are also included in this development plan. The newly proposed project's quality restaurant and 5,800 of the 18,000 square feet of specialty retail use are above and beyond the development previously approved for the site, which is considered the Base Case development level. Since about half of the specialty retail uses will be focused on serving project office employees only, the net increase in traffic from the currently proposed plan (in relation to the approved plan) will result from the remaining specialty retail use and the quality restaurant. Table 1 presents resultant AM and PM peak hour gross trip generatiop from each ofthe project uses. Due to the mix of development, it is very likely that there will only be minimal internal trip capture between the various activities. Tables 2 and 3 present expected AM and PM peak hour internal trip capture between the various project land uses as well as the resultant net new trips that will travel external to the project site. Table 4 presents the net new traffic that would be expected on the local roadway network due to the proposed proj ect in comparison to the approved project. Overall, the June 2006 proposal would result in an additional :1:17 (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and an additional :1:75 (inbound + outbound) trips during the PM peak hour. The increment of net new traffic to be added to the local roadway system due to the proposed project is presented in Figures 1 and 2 for AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Resultant year 2010 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes are presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, while year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes are presented in Figures 5 and 6. All analyses for the currently proposed project were carried out in a manner and using methodologies which were the same as in the August and November 2005 DSEIR and FSEIR studies. The following tables present findings for the currently proposed project. . Intersection Level of Service (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 5 PM Peak Hour - Table 6 . Freeway Operation (2010) AM Peak Hour - Table 7 PM Peak Hour - Table 8 . Freeway Ramp Operation AM Peak Hour (2010 & 2020) - Table 9 PM Peak Hour (2010 & 2020) - Table 10 . Vehicle Queuing at Intersections-50th Percentile (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 11 PM Peak Hour - Table 12 . Vehicle Queuing at Intersections-95th Percentile (2010 & 2020) AM Peak Hour - Table 13 PM Peak Hour - Table 14 EVALUATION OF CHANGES TO SIGNIFICANT CIRCULATION IMPACTS IDENTIFIED FOR THE PREVIOUS PROJECT PROPOSAL (AS PRESENTED IN THE AUGUST 2005 DSEIR AND NOVEMBER 2005 FSEIR) DUE TO THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT FORMER IMPACT 3.1.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION EXCEEDS 100 TRIPS DURING PM PEAK HOUR . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with the currently proposed project for the PM peak hour and remains less than significant for the AM peak hour. No mitigation required. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 2 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project FORMER IMPACT 3.1.2 YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with currently proposed project. No mitigation required. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.3 YEAR 2010 FREEWAY MAINLINE IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.4 YEAR 2010 FREEWAY RAMPS IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.5 YEAR 2010 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (50TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with the previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport AM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 10.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport to reduce impact to a less-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 150 feet (to accommodate 50th percentile queue). 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 3 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project FORMER IMPACT 3.1.6 YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Bayshore/U.S.lOl Southbound ramps/Terrabay Access intersections with previous proposal. Impact at one location (BayshorelU.S.lOl Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access) could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. . Becomes less than significant with currently proposed project. No mitigation required. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.7 YEAR 2020 FREEWAY MAINLINE IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.8 YEAR 2020 FREEWAY RAMPS IMPACTS . Was less than significant with the previous proposal. . Remains less than significant with the current proposal. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.9 YEAR 2020 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (50TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives an 8.6% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport to reduce impact to a less-than-significant level. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 4 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 250 feet (to accommodate 50th percentile queue). FORMER IMPACT 3.1.5b (FROM FSEIR) YEAR 2010 VEHICLE QUEUING IMPACTS (95TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersection with previous proposal. Mitigation was not possible to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level at either location. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection with the current proposal. o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport AM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives a 10.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection to reduce impact to a less-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 250 feet. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.9b (FROM FSEIR) YEAR 2020 VEHICLE QUEUING IMP ACTS (95TH PERCENTILE) . Was significant at Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport and Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections with previous proposal. Mitigation was possible to reduce impact at Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access to a less-than-significant level, but not at the other two locations. . Remains significant at the Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport intersection. However, there are no significant impacts at the BayshorelU.S.101 Southbound Ramps or Oyster Point/Dubuque intersections. Also note, that while not significant from a CEQA standpoint, compared to the approved project, the 95th percentile 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 5 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project queue in the left turn lane on the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach would exceed available storage during the AM peak hour. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 6 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project o Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport PM Peak Hour: The eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane receives an 8.6% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation is possible at Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point! Airport to reduce impact to a less-than-significant level. . Lengthen the eastbound Sister Cities left turn lane from 55 up to at least 325 feet. Mitigation is also possible at the Bayshore/Project Access intersection to reduce the impact of queuing in the northbound left turn lane to a less-than-significant level. . Either: . Lengthen the northbound left turn lane on the Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the length of the left turn lanes on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of vehicle queuing at both locations). ~r- . Stripe the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane. In conjunction with this striping, provide split phase signalization for the north and southbound intersection approaches. ~r- . Widen Bayshore Boulevard adjacent to the project site and provide a second left turn lane on the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. The project site plan would allow this widening at the sacrifice of landscaping and significant grading. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.10 ON-SITE CIRCULATION . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Remains significant with current plan. Pedestrian crossings at the first intersection internal to site could disrupt the flow of traffic into the site and possibly back vehicles onto Bayshore Boulevard. In addition, stop sign control will only be employed on three of the four approaches at the first intersection internal to the site; the inbound 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 7 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project approach will not be controlled to preclude the possibility of vehicles backing onto Bayshore Boulevard. This could lead to some driver confusion and congestion, particularly during peak inbound or outbound traffic flow periods. In addition, during PM commute conditions, outbound traffic flow may occasionally back up through the first internal intersection. Mitigation is possible to reduce impact to less-than-significant level. . Provide a pedestrian walk/don't walk signal for pedestrians crossing the inbound travel lanes just west of first internal intersection. This will stop pedestrian flow in conjunction with heavy left turn movements from Bayshore Boulevard into the site. . The City shall independently monitor traffic flow through the first intersection internal to the site after full project completion and occupancy. The applicant will fund the monitoring program. If driver confusion is observed resulting from the provision of stop sign control on only three of the four intersection approaches, signalization shall be provided at this location, with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access intersection with Bayshore Boulevard. . Reserve right-of-way along the inbound driveway approach to the first intersection internal to the site in order to provide an exclusive left turn and/or an exclusive right turn deceleration lane if monitoring indicates a need for one or both lanes. These turn lanes will be in addition to the two inbound lanes already proposed. FORMER IMPACT 3.1.11 PROVISION OF ON-SITE PARKING . Was significant with the previous proposal. . Becomes less than significant with the proposed plan. The 665,000 square feet of development would require 1,783 on-site parking stalls (based upon the Terrabay Specific Plan district office parking requirement of2.68 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of office floor area). A total of::l:: 2,055 on-site spaces is being proposed. No mitigation required. 8/21/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 8 Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) in Relation to Currently Proposed DSEIR Project (z ~ ... '- ..... ,f'-.. " .....- ~ ~ N+ ..... C") PAJe 8JOQS ee ... Uw w... .,- om a= D. t .N ~ ~ co :E "tJCl, & SE .... o III CIl .00:: 'lii :ell!: 0- ~o ~~I "tJ S 0 .0 ~ ~ C") .-J .....J ~ pille lJO !'rI "<t N+ III Q) E ~ - 0 > .... ..- u Q) Q) .... ~ 0 ~ ~ C) a. LL ~ ~ 0 :t ~ ctI Q) D. :IE <( "tJ < '" ~ Q, 0 :;) .... 0 .l!l .!2 [!! c::: CI) CIl C> :;: (3. z Q) 0 (,) i= ii= 0 <C N ~ , c::: ..... ..... 0 tt. Q, tJ) Z l:: t <C .2 '" c::: l:: C") ~ .l!l tt w CIl Z "tJ <C ~ c::: :r: (,) ~ (z -LIO ole Ol -";" L. _ (Y) ,exl 'f N ole";" J oIee<;> --. ., ~ PAle 8JOl.{S ee '<t --. ~. Ol Ol ...... ... Uw W... "">>- OCl) ~ D. ole ole ...... N ...... , I ' -LCO ...J 'f I~ .,. ~ I~ ~ 10 (Y) :c: & .... !!! ~ o ~~ ole ...... , (j) t ~ _ (Y) IOJ ., t 10 ole ...... --. ...... ";" ~. "t:> ~ lXl '" ~ (3 .... !!! .!!; CI) pille po J!';I tIl Q) E j 0 > .. N U Q) Q) .... a- 0 j a- t>> ~ LL a- j 0 :::t: ~ m Q) ~ :E ~ c ~ Ul :J Ql .l!!E Ul :J ~o "0> 1ij~ ==~ a.. Cll- ::::) ~~ 0 z-:J f!! 0:: _0 Cll .... Ql C) ._ 01 (,).>/: ~ Z Ql (,) O-Cll f- Q Ul.e Ql tiE u I- Ql 0 !f: <C r;::: ~ 0 Ql- N I- ...."0 0:: Ul Ql Qit> (ij 0 .eCll Ul a.. E~ 0 0- en :J Cll 0 Z c Ul !t Ql .... <C > Ql <0 0:: :;::;E 0 Cll 0 0 I- 01- N Ql Ul >- w za :; z -, <C ole C"l Ql 0:: Ul (J <0 .J::. @)) CL >- <0 .c ~ ~ CON t t. c: t .~ c: ...... !!! ...... Lti ~ .!!1 :::: :t 1< z z ...... o r-- N I!) ..) I!) - I!) l-.. N o ~j ~- CO ...... N -l;O co t.-~ ... Uw w... ..,- Oel) a= A. I!) r-- -::: o I!) A "" '-- ...... co 0 o "" r-- r-- ...... C') C"l .J t ~ "'O~tl!) ~ COON CO N "" I!) - I!)o .5 ~ d: .... ~ ~ o pille po tV ~ CO '" ~ <3 .... ~ '" CiS ...... ...... ~ N ~ l. Ih Q) E ::s "'0 ~> :E:1:) -~Q) ... ta..... Q) "" 0 ... w ... ::SD.D. .~ :iE + LL<Q) o Ih "l"'" ta 00 N Q) Ih ta tn r/) Q; 3: o I- Q) u lE o N D.. :J o Q: C) Z o ~ t- Q: o D.. U) Z c:( Q: t- W Z ~ (J ~ (ij r/) o 0- o c: co o o N >- :; ..., (") Q) rn t1l .<: c.. >- t1l .0 ~ Q; I- 0--. JEl-1Q 1:1 C') C') 0)0 O)O)C') .;to)N l!) .;t C') l!) .- co .J ~ ~ l!) l!) co plI/e ElJol/s,{ee t r+ .~ :15j ~ .;t l!)0)0 ~ r+ -+ l!)O)<o ...... M T"" C') 0 -+ O).;t "'".0. T"" C')C') T"". .;tC') l!) ...... .;t i< z 0) o <0 _0 ..... 0) MJ 0) -+ U; .. "III III.. a- ~CI) a. N ...... -~ l::-+ l!) ...... 1:: & .... * S ~~ ~ t:: g ..Q -S ::> o C/) plI/e IJo 1\1 ~ 10 ~ i:3 .... ~ '" Ci5 ;x; .;t ...... ..... .;t + l. "(jj ~ U; ;n l!) ~ Jg :i: rJ) Q) E I.. ::s ::s- O 0 :1:> .... .... Jl:: (J ..... CO Q) Q) Q)..... I.. Q. 0 g,:2D: u::: Q. + Q Q) 't"" rJ) Q CO NO Q) rJ) CO en ~ (]) ~ I- (]) u !E o N , 1< z z ~- J9/lOA;::I .... ...... 00 ('I)cn...... 0 NN...... 10 .~ -;1; ~ ~ l. N ~ t ,. .. ('I) gsj 10 PAle 9JOl/S ee co '<TLOO 10 _ 10.....0 ('I) C"")~..- 0 '<TN. ~j co ('I) co 10 ..... ~ - ...... Lo '<T -~ o O~LO ...... 0.0 J r :: .d ~ :. M nq"Q ~~tLO ~j :1~ ::. ...... N '<T_ 10 co co lO~co C;; ~ N i: ~ ~. & ..... .... .l!! ~ o II) CI) E :s I- - :s 0 0> J:.. 1t).lIl:~ CI) ta..... I- CI) 0 :s D. I- Ol C- .- :E + LL<(CI) 011) Nta 00 NCI) II) ta In 't>Q. ~E o III ..QO::: .t:it: 50 <: ~ ~ o ..Q :S :::. b3 pille lJO !V ~ co fI) ~ <3 .... Q) <;; Ui s:: o "(ij s:: .l!! tt Q) ~ ~ J: rJ) Q5 ~ I- ~ IE o N , D.. ::) o 0:: C) z o ~ ct ~ o D.. UJ Z ct 0:: I- W Z ct 0:: (.) ...... ..... ~ ('I) ~ ~ (z ~ ~ ~ ..... l- N ~ ~ ~ t ~ LOC") ..... ~+l. ... ~ '---C") ~ .'d ~ co co co ~ g[';; :<= N & .... Q) ~ LOj a Ol _ N 8. co ..- -La a _C") oq f"~ N ~ Br~ nqna COLOLO co ..... Ol N en CD E ::s '-- ::s 0 0> U) J: ti ... .:.:: CD >II ....... :i Ci) 0 .~ Q. a: LL :E + Q.CD o en N CU 00 N CD en CU m ~~ a oq -L ..... Ol LO C") I- .- LO C") Ol co ~ ~ co co .- co .~ LO pille BJoqSAee Ol N ~ ,. oq j C") - oq oq ..- Oloq Ol - r:. C")C") co oqC") LO oq oqCOLO LO.....LO LO.....N ~ t ~ C") .- oq N .~ ..... ~ j ~ t ,. PAJe vo IV ... UIII III... ""'- Om a= A. ~- LO :3. I- aOlLO OlCOCO .....LO l1. :J 0 II> 0:: .!!1 Q; C) C/) 3 Z 0 I-- 0 -LI- Q) (,,) i= C") IE ..... <( N 0 Ol N N I- ..... co , 0:: + in 0 II> l1. 0 a. en 0 z 0: <( (0 0:: 0 0 l- N >- W "5 Z -, <( M Q) 0:: II> U ltl .!: ~ 0- >- ltl .0 ~ Q; I-- Table 1 TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT GROSS TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound + Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Office 665,000 11.01 7322 1.231 818 .171 113 .231 153 1.121 745 SO.FT. Community 9,000 40 360 0.72 7 0.48 4 1.8 16 1.8 16 Serving SQ.FT. Specialtv Retail Quality 7,000 89.95 630 .49 4 .32 2 5.02 35 2.47 17 Restaurant SO.FT. TOTAL 8312 829 119 204 778 1 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to city mandated lDM program. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, or Tr4fic Generators by the San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) Table 2 TERRABAY PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN AM PEAK HOUR COMMUNITY SERVING SPECIALTY RETAIL IN OUT 7 Gross Trips 4 INTERNAL CAPTURE Project Office 0 Stop on Way to Proi. Office 0 7 Net New Trips 4 OFFICE IN OUT 818 Gross Trips 113 0 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 818 Net New Trips 113 QUALITY RESTAURANT IN OUT 4 Gross Trips 2 0 INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 4 All Net New Trips 2 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 829 119 Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) Table 3 TERRABAY PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION JUNE 2006 PLAN PM PEAK HOUR COMMUNITY SERVING SPECIALTY RETAIL IN OUT 16 Gross Trips 16 INTERNAL CAPTURE -1 Project Office -1 (direct back & forth trips) 0 Stop on Way Home from 0 Proj. Office 0 Project Restaurant 0 15 Net New Trips 15 OFFICE IN OUT 153 Gross Trips 745 INTERNAL CAPTURE -1 Community Serving Specialty -1 Retail 0 Project Restaurant -3 152 Net New Trips 741 QUALITY RESTAURANT IN OUT 35 Gross Trips 17 INTERNAL CAPTURE -3 Project Office 0 0 Community Serving 0 Specialty Retail 32 All Net New Trips 17 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 199 773 Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) Table 4 NET NEW TRIPS ON LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK DUE TO TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED OFFICE/RESTAURANT /SPECIALTY RETAIL PROJECT (IN RELATION TO APPROVED PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT) JUNE 2006 PLAN AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Total Inbound Outbound 2-Way Total +11 +6 +17 +46 +28 +74 Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.I0l NB D-36.51 D-38.7 D-40.9 D-40.9 Off-Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque E-59.51 E-59.6 E-64.4 E-64.6 Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-29.41 C-30.2 C-29.2 C-29.4 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.l0l SB On- B-14.1l B-14.0 C-21.1 C-23.8 and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Project Access C-24.61 C-23.6 C-20.1 C-20.1 (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-9.61 A-9.6 B-12.3 B-12.3 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 6: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.l01 NB C-23.41 C-23.5 D-46.3 D-46.6 Off-Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque F-136.41 F-137.2 F-268.1 F-268.9 Ave.jU.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-26.71 C-28.8 C-26.0 C-27.8 Blvd.jOyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.jU.S.lOl SB On- B-19.41 C-26.2 D-44.8 D-47.7 and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.jProject Access C-21.71 B-19.2 C-20.l B-17.l (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. B-IO.41 B-IO.4 B-14.6 B-14.7 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 7: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECf AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9930 F +0.01 % 9931 F Bayshore Blvd./ Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins On!J) (199) (A) (199) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8860 E +0.01 % 8861 E On Ramp and Grand/ Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (177) (A) (177) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8195 D 9920 E 2 +0.02% 9922 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (7043) (C) (7044) (C) North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D +0.01 % 8721 D On-Ramp (Sarr Mateo Origins Only) (6191) (C) (6192) (C) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Cmne Transportation Group TABLE 8: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECf PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North ofSB Off-Ramp 6965 D 7570 D 2 +0.03% 7572 D to Bayshore Blvd./ Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Only) (303) (A) (303) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 9435 E -3 -0.03% 9432 E On-Ramp and Grand/ Miller SB Off-Ramp (.'ian Mateo Origins Only) (377) (A) (377) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 9355 E 3 +0.03% 9358 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!J) (8045) (D) (8048) (D) North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -1 -0.01 % 10,609 F On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (9125) (E) (9124) (E) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by. Crane Tmnsportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GR('UP Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2')06) TABLE 9: EXISTING, YEAR 2010 BASE AND YEAR 2010 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)l PEAK HOUR U.s.tOt Ramp SB Off-Ramp to Ba shore SB On-Ramp Prom Ba hare NB On-Ramp Prom Oyster Point NB Off-Ramp to Dubu ue SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Year 20tO Base Case + Pro.ect Under/ Over Volume2 Capacity Existin Under/ Over Capacity2 Volume2 Capacity Base Case Under/ Over V olume2 Capacity 1900 1900 2100 [2600] 4 2100 2100 [2600]4 740 (1325) Under (Under) 0.1%* 0.1%* 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacity with two-lane on-ramp. Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 10: U.S.tOt Ramp EXISTING, YEAR 2020 BASE AND YEAR 2020 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)! PEAK HOUR Capacity2 SB Off-Ramp 1900 to Ba shore SB On-Ramp 1900 Prom Ba shore NB On-Ramp 2100 Prom Oyster [2600] (4) Point NB Off-Ramp 2100 to Dubu ue SB On-Ramp 2100 from Dubuque [2600](4) Existin Under/ Over Volume2 Capacity Year 2020 Base Case + Pro' ect Under/ Over Volume2 Capacity Base Case Under/ Over Volume2 Capacity 0.1%* 0.1 %* No change* 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour. 