The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDraft Supplemental EIR 01-01-1996 :_~ .', ?~. ~ ;i-+':> i' . -, -fif~'~' ~,~ ~ 't.. i> /,1." ,,;f' r ,w D"~ .~^" ~- '/ " ff!:; :. " . . DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION .... Wagstaff and Associates Urban and Environmental Planners , January 1996 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Table 1 PROJECT SUMMARY DATA Draft SEIR Table 1 Page II '- '- PROJECT NAME: SITE LOCATION: SITE AREA AND PARCELlZATION: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CURRENT ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: PROPOSED LAND USE: CIRCULATION: REQUESTED APPROVALS: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension On the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain west of Bayshore Boulevard and north of Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard in the city of South San Francisco. Assessor's Parcel Numbers Approximate Acreaoe Book 070; Blocks 590, 600, 611, 332 (total) 612, 620, 630, 641, 642, 650; all parcels inclusive Planned Commercial, Low-Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space Terrabay Specific Plan District Primarily open space, partially graded with some improvements installed. The applicant is proposing phased residential and commercial development in accordance with the approved Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement. Phase I, currently under construction, consists of 125 single family detached homes, 168 townhomes and related community facilities and infrastructure. The ultimate characteristics and timing of subsequent phases II and III are more conceptual. The specific plan provides for Phase II development of up to an additional 428 residential units and Phase III development of up to 44 acres of commercial uses. Access to Phase I is provided via one connection to Hillside Boulevard opposite Jefferson Street. Phase I internal circulation is via one public street and several private roads. Phase II access would be at one connection to Sister Cities Boulevard; internal circulation would be via one public street and several private roads. Phase III access would be at Bayshore Boulevard; Phase III internal circulation would be expected to be served by a single private road. .... ~... The applicant is requesting extension of the termination dates of the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement to allow for completion of Phase I development of 125 single family detached homes, 168 townhomes and community facilities, and eventual development of specific plan Phases II and III. SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. .... SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, November 1995. WP51 \548\DSEIRI T ABLE1,548 [D)fa~fT ~~[p.>[p.>l~M~~Ir~l ~~V~faO~M~~Ir~l ~M[p.>~CIr fa~[p.>Ofalr fOfa Ir~~ [p.>faO[p.>O~~[D) lr~faM~~ V ~[p.>~C~f~C [p.>~~ ~~[D) [D)~V~lO[p.>M~~1r ~Gfa~~M~~1r ~~~~~O~ SCH Number: 95092027 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Planners and Engineers Thomas Reid Associates, Consulting Biologists Harlan Tait Associates, Engineering Geologists Donald Ballanti, Air Quality Consultant January 1996 WP51\548\DSEIRICOVER.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Contents Page III CONTENTS Pace I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 A. SEIR Purpose and Application ................................. 1 B. SEIR Approach ............................................ 2 C. SEIR Scope--Significant Issues and Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 D. Significance of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 E. Report Organization and Content ............................... 5 F. Intended Uses of the SEIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 G. Technical Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 II. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 A. Proposed Project ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 B. Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 C. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 D. Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 E. Mitigation Implementation .................................... 42 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 45 A. Setting.................................................. 45 B. Basic Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50 C. Proposed Project Physical Characteristics ........................ 51 D. Phasing and Construction Schedule ............................ 60 E. Required Project Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIONS ........................... 65 A. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 B. Population and Housing ..................................... 79 C. Transportation............................................ 89 D. Soils and Geology ........................................ 155 E. Drainage and Water Quality ................................. 173 F. Vegetation and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183 G. Public Services .......................................... 199 WP51\548IDSEIRICONTENTS.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR Contents Page Iv Pace H. Noise.................................................. 215 I. Air Quality .............................................. 231 J. Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 243 V. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES ...... 251 A. 1982 EIR Plans and Policies Consistency Findings ................ 251 B. Supplemental Consistency Findings ........................... 252 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259 A. Summary of 1982 EIR Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259 B. Supplemental Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 260 VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ................... 265 A. Growth-Inducing Effects .................................... 265 B. Unavoidable or Irreversible Significant Adverse Impacts ............. 265 C. Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................... 266 D. Cumulative Impacts ....................................... 266 E. Effects Found Not to Be Significant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 266 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 269 A. Background............................................. 269 B. Recommended Approach to Monitoring Implementation ............. 269 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED.......... . .. ........ 275 A. City of South San Francisco ................................. 275 B. Applicant............................................... 275 C. Other Organizations .............................. . . . . . . . .. 275 X. APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 277 A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B. Supplemental Transportation Information C. Supplemental Vegetation and Wildlife Data D. Supplemental Air Quality Information WP51 \5481DSEIR\CONTENTS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Contents Page v Pace E. CEQA Standards for EIR Adequacy F. CEQA Definition of "Mitigation" G. SEIR Authors Note: A Geotechnical Appendix in a separate volume entitled Draft Supplemental EIR for the Proposed Terrabav Specific Plan and Development Aareement Extension--Geotechnical Aooendlx is also available for review at the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development. List of Figures 1 . Project Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 2. Vicinity Map ..................................................... 46 3. Vicinity Aerial Photograph ........................................... 47 4. Project Development Plan ........................................... 53 5. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 6. Local Roadway System Diagram ...................................... 91 7. Existing Traffic Volumes--PM Peak Hour (May 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 8. Year 2000 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--AM Peak Hour ......... 101 9. Year 2000 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--PM Peak Hour ......... 102 10. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--AM Peak Hour ......... 103 11. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--PM Peak Hour ......... 104 12. Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Intersection Lane Geometrics Without Project. . .. 106 13. Year 2010 Intersection Lane Geometrics With Project ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 14. Year 2000 Project Traffic Volume Increments, AM Peak Hour--Phase I Only. . . . .. 121 15. Year 2000 Project Traffic Volume Increments, PM Peak Hour--Phase I Only . . . . .. 122 16. Year 2010 Project Traffic Volume Increments, AM Peak Hour--Phases I, II and III ....................................................... 123 17. Year 2010 Project Traffic Volume Increments, PM Peak Hour--Phase I, II and III ....................................................... 124 18. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour--Phases I, II and III ....................................................... 125 19. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour--Phases I, II and III ....................................................... 126 20. Year 2000 Base Case Mitigation Needs Without Project .................... 136 21. Year 2010 Base Case Mitigation Needs Without or With Project Phase I--Without Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137 22. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project, AM Peak Hour--With Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140 23. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project, PM Peak Hour--With Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141 " WP51\548IDSEIRICONTENTS.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Contents Page vi Paoe 24. Year 2010 Base Case Mitigation Needs Without or With Project Phase I--With Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142 25. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Mitigation Needs--Without Flyover . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 147 26. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Mitigation Needs--With Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148 27. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour--With Flyover .............................................. 150 28. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour--With Flyover .............................................. 151 29. Geologic Map ................................................... 156 30. Mission Blue Butterfly Observations--1991-1995 .......................... 190 31. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Observations--1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 191 32. Future Noise Contour Schematic ..................................... 224 List of Tables 1 . Project Summary Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ii 2. Terrabay Specific Plan Layout Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 3. 1982 EIR Land Use and Open Space Impact and Mitigation Findings . . . . . . . . . . .. 73 4. ABAG Population and Household Estimates and Projections--Regional and Local, 1990-2010 ..................................................... 80 5. ABAG-Estimated Jobs/Employed Resident Ratios--City, County, and Region, 1980-2010 ..................................................... 84 6. Population and Housing Impact and Mitigation Findings--1982 EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 7. Existing and Base Case US 101 Freeway Operation--PM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . .. 98 8. Project Area Local Bus Route Descriptions (SAMTRANS) .................... 99 9. Base Case Intersection Levels of Service--(AM) and PM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . .. 107 10. Base Case US 101 Freeway Ramp Operation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour ........ 109 11. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service--1982 EIR ....................... 111 12. 1982 EIR Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings ,................... 112 13. Project Daily and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ......................... 116 14. Project AM Peak Hour Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117 15. Project Trip Distribution--PM Peak Hour ................................ 119 16. Base Case Intersection Level of Service--(AM) and PM Peak Hour, Without and With Project ................................................... 127 17. Project Impacts on US 101 Freeway Operation--PM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 130 18. Base Case US 101 Freeway Ramp Operation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour, Without and With Project ................................................... 131 19. Project Impacts on Colma Intersections ................................ 133 20. Intersection Levels of Service After Mitigation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . .. 138 21. 1982 EIR Soils and Geology Impact and Mitigation Findings ................. 160 WP51\548IDSEIR\CONTENTS.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Contents Page vii Paoe 22. 1982 EIR Drainage and Water Quality Impact and Mitigation Findings .......... 180 23. Rare Plants on San Bruno Mountain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185 24. Threatened and Endangered Butterflies ................................ 188 25. 1982 EIR Vegetation and Wildlife Impact and Mitigation Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 195 26. 1982 EIR Public Services Impact and Mitigation Findings ................... 206 27. Definitions of Acoustical Terms ...................................... 216 28. South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element Table N-1, Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Aircraft Noise ................................ 219 29. State Land Use/Noise Level Compatibility Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 220 30. 1982 EIR Noise Measurement Survey Results ........................... 223 31. 1982 EIR Noise Impact and Mitigation Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 226 32. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................... 232 33. 1982 EIR Air Quality Impact and Mitigation Findings ....................... 236 34. Projected Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections in Parts Per Million (PPM) ............................................... 239 35. Project Emissions in Pounds/Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241 36. 1982 EIR Cultural Resources Impact and Mitigation Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 37. Mitigation Monitoring Program--Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension ............................................ 271 WP51 \548\DSEIRICONTENTS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Contents Page viii WP51 \548IDSEIRICONTENTS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR I. Introduction I. INTRODUCTION WP51\548\DSEIR\ TITLPGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction WP51I548\DSEIR\ TITLPGS.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. SEIR PURPOSE AND APPLICATION The Terrabay project is a phased residential and commercial development proposed for location on the lower slopes of San Bruno Mountain in the city of South San Francisco. In 1982, San Mateo County certified an EIR and the county and the City of South San Francisco jointly adopted a specific plan for the Terrabay project. In 1983, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project. The development agreement was legally executed by the city and applicant in 1988. Development of project Phase I then began, including completion of rough grading, roadway, sewer, water, storm drainage, fire station, play field, and other common improvements, but was subsequently stalled by changes in ownership. Recently, a new owner/applicant has requested city approval of a renewed Phase I construction program. The current expiration date for the specific plan and developme'nt agreement is February 14, 1997. Since the construction of some project components may not be able to start until after that expiration date, the applicant has requested an extension of the specific plan and development agreement entitlements in order to accommodate the revised project construction schedule. The city has determined that this extension request represents a new proposed action or "project" subject to state-mandated environmental documentation requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To meet this CEQA requirement, the city has also determined that changes or additions will be necessary to make the 1982 certified Terrabay EIR adequately apply to the requested extension and that CEQA compliance shall be achieved by preparation of a supplement to the certified 1982 EIR; Le., a supplemental EIR, pursuant to CEQA, particularly Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15160 and 15163, which describes any substantive changes in project environmental information which have occurred since preparation of the 1982 EIR. As used in this SEIR, the terms "extension," "Terrabay project" and "project" refer to all aspects of the development proposal, including the 1982 Terrabay Specific Plan (as amended), the 1988 development agreement, their extension, and all other local, state and federal approvals, entitlements, and permits that may be required for development of the proposed project. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 2 The city of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency1 for all environmental documentation and procedural requirements for the Terrabay project. This SEIR has been prepared by the city of South San Francisco pursuant to all relevant sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The report is intended to inform city decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the general public of the proposed project and of the environmental consequences of its approval. CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR is intended to serve as a public information and disclosure document identifying those environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that are expected to be significant, and describing mitigation measures and alternatives which could minimize or eliminate these significant adverse impacts.2 Such impacts and mitigation needs are discussed in this SEIR to the level of detail necessary to allow reasoned decisions about the project and warranted conditions of project approval. B. SEIR APPROACH 1. Supplemental EIR Ordinarily, only one EIR is prepared for a project. Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15163 and 15162 stipulate that when an EIR has been certified for a project, a supplemental EIR is prepared when the lead agency determines that the previous EIR will require revision due to new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts due to: . substantial changes in the project; . substantial changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken; . new information which shows that there may be new or more severe significant impacts; . new, feasible mitigation measures which were not previously considered. The city has determined that one or more of these conditions may apply to the proposed entitlemen~ extensions, and therefore, preparation of this supplemental EIR is necessary. 2. Proiect EIR and Proaram EIR In addition to the "supplemental" EIR approach, this EIR includes two other assessment approaches provided for in the CEQA guidelines--the report provides a detailed "project EIR" 1CEQA Guidelines define the "Lead Agency" as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. 2CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). WP51\548\DSEIR\/.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 3 level assessment for the specific plan Phase I precise plan and subdivision map, and a broader, "program EIR" level assessment for subsequent project phases. a. Proiect EIR for Proiect Phase I. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15161, a project level assessment is provided for Phase I, consistent with the more detailed precise plan and subdivision map information available for this initial phase of the development program. This assessment will be sufficient to serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for all aspects and entitlements necessary to complete Phase I. . b. Procram EIR Approach for Proiect Phases II and III. Section 15168(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a broader, less detailed "program EIR" can also be prepared to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents for subsequent project phases proposed for development in the future where their ultimate physical characteristics, sequencing and timing are more conceptual. When subsequent project Phases II and III are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required approvals in the future, more specific information (precise plan, subdivision maps, etc., similar to what is now available for Phase I) would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review and additional public review, would be undertaken at that time. The program level assessment in this SEIR for these subsequent phases will: . Provide the basis for determining in Initial Studies for future phases whether those specific activities may have any significant effects; . Provide environmental information which can be incorporated by reference in subsequent project-level environmental documentation to address broader program-level impacts; and . Provide a basis for focusing any future project-level environmental documentation needs on more direct impacts and on new effects which have not been considered before. If it is determined that a subsequent phase is consistent with the specific plan and proposed project as described herein, and would have no effects beyond those analyzed in this SEIR, the city could assert that these activities are part of a development program that has already been approved, and that no further CEQA compliance is required. C. SEIR SCOPE-SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND CONCERNS As required by the state CEQA Guidelines, the scope of this SEIR includes all environmental issues to be resolved and all areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency (the city), including those issues and concerns identified as possibly significant by the city in its preliminary environmental review (Initial Study) of the project;1 by other agencies, 1The city's Initial Study for the project is included in Appendix A of this SEIA. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 4 organizations, and individuals in response to the city's Notice of Preparation 1 (dated August 4, 1995); and by the attendees of the public "scoping" meeting held on July 27, 1995 to discuss the SEIR scope. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15163(b), this SEIR has been focused to contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. Areas of controversy and environmental issues to be resolved are listed below. 1. The land use and open space impacts of the project, including project internal land use compatibility and the relationship and compatibility of the proposed residential, commercial and recreational uses with surrounding land use conditions (which may have changed since the 1982 EIR was certified); 2. The population and housing impacts of the project, including the effects of the proposed home types on current local and regional housing needs, and on the local ratio of jobs to employed residents; 3. The transportation impacts of the project, including: (a) off-site impacts on current vicinity roadway system conditions; (b) year 2000 Phase I mitigation needs; and (c) year 2010 total project mitigation needs; 4. The geotechnical and soils implications of the project, including possible future geotechnical risks from slope instability in general, and from specific landslide conditions identified since 1982 in particular; 5. The drainage and water quality impacts of the project, including: (a) the adequacy of the current off-site storm drainage systems to accommodate storm water runoff from the project site and areas above the site; (b) the proper functioning and maintenance of catch basins and drainage improvements .installed onsite since 1982; and (c) project relationship to the city's stormwater quality control program; 6. The vegetation and wildlife impacts of the project, including: (a) the status of project compliance with the habitat restoration and other mitigation requirements of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan; and (b) potential impacts on rare and endangered species under current state and federal species criteria; 7. The public services implications of the project, including the adequacy of existing local schools, parks and recreation, water, sewer, police, fire protection and emergency medical services to accommodate project demands; 1The Notice of Preparation (NOP) is a CEQA-required brief notice sent by the Lead Agency to notify the Responsible Agencies. Trustee Agencies, and involved federal agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR for the project, and solicits guidance regarding SEIR scope and content. A copy of the NOP for this project is included in Appendix A of this SEIR. WP51\548IDSEIRI/.