Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 81-2006 RESOLUTION NO. 81-2006 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, 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 PARCEL OF THE TERRABA Y DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Myers Developlnent COlnpany proposes to construct Phase III of the Terrabay Developlnent ("the Proposal") as an office and retail commercial project (2006 Project) as the final segInent of the three-phase develoPlnent project ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is divided into three separate phases, of which the 2006 Proj ect is the third and final phase; and WHEREAS, the entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental doculnents, including the 1982 Terrabay Developlnent Project Enviromnental Impact Report ("the 1982 EIR"), a Supplelnental Enviromnental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Developlnent Agreement ("the 1996 SEIR") and the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplelnental Enviromnental hnpact Report ("the 1998/99 SEIR"); and WHEREAS, the 2006 Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining Terrabay Development parcel consisting of office and cOlnmercialland 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 Progrmn as well as an option for a hotel; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Supplemental Environmental hnpact 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 an 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 Developlnent, aSSUlnes no developlnent would occur on the site; Existing 1996 Specific Plan, assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet cOlnlnercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant; Reduced Residential, assumes 316 residential units and no cOlnmercial; Reduced COlnlnercial, aSSUlnes 293,000 square feet of cOlnlnercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential; Pennanent Open Space, aSSUlnes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as pelmanent open space; and Mitigated Plan Developlnent, aSSUlnes 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; and 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 developlnent intensity and the different impacts associated with the 2005 Project and its alternatives; and WHEREAS, the public review period on the draft 2005 SEIR cOlnlnenced on August 30, 2005 and closed on October 14, 2005. The Planning COlnlnission conducted a public hearing on the draft 2005 SEIR on October 6th, 2005. One public comlnent was received during the public hearing. Nine COlnlnent 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 COlnlnent letter with respect developer requirelnents. The Town of ColIna and the San Mateo County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. California Departn1ent 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 Dubuque/1 0 1 Rmnps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the 2005 Final SEIR. Mountain Watch comlnented on protocols for planting, weeding and Inaintenance to be included in the CC&R's for Phase III and a mowing regiInen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comlnents 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 envirorunental 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 infonnation. The COlnments and responses to comlnents were published in a Final SEIR dated November 30, 2005, and were distributed or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant enviromnental ilnpacts of the 2005 Project which could be Initigated to a level of insignificance, therefore Initigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA ~21081 and CEQA Guidelines ~15091 upon 2005 Project approval; and WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other infonnation in the record, there are ilnpacts of the 2005 Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or Initigation 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 enviromnental 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 ~21166; CEQA Guidelines ~ 15163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA ~21 081 and CEQA Guidelines ~ 15091 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 infonnation in the record, there are significant envirorunental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be Initigated to a level of insignificance, therefore, the alternatives to the 2005 Project were examined and are deliberately different froln the alternatives in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR to determine if they would avoid any of the urunitigated significant ilnpacts; and WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other infonnation in the record, there are significant envirorunental ilnpacts 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 sublnitted 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 envirorunental 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 Inay 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 cirCUlnstances under which the 2006 Project would be undertaken would require Inajor revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environlnental effects or a substantial increase in the sevelity of previously identified significant effects would occur; and there is no new infonnation of substantial ilnportance that has becOlne available that was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or Inore significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more sever than identified in the previous EIR, Initigation Ineasures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different froln ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15164, Cal~rornia Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter an Addendulll to the 2005 SEIR was prepared for consideration along with the Final 2005 SEIR; and WHEREAS, there are no new significant unavoidable ilnpacts 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- Telm Air Quality (Impact 4.5-3 998/99 SEIR), Traffic hnpact 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 (hnpact 4.4-4 1998/99 SEIR) and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps (hnpact 4.4-5 1998/99 SEIR)on Novelnber 21, 2000 by Resolution 147-2000; and WHEREAS, CEQA ~21 081.6 requires that where Initigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant envirorunental ilnpacts, a Initigation Inonitoring and reporting progrmn shall be adopted upon 2006 Project approval, at the precise plan stage, to ensure cOlnpliance with the Initigations during project ilnplelnentation; and WHEREAS, the above-referenced mitigation and Inonitoring progrmn shall be sublnitted 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 WHEREAS, the applicable Initigation Ineasures identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 2005 SEIR as restated in the 2006 Addenduln and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2006 Project will be applied as conditions of Project approval. 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 ilnpact and Initigation findings, and Initigation Ineasures 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 hnpacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Envirorunental Impacts Exhibi t B: Statelnent of Oveniding 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 Addenduln * * * * * * 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 regular Ineeting held on the 11 th day of October 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Councihnembers Mark N. Addiego, Pedro Gonzalez and Karyl Matsulnoto, Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: 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 921081 and CEQA Guidelines 915091, the following findings address the Terrabay Phase III project's ("2006 Project") significant and potentially significant impacts aIld means for Initigating 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 aIis center, public arts pro graIn, a TranspOliation Demand MaI1agen1ent Program and 32 off site moderate incolne units (120% of median). In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statelnent explaining how identified nlitigations lessen or avoid the related illlpact. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and detenninations contained herein are based on the cOlnpetent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the 2005 Project and the SEIR and the 2006 Addenduln. The findings aIld determinations constitute the independent findings and detenninations of this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substaI1tial 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 statelnent 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 Inade by this City Council with respect to any particular subj ect matter of the 2006 Proj ect, shall be deemed Inade 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 proj ect of the scope and size of the 2006 Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of is impossible. This practicallilnitation 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 of 15 had to rely on assUlnptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political bOUl1daries of the City. In all instaI1CeS, best effOlis have been n1ade to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the lilnitations 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. Sunllnaries of Facts, Inlpacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of information 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 sun1l11aries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the sUI1llnaries of impacts, nlitigation Ineasures and alternatives are only sunmlaries. This doculnent includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set fOlih below. Cross references to the 2005 SEIR and 2006 AddenduIn and other evidence such as City Council resolutions or actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be Inade directly to the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and other evidence in the record for Inore precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addenduln and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the lnost appropriate way to mitigate the iInpact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation n1easures recommended in the 2005 SEIR as they apply to the down sized 2006 Project for ilnpacts identified as significant or potentially significant. SOlne of the Initigation measures are implelnented by changes incorporated into the 2006 Proj ect 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 Developlnent Agreement for Phase III. In its actions approving the 2006 Project, the City Council recommends adoption of those lnitigation nleasures recol11l11ended 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 n1ultiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single in1pact, 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 altelnatives). 