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacitywith two-lane on-ramp. * Percent increase in traffic due to the project. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/3l!06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 11: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 NA 81 87 216 214 NB through 450 NA 47 27 30 79 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 138 130 324 322 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 202 277 327 343 NB through 820 NA 12 19 16 26 SB right turn 230 NA 2 1 32 34 SB through 450 NA 260 251 264 264 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/ Airport EB left turn 55 29 110 118 189 197 SB left turn 325 154 19 123 145 123 SB through 820 52 9 54 52 41 SB right turn 310 0 0 23 18 12 WB left turn 80 18 62 62 57 57 WB through 255 44 92 92 79 80 WB right turn 255 NA 209 214 167 169 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 116 174 186 264 272 EB through 255 128 401 405 467 471 EB right turn 255 70 28 28 50 50 NB left turn 135 43 257 261 273 275 NB left/ through 255 46 281 283 296 297 NB right turn 210 190 320 320 314 314 Dubuque/10l Ramps Off-ramp left/ through/ right (total)* 1600 70 830 834 924 926 SB right turn 255 0 0 0 0 0 SB through 255 13 100 100 187 187 * The term "total" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total stora!e available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about ha the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terra bay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 12: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left 350 NA 107 113 279 288 NB through 450 NA 113 185 236 273 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 170 170 560 578 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 53 177 48 147 NB through 820 NA 69 57 100 92 SB right turn 230 NA 1 4 0 1 SB through 450 NA 225 222 165 163 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 50 91 168 101 194 SB left turn 325 154 133 135 91 118 SB through 820 115 147 181 113 197 SB right turn 310 100 113 112 80 135 WB left turn 80 33 131 131 133 134 WB through 255 151 347 345 366 365 WB right turn 255 NA 3 17 15 23 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 184 448 476 628 652 EB through 255 67 82 85 88 90 EB right turn 255 124 160 171 202 204 NB left turn 135 155 357 386 437 462 NB left/through 255 166 384 412 468 493 NB right turn 210 31 17 17 21 21 Dubuque/10! Ramps Off-ramp left/through/right (total)* 1600 75 236 252 564 596 SB right turn 255 19 13 13 126 124 SB through 255 13 65 65 131 131 * The term "total" ahplied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, w ere drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total storage available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about half the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis of Terrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 13: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 NA 157 196 292 325 NB through 450 NA 47 37 157 118 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 220 330 518 520 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 326 334 386 401 NB through 820 NA 27 10 7 4 SB right turn 230 NA 45 72 0 13 SB through 450 NA 311 423 347 372 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 81 177 191 265 278 SB left turn 325 213 101 86 164 180 SB through 820 97 42 24 59 62 SB right turn 310 24 2 1 19 13 WE left turn 80 24 67 67 63 63 WE through 255 41 92 91 80 80 \VB right turn 255 NA 199 203 154 155 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 248 338 358 362 374 EB through 255 285 534 538 594 597 EB right turn 255 216 101 99 121 118 NB left turn 135 84 437 442 452 455 NB left/ through 255 89 465 466 478 480 NB right turn 210 306 441 441 430 430 Dubuque/l0l Rarnps Off-ramp left/through/right (total)* 1600 337 1580 1584 1576 1578 SB right turn 255 5 56 56 53 53 SB through 255 51 240 242 385 387 * The term "total" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total sto~e available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about h the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) TABLE 14: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage (in Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left turn 350 NA 233 253 463 472 NB through 450 NA 120 273 342 273 Off-ramp left/right (total)* 1200 NA 296 546 826 994 Bayshore/Project Access NB left turn 340 NA 111 232 103 213 NB through 820 NA 103 85 160 90 SB right turn 230 NA 7 11 2 4 SB through 450 NA 276 268 189 243 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/ .AiJ;port EB left turn 55 93 180 317 224 342 SB left turn 325 210 156 152 142 151 SB through 820 164 171 197 318 343 SB right turn 310 174 124 72 316 219 WB left turn 80 52 153 151 180 174 WB through 255 205 341 332 330 317 WB right turn 255 NA 5 20 15 23 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn (total)** 330 324 660 688 852 878 EB through 255 107 114 117 142 142 EB right turn 255 285 213 306 265 268 NB left turn 135 281 550 581 638 666 NB left/through 255 302 581 612 672 701 NB right turn 210 50 67 32 31 31 Dubuque/l0l Ramps Off-ramp left/ through/ right (total)* 1600 190 458 494 896 950 SB right turn 255 69 118 115 431 430 SB through 255 41 140 140 228 228 * The term "total" applied to the off-ramps reflects the total off-ramp storage available for lanes and movements to which drivers have equal access, where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ** The term "total" applied to this left turn lane is the total storaIfe available in the left turn lane extending the length of the freeway overpass plus the second left turn lane only extending about ha the length of the overpass. Source: Crane Transportation Group 7/31/06 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Analysis ofTerrabay Phase 3 Revised Plan (June 2006) m,< ~.$ ",.-.\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company" 275 Industrial Road San Carlos. CA 94070 Elizabeth Kerbleski BKF Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 rnJ~@~OW~~ \ID AUG 2 1 2000 ~ Bkt' enGineerS REDWOOD CITY August 15, 2006 Dear Ms. Kerbleski: Re: The Mandalay Terrace Sister Cities Blvd & Bayshore Blvd, South San Francisco Gas and electric distribution and service facilities will be extended to and within the referenced project in accordance with the tariffs in effect at the time gas and electric service is required. The California Public Utilities Commission approves our extension and service tariffs. Copies of the tariffs specific to your project are available from this office upon request. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (650) 598-7408. Thank you and have a safe day! Sincerely, ?,~-4~ Peter A. Siu (for Jerrv Banzet) ~ n,-a ..* /~"." Connec; \0 sornelhing more:' ...,.... .- /,~...,,* C:;"I~ll<:(i 10 ~Olll",ihlllH I~".\I'" Twlla Griffith Design Manager RCN Engineering (650) 212-8123 fox (650) 212-8129 1wila.griffith@rcn.net 1400 Fashion Island Blvd. Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94404 7/31/2006 D) 212-8000 (650) 212-8009 [D) LHG5 ~ 0 \V7 rn ~ U1J AUG 0 4 2006 ~ BIt I:IIYIRUerS REDWOOD CITY BKF Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 RE: The Man.dalayTerrace Dear Elizabeth, Thank you for the invitation on behalf of the Myers Development Company to participate in The Manda1ay Terrace project. Please let this letter serve as our Will-Serve letter for our phone, internet and cable TV servIces. The provision of these services are contingent upon the completion of the nece~sary agreement in accordance with RCN rules and regulations. We anticipate that the terms and conditions of the agreement of service to the The Mandalay Terrace project will be further clarified in detail. RCN looks forward to working with and providing services to the The Manda1ay Terrace in connection with its service requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me. ~ Twila Griffith Engineering Manager 650-212-8123 650-212-8129 fax 1'W1 I a. wi ffi t11 (ci)rcn. n et 1400 Fashion Island Blvd. . Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94404 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 341 NORTH DELAWARE STREET. SAN MATEO. CA 94401-1727 (650) 343.1808 . FAX 16501 342-6865 BAYSHORE DISTRICT July 13, 2005 Mr. Adrian Corlett, PE BKF 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Re: The Mandalay Terrace, South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Corlett, California Water Service Company is prepared to provide water service to "The Mandalay Terrace" project located adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and the newly constructed Route 101 Hook Ramps in South San Francisco in accordance with all rules and regulations in effect and on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Those rules may be modified from time to time by the commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An extension of our facilities will be necessary to serve this project. The specific water requirements for the proposed site can not be determined until fire department requirements, domestic requirements, and utility plans are submitted to California Water Company. If! can be of further assistance, please call me at (650) 558-7862. ~~~~ Leighton Low Construction Superintendent DISTRICT OfFlCESl ANTelOPE VALLEV .. BAKERSFiElD. BAVSHORE .. BEAR GULCH" CHICO" DIXON" EAST LOS ANGelES" KERN RIVER "AtlEY .. KING CITY" LIVERMORE" LOS ALTOS" MARYSVILLE .. OROVtHE .. R.ANCHO DOMINGUEZ" REDWOOD VAtlEY .. SALINAS" SELMA" SlOCKTON .. VISAl1A .. WESTLAKE" WilLOWS ATTACHMENT IX MANDALAY TERRACES TERRABA Y PHASE III ONL V 2006 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 t:: ~ t:: ~ ~ ~ 0 ...... ~ Cl !!! a:: !:!: "0 a: t:: ~ C\'l f.= t:: >- 't: IX! Cl .e ~ .... t:: ~ 0 ~ 2: 0 t:: :5 0 - .... - C\'l Cl .... ~ - :c: ~ ~ ILl ."J ~ ~ ~ - >- C\'l IX! Cl .Q ~ e lo; :c: ~ ~ ILl I ."J (0 Fi 0 ... 0 - C'I == CI.l II) C\'l a: + ~ j:: ~ j:: 51 - ~ ii3 :::: ~ ~ Q.. , a: , ~ - 0 ILl j::: C/) <3 co j::: 0) ~ 0) 1->- ..... (.)~ , ~9 co 0) ~@ 0) ~ ..... ;>, OJ) o 0- " ~ 0_ '" " ~g uu OJ) <= '" ,~ ~~ 'P,5h - '" ,~ " E ~ " '" Q. .~ OJ) .0 <=.~ ,~ U ~llJz- 5h~ '~ <= " " oeQ. "E ca ~ bO~ tE 1.) c; e .~ ..0 Q) .~.~ p.. c:: ~.;; e]2~~cO p.. U llJ c.O'- Il) B = E'r:::: "'0 v.i o:S81!'':'''E<= s::'o.o':2::> ~.s ,g.'" <= <E .s c Q. :.aB~~gf~~ "g '='= ~ '(i;:.a ~:.a .5~8g~~~ ~ '3 '" '" . s:: .... 0 o u '" 5] Q.'~ '" <= _..e: u u " " 'So .... " ~ OJ) ~ ~"i: llJ ~ E....Q)cu"'!::g.... ~ ,B -5 :E ~ ~ ..c 8 - .~ g ooVj:.a 6 p..~ '~~ $:::o'-aP-E ,5 ~ :;: s:: " 0() ~,tO 0:; '': E ,_ "g " OJ) 'E b '<: '- 'O..e: '" 0 - bh ~ .5 ..... '? ~ ~ ~ -",.e.o ~ ~ ~ s: ~ g .- ~ :!'5] :~E .- ~ ,.s ~ bb ~ ~ .- ~ g ~ "'0 .- '0 0 . 0 0, :;t ~ .... -' '" E ~ .~ ~ t> ~ ] .0 ~ ~ .~ 5 Q) 'tr :::s ~ 6..c cu o..::s "'t;..p.g c 0'" p.. (l) -+-'.~ E ' ~ '-;.a QJ l:l:J ~'06"gEo"'l;;-Q,o..oo:S o.>~"""o;.:::u~"""'o;t:Cl:So~ ..ceo,.,:::;>._"'O~;::.sQ)_v.l "'0 5nooJS~:; ~.g~Et)~ '3 '" j:; 0..., <:: U'~ " '" o ..Q " '0 .: :;: - C ~ ~ '0' " ~ ~ a ~ :g Q) .2 ~ 'r;;s 8 a "Ei ~ .~ 1:: ~ tr g u ~ ~ ~ \1)'~ $-. [; tU..... ro~ ~ CV:l.....-5 = ~ .... E 0 C9-. S}U '" 0 .... 0 a1 ~g-.;.@lU~ s.g.;<8 ~ E:E~'3s:t:...,:O~'3[;; ~'~.g ~2.B'~~~~]; "'0 "'0 '"0 00 ~~SO~v.iO~ ]~t) -"-<u~;="i5l><=- :>;='" = 0 ~ Q.Q ~ ~ l:l:J:52 ~ P>> ..... E ~ 5 .- .5 ~ "g'~ :::S'S v.i 5 ':5 .... ~'.o.Q~ Q) Clj ~ 8 a~'~ ~ Co ~ ~ B bb -5 ;...."': tI} ll,) a b[}..... cu "'" "'E en Q) ~ Q) e.s~:-e~-g -5 ~.....'- ~ 0 E; tTS bO Q) E ..9 8 ~ ~ >< ~ e Co) fJ'.l ~ ,S E ....... r;I) lU o~o u......._~s=O"::l.-fJ'.l = ,=: 5...0 Q) [5 la j: .~...2 0 8 ~ ,0 ::l 0.. C1.) ~ E c ~ r;I) Q) .;::.- 8 -g 0'" tli..n d"- '_ 0 ~ ;> '~ ~ ;:s ~ ~ .2 'S 13 'E ~ ~ .g Ptj t 1:: ~ 3 :E,~ ~; E ~ ;:i ~ ~ c E S o~~t ~~ ~~ ~ &~~ u e: 0 7i5 .8 ~ ~ ~ ,~ '00 e s ~ !2't).-o g ~ g:: ~ E: d) 0.. ~~ .:: d) ~ .- d) .... ro u ~ .s ~.- ro b 'e~ 6 ~ 13',0 ~.g 00 00 ~''::: e ~ 0 a "..0 ~ E 'S ,5 <= '- i:i C) \0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ g ~ '3 ~ ,...0.... d) o..-~"C "'OJ::: CJ:l~ ~~~~~~:.ar-<~~u~~ ...; '" I :s Q) ~ ;::.8 t:: ..0 ~ ~.,go[):S:; " c;J ~.~] ':;t ~ ~s=~~~~"'Oa3~ j:'-""'" ~ @ ~ a ~ 0 .- Q) ~ 0;"" ........ .+= t== ~u~s""O:~ e o - t:: - ;; ('.l Q).5 0 .-=~ 0 SooC?~_....... ~ fJ'.l'oo'- M B....... ~ t _ .- oJ:) ..s \0 (/'j ~ ;.... Q..U > ~" ..~ j:; "0 o 5 ~ t:: a ~ ~~ ~ .5 :"'O.~ <:oJ s= ~ ::l ~ ; Q ] .... ] ,0 " '0' <= fJ'.l ~....... ~....... ~ E ro'- <= <:: o:S .5 "0 " ~ c ~ -aE::.:;t So~'S '" g ~ II: ('.l "'0 0" "'0 .... ~s.~ g~ 0 ~ 5-5 ;0 ~.~ ~ ~ ~:E 2 '2 ~~P..c'-'<=-....u E ~ " ';:i ., g ,.;g == SOlo...s 0 Q) .- 0.. -<.l:)u"'lo..,NSS~ . ;>, .n 53 ~ "2 ..c: - d.l ~~Q)o~c"'O ~.~~..c ~ C 8 'S 2 ~ ~ .;; E ~ g 0 E "-< ";::: Q.'~ ;........... ~ 0 tt:: 0 ~ '5'gg"08~~ .- (/'j ~ 0 fJ'.l Q) 0 ~ ;>, '" a;: Q ~ '" ; '" 'P g; .0 'u fJ'.l ~ a3 s= 0'2 a &_ ~ ::s 0. ::l ~ 2 g;~,.og.~ <= ' ~e 5U 13 oU3~ 5 8:2i~ ~u.;:~ E~.s~t=~::l~ g.~U:.n8'Ea6 vB"@"2~~15N 5).-:: g 5.~t::C:::: a "'0 E~aE ~o'-e ~ & ; g. &.g ~ ~ . ....... ~ ~ ~"'O] ~ Q) ~ 0 ~ ro 'S == CdE ~ "i) ^ .6 .... <;:: "'" '0 ..0 lI) ,~ o.."O=="c.. ~"'O~"@ ~ .5 a~ ~ ~~~ &'-e ~ ::; ~.g .€ ~ ~.~ g. .E:uC,)~:;::~= CI'.l ~~~g~e-e~~ c~t:::fJ'.l;...-5q::j~ .~~ &] g.: ~ ~ ~ 'S .n ~ '0 0 t) ........ ....... .- "'Op..d)s::u;~~as"'O ~_ 'i) .0 ~ .- a.. fJ'.l.=: ~ ~..c:: .; ~ 5.~ ~ -g [5 o:g 8 Q) 'U; 1:: ~.- ~ ....... ::s ~ fJ'.l e d) ~ 2 ~ E ~ ] ~ ~ 5 ~ .; e- ~j:';6~'E~,~a (l) .9 c. '-' ,!:: Q) 0 E fJ'.l ..ct:d~_"'O(/'j'';:ot) ..............CI;l~Q)"@gb.......C':$ gf~ 6 ~ca'p,p ~ Eoo '(3 E ''::: ~.~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .g i e ~ 's ~ Q) ~ ~ .b B E & 6 0 ~ ~ "s '0 ~ ~ ,_ 0 to=. ....... '"0 '-' ;::::: Ct:j ~ c:( Cl ...... >- lXl Cl UI ii: it ~ f-- >- lXl Cl ~ ~ ~ - , '0 "'5 en a ~ ~ V) o I:: .... ~ ~ [) ~ .- .8 <;:: 0 $'8"': 1F 2 I:: bboll OIl 0 .S .S c-'O'O u'g~~ .... <l.l 6 B '2 000 i:i"gr:n .~ I:: .S S E l:l gf.8501l~';::~s:i ~Eg~5~8'~ OIl ~ .;;; ~ I:: ~ I::.~ _v:. ;:3 Q)...... ::3 CIJ 0 g .q~g.a~g.:c:'" u 8 Vi I:: .S Vi .8 < '" .8 "'I-. ....... 00"' 00 ~ ;j E ,S C ,I:: ~;::: '00 "'0 ~ "g o ::l ' '" '" ..... 1F~85b80lJ Q)o......OOQJc; -5 ~ ~ 'E c: ~ ci ~ ~ ::s '-" Q) .~ '2 p.. ~"8-:S ::5 fJ 15.E '" <c . "'0 Q)...... ...... C'''''' 00 ~ '8 Cd :: '5 5 ~ .s 0Il.;;;..e:> I::'P. 0.2 ~ ~ g 8 g ~ :5 ~~]~~ ~~c;:s.;gh 5b21l15 6 8.-0 ~ c 5:=..o:€~ 'S: :: U ~ ~ :g ;s o .. e 00 cu ~ tI.l ;..... l.t'1 ~ v.l t} t:.5 A...... ~g.s::::::- <I.) B "g ~..9 .~ .0 ~ ~ro:E~~B~ .B ~.~ ~] ;:5 ~ "Ooo~UCl:l~Q.) 'c;.5 g"5 2 s:::::: ~ ~...... I-.:.E"O 8.5 .oNe~.o<l.le _<=<l.l~.l<.o'O "; ro ~.::: U ...... Q) ~.s~ooectig :I-.~:S~~t:= 8.8.etfj]~~ og"'~tOj.o Ci3 t) .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ c4-0. .- 0 C e '" ,_ 'OOju OIl i:: <l.l .~ <l.l..c:: ~.s ~ "'_.0 &"''0 ~ .~ Q) 0-'0 U t $: Q :> <l.l "'..<= I:: ].~ g CIl "0 fcl <l.l <l.l .... g.~gj <l.l '" ... .0 <l.l 0 E~~ .~.D ~ . '8~g~ E ~ E.5 E ~2 ~ ~ elj ro ~ Cl ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ - OIl <= '" ,- <='0 '" '" 'P.5b '" ,- <l.l E 5l <l.l '" Po'~ OIlC <=.- .- U "gCIJc- 5b~ '~ 6e& . . >- lXl Cl ~ ~ ..... ~ - - ~ "5 '" '" . <= .... 0 ~ Q 8] Po'- '" <= _..c:: Q Q <l.l <l.l '0'0 ... <l.l p.., OIl ... '0'0 o <l.l <l.l I:: I ~ ~~:s:! g 2 0 ~ E 1-0..'";::3 ClJo.. ......r..t=: 'Eo a ~..9.~ 8 ~.~ E Cl;I =' "0 Q) ~ ~ 5b"'t_15&o~~E 1::<=- -.J 00"'8 ~ v-; E-' >< u 'c Cl) ~ ro ~ .9 ~ ~ E~~~ .~~~t9o~s~~ f:::: u g. ~ <= 1l '" ~ '0 g. a,.!,! .- l:l '2 :c: c:::;..... 0 jg ...c: ~ co Q) 0: Q) t:.~ CIJ 00 o .S! E".~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ;S .~ l) Cl)c.E:OllJc;:sUeli;::;::::......d-'oo,.n I e:= 6 ~ ~ .9 ~.2 ~ '8 s; 6'~ :sa U.i ~ "';";...... , .g ro ro._ ~ CIi 0 ;..... ::s .......=~:~o..ec~ ~~'~ts~ ~.- <= <l.l '" l:l a J:! <l.l:;:: ;>, N - ;> ~ ~ ~ -g"~ c ~.; ~ ~ .5 '5'~ ~ .Q u :: 5h.9 ~ S c ~ (: ~ c ~ g. J!! ~~ ~~ !S ~ VJ :: ~ .~~.~ 000 CI) OOtU g tU p..~..c Q,);:::...... Q,)t)"O GJ :c ~ .f3 ~.9 ~ gp 6 .~ ~ .~ 00 ~ Q."t) VJ Q) > 00 ~ o.n ~ t.8 VI 8.;g .s~~.nS'"8_~~~o~Q,)~ CI)~cu-5=aJ:Q)cQoQ,)"O,J::o;:Q,) ~ ~ bb'~ ~ ~ ~ 0.0 ~ ur 8 ~ tU 6 ~ = 0;: ~ "'0 'So s: '2 .g g..v; E c.8 =' -...s'~ B t 5.5~ &~ t 8].B ~ j::0:: ~~ j::0) :E~ ~ t-- ' co 0) 0) ~ '" '" ,.!,! B ] 2'l1:S~ Q",- cQ 0 ~ E"g.o .- a e- c",8 '-' <= :g .i'E ~e"'O g. ~"~ ..905[; '" ..... 8~] -E~~ ....-..<= .8 a ~ ~ ~ ;j ] .~ 'P..gp .s '<f .W ~ <='00 -..cucu:= ~-5 bht8 <: o f:::: C3 f:::: ~ >- I-C,!) 00 -.J ~@ ~C,!) '0 <l.l '0 .~ Po <l.l .D '" '" 5~ 1::= ::l.a ' ~.s ~ .S <l.l :E 0.0..0 .;g c:;::: r.f.l .~ '" <l.l 0"<= Po .~~..9 <= '" '" EBB 1- Q,) ..... <l.l I:: a c;; 0 '" ~ ~ '" ~..... 0 <= Po- ::l . '" 0"'- 5b!l 8 <l.l "" '0 I:: 0 ~ 8 ~ &;.= B ..9 g Q) "~._ ..c:: v, ~_ 0; .;;; '" <l.l ..c:: .2 ;a -< u; <l.l <l.l ~ft - '" 2"5 <l.l Q .2 ~ ~~ . . -::: I 1- bl):S B ~ .5 :: ~ S fJ ~ ",,.!,!,~ <l.l ro ~ iU '-' 00 ...... 8tJ~.atC~ Q ::l tl... g.- 0- f) ;a' U .- 'g g s '" ~.~ I:: g o C <l.l E 0 .- -:5 .g .s '1: : ;::: '~ s.s ~ ;j ,g ~o-..>_r.f.lVi o.nooop..~~ ~ 0 ~.g ~.9 ~ ~ .= ~ Q,);.a ~ ~ ] s;;:;-5 "'SI:: Q,) ...... 0\ 0 bb..... 0.0 ..00 ......"o"Oc ..... eEl ~ S ~ E'~ 0000''::;0 0 all) ~ gb8"-5:= ~]~:-E~J5eEl ~';~E~ ..5 8" 8 ..... ~.V} So ~ :: ~ ~ .~ .~ .~ ~ _.n__c 1-~ cQ Po- r.f.l ~ ~ ~~ ~ r.f.l.n ~ ~r.f.lcQ..g"O,;&l-= - "C'- C cu 0 ~ ~~Q)6edls~-5 ,- ~ ~... <= c;; <= ... .S OIl'<ij Po.S I::~J:! ~ '2 ~ 7-i E "C e.!:.O ~ 'ca Q) ~ ~ ~ 'E ~ 2t)~;3~.aS~ -so~g:;-5Q:;~ "Q3 ""8 ~ ~.~ ~ "@ 5 "<=",..c::.2'O",..c::"'" 1- ..... 00 u (1.) 00 = oe......~Bl-ao.o::i :;; c; ~ ~ B ~ ~ .~ .~ @""2a58~g8.:::~ 5 s ;;~:-g tJ ~""@ .0 '';::';;; '" <= Q-SO~ ~u cQ (1.) 0:5..... 1- =,'S bJJ ] ..0 t ] ~ 8 ~'2 c.8 ll) ::;; ..c ~ ~ -5 Q) "; ...... ~ .;;; ; 8..2 .~ ~ ~ J;! . N :E ;>, <l.l .0 "00;: ] ~B~(1.)~ ~.5 e'5 e . .s ~" g Po ti Q) ;.a ..... 1- 00';;:: ..0 cQ c;:::: ~ ~ = 5b1l,gi3'- ro (1.) 1- 00 Q,) Q ~ g g. ~ .5 ~ Vl"'O lI) Q) OD_ ~~-t~~ .l::.81lPoc'S, B ~ ~ ~ u .~ 'V}:oS (1.) "0 Q) ~ \U~~a-5~ ;: 8.~Sj$~ otO~t;~ I:f:l > C Q) ;> lo... <l.l <l.l <= <l.l 0 ~ ~t:5"':2;a(1.) C5~.E15 ~-5 . ~ ~ ..... >- !Xl ffi it a:: ~ - >- !Xl Q LU ~ ~ o ::E - Q ~ :c: ~ ~ ~ :c: ~ ~ - >- !Xl Q ~ :c: ~ ..,J ~ f-- ~ j:: ~ (3lJJ j::CI.l _ 0> ::EO> 0> -..... cO 0> 0> ..... ~ E ..@ "'; 0- '" ~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ .5 ..s .g ~ ~ go~ ....... =::.- ..... "'0 "EOl)gSB ...... l:: "0 0 cd "E ;a ~ E "8 :.=~:g~E ..8 1:';; 1ii g "@ '5 ~ ';' 8 ..c s::: iU IlJ ~ ~8~~~ ij.8ijij:9 8.~EEg ..8.g g. g. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o~~~~ . a ~ <: j:: <: o () <: o j:: (3 j:: ~ >- I-<.!) 00 ..,J ~o ~td OJ) 'E ~ 61;; u "_ '" OJ) . 0 .0'0 "- '" UOJ) ~6] ~ ~ g. ~ c.9 eo '" '" I: gc:.;9 ~~] ::~.s ~ t rn ~.E ~ <: ~"~ "0 I: '" OJ)'" I: I: "C 0 (l)'f;) '" "S:: .~o Jj~ '" "- . "0 .€~ UQ:l '- '" I: 0",0 .o"Eg.~ u (l) r;; ~ '" E '" [; -5 .9".s ,'E ....q~ '= ~ Q) IlJ !: (1) U':I "0 ;3 00 cd l-o tI.l C':S 5:eEg.t> ;... ~..9 ~ c.E 'S tI':I Q) . "0 t:...... l::-- 11)(1);30;::: ] o.~ 1n ~ ::3 eo 0 ~ ._ .90.5 ;::: - ~ 1i;;g:Ecat; ~::3 t="O rn Ci.i..o ~ Q) iU g:9.g~~ "S:: .2 "0 'C .= ~.sBg.o ~.~ g ~ ~ <:;::-",g _C':S2~.o e~..Q..c~ '" ~ (3 I: ~-g .o'~ 0", '-"S:: "0....... ";.- "'fi"'O 0_0''0 ~VJ ~ t> .b .o1:~1: (38~8 vi - .... '" s u o ~ ..s '" Q:l ~ :; '" '" . '" .... 0 o u ~- o S Q.'- '" '" ~.<: u u '" '" '0'0 .... '" 0.. OJ) .... I: ~ ~ ~.,g ~o ..s~ <; "f' "0 ..8 'fi CUe ...... 'So '" '" 13 "E ..c r.f.l N ~ v:l ~ .; 8. '5 r= ~ ~a~"E~~ ~ as--"O .~ II iil EO'1;l '" 0.. a'3 13 U 8.::: Jj E "= ~ ::3] c-<.<: g.ES- '" ...: g e ~ ~~ ~ ~ >.ro 0 ro >'''0 ::: 0 u o...c ::3 rs CO 'G "0 ~ 0 'Z"O s:: Q) (J.).5 cljJ::Cli~4-l- E:1:.t51o<; ~8~'-'~~ "'.oCll~[;~ <~-5JSS 51 ,-....=g3u~ -3O'CIl '" 0 _ .;; '" <; ,n ~ "'.<: ~"~ ~~ ~ ~ ""'"0 .::: I: 'C;; 5 eBau; ~ 11 ~ '" u '" ~i~ j~~ ..c;:::ClJ u;' ~.9- 2"'-5 "O~"O ""g !: ~ ~..8B "0 '" I: 0 . '" u '" '" '" u u '" ..>C ui U E .E 0 "Oti ~ 8 '-' "~ '" '" i5 E "'" .--. '" OJ) ,n I: ~"C fr'" ~"O ","0 0,) .~ ::: E ca~ .<: '" ",,n "'"0 t)3 ~ 0 CIl~ .... '" ~5 0"0 ca 8 "O,g '" Q. 1S~ Q."O '" - ,n '" _ 0 -.<: '" '" ~2 '" '" E: E: .g ~ ..>C.l:; ~ U':I . '<:"0'" u;::t) OJ)"'- C':S vr.5 .gt>e @~B CIl I:lO '" . . '" .8 .... o "C Q. "0 '" t) '" Q. '" "= '" ,n <; ~ ~.8 .--. '" ~.... '" 0 .~'ei' ~E I: OJ) .- I: -g 'C 51~ "'"0 ~ 1ii . ~ ~ ..... >- l:Xl ~ 0: it ~ - ~Q) O[}.s~ bO~ ~ -"'@ ;>-.t.;:;..n ~ g? E:>''"O ~ ~ s:: 0 Co) 00 CIl ~ ~ ~- S::~=~'C ~g'~ ~UUU~ .~~ ~-~ ~ ~ Bu ~ ~ ] Cd < E ~ S .8 ~ '';:: ,,"E ~.~ ~.n ~ t> (l.).n ~ '00 ~ c .a s:: w - ..... u ~ . "'0 tf.l 0.0'- ..... bO ee C"'" ;> g. CI) ~ ..... - -:>. -< Q) l-< Q) ca '-' O~e~OU c'-~=o~~~'~,~~,~Pu~$~.E~~ ~o~~Q)u~ tf.l 0 t;;" Q.) 11) ..... 0 0 ..... 1wUJ't: E ..... I-< Q) ..... tf.l - - .... .... - l-< ::: 1IJ ..... t- . ... ,- 0 - 0 Q) ~C;.S~~'~~~u~g.5~ ~.~"'O'~~~~~~:~Q.)~.!~E~~~B~~ tf.l.~~.-c~tf.l_~~tf.l~'"O~~c~_~~= cU"'O~~~CI}~~Eu~o~ 8. ~ a ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ B ~:~ ~ ~ ~.~ .~ .s.~ ] ~ ~.~.~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g- g- ] ~ E ~ ~ ~2 -~ S::CIl'E~~,~~~u~~~_~~U~A'2~i':~ilg~.~=~ ..co"O~",do'::00~8~'-e~.-0~~"'~"'~eo,::n~"'",,,,~,,,~.~~ ~~i~50~~uE.5u~!:Oll"O!:~"'~~"'~~N!:0~S~"O"O~p.~~~ >- l:Xl ~ e ~ ::!: - Cl ~ ~ LIJ ..,j ~ ~ ~ - ,,: '" E: Oll ,:: :a '" o .5 .8 Oll "0 .5 ;i u:s! ~g2~] ;s '€ ~ .5 ] Cl.) o"J:::: "'0 ~ ~~~~eB -;;0j}Q.) s:: Q) '(3 :g g ':;; .f: s:: en 'S ~ g g.~ ~ g 2Etl~.n gb!:"'~"i :<2 8 E E.tj 00 E ",'- .