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 5 8. The noise impacts of project construction, long-term occupancy, and traffic generation, including project effects on the existing noise environment along local roadways under updated traffic conditions, and the compatibility of proposed project design with the updated surrounding noise level projections; and 9. The air quality impacts of the project including short-term construction impacts and long- term traffic-related effects on local and regional air emissions under updated traffic conditions and the current air quality impact assessment and mitigation requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). D. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS This SEIR describes potentially significant adverse project impacts and identifies corresponding mitigation measures. Where it is determined that a particular impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the SEIR identifies that impact as "unavoidable." Section VII.C of the SEIR, Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Effects, includes a summary list of all significant project impacts identified as "unavoidable." Impacts that are identified in this SEIR as possibly significant, but are not identified as "unavoidable" (Le., are not listed in section VII.C), have been determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by implementation of the associated mitigation measure or measures identified in this SEIR. E. REPORT ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT The impact and mitigation information in this SEIR is generally organized under the headings of significant environmental issues (land use, population and housing, transportation, soils and geology, drainage and water quality, vegetation and wildlife, etc.). The report describes the following in Chapter IV for each significant issue or impact category: 1. the existing environmental setting, focussing on any changes in conditions which may have occurred since the previous (1982) EIR; 2. a summary of the previous impact and mitigation findings (1982); 3. any supplemental impact findings, including impacts which may have changed or may have not been considered in the previous (1982) EIR; and 4. any supplemental mitigation recommendations to avoid or reduce impact changes or new impacts not identified in the previous (1982) EIR. In addition, this report includes a chapter describing project consistency with currently adopted local and regional plans, a section summarizing the various alternatives to the proposed project discussed in the previous (1982) EIR, a section summarizing the SEIR information in terms of various CEQA-required assessment considerations (including WP51 \548IDSEIRI/.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR I. Introduction Page 6 project growth-inducing effects, unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible environmental changes, and "effects found not to be significant"); and finally, a chapter outlining the city's mitigation monitoring intentions in keeping with State AB 3180. F. INTENDED USES OF THE SEIR This SEIR has been prepared to serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for city consideration of this project, including extension of the specific plan and development agreement, associated precise plans and tentative and final maps, as well as subsequent grading permit approvals, building permit approvals, and other city actions necessary to implement the project. As a result of the information in this SEIR, the city may act to approve or deny these various actions, and to establish any associated additional CEQA requirements or conditions on project design, construction, and operation that it deems warranted in order to mitigate identified project impacts on the environment. As the Lead Agency, the city also intends for this SEIR to be used by other Responsible Agencies1 and Trustee Agencies2 including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Transportation, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the County of San Mateo, to provide comments to the city during the city's consideration of the specific plan and development agreement extension. G. TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendices A through G are included in this SEIR and are listed in the Table of Contents. Additionally, a Geotechnical Appendix that includes geotechnical reports referenced in section IV.D, Soils and Geology, which contain detailed mitigation recommendations, is available for review at the South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division. 1Under CEOA Guidelines, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over aspects of the project for which the Lead Agency has prepared an EIR and SEIR. 2Under CEOA Guidelines, the term "Trustee Agency" means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust by the people of California. WP51 \548\DSElRIJ.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary II. SUMMARY WP51\548\DSEIR\ TlTLPGS,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary WP511548\DSEIR\ T1TLPGS,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SE I R II. Summary Page 9 II. SUMMARY This SEIR chapter includes a summary description of the proposed action (the Terrabay specific plan and development agreement extension), a list of areas of environmental controversy and issues to be resolved, a summary identification of each significant supplemental impact finding and associated mitigation recommendations and responsibilities, a summary evaluation of project alternatives, and a summary of anticipated mitigation implementation procedures. This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the details of the project, its individual impacts, and related mitigation needs. Please refer to Chapter III for a complete description of the project, Chapter IV for a complete description of project impacts and associated mitigation measures, and Chapter VI for a complete evaluation of alternatives to the project. A. PROPOSED PROJECT In 1982, San Mateo County certified an EIR and the county and the city of South San Francisco jointly adopted a three-phase specific plan for the Terrabay project. Development of the project commenced in 1988 (rough grading, common roadway, sewer, water and storm drainage improvements, a fire station, etc.), but was subsequently stalled by changes in ownership. A new applicant/owner, SunChase G.A. California I, Inc, is requesting extension of the termination dates of the approved Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement with the city to allow for a renewed construction program, including near-term completion of specific plan Phase I, which would include development of up to 125 single-family detached homes, up to 168 townhomes, and supporting community facilities and infrastructure, and the eventual completion of residential and commercial Phases II and III. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The city has determined that to achieve CEQA compliance for this entitlement extension request, changes or additions will be necessary to make the 1982 certified Terrabay EIR adequately apply to the project under current conditions, and that these changes shall be made in the form of a supplemental EIR (SEIR). As also provided for in CEQA statutes and guidelines, the environmental focus of this SEIR is limited to those areas of possible substantive change in environmental information that may have occurred since preparation of the 1982 EIR as identified by the city in its preliminary review (Initial Study) of the proposed entitlement extensions, and by other interested agencies and individuals in response to the WP511548\DSE/RI//.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 10 city's Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental EIR. As described earlier in the Introduction to this SEIR, these areas of possible change in environmental information include: 1. Land use, 2. Population and housing, 3. Transportation, 4. Soils and geology, 5. Drainage and water quality, 6. Vegetation and wildlife, 7. Public services, 8. Noise, 9. Air quality, and 10. Cultural resources. C. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Each significant supplemental impact and finding associated mitigation measure identified in this SEIR is summarized in the SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS chart that follows. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed supplemental impact and mitigation discussions in Chapter IV of this SEIR. The chart is arranged in five columns: (1) significant supplemental impact findings, (2) level of impact significance prior to implementation of recommended mitigation measures, (3) recommended impact mitigation measures, (4) entity responsible for implementing each mitigation measure, and (5) level of impact significance after implementation of the mitigation measure(s). In those instances where more than one measure may be required to mitigate an impact to a less-than-significant level, a series of mitigation measures is listed. For a complete description of the environmental setting, the 1982 EIR impact and mitigation findings, supplemental impact findings, and supplemental mitigation recommendations associated with each particular topic of concern, please refer to Chapter IV of this SEIR. WP511548IDSEIRI/I.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) (.) _c: c: tlltll 0 :;:: .Q :;:: c: :t:: tll Q) c:.c OJ - o:t::::;:: ~Ci5~~ >- = :0 C:.- 01/) ._ c: ~8. ._ I/) :Q) ~a: tJ) " Z C z lL z o t= <C " t= i Q Z <C i!! o <C Q. ::E ...I <C I- Z w ::E w ...I Q. Q. :J tJ) LL o > a: <C ::E ::E ::) tJ) I/) Q) ~ ::J I/) tll Q) ~ c: o ~ OJ :;:: ~ Q) (.) _c: c: tlltll_O .- Q ::J'- E~ocoOJ Q)C:.c ..... cn~::= ~Ci5~~ I/) (3 tll 0. E CJ) ...l E tll .5:2 8: <( '>. :t::: U tll o Q) ~ C:Q) :0 :!2 E a.. 'C: _ > .- .~ ~ - Q) :t:::Q)tll-1/) 'r-OOO~ o E Q) I/) I/) I/) >- iU' - .:: Q) .~ (f) .- c: ~ I/) 8.:t:: - "0 ~ U .. - .- 0 tll (.) 0. Q) >- ::J Q) ooo_-_Q) ~tlll/)o. ?"" - c: I/) U - 0. Q) '5 ~ 0 I/) ~Q) OJ W "0 ~ . I/) :5 C" tll 13 0 C:OJ~O- Q) I/)~ ::: :;:: c: tll - co ~ co ~ 0.- 0. tll .c :;:: "0 0 c: ::J .c _ .5 "0 0 I/) .Ql ~ lij .5 .2 .2 - 2 1: ! - ~ - .- ii) E co I/) ! - .Ql'S ~ Q)32E QlQ)~::JC:-C"2 :;:: Q)::J CO:.... ~ Q) I/) tll Q) Q)' >.~=.Q- ~ Q) c:.c.c ~co .!2 tll -; ~ ~ ~ .5 Q) -:: = ~ Q) 0.'5..c E o-g ~;:-Q) c:_ 0. Q)_-<(:S _ Q)-1:.~<( 0 .c I/) OJ '" '" Ql ~ ~. - .2..5 :5 e iij OJ 0 ':=. 0 0, ~ ~ '0 "0 >- ~ (.) .- .5 - ... @" c: ~ ~ tll '5. 0 Q) g 1: I/) 0 -'- Q) Q) Q) -o.Z~l/)oc:c:"O~(.):2 ~ c: tll '0 -g -::: .2 I/) c: 0 c: ~ .2 - tll I/) "0 co .- tll .t: 0 ~ :t::: :t::: I/) >- Q) Q) (.) 0 _ :;:: .0 "0 (3 - I/) :;:: .- .- c: >- n tll n :E "0 tll .~ t:: 'S; :5 :g .- - Q) Q) Q) e tll 0. (.) 8.'- tll E'&'o U '0 a.. .E .~ ~ I/) ~ 5- ~ g m c. e a. CJ) I.U ~ ~ ~ -.I "0 c: -g Q)_tll 4i o Q).oOo 0 .2;::- Q) :5"OQ)C: c:tll CJ)(.)..!.._EQ)-3.g>;E 0= <oJ Q)~00Q)0 <3> :>. -.I 8 ii) tll >- ~ ::: tll llJ >. ~"'.cQ)I/)C: Q)Q)Q)Q.tll ~ ~CJ)(.) ~ Q)E~ &:5 E ~ E.o ~ Q. I/) .0:: ~ E .- tll '- ~ ~ E ~"Q) ~ . 5 e E (.) ~ Q) Q)- tll:t::: ~ _ 032::::~ iIi'iiE 1/)1:~ ~-'2::J~ c: -Q)Q)Ql Q) .8cu'- Q) c: E :5 'c: 0 .g .! "5 a. I/) :2 mC>> Q) 0 ..c.-:? t: 0 I/) I/) E E 31 Uj-g'~Q)N!:28Q) .- E .- ~ - Q) :2 J: a Q) Q) E I/) c: I/) tll ~ Cb '1/) .c Q;::2 (.) .21 tll .- tll I/) tll CI) ! :t::: ::) l!? tll - Q) I/) Q) <( -0. :::J ~ :> ,^ - .- Q) - ~ '-I >~:f"OE~ I/) .Q)1:JQ) > tll .Q I/) I/) c:: ._ :t::: .co~~I/)O(.):2Q).!!!e =1/) Q)~tll.cl/)Q).c_o. .0:21/)_......... -.-- c:: .- Q) T'\ tll 0 \J \J '" >. llJ- 16 .- ~ '5 '2 ~ ~ "0 tll 16 .~ lii ~ ~ ~ Q)E Q) 'E 8. ~ '5. ~ ~ ~ O tll tll > ~ 0 (.) Q) .- ~.- - - E tll Q) ~ 0 .c 0 ':0::'"0 () a.. a.. ._ .c Co Co _ _ c: CI) tll CJ) ...l - c: tll .Q 8: <( "2 u. 162 ~~~ 'u I/) I/) 0 .~ E o tll .- - > 0 ~.c:t:::ee-= tll!.....::JQ)- I/) ::J Q) I/) ~ ~ ~ I/) a> 8.2::J .~ 8. ~ >< .a C" .c><oQ)Q)e =Q)J:n;=_. tll u.. .- - Q)~"ciE'OQ) .cWQ)Q)t::1/) Q)_~:2tll2 :5 0 ::: l3 Co a.. _I/).o~1/) o"Q)gQ)<(u Q) a> ~ g .'~ g->-"OQ)~ tllE=!:Oo. t\ tll .- ~ .Z Q) .- 0 I/) 0 ~ Q) .Q _ I/) _ .Ql;;: :s E 8. ~ 1/)"Oc:Q)C:Q) Q).cQ)"OQ)(.) .c:t:::Q)2.ce ~~.oo.~o. CJ) .5: I/) .5: .'t:: I/) ::::> . 5 c: _I/) 2c:E ~~"OEtllQ) c: .- ~ E ~ E Q)...l8.olRQ) :2c: uc:lQ ~ .~ e >."0 Q) a: I/) a.. tllQ)Q) .- .0 - c: ts~~~~::: .~ c: ::) Q) .Q c: e ~ -.I ~ Q) .2 a..~,.._.o~ c:-uo"O'- Q) tll QI 03 E Q) .g Q.E .5: 0 ~ .!(3_g.~~ Q)~-o=- CDWSo,Q)w >oC: I/)~ =c:CbEtllC) :o;:EQ).ca.. .- I/) ~ - a.. 16 'x ..... ~ 0 ~wa:~Y:s o "0 ::) Q) '0' .!a ulij~:5c.~ I/) - '2 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 11 (3 tll Co .~ Q) _:0 c: tll tll:2 .Q 0 :t:: > c: tll Q) .21 5 :0 I/) ~ E c: E ._ tlltlltll- .5:2 :5 .S2 8: :t:: I/):t:: tll C:I/)C:_ .Ql Q) .21 0 CJ)...lCJ)Z II II II II CJ)::::><( CJ)...lC/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 CP (,) _c: c: rara 0 :;::.~ :;:: c: :t:: ra CPc:.cO ~ cW~ ~ > := :0 C:.- 01/) ._ c: ~8 ._ I/) =CP ::i:a: CP _ g c: rara_o ...~;:,:;:: C:::t::ora CP c::.c 0 ..., 0.......- ~Ci5~~ I/) ~ ;:, I/) ra CP ::i: c: o '<"6 o :;:: ~ CP I/) I/) c:::t::: g ~ ~ .~ ra cP ~ E C)c...f} CP:E~ ~ra ~i~-c;;~g~en:S~ :c: e I/) - .5 .~ ~ "0 'U Q. = Q. <: ~ 'E = ~ ~ c:: o -c;; E CP I/) CP c:: CP .2 >-E~C::I/)C:I/)c:::2Cii -g CP Q) e~~jg.2 ~.Q) en 8. ~ 'S; c... I/) c... Cii 8 E Q) c '^ c:: ~ 0 :c: c:: .Q) CP (,) -g ." cp-o:t:::.o'-- ~ ~ ~ ~ 'e '0 I/) E :t:: (,) ~ c:: 5(,) Q.C:: 0"0:2 ~.~ Q. ra E 8. ~ .2 [~ 5 ~ ~ Cp Cp 'E I/) S Cii E c::.c , ;:, ~ :E ..... u c:: .2 .- ~ ~ ~ 1/)8. .- ..... Cp 0 ra u. ra ra .- c:: c:: c:: .-'- > ::i: ::.. .c e )( raoraeCiiCPw::"-Q.Cp _ 'in I/) Q. c CP _ "0 I/) - U. c:: .!G 0 Cp Cp Cii ra fij ~ = ::i: ~EraQ..c_E;:,% _~~w :=1/) ;:'0''''1/) VI Q. c:: E - (,) Cp ~ .1:: ra ra .1:: 0. ra .- ra 0 "0 8. c:: CP .c E ra~=="Ora ;:,::i:c...:= I/) o ra o .5 ~ '0 I/) CP 0 ~CP CP ~ .c I/) - c .- c:: .~ '* .g ~ .2 g :G I/) ~ ~ := - I/) -g en :g ~ :E g t:: 8 .~ "5~Q) ~c...:;~.c [... ~ :c: rag:=i~~~cCPg'E :=.c CPra~8. ....1/) _="O.c_>- !raEc:: I/) ra ~ - I/) :t::: (,) _ '2 ra CPCPraE..:(,).- -~;:,~. :E.cQ)ora~~Q)oE>1/) ~...""'ov>:t::.- -2 >CP -CP CP -c::~ :0 I/) _ 'U >. - CP ra .- 0 d'S .- c u. CP - CP := () E .... (,) ....~CP::i:~3E~CPI/)";"1/) ;; 8.~~~ 8,g .=~g ~ C::O)~~C::cl/)~O~""C:: ra'~=Q)~ Q~;:' c:: E C::"O > 'U ._ 0 ',^ - I/) 0 ~ c:: ~ ~ CP - c:: en .0 8.'in 0 ... ra oral/) 2 .- _ .- (,) .! (0 ~jg~f~ ~ ~cS ~~ ~ g'1/)c...c::cpoO)u. C::I/)~ .- c:: ~ !al ~ () c:: ~ 0).2 ~ t; c: '- 0 ..'" '- .- ~ c: .... (,) T 'co CP - E ;:, >- "E w 'c ra ra I/) _(,)1/) (,):t:::ra C::(,).o- C::8 c::o~~ ~~ 9.l:t:::E.!!!.g~-s.. (,) .~ ra ra :J ~ := c... w in 'c' ~ ,g I/)E c:: I/) ra e Q)~=-E ':G ~ ~ .~ CP "02raCii~ __.c~1/) (,)I/)c...rara .~ -c;; - fir CP e .- ~ I/) CP Q. 1: .- CP c:: cpcpe_:= .c :2 Q. ~ c:: _ I/) - Q '0 ~ .5 g'l/) c:: '0 ~ "0 .!G o ra E :;::O)~cpl/) rac::ra"Oc:: .~ '5. O)'S; ~ :t::;:,c::n- "0 0 .- c: Cp o c,~ Q..c ::i:....~o- ...0........ 'Q)o~o l/)-"OraCP t5:G'5I/).g> .,! := 0 :G CP Qicp~~CP C/)=rac::= ra ~.! CP CP c:: CP .- T'I .0 .0 .- .c en ~ 0 ~ ~ = 'x ;:, :G - :=:=ocp8~1/) c:: --c;; - I/) C CP I/) I/) 'C: ra CP .2 ra = :c: !2 CP gE~,g.c!::.~Cii_ ~ 2 'E 2: l '6 E I/) .- 0 ~ ra "0 :g .c -c;; ~ ~ .~ ~ ! ~ :E g C :2 >e-_ra I/)~I/) .5 2" ~ g,g .~ ~ ~ ~ gO='6~~-rao .. I/) 0 lij ra .- g' I/) CP ra 1: CP 0) I/) E .- CP 'e .2 CP (,) CP ~ ~ .: -c;; Q. ; :Q S ~ .!G ra a. I/) Cp o I/) 'W Cp ~ ""'..... ~ Z~$O)u.-:~!;:, Q)"Ci~Q)>....."5 ~ > "9. - w := .0 .5 '::: ... .- .0 c:: - 8. "0 .... ~ ~ 'C: ECP ~ ~ i ~ ~Q.(,) c::wcp"Ocp U I/) I/) Cp Cp ~ .- .2 c:: .~ e ~ ~ -8. C) ~ (,) ..... o Q. Q. Cp c... co .5 'iJ5' I/) ~ ~ c: (,) 0 ra ;:, .~ ~ ~ ~ E -c;; .!G ~ alcpCPEEi: 1/)~:2cpl/).s c:: Cp '1/) T'I c:: <;) ,...:=cp.x~Q. . .~ '- en.... t5 CiiJQ~~cprara g~,go=c~ "0 ra Cp _ Cp ._ w ~ 'C: '0 0 I/) >- cp...cpcp_ 'O:=:e Q.O)Q.,S:? 1::cp(,)~'UCPra ~c::cp,gcp~1/) Eog~!~-g t::-~~-ora [~=8.'O:== cpoc:: -I/)-C;; c~.Ql~ ~1: Cp ra'Ul/) _CP.c .- c:: I/) u. 0 E - Ecpra::i:ocpC:: g E i w .... ~ .~ -c;;E._u;C::cpl!::: ()8~cp:C:cpC:: :t: ~ ra ~ l :E .~ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 12 o ra 0- .5 Cp _15 c:: ra ra:Q .~ 0 :t:: > c:: ra Cp .Q) 3 15 I/) ~ c c:: c._ rarara- .~ :; .~ 8: :t::1/):t::ra C::I/)C::_ .Q) Cp .Q) 0 C/)...JC/)z II II II II C/)=>C:( C/)...JCI)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g c CUCU 0 :;:; .Q ;: c= cu .! C ,C .2 ~ cW~ ~ > == :c C.- oen ._ C ~8 ._ en .1:: Q) ~a: Q) _ g C cucu_o .