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 subn1itted 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 Page 2 of 15 n10st of the significant and potentially significal1t enviromnental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum, revised SOlne of the proposed mitigations, and agree with the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendun1 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 ll1itigation has occurred; the residual impact is overridden by the Staten1ent 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 inlpacts. In assessing the cUlnulative 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 cOlnponent of Phases II and III of the Tenabay Project. The level of analysis of Phase III in the 1998/99 SEIR went beyond the requiren1ents of cumulative iInpacts under CEQA. The 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum supplements and builds upon the environmental aIlalyses contained in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. For the purposes of these findings, the ilnpacts 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 allY of the included Phase III alternatives in the docun1ent. 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 ilnpacts of the project, as mitigated, do not exceed the ilnpacts analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and that a Statelnent 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 enviromnental ilnpact reports prepared for the Tenabay Project: the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project ("1982 EIR"), the 1996 Supplenlental Environmental Impact Report for the Tenabay 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 developlnent 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, the 1996 SEIR or the 1998/99 SEIR and 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 Addendwn thereto and other prior environmental assessments and environmental ilnpacts reports certified for the 2006 Project and related activities. The proposed linlits of grading confonn to the HCP fence. Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in COmpliaI1Ce with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (Novelnber 22, 2005). Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found then1 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 ilnpacts 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 fuliher analysis of these impacts was required in the 2005 SEIR and its Addendun1 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 9 21166; CEQA Guidelines 9 15091). The following impact analyses, deternunations 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 aIlalysis 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), lnineral 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 Initigation measures in the previous environmental analyses. 10. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA alld these findings, the record before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlelnents related to the 2006 Project, including without limitation, applications for the Phase III Only Specific Plan AInendment, 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; 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 Con1IDents on the Draft SEIR) al1d its Addendum; E. All staff reports on the Proj ect and the SEIR; F. All studies conducted for the Proj ect alld SEIR including, but not linlited to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or SEIR; G. All public reports and docun1ents related to the Project prepared by City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission; H. All doculnentary 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; 1. All matters of COll1lnon lmowledge to the City COlillcil, 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 developnlent within and surrounding the City; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all repolis and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. Aesthetics IJ11pact 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 lnaterials 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 finished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. Page 5 of 15 Street lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in conlpliance 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 significallt 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 n1itigation measures, the impact of the 2006 Project is less thall significant. Rationale. The use of non-reflective lnaterials will reduce the effect of glare that could potentially impact drivers on 101. Air Oualitv Inlpact 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 PM] 0 which is a component of dust. Dust en1issions would be generated prilnarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movenlent 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 ilnplelnented, 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. 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. e 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 lilnited to 15 miles per hour (mph) · Sandbags or other erosion control n1easures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. · Disturbed areas shall be replanted ,vith vegetation as quickly as possible (\vithin one month of the disturbance). \Vheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equiplnent leaving the site. · Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 Inph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the constnlction Finding. As described in the above lnitigation n1easure, 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 in1pact of the 2006 Proj ect is less than significant. Rationale. The nun1erous llleasures to be ilnplen1ented 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 Managelnent District and will reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than significallt 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: Page 7 of 15 o Construction Scheduling Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic going to and frOln the site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be liInited 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. /I Mufflers and Maintenance All equipnlent used on the project site shall be adequately muffled and maintained. All internal combustion engine-driven equiplnent 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 Ineasured at a distance of 50 feet. /I Idling Prohibitions Powered construction equipment shall be turned off when not In use. Equipment Location and Shielding Stationary noise-generating construction equipment shall be located as far as possible frOln neal'by residences. /I Noise Disturbance Coordinator A project construction supervisor shall be designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to allY 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 lneasures walTanted to conect 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 frOln the freeway alld that residential land uses are approxilnately 900 feet from the construction site. Implementation of the mitigation n1easure would reduce potential ilnpacts to less than significant. Rationale. The 900 foot sepaI'ation of construction activities from senSItIve receptors along with restrictions on construction activities as identified in the lnitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. 1111pact 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 Page 8 of 15 disclaiIner as was required in Tenabay Phase I and II would serve to inform those that n1ay be more sensitive to noise of the potential annoyance. Mitigation Measure 3.3.2: The City shall require an airpOIi disclaimer in the CC&R's for 2006 Tenabay Phase III Only lease and sale doclill1ents that mirrors the language contained in the CC&R's for Phases I and II of Terrabay. Finding: The disclaimer, although not required under CEQA, would serve to infonn those whom may be n10re sensitive to aircraft noise sources. No impact. Rationale. The airport disclaimer will allow the project applicant to infonn those who may be nlore 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 Il1zpact 3.4.1 Increased Del1zandfor Police Services The South San Francisco Police DepmiInent evaluated the 2006 Project. The 2006 Project would result in fewer impacts than that in the 2005 Project. However, there would still be a requirenlent to augment police staffing due to the location of the 2006 Project site alld police response times. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 2005 SEIR (4.7-21998/99 SEIR) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 fro In 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 reimburseInent 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. Page 9 of 15 Inlpact 4.7-6 Increased Denzandfor Police Services- CU111ulative l1npact CUlnulative develoPlnent (Terrabay Phases I, II and III) would in1pact police services to the site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 fro111 the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR Mitigations The Applicant shall fully fund a separate new fully- nmded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cUlnulative 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 n1echanisms for reirnbursen1ent 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 fro111 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 inlpede radio transmissions to the Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 1998/99 SEIR and 3.10-3 2005 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 Page ] 0 of 15 the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the iInpact of the 2006 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The relay equipnlent is needed it shall be installed prior to the Applicant receiving a ceIiificate of occupancy for the first office tower in the 2006 Project. Traffic and Circulation Inlpact. 3.1-5 (a) and (b) Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Inlpacts Queuing iInpacts 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 tlus 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 CaI1 be Initigated in the 2006 Project. Rational: The Applicant shall provide a bond or other form of gUal'antee acceptable to the City Engineer for the timing of the wideIung of the turn lane. 1111pact 3.1-9 (a) and (b) Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing bnpacts Queuing ilnpacts would occur at Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point and Dubuque Intersections for both the 50th and 95th percentiles occur. Queuing in1pacts 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 Page 11 of 15 Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are 1) striping the nOlihbound Airport Boulevard approach to the Project access intersection as an exclusive left tunl lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane and provide split phase signalization; or 2) widening AirpOli Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the nOlihbound Airport Boulevard Finding: The impact can be Initigated to a less than significant level with the required Initigation 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 lallguage 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 guaralltee acceptable to the City Engineer for the widening of the turn lane. The 2006 Project is designed to accOlnmodate the right-of-way stipulated for additional turn lalleS into the Project. In1pact 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 lllitigation Ineasure (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as n10dified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking iInpacts, 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. Page 12 of 15 Finding: The TDM PrograIn requires monitoring of parking and circulation on the site which is in addition to the requirement of this n1itigation Ineasw'e. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance contains language requiring the adequate aInount 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. TIns impact would be less than significant with the Initigations required. Rational: There is adequate area for the required mitigation measures. The mitigations are stipulated in the TDM Program and the Zoning Ordinance for TelTabay. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS The City COlillcil 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 SOlne cases, the SEIR has suggested n1itigations for in1pacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require Initigation for less than significal1t impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant iInpacts. Therefore, no findings are Inade with respect to such mitigation measures. Some of the less than significallt in1pacts identified in the 2005 SEIR are impacts that the SEIR identified as potentially significant or significant, but recOlmnended mitigation n1easures reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE 2005 SEIR NOT APPLICABLE TO THE 2006 PROJECT Aesthetics Inzpact 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 Inzpact 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. Page 13 of 15 Noise Impact and Mitigation 3.3.4 Project Generated Mechanical Equipnlent 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 irnpact 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 n1echanical equipment. The City's Municipal Code requires 2006 Project conformance with the City's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standal'ds generally require continuously operating equiprnent to lneet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night at multiple- faInily residential uses. Public Services and Utilities bnpact and Mitigation 3.10.1 Increased Denland for Police Services The 2005 Project was a larger more intense land use than the 2006 Project. Finding=-.The Police Department has detennined 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 S SFPD 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 Inlpact and Mitigation 3.10.2 Increased Demand for Fire Services Development of the 2005 Project would increase call volumes, including rescue and Inedical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees alld 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, n1edical scene management, care of injured persons, and other en1ergencies (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 iInpacts. 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. Page 14 of 15 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 bnpact 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 Inlpact and Mitigation 3.10.8 Increased delnand on the wastewater collection systenl 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 Departnlent. 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 Inlpact 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 Inzpacts and Mitigations 3.1-2, and 3.1-6_2006 Project impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation with the 2006 Project where Initigation was required for the 2005 Project:, Finding: Trip generation, Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Pointe/Dubuque/US 101 Northbound on-rmnp for 2010 and 2020 was significant (and could be n1itigated) with the 2005 Project and is less than significant with no mitigation required for the 2006 Proj ect. 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 9 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 9 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco Inakes 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 AddendUln (supplelnenting 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 in1pacts 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- statelnent of the 1998/99 SEIR identified ilnpact and the three adverse impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR pertaining to traffic as significant which have not been eliminated or Initigated to a level of insignificance. These iInpacts 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 frOln the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway In1pacts; (2) Traffic Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III -FFee-w-a-y--I-mpa&t-s-;-aB.El-(-3t-1'-Faf:fiG-h=rlfla&t-4.-4--3-:fi0m-th@-I-9-9-8/-9~-E-I-~O-1-0-Bas@-Gasg Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. The following significant unavoidable iInpacts identified in the 2005 SEIR do not apply to the 2006 Project as demonstrated by the 2006 traffic analysis prepared by Crane Trallsportation Group for the City of South San Francisco and incorporated into the 2006 Initial Study prepared for the 2006 Project: (1) Traffic lInpact 3.1.5 : Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing In1pacts; (2) Traffic Impact 3 .1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts;and (3) Traffic hnpact 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 lnitigate 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 Page 1 of7 2006 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the in1plementation 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 in1pacts have not been l11itigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations n1ake infeasible mitigation 111easures or alternatives identified in the 2005, 1998/99 and 1996 SEIR's aI1d the 1982 EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific econo111ic, 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 iInposition of further mitigation Ineasures. The impacts associated with the 2006 Project are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower. The 2006 Project would elin1inate four significant off-site traffic ilnpacts 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 i111pacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. Tlu"ee significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic and one air quality would result from implementation of the 2006 Project. These impacts are: Traffic l1npact 4.4.1 : Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2006 Project would result in the same in1pact associated with the 2000 Project 011 ceIiain segments of US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by more than 10/0 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 Proj ect would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Proj ect 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 Page 2 of7 Project or widening of US 101 vvould reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these n1easures are infeasible. Traffic IJnpact 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 Inore 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 IInpacts 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 1110re 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 n1illion 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 Developn1ent of Phase II and III in the year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cUlnulative 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 Clunulative IInpacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips by approximately 6.8% on this on-rmnp. 