- 0; := .8~-5]!:~ ~.5 ~ ~ ~ 0[) ~ "2 0; e.'s;,~ ~~:B8E'S :E S !:.5 1: 1: . "0 ,:: '" ;... .~~ ~ ... u '" '" ~ t;::: ~ '" '" "'O~.; - ,:: ~ c; "'0 'Ssl .... '" 0 0,::- .- 0 ~ E '" 0",0 ..c~0ll ~ '" ,:: "0._ U tI:l":::: ~ '" ~ ;;~g ..c"'u : ::: tI.l ,:: Oll' .::2 .5.~ 0;.5 u u '" '" j~-5 . .... o 8 vi ,Ig~ ~8 ,:: 0 .- ,:: U;"= "0 u .a .5 u~ ,:: ~ ::~ ]e ~ ~ ,:: l:l ..8 .s ..-:.. .a CO e: E 'E ~ !: 0 !: ~'2 ~ P.o", .5 !: 'Q. . ~~.8 ..."'O~ ] .~jC ~"3~ I ~.s"l:j ~'"OE=o...c:c.Sr..i~l:: ,...., .5 'U; "'5 ~ ~ .s .8 .S" ::: ~ 00 ~ .a 0 i';-! ..c_O,::u"'-':: ''''~.a:lt) IoU 11)..... - ::: CJ.) CJ.) ~ ~ -5 gp 0:5.- u ~ cd ::, Ql ~ :'A ~ E ,:: 6.. u ",.- ... ~ ;:l ~ g. <: b._....Clj~(:l.CJ.)CJ.)Clj......",oo"'OJ::<U~ i=:: ,:: ..c 8 0 ~ '" E"= ~ <.=. Oll ~ "" .~ <: c;; ~ ~ 11) ~ :9 6 .- a _ ~.5 g ~ ~ o .~ a-B 6~ g;;~ ~ ~ 8.].'S 8~ () .Q '" '0 E "0 ::: 0 g ~ '" 0 u '" ",.~ I G) a cn~ ~~:B,d.>~C: 15.,5 'E a So Q en ~ ::3 0 ~ :g [3 ~ 00 00 00;.... ~ '00 "tJ~ ~'E e~ Clj ~~'E~~!: ~ ~ ~~-,::p.Ie.5"'.....I~"'~"O .;;: IZll::Ol::O U'J "'Obbcd~lf:cd~ OJ.;: 8 ': 0'<:: 00 2 a-j"O Oll 8 '" '<j;..c "'E .5,.op'l::J!3eaid.>"'O~C $:~:2 ~ .g .9 .g ~ g. a .~ ~ ::3'~ 8 ,g ~ g @" 'ii)] ~ gb E" 0 2 d.> ,CI:l ~ "'O'~ g 'C ~ Q) ~ '" ~ :<2 .- ~ ~ ~ .5 ~ c.~ ~ {l ~ ~ ca ~ B E~:.a U'J vr.g -; ~'~"'O,,~:9"O -J ~ 'CiJ E e ~ 5:2 ~ : ~ c.... t; 12 tij ~ ~~~~s~.~~~~~-6~'~& ..... ,:: 0 .~ ~ '" p.,:: '" E ,:: .~",' E o:B ~ 0 ~ j ~ ~ 'C;; ~ ~ .2: ~ 'U; ;5 ". ~ ~ ~ a >- l:Xl Cl ~ ~ ~ - ~ :; ..en ~ ~ 8 a~ p..- ~ ,:: ~..c u u '" '" '0' "0 ... '" ~ Oll :c: o j:: ~~ j::CI) :i85 0) -..... cO 0) 0) ..... ~~ ~~ '" ~ e '':;: 0 ~ e " 0 ~ .s ,~B "'"0 ~ ~ "0 'S; ,:: 1: '" '" ,,~ .!:l_ o,,~ ",ii '" 't::) CI:l ~ a o,,'P.bb '" Oll.~ !S~o ~ ~;s <: o i=:: ~ i=:: 5E >- I-C!) (,)0 -J 0:0 ::!:LIJ _C!) 8.0 d.>'~ .- ~",:;::: Oll ,:: .~.g Ccd.......... ~~~~ ~ i.5..e- _1Zl ~ ~ ~ .e; E ~ u...... CI:l 0 ~ ~ ~.~ ...... 0. 0"'...... .8 .E '", 'i'i 2i Q)c"5~c [s:.- Q)'- :5:::: ..c- Oll'" :I ~ O..c . -5 ~ .~ t; <U tr.I ...;:i ::: '" - oiGQ) ,:: u ~ CJ.)c~ en~c.... ~ ~ <U -"'..c ~...~ "0 ,:: '" ..en 1: .0.9 u~ ~$:G '" 0 E 2 u 0 ro ~~ E: gf...:: .€2.€ uou .8 .... c .~ ~ .'" Cl::: ~ b ~O ~~ Oll ;... ~C2~.2 .<:: o'i3 b "@ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~_v;.O-5 8 ~ e ~ ~'e~.g u e~'G 'SoB "0 ~ 0::: .5 !a < "'" ~ . :5 :5 s 00] !ap."'~"'~'::oE<.=."'''' 00"0 g 5~1:c.2 ~ Clj~]"t:" c ~ cd '.p Clj 11) - ....... .... ._ v;. 0 0'" 5 "'..c E~'E"':: 6"0'<:: :€ 73j "E 'u : Q) ~ 00 ' ;... ~ 6 a i5'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,5 ~ ~ ~ t) o '" :E < ,:: !a 0.:: !a ~ ,:: ~ U" ~ & ~ ~:E'~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ E :=.9 ~ u g, 'g ~ ~ a ~ : '" 1! <Zl ~ '" 0 ~ '" 5l- E: O'!: ~ ~ ~ 0 'e: ti3 < ~ C (!) 8-8 6 ~ 0 e A~ rJJ C 8. g a "'0 ~ u~6Q)]:::t.E~~5~~ ~U''::: @"~c.8 ~.s cu ~ 1: cd.a u u '" ... 0 ,:: ,. '::._ ,:: u .~ '-" 'E ~ ~ gp Q) 'c'@ ed'@ .E 2 Ie 8 ~ ,:::a € 5 p.:E !:.t; ~ P..S2 Q) ~.g $: ~ 0. ~ (!)] [) $: Q)....g..'='"'Cljt8 8"s'.::: o..cu.......9 !S 'Eu t:: 2 '" - ....- u.2 Oll "'E t) .~ p. 0 .~ ~ ,:: 8. <Zl '::. '" -- ~ ;.... Q) ~.~ d.> t:: v;. Q) 'C E ~ eo::: tE .:a < ,5 -5 ~ ~ o:S B 0. "0 ~ ~ ...... >- IXI Q !!:! !f ll:: ~ - >- IXI In ll:: e :.iE o :s - Q ~ ~ ..,J ~ C5 ~ - " Ol) " 0.. '" 'E.n >-. u CI.l 0 ~ 0 0""" >. '2 b S US ~ ."';: :; c;.5 t 5; -= "" Ol) ~ = 0.. g ro.;::.- ~ CI.l ~ ~ 0 0 c ~ ~ ~ o S''= gEt} ~.g~...... €'~~~~g]~a~oD Q,) 'u Q) 1:::.a Q,) as ~ 6!E .5 g. ~ p. '@ -t 05 ~ cB ~ So ~ 0: -< .S :::E .= "0 .= 15 1;l .<;; ~ fa E:; Ol) = ;a ro ti .Ei >- IXI Q ~ ~ ~ LlJ ..,J ~ - I 1.5 gf '"0 c.8 0..> o I ..- ..... I Q) fJ:I () Q,) ..... cO ~ gf.5 'a >. 5 ~ C[} B ~ .- 'I: ~ 0. 0..> 1: '';::; a3 ": :; 'S: g ,g ~ ~ oS ~.;: ~ ob ~ CI.l.:a 0 ~ 0 ~ Q 2 g '; .$ ==00"'00...:::.............,.. cnt:1-< o u.n = 5 .s 'e- I:l - '" .. 0 ~- 00 Clj ..... E :s >- ~ -< ~:;:: ..... ~.5 6 as E ..... 0 ',p ~ 5 5 <) ..... "'C ._ :::: = IJ.) CI:l U a.> ..... E 's ~ ~ g 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"O ~ .s.8 &r.s.5 15 ~ ~ 0.9 a ~ o i:: q;9:; e"LlJ i::CI) ~~ O"l -..... 0:, O"l O"l ..... "0 " "'" fa g ~ ~~g. ~ J5 g.'B 7j 00 ~ ~ B ~ ~o .- 0 c:s 0.. CI.l 0 <+.:i g-v; fE-":: 9 a.g g'fj'~ 0....>: ro"'_w ... 00 (,) "'0 ;::3 8 Pc.5 ~ e ~ ] 2 fa:Q 0.."2 .g 0'"0'<;; ..... "'0 .::: tI.l tI:l ~ en C c Q) Q) 8"'0 .......... 0 t':S 0 ~ :-=._ s:: g ~ u ~ o.J U S .s S ;.: '0' ~ 6 0 ~ s e-.g ~ 0 5.2 ~~~~ o Q) 'I: 6 Q)~ ~ () u ~ .. g-S 0..00:5...... ~ a'3 e 5 00 .- >. Q) g >. s::: ~ 4-0 0) CI.l.t: '@.n"s o...n.s E.$2"till:! ~ ~ ~ ~ .5 1$ S ..- "'0 .~ E ..9 t.;::: ..... ~ (lj Q)..... 00 0 ~ '.0 .~ "'0 g 0 ~ ~ e r::: ~. ~ a3.Q ~ -g ~:~ g. BE] =~ ~ ~ 8 fi~ o.~<:: as tI.l Cli e.E en '2 .- en I- . 0 '0' ~ .0 Q,) Po...c= a ~ ~ ~ e ~~~"'Oeg...:::~u~o ~C':j.E~BOs:::cdt5o.E ~ E ~ 8 s ~ ~ E ~.E s o fa 'E c:I.:l ,,"0 Q) .~~~~.s8. ijJ B~~'f 'B~a.l ~ t) <L> ~ 0 ~.ti).b ~ <: ~5~;;@15]& ~ fI)-=B~5~as'€ :c:: :::: g'~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ E ~ g.~ ~ fa g -5 ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ,5 ll:: Ol).~ 0;;; " ro..>: Ol) b ~ '2 ~ ~ 6 g.5 c: ~ ,- 0 _ tf.l J-, ~ cati~~~p..E'"55 fI) 0 ct::'C ~ e e ~ Q)J-,oo..c::(,)~;::::: ;g ] .5 ,~ ~ g ~ g ,=Q).5..c::-=~a50 to) g a ~~ g ~ E ot)oa......~,,= ll::-g:::E-;;; gj 8.g~ 'Il::t ~ 0 ~ CI.)..... $:: CI.) ~~2-5'€:aB~ .,.:"s~ Bl g-g g,'E <: o f:: ~ f:: ~ >- ""'(!) 00 ..,J ~@ ~(!) (,; @ :J C/) Cll CI) E ~ ~ u & 05 u '" = -5 ~ Ii ~ .n '", -5 E .~ ~ 13 ~ ~ ~ 50g ]-g ;:: ro ro . ~ ~ ~'B g.;a oo~ ~.E ro Ol fi:..a . -0 2 19 '" .= 0) .n co fii '" o ofi fa ..>: u ~ . -0 " u E '" = o u 0) .n So .<;; .: " 0"0 'E fo " ::> 0l)0 " ... g;.s ... >-. "0- =P- Ol '" '" ,~ 8. v5 - . 0) ro "0 to .~~ 8 .- ~ ~ E.!: t:: ca]B 'E 8 ~ fj~fj ,,- = ~ _ 0) o (;j .n O)..c:: "'" 0"'0 co ..c:: '" '" = 'e "0 .n ::> r:/J . . ,,"'" .n U c;~ ..c:: '" tf.lB g " ~ E ~ ~ 0)'- E "'; E ~ ",2 .5 E Ol)o .e .= 0- .~ g SV 5"2 ,,;:: g.~ Vi .= . (,; @ :J C/) Cll CI) E ~ ..>c u & ,.,; ""' o "0 " co u '" " .n co ..c:: '" '" ..>: u o ... 1;l o :3 . ~ o "Z .n "0 " u ~&1 '@g. ~: '" ::> 0) u g ~ ~ 0 ;::~ ~"O 'i3 fa e 0. "00 ~ t ~ g .5iJ ..>: ~ 8 . .E:- U 6;)"0 o fa ]~ olSi;> tf.l= E b ~ .9 ..... 0 +-> uu< " ~~ e~ " 50 E: ~ ~ 8 ,~ t:'l. ~ ~:2 O::.E:- E ~u ~ G€ .g ~ ~ '8 e.g .: ~ ~ ~ ~'o S ~ ~ a--~<l:i ......Q(j~<t:: ~ U <L> a'5 'su ~ ~ 0:.= o"s >n ell = .;; .9 2 ~ 5 "' 0 ~~ ~";i -g'j ::> ro ~ E "0= 0) ~ IS ~ 0..0.. 0)"0 .n = ro ]~ "'- Ol)::> '5 g. "'Q) g z " -g $' <L> ~ ~ .= 8 !:S ~ ~Q)~'.g.,;g. ~ ~.9~ ~ .s 'g S2r:/J5E.~ro ro ._ ]"0 " u ~ ~~......:,:::-P..~~~ .2 fj .= ~ .g -< ~ (,)~o.oQ(jt-tf.lU .E Q) .5 u c.8 b ~ ;::::e~U::Of=tf.l .,gc.E..c1Zl,-"a:~ tf.l Q) tf.l..::~o~ ~ ..J::;.~ ~........ ~'-' ~ 0. S o:S -.:i "t= "'8 8 e.~ ";' ~ g. E ~~~a~e~" u 5 ~ 5: ~ ~ .~ """'uO):::E:>:> 'S 0 t;:::. (,) 'J::: ~ ~ ~ 25 'S ~ 6 ~ == Q::; ,,'- Ol) = .p 0.. Ol o(l ~ 1) .ti) B gb ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ .~:~ ~ .E:- ~ 6.= '\; :::E :::E "s u "s . ~ ~ ..... >- !Xl Q ~ !!: a:: ~ - >- !Xl fiJ e 5t o :e - Q ~ <: ~ LI.I ..,J ~ <: ~ s: f- u u 'E '0 ..9 gf '" ] .~ 1A 15;0 g ::::=;.... tI:.l 0 1-0 ;.:: ',p ooc:1o"CClJ(l.Cl:;I~CU .5 ~ ~ a -5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;g~;e ~~<o ~-;; ~ ::1 ...... CI:I or::'- ;.... tI:.l ,ngg~1;~Bg.~ Q ~ p...- 5.'r;; ~ p.. E u.s ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. OJ) l" ;0 '" 50 '" u ::> .; Q (3. uJ!J ~ .~ u u alp.. >- !Xl Q ~ ~ ~ - 6 cB ~B gf ~ E ~ .~ ~ .f: ~ _~~~ ~~'O~5o o~s:: ~~!:,.cbO CI:l~Oo~p.,ct$"""~ S 8 ~-B ~~ ~ $'~ ~- .... OJ)._ '0 :;: '0 e. ...... ~ ClJ .5 ~ 0 ClJ 0 ~ ~ ~ '2 ::: ~ ~ 0 ';; 6 ~ :;:: 'S..t:: ~ Cd 'So p. ~ l5.. c.S E ~E~a5~15g.2& ~ j:: ~ j:: ~Q;; _lU 00 0) 0) ..... "C(l) ~ "C E-5 b .5 ~.B] OJ) E 1;.= a "':; u u .5 ~ tI:.l tI:.l 0 U tI:.l ...... 0 ~c;~~~ ~~g&'S l",g i:; ~ "Vi .g "8 ~:8 e-~ o.~ 0 0 ClJ t:: ct$ "C ~ 0 .. ~ ~ ~ E oS 0 gr:.E .5 13 ~ o 'Q) 5 5 r.o ~ :.0 .~ ~ 0 .~ .~ .g CI:I'€'~ bO~~ca:-E:'; g.o g g ~ .~.E! S' "8 ~:8 1A ~:g ~ ~ 8'~ ~ ;.: ~ c ci'~ ~ ~ .n 00 .S .~ "C ;.= .0 .... ::3 ,.c ::::=2B~ ~E 8:E~] ~t: ~ a3 ~ ~ Q) B .g ~ .~:= g 0 00 P. "'0 p.. ""0 0 $: .- ro j;; ~ en 0 $: tI:.l 1-0 p.,.- ll.) S,.c U 0 ~ fi5 5 6 ~ ~ a ~ ca ~ '8 E ~ ~ 5b ~ B .~ ~ - '(3 ~.~ 6 ;::._ ;>. en ......_ . ClJ . CI) Q.) '" IS ] ~ U'E ~ gf ~ ~ ~ l" Q l" '" "- 1; 0 '-;0 .... l" l" 0 :.:: ~.o.. -=--..0 ..... ~;.: t.S ro 0 Q) :E ~ .Q ~ ~ t E ~ "C ~ :.e 5 .5 fr'E Q);::~ 0 g ~~~u lZl '- ~ ;:: ~ 0 c.l= I- s:: ~ ct$ .5 bl.... C::O '0 .<:: ~~ :; 'EtI:.l III p.. 0 '::; p a .c:: 0 U '" U - l" !:!:!(/)l5. OJ)l''u~o -.) U 0 l"'- ~ a:l t! <: 'E -;;; ~;o '* ;:g" S '" f::: Ul '0 .= a:l 't<i c: '0 p.. .., "- a"O .... ..... $::; s:: E 0"'" a; N ..a ~ IS 8 "'.- Cl)rou_u,.cooC; ~ 'O~~g~ ~ gp~'E ~ J!!B~~1je].s o u:€:.;;;'O S"s.s 8. i=: ~]~a~5~~ (!i UJ 8.g @ ~ .~ 'g ~ i- ~.~;::::S'- ~ l- U tIl ..... III ~~.-g.!!l ~ gfa3 ::E b _ OIl::> .- .- .... - c::os-.8u'O:g >- 8 ~o.,:'O "''5 "'C; .... <.!J ~ u<l:: o~2:>al 0 Qj 00 (/),1;; Q'B ~8!='; [ !.:t a co ~ l- ~ :.e.- c ~ 0 Q., lU ..:. ~ 8- ~ S ~ S 'S 11 ~ <.!J ~ (3 5. g ] .~ ;5 [ .g ~ ~ ~ ::> ~ '0 u U '" 0. u ,n "@ ~ ~ ;a .... <8 '" ;>, '" ~,!!j ~ .~ . ui u .<:: u ~ ,n "s .~ '0 u '0 '" 50 u ,n "@ .<:: '" '" u p.. o u; E Cd 1i:; . '0 .!!l 79 '" .= u ,n 't j:: '" g U U ,n "@ .<:: '" '" l" '~ '0 ,n ::> C/'J . ;a U N 'E '" 'E u'O U l" ~ '" E~ <8 l" l" 0 oN UG' .S ~ '0"- ~{j 'r;;a .g~ ~~ ;::: ~ . ,gl:~ '" ... .... tIl I..-C .g OJ)'::::>l" .= :5 .s '0 '" :;::'<::Q ~.~ (3 .8 - 'S .n u ,n ~ .<:: ui '" a:l '" ;; '" u :;: .::: oo:~ 'a ~ .- '" '" .... ~ ~ . . -0 u .... ::> '" . '" - u ~:8 g g u .- .... Cd ;>'OJ) ,n ..., '0 .- u:8 -~ ~'" ._ u ,~ u S& u .... ::: 0 "@ .,: .<:: 0 CI.l '''::; .2:~'-:'" - ::>~ ~ CI.l ~ ~ ft~ o u_ .v l" . ....u'<t . ~ ~ " >- txl Q !!:! !f 0:: ~ - >- txl ~ E ~ o :s: - Q ~ ~ it ~ ~ LIJ ~ I-- >- txl Q ~ ~ ..,J ~ - - ~ o i::: q: (!) i::: ~ - .g"E B ~ E B == g..!l! c.Sa)~ '" > >, ..l::lU';: ;O~ Q) ~.= ~"''O ~ ~.S ~ e-~8~ g.....,?;>E" .S ~ t).- CI:I ';:3 ~ (,) lJ .S ;0 .~ S~~o r/:J 5'- ...... g "'~~ p,i'S;>,.c:: :5a'g a:s ~ E: <<s .~.~~.~ 0. gb.- 0 Q.) '.a as......... ~.e ~~ g :9 .~ g a> ~ I:: B .00 bJ)'fii~ .5 ~ c.s -go"'O ~ 5o-g ~ '" --.. cocnQ.)E o 'E ~ ~ ~ j::: ::: ().::: ~ ~ 'O.S >. '" v 6B~~ j::: '';:; Q.) Q.) ~ ~ ~ cS 6o'~ >- 0.0 ~ ~ "'0 C!l ~5lg'o O'o'g().<= <5 C; ~ ] .g ....iJ.J~]::.9 OC!l 5";;.~[i ~ ~ ~ ~ [i.5 ~~~~8.] l:l::: ijj C\J Cl:l 0) '";" e ~ ]~.Et) ~"' ~ "g 's 5O:~ ~ ~~~.B ~~~: ...... 00 0 0 :9 8 U'I: is .~ .G' ~ ~ "'0 ~ ~ ~5~~ ~5 0. 0.5%5 58i:8 5~~] g. ] .~ B Qj ........., :s:: "'0 [) ~ 13 ~ . 'O~~05h Q.) v.J C $:l,.._ ~ ~ c3 ~~ . <=~ '" '" CI:l'':: gEl '" 0 :;::0. o <= '" 0 '0.- ~ e ';:; l1) 50"51 ",'- <=,.c:: l;:: '" o ~ ~,.c:: 5'0 :::~ .- ::: -g ~ ~ .S o .9 '" <= '" ::: 0.0 ~::E 0.0 '" <= '" ::: ~ ... r:/)o:l .S '0 '" ~.~ s a S ~ ~ '" 5.Sf g] ro] .;; g ~ ~ ~._ CI.l.... 'O:s:~g "5 =s 0 '..::: 0~'O() 1::,.c::~E a.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g g~.8]vi s::....... V'.l ro v:l 8 ~.5 8 ~ s::: ....... ~ '.p :;:: o~.o.9~ .~ 'S 6 E ~ ... ....- 5 '" Q.) ~:g ~ [) ~ .p ';; ~ P.. . B ... '" 'E '" > o Z '-' ~ '" '" '" >, <= .8 ... '" .,s Ol) <= .C ::: '0 '0 '" .e. :::~ ~,.c:: '" () .- ... '0 '" =::E '" "'"I:: ~.QQ.)~~8. 2~].~~g. Q) = ...... (/;l :=: rJ) E C': ^ 11) C'd ...... o ",-g.,sElJ rJ) g ~ s:: ~ ...... g{/jg..g~8 -g ~ o..~:9,.s p.,~,~ :s g 3 :s! ~ 0.] u; 6 '; 8:9 C.V) (,)~ 8 g~~ ,..:..:: u u ~ "'0 +-> g .5 = rJ) ~ [5 '-;<t;::;"1:ooE ~ 'c;j..o Q.) 2 Q) et~~9E o>~rot::~ 5~ac.l=~c;vi .~ ~"2]~'~ gf > p u._ ;::; ~._ ~ 6h~ B .....: ~ ;g &1~$~;;::;o.s ~4-<:S <+-< 0 '" .~ <= '" ~ o.~ ~..;: 5 ~ ~.- +-> ::1.5 fr~ 5 ~,.c::o "'~~ .0"''0 :E g a ::: '0 '" o ~ ~ I:: 0 5l '0 ~ 0 0'00. '5 ~ E p,,.c:: .- <= 0. 0 o '" .~]] E.2a$c; ~:oS e 6 0~p,5 u 0 t: ~ QJ 0.. ;::3 I- ~ . '0 "'~ ~.~ ::: '" g g ",...'0 .o~~ '0 ~ [) <="',.c:: "'C.ot:: 3:EcZ ~ g B ,.c:: I:: <= .~ 13 ~ ~.e ~ ~ ~ ;>. e ~.~ '" >, ... "'O';:lQ) .g[i.,s", ~ a B ~ QJ E 6 0 .c ",'C ~ "'" 0. 0. '" '" ~ 0 o ..;: .~ ~ ro C,) r.,... (3 fr :;; .- 0 ,.c:: ",.- 5 ~ ::- 00 o:S .~ ~ .. . ~ cn'Q) '6~",gp +"' t.;::: ~'c (l) ~ I- 0 ;:::3-5 '000;;;'05 ro ~ "0 ~ 0 5013~;o<.l= ] gf 'en ~ 8 ~'Eii.g~d' . ea;::3>.ro~E ~ ~ ~ B .~ .B ~~ 8" ~ I- ~ '"0 ::s 0..''=''1 ~ 0 '5~E..g~~ 0""-'- {I.)..s:: CI.:I ~.~ 8 J5 eh ~ ~ f ~ "'C .5 .a ~~g."S~g oo.soo8~t; . o .; .5 '" Ol) () '" :::.0 '0'0 ~'5 '" 0 .0 () '0 <= ~ 0 " .- o '" I:: e '" '" 0.'" ..9 ~ "',.c:: <= I:: .~ ~ Ol)~ '" '" '" '" ..c:~ () '" e-.s '" 5 ,.c:: .- r:/)Q) <= ,: o ::: oot)~ ~~i 6000 ~()~ <= Ol) '" ~ '2 ~ '" " '" E '0 B '" '0 <= ~E .- -ga'S5 "'.= 5 ~:g-5 8~8 E"~g Bu~ t;.-l(1,);:..o O,.ollJQJ ~"'O(;.e 'E"3 ~~ :.:l~B;o ~~ <= 0 .e '"& .C ::: u ~ Q) ~ E .0.5 ~ "'Ot.o-.~ g~~ ~ ~ a 00 ~ Q) -:S Q).~ '" '" '" p,,.c:: ~ ~ ~.[ >, () 0 .:2.g ~ ,.0 ~ OJ "00-:5 a.; ~ ~ E e .E () U {J) E":: ~ ~ c= ~ ro ~8~~ ~ '" = <l.l '" '" < '-0 0 0 C"l <l.l .s '" = r- o:l ~ ...... Pol u:J V) 0 0 C"l <l.l .s E .g = <l.l '" '" < 0 0 0 C"l <l.l .s ~. ...... Pol u:J 0"\ 0"\ I 00 0"\ 0"\ - <l.l .s 0 .5 <l.l u = <l.l .... ~ <l.l .... ;;... ~ '" .s o:l .... 0 e- o u = ...... . . . '" '" VJ CI) 0.0:5 ~ 0.."0 QJQ) &Sc "O::3j:: ~ ~ € b ~ .~ tn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~{/Jc.,...:=U::SQ)So;S"OC5 a on ~:E~ g-I:: t)'O ~~.~ ,.....iU t=Q)I-"OQ)S:: .....N I:: .~ ~ g.o g a :E' is "g .s ;;: ~-g11~EE~~~~l:'$ ~B?:::lO~t1)j5..t1 ,8m 00,.0 Q)..c:{/J ro (1)"0 ro ~ lU Q) c ~s-5B~~-:S:;8o.p..g.~ o ...... +-' ro ~ ,.o..c 0 en 0 ~ 00 r..I"J 53.5 a:S t > ~ '0 ~ ~ V5 'V; ;.: ~ E .s b:: 5 ~ 'I: ,.0 "0 8 '5 ~ 't; g g'~ : E .~ ~ 5 @ < ~ ~ fr ~ V'J ~.~.~ ~ ..... ~::;: -' 0,.0 ~ .0 ro"'C ro Q,..O 0 ut;:; C Q) >."0"0 ~~'g ~-l3;'[i 8 6~:;ij~-a "8 0.5 t~ E~.:=~= t . ~ o lI.) ,..,.-....... ..... tf.l...... t:: ro c ..... ? > QJ-'''''' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;:>'"C(L.)~~(L.)~.o~~bOQ)bO >.<1)-5 ~:s: .~2Q)lU~~ $ ~ lU ~ 1U ~ ~..o E co..o ~ 'ca ro-B:E~ lU"g".o:9 Q):9:900::t~ ~"'O~o~o~~"g:::~,.......;..o ~ a is;::.s ;:: :E ~ 5 ~ ~ B 5l ~ ~ ...... >- lX1 lil 0: Q: ~ - >- lX1 ~ I:i 0) I: e .@) ~ Jj 0 0 ::e iJ - Q ~ :c: ~ """ 0 0) .~ u .... 8 ~ ::l '" 0) .~ 0.. ffi B 0/) I: 1-.:.0 ~ .g '3 ~,n I--- >- ...: lX1 0) 0) Q I: .@) ~ " 0) :c: ~oo ~ ~ ~ 'a LI.I ~"@ .... ~ 0..- 0..0 <~ - '0 iL) 0) 0) " u _ ~ ~'e " t'\S 1-1._ e 'E '"0 "'0 ...... 8 ~ ~ .~ .E U 1-1 _........ ~ ~.~ ~ .~ .- t'\S = 0 "O..c..c::~1-. 0) ~ u'- ~ 5bO)~~\O '00 ~ 2 '"0 8 ~o~aN O)5b..c:..,B :: 'en ~ ~ ~ ] ~ &2 ~ ~ll~O .., ~ 'ti) 6 ~ ~ -:e 51 Co::I I-. ro ..... Q) i: ~ 8: ~ .S: ~ .~ c; :E~~13o~ a:: ~-5~~~~ i: - 0,) .s 'C;; ~ ~ ~ i LI.I ~ .:;; .2 ~ CI B I--- C/) ~ 0) 0; ..s Ci3 0) " 0) OJ ~.g ~ - '" ~-';;;..9 LI.I , "';i 0 tI:I C/) Cl:l a~! ~ ~ 0) :;~-g~ a. 0) - ~ '" " , '" t:: tf.l ._ , Q) $: S.::: :c: .50'", i'il 0 a 'tl .;;; .is ~ j:: :c: Q)t>="'O <3 (/)>0)" <:( 'tl 'B.5 '" j:: ~ .5 13 B ~ a:: '" '" '" >- - a.2:E ~ C.!) LI.I 'fi)'c ~ B 0 C/) e.g~e I- .... LLi"'O-d; 0 0 1.0 E 1l .... .: ~ a:: <:> ~ ] ~:9.~ ~ <:> I ......_ ::s CIl ~ :t: "A ~~.g~~ 00 ~ C!i ...... >- IXl Q ~ !f ffi :s; - >- IXl fiJ ct:: g :1E o :s - Q ~ ~ .... ~ :2: ~ ~ - >- IXl Q ~ :2: ~ .... ~ - ~ i:: ~ i:: i - ~ Ci3 ::: ~ ~ a.. a:: , , - ~ lJJ 0 C/) j.:: ~ 0) j.:: Ol ~ Ol .... >- , .... (') (.) 0 co ~ ....J Ol 0 Ol ! CD .... "-' B u.~ :I: 5 "g I': '" 0 [) ~ e.i ~~~ - 1':._ "-';o'P. OBI': 088 "'" o <l) . u '" t:: .~ g E '" <l) .~ 0.. o OIl - I': ...- 0"" 'C '" "-'50 a p: ;::= ~ B.g Q,) .,00 .~ 1-r:'~5g ~~~~~ o Q)....... 0 !::: ~ ~ ~ ~.8 ~~]~rs '0' fr:: '0' ~ i!: 15..<8 i!: ~ ~ _.~ <l) I': 1':~-iOll "" _ r:: !:!l-"'!:!l.- 0 >= I': - I': _ I': "'" u <> w.. - "" <.l:: c ~ 1':0'<;: .8 ;:! '" "' 0 :E......~>s;."E$:~ Cl) 00.. ~;::.... ,." B!~~i5~~~E~.~i~~~i~i~J~ ~ 5 C ~ ] ~ do} :2 ~ ro ~ B Cl) V) '2 t'......g ~.; b ~ ~y;::=~~~.....~~~~~B~~o..~~~ooB~a ~~~:~.~.~~~~j~~~~~1~i~~~ u~~~o..~~'~ V)~uV)~-~Ec aooua '0' 8 t':l "g 8 0.. ~ s:= E ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ B .s 5 ~ ~ -=S V,l a~~~~~~8~~~~~~]ro~8~$~E Ij~~~~'~~~~i~j~~.s~~~~~! 8:.a ::;.= . --0 ~ V,l:;:: en .- S ~~ ~ e ~ .~ .9 f/.l p.. 5 ~~Cl)Cl)~Cl)-~~uU.-cOuou -;::= c ~~.e~u.E~5~.~.e~~'c~~~coeoB~ ~ I': - - I': ~ .. w'- as OIl - <> - ~ '" '';::; I': p: ~ 11 ~ g. 5.'0 a ~ ~ ~ [0 ~ E.~:g "g'~ @" ~ ] t; =~uo--~~ u~ =~~Cl)~Oo..o..~o.. .gfj ~ ~ ~-8'9 1':]8 ~15..,g.l':~ ~ ~11r;::o ~ ~,s ro ~o u-o u~~ro~o~ro~ .... ~ ~ .S: ...... lZI""O .D o.',a rIl Cl) > r:: .... 0.. C QJI en Cl) CI.l.O ta <l.) o ~.<;:"" "'",<l)~-",<l)0<l) B t;""';::; 1':'- ~B~~@~8se ~r::~Cl)OO~~~ag~~ cG 15 tG] on ~ '.p t;j Cfl ~ ta .~ > oS ca ~ r:: ~ 00 ~ ~ fE- <~~~~~s~~~.~~s~>~~~cu~o fr';:: - :.a 0 ~ u ~ B ~ '., 't:: 'E..c '" 0.;0 ~ 'l'l .~ ~~~.s ~~ ~~ ~19 58 g~ ~.~ ~~ b1~~~ .....bO ~-:~ @.9 !~ ~.~ E~ .13~ ~6 5 ~ ~ ~ u E ~ ~ 00 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ cao:90o.0-"" _00. :x: ;:l~..9U~I':g.BOo.l': ~ ~ '" <l) <l) ~ .s ~ Po'-[;i E .- ~oiW';>"" >.0 '" ","-' 0 EhO"" ::::s 8 a ~ "0 ~ "E: -: 00..... ~ s ~ :e 'p !;: .... l:: 0 ~ ~ 1S ~ bO ~ ~..... cg 0 r.S "0 > ~ C,) ~ "0 cg..... ~ ~~.~"o].~ oS e_ 8~'~-: -- E I': - '" '" I': ~ Eh 0lJ '" '" I': I': ~ 0 d) ~ ~ ~ ] ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o(.)e.~ e"g ~ cd ~ ~ l::"5.9~ E Cll .l: OIl 0. ~ t) $5 .0 .g 8. J:J 0. 51 Q) Q. $: 00 U'.i cg..... "0 cd 0 ...... l:: .- It: ~ g'~ ~ f'J o..g "5 B..c ~.g ~ r::: II) '~'>1 ~ Ob.S..c ~ <;; .;: - ~ .0 O"b8c..> o.....~;;>~~~oo ;: t: Q.. t..,..; .5.=': :::I. cd tn c..> .,J::; v; ..... (a:cts..c:o.....+->"O~"O"O........rJ'OI1) .........-.-$~..:~aa:-S.~l-:::I Q) ~ ~._ I !:.~.- ~ U'.i "0 ::: O>'b o.g:::cg ~~e-Q)o'P ~ a; ~ I': ..c g..g"g e_.s. l:: o;S ~ 5 ~ d) c..> t..,..;..... ~ o.u l;'j 0 t..,..; Q.. u ,,;.- .... ~ 0 6b..c 0 (.) U 0 8 "0 ":" CI) g e;:a ~ '00 ~.2:; ~ (1) ~ j:l.-; ('W) 0 r.f.l'-'- tn cd.....::: ..0 ~ 0 0 ~.... gj g..'~ ..5 ~ E g ~ .8 [o;S ~ ~ ~ ...... >- !Xl 53 it it ~ I-- >- !Xl 53 e SE o :s - Cl ~ ~ cr ~ ~ LIJ ~ I-- >- !Xl Cl ~ ~ ~ LIJ -l ~ - ~ j:: (3 j:: :s - ~ Ci5 - UJ CI) ~ Cl.. a:: , . - <: UJ 0 CI) j:: ~ 0) j:: 0) ~ 0) '\"- >- , .... (!) (,) 0 co : -.J 0) 0 0) ~ 10 '\"- Os ::t: '2 "" 0 ~ S t> .s c 5 ~ a ~ ~ o::~~ caE C 8 8 '" >.. 0,<:; ]qj :3::S? Q.) ~ u .5 15.joJ ,<:;8'~O<1.)"<:;"<:;~> o""of:?~"~ V> ..... ro ::1 cd ~ a ~ ~Q)tnVCl '~'p- t'd~;.aro~;uB "5-",,"g~-goo :E g 2 t+= P. ~ {/) .5 ~..<:;tO'.z:looV>S"" _~~5~~ue_ !::... I '"0 cd ........ "0 OJ.) .a:: .9';; 50 ~ ~ "0 <Ii 1i5": u~~..:g ~~~ o V> g :s! 4-< .- "- - ::~CI)5S~~.~~ to p.. s..<:; ~ "" 50"- to i': '" u V> '" '" "" .;; <1.) ~~Eg2~~.s~ "0 6J5'~ <1.)"0 8.a ~ ~ "'0 "0 C,) ~ I- e"C "'0 cQ)~O~~p.o.Q.) El~u";;ofE"O"g::O lZl 00 "5 ~ .a 'J: ..... u'~ < 5.aES~ 8.~cB 8. , <1.) 64-15~"'.sc.o... CI) 'r.;; Q.)'(3 u.~ ~ l- 0 E .9:! .~ ~ '.c ~ cu :c c.8 ~ '(j) ut:c.,....~.~..:::~~OQJ & '"0 0 (I) ~ ~.~ ~ ~ .:a CI) ~ ~ @ ~ 'o.~ ~.B 8 ~ i ~ .~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ..... ~ Q) _ {/) 0 QJ 00 Ui~~~6~~'015~ -:...0 o.c; :E '"0 ~:9 ~~ ~ ."" "'0 cEo "'g ~ ::s t> CI) Q 13 p. 0"_ '" >.. go ~ > <1.) ~ Q)~~~2:=~ :-;:8:~ ~~ ~"Oco~ ~O ~=':: .- e. ~ C -. "0 :I: 0. cd c a ~ .5 -s ~ [) 13 Q) E ~ ~ ~g:Ot'dQ):=~.s";it.8S .....;: J: 0..-:5 -- 0. 0 u ..... ~ ~ ] ~ 2 ~ j :~ :; ] .~ '(j) ~ .... l:l El ..<:; p.. '" ",.~.g to -5t2t:cr~g::E';~] +-' ::s - ..... 0 '"0 - ........ ~ ~ ~ '6 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ C')~=<1.)-i':usu:;:O ~~:o~a~a~~~~ ~1S"5g ~ ~B .- CI'J - :i '"O..c CI) rJ.l 5, as 'S: a tlI 1i) .- e; QJ t:: ~ e ~ ~.9 ~ 'E 0 $ i3 132 a'~] g~"'" 00 >. l:l::;.l:><=""tOsE"g] bL)..c:'"O~3~~~B~ ;VJ~cu~OcuotI'Jt "0 ~ Q)'(3 .... ~.=: ~ ~ ..c S:::_bOlI.)lI.)rotUAs:::~ :: i ~ ~.~ "5 ~ 8 ~ ~ e o~~ I ~~".::: ~.~ lI.)"- CIJ CIJ 1i3 ""'" e to <=,<:; "'0 ~ 0 +-> ,.c E .- ~~ ~ ~ 8:: a a I ~ Po e~ lI.) ~ fp...c:: g.~ K.s ~ o:5cGss~~e~~til ~""2g.~~~~~=~ <= ~ 5 '" ~"" 2 t:::; 50 ~ g.~':;~ a~ g.--g, ~ o.Q)~"E bOs ~'"53 8 E .- Q) "'0 bO ~ .5 ".::: ;.: 'Z Q) E .s ~.5 ~ ~ gb ~ ~ :.a $ g. tf.5 .~ ~ 5o:€ = ~ ""g ~ ~ < B ~ ~ B ~ ~ e.5 a ~ (/) - ] 1i3 ~ .- 0:5 "a :5 0... ~ ~ ~S2<=~ s::: ~ eQ (J,) "g~~~~ ~~g~~ Aa3bDA:E 8ssgpg U t:: ,"'_ 0 .;; a"" E p. .o~~~gj ~CIJ~~~ if ~ .;; .g ~ ~~ "'0 ~ tI'J <1.) C ~ g.~ ~ SiB :E ~ 8 ~ .i3 -0 CIJ 0"5 A:: ~~~ ~io Vi ~ 8 g-f;: o B"'O "0 d) .g~ [5 .!:: Cfj =' V> "E 6- 50 "" +.,. 0 lI.) ~~ ~ ~ ~.5 ~ ~ ~"E := .S ~ $ "1 .~ .E jg e.~ V) ~ 5 "2 tl'JQ)o..~].~~ ~0:5o~~~B ~~~2~'E~ ~~8b~~~ Es:::s::$:-:a:s..: ooQ)~~=, . (3 g.'_ OJ:) 00 1:11 - ~beg~.g;~ 88~"t;~~8~ ~ ~ a E ~ .5 ...s;a ='ro 00 :=s::oo ~ "".6 6 s.a E'-;: +-> E PO"';: r.I.) 0..- "~ g El 1:l gt ~ "S g p. S ~ "-'p .... c:r <= 2~SE",~"'.8 0. g.'- .~ ~ ro ro "0 ~.5 ] .~ .s ~ ~ @ ~ ~ ...... >- al Q LU it it ~ - >- al ~ ~ o ::!E - Q ~ :t: ~ LU ,.J a.. ~ ~ ~ - >- al Q ~ ~ LU ,.J ~ '- (l)>'cO'o:::I"~ttr.l"O~(l) '0 "t:J U ~ ~ t1)] ~.S-= 0.. '0 0' 0.. -E:; '" 10 8~~s ~~~S~~ u ~ 0:: '':: 'S .= a $:g. ~].€bO~~~~ ~"'O U'1 Cli u -.5 \D.5 E 8 1;j -"'0 0 8-.p '0 ~ "8 .~ 0 I'l-o '" '" "'8ucj::::'O--:=N.... > i:: ~~<r:~EEE ~K~ ~ .E:; :g 8 8. E _~ .B 6'.5 J: '0 ~ -B ~ ..g -~ r.:5 '" ",.,.. Ou'"' 8 1;j U o:l .8;=: <A"g -€~~~ Uuuc.:: .... o '" u '" ;::: .~ ~ E '" '" .~ P- o OJ) - '" .... -- 0'0 .t: '" 1'l-050 '0 lii .... ~ 5 0..- '" - '" t)'So '" 0 'So .... -- I'l-o~ :t: o i: ~ i: 55 - '" .... -:5c.S ;.,'" ~:;:: '0 > '" 0 .... .... '" 0.. ~B ~~ ~- c;~ {:j 5 a~ P..~ ",,;:: -g ~ .;-~ ~ .~ ~ ~ "2 8.~ ~~fr _ u .... ~ 's'~ <: 6.-S - .ll! '- '0 ~ .Q:s!", ~8E Ci5 'O~1;h c:: '0 '" - J! ~ ~ LU _ 0 ::3 '" ~ 8"'0 ~ i;j o..~ '" u a.. 0:: c:: '" '" , OuO , - "- Q)........ ~ LU :;:;'0'6 0 '" -S j3..b j::: .~~ B C3 0> ::: 0::: E ..., 0-- j::: 0> '0 5 e ~ 0> ..... CIl'.p 0.. >- C1).a ~ I- (!) , ,ggB (.) 0 co 8 '" ~ ~ -.l 0> C") ",-E:; 0 0> ' - 8 ~ in ..... ~ s--- ~ 'll:t_'i5 '" ~ ~ ~ ...... 00 >- V") CO 8 Q N"O ~ ~ ~ ~ l'E ~ 88 v.l Q)bO~ I- >- S B <"s:;::'~ ~ ~ .