- Q :J'- ~~.2~ - 0=;: ~Ci53:~ en Q) ~ :J en cu Q) ~ C o 1a o ;: ~ en U cu c .E ~ j:: ~ ~ ~ ~ j.;:: .;.: l ~ Cb s i ~ i s = ~ = m -go cu cu u)~ iq Q)> c- c"C .2 ~ n; Q)q ="": Eo -> en_ c en .2 c ~.2 8u i Eg Q) ~ 1i5 Q) >.- en ~ C Q) .2 en n; cu t::~ 8.Cl. en . ~~ ~ .- - 0 Q) ~ ~ ICl .a Q) .2'c - "C_ Q) :J 1U 0 a.,C .- - 0- E ~ CUO en.... Q)o .oC\l .- ~ ~ cu ~ Q) Q) >. . "C-oc _ C .2 t!?cun; ;;:::oE -0 ~ Oo,E . C\I C ~ en .- C ~ " o cu U ;: ~.~ ~ Q) e en ,C a. ~::Q) _0: w;S C/) .~ en=.2 :2:== -:e~ _enQ) o C en c8.cu .2 en 0 ~ ~ i en C cu C .2 .p .2 n; en - 0'- cu .- ,C t::=- 8.Eo en"C- cQ)a: cun;- ~._ W I-gC/) Q) en en ,C en'- I-cu: ij I .... 1 ~ V) a Il = ~ = m ~ 'E cu .~ ~ ~ = o .Q ~ - C .2 ;;::. en U t: n .- Q) o cuQ)'cen c: > ......... t- 'C .!!:? e en .! oen:Ja."Ec '2SScu~'~ ~Q)~.~g.2 >. g 'en :J c ~ €'Q)= g:8 CU "C 6- J: a: .B !. Q) Q) >- .- 'Ec/)€...:':::'E . cu-cucuccu< ~ ~ ~ .~ 8 ~ C/) ~c,Cen~Q)g c =s .1:: ~ CU a: Q)"'~'''''c ~ 8 '-en." ,C cc,,:.c..... ~ 0 .2 Q) 'n; .2 .. Q) .n;n;=n;c .~ -.......... N.2 - en .... ..,. Q) .- - ~'E1ij~en1ij~ ,.,,:J c 0 CU C Q) .Z' 0 ,." _ ,C 0 a. C/) .Z' C/)" .- oen .....enO C/) ~ 'e Cl. ,C :t:: ~ en -0 Q) Q) Z c .2 n; .~ 1ij c .2 C/) Q) c/) CU o Q) en CU m ~ CU Q).... "':Qa.::J Q)=~Sg ~~Cl.~" .!!i ,C - .c: 0 Q) Cl.-iO.5~ ~icu~'c- ~cuO--~cu .- ,C ~ 0 'C eCl.iQ)a.~ Cl. _ CU '5 a.'~ en...mOcuo .2~oCQ" 'E Cl.,.gCl>Ecu Q)~C\I~e~ en;:c,-~-~ CU e- CU :i: c .. o .... Q) .2 ca ~,:;::n;~6> CU .0: en en .- m c: CU en ~ en o Cbe ~ ~ E "Q) o g .2 .- .5 o .S! .- 0 Q) "t: C\I 0.-0 > ;:) Q) ~ Q;:_ ~ c:-o m~SS~.8 >......~,C~: Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 13 C/) ...J 'E .~ R < ~ = o c Q) . 'cenoi ~.- .... "'co' "CI-C\le c ~ a. cu,-:"cuQ) =~~,C enC - c:JQ)- .28-= 5 U ~ J: ~.Q 0 = ~;:-~ Q)~"C~ 'E-~o .- ~':; ,C Q) 'C O".~ c/) 0 ~ .. ,!=Q)C _Co02 o~"C= ,C >. "3 -g B€.i8 Q)ici ~'E~~ CU~OQ) ~ ~ :;:; en .::0::. cu .- cu C/)~E.o C/) "':QQ) ~ Q):-en Cl. en'tijCU - cu~o C - - 0 it-Q) n Q)~ Q) ~~m t!? .- ,C 0 Cl> Q) eCl.....,..'E Cl. 0 .~ .- enC\i'C\I~Q) .2~(ij:fe Cl.t~Q)~ itlSQ)-=~ cu Q.e 16 n; 'S o > c: -cuen.... i-01ij~ cuSoc.c: m i cu .21 (.) ~e~~~ o.!l!ca_~ ~ 8::g~~ cu ~ :J CI) ;:) ~~i~~ U cu a. .5 Q) 'E:g cu:2 .Q 0 = > cCUQ) .21 5 :0 en B 'E c 'E ._ CUCUcu- .Q : .~ 8: =en=CU Cc/)C_ .21 CI) .21 0 C/)...JC/)z II II II II C/):J< C/)...JC/)z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 a> (.) _c C .~ ~ ~ E:6 ell .s C ~ .2 ~~~~ > = :c C.- Oul ._ c ~8 ._ ul .1:: a> ~a: a> _ g C ellell_O +:.Q ~ +: 5i~.2~ _ C ._ 0.21:= := ll.(/)~~ (/) -.J - 0..... _ ~~~lij O~ellg ">. ul ~ Co := 'C ell Co ocoo< C ~ .2 ~ S.2 ,Q~ -= ell C a> 8 Co - a> C ~ ell ell: ~ ~ ul ul ~ a> 'cv a: - ul ~ ~ ul ell a> ~ C o ; ell g ~ a> C ul .Q ellcac '&. .!:::! .Q "t":'cuca v C ~ .~.Ql ~ o ul 0 o..!a C ell .s .Q a>UlU '5 "E ~ o-ell~ a> ;\t a> a: 52 .~ ~ ~ ::) ll. .a"g .c: ell t:~ ~< ~~ !IS .2 ~U o ~ ~ a> ::)E .8-e S~ ~~ -~ t:) - ~ ul ~ 0 U .c: ell ~ C -0 ~ C ~ ell < (/) o -.J ~ ll. -g as Q) ~ o ~ ul >- ell coo CO(/) zo a.-.J E~ ~ll. go co(/) (/)g o~ .-< (/) => a> > < - ~ C 1;5 Q) ~ U ....., -0 > as a> -0 ~ :f S a>~.c: c::c:::!:::: ~~:t 'c:: ~ i CXl 0 ca ~ .S: .S: Q.e: b :S '_ ti i 8 .!!l .~ ! -eo_ !'a :::0 II) ~ .S ;:, ~CI)E ::) c:: ~ .~ t? ....iU~ ~ .21 ~ .::o...c ~ 13 ~ 'u Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 14 (/) -.J E ell J ">. := o o Eo a> ~ C\I !&J 8~ .... ~ll. ~.s.:! ~ .21 ::) ~ _.-= c:: a> e:~ C E -~ ell CI)--~o . ~~-~Ult5 oSS;\tcuell :r:.-o~CJ2~ c:: a> t: a> ~ .- ~ .= Q) ~ 0 = ~5-Q.;\t;\t- 6~g:5"":''2 CXl C CI) +: ~ ell Q).2 _ ~ '1: = 1j-U=oa> '- ~ ell ell := ul ~ .- Co C C ell :O::::=EQlQ~ :r: E ._ 'ul E: ll. (/) U t\ C _ Q) .X .2 5 '0 .- i "t":' C::co.oell-= ~Q) ~ Q) .- .- a> ~ ul II) ~ E >- (/) ~ .~ ! ! ~ -.;; QiCo.o::>a>-1:_.s~ Q..Q ~ " E ~ ~ n; .5 1:) g:~~:a~E~Ul~~ ~-oo~oa~~~~ -:U o.~~"::52 ~~~ -Q)a>,....._a>__ - - .- .0 ..... 0 > oJ ell - - -oe a>aG)ec~'~ c CoJ2 ~U5 ~ ~ 21':::: CI) ~ a> ~ .2 Co ~ == 'ul :g ~ -~PUlE'" G)-ca -~>- '2 ul-'- ~ Q)Je~ ~ C elloell~~ ell -0 ell ~.2 _ c:: - '&.5.~i 8~~~ ~ 8- ~UlU~l!!Ul~"5ell ~'ES'2.sc ~ a>~.5 .-r-a>Ul.s ell_..... o C'- ~ ell Cl C\Il3~8~:all.~~~ti ~a~~S8Ec>>~~[ ~ s ~ n; g ell ,g ~ J: ~ .~ ~ Co .E a> Ei ell:!;? .S2 0 ~ > Cella> .21 5 :0 ul B E c E._ ell ell ell- .S2 .s .S2 8: ~Ul~ell cUlc_ .21 a> .21 0 (/)-.J(/)Z II II II II (/)=>< (/)-.J(/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g c::: nsns 0 ;.~ :;:: c::: :t:: ns .S! c::: J: .2 cf cW~ ~ > = :0 C:::.- 01/) ._ c::: ~8 .- I/) =Q) ::Ea: Q) _ g c::: nsns_o .- U ~.- Ei:076 Q)C:::J:C '5 .Ql:t::: E a.Cf)~::E I/) ~ ~ I/) ns Q) ::E c::: o Tii g ~ I/) - U ns Q g Cf) -l - c::: ns .S? 0. 0. < ~ :t::: U 'E ~~ ~ Q)'- '0 o.e Q) g ~ ~ o . e - Q) n:s Q) .5 :::.. ~ 2 Q) -- c::: ~Q)":'Q) J:_J: <('O~~ :;Q)Q.C::: s -g E .Q ~Q)-Uo; .c:E~~c::: ~ SE ai Iii 'g ~ ~'E:= !U Q) 10;: .- c::: :::>~~-Q ~c:::Q.OE ~~:~-g g-~8 ~ 'E ~ ~ .Q ~Q)~5,:::: :f = a. '(i; g Cf) '0 Q) 'e a. = 'i I/) '0 n:s Q E L' ... Q) Q) ~ 2 c:::= roo. = ~ ~oE e..... .- Q) <( ~ I/) ~ - e .... ~C:::_5:E Q)I/)- _>-~O::JJ:- o.Q)'E S"O.oJ:S~76 oE~ c:~ns=CI)ns ~-~E Q)Ciia.~Q)Q)'E U.OQ) E= Q)~.c: o.Q) >-Cf) > > Q)n:s8=~::E~io'O~ Q. ...: ns f!! ~ a. 8. ~ -l Q) roo.- ::J Q) - !U - -'0 c::: S',g--:::>Q)onsQ),""~ ~ f!!Q)~:g.!'015o..a .....~Q)I/)::JQ) :;ns'S= ~o.n:so~c:::o- ....: aos:~ g~ ~ g.B~ ~~~~~:2;~~1~a) ~ Q. ~ ._~ o~ Q:C::: c::: Q) e ~ a.~~e:f~E~~:g'Elii _C:::o. >-c~UQ> 0010-..'0.00'- '1"< o c::: .- 0 c::: Q) .- U Q) c::: _ o .;:: U c::: .Q '0 :g '0 lii :g 01 ~ N ~ ~gaa.E ~';::a:l'(i;~ ~ Q Q) :0 ~ (1) .i1 Q) 8..c: a.. Q) Q)~'E"O><J:O'E><:=gJ: > ~ .- n:s Q) ~ > ._ Q) ~ I/) U c::: .Q U Q) f!? Q) 'E Q) I/) n:s U Q) I/) n:s a:l ~ (,) "":Q)[ Q) I/) .~ I/) ~ Q) ~a.~ a. -Q) 'O:;~ .~,g ~ e~c: a. ~ ~ I/) 0. ~ ~::EC:u; a. a. .~ c::: Q) CI) 0 :g ~ .5 Tii Uo=g N~_ ~~I/)Cl ns ns ~ c: a:l ~:g 'i OQ)~O ....J:O= o-~o N ;> -_ ~ .~g ~ ~~(ij- >0.=76 I/) I/) . :E ~ :E .~ -ns- :s Q) -= 'v .5 >-'V Q) .= 'O"O~ 15- Cl.!!! .S! ~ ns Q) c::::t::uo.c:::a.:g ~ 'E .~ E 0 ~ J: o ~ e .- ~ U a. = .- 0. ti 01 n:s U o c: Q) .- Q) - Q) Q) ._:t::: "0 Q) Q) Q) 76 e E .- '0 J: .0 01 a. > '"" - :;::.Q)eo. - I/) .- - I/) 0. '0 o ns E ~ Q) Q) Q)/ J: 0 B = g '0 C:::1/)_:t:::_;'O o Q) ~~ 0 '" ns - :; r;;..^ I Q)"O Q) ol/)nsQ)C:::-J: c:::n:s~I/)O~- QQ)Q)n:s ~J: -EUU..: := ns Q) I _ I/) ~ E ~ c::: ~ .Q ~ c::: ~:SI/)n:sU;Q En:sn:sa:lQ)n:s_ ~Ea:of!?Ef!! o.Q)w....Q)Q)Q) g~Cf)~:5~~ Cf) ~og CI)~.!"O .~ 7ii c Q) :? :t:::~ns"O- O~J:"2B '- Q:J - .v ns Q)1SQ)I/)~ CI)~~Q~8. :::> E ~ 0 ~--'O lb'::JbOQ) . _0 0;;;: > N '-"Q)~u= 13-~=~ ... .S ::J f!! 01 Q.e- If cB ~ '(i; .- u. ....~'t::Q) __QI/)Cf) S~~nsO c: .....- Q) -l Q)~~g~ e 0;;;: 0;;;: .- n:s ~~~'EU 2:~~Q)Q) ^::) ::J ::J ~ I/) ~ooQ)ns .....~ ~ o.a:l . Draft SEtR II. Summary Page 15 ~ 0. .5 Q) 'E~ ns:!:! .~ 0 :t:: > c::: n:s Q) .21 5 15 I/) ~ 'E c::: 'E ._ nsn:sns- .Q oS .~ e: :t::1/):t::ns C:::I/)C:::_ .21 Q) .21 0 Cf)-lCf)Z II II II II Cf):J< Cf)-lCf)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Cl) _ g c: COCO 0 :;::: .5.2 :0::: c:== co Cl) c:.r=.2 (5 S21:=:t:: Cl.Cn3:~ >- ~ :c C:.- Olll ._ c: n;8 .2l1ll :t::Cl) ~o: Cl) (,) _c: c: coco_o .- Q ;:).- E=o~ Cl) c:.r= ._ -oo:t:::t:: Cl.cn3:~ c: o :;::: ;:) .c '':: E c: o 0 (,)13 ~ co ~ c: III .Q .:.1U 'n; 0 .-:6 E III Cl) ... ;:) III co Cl) ~ c: o ~ o E ~ ~ III ~~ Cl. 0 ~1i5 '[ 8 c.Cl) co= ~~ .5 Co 2"~ .., 0 0:_ III U co c E C/) ..J 0........ .... ;>.Cl)'ii5c: :t::C:c:CO Uco~,g >.~=c. :t:: 'C: co c. UaJU<( ~ c: Cl) ai .Q ~ E U 0 Cl) Cl) c: ~ t!? .~ eCl).Q Q.E E'- ~ ~~Cl) .Q -- == t5 Cl) Cl) cu=:2 ~ Cl) > ~ c. 0 l:: '.5 a. ;~g - ... cu Ill" -"0 Cl) III ~ c: .r= .Q ~co(,).= o c: co Cl) (.)Cl)eE _:28:g :s. 3: co 0 "E :2 - ;~:g :2c:~ e~-g "0 C.E;:) -g 5 ';'~.8 ;:) .8 c: .E 1i5 ~ -= .8;:)'~ ; ; ;:) Cl) Cl) Cl) g €~~~~~ 12 go>.r=>c: co ;:)Cl)oCl)... > Cl)"Ee"5;:)"5.a ~c:co:;seo= 0~~C\1 .r=aJCl) """ .......(/)- aJ c: "5 C .5 "0 Cl) "0 ,,,"'O"'Oc::o:::c: l:: ;:) aJ .a, Cl. 8 .- 8 oZ _... U .r=]?~Q;Cl)Cl)",Cl) ~ ~-1i5I1l~1Il ~ <: ~ ~ :g co "0 i c: 01 o~ C/)B 0:.= ..J co c: & g~ coCl. ... Cl) c: c. .- ou "'c/) 50 .r=..J ~.: ~.2 c:.= co co '5& ~~ 0:<( C/) ..J - 0_ ;>.Cl)'ii5E := c: c: co u~cog >. Cf) ~ C. := 'C co c. UaJU<( ~~ :i~ ~...... BO ~~~ ..J 00 III Cl):.=._ ;>.;>.;:)co... ~;O g~5 ~"O"O.c .r= g,C:c:;:)c:.= Lt.8.8';~:g "t).r=1i5.r=~c. s'5co=~~ .a2Cl)0 <( .r= 1i5 . c: .c:: ..... :t:: co c: .- "5 ~ ~ Cl) .Q aJ ~C/)U12~C/)~ ts::J~coIllOB ~coC:~Q;..J:.= ~ 8-c co ti) ts ;:) .- c: Cl) 8l:: 2 0 S Cl) .Q c. ... .... :::I ... IIlQ.EC:~~ c: E .