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 Proj ect 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 improvelnents 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 Managelnent (TDM) Plan incorporate the Page 3 of7 mitigation nleasures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These ilnpacts could be reduced by the mitigation Ineasures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Ineasure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be inlplemented. 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, cOlmected to adjacent land uses, transit stops and/or a cOl11munity-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 ridesharing programs and provision of transit inforn1ation, 6) the above-referenced bus turnouts and benches, and 7) direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent developlnent. 3. Findings of Infeasibilitv of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable hnpacts' a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures Traffic Inlpacts 4.4.1 and 4: Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts and Traffic In1pact 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 significallt impact. A reduction of this nature would render the project economically infeasible. The economic benefit realized through a critical mass of office and conunercial retail uses in order to capitalize the 2006 Project alld the tax return to the City would not be realized. Reductions in the 2006 Proj ect is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure iInprovenlents required for the 2006 Project and those already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of office alld 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 Page 4 of7 Cities Boulevard; 12) construction of recreational improvements to Hillside School; and, 13) and other ilnprovements 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 infonnation in the record, widening of US 101 or a reduction of the size of the 2006 Project are not feasible. (4) Air Quality l1npact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAOMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMIO.:. Reduction of the 2006 Project as identified above (approximately by 750/0) could potentially reduce this ilnpact to a less than significallt 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 Vlhich Would Reduce Impacts Since the significallt unavoidable ilnpacts 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 Developnlent Altenlative. In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the cunlulative impacts of building out the project as proposed in the 2006 Project is the No Development Alternative for the relnaining parcels of Phase III. This alternative is infeasible. The Terrabay Project already incorporates mal1Y 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 alld 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 Page 5 of7 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 OvelTiding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the 2006 Project and finds and detennines that the approval and implelnentation of the 2006 Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cun1ulative impacts of the Terrabay 2006 Project: · Provide econOlnic growth alld elnploYlnent 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 plam1ed 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 COlnpany, 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; ID 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, [rre 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 Plyover 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 Page 6 of7 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. Page 7 of7 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS ON IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING FROM THE 2006 PROJECT THAT DO NOT REQUIRE 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 inlpacts of the Proposed Phase III Project (2006 Project) that were not further analyzed in the 2005 SEIR because the inlpacts of the 2005 Project for Phase III were not significantly different from the ilnpacts of the Phase III Project under the Terrabay Specific Plan as amended in 2000. An Initial Study was prepal'ed 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 docmnents have been completed. An Addendum to the 2005 SEIR was prepared. No further analysis of these ilnpacts 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 9 21166; CEQA Guidelines 9 15091). Prior City Council findings on the environmental impacts of Phase III under the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR, and 1998/99 SEIR and Addenduln thereto are incorporated herein by reference. Mitigation measures already conlpleted or incorporated into the 2006 Project design al'e only addressed as necessary for the finding. Aesthetics: (2005 SEIR) The 2006 Project slightly reduces lighting impacts froln 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. A[!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). Biolordcal 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 1/10th of an acre of freshwater march, seeps, and riparian habitat. In doing so, a 26-acre plus Preservation Page 1 of7 Parcel (containing wetlands and critical butterfly habitat) was offered by the applicant and designated as permanent open space by the City Council on Novenlber 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 fuIihers 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. Am1y Corp of Engineers mitigates the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook ralllp project and the 1/1 oth acre wetland take on the 2006 Project site. These modifications serve to provide compliance with mitigation Ineasure 4.3-1 (a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which calls for avoidance of freshwater marsh and ripal"ian habitat to the greatest extent possible. The 2006 Project conforms to Initigation nleasures contained in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to wetlallds 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 TelTabay 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 ilnpacts on the northern portion of the Buffer Parcel in that area where as identified in 2005, it was thought to contain elnergent wetlands. The USACE determined in 2005 that this area did not constitute wetlands (February 1, 2006). The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific Plall 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 DepartIl1ent of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thonlas Reid Associates (Plan Adlninistrator). 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 liInits of grading conform to the HCP fence and the HCP requirements. Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the 2005 Phase III proj ect 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). Mitirtation 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 Page 2 of7 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 wetlallds 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 wetlal1ds pursuant to an approved USACE Section 404 pernlit which nlitigates the loss of 0.10 acres of intermittent strean1 the only take of wetlands associated with the 2006 Project. Findin~ As described in the above mitigation Ineasure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2006 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant enviromnental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. , The ilnpact of the 2006 Project is less than significallt with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures. Rationale The 2006 Project confonns with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and enhancement and preservation efforts will greatly improve habitat values on this p011ion of the site. No significant impacts on wildlife are anticipated from the 2006 Project. Cultural Resources: (1998/99 SEIR) There aloe no Historic Resources (as defined under section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) on the Terrabay Phase III Only site. One prehistoric m;cheological site is located adjacent to the project site, a shellmound which contains a number of organic, shellfish and human remains. The 2006 Project completely avoids this site, fulfilling the requirenlents of Mitigation Ineasure 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, Hohnan Associates, Archaeologists (City's archaeologist of record for review of Terrabay) reviewed the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only plall alld found it to be in compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as docmnented 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. Miti~atioJl 