~ co ]:~ i>' . ~ ., 'R E 13 !: QLU ~ is ~ S g .~ ~ ~ u 00 <8 .; .~ bO:::: '.g 0.. I- .p e.5 $: (/} 1: It~ 2 '" .... - ","0 g. 0'- 2 ., '': ...... '" ._:::; 00 l:: _"0 '" 2 8 ., .0 .... ""s 0.'" .- 2 5'E ;>, " - E:: " .- 0 E '- ..::: .& - eo'" eo g; 0;> '" u.<;: " 0 '" ,~ .l9 50 " ..::: :> .... ~ .0'50"0 "'P..~ .0"0'5, t;; c.>"O 0. :IE u Jj 8 ~ .5 g. u ~ e ~ ~ E 8 .5 Q 2J ~ eo <::g~ ~ '" 2 B LU Ef5'8<<ig. ..... eo _..:.5 ~ 0.. 'c: ~ =:: '" ~ S 0 5 ~ .~ ~ ''5] ~ r~ ;E g.l9~a] ::0; ~ ~ -< 1ta (;~ >- ]]0.., CQ ~Cdl-.s.s Q 0 _ Q) .... ~ ~ ~,:"s50 ~ ~~~2~J!i ~LULU [S:8ff~~ c:: (/} >-= ~.!:: (1) ....J t)$~.g~6 a: 's ~ ~ eo.!:: a -= ...."..:::~]2 - ~.... ~ eo _ ,_ ~ g.€' ~ 65 "E 0'';::: g .....~ e .... -< .- ;;" c.> 0. ~ " ~~.s .p .c;Q)~~6~@ 8- ~s~~~~ ]~~:''::;':-Q)- ~ ~ ~.~ 8 l' .~ ~ .5 cE tEl 2 ~ E .s ~ -__ -~- "OCI:I.....r..26.,rJ .= ~ cd U ~ ~ 'u'";: .5 ~ ~ Q) B ..c q:: ...... "'C <.S:;::"'><....o "-"0"0,,,00"0- cd .~ Q) .a .... ~ eo ~ 3 E ..... 'C ...... N g o,sg ~.:c13.~ ~~ ~ E~~~.s ~ :E on ~ .c; .~ 13 r/J S Q).g E cd or;; .c; ..c s:: ;>",,, ....,,"'"O:;::c.>o;>:="O~o ~ '5. 'E ~ -;:: s:: -S:; t:j ',E ~ ~ (3 ~ 0 '.g - '.5 ,~ .!S Oh " O::l '" ... <5 >< . 5o,J:; ~(/}~e~~~~'~~.~m~~uE~ ~e@Be~~~~s::~ecdg~g8 I-<~ [;ct::-B 0 e...c cd~";j o.g.E~ u ~~~~13~~~~~bO~.~_bei s:;::o"t;;~eo~~]~~e~i!E :c: ~.8~bh~c; fr~;~'Eep..:c.8 ~ ~ ~ .... a .5 .~ cu g "0 __ fr d CI:I "0 .s .~ s:: .~ e r- ~'.p~ cd] ,,;:::"2 'E-o 0 e 5::;;-- 8.~ E" ~ 'S] I- Q) cu.E g ~ bO:.e vi 0 g..c ~ ~ ...... 'J a'E ~~ rfJ'E0:9~'.E:g g~ 0 gf13 ~ Q) j:: "",;>, i5 " '" '" := '" eo '" ;:; a 0 ",.O'"s i ~ 82- a] 8 ~ ~.~ ~ @ ~ ~.5 ~ a ~ c.,)$:O- + ~.g(/j~ a ::::u~o~ ~.s IJJ U)Q)Q).....Ja;..otU j.;;: 3:~f5'~g.l9gf Cii ~':~~t:O~g.! == a.~!:fr~>8o UJ U)]-58].-s~~ (/) :::!.,.::.d ~r.I.lo::::3:i S Q.!3:;8~~~~ ... Qlo.o t:O",-", 0.. It II) ~ :;:: B ~.- 1;j 0 I ra ul-Ll"'O&'g.'.:= I ~ (.) .... s (/J ~ t) .5 t ~o Qlu",S"-;;;-o. (I) ::: Cll./:l :::;;>,,~ 0 i:: Q3Q.ti.200~3' q:0) E",J:;t:O~"o"" <.:) ~ - '8'.l9 ~ "2 5"::: C/J i; ~~ ~~o]~l~ o. Cll~P..~Bi5S~:n 0: co "'" ~ ~ g ::l.;!? t:O './:l ~ E- Ll: 0) ~ C\lJ2'~ 8~"8 ~o 13 ;50)0.. .,sg;2"sE-g;C/J1;j ~..... ~ ~== g.~~<ES 5 ~ V") 00 V") o o N"O " " ~"S -,J:; o.'E 2 '" o 0 Uc.> en .s bO .::: 5 s.s ~ .5 $ cS .~ 00>, ......~~.~5~ a ]:~" ~ .,.~ >< E::l .... eo ,- E ... c.> ;> " " - 0 .; 0.0 Q 0 .~ ~ ~ ~ 6 g OIl ~ ~ .5 OJ) ~ ~ -'"0 .... ~ .......5 rJ'l t5 S .? -< i:: .;!?:::; 00 e- B"O ~ 2 eo Ii) .0 .... E"s 0 l'- 2 3'2 ;>,,, E: ~u.~ Q)tJ~~$ =~~ ~ e .0'50"0 '" P.. ~ .0"0 's. 50 t;; c.> "0 0. U Ji 8 ~.5 g. u ~ e ~ ~ E 8.5 "0 '" eo ""2"E 11 E B . Esacag. eo _ '': ,5 ~ tJ ~ .eE: s= 5 0 ~ ~ .~ ',::"0 2 ~ 'S: ;::I 2 OJ 0...... ~,S~_~:g >< CJ':.l 01) 0.. ~ "'-I ~ -< 1tC/J ""a~ ]] 0." ~~$-..s.;: O_Q)~~ ~~~5o 0000 E ~ ~ gf]~~-E5 fE' >.= ~ $-, 11) ........ ~ - Q) '8 >- ~.g ~--o~ e ''='o l:: eo eo ,- 0. 1-;Q)..c~~E ~.... ~ eo ~,~ ~~ ~ Cl) Q)..... Ie t::;.::: g 6- 5 Q) ;>'~"~<<ic.>2 Q)]Ou~'"Oo ~ ~p ao'-">< :;_ro..... ~~]~go5~O" ,::: '" g '" g:;:: 0..:::.5 . cf!~o:S8.n~:icsQ)~ cd 0 ~ ~ 8 5 1S r-OO ..s ~ ~8~Cli'-"~~g~~ 'S: .t; ] 2J] E t:O '0' i:: ~ 2.5~cd5..c~a8@ o.ooo..c:..oC;"'Q.)t) ~ S" ~"€t:O..8"s o.~ ..c:uae~ .;5o"~~ CI:l {,I:l- 0.. -..c::.t:;: _..... . 8"2 E 1t" ~ "'ot.;::.". ~ cd.a___-5 e ~N~.~ o g~"8 6 €:'.p.s'"O~ ~ ... t1 ~ Q) d .~ '€ :; ~ t) s'l:: ~ 5 I': ~ is !:2 ~ Q.) '.;:::::: Q) ;::::J ~.~ OJ) 0 .... Q) .~ .E .~ ~ E g.s bh.~ ! p..'E..2 "E -9 ~ 5 ~ "5 .;!3 ~ s ~ '0 15 ~ ~ ~ p ~ "'" c.> " ~ _ ,_ ::> t:; E c.> gJ:::: S ~ :G~] 8 ~~ .:::..s=-"'--""Oll)J5:::E~ ~A.a'1"Ot::-ll)A.-9 CIlt)P,,~;:l..ot:: w ~ ll) ~ 0 co ll) ll) ~ _ '=:::E ll)..o ~..o::o ll) Q,e<"S'€8~.stl QlA.o 0 0 gCl fr~ CIl__COZt:: u ,~ (.)5?,15_;:lVl u;:l >oJ III " ._ 0 I': 0 co 1a QlQ,ll)O-co....l~o CIl E ~A. . E ll) t:: ..... ca...c,o;...~o-c,o~ !Xl g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .9 ~ ~ :9 6~ S fr:9 E Q(.);:lll);:l'.ctl;:l~ C"lQlo,.:::l':ucoOo ... l!! ~ ..... ~ ll) ~ llIJ!!u"Ei<~1a;:;CI ~s:::SI':ll)""'o..oVl "..... ('\f 0 ='.E......,-.O :::: .b'':: 0" p,,~ t)....l ~ <'{-_e;:lEVlCO....Vl "t+:::: ll)..g coO p,,;:lo -<t :::: + g. CI ~ ....l .5 ] ....l ~ ~ ...... >- co Q !!:! !f It ~ >- co Q LU It ~ ~ ~ Q t:: ~ 0 ~ ] ~ 2 LU Ul'2 ..... i:: l: 0.. "" ~EP"Ul ~~~ ~ e:.a'~ ~ S'~ e :::0 _..0 "0 >- co Q ~ 8 ~ g ~ a- LU - ..... g ~ ~ N - ..... ll) <i:::: <2 >> 2o~+:: "O~-BEeil ~ 0 ~ ~ t:: ~ ...... tl) u'~ =s ~c; ~ =' oa........c::O" CO[;~~tl) ~-go~ ',= =' ~'';::.D .- 0 E u ll) U t:O.._ 1il::o ~t::bO~,S ......o~......o.. .~ e'5 t:: ll) CI)..... tl) .;;; 8 ll) < ;:l._ co -::S~0"...s~ ~o 0/)'-' 8 "Ei ;:l =- ...... =' CIJ i: .2] ~ '6 8 (1) U ;.., U ~ ~ -B 8.."0 t+:: .~ j:: & E g .~ ~ i ....l.E ~ 'fi.i ~ <0 o N 0/) t:: '5 ll) ;:l CI t:: .g u 0) '" .... ll) :5 ~"'" (1)0 ~~ ~~ ..c ~ :: <:l <:l ";' -.. <Vi l!:! <( Q ...... >- !Xl Q !!:! !:!; a:: ~ >- !Xl ~ ~ e .~ ~ ~ o .c :e u Q ~ l!:! ~ ~ S -J r~ ~_ E ['" cueoeo ffi ~.5.5 ;x: a;g ~ s: .E.E-B >- !Xl Q .... l!:! g ~ 6 ~ $ ILl 0: ~ t> cu '8' ~ ..... cu ]~c~ "'Cl ~ 1! ~ ~M~~gf ~ B ~ 8's ;; B~ ~ g 0;;.....,.<::0" a:l~.l!J-;;1;l ~-~o~ '.0 ::s p"''=.D .~ 0 E U cu U a:l,~ 1;l:o ~~~B$3 .~ o..'~ ~ fr r/J .=~ ~ 'I""l U cu < ;:3 .~ g .;3 ~ 0" o:S = ::c: 00'-' Q) ...... ::s o ~.....g~~ ~ .- ~ "'0 c: to) :;c i3u~~~ ~ -B 8. "'Cl t:O 'C i: ~ 8 g '~ [ :is ....l.a ~ 'en ~ l!:! 0 c;; N 0 == N ILl eo s:: CI) .; ~ cu ;:3 Q" CI . ~ . ~ .g 0 u i: cu '" ~ t i: :E :is oJ:) ~ "1::l 0 0: it ILl I- ~ u.: CI) 0 ~ ~ It) ~ ~ c - j-; ~ ~ ....; '" - 15 CJ) ~.OJ ..... ~ ;:3 (3-B .g~ eo ;::''''ClS:: 8..08"'Cl;:: ~e~.e~ Q)~~ ~~=2~~ g~8~8. ~;;~u CU.~S::=>U 'I""l~U~~ o~-Q) >~8~2~ CJ) OJ cd 0 :( Q Q)::S ~ '"C '00._ cd "'0 ::s h @~~~ 'S~~~~~~~~coE ,~ cu "'Cl~'-~ ~~_~~oa:l~ O;j 15'0':€ 5 :: "Q E t:: .;: 7.i ~ eo "'Cl u t:: .~ eo cu .... ~ S cu ~ Q) 0 ~ - - 'en ;; cu 0 '" ~s::~~~~~~e-Q)~acu>~e-~ ..;;:: ~ Q) S::,.<:: >, 0 ~.~ u. '" cu ._ U ? - -B .9 '5 0 E .... < g ~"2 1! ~ gr < g ~~~~~~a~g!E~~~~g~ 8 ~ g'2 -B g.6 ~,g ~ .a ~ @< ~ 8,g'[ ~~8815e1;l~~Q)=E.g.~0..~Q) ~-B~.5~~$Jg-B~.a'~<10-B 'O'eo~S::S::~~~Q)o~=oeo ~o ~ ;::: "'0 0 Cd '"C '"0 ..= +-'.- Q) a s= .8 Q) ...... A.. .- l-o..... - ;.... h A .........s::: VJ t:::::. '2 .- ..s::: ..s::: t::5~t>E~~eoeou;:3,.<::"'Clcu~~U o -B ~ 1;l B ~ ~ .5.5 ~] ~ @:;2 ~ 0 ~ e-eo;:3t ;:3;:3;:3O"....Q)ocu~.=Q).... .~~oa=oo~E~s::~@~e@~ < _ a:l ._ ~ a:l a:l 0" '" ~ ~ ..... _ N 0.. - ~ ~ ~ '- >- l.l:l Q !!:! ~ ~ >- l.l:l Q .... <l) UJ <l) It ~ e '5iJ ~ SE >> ~ .... i:J Q OJ);::: ~ .5 ..a ....<+-< ~ .,g 0 ;>, ~ '" u E .... ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ s::: ::l o 0 u ~ g.Z u 0 ~ .... 13] u ~ <l) ~ .-:: '0' ~ o:l ~ .... 0. >- l.l:l Q .... ~ 0 '" s::: ~ 0 0. CIl tl ~ <l) '0' ~ .... ~ '<t - <l) "0 \0 ~ .~ 5 o:S ~ >. rg '3 ~ ~.:t= a ~ ~ ~"' E g ~ ~.~ c.8 ~.5 ,,g g ~ ~ ~ bO 8 I eo ~ 1;)::: g.5 ~ ~.~ ~ ~ N u':S'~"O ~ "," 5 8. ~ ~ ~ .5 1;l i'~ ~ J:l 0 0 ~ 1::: E "0 ~ ~ BE~~~<l)tlE::l::lu.~Etl 'C'~E]~"Oo~a.5<l)Y 'u), e~6;;:;..l:; ~ <l) u 0 ~ ,.'';::.g,...s <l) '" .... - 0- "'. M""'- ~~ ~~~ o~~--o~~~~o~_x._~~~~.... ~ <l)<l)o"Oe.Do,,<:: _.-....._....~~~- "" ~~.-- oaO'....E~._;:::"O....~.s o.>::lu=....<l)>>"o~OJ).-s:::o _~~= 0 ~c~coo~u~ax~~~~.~B.c~~~ ~_~~~~~~~~~~~c~~u~-o~ooo U'-~~ ~_ <l) >>_""s:::~0s:::o=o~~<l)8""<l)"""<::>S:::OJ)Y ~~E~~~<l)o5uo~-- m.~...."Ouo.1;l'U)o~~ (l.) "0 $:: I-( Cd u.-;::....... ~ u u u Cl:S ~ u j.., C/) 0.. - Q) cu 0 = S .... "'0 ~-OJ)S:::~S:::~"'o ~....<l)~1:::.D]::lo.gS:::.D""~<l)~o .... ::l'U).s CIl 0 '" <l) ~o. ~ -==. ~ '" s::: 0 ~ .... u ~ _ <l) ~ 0. u - '-' E m 0 .... .- "0 ..<:: .- ~ ~ ~ OJ) o.~ .~ ~ >>'U5 ~ ~ g. ~ ~ 0 lZl u::: cd ~.-= c .... s:::: ::s 'C e '00 .S- ;> U \101 ~ C tJ.) ~ r..... tJ'j ~ OJ) ~ ~ .~ o::g ~ ~ o.a 8"0 .- <l) <: <l)"O s::: ~ 0 .... >> >>"0 0 0 .5~~~N~OJ)ou"'''<::''''<l) ....._~<l)._~~~s:::"'_~ "'....,.s::: ~s:::s:::.... ....o..=~~<l)>....>tlu>~o....~- (f) u 0._ 0 u bO ~ Q) .... 0'- i5 8 0 't:: (l);.a :r u as '"'a 0 w. :c: 8 ~ ~ cd "7 C ~ ''::: 's.5 ~ .~ eo.... ~ ~ p.::O "'0 ~ .S ~.j; 00 ~ ~ r./) o u ~ 0 ~ .- ~ ::s ~ i-< .s ~.... ~ .EN 13 ~o:::= .8 a ~ ~ bO ~"'O ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ s:::"O _ M ',=,> 0' '" 0.._ u ..... ~ - - s:::..<:: ~ ~ "" 0 ~.!._~xQ)o....~~~C(l.)(l.)=Cl:S~CcdQ)::S'-'-bO"'O"'O~oo <c tl "'" ~.... ~ ~ 0 c.''='> ~ ~ u 0 <l) s::: 0 ~ .... .- s::: .- .... <l) N (!) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-E .s c.2 8..9 8 ~;.a ~ '-5 a ~..g E.g ~"' 5 5:9 ~ := i: "O'O'? ~ ~ 0 B ti ~ <l) <l) 0.._ .... ~ ~ >> E'- <l) s::: O.D l5..::l s::: I ~ <l).... <l)<l)oo....=.s:::i;;]~gE"O~::l<l)Eo~;:;o,g]" c~~<:~~No.=~~"O....._u._<:~....~._E<:o...."'....M ^ tl <l) '0' .... ~ s::: .8 ~ "5 u .... U B us e: s::: I- 0 UJ . CI) (,) C 10 ~ ";' Q Q ~ -. C"l lY) ~ ~ "- >- en Q ~ !:!: a:: ~ - >- en Q ~ e ~ o :e - Q ~ ~ ~ UJ .,J ~ - ~ UJ ~ - .... ..s....Ci .9 "'OcS~ 'g ~ "0 0 S ;E 'ta fF s:: 00 p.. t) .~ g -6 ] 's ~~ ~ ro ~ ."" .a.- ,€ " .;::; '" 'E u .0 ~;.a 0 Cl) ..... <~8-s.s .... <2 "0 '" '" "0 bllos - '" ~ ta .~ .- bll gf e: ~'E .- "0 Po" . ~ '" bll"O '" 5b.g.s: "g .g s::C,)"Orou 0.E'S~.E B tI:l..o 0 CI;l i8.s28 >- en Q ~ ~ ~ UJ .,J ~ I- Jo ~ 1) 0.9 ~ ~ "g~-;~s~ ~ g. e3 .~.S s:: 00 C,).- 0 V} 'i> ;s ::E "";' () '" > Po" or: . ~.g ca e ~ ~ ..............~o~t) ~ ~'S: e- ~ os .~ ::s._ 0 ro J:: t. [] .s ~ 8 (l) ~ <l) _ . <l) :5 en ..c~,.cC,)O$l-:5 0 ....... ~ ~ ....... """ '00 @ ~ s:: ~ ..c u ::3 '.c ~ ~ ~,.c g 'C; ,.c 00 'E en._ $: ro ~ ;.... u e. Q)::$ ~ ~.- Cl) - .a ~ 13 ~ e -6 E " E E 0; .~] 0 '" 1-< 05 .... :Eo,S",o.......u.,g.",o ",gfos".l::.aOSo5"O"Ci" E'~ ~ ~ 6 .~ ~.~ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ 13 = u g g ~ f: ~ R E cd 0....... ~~ 0'':= ~ Oc; tI:l~ c:: ~ ~.,.... ...... V}.- ro :@ oJ:: U e. ro Q) 0 P. ~ Cl)::g:.= OOUl Q) l:: ;;S 05 ~ ..0 0 5 os g..<; .... '0"- a tI:l ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 6 s:: ~ ~~ ;'::]""'~Vlg.......C,).ss::C1J_ ~Q)roO']~-B8'"O;.a-5ca ~ ~ .E ~ 8 ~.~ 'S 8. g ..s ~ ~ ._ 0 u co lii.c of; g '" u .... "0 os <g.E(l)~t-~~e8<E~5 ro I- tfJ,J::: t;::: .::3 0"'0 c:: "'0 c:: '..c ~ 5' S E- .~] ~ -: ~ 2'~ 8 u -0; ;;s u .,- '" c.8 .a.... Po bll.E >. Cl)~C:(l)~~~ '"O~ct:l a:: ~ ~ ~ B 0 E"O.- 5'~ ~ .~ !5 _ <l)<~ fr03~~~ ~~ ,0.9 u UJ ~ ~..s ~ 1i .@ 8 8 E ~ u ;S .5 U) ~ o i:: q: ~ i:: i - ~ Ci5 - ~ ~ ll.. , , ~ :::i .... ~ (.) ~ 0 a:: ~ ::t 0) to 0) ;95 O)J!!s.::. ~~<~ Q, "0 . g. Cl;) E.g -t.s 0') ..... ij) Cl) ...... 0) 5 6tt ~ 't- ~.~ 8S a S g .~ .~ :z: ~gg~ <:( 0 u"O.o (.) gflii;9 a:: E'c o;S is ~.g11~ lU 't:]~:E (I) oro.......... ..c:: i> 2 6 lC'l II) ~ 'S: e: o "';' __ 0 o&t')~~E" C\j~Cl~~ .... ;:::::"01(1) ~~~.s '" ~ os E e:i ~ U} 0 r,JJ "0'- ~ <Z)"'= ~ e .g :A ~:g gb~ ll) co;S:-e \1) o5"5E5 E'- '" 0~:E ~ tb+-,-~ ~u~ . l1) ~ l=: ~ '~-B .g ll) ~ B gb 5'-0 0 '.0 '" 0 z'- ~ ~ ::;E "":' ;;S" ,'- ~ ",.0 !5 0 tll 01-1...... ..... r/J '~.so5~ .~ ..Q i> 5 ~ ..... 0..- +-' 0\ 6 ~.~ ~ ~ 'E 8 "0 :::l <l) "0 .... " " .... 1;i "0 ~ C :; 2]~ = ~ ~ os '" " ~ ~ 2 ~ 5 VI ~ Q) Q ~ ~ E i> a 8,~ 6 !5EESVl '.g"'g ~ ~ .E ~ lii ~ ~:-= ~ ~ 8.;g~..s Q) 8 ~ 00 .:::'S: 0 '" t) ~:~.~ cQ +-> "'C 00 = gj !5 's -<~u" . " .0 ,,- , U} Cd <l.) .9~~ tJ2~ -Sga:s O.l::~ "0-0 a. ~ Z "OO~ ~~~ U}e~ . " ~ ;.:: ;> ~ ~ 8.5 gftU.;9 ._ .0 .S: ]::;;; S ..s:=~o ~~.; E l~'~ ood ~~g.~ <s~2 . " ~] ~-:-;::::: ~]~ gf *.~ ~~B g..g8 -g~5 os Po.o ~2 ''c: os~ ::- e Cd ""2 ~ ~ ~ " '" " u " .l:: g'~ S "0 '" . 1:.' .S ..Q vi g.t)~ ~ "'.E .- ;:::I Ct:l ~;,::: "'E~ =< 8 '.p ~ . fr ~ "0 " lii.o OO'c; ~~ os '" gf.~ ~g,..:, g.'~ ~ .0"' E @" e g ~ ~ U E ll) ~ cQ 1$ '" ~ os os ~.:; 13 os .~ ~ ~~ Po'60 ..Q ~~:a . o '8 "0 " ~.~ os u ~ '" .c:: .~ .g ,-," >>1;i '@~ ~'s 00 o..oot) ~:E~ {/) ._ tll Q) .~ C,,) .0>:'= ~,-.o ta::..8. ~~- 23 8. [5 ~ l1) ~ .l::~'5' <Z) '" os . "0 <l) "0(1):-;::::: ~~ 5; ~]~ '" '" >< ,,~o .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 Po....'-' '-'0.0 ~ U}.~ ~ ~::s; clj "0."0 a5~ .- ...... ll) gst: l:: r+. S l/1~"'C 6 '''::: ll) .;. u u"O !::: (1) ~ ~ Q) 'E '; 8 ~ ~~R.g ~~..c~ . " .0 .... = 0 '" . .J::>> ~~ 00 c..i "0 t> t)8"O .c'! ] 8'"0:-;:::: v: e ~ t:,,~ .- ...... (;) "0 C':S.- ';;;'~~ ~~"'b .lt1;8 u>'-' .88-5 ~ .c'~ ~~"O 00" ~u ~ ~~~ . V) "0 ~ ] " .0 ,~ :n '" :::l ~ Po :::l 0 '" ~ ~~ E 8 o 2 .l::~ ",,-;: o '" u ~ g ~ '00 ~ e Po " 0 .... ~ "'0 ~~ Ci ~ ~,5 ~ .22~ ]~~ &5~e 0; ~ '" "0 os o .... . "O~ ".0 1; E' Po '-' '" .... ::l ::l '" 0 0.0 ..t5[) " Po " '" Po~ ~ '5 San os~ ~.8 . . ~ ~ ...... >- ~ Q !:!:! !:!:; 0:: ~ f-- >- ~ ffi 0:: f2 ~ ~ - Q ~ :t ~ Lu .,J ~ ffi ~ - >- ~ Q ~ :t ~ Lu ~ ~ '0 - ~ j:: ~ j::: :e - i:! CiS - ~ ~ Q , , i: ::i I- ~ (,) ~ 0 0:: ~ ~ a:: 0) 0: o 0: .s:E .~ .~ 00'-' 0) 0) ~;S P..~ e 8.~ 0) '" 0 .0 OS 0: ::::~clj (lj~~ ~.>l'" ~ &~ ~~~ 000:- 2.g <0 BS0:5 .~ ~ 6 CI :> !: LU Co? . 0> 0> 0> ..... , a:> 0> 0> Q :2: <:( a:: LU Co? l() <::> <::> C'\I 001:::1 .S 0 'R ~ O)..c: . _Y:JB; " ~.;;; ~~.s "'0:::: eo 0) os 0: ] ~.~ '" '" 0) 0:':<:- ..... u ...... ]g&i -.... !: ] ~.e- 00 ~ g. ~ '';:: (1) 0)0)00 ..c:..c:o: '" - os ~5~ _ .0 ~ ~ E rE'g_ :$,\::" . '" -- .~ ~o'~ E~ ;:1""" '''::: 0 Il.) ~ ~ 00.0 3 (1)~;g ~o ~~ ::::;g=:s-..g~.b aJo ~ 8 ~ ~ .e .~ 6.~ E ~ u:. ~ Il.) .~ B .~ u 5 .~ ;:1 .~ ~;:e s.~ !:] ~ P $' .;> s .~ '';:;; "0 Q) "'0.... . tI:l ':::00>0(1)0,)"3'--';:: g 5 ~ E ~ -= 0 ~ 13.9 eo tf.l ;:1 VI ''::: I:U ~.9 !:: ~ ~] ~ g 5.s.~:a~.'E (lj .~ ] ~ "0 ~ .B --g ~ ~ 5b 0: os..s ~ ~ .i; ..c: .~ ~ ]]"5."'0 ~ as ~ gfto-;"'O ~~!:Sg.~S2~8 o "'0 I.t') ~ ::s .s ..... -5 0 ::s '':::~~.r:. V,l Cljt) tI:l'';:::~ ~ &i 00 00 ] .S .5 "'.!:! .... ;:j ~p.~~::::"EVJ"5s:98 &j ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~.E 8 ~ . "-<- - ~ ':~.g ~2~2B J:: ~ Clj:9 'tj; 5 P.. 5 .~ oS ... Q) ',;:: ...... 1S.oo&i~ ~]~~~ tI:l l/':I 0 P-,.n .5 ~ u 0 00 ~ ~ ~:;~ ::::.E ~ ~ l:: ro "0 '00' 7 B ~ ,$: ~ @ ~ ~ ~.;;; ~!: (lj IV "0 tf.l 0 ~'E ~.~ tt= "O.s~'~..o .S ~""2] S ~ ~.~ 8 u . 00'" a~ oB'~ ~] to2 g] 'J:: '" ~.c ~ :~ ~ g B 0: _ 0 .~.~ ~ E ~ CI:l tI:l._ ~ 5 ~ .... 0 0: "' .... 0 ].s 6' <-0", . .... "' .E' .s .~ 00 8 u d) 0.0 "0 ~...." '_='0 0) :::: .0: 0: ;a <= "':> ~ ~ ~ : a '5 E";.s Of) S~'E ~ ~"O] g.~.~ "O~"'o~I-o?C'dI-o05 ~~!:\'5E~5.s:2'O Is 5 ~ S 8 ~ g :E .~ ~ ~ ~ Q)"O 5 ~ Po'r;;; ~ cd ~ .........!:: u cd t/.) s:: ~ ::s at)~~"'OEbo~O"" ~ 's ~ 8 8.t: .g, ~:;(L) 'a ~~~~i:se~;EOL) a~~.g2~e.oo:.6 8 ... Q) -5 fa.9 ~ ::; f a 8 E ~ .~ 'r).~ . ~ "'0 ~ . s:: 5 ~ Q) s:: E S ~ g ; g .2~~ g.8 ~.-=.8-E E'.p ~ ~ 1d ro "'0 t: u ~ 0'- U '" @ 0::'= 0: ;S .E .~ .0 .!:! .E .~ p...~ go 0 " '" 1: 'Eb go '" "'0 "'0 t/.) ~ ~::::= t: 0..... !=; s:: <~~8~8.88~88 . ~ ~ "- >- lXl fa it it ~ - <= .0 ~ '-'. ~ [) ~ 2:l ~'" ~ 5~""" O"O'.c \3.E:; '~8~2'2 ..;::" b 8. ~ OJ U>oo8-a '-' ~ 8 0.. 2 ~~f::..58 >I..l f- >I..l ..J ~ ::E o U , . BBS "'C.5 ~ '-'~J::: ]~t) '" '" '-' .5 '?='~ '-' a; 0.. ~ <! ~ 0;0..0 ,.c: ,"0 '" '" '-' - ~ '" Cl) '" c;[;~ ,,-"-' bO ~ os '00 5 b (,).- ....... o.:::ip! ~tt-i"E g~El ~a~ "'OJ 2 '" .5 d) ~ "E ~.S g e 2 Up..", . 0) 1:)",;>" ~8 O).~ 's.s ~ ':g en ~ .5 0) <C a.~ ~ ~ g d) ~ ~... . e '~.B ~ v5 G 'e'E "E ~ $ ~'o'oi]~~3E~BJ ~ ~ 'Ei ~] ~:; ~ g.'~ ~ 5 .~ .g :E ~ ~ a (,) ~ ~ 0'\ ..... .;!l ,-;:: .;:: c Z _ ~ Cl) os ~ ...... E.E ~ ..... (l) - ....... "'C] c: ctI(1)_tnca..o~....st)roro _ a a..... "3 t:: 50 ~ ro ~ .(1) ~ Q::; ~ ;z: 's, e ~ S .::: ~ E: ~ ~ ~ ~ VJ Cb ;.;.~ Q) Cl:S...c "0''''' p.. Q) N ~ <:C o:.s ~ ~ ~ :!. ~ So ~ ~ ~ Cl.. c:: "'0 '"0....... ~ ~ 0 'V;..c (1)..... 0::: '- c:.s-=~"E g-c Cl:S:s2 (1) III os OS.~ ~ Cl) .... os I:: ::>,.c: ~ e'g Cl) ] ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ';; c: '""' CI'J ;..... C'd ;.......... en""" .- ctl6~~lUg~~:BCs .t: (f.l t I: .- 0""'" ~ = ..... (.) ~ ....... ....... ~ lLl 'S: (1) 0"'0 ~ l{') ~ a.5 0 -5 ~ ..0 ....... = c: o <'?"ii:3:9.5.2 p..::a ~ ": 'E C ll"!:::l"g g g:E] g g.= ~ C\J "l' 0' 0.. '" os ~ os ~ .!:i -:- '-' >- lXl fa g SE ~ I-- bO " .1: Cl) Cl) " .50 ~ g '" .~ b'~ 06 Cl ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ "-' o Cl) '" " El 0.. Cl) '" '" os 0; " 0.::: B .... o '1: ~ '5 Cl) ~ ;S Cl) .E:; ~ "O~ 8 \3 0..2 E g. -03 os > &8 - >- lXl Cl ~ ~ ~ ILl ..... Q. ~ I-- 00 " .1: Cl) Cl) " .50 " . ~ 8 '" .~ . '" >, .~ ~ > 06 ~ j::: ~ j::: :s - ~ B ~ ~ ro rs] .~ ..2 5 ~ '5 (1) ~ t) "0 .~~ ~ ~ -B 's,~ '""' """'.... c: I- ro ~B~g:;~"E :9 E >",'~.go:S ~ g 2 R~"= >,'B ~ 0 '.5 8 .s ~ .@l ...c c.l:: OJ (,) iU IU 00 :E1S]~@5:S ~g~'oltl2~ lZl"'C>.b0:5~O 8 :::.E:; "0 .a; S"50 .~ ~ g ~ iG'- ~ '5 "'0 '.t=.g 5 JS ~ ~g.g~~~~ " '" Cl) ] 2,.c: ::: ~~~~bO:B~ := u...c "'C ,s:: 0 ;.... 0 0:: 0 0.::: 00 ~ ~ So 5l .<;; _ p..,'2 g Q) 0 l:: en lJ.J .;: ~ 1- ~ ~ .~ 8.'s <C .;;; o:S J:: ~ "0 CI:l Q) I./) ..... <>:l ~ l!:~ ii)..... , , - ~lJ.J :JI./) ....:3 ~o ~Q; _<:c " B~ (1)-,1- V).Cl ~6Cg. E .s ~ ~.~ $: '"0 E" ,.c: os.~ ~ " Cl) l:: ~ E 2 Cl) g >-ca~~oo~v:o.. 8 ~.9 CO :E as d =: E" ~ t) ~ ~ 'S 0 ~ .~,.c: Cl) 0 .... ~ " ~..c ~ c; == o..c.,..... 0 ~ .~ E "0 ~ g ~ '0 "0 ~.s ~ '" 0 OS " ~ c;O~N"O": 2]8g.~@tlO ~ G''::: ~~ ~~z 5:;:g~~S]~ ]~<~P-.ss~ ..: ~ -d 5 ~ 8 ~~ ~ .~:€ ~ 5 ] ~ S 8.:E e~E~G~,;,~e: P-iUr.f.l1-........:!2Q)$:O QJ ...... ~ 0.. ::3 ::l ...... ::3 :>-. ~ 3J 8 .S ~ 8 .s 8..g ~::E <= ~ -O.E:; ~ClEoo.:'2 ~ f- Cl) '" ::> '" LiJ~S~~:i r.I) ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '5 ~ oS ~ ~ o g- '" e:.S OS N """..... j;; Q.) ~..c5~~g ...... .~ .~ -6 ~ 2s:et<?:::0.::: o ......... l./") ...... <l:: .-<;:::..f:= So ~ ~ E .~ 'V; ~ 'S.~ e l:: .5 ("t')1-..c::s0c.,..... ~p.:::~.~o ;:s \0 ca Q.) bl)'- -, '" 0 .,s ::E ."" ~ i>' g'3o Q) ..... (1) 0 ""N~,,2-- ~Q.)OOr.f.lca~ ".,sZ."";cooo .0 . gb r-c ...... c ~B ~:-E . ~~ ..c >, 5il::E ~ 000.::: ~8:2,,-,tiJ:~~ e-~~Or.l)j::;...... 2 OS '" Cl) 5il.~ ,.c: 8u~ o...~ 0 ::E2~ CI ~ 0.. E-~~ 1;1 fl"O . .a]~~ (1) """.-'~ ~ ~.E ~ $: r B ~ ..c .~ U d" .-. p..OCl:ls:::~u..cQ.)OC 2 0 S' 0 .(3 :E f- .0' e<: " e_~~~~.....:o..~~ ~0~8~iS8~~ >,;:J 8 OS l'3.S vi fl "0 ] ~ ~ of t) .s t) j .... tl OS B ~ ] .~.; ~ '"0 ~ ~ 6 rJ::clj~'"OE25_"'OZ "'0 '0 '"0 ~ Q).5 0 S S c.,..... 5 a E ~ ~c; ~ .9 0 0 2 0"0 g clj..::: u '5 Q) ~ ~:E ;2Bl:::9~..9og~"O~ ~ ~ g 5.5 cu ~"2 ~ [) ~ ~r.f.lC)~;::s:;~t+:e:-:>-. o 5] ~ ~.~ ~~$]~ U ::l Q) 0 ::3 1- .~::;~~~gu~o~ ~Q)..cQ)Q)O(1)~oo..tI:l ;:J..o '" 2 Cl) "':;;! ::> .<;; G'"O Q.) ~ 5".~ ~ .z >- ~ .~ -- 5 "<:,.c: os,.c: ~.<: 2 ~ 2.~ 0 ~oo;....r-......~p..~Q.)r.f.lp. . <= .E;--< Cl) .,s "-' ". 0 .;;;:~.~ t .~ '" 2 os ~ ~ clj ~ .::: ',=", So clj ]88"0 CI:l p.~ ~ ....; CI:l Q.) 0 u .E .,s ~ g..s --<'of-aa ,,; ] 8 Clj '00 g,o:~ .E CI ]g,o ~;o .€'5 Uo:l "0 8 ~ v5 0:: 8 ~p. .~ .~ ~;g .E.E ;:>.. - Q.. f; - - ...... ..... IJl IJl ;::: .Sl ..... '" .~ .~ .E .... lI) ;> lI) i?; 0 ..::: 0\' 0\ '<t \0 =l:t: ;::: .9 r- ..... ~ a IJl lI) ~ ;>., ,.0 0\ 0\ 0\ - N - ;>., '" ~ ;::: 0 .- ...... u ;::: 6 u ;>., ,.0 '"0 lI) ..... Q.. 0 '"0 '" IJl ;::: .Sl ..... '" .... lI) ~ IJl ;::: 0 u bI) .S '"0 .S lI) ;> 0 """ 0 ~ 8 lI) ~ ..... r./'l .: 5l 8 0.. '" t) .S:'., 2 ~ Cl) "-' '" ~.s o~ ~ . >,::> .~ So 8 os 0 ..0 .~ ..c 0"0 0.. '"O~sg[)- ~"O ON o.~ ~~~5];i Q.).S a :>-.:::s :< ~ 0.;;: ~ 8.0 ~]oBSC '.E~~8Co ~:;~~ ~ ~ '2~2:::;,;:: ~.~ .~ ~ ~ & CI:l8'dos=OO 6 i3 0.. E "'.S] ~ ~ 2 ~ ~.~ 25 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ce'o ]~SEu-..~ tI} 00..... (1)0"0 ~ ~ ~ .~ .s.... 0 tl o:l~~~ o..~ 0.. . ~ ~ "- >- Ql fij it a:: ~ I-- >- Ql Q ~ e ~ o :&: - Q ~ :2: ~ LIJ .,J ~ ~ ~ - >- Ql Q ~ :2: ~ LIJ .,J ~ - I-- ~ i:: ~ a:: i:: - :is LIJ I-- CI) Ol Ol Ol .... , 00 Ol Ol .... ~ a <: ii3 "l:: - ~ a:: - ~ LIJ a.. CI) I- , , I.C') (,) ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ <: C\j 006.0 '" - .-;;: bJ)'-~~~ '" '" .- 00 '" '13 ~.s.5 g vi (1) "0 "% cu 4) ~.9!::6;':3 .~ 6 ~ ~ S' ~ ~'::;;.5:::: 0 g .0';;: "0 E ~ '" U is ~ g,JJ .s - - '" '" '" .0 p., l'i ~ 0 o '.:= .0 u g,"E o '" ~ 8 , ~.5 g .~ ~ ~ t::=o'~ 'S: o d.) 0 r.I;l '.0 o g.:=.5 ] ~ tf.l Q3 cd "0 cd +-' 5(;~~8E ~"C~o'.pE t)~g~~g. '" '" .l:l'- "'- .~ g 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ tf.l u.... 0.."0 B g~ "0 '" ~ S' .8..... ~ .~ '5 8 8'6 .... '.0 '" u .oE ~ tf.l .0"'- ~ 8 t ~E:: tf.l 4) ~ (':j +t ('.) E~S 00.0 51 ~ CI.l..... .~ ~ 6 o ~ ro ::::: 'S';:: c.9 ~ ~ '" Po '" ~.s'; "0 '" 00"" 'E ~ := '" ellS ~:E u := [~ E$:I - '" 5:~ '0 ~ :2: '0 c: '" o . ~.gcd :;:'1': '" .::: do) ~ U)Po_ t:: 5 ~ 8'fj'e ....E~ <b~.s ~ 8.5 00 'E ~ -5 1j B ~ \'3 g, ''''0- .... 0 B <Sa:> ~ .... - 6 ~ 8 ~ ~ ',c "0 ...... t: 'S U r...., ~~ ~E ~ :'28~~~ ~ U';;: 8 Po bOU] ..c:_o~rJ;oo ..5 8 '" - ;>, cdcd~ O~tl:IO ~~cg$-.';:e~:;; '" '" e;.<E B 0 '" '" ~ u '" ",'E :;: '" b .E Po..15 ;.:.~ ~ 00 .~ bl} S'> 0 0 0 ~ 0.5 "".0.0 Z ~ "E Z'gsg::;.",p.,Bvi 0,- <;:< 00.0 .00 '" ;>, ~ .5 .~ .5 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ",CI.:lu!::Q) o~ "2 .~ 1J 'E g o;S B ~ a ..c:.-;:: +-> ~ a:>.::E ~ $:: U .::: S "0 .- .0 -< 0 0 CI) tl 0 '" 5-"0 0 ~ C::(':j~cdo.2:!80ci~ ~s~863OO.90 u .- '" '" .- Po '" 0 2t)o~u',:::;:;;oo t;.5~~E:-5<.9 5 ~.5'; ~ s.- 8 ~ () 8 ~s 8,g~0\-< . fl::'" t;.j~ ""~ '" "">- g~ ""- '" l:: "5~ ~~ 0.::;..,: - l::: ~ ~ "'" ~ l:::~ ;:, '" ~ .S ~<:; ~ .~ .9 ~ - '" t= B . .!1P '" e:: .~ t;.; kl ~~"" Q) oJ: tl 'ri .D.~ ~ .... Q3 ~ ~.b ;:::..cn.>g>o E B "':;: 8 Po~ '" o.C':S ~rJ;~S~<O '5 5- '" "i: b S''O '0 '" 0""'E~8"06",g ~'gBa:=g",S.a ::;: '" "'._ S 00 = "'.~ .........D..... ::3 ..... ~ cd E "0 (!) .- ;::: g ~ 0 s:: ._ ~ g]<c:~~~~~ <tl"'..o~><::JsS"O ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -@ .~ .~ 1'] g ~.;: ~ '(6 1) "E ~ ~:.e e..:= a3 ~ '50'; 'So ~ 11 g ~ E "'tJ1s.EE~8u~5 1ij"'116~"Oll:9.o Y>~ ~'':=.'''''' 8.~ 5 ~ '" '" "0 '" ~ Ol) '" .0 <: Cllo"':= O""'co a:: "0 8 'E 1l .;: .0 $:I "0 ~~E8.g~'~B~ . 1;i 6 ~ ..... ..... uo '" '" ~ E 8~ "Ol;::: ~ 0 ~1l o E p.,B U) '" ~~ '- '" :9.0 .c: '" e"i: a.. ll.) o,g, c: .