- Cl) Cl) Cl. @'ocoo>c.c: _ U ... Cl. <( 0 ._ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 16 U co c. .5 Cl) E~ co:2 .Si! 0 == > c: co Cl) .21 5 :0 Cf) ~ E c: E ._ co co co- .5.2 :; .Si! ~ == Cf) == t;t C:Cf)C:_ .Q) Cl) .Q) 0 C/)..JC/)z II II II II C/)::J<( C/)..JCI)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g c ctlctl 0 ;: .s.l :; C :t:: ctl .s C J: .2 ~cW~~ > = :0 C.- o(/) .- C ~8 .- (/) .1:: Q) ~a: Q) (,) _C C ctlctl_O .- s.l ~.- ~~~~ - 0) - .- ~cn~~ (/) ~ ~ (/) ctl Q) ~ C o :; ctl o :; ~ 't) ~ ~ ~ ~ <lJ '" ~ 0::J C; ~ -.;; - CI) s....- :t:oc::.....CI) ~....~ ,g ~~~.2~ O~~~~ ~ J!> c:: ..~ (.) 't::~ ~ CI) ctl -a; ~ o-..!!:!~~ ctl~u) .... ~ Cb :.. ~ ~ '_ b 'Q) c:: c:: "t:l :;:: .c:: ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ::J .2 ~ 5 ~;c:: Cl)o;:,;C::'O<lJo - u ..... :S Cb ~ ~ ~ Cb .~ J::l ::J -6 ~ 'i :S ;:,; ::J ~ ~ ~ '€ ~ \1) Cb '" ....~.o Cb.:::....O - l.;;.J::l --::JCO::J c::'::';C: 'S ;:... E lG '0 0 1: 0"'- CI) -s; . o 4::: ::J (j .Q CO '_ ::J Q. ~ ~ c:: CI) c:: c:: ..... \1) ~ J::l E ~ I;;: .2 .....ctl Cbctll.;;.-::Jctlbctlti o.g ~CI)CI)o~Cc:c:CbC:C:Cb c:: '- Cb ctl c:: .c:: Cb:e I Cb:t: CI) .2 ~ ~ CO .2 ~ 1;) ~ oC:: c:: 0 ai !/) '- ..... C :t:: ctl ~ '\1 ... 'S: CI) c:: .... "t3 Q:l 0 ~ b ~ b .5: ooCbcC::1:3~""'c::""'C:b l.;;. ~ E ~ 8 l.;;. l.;;. ::J ::J Cb ::J l.;;. Q..ctl~~.....~~cB.8qs.8~ Cb ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ 1: :S .5: :S ~ ..... ::J Q. 'O'::J::J.- ~ E ::J ::J ~ ~ .s; .E a. cB cB ~ ~ ~ ~ cB (/) U ctl o .E CJ) ..J 1: ctl .Q c.. 0. < ~ := (.) '"Otiio Q)t1S1:- ~EQ.~Q) Q)-ctl~ E~~~ E .... C 0 8 c:: Q) (/) 2?~-ei\1 \1);>1:) c.....c-S .2 S:.2 0 ~Ol~!. ."". - (/) 0) :1:: ...c E Q) Q) 'C (/)'Eo Q) ctl ._ := J:J:_'c' -~o U Ouc~ctl c Q) .2 _ ~ .2 '0 n; c .- n; a..~ 8~ .~ -c ... i\1 J: o C - Q)E - O)~ Q) c:: .- .... ..... .!!?'Q)~~~ 0.__...........; .E ~ ..:. ~'e C/) (/) - Q) ~ ~ E I Ci5 Q,aQ)cQ) .... Eo(/) .21 J: :5 cu>ctl(/)(.) '- .~ (,) CD 0. E JgS-o-oo :.;:::cQ)N'ia........Ci52 ~ ._ _ 0 - u;-Q)i\1c~~'E .T ::J c .- ctl - ~ .- c:: .21 ~ ~ 9 ~ t; ~ ~ ctl Q) C > a~;~S:S~ E e .5 .- 0 ~ E IIIiiii.....CU..........Q) -CI)EC1:)o.~ S~~~~o; ~~cliiiu..~ e ~ .2 0. C/) '"0 .s!~~!~g~a) 8:~f!? :gQ)22 =:J ::J Q) S ~ (/) 'E Q) .... 0 - '" 0 ctl 8 ~ CO .50 := ~ (.) ~ . Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 17 ::E ~ Q) =Q).....~ O)~c::o C J: t1:l .- .C: .... .~ n; ~ _ ll::: (,) Cctlc::.Q E'~ 0) o CI) c ~ .:: .5 'i c .Q = 0 ctl=~:g =~Q)- .-"'Q) ;-g32S ~:g5n; ctl ctl ~ ~ J: Q) (/) U ~J:Q)ctl ,-(/)Q. o~.ctlE C; 5 a .~ C\I.c::Ul!? "'~Q)Cb m ~ 'e~ >- Q. 0. ctl U ctl 0. .5 Q) 1:~ ctl:2 .Q 0 :t:: > c ctl Q) .21 5 :0 (/) ~ 'E c 1: ._ ctlCUctl- .Q S .s.l 8: :t::(/):t::ctl c(/)c_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)..JC/)z II II II II C/)::>< CJ) _Jen z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) (.) _c: c: nsns 0 :;: .5.2 ;: c: :t:: ns ~ c: .c .2 0.21:t::= a..CI)~:::!: > ~ :c C:.- 01/) ._ c: ~8 ._ I/) =Q) :::!:a: Q) _ g c: nscu_o .- 5.2 :;).- ~~B~ ~~~~ I/) Q) ... :;) I/) ns Q) :::!: c: .2 co o ;: ~ ~ "E ns_ ns aC6-g~ Ol 8 '0 'e ~ .~ c:nsc:a.Ot) .- ." 0 .c S ns ~u:a5(.).o o .- _ ns '':; c: 15 ~ ~ : E .2 -; a. 8 .: 8 ~ .c"O :;)..,- --.cO";::'E- -:;)-Q)- o 0 .- a: .E: Q)I ~ ~ I/) i c: I/) c: <Ii ~ t) o Q) .2 Q) 'n; Q) -...'-.....(JJ--- o ~ ~ ns ns Q) ~ ~ ~ a~ : -Eot)ns= !!:!..,C:Q)E_ c: .... 0._ 0 Q)>?eo..." E~Q)a.-w Q) c: I/) Q) :g 8 Q.QiQi~nsQ) E~:E=a= CI) I/) t) ns a E ~ C/) 0 c: .~ ~ ns :t::!!.l=1/) UiiQ)Q)u- ~~~~~ c75~nsg....l ~ '. .5.2 :g ~::J~=ns ..:...o<u~U tCl::.o_Q) ,......~c:1/) ~ .c:: ::J '- ns a.cf cB ~ al c E ' _ ns 0 .2 ....-...Q)-- _Q)Q"'"C~ ~ ~.~.~ ~ 8- QlO~E-go E~~Q)Q)i .!l!~~~.oN Q. - - Q) .- Q:~~ a.:2iti :::i ::J ::J 0 :;) c: ~~ ~ ~ i'~ . CI) ....I - 0_ _ :>.Q)U5C: .ot= ~ c: ns U.o~,g ~c7)=~ :t:: 'C ns UalU ~ - ~ nsO ~Q) ~ ~ .co ii .. C::(.).QN~Ea c::::!: Q) .- .c ... 0 Q) Q) Q) .2 a.. ~~~~-Q.(.):;~C: ~ Q) I/) :>. Q) Q: (.) _ Q) .- o fE~ Q)=:3 ns 0 a.U ~ :;).c...CI)Q) I/) 0 ~1/)1/)-oQ)"OQ)...CI) ~ :;) ns ... - Q) '> I/) :;) 0 -.2 Q) Q)t)1/) e2 0....1 c:: lij E "E .9!. - a. a. oJ: i.: ~>~:;)e~oQ)cl:;) g ~ '_ a: a.. oJ: !!l ~ Q) ,g e? - .g. OJ S ~ ns :; a. ~ ~'Ou;CI)~e:2=Ens .s: c: ~.sa= ~5 ns~ 8. ~~-g=~ns~:€m:::!: ~ !!:! ns .5 cb c: III ~ ~ < ~~~ilQ~~~ ..5 o E .- .- U Q) t5 ... ti 0 u~~;cbt!?~~Q) ..: a. -!!:i c: I/) Q) Q. Q) '0 CI) :;) - E .:0: Q) ns - E a. ~ 0 0 :::. _ ~ :2 al .5 .... 0 a.....I oJ: CI) ....I - 0_ _ :>.Q)U5C: =~c:ns U.o~g ~C1)=a. :t:: 'C: ns a. UalU< a: o ~.c i3 _~ 0 ns... ~ ~ 'C: e:;) 8 Q.~ i 2:B ...EN(.) ns~ Q)~",l/)g"E~ ~lns_Q)nsa. ~:a~Q)c:a;~ i7" I/)ns_1;; -"'Q)ns-:;)ns ~~=.ca..EO= C::O... :;)al~ ::J~Q)ti-l/)Q) .8 ; -g .~ ~ .~ a: ~c::;)o-= :;:;)"CQ:"OUc ,9, .8 ~ .c 5 Qi .2 'VJ .c 'S = (.) en t) ts "S g ~ :g i:i5 :g 2~...Q)ns"OQi ..... en~...l~ ~ ~ ~ :g :;) .5 ,~ - ~ ns .8 II) '-".c:;):go-:C -=onsl/)lQ- ~~~alitiQ).s Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 18 ts cu a. .~ Q) E~ ns;2 .5.2 0 :t:: > c:nsQ) .21 5 :0 I/) B E c: E ._ nsnsns- .5.2=.5.2 ~ :t::1/):t::ns C:I/)C:_ .21 Q) .S;!) 0 CI)....ICI)Z II II II II CI)=>< CI)....ICI)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g C .~ cu .2 -.Q - i~.c ~ '0 .21:= E a..oo::~ > := c&! of/) ._ C ~8 .- f/) :t::Q) ~a: Q) _g C cucu_o .- Q :3'- E:c 0 -ocu Q)C.c - Ol:t:: += ~U5::~ c 00 o ...J f/) Q) ~ :3 f/) nl Q) ~ C o "i o E ~ ..... :3 o .c ~ nl Q) 0. ~ < .E U ~ 00 :3 O~ ...J ~ C nl .2 & ~~ & a.. o ,E f/) U nl a E f/) o.c~ cu ~:=C6Q) a: ~ cu ~ '0 Q) iIicu~~2:5 oou....2f/) O. - Q) 01 Q):>-"..... C .!12 f/) :> ~ C ;; .i=~~&CUo .Q co.-o~.c (5 .- ~ e C '3 0 --go 0..2 o-~ -E~~~~~E o.i~=l!? e "",>.:3Q)f/)- ~I";;; ~ ~ :E ~ '_~ o~cu~Q).c o ~ .21 :> :0 0..5 C cu E f/) cu u .- .2 Q)E g a Q) ~ Q)ui o .- Q) .- 0 C6 -~8eo~ E ~ ~c cu 0.Q).c ~"i~8Q)~(ij0. .!!! E ~ .Q :2 1: ~ ~ 0. Q) 0 ::: ~ - ~ .- .E ~ Q) cu ~ = .- e ." C ~ 0. cu ~ 0. 00 :c: ocuo ~ C::.s=OJ .... _ .2 ~ ~ f/) ~<:)ni:3 nl !I) - .E f/) .E CD 0' CJ) .DE l!:? Q) ~ ::::> "f/)o ~o-cuC\l ~Q)O:3l!:?~ ...~Q)iOnl (I) E .E Q) ts~r-f/)_>'c: qs<(..~CQ)o Q,(I)Q.cuQ).c+= E:;)t:::.c~-cu _o-~o.Q),gQ) -.5 'fu 0." 0. S:;)t:Q)OQ)O c:: " 0 .- ~ " u. CI>>~"t)e.,:;" EDt:o.CCUOO ~::;;:;) CUf/)O -~.8~=Q)...J 8:~..c::.E~EQ) ~5t::-Q~~ ~COg(ijE~U . 00 ...J Cis C ~- ~ ; U .Q -:,;.a .1:: 0. u< f/) .Q) ~.c t: ~ ~ e ~8: o cu a." E ~ - > t:.se~ .9 5 C ~CD.!!:! ~ E g> ~ ;f 'i ~g ~ Q) 0 Q)-- .... f/) Q) ~O'-s <3i:g _:2 nl ~~g CU :g cu ! i "2 " :3 C .8 :3 _ .8 ~ in ~ ~ ~ "E~"E cu C cu > ~ > .!!! :3 Q) :3~"3~ ~EOl~C .!!:! 'E 'C 'E '0 "2 '0 a a..oa..:3 ~ ~ ~ e ~f/)~-S f/) f/) >. >. o 0 .E ~ C :3 002 o ...J ~ cu Q) C 0. .2 ~ C6a.. ~ &.E OCD ~oo 50 .c...J ~ .- cu ~ &B 'E~ cu cu ~Q) :30. ~~ a:< 00 ...J Cis C cu ~ - ~; U .Q -:,;.a :=0. u< a: o @- ~= , cu 8E o .... ~ (1)- ~ C ~g itB ~ 'C t:'E :;) 0 .80 ..c:: Q) - ~ :;) cu ~~ t3 .~ 2~ Ci) cu t: Q) <3 '5 0- - Q) ~a: Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 19 u cu 0. .~ Q) 'E:g cu:g .Q 0 => C cu Q) .21 5 :0 f/) ~ 'E C 'E ._ cucucu- .Q = .Q 8: =f/)=cu cf/)c_ .21 Q) .21 0 OO...JOOZ II II II II oo=>< OO...JOOZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 (I) _ g c: ~~ 0 -.Q - C::t:: ~ .$ c: ~ .2 0.21=.-= a..(/)~~ > = :0 C:.- oen ._ c: ~8 .- en =(1) ~o: (I) _ g c: ~~_o .- Q ::l'- E=o(6o (l)C:~ .... C):~; ~U)~~ en (I) ... ::l en ~ (I) ~ c: .2 (6 g ~ _ U oQ.-en...(/) C:E'E::lO .2 (I) .2 ....J U~E '-=' S=~~S enoo(l)~ c: ... ... 0. 8(1)o.-~ >Ec:'" (I) 0 .- ~ (I) ~~c:=o. - '0 .2 ~ ~ ~ c: t) 0:(1) < ... ::l (I) c: ~ .8 en .- ~ ...- o~.$'tiU..: - '5 .~ (I) (/) ::l eno-'OOo (l)en~(I)....J~ ~,...c:~ .:.:: ~ 0.2 .. ~ 0."" :t:: (I) c: (I) '0.000. ~~i32~~ '0' (I) 0 ::l (I) a.. ...~z~o.c: 0. _ _ ;> 0 '_ en t) ~ a .E en ~ (I) 0: ~ (1)- wen'5 n (/)~o ij)!Y en U ~ .- ~ ._ :E (1)'-= (I) e~ e -en~25o.'fo. c: ~ c: ~ ." .!::: '" ,- CD - - ~ - '0 .2 0. ! - (I) (l)ot)(I)~'O'" .- ~ Q) 8 .... Q) = ~~l!?~=(6(1) ~ (I) ~ .- ~ ~~-(I)~~- ,- (I) .~ :2 = (J) '0 a) >-.!!2 ~ ~ ~ ~ "'(I)~"'C: (,) ~ (6 = ~.2 ~ :g ~Ql~c1)(6 (l)E=en-::;~!E E c: 'w 0.'- 0 Ol 0 .2 :!i! 0 6-.:: C:_=::l,..(I),.. .- '0 0 ... 0: ... ~ ~ c: ~.2 .2 g m 8 _.~ en B en ,g en (,) n en (I) .- (I) (I) .- ij) ... en -= en (I) (,) = '0 (I) ~ c: ~ ~(I)~...'E~O~ ~ c: -= 0.._ 0. (,) 0. (/) t) C/) (I) (I) Cb ;::) en .- =:)~~:2e O"~CD::lo. =:)1;:00(1) -g~ ~(I) Cl ~ ~ .~ oS 0)'~....J(6'iij ..:. s::: '. ... -.8=:) ~~~ Co) !lJ 0 ~ !€'fnw E g 8 .~ (J'j .... eo --~a......J l1S<:)- 1:-g'5o ~~s~i Q>>'Q)=:)5e. -=:)O>Qen 8: s::: II) (I) .... ~ ~(l)_en.$~ q)::>'<:)~(I)~ ....