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. Findin~ 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. Page 3 of7 The ilnpact of the 2006 Project is less than significal1t 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 inlpacts on Native American burial sites are ameliorated by a lilnitation of developn1ent on the Buffer Parcel to roads, retaining walls, surface parking, landscaping and all informational kiosk. Based on the foregoing, the 2006 Project impact is less than significant. Geolof!V and Soils: (1998/99 SEIR) Geology, soils and seislnicity 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 approxilnately 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 geoteclmical investigation was conducted by URS Corporation for the Phase III Development site. The engineering analyses of tIns study were documented in a second geotechnical report. Additional field exploration as a requirement of the building pennit issuance will be conducted to address design level specifications pertaining to stal1dard building issues such as foundations, compaction and drainage. The potential geologic impacts identified in 1998/99 such as seisnlicity, rock and land slides, debris flows, liquefaction alld settlelnent do not differ from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitif?atiol1 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 pernlitting prior to grading. The 2006 Project is in cOlnpliance with this requirelnent. Alitigatioll 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 fi~om 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 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 Page 4 of7 instrumentation, sealing off loose rocks, netting and encapsulating rocks, fencing rocks, annual inspection of outcrops prior to the rainy season, slope Inaintenance plans and implelnentation 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 seislnic shaking. The above identified nlitigation measures will mitigate potential issues of rock slope stability, land and debris slides, liquefaction and settlelnent 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 substalltially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified Initigation Ineasures, and with the implementation of the additional studies and data collection discussed more fully above, the inlpact 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 iInpacts 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 iInplelnentation of nlitigation measures related to slope stability, the establismnent of a slope maintenallCe plan, alld 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 proj ect site contains no hazal'dous or toxic materials as documented in the Phase I Enviromnental 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 Proj ect. Water and Hvdrolof!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 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. Miti[!ation Measure Mitigation 1I1easure 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 meaSlu'es beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR are required. Findin[! As described in the above mitigation measure, Challges 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 develoPlnent. The 2006 Proj ect 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 Plannin[!: There are no lal1d 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. bnpacts 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 additionallnitigation 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", Page 6 of7 Population Housinf!: 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 nlore intense land plan and both police and fire has indicated that the lnitigations 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 inlpacts 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 al1d remaining parcels ( 400 acres) as open space. Mitigation Measure Implelnentation 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 alld restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fire cOlmnunications on the first building constructed on the Phase III site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which canies over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-nmded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cwnulative development impacts are required for the 2006 Proj ect. 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 Proj ect 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. Page 7 of7 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.l Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) 2-2 A.2 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2-5 Local Agencies B.l 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 S1IjJpkmenlal Environ1llental Inpacl &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 Terrabt!J Phase III Final S 1ijJpkmC11ta1 Environmental Impact Report 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. - - - - - - - - Temzlxy Phase III Final S tppkmental Environmental Impact Report 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 Al.l A2.1-2.10 B1.1 B2.1-2.5 B3.1-3.4 B4.1-4.3 B5.1 C1.1 C2.1 C3.1-3.2 D1.1-1.2 D2.1-2.8 Te~ Phase III Final S ttppkmental Environmentallmpatt Report 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 - . ; _.' '. .. 0# ~ - .. ..... . .::.-"::' ~::: ::::'~,"':~:D~~u~t D~t81i.:Repb.rt' '.: ::.' ":: .. . :.~tate C'I.arhighC)~~.oata aase ...... .'. . "- . . .... . . -. . ... ~ ... . .-. '.. .. ;.".::==\$"~~c:,~;;'::;..:':.i .... . .' ....::<.>.:.....':"./:.:..::.>:'..::~: ::.S'.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 :.~<.~.: ./:..:..:...~.:.(::..:: ..~::~>:...;.....:....~...:.:.... ". ::-.!' ~':"-:. .>::.... . ..... .. .' . ...... '.' .' ........ . .AlrPorts.... San.Franclsco inti. Akport .',. . " .... .. . ...... ". ....,.. .... " ,':. ;.C";,/:;:;= :,'~~;..d'C.~/\:",,:,:. .. . . '. . ".' ..... '.' . :. ..... ~ndU.. ...."'a~~:~n~~tTabaY~~~.Pian .D\s~~~lOess<:o~merk:8l.': .' . . .' .' . . . : ' . . : .., . ..... ., . .' '. ": '. :. '. '.: :. .' '. . '.' >>.' '" . . ~ ....... '. . .,. '. .'. .' . .. . I'ro}8cr I'-11M! '. AesthetIcNIsual; A.lr '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:"afion.and'.beVeiopmenJ Comm188!Oi1: .. . .' :.':', :~.\ :::.,.'., ".;' ;..;.,..' ...\.... .~:/:Dep~mOfW~,.~~~n~elif~.,:D~o~~~8utl~ipal.l(~rnta,H\gh~Y,~l; ~;><:: .':'.'. . ...... . . . ....,.. ;' ..' .;: .eanrans~ QfstriQt4;:.6~rtni.~oflieai~'SeN~}N~'~'; HEiiitage: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 hi'dabS-fleldS ntSulffrom IniUfncl8t!1.'li1fo.m\at(6n p~ld~ by!ead 8oency. 'sE9s-6a8-'o~9' '1^I'U' '~W'HJ~~:'d' ~~s .::J~ ALI:l" . 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!x!J Phase III Final Stpplemental 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 tnd'fic 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 Me. 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 Phale 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 lata- 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." Terrabt!J Phase III Final S IIfJPlemental Environmental 1111J=( Report 2-7 Response to Comment A2.3 Response to Comment A2.4 Response to Comment A2.5 - 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 S IIj>p/ementa/ 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 (Cilq'" of South San Francisco criteria)." Temzbtg Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact fuporl 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" - - - - - - - - - - - - Tef7"1lhtty Phase III Final S IIJ>Plemental EnvironmentalItnpa&1 &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 .2Q.Q ill 233 254 m WB off-ratl\P left/right .2Q.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 1j)Q 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 TemWqy Phase III Final SlIjJpkmental Environmental Impact &porl 2-11 - - TemJbqy Phase III Final S 1IJ1plemenlal 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 SlIfJplemental Environmental Impact &port 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 Bay-shore 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 3.1.5.!!" . 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 Terralx.!y Phase III Final Sttppkmental Environmental Inrpact 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 lteldifloftal.leagtJi 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: "Mit.iJlation 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 Sstppkmental Entlironmental Impact &port - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Rambs/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). Terrabf9 Phase III Final SNjJplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 S 1I/Jp/emental Environmental Impact Report 2-18 - Oc~ 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-82S-663S p.6 LETTER B 1 ///~~ .. k\,'" ,ho:>; , TOWN OF COlMA 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. Ouse. 