- %5- _ '" '" :n ~'oo tb.,8 8- .s g CI.l 3;1.l:l'" .~ ~ ~ c538~ -g .s 1l (1)"E~u; ~ t g 8 ~ 5 ~ E ~ ~.n:2 s.~ ~ ~ ... 8~ ;>, aic"i:~ E '" g '" Q.6"'''' ':5 '.0 .8- S .z~ g~ . . 00 - "'- . ~ !::........ ~ tl~lS gf", ,g~.~ '" "0 "0 ~ '" 'f .=: fr 0 '" S E "3 .... .s ~ & ~ ~ .2 ....tdO IZi]QJt:;(j)CI.l......~t) P.51:;:'""',.."''''....~'''....E <'en $2 g ~ .'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 I.... Q.) - ....... .~ ? t:: u...s::: cd c: $:: .E""O!20~~~ClJEE:.a8 ~ ~ -6 ~ ~ E '"0 '-'"'8 QJ ~ 5 ~ :.o;:::~B.2 g.~-E~:E"8 g.s a ~.5 gf g ~ ~ ~ .B ~ ~ 8 ~ o ;... "'8 .- .t:: ~ .... 0.. lU 0 QJ !:: ~ () ~ g 11 ~ "0 BS b ~ o;S .2 ~ Q)'S: CJ 8. 0 E ~ 8 ~ ~ ...... l-o 0 g b ll) ~ ~ '(i; ~ ~ t+-j ~ ~ ~ 5 <tl P. g .... '" - .... '" S t: .- .- ..Q :::l rd .... 0 Q.) 8'0 ~ 5 8 '"0 ~ 5 V}~t.8~ ~ CJ S::~''::: o~ 5 1i)8.aQ.)CI.l.J::QJ]..oS-~o a'-B~;e.5': ~e: ~Erg org ~ ~~c.8..po~E"E[)~ .~ ~ .~ O@-Q.) 5 ~ gj.2 ~t: {! 0 os::og.~s::~~op. ~p. <: 8 ? ~ 8 .g;a ~ B.5 ~ g lS . ~ ~ ...... >- III Cl !:!:! ~ It ~ Cl ~ ~ ~ -.I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j:: ~ j:: !i UJCl t::~ ~<;( UJO:: CI)_ ~UJ QCI) I- : OUJLO ~~O ::EOO -~C\j ..... o 8~ <= .- g E '" " .~ p.. o OIl - <= $-.;.0 0- ~] o U '1:l @ l:; <= ]~ r>.. E 0.8 u< '" " . ~~ .8~ 6U '" - <= " u 0'<= " Po. -;; 'S C/.)._ ~ g~ (1) ''='"let: <5 e ~ I- r>..'1:l<.8 "'..... <:::> 0 ~ 5 ti ._ .ClJ ~ ~ ~ - g Q... - \0 ~ " 8 ~-BN ..... " _ 0 .<= , - ~ ~ I-. ~ ~ c.8 ~ ..Q ...rJ:J .... U ~ i:l .~ o(l '" '1:l U ~ gf U ~ :~ 5 .g g '8 '" ... e- ~ ~.eo ~[;l.5 0:: UJ CI) Ol Ol Ol E ti .E ~ .~..c ~ ~.~ ~ s g ~ 0 .~ ;; ~ {/) ~ E lr) .D 'S 0 c .a I- U ~ .~ r>.. '8 ~'1:l.5g - ., ~ ~~....l <l:; E 15 ~ "7'-~u ~ 0 : -< _g"EE9 ~ C'J ro .~ a g.:2 ~ ,.g g " ~o-:5 00 Ol Ol '" ~ ~ E' 0 .- .~ <= <t: ., " a .s <= t;; 813 ., '1:l - .~ ~ g ~ .5 .~ B 00 .c.. ._ on .~ "5 g '" ~ N :E <t: " f-< 0' ..s ~ <= " U 0 ~ ~ '5 o't:l ::l Z <= g ::l ... ~ ~ ...... >- !Xl Q LU it it ~ f-- >- !Xl Q ~ e SiE o == - Q ~ ~ ~ ..,J ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- >- !Xl Q ~ ~ ~ LU ~ - ~ j:: ~ j:: i f--l:!:! Ci3 t:: '"0 0 c: 'Ci} " .- <...: <...: '- I- > '" '" '" '" .- :.a :.a :.a t::0 U U U &i bO _ t:: '" '" '" "'"' .- ." U ." '"0 ;:g a:;:: '0 '0 ._ ::l "'"' "'"' "'"' Uo:l I- ~ <8 - en 'c '- - '- '" bO ..s 0 '" 0 en t:: E '" en " .~ ~ ~ " E..c: " "..c: "",", e~ ut;:: ~~ t;:: ~ Ci '"0 .- ._ t:: '€ s . 0; E 13 0 .~ ;, ti >> '" >>[; I- '" U U U u ~ u u :;: a Po ..s &i ..s a B o~.9 u bO E t:: g. Po'" ~ Po '" :.a;; l- I- ::l U a fJ ~ 0 u 0 8S u;,:: 'C u 'C 'C u '- -<.5 "'"' 0 "'"' 0 0 ",",00 I- o en S ~ ~ u '" '."., ~ '0 O)a~ @O)O'\ <+--~:;;; ~~ a t:: ;> ;.a ad:: t:: 0) ~ .,Et::CI) O)~~ -:500'\ "''0...... 0) t:: 0) .= clj....c: &a~ 1:::B .;: S ~ 5 '';:: 0.. 8 .;,~ ~ '~a~ O)~;;~ E5 ~.~ w >> "00 ,n0\ ~ " 0\ en c::t::......tU..=:...... o ~ tU g.~ u ....~-B tU~ g. :;: o..s.= ~ a Q. ~ ::l t:: ,- ""ggpgo~ oS ~.,..... ~:€ ~ ~ t;~]B~~ t- Ql '" U '"0 Po '", ..... a:: '0' ,E g E - bJl ~ ... ,n ~ '" ~ '1j; '-' - a. E 53 e.8 b f::LU-g8aEt::,.2 ~ C/) s:: '" go ,5 .g ';' LU '- ..c: - '" .- en 0) .Qr-o~.o~~ o E C/) '" '"0 Po';; :SO) oQ)"'O"3I1."l_ a:: 0) o.!:s 8~ ~ ~.....<')C:'"Ot::oen v; I b Q) c: ro p.. ~ ....00:> s::CI)"E:o;fr O:J ftSQ)=t1)S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~:.e :; ~ Q....... ~rffJ::g ~ ::: LU C/) ~ Q.. 15 en 5 Po en ~ U '" "5' I- "'"' O)t; .~ t!5 l3~ oj""" <;:.:; t:: o 0 """ '" 1:: t:: Q) .9 81;; 0..0 '3 '8 0";:; ~ ~ . _0'0 ~ t) B "-' 0) 0 o J:; .E @'O~ .~ a 8 == Q,) 1-. oj 0 0) ~ ~ ~ ...... 0..",," .1:: ~.s ~I:: l,) ~ [~ .50 es ClI ... C/)!Xl I:: I:: OCll ;:;(1) ClI'" .~ 0 I::Ql ~Q. E.!2 E C/) 8 E o~ ._ C/) ~ClI ClI Ql O::Ql ,-S "':1:: ....0 I- o en S Po rr., ~ u .~ e "'"' 'O~g .s.s&su'O ~ 13 ::: :~ .s ~ '"O<;::e.::62Po .~ 'E t;j a Q3 ~ &:E ~ gf~ ~ ec:O\;.oO\~ tUClS""-4~:::::,-O ..n':S]c.8_"O "'O--"O~c: '"a g "'0 ~..o ~ O'S a'; "'0 c: ~ a'<t O"~.s g=~~s.~ '.g::~~ cr 8.~ .~~~~G[)~ .- _ ~ ::3 U ~ E",,,15""lECoj 0; gj ~ '5, ~ 0 ~ sf ",t::~0\ '.o~6~~~:::- ;.oCU'~ ~':;5~ "'0 ~ 0.0 . t'I:S '- '0 " l: 'J: e:: fr ~ '- o Il)''''''' ~ CI) rLI"=: ;z f- ::8 Coj ,,'1j; ~ E: 0 '" 'J; ..:: , '" b 'J: t ..; s ~ '- g.~e~ cuu5So ~ (1) ~ c: ~:; c; E 'v; ~[)~a~'asEg.~ ;:; ~ t U) .s ~ Co) E"i) .s J2 .> .5 ~ g".,8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ::s ~ >. 0 1-<'- ~ Co) "'0 (l.) E "3 ~ C/"J:9 ~ ....... .5 = :; ::s a '" '" ::l Po~'" - ::l o I-~..c: 0 .., '-..c: '"O..c: . ::10.0..-uut=.......~..-< EU'"OO :'=:$....f"--O' t; - .......] 0 ~ _ "'(1) ~ e'+=61l)~P..Cd-- ~ !:: ~.~ +-> t; ~ ~ ~ ~ u t; ~ 0 t ~ 5 ~ '2 ~ t> b C'a ~....... U'.:I E ,_ ...t:: OJ) ~ '"0 00 Q., ::3 0 I-< -e.-=: (l.)'oo 'CZ (l.) Err.,N<B":g>,,,G's~ .......,~VJfrcd~~~Ue- Ql ~ ~~0"l'3:s! 5".., s.. ~ e Q) U ~\O P.6r-~ (1) a.o Q"o:S1:;;.= B'"@ ~~ 0-= O>'1-0~!::VJO$:1-< (OG:i~~~v).gt) ~:9~ ~ ~ ~ E ~"2 ~ ~.g g ~ 'Ii Q E is'u "iO ~ ,5.5 ~ ~ ~ S 0- en ~ U .~ e "'"' o N ~ e I ,~~ ~ ~ I (l.)] ~ ~ ,- - 0 ::3 ';;: t;; S: g. ..o.~ (l.) cd "'0 'g. p. ?5 0 .- ~ l:: Q) "'0 ~ -0 -: ~ ~ ~ 1-<.., ~.~ .5 .g ~"3 fa b. ~ >."O~8.8B'"O (1).e]:-9 >.2 gBlUO.......Cd;;VJ=cn~"'i:::E ~~~N~E~~~~~~~ .~ a 0.$ [~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 9~~.2~ E ~~..c=~_~~ ~2t;;o~~g.~:.ag~~...o... .......,S ~ ~(l.) ~"i)..c ~U) Il);:;: Q) ~ g CI'l .- ,- "'0 l-< > .........- . 8 ~ ~ E .S ~ ~ ::; u "'0 ..g ~ 8 6 ,Cd [) ~ 0- b. ........ t l2 .~ ~ - 5 OJ)''::: ~ 0. t .2 ..- 05 ~] e ~'5 E .~ g cd -g v: ~ .B '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 g. Q) :a "2 cd ~ ..g "'=aE:.8::aa:;l-u-:;;~",,,, 3 E 'u- 0 ::l .0 E 5> &i.;;; g:u E .s tI:lcn tt=c.;:...t:o"'O..cca.-.E~o (: '00 IV Il) 4-.l 2 u >. +-' J:: >. (l.) (1) --:=: Il) t::..c= ..... 0 ;< ~.- t> I-< ':;:: > (1) '::: B 8 :::: ~ ~ (l.) '; '6 ..c ~ .B ~ '00 B 5 ~ e ~.~.g E ~ ~ 2 = ].g Ea a E cn~ ~ > 2 ~ 50 OC':S(l.)~(l.) iU=I-<U~- Q) .E E E ~ -5 8 ~ e ~ '0. 8 8 a3 .5 ~ LU CI) co Cl) Cl) ~ '" l- e.. o'"@c.S e ~ ~ ,~ o.'u S s:: .li:_' a. '5 at::'" [;.-.~ c:r ~.a E'~ ~ ~ ~ ~.5 15 ::l a e ,-€l - ::: ~ gfa~ 8 Po~'2' ~~~ s~-g~~ ~ ~.s>'(l.)~cd::3r-~ a::$j ~t.E E'"@ goo ~ it') C/"J ~..c g.'.g --g ~ 5 ch~~.t:O)~~E~ ~ u ~ ~ ~'oo = cd ~ ....,.:;; SS! tl'"O eo eL~ l,) ... 1;) .., 0; >>.E '" .~ ~ Q) tV 'S.o =-== ......:0 ~ CI) ...... I-< I-< E 0 ro ._ ..5 I:: g.="'E<.':l;'o ~ ...oO"'coa' ,,>> as;:;IV..::: ''::::Eu~ ~u-g~8"3+-,~~ Q)~b:-s~E~o~ E 0 t:: ~ '" '" a t:: Po oS:! (,).52 ~.:: ~ g. ,g ~ 2: E '~ :-:: 0; Po a:; g:; . ::sf!oE"'Ou>;:=otl CI) 01 a <.':l fa.~.g 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1; ~ ~ ~ ...... >- en Q !!::! !:f a: ~ >- en ~ 0';) ....:.8 S2u o ~ :EiI: Q ~ - ~'o1;l ~2,g .... ~ ~ ~ S.8 . IIl:!o is ~ t :5uu~ :C:.8~.8 LIJ"",g-o.> ;t .g 8 ~ :!:p.,Oo >- en Q ~ 8 ~ g ~~ LlJ~ ..,J as ~l !ii "0 ,- Il) 05]Sti _"cd~~ "a t) ~ 'e ~ ~ ~ ,OJ .- ~ ~ 1:: @ 8'~I.O~~ ::;S~S:581l) 1.0 '" N ;:l .... .~:5 i'3 Il) @t;:: ~N8;S2,~ 8.,gSE~':: .~ .OoJ'.p ~ ::s 0 0'2 ~o..~ $::""; ~ Cd .~ Q.. OJ.9 Q .... ;:l ';::I ~::;s:::: 0 ~-=~ "0 ~ !ii ~.,g~ S"g'~ o (/)~"""N'~Il)U5 j:: ;S Il) 1;; 00 !:lIl..c: E ::s eo..c 0\ '.p -; Q ~ r55 5:; ~ ~ .~ .,g l"" Il) ~ s::..c: Il) ;:l'- r- VJ::s...... c::rU':l i ES Z <E .5 ES ~ 8 0) OIl ~ 1:: o ~ OIl ,:: S ~ u5 0) u - 'I: E 0) o r;Il <l:< 0) '" ... ~ ~ "lt~~ ~~g2. -~;5.E N 00 0- a: LlJ , '> J, is ';: OIl'S .~ < ;;p., ~~ :c r:i' ~ ..... 0 el$ U 'u; .l:: :::i 0) '" ~ .<:: p., '"" o ,:: ,S 1) ]- o U ~ '" 5 ~ ~ o ,~ 8 p., '" " .<:: 0 so.. '~.E ] ~<o& ~"'", '" ~ ;; ;;~.c ~ ~ 3 ,,0.0 p.,"'U ~ 5 Q) ;: g.~ 5ll.>.8 E -5 0) t+->e.S fr.g .5 01515 €"815 SE~ UE..o 0) 0 ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~I 6tU~ 8.156~e ,pE03 \01n 5 0 p..~ ~'.P ~ '<:t 0 ~ '" 0) 0.- 0) ~ .Q~ 5-5 g,,15-5 0. 01) Op.4-I 00"0...... Q) ~a)c2.:o!:cr.J~-:5 EU Ur.ll8.~~~ 'R ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 ~ d 8 o r.Il ~ e a ...... s.. ~"'O 0. a5 r./) ~~ ~.~ 5 E g.o.O)..o..o~ 0.,,'-. 00$,.......=0...050'" E ~.8 . ~ 5 ~ ~ Q)'~ Cli Q) +-> ~ .- 0. A @: t 6b'~ li3 ~ -g 00 .5 0 00 ij) 'VJ ~ to) ~ ;:) Cli S ~ .~ .e- .9 ~.s~€~ ~~~ E~ ~ So <0 : 5 ~ 5 ~ ~ g..~ ~ ,- ~ ,- U ~ U ::> OIl ~ ~ .g ~ 8 "0 ~ Q) ~ -::.5 0 0:: _UCli!:(l)~;.:a1~- "'= 0 '" ~ '" '" 0 i:Ci .'" 50 ~ ~ 'S fri c ~ .8 ~ ~ ~ +-> .~ ~ p.Cg.Ci5~'~~ (l)~ e ,,0.>- cQ)......vOS p.. 0...'= ..0 ~.,g '@5oas..o,"".,g.,g r-. (,) +-> ..... Cl:S '-' r-. 0 +-> +-> .- . .2: ,~ i- o ,E gfE5 ';:< 8 ;;p.,,,, -u':: :; :r: "'.. ~ w. 6 .c'::~ ..... 0 Cl:S U 'u; .l:: '" 0) "5 5 ]- OIl ,:: '0) o:l '" ,:: p., ~ U.c :r: .- U ...:' ~~ 8.~ '" '" , u:s € .~ E '" ~<8 ,:: ~ r;Il B '" '" 0) o o " '~ ... ..<:: '" 0) '" ';:: 8 0. ~ u 0) .~ . ... ,:: 0. '@ ~~ o 0 s~ ag 0) 2 ~o:l .I:i 0) 'is. E o U '" ~ ",.0 ] S ... 0 ~u ,:: 0,) 8.-B '" 0 ~ ~ o 0) 0) C '~'S: ~~ .<:: '" ~ '" ~"' g ~ 6 ~ ('Ii 8: ~ ~ =.~ [ '0 ~ 0 .~ "0 +-> o 0 ~ a..... ;: ,:: '" " o e E 5~& .~ 0) "O"'.~ .s 5 j~g~ <-o.....:~a "Q) 8 g".c C,,)..c t/)._ a U c C Q..r.IJ 0,) E ~cg.E ~~e8 r- 11) (J,) ro <n E ~ '" .........~ ooro EW~"O . E~EEC g.iJ a;;ii: : EE .~ e: ] "'~ "0 ~ 0,) ~ 0 c ~ [5 'S; v; 23 ~ 0 02 ~ ..0 0 .'" ",,,,gj.c.c G~~gu ~]~8.B ~s~ ~ \0 ~ ;.::~O\= j::-~- ..... "' C\ ""0 ]~:: ~ ~ 0.. l- Q) ......: ~ 8~ 0- . ~ uEa-"'J!1~ ::"2,E 1;l g ~ .-;::' fr 'E,g S' 0 u r;Il 0 p.,._ U 0) ..0 '" :; ~ ... 0) '5 o ,; ~ ~ ~a ",> ]1;- 0..0 ~ " ~ 5 0)"'" 8 .5 "'..<:: ~.~ 81$ o~ N~ ...::..9 b.. o i ~ 5 ~~.g 00 1-...... 0) '" ::> ~ cE 0 ~ ro",] c ... w ..... QJ h a ~ g 'is.u'g - ,:: ,- ~ ,So$ E ~ 0 p.~~ o ....<:: "Q) as,;:: ;> 0::: '" 8.g~ ~._ ro C'i:1~ 0.. ..0:;:;.0 '" :r: ,- , c r.;.... c ~ 0) 0 ~::>._ r-..... .-=: oC ;,::::: ~ E 8 ~ '"-I ,.... '"-I ..J p., ~ o U E C..... roS'"3 0,::'" ] E ~ ~ ..... QJ Q) ~~~] C':S 0,)'- p.~ ~ :€ ~SE:] ,:: ::c c g 8~~~ ~~~~ Et)~"i) o.~E>';:; ~ 5 g. ti > c.8 03 8 o~~~ >._"0 '" $~-5~ g ~ .~:: E r-6o~g QJ 0..8 @ 1:: ~ .s ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 <Ii 0... Il) ..c: E-< M 00 0\ - .S ~ o U o Q) ..... ~ ::E a (/) ~ M V) a ::l '0 > .S V) 00 I N 00 ill Il) OJ) ~ p.. ill g. ::E ~ {) a ~ c..-. o ;:: .$2 ..... ~ "'C .... o o Il) .... >-. .0 "'C Il) ill...... ill ..... Q)..... -B] ~ <Ii Il)..... ......... Q)...... ::: '" 8 ~ ~ <Ii ~f iLE1 0...;:: ~ .$2 <81;; CJ) .~ s::"'C o Q) 'm "'C ..... l-< 6<8 a~ '" ;:: ~.s ;:: l-< Q) Il) s"'C ::l .S o J:<l .g 5 ill l-< :B.,g ..... .S ,..... "0 "'a .g-g .E ~ o Q) .S -B .~ "g :E (/) E-<g ;:::; ~ ~ ...... >- en Q ~ !f Q: ~ - >- en Q ~ e :i2 o :!5 - Q ~ ~ ~ LIJ .,J ~ ~ ~ I-- >- en Q ~ ~ ~ LIJ .,J ~ - ~ 0 j:: ~ j:: ~ i - Ci5 - lU CI) ~ 0.. , , :z 0 j::: ~ j::: ~ ~ ~ ct: -J 0 - a lU ....:z 0"1: C\l ~ ~ Cl:) 0) ~~ ..... .....:. s::: V1 0 VJ :::: .5 "g .~ t __ 0,) Cl:S ~ 00 s::: s::: ..... ,..c en.s ~ II ': g '2 2 .e.o ,: '0 ] .~ ~ .~:; ] ~ .B ] .~.~ .~ .Qoeop...sc..-.CI.l8cucQ t'd~A..0:5O,)oo"'OQ..,Of.+-; @]~~.~:; ~~~:; ~ 'Ouo ,,".9"0"0' .[:! .g N ~.p ~ a '" N ~ '+:; Q) :s s::: Q) - "'0'00 >- E d)'oo <<S ;:: -<8~.sa.g~~~~~.z ...: " 2 '" i5: C U <= " 2 :B ~ " ~ .8 .... o 'J:: ll.. t 2 ;E 2 '" () " '0' .... ll.. " ,. @lU'~,_~ 0] .5 u ,.s:: ,- ~ >=- _ -d .:; ~ ~ ~.~ ~ us:::>. s::: Q.) ''::; .~.~ ~ Cli ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eQ)e~',,:::::>~~~ P-,.s::; ~ c:. '00 O,).n ~ Q)+->Q);.a~titn-g13 .p 2..0:;: '" _ o,~ '" . 'o~32.g]~~~t t:; "'0 0 c.,..... 'Z::: CZl..s::: o.n ~ o~~~,:~~Q):98 2 B " ;::s ;::s >= .... ~ ;::s '" ~ 4) .~ ~ 0.. t:: C'J" cn 8 'S td~e~Br.8~:E~j g~',::;~ s::: ~~~ 0"'0 ::ca 5-'.8 8 Q) is ~ s::: -'.z::: >= '" ",,.s:: ~ u ;::s - t:. Q).......... "'0 tn 0 ~~';:5~~~ ~a <<S ..~ Q) - 0 "'0 ::t:;~.s>~~ti5~ 5 ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ':$ l:: _,.s::..o bll,.s:: ,.s::" '" :::s Cli t:: "'0 .5 ..... ~ 00 :0 .5 ~ ~ ~ g C .9 "5 ] 'u:J "'0 t: ~ Z ~ -a.~ ~.~ ~ ] >= " o " ,.s:: t)~~ g,,5 i; 2"O,.s:: ,- 0 '0 ~.~:; en ~ 2 ~ ,,8 ~] "'O:E ~ :; .5 U '0; ;::s ~ '" C';S,.o", 5: Q) C':S u:i 0 ~~~'E ..c w ::3 ::3 -]~~ 8 ~ ~ 0 "'0 0 Q..u "5Be~ o ro 0.. C ~.5 u ,- gg ~g '~.~.5 ~ ~ E:2 t:; !S.58~ Vl <: w f- W ....:i ll.. :;E o u ~ ~ Cl w Vl o ~ ~ ~ 'l:i o o N - '" ;::s bll ;::s <: N N I n :::::j -< n 0 ~ c ~~ z 0 r. c 0; g :> 0 d '" tnZ ~ m :xl ..... ..... 6 IV =0 0 ~ 0 0\ m :> ~ n > r- J~\l ~ ;> ~ n-< z 0 -< ~-I >m ..... -;:0 > -n 0;::0 ~ ~ [I) :> > ("'.l =r: i ;() 3: t'!'j 2 m ~ ~ I n =i -< n 0 ~ c ~~ z 0 r. c ~ 0 :)> n CJ d to lnZ ~ m ::0 ..... m ..... 6 I'V > 0 zO ~ 0 0\ m :)> ~ n >, 0 ~)> s: ~ n-< z -< 0 n-l - -- - >m r -;c > "T1 o;c ..., ..., I ;)> > TJ) (j I = i ~n 3: trl Z m ..., ~ ""D""Dcn~ ~~~tl) enzcn::J m z OJ 0. z - :J n'\ --,Z"'Tl~ ...., (j) -. - )> ~ tl) ~ 0 Q. '< o 0 ~ -1 z3:Peo 3:0.., _OJ.., en ~ tl) enQo _:Jeo o 05" z ~g'o Q3:> <{1:::l~ 0,< 'U --l."Ul ~~ ~ --l iil Cll (I) n ';"'-8 .., - ii! en > tl ~. 5. 0 Z ~8Ul (I)""D::l - ~ ~ am o~ ;:bo ~ "U__ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Cll - C CJ1CJ1 ~- ~ 3 l>> "go ~ 0 3 "C l>> ~ '< r- r- o _I ~cn ~ ~[ ~3 .0 fJ-' [~ ~:E :::5. co en S2" $: CD -. ~ I I ""U ~ i i ~ !l? g F;; ~ ;:ii r- o Z m " r- )> Z I I\) " @ I @ )> c.J V'I m --l ~ o en 0 ~ ri ~ )> tn l' 0 0 g> .....ll u )> ~ ~ !::1 '" ~ '" <> - .. <> ~ ) _\\---- "'O"'Og'~ ~~~p,) en Zen::) mzo>Q.. zz~p,) -4 Q m n'\ )> ::::l ~ -4 n Q. ~ o 0 ~ -1 z3:.oco 3:0-, _0>-, en~p,) enQo -::::lco o 0'- Z ""C/)~ ~QlO Cf ;;J ~ """TIC/) "" iil CD ~;;J 8 tl Q. ;;J '" S!l Co 0~C/) 'Oa )>J2. ~C/) ~ 5. 0- 01(1) 01 01 01 g. 3: ~ :5: '< 'U '< CD r ~ UJ ~ 15' "'0 ~ ai CD OJ "C _. 3 j ~ (II - c ~ii in ~ 0 3 "C D) j '< r- r- n .1 III j: ~en -n2S: OlQ. ~3 .0 S,'-, [.-~ ~PE :::5' co en l2" ~ CD -, ~ r r ""U Hf ~ H: I , , I , I , I t I I I I I I I I I I , , , , I I I I I I I I t t I I , , I I I I , I " I I I I I I ~. , ! I I I I I I I I , I , I , , I , I , , , , I , , , I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I , , i I I I I I I I I~ / / / / / / / / \1 ,>(... .... '" _....~.,-..., -~._. ~:.. ,..,. '" '.' ~~.:..'~" ~--.:::::::: ,. ~ -x_f..,..: .',,~~< \\"~.". ~\", "',',I I ~C ..: ~>' ~ ">,~"\ < ",,-,,<J lc-J '- .. .. ..6~:>>:~<'~~ )./"~ @~ / --', ... ~-, ........:T~..Vj I J{' ~ e: t:: /~ ""'~<,:,"." , '.' : I It. Il \ J. ' " " . .. ... I I I! ~ ~ :I~ ~ 0 0 -0,,"'......"---', '"~ .'. ':'" I I':>J e;t:J (~,,::I: '\ \ \ I / { ~ ~ ~ ;i~ ~ ~ _ _ :: ~ ~I ~ ,,~~ \ \ \ : \J r\LJ \j:;T J, I~ ~ .1- .s c-, ~.. V :; s ~) 1 ~ : ' , ~ d, l I. 65 J;<. x' j- I ' , I i;1i ~~I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I 3~: I I I ~~ ~ l t----=-- . I~ ~ -\ '--. c- ~ I ~ : 2i I ~ ::0 ~ @ @ d. I" I ~I I I ,\ ~ / 0 0', I; 1\ 51 . ~ Ul I I \ ~ f' 0>, I) I \ \ ~ ~ : I I i ~iJ @ ;,I~~ -11- ~.~ <^V'll~ I :: I o .. I~~ I I 'II .:f I I II I j....I 3t;[;Ji-- I ~ ~ , ~! . ~ I ~ I I I I $ ~ ./ r ~ r;;:+ ~/ : ;I~] ;i P1fi Sli : W I 10 b I ).A rr.; ~ ~ I g gj -< ~ J \l I Q,' 'tl I ~ . I~ -Ii - III II ~.n~ --i,-.L ! ~ ~ >J ~ ~ ~J:' ~ l I~~ Si I I ~ rr.; ~ 11 / ~ ......!::.. ~b cfp J . ~ tD .r.;r.;.r.;r.; I o~ -i ---1 ~ ~ ~ I k -i ) ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~)'. ItijI ~~ I ~ rq q :: / ? ?) ? 0 ~ ~J ~~ I i 27' ~~R ~ I 9i' ~ ;I" I '~ ~ ~).h{ II"" I I V- I &:\ 1111I111 1I111I11 i).}.' k \ixJ W \h -----. \ 6 ;:g :Ji I~j rwc;n: ~ I , l ~ ~;.J d ~ ; D l 0 \ ~ ~ ~- ~~~ IR I I ~ \ 'r;wc>i: ~ &<. \. - --~' ~ 1--1 I .; ~~~) 0 lo~ 1~1~~ --~~: ~ '"~: (,.'lS 0 LA o' ~ ~ : U!: ~ _ - L-.-Jt \ ~"T ^ ~ "'-..,. _ - -- - 'u) I ~ ~ -- ~ ..\--' -- I ~-F~_---:----__- '-8>:-_-:-0113________________-. - ~1----~::-~ I 0f~ I __ ,~ _- 3::fT'1 _ - "",",';.00' - 'tl I -~ /' ~- 0 _ ~--w-~ b ~~ /1 ~ 0 0/ _-- >>;.:------b, ~--I ___:<n #; ! ~~~\~~ 43' ;i~~ 7'>//; / g:] ~~~cY/~/ ~\'~:' _nn<-(-~ /f'o. ,'/\ i':~i : : 1 C)~ I~ ~ 'I ~: ;I~ ..' ~"wI.~,<:!' ;........." '... - . . :"( / ;;07>-1 I I (' ~~ 0 IzO'w:: 2 r= );> rr'f"T1 . ./ / .' _ /0 I t \ t if~! ~ ~\ .gy"~ ~ ~ 10 i ? ~n ':~ ~~~.'../ :.... ". '. . $ ~,/ ~ J. : : ' f z\ 0 0 I ')- .'. Vl :z: [0 ~'M / '. "~/ l : t /< ~ _ ~ \ / I - - -,... (.") .~ 1.1>:'7l' ". \ / !S:!:. / I I I~. Q -1 \ - / 0 , .:t> - /O.l:: . - z , I \ \ ~ C Lr'~~ ~ )",----- ___----/ : 30" '.;." ,~",CY .- ~.. ,.~.' ..'. .... \ I'T1 /' J : : I ~ /' 0 I . . :'.' . :" / .:. -; .C').. . . I : : ~=o::o I'. ......'. ..~- ..,... /1 \ \ ~ J-- J- ___ 0-'-:' ~ -"--. /- :..... .' /"'I.'f::': .:.... . \ / \ \ c-(; ( lW{ c- ~ ~ ,.'. j~.;j:: ~'.~.'. ~ :.-.:~ \ '1/ ). \ : I (')d~ ~ .::fil \.. l~: ....~. .:.' l'l ~ Ii \) t/~:f ~ ~\ ~ z:..'y[ I ((~ \ \ L I 40' I l 27' llr II:..- v~~ L !J~. / A 7:: .." ~ ~ I I n ( \ \ \ I I ~ -::0 ;:, iiJ l'~~ I~ !~ I Y--7o . . _ .. -'. . [ fh ! \ \ \ \ I I I ~~ 'I.I~~~tS~LI I h ::: ..lo_!.... . ~ \ I ( I \ \ r3'-4f' L 0-:0 ~ . r- 1 N'~ ~ ~ ! \ \ [S,ANCE , I \ \ \ \ I I ~ y" j~ " g "L ~ _0 _ __l---- ~ - I I \ f\ V 2 '-a.~ ) t ~1fJ __L - -~ \ 2\ I --- - -- ./ / _ - "1 \ I ',0:\ I ~ / \ 0 \ \ /~ .. .. \ ___-- / " I ,\ \ .\ I _----- / /, ~(j I $ .~ ~/- l~ \ / ~~ 0 \! d~ \ \ ,?~-r-"Y> ~ / iJ ~ \ /1 \ \ /, q Y I \ I, ~ "\" ,7B C / /. 0 ~ f ~ ~;{ / ), \~ ~ \ 4 ~ / *' I \ 5t \ \, 1 I Jy(~" ~l ~= ~ ') "v', 2\~ \I~ (~~ll ~t:.O __~ \ ~ _ _ _/VI V _ ____~J I---' I , ~ ;I" ;I" /' /' /' ;I" /' ;I" I I I I I \ I I I \\ I \ \ I \ I I I I I I I \ \ I \ , I I I I I I I \ \ I I I I t \ I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I t I \\ \ .J \ _ --J "tI"tI(J)::;7 :::tI r- 0 :::::::.. m)>~m cnz~::J mZIllQ. Z-~ -tZ"m )> G') ti3 - :::! 0 5.~ o 0 ~ --I z3:_oCO 3:0-, _Ill-' cn:::;;m cnQo - ~ o D.i" CO Z ""CIl~ cr~~ g.3: > :::j"TICll ~'< "U ";'I iil BCD '<CD CD ;!! c.o ::l .., - c.o !:l.::l Cil (I) ~ c.o",c. CJ ' o.B!!! ~"tI~ nO! ~CD" >~ .g::J 'R CIl 3-' ~ c: CD::J oS' a(l) 0101 ()C 01 0- 01 3 C>> ~O '< 0 3 "C C>> ::J '< r- r- o .~ ~ c :~(J) aJ ~..,,^ :!= ~~.~ g:~ 0 &>--. [-'I> ..,0 ~::E ::;5' cc en S2" S (I) --. ~ r r ""U I i I : I \ I I i I i I ] , , , I' i I \ I I I : \ I I \ \ \ \ : I I III I \ : " \ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I$ I o \J ~ ~ VI o ." m ~ ~-l ~ :E ~ 0 Cl )> V1 l' o o I\J )> ~ -a-a~~ ;:015.0:> m:J>::r::::l enz~o.. m!:::Jo:> Zz,,_ -1G')ii30:> ~ 0 5.'< - 0 ~ .-, 03:.9<0 z::II 0..., =-0>..., - - 0:> enCfo en 3 - -, <0 o 0> Z ~cno ~Ql~ ~~cn ...., iil 8 ~ ~ ::J ~ ~. Co g:8!!2 . iil OeD )> .- ~~ oS' 0101 01 01 Q 3: ~ 0,< "V S:CDC ~ ., C'l iil fI) ~ 5? -a ;:t < CD ~j "0 _. 3 j ~ fI) - c: bl- 3 D) 110 ~ 0 3 "0 D) j ' In ~ o o tv OJ -... , II I . I I II , II '! I III I , I' , II i I : I II i I " II ill I I I I I I [, ILl I \ I I t I ~ \ I I I I I -~1 -- - /' -- ...------1 ...."" //'....- -i .... / / --j .... ::..---- ..../..../ ....----.... .... ..../',./ /--1 .... .-/./ -> / .... /'J' )/ ...."" /.... .... .... / / . --~ -..,...... ",,""""........ /..../"..../...../ . / --~ ""...."" .... / /" /" I ........"".... .... /' .... -~.- ..../'........ /'..../" ........ ",_........./ ...../ /' ~--/ ..,-- --......../' --- ...... .... .... / --..... '~- --- -","" 5 /" _ ,-- ......--- -...."" --...."" /- ..............-- ' - ....-" -,-.... ...."" /'--..............._-- ~ " ~...... --- ""--- -.... -- ----I - - .... -- -~- . -- /' ..' .... -1 ' -- ""-..- -........ -- I - ---- /' ....-- -- Cf;;~ (---------- ~---"'--------......... I ,--d"'t_____-...... .......... ''--~........- ............ 1 '-, ........ ............. .. =-==s::............... ~.... '1 Ij .. '\. '-...., '" '~"-. "" '.... " ~ , ~ ~ '-..1 "\I I I , \J :J: > VI m ~ 0 z Z ~ m rn 0 I ~ ~ "" o Ol g Co> :!l CD Z ~ ~ ~ ~ r S2 Z G') r o n ~ o z n o ~ ~ ::0 Vi o z o :> G') ::0 )> ~ "'tJ"'tJ ~~ ~~ 9:0) cnz en::l rnz OlD. z- ~O) -4Z )>Q ~O) -40 Q.'< 00 en 0-1 z3: Pro 3: 0.., Ol .., en :::j;0) ~ Q() ::J 0 or ro z ,,"en~ 8-3: > ~QlO '1l C11"'~ ;!:'< '1l ~'TI(J) ~ CD r ..... iil '" 0 7' '" 8 iil Ci1 > tl Q. '" l5''''tJ z ~8~ ;:t "oa ~ CD o~ >~ "'C _. ~en 3 ~ ~<: ~ UI ~S' - c C11 b'- C11 3 C>> C11 "'C 0 Ql '" '< 0 3 "0 C>> ~ '< r- r- 0 II '1l ;a m '1l > ;a m c tll .... wen ~ -n2S: Pic.. ~3 .0 &>..... [~ ~~ ~::J co en Q<> ~ CD ..... ~ I I ""U r.; ~. , ". , , ,'lJ, ",';;i y. J '~. ~ -~7~' ~ J '-~ ~ I i ~ rn i i ~ ~ 'i ~., tVt . ,. :": ,'V J j , (-.,. 11,1..- ,,~. ~\IF ~ ',I 'J -1m 1~':i1i IY~:,~I ~ , [b' '0 a; 3 ~ ":1 ""C""C(/)-::;7 ::0 r 0 ~ ml>~ro en Z (/)::::J mzmo... z_:::l -tZTlro ~ C) Q3 - ::! (') 5.~ 00 ~---I z3:9<D 3:0..., _ m ..., en~ro enQo _ :::l o 0.1" <D Z ...en'" "'IllO tI1::J'" ':"'"T1en ...., iil (l) ";'l ::J 8 tl o. ::J wCllQ. o8en "aa )>s, COw ~c: ~;= tI1 tI1 tI1 :n ~ (J) i )> (f) ^ I o o c.u "8 .vll .; g. 3: )> s:'< ~ 'al CD r- iil U1 ~ l? ... Z < " ;:l ~CD .g ~ ~ :;0 ::J (I) C;c ~ Dr ~(') ~ 0 3 "C D) ~ '< r- r- (') ~ ~- y '___ I // II 7---~-- I i \ \\ \ I II I -< ~\ Ii i~~ I I I - - -1- - ~'I;t- -- I I I IH5'-0" I I I I I I I I I I ~ N ~ , "'. 38'-4~' 38'-11~" N--< ...., ""' - z ::il> ~~- ." ~N ~........ c>'" ...:.......8 C> '" o Vl Vl Vl ." r I I I I I .~ I )> i ~ I C :<J 'IJ (/) lJl :,,:!57' ~ ~I~ 8:. 0 '" &' ...., ~<O [- 0;-0 ~~ ::: :5' CO en \?<' ~ <0 3. I I 5'-0"1 I I I I I I L... r r -0 ~ N ," "'. @ 0 iD ~ !l! '- o 0- Z 9 ...., ... ," --!. II OJ ~ ,- q ~ -0 :II 0 0 ~}> ; r .." ... r '" o o lJ ~ -0 ~Q z (J) ~ o CJ) ~ 8 (J) ~ z o o .. co en <1l "0 m 3 ~ ~ I\) o o CJ) "0 ,8ll ......8':;;;:: ~):!}'" ~~~5. z z ..,,03 -<(;)iti> ~n '< 00 --; zl:-m ~ ~ii3 5 h~ Z 'rg ~I:~ ~~( P g ~!r f i . r~ ::> ~ r f ~ ~ ;; n o 3 ... . ::> ... r- h B! i ii~ ~ if~ If .. ~ 1;; rll~~ r . J ~ ~ ~ en j;l ~ i ~ r i r J f :>>- en ~ I w 0 ;!: i :::D I'l --j )> ,- / / /3/ / / ---------;r------- / \ &--------- \ \ \ ~ \ \\ , \\ \ \\ \L ,--- --- - - ;\- \ \ \ \ ~I II \ II \L-- ---~ 1 I \ \ I I : \ I I I ---l~- i I I I i I I I : I I - --+0- f2f / / / / I // 1/ -----;?f--- I I o ! I o I ::::0 Ii :::D I'l --j )> ,- U) -I o ::::0 > C) fTl ,---.... + (J1 GJ (J1 -------- '---""U) +-1 (J1> GJ C) u-,fTl -------- --G--- \ \ I ==,- bIIdc::Jl:IJdbIJDDDD I ~~\ bIJdCJCJl:I][l]ObJ:Id I ~c::Jbl:lbJ \ D~bIJr:r::Id DDldDDld~ I ~~~6- IdDbIdblbIJdbIJD:JD I DDDDDDDbl\dIdbldD DDdIdDbIdDbiblUdD DDDDCJdDldbIdbJdD DbI:JdbJdDDblblbIIJ DDDDCIdblldbIdbJIdbJ I bIJbId~ ,- o rn rn -< ::::0 fTl ~ 0'> ofTl- ~o.z: -I ::::0 o > , ::::0 fTl fTl O'~ ofTl[T' :;;;..0;;0- ""8'$: il:): ~ I>> ~~~a ~~~~ ::I0a~ 00 ~. ZI:- a;i I: &' ~ jl~ O~CD z nil II I ~i !.. ES - ~ J ~ ; ii' o ~ il ~ r- Fi 81 ;,~ ~ '11i .. i!~ ~i .. i ~ ~ " (Q) --..J)>O (J10C 0---;---; 0<0 (/)=iO 'l-<~ )> :::0 fTl )> -- /----- / ~ ~;:~;;iY~ - ~ 'W /' )>~ C9 ~~ /~~\ \ ~~ // ~,,1111 _ z~ // ,/ ~<WJ (Q)_ _~_/ ~~:5:L _ _ ~ 1'] 1111 "'/(0 :A~~ ~.n 11 ?1 ~ 00 -~----'" IC 0/ ,,"'11 XII> S' .y - I I C .n <WJ '" '\><$ .y .y" 11 I m E; cI ?-Q. 'l>6 ili ,,'" 11 I /.y .y 11 <WJ " /1 ::;:8 <Ju' ~ <WJ '" /' I[ <WJ I 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 'i II ~ / ' /3~ 11 A"'~ I~'W'~ ~ 11 L ~11 ~ , ,~ i'; --8~ ~ o go 00 rho C", Sd /'ff Z "" 1111 11 It::f) Dw fTlfTl pjjJ l1 (Q) (Q) \\ \ \\ \ \\ \L- \--- --- \ \- \ \ \ \ ~~ CJ CJ OJ o (Q) (Q) ~- \ \ \ lI~ll-,gi - - --+'f- - I ---- I I (/) ---; \JfTl )>:z:: 0)> fTl:Z:: ---; r-- I I I I I I I I I I I -----t - ~~~\\ o :z en I I -0 0 :x: f; ~ Q ~ i3 ('") ~ := ~ m zen)> ~ g ~ ~ .-- en en )> m o :x: Z ~ ::050 -I ~ -0 g m 50 8 d ~ -0 ::0 0 0 . zOO m m ::0 0 g ::0 en ::0 m en ~ en 0('"))> -0 m z s;;: 0 z 0 -I C en -I \ \ I --E9 \ r o OJ OJ -< \ \ I ---4 \ \ fTl :z:: ---; :::0 -< CJ bkJ (/) ---; \J fTl )>:z:: 0)> fTl :z:: ---; en Z ^ )> z o :i: ('") "TI o ::0 m < m ~ "TI ('") 0 \ ::0 )> .-- \ ~ :;:; 0 , ~ ..... . 0 (11 w ~ )> en (11 ('") "TI en "TI :x: 0 -0 -I ;= C m 0 .....-1 m ::0 (11::0 ('") (110 ~ )> 88 0('") ::0 8:x: ('") m ~::o en;= m ::0 -0 en "TIO ~ m 0 ::0-0 -0::0 0 0 0)> ::om ('") C <('") 00 :x: ::0 _m <c 0::0 ;= m mm 0::0 0 s: 00 mm "TI m 00 z C )> -I ::0 ('") en m ;= 0 ~ ~ ('") :x: ;= o ::0 m z OJ OJ '---J (Jl \ I I I \ I I ......g>s: ~S;~Dl ::l~~~ z Z ." Q) ....Gl~iiJ ~nil'< oog-l z!:. CD !:lJ=l lllgDl o~g z ~f;; ~~ ~ ~~[ is ~ g!J I~" ~~ " ill I ~ ~ ;; n o 3 '" .. ~ .... .... n B; =100 ;01: ilJ !i .. '!: ~ !;; un ~!H .~~ i 'i' IJ. is. ~u '!! .f j- l J I ~ I ~ '" m Jl " o JJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ,G'l ::t> . Hi ',1, en .., I ~ I ~ "I o _ !!i I w. m oBI Jl en G5 :::I: -l r- z m en m ("') -l 6 :z -l :::I: :;tl o c: G) :::I: "'tl m :;tl "T'I o :;tl s:: )> :z ("') - m en "'tl )> ("') m en -l )> G) m )> r- -l en m - :;tl Cl :z m )> "'tl -l o m 2 ("') c: :::I: s:: ~ :E :;tl - )> :E :;tl 6 ~ m :z OJ G) )> m ("') s:: ^ m :E :z )> -l r- "*= r- ~ I (J) ---j )> GJ fTl to 1- to, )> r- -l ("') m o :;tl :z :z "T'I ~ !:H m m ("') :z :::I: ~ ~ _ :;tl OJ )> )> :;tl :z ~ o :z ffi G) -l m -l s:: )> m OJ :z r- -l rn i!3 en q I 0, U "\:1 '1-> ...- (") c-r- 1""'"1 --j -<-< fTl3:J ,0 fTlJ> <'- ~J> c ~o + - ....1""'"1 ....z -0 ---.:; '"' "O-;H ,- C'l < fTl ,- "O-,8l ,- C'l < C'l ,- N () o ;::0 ;::0 CJ o ;::0 Vl --1 o ;::0 )> G) fTl ~s::z ()l G) ------- Vl +--1 ()l)> GJ G) u-,fTl --------- i I ~ DOCie I I 1 I 1 (D- 00 II 08~1: :z ZI.I ~Oll rTl CI' ;::0 ~ fT1 _~ :z '----.." () rr () o ;::0 ;::0 CJ o ;::0 ------- I Vl --1 o ;::0 )> G) fTl '1 o --< fTl ;::0 ~s::z ()l 0 ------- Vl +--1 ()l)> GJG) . fTl ()l --------- I '1 -I I --C&- Oo 0<) <)<> <Y\) 1:)1:)0. <><) <><) <>\) [0 1:)0 <><> <><) 0 0 0 t) <><) <) () ~ ~ <><) <) () ~ (31 (31 OOA <>() <6 '6 (31 0 1 C1 "6 0 0 0 0 011 [) \:) [) [) a a a, '-{J ooooo-e I 8gggggu OO~v00 !1 [j !J /1 :fJ o\> 00 00 !1 t} )p 00 <> (j 00 rJl !J o 00 ^O 0 () () 0'0 v 0 v y v )> < '1 o --< fTl ;::0 "tI"tI ~~ enz mz z- -tZ )>(j) -to -0 ~i: i: en en o Z ""'cn~ ~QlO 01 ::l ~ ~"TIcn ..., Cil CD ';'I::l 8 tl Q. ::l ~8~ "aa )>~ ~cn ...Io$; OCD 0101 01 01 g>~ ~O) (f):J 1llQ. ;'0) ~~ ~. -l Pco 0.., III .., ::;;0) ~() 05" CO s- i: ~ ~ '< ;l! 'ai CD n Ol Ci1 )> l? "tI ~ ~ CD .g =. 3 ::::J g en - c ~iii" -gO ~ 0 3 "'C C>> ::::J '< .- .- o HI ~ ~(f) "T12S: Ole.. ~3 -0 &>...... f~ !:::E :::5" 10 CIl R'> s:: CD ...... ~. r r --0 :JJ !!l. en i ~ '" o ~ !l! I\J o 0> o CD w en i ~ o a '" )> VI ~ o o U'1 )> [b' " ~ ~ ~ ~ : , i-,(I'," (r "~ ,. .r " t' ~ i I- I- ~ ~ ~ ~ m , m ~ '-l 5 z :!1 CD z ~ ! JJ ! , , , , tnJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i ~~ r -l --; -I -j -l --; - ~ -I ~ H -I --< H --< -I 11::'" c:X F:iJ 05 z,., ,.,0 x> ;;:1.- zC: ",11:: 02: zc: 11:: i I ~ i I ~ = I~ " ,I I I ~ II a " I - ~ I = = = = = = = = =l ~ : 3 r-i , -l H c; ~ ~ ~ !:c~ - --< H --< - -j :=oj =i ~ _ S .... ---, = ++:= - f- - - = -l- 1- -+ ~!..-l i-'>L t-- -+ f- -:. -- -- - tn' I ,I a --i ---< tH .",- ~ 11 ,~-;: - i I It . I : '11 1 1 ~ <-+ . 1 t111' 1 1 1 'IF==: LlLU 1 ! t i ! ! ! f : j ! I ! i I l:= ~..--y~ <, r+-+'" P- - + . r- :t+++t+ +-+ E c: ",=-= = -=-= ~ ~ ~~ n o _ Z ,., (;') .- > N Z (;') >.. " ~ - " F:: 1_ - I- I- t-- k f- - - - - - -, --< '-. --i z o ,., X 'U o ~ o ~ Z o o :::e : : : : I I , , --; ----+ - r-1 I--- 5 :::e I ,., s; III o Z (;') >: ~ ~ s:p~H~ Z "'''':i!z ~"'?Oolll p8p5i?5 G') ~ > rT'JS2 >: > ~ "'--< ~ z:IE ~g ~ :i!~~ F ;d I ~ '" > ~ Bi ~ ;;:1 E F 11:: n ,., Z --< .,., '" .3 11::'" c:X E:iJ oc: ZO ,., ,.,0 x> ;;:1.- zC: Ill~ OZ zc: 11:: - - - - f- f- - - - - f- - f- --;---,--- - - - -: f- - 1---: - --' ~ - - - - - -: -. -' - - --; - --; -I--- - - - I--- - I--- - I--- - --;-;-- - t-- .-j I------ - - ~: - - I--- 0~;d f;jZ> >:i!Bi "'~E p",n >rrI~ "''''--< "'n :!:~8 --<"'''' :CZ--< ;dl~ ~ ~ III .- c: .- n ,., Z ..... il .3 I--- -< --I - - - -, - --i -: I ~ I I I I ;11 ,I ~,: I:~~~ I I - i- II 'I I! 1111.\\ IT1I,I~-' ~ - 1---- f- f- - I I --1......1 III , 'T" rr .1 , I -~+ ! I I I I I I ; ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ! i i..i...i I~ i i i i i i i i - I ! I I I , !~~~a!~!~!! _ SI I ,.. ,..! ,u I i I ,.. ,u I a HHIHHi I - 1---, " I ; i I ~ l5 I I i I I - S I l "a"aCf)";7 ;::ora:::::" m)>~Sl) cnz~::J mz I>> 0... Z-:::J -4ZTlSl) )> (;) in - ::1 0 5"~ o 0 ~ --1 Z;:9<D ;:0-, _1>>-' cn~Sl) cn--,o _ :::J o iii' <D Z ::g>o If ~ ~ -.j"TlCll -.jaCll ~ 5 8 ~ rii. a 0800 r,ii :>CIl f';;; ~c: 0::;: (JICIl (JI g: g. 3: :> !: '< "II '< CD ;!! CIl .., - Ol fA ~ l5' "a Z ~ CD :-;4 .g ::s 3 -. CD ::s a fA g5. 3 l>> "'C ~ 0 '< 0 3 "C l>> ::s '< r r- o 11"11 ~ "II :> ~ m c ~~Cf) ~.,,^ ill~ a: :::~3 !ii- 0 &>--, _CD ['0 ~:E :::5" co Ul R" ~ CD --, ~ r r ""U en i ~ )> V1 ~ o o U1 n lr ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1",~:<:<~Ee~~;:l\::<l ~!t.l-;:;,~~~~E@~~ ~~EE;g!t.l(")~~g!ll o~:;'" ~~\5~o~?5 ~",:z~oo:;;!;;:l> 52 :ZC'l;;:l~ ~~z:zE~-t I_ 8s:oo:z",::e\!ll"'::C(") "r":'-"'~ 5 Rl 8> > ~ ~\5 l', ;c::z::e r- ::e~ F T-t c'" I '" ;c::Z ~ .E "'>c"'V; :z ,?~ s; ~ E;;:l ::e 'bi''' ~ ~. ~ C'l > '" '" ,IIi , i ,I I l. I': ,I 'II I II I Iii ll, II '.' '.'j:, ,1'1 II ! II' J: i j' i ' 111\:1 ,. o ~ I I II II Ill!! 'tJ'tJ ~~ ~~ 9:tD enz (f)::::J mz tuQ. z- ~tD -4z >(i') ~tD -40 Q.'< -0 ~-1 ~3: 9<0 3: 0.. tu .. en :::;;tD en Q() :J 0 iir <0 z ...(J)~ 8-3: > ~Q)O "'ll <.n:l~ s:'< "'ll ':",,(J) '< (1) r- ..... iil m m ~ (1 ~ 5 8 Ul (/) > ~ ri)" a l?'tJ z o8(J) ;:4 c-,a ~ (1) o~ )>J2. ." -. ~(J) 3 ~ ~S: ~ (/) Om - C <.n<.n b'- <.n 3 D) <.n -c 0 Q) ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- 0 II "'ll ;iU m ~ ;iU m 0 tll ~(f) ~ .,,25": iDo.. ~3 ,0 ~-, _. CD [- 0;0 ~~. ::::J (C (J) S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -U I \ I I l I ~I I . ( t - r , < iTi ::E o -n ; ~~:.." ! ~~ ~ . ~~ Vl " " o ", ~ '~:, ~ ~\;.,,,... -t' 'I - J. '" ' . .. -'t \ ,I ~ ~'-,1- ~ '\ \\\ ~ I I~ = I ~ J. j II II r I, I' I I' I. I i . , y , /iJ , 1; " t.. '1 < iTi ~ rt z . o ::0 -i I -i - o. ::E .. m ::0 -n ::0 o s: Vl o C -i I A- I r ~ """,-l 1 i ~ ~ 0 <- ::JJ iil 8- m en co ~ z z i: .!!' ~ 0 m 2:2 Z G'\ ~ n I\) > 0 0 0> m @ 0 w m en 0 :!I ~ i: It co z r- ~ ., V'l ~ < iTi ::E 0 -n en Z '" 0 "0 ::0 " -i 3 I ~ d ~ ::E '" m &l ::0 -n ::0 0 s: m )> Vl -i r r ;~f- 1/1" ~ ~ ~ :-4. ...jI.....~ ilrr' '"",I ri/ r+ if "I _~ I ,:".,.,' 1 1'+.' ~ , I; ~I \ I 0 .' . 1- U=ft.., t+..!: .,. ~, :;f!,I'1 )~'.., . -:-:-- II ~t"1 ~.:."." ." t:l I ~ I~I'~ It: 'tJ'tJ ~> enz mz z- -4z >(i') :::!o 00 Z3: 3: Cii en o z ...oo~ Cf~~ ::::l"OO -;-l ~ 8 t: ~. 5- ~ Jl ~ a<ll )>s- 'Roo -- s. oeD' <.n<.n <.n <.n ~~ c s:tD (f)::::J tuQ. ~tD ~tD Q-'< ~-1 9<0 0.. tu .. ~tD ~() or <0 8-3: s:'< '< (1) <Il ~ iil (/) ~'tJ ~ (1) o~ -c _. 3 ~ ~ (/) -c b'- 3 D) -gO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II ~~~ ...J1o: ~~3 S!!.O !;; &' CD 10 'f:,E ::::5' co CJ) S2<> ~ CD -, :::::I- r r "'U > "'ll "'ll r- (1 > z ;:4 ~...~: ," . .. -- { j{~ -~- - '- ,- ..1.;),._1 "r .~ i , ;- j \ -~ . , . . . . . .., :1, ,!Il, ~ > -------1 -------1 --------1 ------.... -------1 -------1 -------1 -------1 , I I I I I I I I ,{ ______J ______J ______J ______J ______J ______J ------~ ______J " ::::0 I I I I I rrl 'I , I I I , I -f ~~ I I I I I I I , I I I I )> I I I I I 1 r I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I ~: , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,' I I I I I ~! . I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I !l!!!! I I I I I I I 1-- J - J n J - J J ___.J n - J n J I I I I I I I I h I I I , I I I I ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------, I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I ., t I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )j, , I I I I I I I :~ I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I '1 - --- ------ I _n - I - n =: -- _n I -- - I --- - I ---- I ----- - - - I n_ , lL I I I I I I I I I ", I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , , I I I I I I I I , , , , ~ I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I n I I - I n I I " I , I - I I I I I I I I I I I I -------1 -------1 -------1 -------1 ______-1 -------1 -------1 I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I 1'// , , I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I , , I I I I I I , , , , I I - , I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I It , I I I I l- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I , I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I , I I I I ~. ------1 ------1 ------1 ------, ------1 ------, ------1 I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I , I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I - I -- I - I I I I 1 1 ------.., ------1 ------1 ------j ------1 I I - I I I I ---- J - - __J _u J _J _____..J n_ J I I I I I I . I I I I ~. . . . .~ ~ ~. . . . , . . ... . . . . . I I ~ ..., r Ii..... ,.~ ~L~)f - 1 "'ll ;iU m "'ll > ;iU m o ~ :D ~ 0 8: !Po- ~ i co z .!!' ~ Cf) m 11 ~ OJ CJ) I\) 0 Q 0 0 0> Z I 0 q s: ~ ~ en 0 :!I ::T .. i5' l !D z z .. )> ~ ~ Z 0 (f) JJ ^ .., CJ) I I CD 0 ~ 1) 3 0 i ~ 01 ~ N I\) m 0 )> 0 0> II "'ll ;iU m ~ ;iU m 0 n ~(f) ~ \ -n2S": 13 ,0 g-' !~ ~~. ::::J (C CJ) R" ~ CD -, 2: r r -u ~ -~-- ~ 'tJ'tJ :::ar- m> enz mz Zz ~(j') -40 -0 ~3: 3: en 5!! o z ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n :l ~ ':",,00 ..... iil <Il -;-l :l 8 ~ SJ.::I w!llo. o~oo c-,a )>S- ~Cn ~c: ~a: <.n <.n <.n ~~ 9:tD (f)::::J tuQ. ~tD ~tD Q.'< ~-1 9<0 0.. tu .. :::;;tD ~() Q)' <0 g. 3: ~ s: '< "'ll '< (1) C <Il ~ n Ul (/) ~ l? 'tJ ;:4 ~ (1) .g~ 3 ~ ~ (/) - c b'- 3 D) iO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o - .. t\. ~ru :~ ii, ~. ~: , ... ~ 1f - ~'..'"".'.';~ ~'1i-i:~ l -- .... ... ... ..... ... -~.,. ~: .,',.-:1,.....:1;1( 1f.....~ - iffi ,_ )~~l ... ~" ... ~ ..... _._~ ..: .......... .... ... ....... .. ~ - r c:::: ~ f r r::::... "g- ", ~t' ~~ '::::. ~- ... .....~ ... .. , .. ...... .. ... ~ ..., I .. ~ ~ J "J .. ;j: .......0 J1 - ...- ...;;; .....;;; .. -'" .... ,., .,.... '::!II ~ ... .... -, iiii -- .. "" .. .~ ... ... ... .... .. .....~- .....- -F~ '. . ~ -" ... ... .t' I J ... ... .... '" ... ... .. .... .. '" ... ~ J r r , J... J J L F.1!' ~ .. 10-' I "17 .m -- ... ... ~ ... .... .. = .. [I !.I J J . . .r III', -J. j. " J .- . J 1': ..Il ~. -....- we ..:.. .;- '_1 -J I ..L 1 1 _..L- 1- = . . ~ ~ i g: z 0 en .. z ~ i: .!!' ~ I ~ ~ N )> I\) 0 0> 0 1 CXJ W I en 0 :!I t i It co z ~ ., ~ g> "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ... . :: -I ... , 1 ... J .... ...:) ... J ... ~ ..... J L .... I J .. ~ JI .. . I - I r,7) tll ~. . \ ;.;{1~ 4\4- --~ ..... ; II G) Ol I\) en 0 }> q 0 0> I 0 JJ q ~ (Xl w en 0 ;;Q}> ::T a ~G) lB. <D )>~ ~ m m (J) r ^ m en N (f) 0 0 (J) 'tJ'tJ :::Ui" m~ enz mz Z- -IZ >(i) :::!o 00 zs: s: Cii en o z .,.00..... .....ClIO <.n:;]~ .:.,,,00 ..... ill <Il -;-l :l 8 t: ~. 5- ~8!a - al ~~ <000 ....: ~ -. OlD <.ntn <.n tn :JJ ~ en ~ ~~ ~O) (f):) tuo.. ~O) ~O) Q.'< ~~ 9CO 0.. tu -, ::;;0) QO :J ro. CO g. s: ~ s: '< "tI '< (1) r- <Il ~ n iil (/) > 5? "'C ~ Cli (1) o~ -c _. 3 ::::s ~ (/) -C (")- ~ D) -gO ~ 0 3 "0 D) ::::s '< i" i" o n" 00 :z c n ::0 ::0 rrl rrlO ;;:1- :z ::E" '-r- ::0> rrln ;$jrrl > r- '" G) )> JJ )> G) m ~ m Cf) -l m r m < ~ 6 z o n" 00 :z c n ::0 ::0 rrl rrlO ;;:1- :z ::E" '-r- ",,> rrln ;$jrrl > r- '" _i tll ~ I I I I I 1 I ~~~~~~~ ijjjj,uij I I I I I I I ~~:g~~~~~ ~~,~~~~ i i i i i I i . . . . . . . " > :z rrl r- '" ::En ,-0 ::0 iI:::O ;::1:5 2;j~ il:0 iI: ;::I ~(f) ^ ~o: ~3 .0 ~-, ~CD ~- 0;,0 ~:,E :::5' CO 00 R'> ~ CD -, :::::I. r r "'U g 0 co ~ .!!' <- o CT z !'> n" G) n" 00 00 :z c )> :z c n::o n"" ::0 rrl ::0 rrl rrlO JJ rrlO ;;:1z )> ;;:1- :z G) ~" G) ~" )> ::0> m ::0> JJ rrln rrln ;$jrrl Cf) ;$jrrl )> > 0 > G) r- r- '" C '" m -l Z I 0 ~ JJ m -l Cf) I -l m m r r m m < < ~ ~ 6 0 z z 0 CD I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ij..ij..i..lj I I I I I I I !~~~~~~~ ~~,~~~~ I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i..ij..i..l..i,ui I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 'tJ'tJ~~ ~>9:tD enZ(f)::::J m Z ~ Q. Z-~ -4ZTltD >(j')mtD -4 :J~ _ 0 Q,-- o 0 ~ -I Z3:9<o 3: 0.. _tu.. en ~ tD enQa _ :J o iii' <0 Z ! ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n:l~ .:.,,,00 :j ~ ~ tw 0 0 w -- :1 w",a. o Jl sa (")Cil )>s, (Ow ;!::c ~f <.n <.n <.n g. 3: > s: '< ::g '< (1) r- <Il ~ (1 iil (/) > S? 'tJ z ~ ;:4 ~ (1) .g 2. 3 ~ g (/) C;c ~ m -gO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o ~I~ ;l;~ ~'" :;;~ ~~ ~'" 0>> '" 1'1 I III tll ~ ~",)~ :0 '11 en ~~ c: , - 0- ~~3 S!!,O !;; &' -, gSD ..0 ~:E :::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, :::l, ~1""\. ~~V r r "'U "'." >>or ~'" "'''' ~: ;;'" 8~ 1'1 ~ ~ /D~ 0>> ,,'" i\1 ." or '" ~ I ~ ~ ~ <- 0 en m ~ cr i z .!!' ~ I~ +I~ I~ ~~~~ I~ ~~~~ I~ 0 ..... rrr-r- e: = ...... N...... tD rr Ir :> 0, - ......N......m Z 0, - * w w -l ~ '" Si w -< ~~.~ s; ~ ===i I\) 0 -~~ w -< t;ct~" en I\) 'g: 'J:: 'g: ~ J:!l~ Si m Q 0 :1::> *!8~ "'-:...~@ 0 0> 0 ~~ ~ en I 0 en en 0'- ~~ en q ~ ." en en ~);' ~ ex> ." ." ." en 00_00" w .g, ." -n 1b ." en 0 :!I -'" i II> co WO ~ ~ ~ - -< ~i;:s; m z G) ;0 <D ~~ n ~-i ~g;~~ > S? Z II> ~~ n ~ en ;0 <DO )> ~ i )> ~ ~F: _w en ~~ -ij ;0 1b~ en en en en ;0 1b> :0 en en n en (f) a; m ,n )> ill !Z -n "'m a; _en ^ G) ill .-en Cl ;5j!i I en m ~ ./>lJ!l ~ tIJ 0-< (1) fi .~ tIJ 0 u lJ tIJ ~s fi ~b .~s; tIJ <>> Q -< n g~ ~ tIJ-< fi 0 3 r p .- Q~ ~ m .- ~ en .- m .- )> l!: m m p en en en gJ en m -~ Z en OJ I\) 0 (J) 0 0> N Cl 'tJ'tJ~~ ~~9:tD en Z (f)::::J mztuQ. ~Z~tD >(j')~tD -4 0 Q.'< o 0 ~ -I z3:9<o 3: 0.. _tu.. en:::;;tD enQa o ~. <0 z ...oo~ ~Q)O 'f:l~ .....,,00 ..... iil <Il -;-l :l 8 t: Q. :l w",e. 0800 c-,a )>S- ~Cn ~c: ~s= <.n <.n <.n g. 3: ~ s: '< ;!! ~ ~ (1 Ul (/) ~ l? 'tJ ;:4 ~ (1) .g ~. 3 ~ ~ (/) - c ~Di' ~O ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o III tll ~~~ ~ ~;c: :::~'3 S!!.O 0; f;?-' g~ 'f:,E ::::5' (C en S2<> s:: CD -, ~ r r -u ; .: , . j 1\ .- 1 . I , I I _l ~[ '-- , l [ 1 I- t ,'~':' t. ~....- r.. '" I I ~ :;; I L_ I L L- a -- .. ~ .... !;~ "T! L. L- L- .... -- .- .. .- IE lIlT lIlT 6/11' ~ ""'6F~~ ., ~ r Jo_ ~ ~ .., .JIJF' -- _. ,~ ~ L- a -- .. .... ~ ~,. L- a -- L- '\ ..... ~ ~' ,J:1i''''::;!;'''' ~ ~ ,.4iff f~? ..:A!..,';":''-:: .~Agr!?' ~,l~= A~""" L- iii . .;;!~i!' ~'- ~fll~~_ ..... 1 ~ - .,,- Jar- s;, ." .,- ","l .... ~ ~ii" ".-ffPrr~"" .;;~ t. "", "'-~ ~lII' \ '"' ... ~ ~ ~ <- ~ I 8- "- en CIl ~ z ::JJ r i: .!!' ~ 2S z G'\ G'\ """ I > i ::JJ I > C\ m I\) , 0 ~ 0> @ m w :iE en 0 :!I "TI i: It co ::JJ t z 0 ~ ~ ~ . ,~ , ;j I m Z --l ::JJ " ,'t._ -< ::JJ . , > --. g> ~ -0 J. "0 " 3 ~ l- ~ '" &l -.- 'tJ'tJ~~ :::tIr-s'tD m>::r::::J enZ(f)Q. m~~tD Z Z 11 _ , ~(j')~tD -4 0 Q.'< - 0 ~ -I 03:9<0 Z'O.. =-tl>.. - - tD enCfO en -, - ~'<O o tl> Z ...000 ~Q)~ <.n:l ~"TI(J) ..... iil !1l ";"I ::::J g t: ~. c. ~8S!2 - Cil (")<Il )>r ~~ 8m <.n <.n <.n Q 3: ~ o '< "'ll ~ (1) !: <Il ~ n Ul (/) > t) Z <Il 'tJ ;:4 Cli (1) 5" ~ -c _. 3 ~ ~ (/) - c b'- 3 D) -gO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II~ ~ ;iU m o tll ~ ~~~ ......."Tl_. P"g; a. ~~3 Hi. 0 ~CD ~o i:E ::;5' (C en S2<> ~ CD -, :::::I, r r -u \. \. \. ..... " "1'" " I I ,. I I I II I I I \' 1 I ~ 0 a- ~ ~ ~ 0- ~ ::JJ co 2S .!!' z G'\ G'\ > ::JJ > G'\ m I m < i'ii I w :E I ..., 'T1 en 0 iti' ::JJ I It z 0 I ., s: ~ ~ ~ ::JJ .. ^ - ~.... Z G'\ _J m z g> --I ::JJ ~ '!1. -< ~ ~ ~ ~ 'tJ'tJ(f)";7 ;:or-O::::::", m>3:tD enz (f)::::J mZtl>r"'\ Z - :J ~ -4Z"TItD >(j')~- ::!05~ o 0 ~.-- Z3:9~ 3: 0.. _tl>.. en:::;;tD enQa _ :J o or <0 Z ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n:l~ .:.,,,00 ..... iil 1Il -;-l :l 8 W " :l ~cnc.. 0800 c-,a )>1Il ~~ ~c: 0"" <.nlll <.n <.n <.n g.3: s:'< ~ (1) Ul Ci1 o ~ 'tJ ~(1) .g ~ 3 -. 1Il ~ a (/) g5. 3 D) ~O '< 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II :~(f) ~~~ ~~3 s:,O &'<13 i.o ~:E :::5' (C 00 Q<> s:: CD ~ r r -u )0- "'ll "'ll r- ei )0- z ;:4 "'ll ;iU m "'ll )0- ;iU m o ~ :l ~ ~ ~ s Cl en co ~ )> i: ~ ::0 .!!' )> Cl m Vl n ::0 m m Z ." ::0 m n I\) m 0 0 0> m 0 Z ~ ~ r 0 :!I n It co m z Z ~ ., -i ~ ::0 )> r- ." > Z -i C n g> s: m "0 ~ ~ m I ~ 0 I ~ I ~ 'tJ'tJg'~ ~>~OJ mZen:J en Z tl> 0.. m :J n'\ ZZTl~ >C)~OJ -I 0 Q,,< -0~---1 03:.9 CO Z , 0.., ~tl>.., - = OJ enOO en -, - ;;!, CO o tl> Z -1>0000 ~Ql.... Cf:loo ....."1Il ..... iil g ";"'I ::J :::J t: ~, Q. ""goo O. ~ ~~ <000 ~ ~. OeD' C1IC11 <.n C1I a- 3: ~ s: '< ;!! '< (1) 0 1Il ~ > iil (/) z ~ "tJ ;:4 ai (1) o~ "0 _. 3 ~ 1Il (/) a c (")- ~ D) iO ::l 0 '< 3 "'C D) ~ '< r- r- o . I :-> ~ en ~~8: ~~3 ffi.o !;; Ii?-' -co ~o i:E ::::5' co 00 S2<> ~ co -, :::::I, r r "'U )> en ^ I o o ~ I\) o o Ol VI^CO :E coG)-<m-l~::O 0 ^"m ::OO~~-n::oo ::0 G)"z~~o~ o~~~::O~:E ~ ~~~~~o~~~c~ ~oo~~~z ~ ~~>~>~CO~~~ z~~>~>m 0 m zon_~~~ > ~Z-ZZno ~Z~~mo>~>~z ~~C~~Z~o CF;i~,,~o~oz~, #n~mmc~Cro ffi~~~~g~~)>~~~~j8~~ffi~~0~8 ~>Zrm>z rZ<~~rmm~ ~c o~~>, -m~Or,,~z>>~on>~~ z"~n~z mZm_N~~,-<, z>^=l~ mQ~~~~ ~~~~~~Zffi~m~~~~ ~~~o '~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :I:~ "TI m::o :em :;::~, m:I:::O ~~m~ C~mO ~o z>-~_~ z~Offi ~~~~ O~ ~~ ~~O P', 0 ~ >z ~~ ~o > a ~ :I: Z ~I./'> '-1_ Z ::0 Z 0)>1./'> c 0 ~ mo G)::O VI ::0 r o VI;::: I./'> :> "* C G) ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ s: ;;: -l C g o .. ~. '", ~~> .'~ ;f:"'.. '.. """-. .,. . . "-.<:, l ; "~~:~\,,.'l' " ~~~ \.. o'i '1:" ,,'.... ,'" ~ .:.: ~ ~,j. . '..? , ',_~t .\_~.:. _ " F f.. l,:> ~:{ ',~'" ~ ~~ i.::I ~ ~ ~ , ~t<. . ,........~ @) .. ,$>,...' " 17...".",,, . c"v-', ! :~{ . ~,!-' ~~~:;,.,; ~ @ "'ll ;iU m ~ ;D m o tll ~ ~~\O!", ~ ;-" !=' ' 01 VI -1>0 )> .l:>o ?' ..... ~ <- g. z ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I ~nn=,=, 0 o~ ~ ~ n i :>~~~~ :E :E~ ~VI~VI~~m ~~~~~ ro ~Z~~~='~~~~ "~8~~00~~Omz~zOO"TImm ~~ZNN~X~>~q~~~~~~~ S:S:n:>)>)>>>..~::o:>~>~~~o mm::o,,-oZ~Z'-lG)~~IE""m:::>.::o z~~>~~m~~~~c S:S:OZG) ~'m~m~~:::~~~;; z~~P~ ""~ ::O::OX>~_Vl:I:Z -~~""VI " "~'-I ;:ri'-lc CZ>'VI ~~ #~~~~~~~m~~~ ~~ ~o< c~~ ~;:;, ~~ -<~ O\Om ~-<>~)>S:"n-l n ~0::O g\O~~~s:~o~ o -co )>O~>~VI_~ -l CO::o z~'o'~zo<' -l ::0)> ~~o)> G)::o_ :>~.. "TI:I:~ ~n-lm::o ~);! 5~c:Ec~0~> )>::0 >onocono:"z~8 ::0 '-10 0 . VlC n<coXCOCOm~z ~<o-o?i::o'-l mcoz Z ?;o ~~o 0 ~z - n NI'JN~~ """"""\n-l>oW. . WW""OO.....OI. . , ~!=' ~. , . ~ ~ ~~ .l:>o N--'-"""'-JO\Y1. !=' ~!"" . :!I CD z ~ ~ ~ CD ::J. m (IJ o m a. ..@" '--, o "" ~ o :E ,;, m X -l G)m c~ ~o ::0::0 0< ~Vi Zo VlZ CG) z~ G))> cVl )>~ ::0 o i~ ,i; . 11 r:,,~~ . ~ , ----~ ~ '-- "---". l _._~-- .-- r 'l - (- I , @f::\ G ~ G G G Ii. . @@ @r ~ 'tJ'tJ ~~ enz mz z- -4z >(j') -40 00 z3: 3: en ~ o z ...oo~ ~Q)O Cf':l~ ....."00 .....iillll -;-l :l 8 t: Q. :l ",fila. 0800 c-,a )>S- ~Cn ~c: c;::;: <.nlll <.n <.n <.n ~~ ~tD (f)::::J ~Q. I1tD ~tD Q,'< ~-1 _0 <D 0.. tl> .. :::;;tD ~() or <D III tll ~ ~(f) "'6: ~3 ,0 &'-' ~~ ~:E ::::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -u :D !!l. en i: ~ co en i ~ ):> l/') l' o o 00 n g> "0 iil 3 ~ ~ ~ g. 3: ~ s:'< ~ ~ (1) (1 Ul Ci1 )0- l? 'tJ ~ ~ (1) .g =. 3 ~ ~ (/) - c ~iii' 'Eo ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o i .!!' o It I\) o 0> @ "" '" . - ~ !i.~~'=lli ~ c K . ~ . . ~ . tW ., f;: iI .. .. :z : I "I - - , ~ ..-..' - ___.c......'~ II;;;;;:: ~ :5 ~ ~ "T1 ::JJ o s: V'l o C -i I O:l o c z ~ 0 Z 0> 0 3 ~ Cll -::a I > V'l m -i :E 9 'tJ'tJ ~> enz mz z- -4Z >(j') -40 00 z3: 3: en en o z ...oo~ ~Q)O Cf:l~ ....."00 ..... iil 1Il z: ~ 8 ~ iii' a 0800 c-,a )>!2. ~Cn ~c: gS: <.n <.n <.n )> V1 l' o o 00 n I .....ll ~~ 9:tD (f)::::J ~Q. I1tD ~tD Q,,< ~-1 9<D 0.. tl> .. =<;tD ~() or <D g.3: s:'< '< (1) 1Il ~ Ul (/) l?'tJ ill (1) 5"~ ." -. 3 ~ ~ (/) -c g- 3 D) iO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II ~~~ ~I~ S!!,O !;;~ -, ~_CD 0;0 ~:E :::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -u ~ en i: ~ CD S( ~ .!!' en i ~ o rt en '" "0 " 3 ~ ~ ~ I\) o 0> o CD "" ~ :5 z m ~ ~ 'TI ::JJ o ~ V'l o C -i I o;l o c z ~ 0 z 3 0 CD .ifilliii'i , 'I:. ,a".,..;, '-I: I'-,!s:'~; ... _.. c'. ..- ~ :a~!!I . . , "" i .'