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Terrabay Phase III Final SlIj>plemental Environmental Impact &port - 2-20 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-B29-663S 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 o.peration of PG&E's facilities B2.1 Develapers 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 lo.ng lead times and are nat 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. Ifrequirecl, 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 ref~ to. pG~E .f()r additiopal. inforqm~Q:Q.,an(hssi$1ance:.iJ1 .the development af their project sph~ules. ; . We would also like to note that co.ntinued 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.s - - - - - - - - - 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'!] Phase III Final S "Pplemenlal Environmental Impact Report 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 TClTabay 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/Df"T MICHAEL So STRUNSKY VICE ,.Rrs/OENT LINDA $. CRAYTON CARYllTO 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 nIVI 650-82S-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 Dote 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 Sgppkmental 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. Terrabt!J Phase III Final SlIjJplemental Environmental Impa.l &port - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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'!J Phase III Final S tpplemental Environmental Impact &port 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 0 MM;' />"'k 0 Milllmle PtIcIjlCG -1'ortoI1I J'tIlJq'~ a,y.~.B1'IIIIO -Sa c.rlar ~&I1IM.. 08f-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 . ". $outh ~~ Francisc~:j, CA 94083 . ... -.\ . - Dear Ms. Knapp: RE: Comin~nts OD Terrabay Phase DI ,... Draft Supplemental EIR (D~EIR) (EIR04-0002) - " - - - .", ". · Aircraft Ove sed to aircraft overflight fro n e Shoreline ' ,Departure ro . ~ 0 . o~ on the Sky arture route. The AirportlCommuni~ Roundtable, of which the City of So~ San Francisco is a fOUndioS and cwrent'm.emberJ worked long and hard 'with the FAA and'the Airport to establish this route as a noise abaiement ~eparture. procedure to provide some aircraft noise relief for thousands of B4.1 resi~nts living Wlder the Gap DePartUre, a route that affects PQmons of San Bruno, South . sait Francisco, Daly City, and P.acifica: 'the Shoreline Departure route was established to fiy over non':'~sidentiaJ areas. When this ,route was created, thCre was no residential development, cxisting or p~po8ed, 'in. the vic~ity ,Qf San Bruno h.~ountain in South San Francisco. The text in the DSEIR should bc reviSed to ~ore'~y aDalyZ~ and-disclose the noise impacts fr9m this overflight activity and identify appropriate and suffi~ient mitigation actions. ' · Acousti.:al St1l~,.II.terior Noi.~ Level :- The 'text of the DSEIR'should clearly state, as a mitigation measure, that an acoustic study shall be conducted to identify aircraft noise levels. and specify th.e approp~a~ level.of acoUstic treatment to be included in the .construction of - thc'residential unit$ to achieve an interior noise level oCnot 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 dcvelopment, based on aircraft nOise events..' . , A tl"n ort. L Q.,i71.'i' .lI{1 {J r tj'~~IEtl$ft(J e'. lJl. d. r '\. - . ~ _..,. ",J~ '\..IlL .,!- .11 ," ""' w SSS CoUNTYCBNTER. STHFi.ooR, REowoooCrrY, CA. 94063. 6SOlS99-14QC),o ~S94-!)!)80 (F)M00341 W.OOC) . " - - - - - - Oct 20 2005 10:32AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-82S-663S 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 Comm"Ullity 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - Terrahtg Phase III Final Stpplemental Environmental Impact Repori 2-32 - Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-82S-663S 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 (llfiO) 363-<4100. FAX (6SOI361-8220 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 Ellvironmentallmpact Report for the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Worlcs, 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 SlIfJpkmental Environmental Impact &port 2-35 Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 10/13/2685 e6:64 8314&41184 LOIS ROBIN 650-82S-663S 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 rostori.eel site-sight needs enhan"",ent from the sitcs-sights sUlTounding it The uses under co.nsideraticm do not accomplish that Yours truly, l~~ /f~~~~ 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 Syppkmenta/ Environmental ImJxKt &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 SII170amding communities tIS welL In Q quickly changing ecD1IOIfI}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 assist you 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 'e1' so that an Il1IUCeDII1y IIIfIDIIIII oflillu tIIulllUJlln tr "tit wtI6tt!4. C2.1 --">-. .:.~~ :.... : :..-"':..-...... '.' ,,,-7''''-':.'' . . . . . ~ ., .-:__u _~-:--...___.., l..od SEss-saa-ass I^IO 9~I~~~ld ~ss ~o ^lI~ W~la:6 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 SlIfpkmental Environmental Intpa&t Report 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'd SE99-Ba8-0SS 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'!J Phase ill Final S rpp/ementa/ Environmental Impact Report 2-41 Uct ~u ~uu~ JU:~C:HI"I 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}'Pc 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 Dl.l Response to Comment Dl.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. Terrabqy Phase III Final S upplemenla/ 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 Lie/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>OCL<.IM.tVl-t;s ~>I.Ct settL'^'0s\1>~tri.eUl Jtfftrl:J\Loe~L SettL'^'0S\ n""l'or~rl:J lVl-terv..et FLLes\OLKSj\:1.o-0b-05 R.1>C MLVl-L<.tes.Gloc 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:\DocuYlA.el'l-ts a1M'! settL~s\patYLc(aJefful:l\LccaL settL~s\TeYlA.l'oyaYl:lIV\.teYI/I.tt 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 D1.2. 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. Termbqy Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon 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.IOl 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. Tttrabt!J Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 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 &port 3-3 - T errab'!)' Phase III Fi1J(JI S IIjJpkmenta/ Environmental Impact Report 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 SNjJpkmental Environt1lenta/ 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 Sstpp!emmfa/ Environmmta/ IfII/Jad &port 3-6 3. Rwisions 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 T~ Phase III Final SupplemtntalEnvirottmtnta/ Impact Report 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'!J Phase III Final S upp/eme1lla! 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 mrlbqy Phase III Final S II/JP/emental Environntental Inrpact &port 3-9 - 3. Revisions to the Dnift 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: 'qmpact 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 Report 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) Temzbay Phase III Final Stppkmental 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 ranging 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 originating 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 Terrab'!J Phase III Final SlIjJpkmenta/ 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 City. 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 directly over the site. Therefore, the City cottla €:oftsider adaiflg a rel:).l:li:remeat that al3elosme aOel: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 I a e in the Conditions Covenants and Restrictions CC&Rs for Terraba Phase III: Airport Disclosure: San Francisco International Airport. 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 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 City 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 errab'[Y Phase III Final S 1IJ>Pkmental Environmental Impact Report 3-13 .-. 3. Revisio1/S to the Draft EIR - disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notary ublic b urchaser of a condominium before or concurrentl 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 presently 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 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 1 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-10 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 1 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'Plieable 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. - - - T errab'!} Phase III FilltJI S II/Jpkme11la/ Environmental Impact &port 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 3l9,665 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 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 II 697,137 669,568 Total Parking Phase I and II 2,052 spaces Changes in Project Description from 2000 Entitlement The Terrabay Phase III site is currently entitled with an approved Precise and Specific Plan that conforms with the City's General Plan which permits the construction of a 665,000 square foot office building in a single tower, 7,500 square feet of office supporting retail commercial use, a 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 112-unit condominium tower and 70 paired units. The 2005 Project application requested entitlements for 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 295,500 gross square foot office building and 351 residential units. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) was prepared for the project. The 2005 SEIR analyzed two alternatives intended to build upon the alternatives analyzed in the previous environmental documents. The two alternatives analyzed are: · 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 300-room hotel and 351 residential units. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR August 17,2006 Page 6 . 357,500 gross square feet 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 wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (the City's Oyster Point Flyover Transportation Improvement Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the 2006 Project site. As defmed in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site (now the Preservation Parcel). 4. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued permits to conduct streambed alterations and wetlands take and mitigation. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. 5. The City completed the Oyster Point Interchange including the hook ramp construction in front of the project site. 6. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the review of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer). Project Site Characteristics The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point 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 POTENTIAllY 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 DETERMINATION: 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 f111d 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 find 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 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. ~ 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 final SEIR's shall be prepared. This f111ding 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 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 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 2S.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 Impact 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 togetl1er. 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 CUBC). Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address dust and soil erosion. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which requires a TDM Program. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of:M.itigation 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 Terrabcry 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review of Biological Issues Initial 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 tl1e 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 permit authorizations are attached. The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wetland mitigation plan and appropriate re-authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the currently proposed Project. This includes re-securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the Corps and RWQCB before they expire, if necessary. Reauthorization was received from the Corps July 31, 2005 and CDFG on September 22, 2005. This would also include 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 CURS 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 ofJ\1itigation 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 fgj 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 fgj 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 fgj 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 fgj f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 fgj 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 fgj 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 1 impacts as they were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2006 Project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than S1gnificant Impact No Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o ~ 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?) D D [8J D 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? D D [8J D 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? D D [8J D 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? D D [8J D f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D [8J D 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? D D D [8J h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D D D [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? D D D [8J j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D [8J D 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? D D D [g1 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? D D [g1 D c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D D D [g1 Analysis a) The Project is the d1ird and final phase of the development of Terrabay. The 2006 Project would complete this planned community. b) The Project would require minor text amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement pertaining to maximum height, parking and the types of retail land uses permitted. The 2006 Project would add approximately 17,000 square feet more commercial and construct two as opposed to one office tower for a total of 665,000 square feet of offlce. 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 d1e 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? D D D ~ 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? D D D ~ 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 ~ 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 ~ 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 ~ 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 ~ 0 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? 0 0 0 ~ Analysis a, b, c and d) The dominant source of noise in the Project area is traffic from U.S. 101 and aircraft flyovers from San Francisco International Airport. The 2006 Project fronts Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101 entirely. The 2005 SEIR analyzed noise on a mixed use project that included 24/7 land uses inclusive of noise sensitive residential uses. The 2005 Project also proposed construction and land uses located on the point within approximately 200 feet of residential land uses. The 2006 Project clusters development in the northern portion of the site approximately 900 feet from residential land uses. The 2006 Project does not include residential land uses. Terrabay Phase 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 that all mitigations are adhered to, inspects the site and reports on compliance to various departments, agencies and officials and has the authority to recommend to the Building Division to red tag construction should mitigations not be in place. Operational and Cumulative Impacts The 2005 SEIR analyzed increases to ambient noise levels based upon a substantially more intense project. The 2005 SEIR found that traffic related to the 2005 Project would increase the ambient noise levels by one db in the year 2020. A one db increase is not perceptible to the human ear and not considered an impact. Typically, a five db is considered a significant impact as identified in the 2005 SEIR. No cumulative noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the 2006 Project. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon measurements and modeling, did not identify an increase in ambient noise levels associated with the 1998 Project and cumulative development. Impacts to Occupants The project site is within a 74 - 78 dBA, CNEL contour. As a matter 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)? D D rgj D b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D D rgj c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D D rgj 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 Significant Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? o o o o o Analysis Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [gI [gI o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o [gI [gI [gI 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 1. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 b) The South San Francisco Police Department evaluated the 2006 Project. Sgt. Alan Normandy found that Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR would be required for the 2006 Project. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR would also be required. The mitigation requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fIre communications. Cumulative development for police and fIre requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police 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), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Any impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignifIcant. e) There are no other public facilities affected. See the discussion under Utilities (# 16, below). A PG&E will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the funding of one new police position. Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 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. 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 fire 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 identiEed 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 IX! 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 IX! 0 Analysis: a) See Item 13d above. b) See Item 13d above. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35 Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR that include: . 153 acres of open space dedication consisting of the remainder lands abutting Phases I, II and III. Phase I and II lands have been restored and have been offered to the County. Phase III will be offered when construction is complete. . Trail access to the Mountain- Completed to the satisfaction of the County in Phase 1. The County has stated in writing that they do not want additional trails. . 2,000 square foot child care center- Completed September 25, 1996 when the City accepted a $700,000 in-lieu payment. . Improvement of Hillside School, grading and soccer fields and outdoor facilities- Completed in 1997 as a part of Phase 1. . Construction of Terrabay Recreation Center- Completed in 1996 as a part of Phase 1 . 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 Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? D [gJ D D b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D D [gJ D c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D D D [gJ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D [gJ D D e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D [gJ D f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D [gJ D 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.I0l 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 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1994. . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004. The analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group Guly 31, 2006) for the City is attached to this initial study, incorporated herein and summarized in the following. a and b) The 2006 Project would add approximately 17 inbound + outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 75 inbound + outbound trips in the PM peak hour beyond the currently entitled 2000 Project. The 2006 Project would eliminate three off site impacts and four significant unavoidable impacts associated with the 2005 Project. The 2006 Project off site circulation impacts are all queuing related and all 2006 Project off site circulation impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. The two locations with queuing impacts are: . Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Boulevards: Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 325 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. . The Project Access Driveway and Airport Boulevard: The queuing impact at the main project access intersection with Airport Boulevard can also be mitigated with the 2006 Project, where no mitigation was feasible with the 2005 Project. Mitigations include lengthening the left turn lane on the Airport Boulevard northbound approach to the Project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the left turn lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are 1) striping the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane in conjunction with north-south split phase signalization; or 2) widening Airport Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. An on-site circulation impact and mitigation measure is identified with the 2006 Project, similar to the 2005 SEIR impact. Pedestrian crossings at the first on-site 2006 Project intersection could disrupt traffic flow. A "walk/don't walk" signal for pedestrians is identified as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking impacts, the first intersection on the site shall be monitored after full project completion and occupancy. The monitoring shall be funded through a developer pass-through account. Backups off the project site or driver confusion will result in signalizing the intersection with timing coordinated to the signal at the project access at Airport Boulevard. Additionally, there will be adequate right-of-way area to provide either an exclusive right turn lane and/ or an exclusive left turn lane on the inbound driveway approach to the first internal intersection should the results of the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 38 monitoring indicate the necessity to do so. Also, right-of-way will be provided on the outbound driveway approach to Airport Boulevard to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, should the results of the monitoring indicate the necessity to do so (Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). c) No change in traffic air patterns would result from the 2006 Project. The 2006 Project maximum height pursuant to the FAA is 360 feet above means ea level (as noted in the South San Francisco General Plan). The North Tower is proposed at 360 feet above "mean sea level". d) The 2006 Project site plan was reviewed by police, engineering, fIre, planning and the City's traffic consultant. The on-site intersections are designed to be free flowing for traffic inbound to or outbound from the Project garage. Pedestrian walkways are mostly separated from high traffic flow locations. The parking garage proposes underground, well-lighted and appointed pedestrian tunnels separating pedestrian and vehicular movements. e) As a result of 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 In Intersection (Bayshore)requiring a f111ancial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided 8.5 million and this mitigation is completed. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases n and In 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 ~ 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ~ 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?) 0 0 ~ 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 ~ 0 Analysis a, b and e) The 2005 SEIR analyzed wastewater impacts on a more intense land use proposal. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the inspection (televising) of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17, 2006). c) The existing 48-inch storm drain system in Airport Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The line is stubbed and ready for connection at several points Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 41 along the 2006 Project frontage. The 48-inch line connects to a 60-inch culvert which crosses under U.S. 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete lined channel that discharges to the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the 100-year event. (Corolett, 2005 whom was the City's engineer for the storm drain improvements). Additionally, as a matter 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 1. The project also constructed the water distribution system and pump house on the Phase III site. Cal Water has provided the project with a will serve letter (Appendix F of 2005 SEIR) which is based on a more intense land plan. Will serve letters are attached to this Initial Study. f and g) The project will be required as a condition of approval to provide recycling and waste diversion. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 from the 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 !2J 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.) D o [8J D c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D o [8J D 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 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. 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 Framisco, 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 l602(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 EI 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'o.. " .....- ~ ~ N""",+ ..... C") PAJe 8JOQS ee ... Uw w... .,- om a= D. t .N ~ ~ co :E "tJCl. & SE .... o III CI> .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 < '" ~ 0.. iJ :;) .... 0 .l!l .!2 [!! c::: CI) CI> C> :;: (3. z Q) 0 (.) i= ii= 0 <C N ~ , c::: ..... ..... 0 tt. 0.. tJ) Z l:: t <C .2 '" c::: l:: C") ~ .l!l tt w CI> Z "tJ <C ~ c::: :r: U ~ (z -LIO ole Ol -";" L. _M ,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 M :c: & .... !!! ~ o ~~ ole ...... , (j) t ~ _M 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 ID ..) ID - ID l-.. N o ~j ~- CO ...... N -l;O co t.-~ ... Uw w... ..,- Oel) a= A. ID r-- -::: o ID A v '-- ...... co 0 oVr-- r-- ...... C') C"l .J t ~ '"O~tlD ~ COON CO NVID - lDo .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") '<t 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 '<t -L ..... Ol LO C") I<- .- LO C") Ol co ~ ~ co co .- co .~ LO pille BJoqSAee Ol N ~ ,. '<t j C") - '<t '<t ..- Ol'<t Ol - r:. C")C") co '<tC") LO '<t '<tCOLO LO.....LO LO.....N ~ t ~ C") .- '<t 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.I01 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.IOI 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-20.1 B-17.1 (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 Origil1s 011!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 0111y) (177) (A) (177) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8195 D 9920 E 2 +0.02% 9922 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (Sail Mateo Origins Only) (7043) (C) (7044) (C) North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D +0.01 % 8721 D On-Ramp (Sarr Mateo Origil1s 0111y) (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 Origil1S On!Y) (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 (.fal1 Mateo Origil1S On!Y) (377) (A) (377) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 9355 E 3 +0.03% 9358 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (St1fI Mateo Origil1S On!Y) (8045) (D) (8048) (D) North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -1 -0.01 % 10,609 F On-Ramp (Sail Mateo Origil1S 0111y) (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.tOl Ramp SB Off-Ramp to Ba shore SB On-Ramp From Ba hore NB On-Ramp From Oyster Point NB Off-Ramp to Dubu ue SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Year 20tO Base Case + Pro'eet 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.IOl 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 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 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 "tota!" applied to the off-ramps reflects the tota! 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 tota! stoIa!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 tum 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 Ramps 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 Mandalay Terrace project. Please let this letter serve as our Will-Serve letter for our phone, internet and cable TV servIces. The provision of these services are contingent upon the completion of the 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 Mandalay Terrace in connection with its service requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me. ~ Twila Griffith Engineering Manager 650-212-8123 650-2l2-8129 fax 1'W1] a. gri ffi tl1 (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 lOl 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