~;2'!'lfC:~ ) -;:n \ ,~ \ ~ I > V'l m o z .!!! 'tJ'tJ(f)~ ~>~tD enZ(f)::::J mZtl>Q. 3z~tD >(j')~tD -4 0 Q,,< o 0 ~ -I z3:9<D 3: 0.. _tl>.. en:::;;tD enQa _:J<D o iii' Z !,- ...oo~ ~Q)O C{':l~ .....,,00 ..... iil 1Il ~ ~ 8 w -. ::J w!llQ. o~oo c-,a )>J2. ~oo ~c: o~ <.nlll <.n <.n <.n ~. \ Q 3:)0- ~: 0,< "'ll ~(1)~ ~ (iJ ~ CJ Z 1Il 'tJ ;:4 ~ (1) 5" ~ -c _. 3 ~ ~ (/) - c ~Di' ~O ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o III tll ~~~ ~ ~::?;1c: ~~'3 lli.O ~CD ~o 'f:E ::::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -u ~ ~ ~ <- :5 ~ 8- m en ll> ~ ::E i: .!!' 'TI ::JJ 0 ~ 0 -< V'l -I m I I\) ::JJ 0 ~ '"0 Q z en 0 :!I -I I It co OJ z ~ 3 ~ ll> 0 ):> I V') 5 l' 0 c 0 z 0 g> G'\ (X) "0 ::E ~ m m V'l ~ -I ~ '" &l 11 ','-,. ~:' ~1' ~'. \ ' \h , ~\<- ~ ,. ~':~- . ,'J.' ,'! ' ' , ,I ~,,~1:.J 1101 ;..'~, I II' ,..' ~A .. 1 'i 1 {I: 'I 'I .: ",1 ~ "1 ~~' "!~ 'I"~ll '~lt '~\ . 1- :.1- il \1 :Il 1 .1 \1 ii, 'III~ ',~ I,~ \~I !~ I!I':~ IIIIEl1 :11, I 1m J.~' ,II _ ,11 I! , II ' II n If 1 II I ,II ,I 11 - I " '. Fl "1 ' . ' "l~ 11f1 III 1m, U hF"l "~ I'n n III'" In'" r- Jlr""l r 'n n I , 'I '\ .1 Ii" ,;i'!"1 111'1 III I - II ,..I I I I I I II I III I j I I ~'l : r'I:~ I l : I I ~:. II : i I · I 'I' I . I r Ii" f lr II I I 1,; ; -I fl'll'EI -1111 11'- J(I f IIUI J ' 1f1"~ r :/u 'till~f H~ '" '/11"1;:' "I~ .LI,iU .1_' 'A-I 14 W L=; II} - I n. ... {... ~~ ~ ~ ,~ I )i~!;,'i~?i' '~,iJ\it,. "" i;~!, 'i~ t" I 'I I II I · , I! 1 ,,' ,.1111 I I ./ : I I . I I d ~ ..:.i ~~ >:''l, ~ :~7~ , , , , . ' J_ ! 0.:. ':0; , . , , 'tJ'tJ ~~ ~~ 9:tD enz (f)::::J mz tuQ. z- ~tD -4z -, - >(j') ~tD -40 Q,,< 00 00 (")-1 z3: _0 <D 3: 0.. en tu .. ~tD ~ 30 0 0)" <D z ...oo~ g.3: ~Q)O <.n:l~ s:'< ~"'T1cn ..... iil 1Il '< (1) -;-l :l 8 ~ U1 ""Q.:l """,e. l?'tJ ~8oo c-,a ~(1) 0 ~ )>S- -c ~Cn 3 ~ ~c: ~ (/) ~S' - C <.n bl- <.n 3 D) <.n -c 0 Q) :l '< 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- 0 II ~~~ ~~c: ~~3 ili'O ~-, ~ _CD 0>,0 ~~, ::::J (C .. 00 S2<> ff' s::: CD -, ~ r t r -u ~ i i i: .!!' i ~ ~ )> l.I1 ::;" o o 00 G') g> "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ I\) o 0> ~ l I I -':- .~ 't -!~. ~'" ~~ - .,#! .. ,. .. ,,~i~4 .. ....... . .t~ I . ~ l \ \ .~ - .. \ ,\ , . ' I, . , ., ~ II . t t- '1 ( i)' · ~ ~i ., 5- cr ~ .I.~ ~ 'p ,'t- ~' , ,~,.-,: F' ~~ l' " " '\ ~"" , J I~Ll ~A ..~ ......~ ~' , ~ I" ~ . ~1 d . I .. \, '<j '. f. i j ~, ~ ! , , 1.' .. ~ . . l ; , l :!I CO z ~ ~j t -:0 :c > V'l m -l ~ 9 ~r! ,-" .N f~'~ ~ t" <I/fr'- 1\ ), " , , I ~' ,. . ", j. ........." , ~tt.":,",_,, )r . ~ \ ~; i ,~ ; ~; , :D ~ l S: ~> ~ . ~ en co ~ '\ ' i: .!!' :r;I:; ..~- ~ \ ~-- , . 1- ~ t ,> ~ 'fA.' I r' , .~ ;'1 ). I\) r @ r' ~ J ~..f '. , :i ~ en 0 :!I ~ ~:l i It CO , ~ z p " ~ '+: ~ ~ ):> VI ~ ...:Ji. "t. -.r!j: ^ t11 I 0 ' r '~,.l 0 g:> .....~' 1:' 00 "0 ti'/ ,t ,} '- ....... ~ G') ~ · '1 t.' ~ 'I vr-- I ~ . . --' '" . , &l I 'tJ'tJ(f)7' ;0 r- 0 :::::.. mJ>~tD enZ(f)::::J mZtl>r"\ Z - :J ~ -4ZlltD > (j') ii3 n'\ -4 :J~ _ 0 Q,-- o 0 ~ -I z3:9<D 3:0.. _tl>.. en:::;;tD enQa _ :J o 05" <D Z ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n :l ~ .:.,,,00 ..... iil 1Il -;-l :l 8 t: Q, :l ",,<Ilc' 0800 c-,a )>s, ~Cn ~c: 0::;: <.n 1Il <.n <.n <.n g.3: s:'< '< (1) 1Il ~ Ul (/) l?'tJ ~ (1) 5"~ -c _. 3 ~ ~(/) g5. 3 D) "&'l0 ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II :0 rp (f) ~!5 7' ~f~ 8:,0 '" &' -, [~ ~:E :::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -u I I I "I.....,.:.;,";. ,'~' ..." .; 1 r.." -'" l.. ~ ! ~! ,~1i,J.:f~..r ,.* ~ ""JIIo" ,... .. ~ ., " .....~ \ , \ \ , " ~ . ! . .. ~ r-"C; 'tJ'tJ(f)~ ;:c r 0 ::::::.. m J> 9:tD enZ(f)::::J mZtl>r"'t. Z - :J lo..L. -4ZTltD > (j') 03 - -4 :J tD _ 0 Q, '< o 0 ~ -I Z3:9<D 3:0.. _tl>.. en ::;; tD enQa _ :J o 05" <D Z ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n:l~ ~"TIC/) ..... iil 1Il ~ 5 g ~ CiS" ~ 0800 c-,a )>!B. co en ~c: 0;::::;: <.nlll <.n <.n <.n g. 3: )0- s: '< :g '< (1) r- 1Il ~ (1 Ul (/) )0- ~ 'tJ ~ tii (1) .. 5"~ -c _. 3 ~ ,g (/) - C g- 3 D) iO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o II~ I ?O ; 21 :;:~(f) ~ ~I~ 8:. 0 '" &' -, g~ 0;,0 ~:E :::5' (C en S2<> ~ CD -, ~ r r -u ~ &l 5' '!l co ~ II .!!' g: z ~ z o (fJ () Ql 1il o lJ (fJ 0 o ~ C ~ 0> r ~ )> ~ il--l f~ o )> G) lJ )> ~ (f) )>! (J) ^ I o ~ ~ ro 3 O~ )>~ I\) o o 0> I I II I I ~ I o :0 o "1J o TI TI j; :0 ^ Z G) ~) o l> G) ~ ~ "- ~C::= ~\\.\J' /. ()l'''\<6 ~ ~ , ~--- -----..- ~ ~-I , I I : I I I UJ CD C UJ ~ ,;;0 -:0 o ;;0 ..., CD r < CJ ~ S o z ;;0 )> ;;::: \J ~ / ~ I ~ ~- 'tJ'tJen:7 :::cr-o::::::::a m>~OJ enZen::::J mztl>o... z-:J -fZlltD >(i)03- :::! 0 5,~ o 0 ~ -I Z3:9CO 3: 0.. _tl>.. en=::;;OJ enQo _ :J o iii' CO Z ...oo~ ~1ll0 (J1:l~ .:.,,,00 ..... ill 1Il -;-l ::l 8 t: tl. :l ""ale. 0800 o@ )>S- <0 en ~<: 0::;: <.nlll <.n (J1 <.n g. 3: > s: '< ::g '< (1) r- 1Il ~ - iil (/) g ~ 'tJ ~ ~ (1) .. .g~ 3 -. 1Il ~ ;a(/) (")C o - 3 D) iO ~ 0 3 "C D) :::::J '< r- r- o .~ ! > I ;iU . m I 0 "' en en ~~~~ , 0.. ~3 8:' 0 ~CD ~- 0;,0 ~:E :::5' co 00 Qo ~ CD -, :::::I, tll ~ r r "'U ~ ~ ~ en co 1\ I .!!' <- o 0- Z ~ z o en en I\) () 0 8 Ql 0 CD S':~--1 ~ ~ ~JJ ~ CD i)> ~ ~"Tl "Tl o o )> G) JJ )> ~ )> en ^ 1 o --L o CD en <1> '0 ai 3 ~ ~ I\) o o 0> ;x> ~ "U ~ ^ :u ~ "U ~ ~I II II II 1\ II II II I 'J I II 1 i ~I I 1/ Ir, ;)1 ~i I j II i -=-- -" o "" "'0 )> "" ^ z C> "'0 r )> Z U1 -= ~ ~ - =:i:J f , \ \ , \~ I / I / I I I tl ! \ 1\ i !\ Ii I : I. I ' ; 1.1- ' ioi I ~AW9 III r I f I Ii ; II I I ~ r~ I I I i ! I I i I~ 1\ I I I ~ ~ I l' I : CARl I : I I I I 'i 10: I I , I I I I I ' I I I I I ! : I I i II I I : I, I I I 0 I , I I i I" I ,I , ~Ncl i il I Ii , \ I , I I I ~ III I I"" I II I ,CARli I I I : o:! 11\1\ I : II~ \ ! : i 111 I I! I II, : I I /1 I ~ ~ I j I ( I II , v II ~ : I~ ',Ij : VI -=-- -" o "" "'0 )> "" ^ z C> "'0 r )> Z U1 / -;:: ~ ~ - =:XI \ ~\ ''' ' I 0'\1 , ' , ' \1""" /'/ "// I -- I ~1,1,-(-!r~~~~ \ I q ," I ,! , ,{I I i \ 'If co g>~ I f mo ~O) enz -0 en:::) I Glm OlD. Z'tJ ~O) r-/ -4 -, - c ~O) I Q,' / r- ~---f 9CD I r 0.. ./ tl> .. =;;0) I @> QO , ,0 :J ./ m> 05' CD <-c m> I ,;;0 ....." Z G> ...oo~ 8-3: > I . . Vl ~IllO "'ll I CD <.n::l~ s:'< "'ll c: .:.,,,00 '< (1) r- Vl ..... iil 1Il 1Il ~ (1 I 9 -;-l :l 8 Cil (/) > c..:> 0 ::l ~"tI z I 0 1~ w ui' Q. ;:4 z ~8sa (li (1) I ;0 I Cj am I 1:: >~ o~ , " -c _. I I-~ <000 3 ::s I "'c ~ (/) ~ -, r 5lm -c (")- I 01 ~ S>> I <.n <.n iO , ~ 0 I I '" 3 . "C I D) . I ::s I '< r- I \" I r- I 0 , . "'ll ;:a m "ll > ;:a m c " u> en ~ ~!!l^ (1I'"Tl-. ill~ 0. > :: ~ 3 8:, 0 0 '" &' CD > ~- Q 0;0 :IJ ~~. 0 C ::::J ~ co 00 R'> <5 . ~ z ~ CD +' -, 01 :::::I, .9 - r r "'U , I , '" 0' f I -/ " r / I '/ I , . Vl CD c: >- ;;; Vl " I 0 9 I; I 0 z I ;0 ,Cj I >- ;:: I " i \ I I I 0'--- ",/ ... :D [ 0 g: ~ ~ en CD Z ~ .!!' ~ . )> r. 0 r )> z 0 0 JJ CJl CJl I\) 0 0 0 0 0> III 0 C iil ~ (Xl w ...,r en 0 ::J" !!'. ~)> ffi CD z-l )>if ~ - CJl CD 0 (f) m Z > "U 0 ^ -l 0 > m 0 1 ~ )> :0 CD 0 C) m G) c II ~ ---L -' JJ - 0 I\) )> <5 0 ~ Z I 0 0 +' \{ \ i i i i i ~ r 1 n ~ r ~ Ol -J -q 'tJ'tJ~~ ~>9:tD enZ(f)::::J mz tl> Q. ~z~tD >(j')~tD :::! 0 Q, '< o 0 ~ -I Z3:9<D 3: 0.. _tl>.. en ~ tD enQa _:J<D o oj" Z DECEMBf R 21 ST JUNE 21 ST MARCH 21ST <:u ...oo~ ~Q)O <.n:l~ ~"cn ..... iil 1Il 7' ~ 8 t: Q, :l (.>U>Q. 0.8 ~ (")m )>S- "'en :!::c: 0;::;: <.nlll <.n <.n <.n ~ 3: ~ s: '< "'ll '< (1) r- 1Il ~ (1 Ul (/) ~ ~ 'tJ ;:4 ~ (1) o~ ." -. 3 ~ ~ (/) - C (")- ~ D) iO ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o r .. " " ,,~ '" ... ", -<; '<( , .... '" " ""- ... "..., 11 . <0 o o Po> 3 <0 o o Po> 3 <0 o o Po> 3 III tll ~ ~(f) 7\ I~ ,0 &'-' ",CD ~- 0;0 'f:E ::::5' (C 00 S2<> ~ CD -, :::::I, :r; ~ " " ~ " " r r "'U ~ IV ." " -0. I\) I\) 0 0 0 0 "'0 "'0 3 3 o o "'0 3 "0 ~ " ~ :; " " . ~~. ., " ,; ~ l;l :Il i i g: ~ en Z tv tv ~ ~ tv l .!!' 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'0 "'0 "'0 3 3 3 z 00 I\) ~ 0 0 0> 0 0 ~ ex> w i 0 ~en .. CO" ~I z )> 0 ~)> 0 en 0 ^ ~ I en <D 0 '0 en lD 3 -i ---L. [i C 0 .~ 0 m I\) -< 0 0 0> "''''g>~ Rl>l}1U OlZI[':l mz~a. :!jZ-n!!!. ~(;)~~ SS@-l zE, CD E ~~ ~[~ OI.1lCD Z ~!~ ii I ~I[ 1-:' ,~ " ~.l S' r~ .. 8' ,5. m .. o ~ " !l ... :: o .1 ~ iil . l~ i I;; r" - -...,":'; :',~ ,'..; '3', .I.... ok "'",.,r;,.. .. , .. ' -."'" ~ ;,.. ,( ~,' :<., ._,' '" · '. . 'I · '~/~ If'2.::''' -t ' .' :. .. t rtfitp d j., ,'- , ~., .. .Jo.' ~', -W- /' ~'/_ f~f': l'. '''"' ' ~~ j t.c,.., ' .: .. :I, """,. .l..... ' cO ~_: ".t )- - ~ OJ ... o J o v It! C-l, :J" !;; It ~ . II:) IQ jl) ::J s: I CL ~ ...::: c.. 7' ~' I,(' '.r 't '1; :.. ,.., . - - C- ~ ~ "'. c ,-, t.J ~, .) j . } f i . :;. ,~.~-r'~~:,' ~:;i~ .' t , J ~;I;;""" ; J "tJ"tJ ;:or- m)> enz mz Zz >Cl ::!o 00 zs: s: en en o z ...oo~ ~QlO C{' :l ~ ::::l"OO ..... ~ 8 ~ O. :J W en Co 0800 . a ~J2. ~g' ~ -, ~CD <.n <.n <.n ~ g en co i ~~ c s:tD (f)::::J tl>Q. ~m ~tD Q,,< ~-1 oeD 0.. tl> .. :::::;;m Qa :J 0>" <D Q 3: )0- 0,< "tI ~ (1) ;:l! ~ UJ ~ l? 'tJ ~ ~ (1) o~ -c _. 3 ~ !ll (/) C:;c ~ Dr io ~ 0 3 'C D) ~ '< r- r- o III ~ " en (f) :':!l '" ~~c: ~~3 S!!.O !;; &' -, ~ _CD 0;0 'f:E ::::5' CO 00 S2<> ~ CD -, = r r "'U [l ~ .!!' & z ~ z }> Cf) o s: I\) o 0> o ~ en i z ~ ~~ z 32 "0 (j) ..., C o -< ::0 fT1 -U o ::0 -l o '" lD )> (f) ^ I o I--' I--' )> c:: <C c:: ~ !D '" o o a> ~ m-~gOJ~g>;! .Q,< CD Q.l 2 CD::J CD ~ !2. a;: ~ 5 ~ tD"O -CDCilg '<2a !!!, a. a. fJl ~ 0" ::J (D' fDfDo =d~ ~o 51 - ::; 0 oo::J -, ~ _, ~ !l!, 3 0 iii ::J 0 fJl CD ::J "0 c: -, CO c: - "'0 m_:::J.....:Jo CiloCil~oi6iiibl <_~(J)::::J _.- Q.l~_Q.l;::;:3::J~ ECDo::JfJlo= ::J::J 3"fJl c: ~::JCD coo ....0::J :E;:+OQ.lc:iii!!!..~ -. ~ !2. g ~ 5' 0 fJl ::J:E 0 -'CD ::J CD a. CD - fJlg Q.l O'co III 9:2i~ ~-,Q)- Cillll ....' fJl"O::J ~ o ::J 0' ::iE -, Cil 0 CD ~a.o~a.<;:+- O_Ill_.CDIll~1ll ::J ~~'CD3 =:E:: -, CD 0 _ CD 5' CD ~ fJlfJl::J~lllco!2.CD ~ 3 ~,~ ::J :E .!. fJl CD III ::J _,fJl _,00 -<=oo;-~acns. - ::I, 0 :E Q.l fJl 0 ~ o~s.o::' s.m O"CD~C:~-l~fJl ~ fJl 00 0: Cii' ~ m ;- .... 0 III fJl _,CD fJl 3 oC:]::!';CJ)cn- 3~"=0;::;:!!!..3 ~ 0 iil g ~ CD. cO' 2l CD-::JO fJl::Jco -0~0-3-' fJl ~ -, - - 2 ::J OCD~2l~Q)~O ScnOQ)CD--- ~;::;:' 51 0'. C/l :ECD-lCD3::J:E1ll CD 3 ~ ~,o III ~::J !2.CD CD CD!2.....o OJ .... III 5' a. :E ~~ 2 III ::J => III -, CD - ::J ~fJlC:fJl::J III CD....CD 0" a. 0'0 0 ""~::J""cnoCD~ _Q)(')ro~_t/)o ~-CDCDCDO~C: ~gO~;::;:-CD::J _ _ :: '"-. ~ en en m ~ :::r ::T -: C'O Q) ;::t: -. CDCDCDCiia.::JCD? ~ ;:;' " Q.. [ 0' ::l :s: ro o .... o o t.O 'C . o Vi' '0 .... CI> 0' ::l :s: o a. ~ 5' t.O . Q 3' 01 o o t.O (i' ~ ~ ::l 01 .z CI> Vi' -l ~ CD ! fJl 2' o ~ ..., CD fJl C/l"O a.~-l C:CilOCD~ 0< 3 :;;;.CD ~ III -. '0 ::T=;oa ~cEmcE"8 III :E III Q.l fJl 3 -':: X CD "O::J~CDa. =a.CDfJl"O ~ a. C/l ..., bl :;;;';::;: !!!...Q, _CDCDom o' 51 :- ::J 51 ::J o' ~ CO "0 O::JfJlllliii' ;~~~ iil g:i6~s.~ C/l~~i~ gO~~!:7 !:7(flCD_~ ~2-0-0 CD ::Joo ~51co::J:E _C:Q.l01ll i6rn~5:Ul (fl1ll0 ~1ll01ll::J oa::~g. fJlllli6a.1Il c:- -, C/l ~cnC"'a::;: OC:C:olll ~3;5:a.' Cil 9, -, 0 -l "'~<5?ffi :E-Ill '" =a.-C/lCD - -.0-, :3~::J::JC"' olllcogE ""::J.., c: o ~ a ~ 5' gllli6s.~ ~~ 9:i2l ;:+Q.lCDCD III ::l '" 0 ::l III ;- ::I, a.o :!.~ -a-< - 0(fl:E~ ~~::f:E m~a.;::;: a.CDfJl~ g c: 0: 0" CD a. CD '" Q g a. III C/l C/l CD ::J a. CD ..., o :E ~ (fl ~, ~ III a c: ::l a. CD a. "0 a ~ !D -l ~ Cii' ~co > o Cil C/l 3 III a. ....CCD ~'< '" CD ..., Q ::J CD -, o@-g ;::\.0 a. ~CDIll :Ea.0" CD 0"0 !2. '< < . ~.!D CD.... "O~ ..., III III CD fJl X CD "0 ::Jo ~~ aa 000 Ill- ::J- OJg- 2(fl :3;::+ OCD ~O' 0"0 5Cil iii< -,Ill ::J = , ::f -lCO ~'" CD_ (fl a ;::;:::J CD co Cii'::l (fl 0 ~;:+ m~ ;::;::E CD CD CD~ a.m _:J.. a'< 3 ~. :E ::l _, a. ::l '" a. _. C/l C/l (")0 m 0 ;:+::J -'Ill ~- ma. a. OJ (")Ill 0= ::J III '" ::J ~e: 5' co s:: m ;- o a 0' co ~ 5 ~ ~ ~~::iE ;:+ c: m <g. _. ~ i:Tg~@-~ ma~"cn<~ !2.C/liiiCDmm mlll_Ill::l_ :J..::J 3 0" 5' CD3 '<OJ ...,co ~, 2 g ~ ~16 ::l::J::JN=.... a.oiii~!"a ~,~5'O"Cil ~ ::JO '" 0'" CD C/l c: 0 :E S 5' o ;a ~ -. ::!: < C:1ll-::J::lm ~ 5' 16 ~ ~, iil 00 Cii' CIl =l: :: C)' ~ III ~ :T cO' =, 3-m~'" ~1ll"-o~O III '(5' iil III :5':E g ..., ::J 9, a. -,:E 9. ~ '" ~ (fl -'(fl 0 CD gao2l~3 'cooma. III -00 '" ~ "0 m ~ < -, . ::J III OJ ::l III -'::J ....3 m ::l::J - a.~ ~;-~ Cii'iii' CD 3 ~ ..,' 0."0-' m -llll CD '" {l ~::J .... '" oCDa.aBf iilC/l~~5' 2:~g~:E ~OJ~::iE~ 021ll~a. ;;; ::l ;- m :E _ 0 a. ::l -, gG>~~a co III a m(fl - "0 c: -, III 16:E<g.~Cil Cil ~co ~ !2: _,0 III '" 0 !2. ~ '0 0' 0 ~ is'~, =, iti ..-cn::JUJa. c CD CII iii ::l m < D! c- D! - 0' ::l O"Illa.o 5. g ~::l. 0:0 CD CD 5'lJl 3 a- ce _ -. a o ffi ~ 5' :::!, (fl::J g~:Ea. _ (I) _. CD m<::l- a. III a. CD :EE1ll3 ;::;:<5 g 5' =-:E~m .... -. CD cn:J..,~ -a. III 0 g a.=::E co iii'g 3 III 0' c: ~, g: :J g. OJ ::J co :E O'~, g 5' ::J=CDa. co ~ ill -, .,..Q) _en ~ < - -, CD(I)O"a "0 III ~ ~ ""co a.o CD..., -.m <CD::l"O ~a~;- :r ~ ... a. CO _.~O" :E 3 a'< -'"0 III :T ::J III .... CD a. 51 CD Q:oo!2. .Cil ::J ::1.2 Sl(Q~51 -, a - c: oc:CDCil ? ::l a.. a.:E1ll cirg:m' ~ = 51 --0 -= ~.::. ::Z..., ::::T a:E1ll t/J -. ... a. a. :7 CD ::;. III III m ::l ~. 9: 1llC/l'< C/l - :i" ~ *' -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ :::;; ~ c: ..., ~ III < CD OJ ::J '< .c c CD !e- 5' ::J fJl o o ::J o CD ..., ::J 5' co ~ Cii' III :J III -< (fl .Cii' "0 CD III C/l CD o ~ o OJ Cii' :i" iii' CIl o III ,<..., 0 CD '< -, m co c: Q.l>~iil~:T ::J ..., m -,'< , CD;:+OoC/l OJ CD ::l 0 III ~C;Cir3.::J s::.~a~ CD~Ill~OJ oaC5a.g "0 Cii...., 0" Cii' O. 0,< 0 -...m::....o ~3~CD-. CD CD=tCJ) "0 n, III - 3 m =- 5' 0 III iil 3 III bl :::::!'co::] co ~Cil{la.a. iii'5'~~5' C5QCilm::l :'CD:Ei60 _ III ~ _, ;:+ i6~~<g.i6 -(J)CD-~ OJ:E_o::J a3 ::t:::T:: (I) ..., ~ CD ~ Q.l O~::JCD::J -CDO ,.. g cO' 3 ;- ffi' 0~1ll3~- -.... -"0 CD' a.CD ;;;C/lCDiil(") :;;;.~g,~g ~~~ma. g ~ 5' 5'':'= co m - < ~UlmCD::iE =: -,3 iil _, ::J 0"0 -'::l ~iilmga. o iil' '" 3 OJ - -, oCil=;>:. =l:O'CD;-~ .... c: ~,3 CD i6::l ="0 III a.-m"" ~5'i6iil m Q. :;: cO' C Q) ffm~CDCD CD III "0 OJ 5' ~ fJlCDs-g;-1ll ~",CD<...g: ....VJ;:!.(1)g_. ~~ ~cQ~~ m CD _ 0 CD -, "O~oc:a.'" a ~_ ~ a.9" 3' 0" -. ~ -0 OJ :""5.0-0 0"..... ...,~;:+ CD co "0 III m Cll ma-C/l::J :E ::l O"CO - - :5' m -... 2 -, a.QlCDOo::l -' - 3 5 ~ a. 32?l a.'" $a "O-OJ mCD IllCDC:CDIll"" 0-'=<::l3 - '" a. CD -, III ~ 5' ;- a. 2. ~ III co - ~<5 a:::~:JCDoC c: ~ ~ co - :5, ::lmOJCDi6::J a.3;~""~ ~g~~g3 m CD CD - ="0 ;-gQ.l!!!.Q:~ ::JID::J.... 3 c: O"ll! 0" "Q.::Jcn<<>m CDl;;~CDg xc:Ill::lc: ~!!!..al~8l Wrnc... O"~O"CD::+ C:1llc:a.g ~ ~ 5:~.::J ::J 0 --::J :::t co""<5a.o c;;' E: en Q) en co~~o~ ~m~~~ C/l CD CD ~~~~~ ::!'Ill CD 0 0 blOco::l~ _~....(fl:E -< C/l CD 0 -, - :::T III 0 ::J _Ill fDo a. g- ~ !2. ~ Cii' ~ g Cii' 5' < CD 0 fJl ID ::J c: acCD3 ~ ~a3 CD ~.... III o ~ ~-< c,<CD- !!!.-3~ '<OOCD g 5' !2. ~ ID a. (fl .Q, ....c~CD ~@~51 Illco~g- aa~~ ~5 ~::J Oa.CDa C:.L(flID 0: ~ ~,:g O"~~CD CD -,Ill ~::E:J..., cO' 5' CIl 0' ~a.o~ -< S. III c: III ~ < C/lgC/l~ IDCDIll~ !2:CD::JCD !1> ..., "Tl"O 2t....o 5'~ ;- ::J 0 ::J ?l Cii' g- o- 0- O. g s.~:E a. a. 5' o_a. g ~"O CD' '0 a IDa!:!: ...._. CD C CD 3 Cil51C/l '(JI a. ' OJCD-l Cil cB' 16 ::J ~, ~ Cii';- en ;:;: CD m < Dl C Dl - o' :J Ill-l ::J~ a. Cii' gCD alS 0"" ;:+ Cii' Cil3 iii''< .... ..., CD CD a. "0 _0 0;:+ ....0 i6::l a.Q. ~ 3' cO'a ::J m ag ....::J ~a. CD;:;: ~o' ID::J ::J '" a. III Ill- D)~ '<CD -l"O ~ .2, III (I) 051 CD '" "'0;:;: .2. : CD::J fl-a. 3 '< CD < III E a 5' ::l a :E 5' a. ~ !2. ~ g, ~ ~2~CDO lll~g~5 (flaac:~ 3 '" 5.g m !!!.. g co' ~ ~;-!2.~i" ~ @ 2 -g 5' Q: -. Sl (fl a. ::l:JC:C:1ll co Cii' a Cil g bl5"'-.~ ::J _ -. C/l CD O=;:!.Q)Ql Illitio =: ~-<~3g CDO'CDm(fl ~'bl ~,~ ~ ac:::J....OJ (l>a.m"" "Oa(l)fJlog Illq_= Q:~CD_Q: CD(I)Ill~::J ~iil?CD~ v. CD m ~:E>~~ ;::;:5.O"mCD Cii' a. 5, a g =t'D1Q:...::J CDg-'~- ~ ~<5 ag, &)CD........CD ::liil~~a. a._II) CD 0" -. 0'.... '< ::::J ::J _,0" m <C '" C/l ~ X ~ a~ Q:-g a.co ~ ~ (I> CDaO r:: ~55~~ 5la.g-CD3 ~CDa.a~ . <6 0" '" ~, .;-'< OJ ::l :E - O"CO :T!!!..01l) S'~~a 0'CD'-o3Z OOJ~1ll0 1ll~1I)"'::J c:..., ~ !!!. CD g CD fJl ::J 0 ClJcn.....lr.(O~ :E~ Ill~ ;::;:CD~::JCD ~O'a.a.o OJo",oc: 3 OJ. ::I..... "Q.;-:E~g- ma.oQjo en S' 5.. ~ -, ~1I)a.oCD' ~""::J::J1ll fDmaa~ ~(J)Ql...m a !!!.(fl ~C/l 3~s.CD(fl CD-(JI~ ~..., -'-2 0 mc::J S. :E::J!2.51a. 5' ~ a ~ 0" ~~<5mCD fD-< 0 ~ a.1ll::J< O"O....CD '< g ~ iil "0- CD a ~ !!!,-< CD~;-Ill ::JCD- =l: c:a.CDCD !!!..:E;::;:o -0 -. ~ ;- aa~a. (D'?l O'~ 51 ..., I -l :E <g ~CD ~ 5' ::J Illa. CD "0 C/l . Ql a m ro--g.....;1 a.(flIllCD :ECD- _, a. g CD 5.0CD~ C/l cOO oa....,~ .., 0 -...-. -'00 CD ::1 .., ...,... Ill(flS:: agJ!!. -0 ~ g :T:Eo II) CD c: ~5e.Ci ",mo _ a.::J 0 o ..., :Eg,CD' ~ ~a (JI CD r:: III -0 Cil ::J ~(fl a. III III C/l :E Q-~~ o _::J -go.... =l:~~ ~~(J) ms.1t (fl !!!, 5' 0-00 ~~c CD CD a. (fl (fl CD g s: III ~~g. :E-o= ~ag- -3 III o CD ..., ::::1 CD ~OJO CD a. CD -om a- :TgCD OJ ..., C/l ::J 0 CD~S. "'0 a. _~o o ::l 0 :E co ..., CD - II) :'" ~Cil -0 III Bfa ~~ .....CD o CD III ..., "TlOO iil r:: ::JJ2: o CD Cii' 51 g .. ::iE 5' a. III ::l a. (") o 3 0' ;:+ > ::J ID -< C/l Cii' Q ~ CD ~ III ::l a. III iii' '< -l CD ..., iil o CD o CD < m 0' "0 3 m ? 00 o c: ~ 00 OJ :J ~ .... C/l o 0" ~ al 5. ii :i ca ~ CD .. o a. ~ D! 3 n CII III ::l ::JO a.;:+ :E~ -,:E ::J m a. (I> "':- 0- ::::J~ CD ~ID CDeli (1)..., ;:+0) CD co ::E CD =:E CD::J xa. ~(JI 5'"0 ;::;:31 3a. o :E Cil== <0" OJ(l) 6l' 0' O":E =CD ~::. _.~ ::l III :E ::l -,0 ::J.... a.~ a.~ iii' en 00 _C: 0' :T ?oo OJ ::J "Tl iil ::l o Cii' g [ 5' ::::J !" 0;'3 o OJ CD (fl (fl C/l III 5' ::JCO a. -. (JI (fl ~Ill IDa. ..., < "0 III o ::J oiii 3<g ~ 0 '" c: "fJl 5a ~ 3 ....Ill o :E 0'-' o ::J c:a. (JI (fl ::Eiii -,::J ::Ja. a. "0 CD Q, ::J ::J CD .- ..., <COJ ,<", a:T _CD :T'< CD a. 0"0 5,::J 0:0 :i' ; co III o < o CD 3::r ~ CD ?l :E c: CD 0" c: c:: 5' co C/l..... 00 00 ~"Tl~;- - .., a. < "03m m3.o:;) g~~g' (ij'Cil og g~:E- . :5' (") g> co >;::;:'" , m ll<> CON~ ~c.nm ~g::; o == "t)c:...oo OJC:- co::JCD (l)CD~ N!JO::J ",CIl 00 :$[ -oc:...C/l OJC:- co::lCD CD CD <6 w!JO::J ",C/l 00 00" Ol~ c:... c: ::J CD ;'l '" o o Ol !!l ~ n ?c: ~ ~ __"""tr'V c..n 01 =:;.' ..p. oo..o(J) ~~n8 ~~OJ::: r:u~~(fl :jg~:; R;!:3~!! n :l ""-; iii' Cl.. \) o ~ Vl ~ ;5' to s: ~ o ~ o 0- t.O ~. o o :s Ql Q: o::l ~ QT :s ::to "''''g'~ ;a!;~", ~~~6. ZZ"'r1Q!. ....lOli'" ~o'< 00 -I z!l:, CD !!1~ l:~o o ~'CD z ,~s ~!l:t .' ~ 'f' ~ ill f! $ d 2- f ~ ::l ~r IS. m .. o o 3 i ::l '< r- r- o B! i ii~ ~ 11$ !~ 'g .. i t;; i I II I m Z .... ~ ~ i ~ )>! i ; ~ "I en m ^ o. I I ~ o 5. --I. _ Z l\.)~I~ )> ~ ~ ':' il 1 I I I I ill : I, I . 1 1 I I , 1 ~ : !: I I ~ tit II. ~I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III : II III 1 I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I 1 It \ t )> :::0 "U o ~ OJ < o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I \ I I I I I I I \ I I \ I \ \ \ \ I \ \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I \ I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o Z I en -I m "U )> :::0 ^ z G> \ \ \ '" +---\ o i ~-~- +1J- I o :-n :-n en o e -I OJ .- o G> ---- .- " me "-1 -Ie -1:::0 em ~:::o~ ~,,"2 <3~ (')0 fii m\ -I EJ=EJ o z o :::0 -I I OJ .- o G> II ~ ~ I I I I I I L' IW I ....~:s:: ill' I I . I "'> I>> I il!~!a I ZZ"Tl~ I I -<"il>> ~n' ." I :::0 .. I I ::l '< ^ r- I h 'I I Z I I .~ I I G) en I i I I I 0 "1 I I I C I II, I I ! --I I I I I :c I ,~ I I I 'g I I ;1 OJ I .. I .- i I II I 0 L_ I;; I I G) I I I , I 1 I II ri I ~ I I 1\ I I I I 1\ ~ I .- I. )> )> II z :::0 m I ""0 m 0 z I :::0 --I I --I ---- ~ OJ ---- I .- ---- < ---- I ---- 0 ---- ---- III "-. I "-- I '" \ ' \ \ \ :\1 I I I I I I / I I \ \ I I I I I / It \ t \ \ I I / I I I I \ , I I / ~\ I I '" o /' I \ "-- 0 :::0 /" \ \ "-. -- "T1 0- I I ----"'---""0 I I I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ I \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ II \ \ \ II \ \ \ I \ I, \ I::: H== ..=b ---- ~ Ol :::J C. 0> Q) '< ~ OJ () CD r: u ~ 31: Hn ~... ~" ~J H ~ ~ . a s: i' ;; c l-:: V ii" l.Il 11 (") .. ~ " .. :> '< r- r- n II :rcn ;t~ r~ '~ .. <= ~ ~ ,.. ,.. " II "l> L1 - - > VI Ol Z ~ ~ ~ , , > 00 Z L~ \,01 n l.D ro li C> . n " 0 . ' x " > iol . u ~ I 'i ! ~ ~ " lil .~ ~ I q ~ "i r i .00 i .' f z r If 0 Gl ~ I ~. o '" 1) II ~ ,i : ~ I H :1 I ~~H~HH g"-J.N"'~~ ::;l Gl r :::iIl(IlL :: l(I ::l 3 3' III 5' 15: Uod'il[~ ~ ! ~~ g~ i ii H i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "NNNNN--- ~3333gH~ )(X)(X)(X (.INN ~ Cft~ ": PI ~~3 xxx II ~ [ ~ !l~ "" ." l ~ [[ [ 1l' o 0 Q f ~g if i l!' H if '" ~~ ~ ! ~~ [ g :: i! AlCg~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~Ol ~'< ~-l (1) \?~ ~~ ~' (1) ~! 9 !~ ~ ~H 3f ~ i ~h !'l ~ t _, is a ii ~ ! ~ , (") o 3 " ~ ... ... (") .. ~ ~ :!!(' < \IJ II''; .~ .~ .. ~ ~ II . . 'C ~ ~ 0. z ~ , , . ~ ~ : ; t ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ " " ~"~~ii qg>~l!'3 iiH ~ ~Ig~ <""a!!t: l~-"'a.a "'~ l ;; ~H \\' ~ ; <: .!: ~~P~i ( ih~ oJii;. !~!; ig _ ;~ ~HH;~~~~~~H :r :r H ~ ~ .. ~ H ~ if if !fif :z :z z ~ i n i " .. ! "i" t g! f I I I r->z::us:r g'~~~'n.!1l!.;r \;~~~~~5r~~ ~ ~i~n~ ~ If III O"e.5.~ 'll.~ Q::t !\:or~ ;'6 1 i H i "1lVN~~~~ ~~~":~~~~~ eee~~er- r- "i~ ~gl ii ,,~ ni i i ~ R:~g'S: <lIlsn> ~~~ii 'l'~ ~,~ *0;1 o~ t~ !~~3:t .nf~ ~ il i ~ Wl ~ ~~i'''" 9_ i ~ If ~ I ~ Si 0 ~ ~ i ~ o 3 '0 .. " '" F n . ~J cr. ~r i,~ j'" 1i '" ;:: ~ i! F " II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 ~ ~ u.... n :r. ~ ~ n ~ ~ 9:t. n ,; ~ r W . o " I i ( l I I' '~ - 0 "i ; en: ~ 0, J; I ~ ' ii' I i 0 · . f 0 .- '2 ~ If ~ ~ <:) Ii ." <:) [' s;: N ~ , z ~.-',- ,,'--, -...... , : "ct', " \~:i~ / /'-r- I .{.b,-,i.II~:~ , ._ . .' Ii", \jl if ~ . It> ,d ~' u ~~' n ~ ~ ~ .' , M ~~ ~ " -r;.~~:~v ~. :: '';, J , r~ _ 0=11, Y , ~. .ti.'"" -"j~'~ <;: ...~ -t..l" -r " ,("--- :. :'.,... . ~" ..~, tv .. , ' .' ,; if,# 1'. L.. I I \1 \ f- ~, ~~, '1:.1 ~ _ ,ii" . ~ " ro... ~ ~'&: :lI'~ 'J.. ~ .~: ,; .~ . ~,,~ ~ , I ""t ", " . >' '., I.( " <..j .. [[!J) ~ I if;'.~ .'_, ~r.t., ' ;,~ f '. . II- l' ..". ''IF-:1 :.::,. .' ,,' I' I tI I,'. ~ . ~ =k 1 'i' .~ O=:'~fi:' r,)" " '-;Jo"': ~, :'11 .-- ,..,> i~: T" I. .-;' ~', e- ~;~~ ~ ' l '. ,~ ~ ~ \of. '~~~\ li?ii;,: '~ "'-,....... ' .1lP> :...~ (--,J!' _~ '.' ...~,'.,,"1~p," l;- ., ~ 1_ - :~'\l" I-' " . ,.' . ,:, i{ '::,~f-- gb,.,r;, ,,; H " " '" .', ',' I 11111 I , ' " ' ..... 'I~ I 11111 If' ,'" t " l~ if! , ,;,' ':~,; . i L, ',', . ~,. ,., ,".'~ 1''', ! i I HI ~I 1 ~ ,\,.u - ii' - ,- - " ~, ,,- d " \1 .,~,,- - -. - - ,- · [' ,- - A \ ':~t~~ ,:,_~ ~, M;'-"':';; '1'- "':. . i \ ., ,wi -, - :' 7 ',1) i \ ~,__l!i' - - .. -, , - -.:. - '- ' '-"" ~ \, ,,, , " ~,';./, .' - - , - -"'" f. 'f JI ~ ~~""I ~ _I ,_ -t """1 ! 'I ~ \ ~ ~~ =11 Wi ! i I i - f', ~ ~n ~ =~. f- ,:!.l ~ i .,. . I 1,l:f n. i i ~.tOl, I ; :ti.:Z~ ~j :!. 1 i__,...... I 'fH- -f~ ~'" ;1 I :t;,~ ~:"~..., .. ~', ~, I ,~~~~~...,. I t I~ti;':': h.'~' ..4' t- j fri '- " ifNl\ t. . to' ~ il- Il~~ \. ' ~ ~ i,,~' t ,;.1., '~1 ,~' ,(~;,~ J:; ,~,.')~h-,,~ iIj.~" .. 'J.~'1 ~ '~1. ,~, '.~ .t .~~ .)~. ~ ,'. ~..j,~ ~ ~ .~t;:~~ ,.":" I \ ,~!.'- \ ... 1,\->- ~'~ ~. " IH--./; ~ ,~, -f- \;:, WJ,',;-_~" I -e-) \' I 'I- I-' l I I- ~, :'~ I -H {- ~ II ~~' ' I, I I - '." ',' '" ;f ~" i\;AO, " 1:, --,,,,",, 1lf'-..;~'.... 1 ~.;' ~ 't' ~:'. -,r;- .,... r:~: 'ht , . 0= - {~ :'-i.' " ... . ,c~~ ~,'~ "'!>,~~' ,.~ i~ ,- ,- ~fi ~ - l~ 0', 1=r~ -: '~ ..-tJ~j - 'fr" / " / __~ ~., 'cl:1J' "1'1' ,~ J-.-/ l-- f-,,,r If''l.,,, - I, \.. ~ " f- / Y~lq 'I .-'-j--- .- .- ---" '-. :;0 '" ~ ""'-- - --.... ,',- --- / / '~ ( F=== ~ ,-:;:Jl1 ~ b c:r c:r '< I I J I I - i~ i ' l1' cL..../ ---...... ....... 10. I~"'" '1.7 ~ ~ I~ ro ~ lo. ' '~r I I A ~-;- ~~- 7/'" H ~ ~(I ; i! - I .'{g \~ f \ ] '@ \ \ ~ '-Ill } f\ ~. ~ ... ..... ...d i---)-.. - -,- ' " /' .~. /~ J--~/ _..~ 1. /1 ""'" ,~ II ~~,," ...., .! 't', 'f' r~duyu 1iQJ~ - ,,'~r:~f~-- , tmH _{ .]1.: t-J , '1 , *: ~H .. .,.",' 0 ~ I ~ ~.~ am ~ ! 'T i:. -'t ~~:.: "', ~ '" 1"1 , , /", i,",- ~/ -, ~ ~ ...~ ",., " I~'~ ~~ k~ ~ ~ 'tgJ - ...J II~Y JlIII llr ...... "Iv III III lIr J ~ I, 1I ~[} ~~ j I- o c .- -. :s-J "'-T '.. e- .-1 ;a ~ ~ g~ ",0> ",::J ~g. WOO ~'~ '(1) ~~ ~~ 0;'(1) f~ n= un ~ i ~ ~ >~ ~..~ H a- ~~ H o 3 ." .. :> '< 1= n II "f'" !r~ i~~ I~ :5 og ". <:: ~ iI. f;; IB E ""... VI.... ..... ~ ~ - tJl VI Z -..j i-:"'"Ti :JI l.>I Ul ~ ..., ,'.' 1>:J 00 Z - l.oI t.l (') ~'l ~ ~ ~ g 't 9 ~'l ~ (') i1 " " ~ ~ . 8 ~"U .m o m en -i Jl ~ ~ ~ ! i · ~ · 10 r m en 0 ^ j; I Gl C> Jl 8 I ~ f [ f. , t I l \ \ i l I ] \ " .......-- -- ,. I // ./ ~ ~ ~ " ~~ 3~ 'f> ~ ~ . "l' .J . , ~ - .. '" a 1 t ,'11 I rlll>-OO len I ii, s=: '\ 0 I ~ g. ~rl1 ~ s. I 1;$.1) J ~ : I ,: j ~'f~ t : ~ : ~J,:l', r, f,' ' I ~ l ' ll'O. ~I ~ : ' I~u Ig' i I ~ -\ I I I~~ /-~ I~-h-= /. ." m \ 13 I' d_ ~ ' I -0 \ C1l I' \ ~t5. / Ig I ~ IU ~T " -::r / I C1l ~ I I I I I ~ I I /--" I I I,' ~ \j J ( I ~ . ) I I ~ (I I ~, /1 I lloI / I r" J I I ~Im-'~ : I IlmJ~: I /0=; I '0fl I I I l.;- _ _ ~....,..", .' -- .- II ~, <JI '1/ /' x/ ;/ /' /' ,''1'...L " I "lA ................ ~ /' " / .~,.~ , ~ ll" 9 ~ n ~ l -% ~ ~ ~ if '" ii ~ // ~ ~ I" "~ 0 '"-=""",,, '>....... '--- ~, /' ./ '" \-n v'" ~_\:f""'-.:;::::\.) .:;,i' .~< . .. 'W ' ~~ , 0~< ~ 0fC'~ " 'j\ ~ ..;: ,~ ~ / \ ./ r... (J ~ "'A!)~ ~- ~ 1(? \ " ./ " " .?'~ Z iiI " D ~ ; . .,- ~ /' ~ 'if ;7 Q- g ~ 1:0 -, ( \- 1l~" ~~~i 31~: c.. .":< ~ ~~.~~ i~~~ ~'! g ;; g3~'" ~~ !.~ nil Q 0 <T -:":.:3~,< ? ~l~ !iU 1:9t ~ TQ.8Q' !~3- "~~i 0;7 ~'"l -~ 2.~ ~~~~ ~~~ g- ~= ~~ -~ Q 2- ~~!~ ~o: ~ ::302 ?io~:l g[: ~. "0 ' 2 "o~ ': i.[ ~2. '<;" .~ ~!I 03 ~3 ~;; .05 g2. If li~ H i ~~..t>- ..;( ~ 3 ' , .... 3 ~ a g~.~ .--.3 ~.~ 0 0. ~cr ;~O;~_: ~i , -'< ,~; g.i~ ' H~ g~i ~~2 :.0 ~~ & nO_ ~~; o :;l~ ;;,.~ ;ii~ Itgi ~j 0 f:<IJ;i Q!.G nO' a3: g~? ~~~ [go ~ g ,u ~~ "'0 o g~ :;~ O~.C' .~ ,,~ ~~ g:S: ~~ ~~ ;-3 ~~ li ::~ , ~~ ~i !L .J= T~ ...~ !:.,,-no c . ~~ .01> D ~ , g " <TC 0- ~3 20 ~ g: ~~;Q~(?, ~ 0 ~ ~"'" a- !i~7';;t"llt';l) o H gl w"", i~ (i ~ ~~ .'i . ;; ~ 3 g,. o . ~-i - - - - ;;~~~~~ii I '<t-~ g ~ q . n o ~ ~ .. g ~ , Q o "' \ \ -- I / -- -- ,r "'00:1: ;=> o C' -. -. 00 en ; 3.C1l0 :; << i- lloI ... ~ O' ::l "',"lJ' r r l:l '~'~-~ . . i~ ~~i if L~ 1~ i 15 ~ ~t ~-.. ~ [ - ! ~ . e · ~~~~~y -1('" i?~-O~Tlf <"ii=3.~lco~ii~. :!:!:,... 3 ~ il a. g:~ 5"'~ ! f C/l .. Sl!i +J ~!....~ ~!~.. c: F II. K II ~ ..~:r s ~11t'5: ~< . .~- - - ~~ Ii H~~~~HHHh ;r I ~ [ , ~ ~ .. [ i~8~t;:~ : I',~ -> ~ i-I' . , " .,; , . y !l: ;; , c g':!", ~~ZS.':> in(~i,< i~';~;'~~ 3 ~:;;y ~ . sr.y ~ i t: i I I I I! II I I ~ ~ - ...................UUl ;~~.;,;,,;.r"'...0 eex""eer!=F- f;i ~)C '" ~ ~:iP'S: :S~90> ~~~5. ,,0> ~~ ~-j -(1) \?~ ~W ~@ en o c: -I ::1: ~ ~i;; n:' ~H r~ ~ ~~~ r~ ~ d l' ~ " ~ go :i ~. J ~ ~ 0;- n o 3 ." .. " '< r- ::; II~ ~ ~~~ ~ i~,~ ril ,~ .~ po ~ ~ II ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. L "-J ... ~ U lA Ui " ..........::tl ., o 0 ~ }? :r: ~ ~ I.' 01 t' ?: @ ;! :.> 1.0' )( ~ ~ ~ 'I t: z 0 ~ ::1: ." G . i . .. II - 'T: 'W I~' i 'ftI~1I ,-/l, - - " , - 1 " ~ " , ,~ 'R' " I ~ , ,~:~.I! '.. ., ,," , ~~ -Ii' ..,I~ ....j .~~. " " "! , )'.~ t ,~ n , ," ~ Iii 't N f ...;j "lli rll --r ~-j , , , i-L , , :1- 1/ '-- ~ [[]~? ~ .IL II 1 I~ II . ~ q " I ...J .: , lit ~,,, -". : ..,.,1 ""'" L~ IL- l!.! III 111 III Ir II - ..J= 1 I = II- 'b r_ , , , , --Ii I '=1 iI = t\ 1'=:" II p_ololr;r;;t'\!;l IllIll;~ I . IrRr~~ ~ _l~ "p- ~ :~{ f ~ " I~t ':" r- f. - . i"~ , , , I , :- , . ' .' '<it "l " ~'" L.W . ~ -, . ;;D g>~ "' < gl\) ~ ~5. ~I\) iiiOJ ~'~ 'crl g~ "'I\) ~O 0;" CD ~o &~ .~ .'" .. ~ q . .. [. r;: "a ~j h ::a H ! ; ~ ~!:. 0 i ~ i: . 0 :I !l m ::l Z '" ,.. ,.. )> 0 c II m z ~!! 0 ~ Ui '~ po ::I: ~ ~ II ,..:\ 1/1-' . ,> . (.II (II Z -..j ". ~ '1 UI ::: ::: ~ ti on Z r- t.l 0;..1 0 1,1 :~ ~ ~ g -., P (':1 > -t '0( (". ~J > n ~ ~ o " i i W ; i ~ ~~. ., '" I ie~~. ~ c i ~ .~ ' . f'~ r " r" CJ) f ~-v. ?' I ' g ~ 01 H HJ.nos - 3NIl HOlW1l I' " I '#~ ,~I ~ r&, D -It.' > .. ~ r.,;:, 1 '" ~ ;.-- I, .. ,.-i. !' , ,\t~ ' , .... IJ ",1 .' , ~~ 'l " ---... .~: I ~ .., I >i. ";# ) E3 ~')oo " '~"..k '-... ~f 'i ,>~ . . r ......... ~'~~' ..', ~ , y' 'f:c ' . .'.' >'A, ~. t. ~. 'liI"" . ,._..f .. "- ',", I " i \ i " '/ = .; iii ",:" I c " ~l', ~ ,A. ";.:, - , F'; ~ .- , ~ r.. " . . ~, ,.Pbt1':t' .' - ~ - ('~~; --- --- :: .. ~..: , .. ~:. ' , ~ ...'., ~ /~ _f"..,.W~:t. ,} . \*'" 'r I l ~ '1-~ , ..,. ,- , ..c.. i r::-- ..J 11cJ ~ , ~ 1 ,- .. - '. Ifl '" , "'g-' - I\. ,.... LJ \ ,~ '. .. .' ,. , \.11 'FJ. .' 10 I~ 11 0 (") '10.. D) c~J. f' ,~ 16 ~ 8 or - ; I ;:;0 II CD ..... 4 I, . ~. v. "" d / / I I " V JIt... Ff1 \1 ,; .. .-~~. - .. 10 '.1 I 1 0 I 1 Ie =::::.t::: I ~ ~ I ~ i =:::::::.:~ (~- B / "a ::a o i: m z )> c m en o c: -4 ::I: I / '. t.rf',; oj -r ,. o 1 ~ ,.:" .; o o MATCH LINE - NORTH ;:;0 CD ..... Dl r- 01 C" ~i ~~g>~ <(/)~ID i!i(5cn::l ~Z~a. ~ID 1Ufi) ~'~ '<1l &'~ ;;olD ~O li-(I) ~o &iC ~i s~ n !iil 80 r;: d h, ~i !; ~ ~ 5- i~ .0 3 !l ~ r- h II ~~'c.n ~l~' -n lEr~ ~~ .. i I;; . - - ,. :- If I .... u: u: ~ ~ ".to'~ (]I ::~~d () 0 Z r I.,ol '.... () I,' :~ ~ ~: g ~ ~'~ .'< r"J > n ~ ~ o " :J: en .... o ~ o ID (I) m ~ ~ 6 z "lJ o - z .... (I) o c: .... :J: "'a ~ m ~ m z (I) 6 z ~~ /~~, . ~lf, ~ ., .... . ~ ;! I ,I ~ . o I ". (/) , 11;, ~ P ~ . ~ m >> ~ 0 l' w '!!l . , f'~ . r . r- ." r:') en ! ~-'>;. ?' 0 0 (J) ~ ;:00"'5: ~rn~cu m (5~::l :Ez~Cl. ~Ol wm ~'< ~-i 'CO 0.., ~m ~@ i~ II H r. -~ Q~ II; ....00 0( !if " -'m I' i9. '.a ,.. ~ J. ~ II .. ~ l/' - , .:t> . 1JI U\ 7 .... " " ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ C 00 7 r (,.0 ..... n If. CD ll:- ijj C (71 .:>. () t ~ 0 ~ ~ e ~ en .. w ~ r < r en o i g ~ -..oJ I ~ of j ~.. ~ ! ;; z ~ .. " om I! n 3 '2 :> '< r- r- n " . ;, . n ~ ~ ~ , :0 ~:t l> " <t" ';\1 c; '" .. i:l~g>s.:: <(I)~O> ffi(5cn::J :iz~Q. ,,0:> a-W ~Cii o~ ~Q) ig i~ ;~ H d l" ili ~ & !:: . ~~ l z ;; ~ ~: ~ i~ H o 3 'D ~ " '< r- r- o . ~;~ ~~~ l' if? '~ .. <: l i;; Ie - .. .,. v: ~ ..........). ..... (}\ VI 7 .... :,. ~ IT LoLo U Q ~ \,01 VI l/. lC''':; C 0:'" ~ ~ ~ Ii i' II . , 1 o ~ I ~ I~ ~ ~ .. . t i ~ :i ," en '" ^ .. I 0 0 ~ (X) I ~ I >cg>~ "1Jrn~Q) "1J!!!r.n:J C C') III 0. nZ::lQ) >~iFw g~ll'< zl!l~epi ~~~ H~ ill' CD . i: . ~l~ h ~ Hs 3;;; ~ ~,/" i,,~ ~~. t. d ~ 2, 'f (II I ~ ~t n5. ~ ~ ~ · fl 3 1l " '" ... ... n ."'Cf,l H~ 'P", ~9 ~5 ~ "" ;:: ~ i;; II ~ f ~ ~ ~ ... 'I ~ :: ~ a ~ t ~ ;; 1.0 C :II 0 m... :1 s:: ).. p ~ x ~ ~ ~, I . ~ ~ '"tl ~I OJ tD I :J n ::r -(I) VI... Otil ~ ~ fl, 3 -. -~ :!.... ~ . 3~ *~ , ~, - "l * r- ~ ~ S' ::lOll S. ~ ~~ =... n 0 ID 3 IIIID g ~ 0.111 a.g .. g. Lr :l -" 8- ~ ic 3~ 5' ... 3' c: _ 3.,.. * - I )' :;a;:a:l~ tD ~ III n "< :r tD n ~ = ~ ~ :J :J n OQ Q. rD III :;f ~ C'I ~ tD :;f a :J iii" 8 :J iD' S CP "2. ~ , ;:a:l ~ , , I 1Il'llg>:s: 'll~~0l -4 z (J)~ ~i~ar ~ Cl ~ ffi" ;ao !,l'< ,~~!la;i ~! ~@ ~~ ~O o iir CO Z '1l ;a m III m ~ o z ~w~ ~!I:.~ Y"- .;c: ~ ~[ f" ~L, tO~~ d ~ f~ ::l iili J ~ ~ iii o o 3 1l ::l ... ... ... o [Ii~ I I~' i ~ r i ~ l . i ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ I ~ ; i f ~ o m en ~ ^ F I 'tl o r; ~ Z b ./}! {! r~3 / ,'/, ',I/~, '7 Q _~I,~ 'll (V;f/0/ .y -:" -.;."1' ,--""/',b ~,/:' ~1J :;04 ~, /. /'ii - / J ~/#':, , I , I ./ / ~-~ _ ::::>/": I" I " ~ f- '.::'" ,'~r---::: ---- -- "/I!,'/,I/,V',','!: I o I~ I,.. .lllf/ill! /' f-...r-:, I :' li/",II/',,' 1,',',/ I I --, l/I"///,,,!, / . / : J'\,~ '10 (1/,'/,'P,II"I,~f (}fF!jF-' 2 I Ii !! I \l / "~ '" ~ 1/ .. . I "11'1 ~ 01 II, "/ ,','1/,' ... _' ~ /I'J j i t I I I I I I I I I ~ I I :;.r -- ~'~~~~"I:, i//','(I/,',',' ij'h/J/IH · =-- ~'~ ~~ ~~~::( ',' 1/,',', f,\) /,;,'(p/'fl, /- . . F =~c (-" If J~ ~C;Y/ ~ ,''-- ~ / l" ~r / ' rf/' I . ~ /~ yo. "- '( !" 'I, ".....,..... '" ,/ I-J ,"'r,/', 1 0.../'1 ~-"'~~ ~/ ,J"'~' /', ,.....j..,~' \ :.iooS', -'I' '1, ~ , I' ~ ....".......... ~ k i.." I I Ai I pr \ ...-: 1.. &. JIJ 71 t. "\ ' ~ ;: , ::-' ,.......... . /,/)/ I I . I \ . ~' . ," Y" \' ~ '.' ~ I I I ' """""~ II : _./ ~ . ~' ~ \\ Ie' ,( 1 \ ( f \:1 jl,,;;",:,:t~\-:.'<~.(. \ ,_/~-~ ~~ '/"'~~ .r~~ ~!. hi) \.\,\ \ \ (" III,'"", \~ -.....r ~,~ /_~ ~M//J-:JJ II V: \ I 'I ,. - ~ ~ 0 W ..~ ...-----/ .A'2.,^-~ / _'t'\~ ~~ / >< \ 1\ ". L 1 ---- ~\f\~\-\~ ~ ~\o:~ ~0( ~"(f~ ) ~ I i :~ I '(f V / (/ / "~~~<A~~~' _\J ~;;:t ~ ~'Ljl , 'f7' ft.'.li[1 (IO~~~O -- .~fl ~ L:i t '//\\i"" \\\ ,~~~ A _ './:V i \ ;;........ ~~~ \ \ '\ _~-.............. ,. '"/ ~ '. '//~/"5 ,~ I 0 it ,-I ~ .-~, ~y ~ ",:06/7~ ,'I \ ~ ":" ~ ~I~ ~~. ~, .~ C\, ,~ ~ \ ill' I . ./~ LII\~\ ~ ~k~~h) ~~i~ " I I I I I I g tl. ' - /~'c ~ --c::.1~ ~ :;l ~ I I t I ~ ~ ~ :~ ~,~ rj~-,. .....---~~ ,--, ~ : I II - J:;; -'- 1- 1-':h' / /: -><~ \:\: ( I I I .\ '\"" ~~ I~.:;? f It J I I I ~ II }/.~::J . , - :::f:. )/' - 0 ;; 17.:0"/~"-- -?' -::::::.----"'" ,,\,t-g 1;;;' E: ~ rF4!/;;z.;- ~~-'-;:J?~:Z:-~~:;~ ~ x H: I! \ ~ '\ ~d;~h/ ;' If'~~~ ~~:-~ y 0) 'I ~ f.' J t , r ~1/ / / / , ,?1?3 ~..:-- r- ~ J) i ~ ) j I ~ f(j, .~( \ /;0 /. '" '" ~}/~~ ~'-- ~--=- ~-2-; v II j'\/( J J ,.,..! ~~~ v 'T?/~ "L ~ - l ; I _ ~f~~~~t,~, /!~ / ( I ~;;;;;<>... ~V~ A I I 1l\1I't,~~ ~~~.\J(ij, '/1:" I',':'~"~:: .--. ~~ 'il Ii?i,,\ \\!;:'V ,\ II ~"'l'J i-..~t:...i..-~~ IN -' 1)( rl I \ \ '(J!~ (l\ '/ H~~~~~~ij~.~H~.p .-#' \ i, I ,\ ~ ID ~ 1-\ \/ \ I ::jlB~iil5ill:e jO~;:"oi \ Ii I :) ~\'~ \\~ ~\~ ~\ 'I \~~r~H~EH~~I~I:~ \ \ I \! ) \ <\\\\\\\\~ ' "\ '\\~\' \ \ \ -I ~ '\ ~ \\\ \~~~~ !;~!;(;;q ~\ Ir I I' L..--1 ( \\ ~~ ~HUHI!:lfi ~ \ \ ~: 1 i \ \ \ ~ I:i .. ;;g .. ~ ~ II, ~ \ \ \ \ :II/--- IL l0~ ; \ ~ ~~il~ ~ \ " , I I V )/t-r.\\ ~ ~\\ \, ! - - "t/ /0 0' - ~ . !/!/) \ ! i I (. ' . ( \ ) ...-$ - ( \ i I ~ I I I . '1 \ I'iJ I II.; ~ i I I ( ~ \ x , Ii' · · . I, , ! I. , , . (I I " / / 1\ 1/", ~ \! \ ,~ \ \ II \ · , , · \ - 1 I I \ II ( !: I'D" l '. '----. ~ I . . ~I I ~ I \' N~'l< . \~\\\\\\\\\',.. ~ ~~ !' ,\_~) \ \ )jjll/I1/;!;;//~~~&~-~ en"Og>s:: !:J~~w -4Z<n:J ~~~ar III Cl ~ W ;a 0 R'< .,Og-l -i:,CD ~~~@ li:!!! [0 o iir<D Z "0 ;a m en m z )! :l o z '*,0 ~i:' ~~i n i ~L f"O.. d 2- ~~ " till J ~ ~ iii o o 3 ... .. " '" r- r- o [ ~ iJ.4 ~ I;' ;0" . .. 0." . .. o ~ &.3 n= ~il , 0 nO. ~= f~ i~ ll:8 ~ r I 8 i . i ; 'l' ~ g ~ w l . ; i f o C/) ^ I o o I$ en ~ 'll \:: z / / ./ ./ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -~,3 --~....... -<~.~- .::;:;.:;;;- ....;0...~ --~~.;;,.... () 0~*'~-:~ -'."/ ( -~~*&;- '''~''~'~~*~-' , , " ~o ~ , , " , , " o -- -- ~..... ........... ..., ................................ -.......--............ 8: ...........__ -_............ ---..... -...... , , " , , " ,\ ~ \ 01 I , , ~-- \ \ \ \ ----...- -. ... ~ 9 ~\ (g / i " ;; ! , ,~ // ./ ./ ./i' ./ :f.""" ././ // "" /" \ /"" _//" . ~ ~ cV '-------/ c/ yO; u \j' ~/ ~fl~ ~~ ~i ,~/ / v:- '\" ~ ~I~ / 'l' , ~ /;/i' ( I(Y~ o_~ / /_ I (r: / C;~~ ') ( l--. ' < \ ( //~~J I \"'.! ~ ~ u f \~O ~ Ii ~"o -~ ------ ,01 ~ I \ j ,/ /~ .,/./ /-+' "".;..--) /-+' /-+' / .. /'" / "" <:: / !if~ 0.('1/1 // in&)!1 / ;~l'i I! ~i~ 1/' \ // ~l .i/ V I v-+' ('\ ,z_ --- l! ; 51 III ~ g 8 ~ (/~~ \ \ ~"g>~ .. ~ ~ '" -4 Z en ~ ~ ~ III Q. mZ -nQ.) ~~ ~.~ ~O~-l . s::' (1) g~&'~ '" !!! g- () o lir CD Z .. ;a m (/l m Z E i5 z ~f~ ~I:)o ii( {'5 ~ ~j t~ u r~ ::l till f ~ ~ i>> n o 3 ." .. ::l ... ... ... n II~ I IE' ....N ~:l~ 0.111 tiS !'-'nl ~~~ oo~ ~~ 3 III _c . '" III" ~g Si~ ~ :~~ ;! ..-;-F;; ~ g", 0 ,0. ^ ~ ." ~ sl "'ll ~ $~ i'i , ~I ~ ~g ~~ "V i'i li~!!i li~!!i ~~ ~~ n ~~~ "'~ f;l "Ii ~ ~~~1 clg aii z~!!i zi!!i ~.g ~.g ~ "I ~ii o ~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~.g a.1 FF ~~ ~~g - U) 8~ ... ~F F. PJ li ~Ul Ul~ ~ ~ ~Ul -,... 0 ~ "Ul Z 0 ~PJ z 0 ~ Z 0 Z +~g88~~~~~m~~~~N~NNNN 0 ooooooo1S~gg 0 ] :; J '" 0 I I N I + 8 r t1 I'tH+ I N + '" 0 ... '( I 0 0 '" + 1 '" 0 I~ I I :t I:! 8 i I ~I I I :t I il '" 111 !!' 0 ~ I II i1 I II ,J '" I + \ I 8 \ ~ ~I '" i, + g; li \ , '" I + t 8 I L I II I 't ~ .1. '" , + g; ~I 1 '" I + 8 l '" + ~ ~ I r \ I, 1 CD.....:::--------- I~ II I '" lit ;$;'" m \oj!;! 0 '" f:ll'l ;! ;.;.~ ~ g", III ,0. d. g; '" + 8 '" + g; ogo8o~~tg;g~g885~~~gg '" 0 g; I '" 0 ~ + 0 0 0 ~ r I fl l ~ 0 ~ 0 fl 0 ~ + '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" 0 i ~ ~ '" ;;; . f 0 + m 0 0 ~ 0 en ~ rn 0 ^ m 0 I ~ ~ 0 0 N 6 0 0 ~ Z W , rn ~ tg;g~g8g5~~ ,I , , I I j I I :; '" o N + 8 I ~ il N + '" o / , I '" + o o '( '" o ~' I :t o o r 1,1 :t '" o '" + o o 'f '" o '" + o o '" + '" o I , I I 1 , I I I I " I I I II = '" + 8 '" + g; '" + o o "I I ~,' , na ,I'~ ~ ~ i f ! 8 l!' I I ,1 I~ ~, I G 1 I ~ I ! ~ ~ ~ Jft'b~, ! .~ ;: I." l '0 , 11 U [iu ] z '" '" + g; ~ o o :; o~~tg;g~g885~~~g : I I TI T i ~ ~ I +a o !.l g z <> 't '" o / ~ Ii '" in '" 1 ~ z I I , , ~ I , '0 ~ ,1'1 ~ ' I , 'II I ! 11 " , , I' ,I I) ~~~ I I ~~~ '" '" + <> o '" + '" o :t o o :t '" <> 'f 8 'f g; lit Si '" PJ "'~l'l g -;-~~ Z ~ !!1~ 'r 8 ~ '" + g; '" + 8 '" + '" <> :;j ~ o I, I i '" + 8 I I II '" + g; ~ II I,' ~ ~ ... '" + 8 '" + g; ',1111 g; ~ o o ' + 8 ~ ' ~ g; [ II: I 11 II III IIII III fl o ~ o~~~gg;~g88~~~~~ '" <> 8 lIl"llg>~ !:J~~Dl ia ~5. !ClZ~"'~ ;Q n ,,< ",0 -j .- iiI:, (0 ~~ ~@ :i:!!! [0 00;(0 z "Il ;Q m 1Il m Z -l ~ o z Hs ~'I gL d !~ 8~ n:: ~ <'< 15 U~ n 3 'tI " " '< r- r- n [I~.- ~ .~ ~ . . fall " i:::; fro k I ! i m :D o ~ en , ~ ~ 6 ~ . ~ z i .. : 0 i ~ 0 ~ Jl o r "lJ !; Z o en ^ I o o ~ ~x~~~~x~eO~!~~i~~ ~~~~8~~~~x~~ ~~~8 ~~Z~~~Sez~g~~~.~~ ~~~;~~~~5~~S2~~S~ 2~~6~~i:~~/i1~~~~lS~ ~~ ~~~~~~2~~x~~~~ ;$t t;fVl> VI..... ~~I'T1~ !VI 8 ~~~FSi~~~~!l! ~~ III ~z2::eG"'l:lF'l g z" lS ~!:l"'~l:l0\~~~ I; !:l~ ~ ;;J~ ~~~~!lI:< III 1Il~ > ~~ ;.;; ~ ~e ~ ~~ m ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ !il li li' ~ ~ 5~ il Z ,,'" z!ll~ ~ ~ 52 I'i a '" "'e: !:l t; '" ~ ~z X c;j liz a ~ (i;i P1 <> i! lil ~ ~ , I /,'!'" I;: / ~ ! ,-, /' /. '~I III \ ~ I rl' .\ III: J I I I 1/1// ; II \ ill I <t II 1111 j: i ' 11/1 : /, I 11//' 1! i I , .. II ,j 1'1 t II ill '1' II . III 'Iii J, II .~ I' ,~I! I I I II! 'I' II 11: I :.J II I III ll1J 11 j I J : II 1 ,I : 1[',\: Ii ! I, J 1 II~ Ii! 11 III) I~ I I., I I Il I I ' ,III'I~ 11,: ! .1/ I I II' I ~ , \ 1'~ < ~ ~~11l _I!!~~~!~ ~F'li!:l~~ ~ :!i:: ~ C')2iI!cn ~~~ ~il i\;/zil i:2li~ ~'" IQ~ SilO c:~i ~~ ~VJ~~ ~xlllc;j'" '!l! ~~~ "'e ;;l "," ~","r;~2!ll ~ ~Sl ~IQ'>'~ !l!~~ ~~i",gail ~~ !l!g~ Iiliilx!ll i"~2 !:l ~x'" '" ,...;;lo 8!il", '<"'~lG!!J~r; ~~iF~~ $')"'" c~ VII: Ui ",g~ C! 2~!Ol~ !!~!!J X~lQi"'2xil?( ~i~~l!!il ' 1il~IIl/i1~ I'T1 ~ ~ l""I~z Z Ug !l! Slal2l~ ~di: ~"V~~Y>>~i~Q !i! ~/i1~ i~ "'~xn!l! ~ '" c;j ~ ~~~s ~~~ 1Il?i '" ~ F ~~~~~ ",~0/;;~~ili8 8 , IQ /i1 III 8;=~ ~~~2~'" ~:<2zl!l~~~~ a ;;l", ~ i-ii~ ~U;il ~ il ~ UiZ~~1Il ",d~",zlil~F III -~ a~~ 8i/i1M~ ~~~ ~~Ui~ "'z 'll~~ ~ d "'2'" ~cJ: ~~~lQ~ - CD z~ 8 ~~~!jj >x~~> !ll xi:;F'lil"'~~ ~~ "0 YI~~ .....1""1 vip,,-/ r;a1S c.n~:VJlIl2rn:iia ~ il!~ a1 ",il!"'!l! /i1~!lj!il~~ ~~ ""8 ~~ia~J;;~~~ ~Iil !iil ~~~F ~~ 2:=1ill21~ c""'~h~ I~ z >llIs'" !ll a ~~~lll ~!l! ~~&o~ ' :r S i ~~ 0:;0 Z{;I 2~m~l5M:!Jtn 12l \;/ ~~ "'F Iilg~~ ~ ~ il~x~F ;!:.....c: "'Ytg !! ~~ ii! ~iJ~ ~lll ~i'l "'c~ ~!i~~ ~~~~~i ~ n Iili'! <> '" "'s ~ ~~i~~f:ii; !! ~ ~~s ~ 2~~~~0 il /i1~ >- jI1~ ~~~~ !l!~~x~~~i'i 1il~~~F ~ ~ Ii ~ F ~'" 3! ~ 08 !ll lI' M ~ IV. ~e >Fi! , "'- ~ - ~2 s!:l ~ ~~~ ~~ o 'tI t -< ~ z ~ 0<> ~ ;... ~ ~~;> y> ~ z~ n aa i ~ ~ & I ~fillli ~O'" >"> ~~2 2!\l -<!j1t! 20 ~!2 ii~ ~~ ~~ ~!! '" gc: <> Q "T1~ ~!! '" 15 I '"'z "lJr >m <-I ~m"lJ in 0 ::0 m' 0 ~ >-1 Ul ::Om (5 mO z >-1 PI !!!C5 ~ z c i: !2 .... o o z .... ;ZJ o r- z o .... m Ul . ;Q ~ i ~ ;. ~ r:: ,~z/i1~~1i~ ~~~~~/i1 ~~~~F !i~jl~3!FI~~a~3! !ll~:l!",!il;!;l'!~ 2 r~~" >l~ eoi' Zn ij~o~!iI gn!;d~~ ~z ~i~~ il1 n~ ~~~ a<>s~ ",,,,!12l !!i~~~ z<>ill~",;;l~ 1ii~z2~ 0F'l"'~i:1il Fl s~;2i Iilai",i 2e~z~zr; ~VI~8i >a!l!O i:lE~ ~"c;j g c;') ~nc: ~~i2~ S""F",!l!",ill ;g01i ~ ea~jl~gl~ jl~~?o~ ~a ""~lia1i:~il",!l! /i1~~",~ ",,,,Ill~zill"~~~~Fa "'='lil~='i<>1!l 1i;~ ~ ~20 <>~~~>l'Elgllllll ~!!;;l~if~ ~e~~~ nli~<n~ 1il~~:=~J;i~CIri~~ ~ 1::!l! Iil "'~ z%:2:::1 ;3! ~'" !lI~!ili8 0'" ~ 1ii~~ '" ~F"'!l!~ lao :l!il1!l!~Gl ~>l2/i1",~ 0 aX~2 - ~F z z X~Ui~ ~~F~!l! ~>S ~ ~ "rI~i_!CF!lI:~ ~~oav>> "'~~S!l!~;gS!jjxi~~ ~~zgili~~ r~~~~ ' IIl!jjF ~~",IQFli~i"!l!~ >/i1 x~., ~F~'" ~1!i~li:zlll i I:~I""'I-< ~"" III ~5l(IIlZ~~F1ii i:l~ ~8",>l<> 2!l! ~~~~~ Iil~~~ x!il>ill'El z!l! ~ai~~~iF ...~z 5LI2~s"'2111>Fii!~ ~ '"~!11 ~~~~ i8~8e~8i:l~Ill~~ "'xO l'!r;1Il 02~ :=!:la8 f ~~~ffl 3!c;jIil~~ <> ~z~ ~S~~;g '" ~ "'Sl ~ /i1 li Iil 1i: ~F'lJZ!~ ~ 1il2~ i~2 ~~il 2='> gi~ !!~!iil . Ou; ~~ >~ ;~ s" ='lil Gl,... ~a =' r;!li 2F :l! > ~ ~22~i!l2~ )o'V>>:i1(/)5V19i!' i'l~r;;;jli~s 0-1..... Og 5~OX5n ZUix:Zi ~ill:;;"'~~ ~~~~~g B\!!I:~~i >j;;~",!l!2 V1"Z6F~ ~~~xlll~ "'~;;l:="F'l ~>~i:ii~l o~ s> "'<>xil~", i~I""'IQlji l~ 8~E ~!jj ~ 8 p ~~'"~~"'i'" 12 m ~ ~~M/i1 ~2~ ~-!ll !ll u Sl;z!ll~ ~ ~ f:'2!!Jia~ Z;!!C~::vgz> n ~ ~~~p1 ~Vl~c;j~~~Sl ~ !f~Sl~~~~~ g ~ o~~8 ~o -iz >~ :r ~~'Elill ~X~~3!>i:l i '" i~ "'!ll", ~Jil ~ ~nlQ~ ~~~~2lil~!l! z >iCDo 9 ~ilJ;;", ~oa!:l~~~~ , ~~t !il~",?O~xlll ~-g a~~~~~iil~ !l!~i 1ll!llr;~ZF:r2 ~ "'il/;; F~ ~~~~h~~ lll",i ~lillS~~>>~ !i!~ ~ ""~Sl~'" ~Iil~ , ~~S ~!ll~ 1il!2~ 80 ~ 2" ~ a~1il '" p; <> "' IN ;. ,.. .... z'" B z ~ i ~ ~ >", ~ ~ ~~ '" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ...~ ~ F U F '" " o ~ gill ~ ? <>8 a ~ i~ ~ ~ '" ~/i1 !i g~ !:i '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" e ~ ill '" ~ i z ~ ... ~ ~ !j12!" '" :i!2g ~!l!~ g~:!I ~!;l~ d~~ ">'" 6~~ :i!0~ rT1~~ :!Iz", ~"':i! ::d~> ~~~ ~f/l~ n:i!> z~F ~~ ~g ,... 0:i!:i!0"'," ~ o 1""11""10 c: !o-!~:i! (I):;:uzJl!mM ., ~!6~!6~d I"'1ZI"'1I"'1~'"tJ !;lM~dF!j1 :i!~~]~:i! 1'T1:::t1~1"'10,.., "'>!!~~Ul ~;;lo~:i!iJ o~.,,:;:o""C 2~>~g~ m~"'~gm l::::tIiti z ~~ziJc" "'~~~~~ ~o~~~~ ~Z2,::l a:i!-t~~ffi cnl"'1.....ta ~ ~ Oz .;j. ;< <> I ..... r-- >z zj;; ~-I zO"lJ -<>:0 lJ)"lJ 0 m-l om >!:l :0- mO >z ..... iJl'l 22 ~ ~2 !ll ... 15 iJ > ~ !" :- CD ~ en ." o ;ZJ '11 zjji c;jm ::0 ::0 o r r !" F~jlilill~lll~ljlU~ "'~81"~~~;;l~"'1!i>l Bx~~i~!ili8~~~ "'!l! ::!:l2 i"l<llil.::::", ",l:':l>l ;!;i S:ez~ ~~~~~d~~~i;j ~;~~ill2~~~/i1' ~i ~~~~~?~ ~ iiJ i~alll~~~~~~~ !ll!l!~apo",~o!2lil~ ~~lillllgF",:g~~", olll~SiI"~~~il"~ <'l ~;:52~"'x~o!ll /O\jl~s,llQi~>;ll'" 1il~2>!l!~!ll~~J'>!l! 1"~~~F"''''l\l1il3F ~ /i1 ~!l!1il ~lll > <'l F> i ..... ~ F CO) ~~~i~~;g ='illlcl2~~ ~2~n~1Il p~lili:; ~~~~i~ :;uz..$i.l 1Q"lJCDo>i: 8~8~~~ :!J~~~52"'O O~I""I sa:::D ~ ~~~1; ~i,,~~~ ~il~~",~ ~~g2liill 0 ~zi>Fl'! ~ilili!illl~ ~ ~ ~ r- ~~Iil~~~~ ~~~ ~ 2::1i::1Bil-i~ ~6~ut Qil2S1~<>51 >lJ/!:lx mj!:~j!:~~j!: ~~ ;: , !llSil~5z!Ol ~Ii~~i ~!ll~z<>l1l ~x~ !!~ill~'6!f r;x~ QiV)~5ao dl"'1-<E :t' ;!;o>i >l ~ iJ F~:::JiJ -<~~-< ~211l Ji~ a;g~1il :ciS ~CDJ: ~:E:r ~~i~~~ ~~;tl""l ~!ll~~~~ o;;l~2 Gl!l!~",~Gl ~~~ ~ l:;F"'~@~ ~"'!:l ill-,"~!ll-< z~lil E~2' _Ill Q a :;;12 ~~ill :t 82~2o~ ~ CD-t(/) ":::a -<~~ as ~~ ~ ~~z~ IIlx~Ui ~I""I~~ ~~~; " o~ ;~U r;!~F~ 2~!ll1il a~~~ 2-<~fTl ~~n2 ",li~~ /i1~~ ~5a Zc ~'" Gl :!I '" !ll Iil x ~ ~ '" en"g>~ !:l!;~w ng ~6. iii:!;'~ m'u~n> ;Q 0 !,l'< NOg-l ..... i: . CD ~~ ~@ g2!~O OmCO z "II ;Q m en m z -l ~ o z ~~i if I ~Ltc"" d ~ ~~ ; 8" Ie ~ ji o o 3 '0 .. ::I ... ,.. ,.. o [I~.- ~ .~ ~ IE:' ~ -~ l'/b , ""~:::--...' I , '''''.:::::- ...... .... ~ I I II , \ I \ III 01 jl III 1 I I \ I . \ I I ! \ fa I : CAAI , 01 I \ ~ r l ~ \ i ~ i ~ i (J) ~ ~ i . ~" iil . h 0 0 0 en m (J) ^ (J) I "ll 0 'l: 0 U1 Z