~-u'OO' . (/) ....J en c: e_ ::c: ~ ~ U .Q &1 "2~ ::l< .8'E ~ ~ 1:= g ~ (I) (I) ~ 0: . ~ .0 -~cn (I)~O ~e....J - 8:.. c: co c: ::; ", .2 - -- I ::l co =c:'" ~(I)~ "2~~ 8 (I) ::l (I) 6-.2 en.5':':: :g::lco < 0 ~ ~ ~ E (I) = co ~ ~ (5 - (I) ~ - '0 gl.. - en c: c: ~:8 ~~ ~- _ 'e (/) (/) ....J - 0_ _ >,(I)enc: ..to: ~ c: ~ U.oeg >:. en :: 8: .'t:: 'C: ~ UCDU< ~ .~ ~....~u Q) (I) .~ !1= >-e S:::'E (I) 0. Cb (I) ~ , (I) E:2:::; Cb en (I) ::>. .- '0 '5 e'ESB ~~c:= _ E 2 ~ s:::(I):-,.,. o .!::: ~ .~ :;:;::lenCO og...c: Cb ... (I) (I) ~ - Q) c: .~ ~ .... .2 en (I) .5:(6:Een ~ .21 :: ~ Cb=O -E-(I) ~ 0: en I;: Ol _ co o .~ w CD O~(/)O o en,... -=.- 0 ~2SN :a:: oLL. ~1:)(/) 0s:::0 ~~....J ~C:";> ~o~~ bCbC: 6'C:~en ,..=:)~:E ..:.~-:: :(:! .~ 0 ~'S~- a.2~i ioE~ - - 8'0' S~t35. i ~ .~.!!2 c:: e ~ e c: .2 .9!~~gg 2:~Q.el!? ~ ;::) t::: (I) (I) ~cE~g..5 . Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 20 ~ 0. .5 Q) E~ ~:2 .Q 0 :t:: > C:CO(l) .21 5 25 en B 'E c: 'E ._ cococo- .Q :; .Q 8: :t::enlt::CO c:enc:_ .21 (I) .21 0 (/)....J(/)Z II II II II (/)::>< (/)....J(/)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 0,) (.) _c: c: CUCU 0 :o::.Q :0:: c:: CU ~ c: -'= .2 o .2>.1::: :t= o..C/)3:~ > :!:: :c c:.- OUl ._ c: ~8 .- Ul :t=0,) ~a: 0,) _ g c: cucu_o .- Q :).- ~==.2~ _ c: ._ o .2>.1::: :t= o..C/)3:~ Ul ~ :) Ul cu 0,) ~ c: o :a c :0:: ~ .::t:. cu .. g-O,):; cuo.B 'i'E.)t;. =cucu 0==0,) "O~o. C:O,)~ .sa: < -'= c::: .5 ..: '5 .2 0 :) ~t)C/)~ 0~0.::t:. -.......Jcu O,)~ 0,) ~ .5 c: 0. -O,)o~ -g~~o.. o ~ Q; .5 ~ ,2> g. 0 Ul Ul "O"O:;C/) "Oc:oO <CU-'=...J Ul t) cu a E 00 ..- 0 "0.. 0(.) O,)Ul 0,) C\I ~ ... "0 .g 0,).... ....c:_ .... cucu= 0,)0,) =~~ .EE --....~E8g cuc:~cu 0) o.2cua~n Ult) Q) ~ Ul....O,) ~ ~ ! '0 "'" := "_... ... 0.0,) .eoo. .6 :5 ~ 0.; '5 "0 .!!2 ~ -'= c: 0 0,) -'= o.E ~ .2 ~ "0- O,):t=:it ~58E:g0,) 0,) Ul 0 0 cu Ul -'= 0,) Ul .... 0,) cu -Ul--c:O 0,) ca ca c: cu 0,) Cti -'= ~.Q - Ul O)o.o'5O)cu :0:: ~ 'c .D .5 CD .- v cu .- :it EO,)c:.:oo .- c: l-oe58~o 0. Ul _ C\I ~ 0 cu -'=- - 0)0. E :) E .... ~i~~~ = "'c O,)'120Ul :p-g:E"O~ _:)_c:cu S.8"E.si "O=cu-,=~ "0:)0,)_.... cuoc::)- IUl.!!!~e "E12c:c:~ :) cu .... 0,) 0,) .8~~~Cti -"3=:>"0 :go~-go :itCD"EcaE 0. ~ 0 . g ~2~58 ....UlUl~CU . >. 5~ . . "0 c: :) .8 -'= "E5~ cuc:.!!! ~'Ec: "3cu.... o~~ CD-_ ~5~ oCD"O 1ii ~ c: >'08 cu -'= 0,) CD~Ul cu CD i "E 8 0,) Ul "0 ~ -g :) .8 o cu 0,) >'0,) cu c: :it cu 0,)- >-'= 'C: 0) "0 :) t) e 0,)-'= 'e- a.. . . ~ ~ .5 :) .2-ge ~-,=~:).a 5 .2 .8 1: -C:'CC:2> ~ 0,) &..~ ..... cu-'=_:;"O -'= = .~ - ~ o..ca~=&. t) 0) !I? oS! 0 .~.~ E :it Q. e 0,) E 0 0.0.8~g - 0 c: ~c:t)go - cu .~"O :2 ~:oe~:g .- O,)e 0. > cu 5- O,)~c: ~i=5:::" c:"'~gCD~ .Q ~ ~ ~ i :t= c: ." 0 t: :g~~1ii~ cu (.) .~ i;' 2 .5cu"OCDE Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 21 ~ 0. .6 0,) E~ cu:2 .Q 0 : > c: cu 0,) .2> S j5 Ul ~ E c: E ._ cucucu- .Q = .Q 8: :Ul:CU c:Ulc:_ .2> 0,) .2> 0 C/)...JC/)Z II II II II C/)=>< C/)...JC/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 CI) _ g C COCO 0 :;:::.Q ;:: c= co CI) C .r; .Q '5 2I:t::::::t: Q.Cn~~ > = :0 C.- oen ._ C ~8 ._ en :t:CI) ~a: en CI) ... :l en 'co CI) ~ C o 16 o ;:: ~ CI) _ g C coco_a .- u :l'- E:6ocao Cl)c.r; ~~~~ CJ) .::.:0 co-l !.~ EB co.::.: : co :l CI) ~ 0. a:~ .<( cnc a: E'- 0 Cl)0 ECJ) CI) 0 . >-1:; ~ .. B -oc.::.: c: .2 co :l-CI) .8~0. - o.~ :l0Q. o ... "E 5 .~ co.r;U en ~ o E CJ) -I - 0_ _ >.CI)enC :t:::::facco U.oeg ~en= 0. = 'C co 0. UCDU<( 1;) 8 ~ Eti.o:~ .i"E!ti< E co CO:l co CI) c: f!! co CD CI) ..B.r;.- .- :tk'ioCl)~_lfeo 0= c;~":' ~'lij 0.CJ) ..: ...oC\lut)CI)-CI)O:l ~~CI)CI)CtJCI)co=-IB o ~-S'5'Q.E-S~'O" ~ ~ ... a. _ 0 .~ CI) ~ ~ __0 _- en'~CI) "t)"E;S~~~~!o. ~:l~:;~.!!!Bo.!.~ .8.8c:oE.r;u.r;oQ. "= .r; Cl)E .r; ~ 01 co ~ ... .5 -:; :t:::::Q..:l_CI):J 6 0 E ~ ~ e.~ B 0 (J) en 8 en ,::;) .r; e E CJ) CI) C:U)-CI)e~o t).r;!:8o-gE-CI)-I 2 - en:e;- 8 E co... ~ g .~ c: C A' 8 .2 ~ :; c:: ... 80'" - ~ OC(j) ;::enn.5~.2 (.) .2 E CI) co co Qj 'C :l =6 0 en g"O .- C en ~ N"O CI) co 'E- "0 e 0 CI) CI) _COClU COo.ua:o. C "0 CI) "0 C "0 ._ co: CI):JCl .r; en c: - CI) .- . ... ~ 5"0.2 0:;0 .c::o_ ~~! q)en_ Q..CI)_ en co ~~(I) -o.u ~y~ o .-E C\I 0 .- ... a..Q m-= >.cue Cl)E; .r; 0 ~ en -...coc 01 - .Q Q C:.Q='_ -c = &: cu c5 ~ .~ ~ CJ) -I en C e =c ~ .~ ~Q. =0. U<( c: '001 .Q co CI) .5 co .r;eno. .21 .~ co 'C = ~ .r; 1;) E .00CI) c: .r; ... .~ ... :8 ~ "2 ca,g~CI)CO E.~ ~E ~ ~ ! 8 e .- -CI) _c CO.r;-cCI) o"OcoQ:2 ~CI)":'-~ -; "E t) ,6 .Q = Cl)E CtJ E 13 '0 ~o!. E_uen ~R-1;)- 0!~8~ E~~!~ ~ ... '= co .- E:J..!!?.r;e Cl)enQ..eno. Q. ; g:.~ CI) .EECI)~= CJ) ~ ~ ~ ... co. <I)_UW t)CCl)CJ) ;;o..-eno OCl)~-I -;;>00 .... Q) - ~i:!CJ)~ .--oe t; ~ -I .2 Cfi~',~ Q.E~~Q) .... O-~"O -:37:2 .s~C:::J c:: ... 0 0 Cb~"2~ eo;;;::) C .!!!~.8g Q...!!? "= co Q:::)t:'" @'cBg~ . Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 22 u co 0. .5 CI) Ei co:2 .Q 0 = > C:COCl) .21 5 :0 en B E c: E ._ co co co- .Q-S.Q ~ =en=CO CenC_ .21 CI) .21 0 CJ)-ICJ)Z II II II II CJ):::>< CJ)-ICJ)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) (.) _c C CUCU 0 :;.~ ~ i~.c:o '0 Ql:l::::E a..Cn3:~ > == :is C.- OUl ._ C ~8- ._ Ul :=Q) ~a: Q) (.) _C C CUCU_O .- ~ :;,'- ~~B~ ~~~~ C/) => ~ C cu .... a Ul ~ :;, Ul CU Q) ~ C o ~ o :; ~ co.: ~ ~ Q) ... Ul ' ...:::: Q) 0 :E lii .!a ~ .c: >- - ;;:: .9-0 Ul 5 ~.8 E= Q) :;, > 0 o Ul ... CoT"" .5 ;? Ul t5 cu Q E C/) ...J '0........ ... >- Q) Us C .1::: C C cu uCUcug ~~~a. .1::: 'C cu a. UlI:IUc( B ~~ C: g, cu :l:::UlQ)o -02 .21 3= ~ -= "0 Ul C .c: ca :l:::E - a. 0 c:: Ul :;, - .- C -:;,Q).8-o~ Q) .2 "fi Ul .8 8 .c: g Q) .~ ... Q) cu C .c: cu - (.) E __0 Q)2--:;'Q)E cu c. . :;'.!:2 g Ul 0 EcEE~oo -(.) ~ .~ 8 0 -0 Ul ~... 0T"" i 't":' _Q)___.:::ca..... u CU.c: cQ)O T"""OQ) o "0 ~ 2 c T"" E C/) ~ 'e .!Q)..:.,:-.!:2C/)8=>ca. ~~"g€~~t5~~-g - E '.'" 'E (.) ... Q) C C :;, '0 E ~ 8 ~ ~ 'e cu cu .8 Q) - UlQ)a.....~in c 8 (ij in -0 30 Us a E cu OQ)-O a. -CUQ) _"'C::(.)~lI:IEC"iQ) c Ul ~ Q) ~ Q) cu .2 :::: .c: ~ ~ I;; ~ .- 0 "i t5 0 - en E:;'~.c:2.c:::::Q)Q;.9Ul ~~a:Ula.UlO~>Q)Q) a.Q)_':'Q)>-"oQ)S2"'(.) E ... .- cu c - __ ... ~ _ E CI) ~ = lI:I cu .5 ;;:: S .... C/) :t:: ou. ~~~ .c::cu...J ~, ~a~g bQ)U C\i'C:~Q) ... ::) cu ~ ~~~~ U "5 e .- ~ 0 ~ 3= Q.CI)I;;Q) E ... e: c -OOUl - .... 0 .- SCI)t)= i;::)Q)o e ~ 'e- ~ .9!~~g 2:~Q.~ :::i ::) t:: Q) ~~~g. . C/) ...J 'E cu .~ 8: c( ~ := U >- C .J:J 'Qi .... -0 Q; ..:., Q) .c: 'E "O"g~ Q) .... ... "2 ~ ~ Q)- E - c E~~ 8 ai 3= Q) e: c ... ~ .2 c Q. ts .2 g: Q) ~ 16 (J) ~ 'C .21 _ ~ 0 E ~.5 ~ Q)CUO~ =itg_ ct5~5 ~ '[~ 8 ~ a. ~ .Q a. ... .2> 1ij E 0 Ul ... -.... -.... C/) Ul 'S ~ ~ ,~ o :;, Q) C Q) ~ E (5 Ul .Ql.c: 'iii .!a cu ~ ~ ~ U ;::::.r=. .. E :';::_"0'=00 .... Q)cu-in2 =N"'O - c;)'., ~ ~ C\I ~ C ... Q) C .- ... - ~ L' ::) "' Q) cu ... ... c:: .::r:' Ul Q) 0 ,.,. Q) Ul cu >-- Q) ~~5~~C::2~> .......Ul(.)-. -::)cc:: 16 oS S '(6 .- .9 ... E -CI)Ec-o~:;, S~Q)BQ)o- C:O...,,-:gLL= ~ ~ .~ ~ cu ~ ~ .9!~~.!Z...J~Q) 2:~~ :2Q)22 :::i::)Q)S:;'UlCQ)> ~ 0 - .... 0 cu 0 ...... co .5 = 3= U (.) c( . C/) ...J C cu .~ 8: c( ~ .1::: U Q) ~;? -~ ca>, goO :2"'" -00 -0- CUC/) :g=> cu'O 's'E C Q) cu E c.i' '0 Ul C Ul Ul:E Q)- o 0> "0 C Ul.!2 C cu ~ Ul = Q) cu C US C/) ts Q) 'e a.. .c: ~ Ul ~ ~ - S c:- Q)= i-g ..... cu 2:= :::i - ~; Q) Ul cu -.c: -go.. cu E - 2 - - Ul (.) Q)~ Ul ... ~..... a..~ ... ;?~ ~t ... ~ ~ EQ. >-- .:t: C :::i > cu 3= Q) ~ LL Q) Ul cu U Q) Ul cu lI:I Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 23 '0 cu a. .5 Q) c:g cu:2 .Q 0 = > C cu Q) .21 5 :0 Ul ~ 'E 5 'E .- cu .... cu - .Q = .Q 8: =Ul=CU cUlc_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)...JC/)z II II II II ,^ ::> c( C/)~C/)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ ~ c:: nlnl 0 :;:::.Sol :;::: c:::= nl Q) c:: ~ .2 '5 21.1::::= a..Cn~~ > == :0 C::.- oen ._ c:: ~8 ._ en :=Q) ~a: Q) _ ~ c:: nlnl_O .- Sol ~.- ~~o~ c::.r: ._ -0 0):=:= a..U5~::E en ~ ~ en nl Q) ~ c:: o ;:; nl 0- ;:; ~ ! Q) C::'~ ~ :2 ~ c:: - .2 -g ~ ~ .- nl E~ - o"CeC/) ~g~ ~ .sa Q. ~ E - 8.'- c:: ~ nl!!!=-o~ u)~._Q) Q)Q)<~ooenQ)-i:Q) ........ oQ)Q;c::...."Co>. nl~ .C/)o....~mQ)~.Q -o....Q)~Q)-nlen Q. .~ .~ 0 ~ "0 t= '0 ~ nl ~ E ~ e .... - ~ E ~ .5 Q) Q)E Q.~€ o~ g-~-><-o Q) -' ~ - 0 :;::: ~ .- E~'O >.Q).... nlC/)...:~ c:: 8 :: ^ ~ C/) .!: .... ~ = .2 o 'E ... nl .Q - cs. 0 en -1;) Q) E c::::> E'E c:: c:: ~ Q) Q a,8'E g 8 Q)E~'~ e-~ en E Q) - 0 _ Q) .... .... Q) Q) ~....en~~~E8,~~u)ci a.. S2 .!Q E C/) ~ 0 nl 0 a. Q) c:: _Q)~en...._enc::_ .Q):;::: ~:O-Q)o""'E~en>.>.;l '_'- 0 en 0 ~ Q) E Q) == ~ E e ~u ~.!Q~ E E~:O ~E Q. 8. nl .!: g ~ ~ .sa 55 ~ Q) 8 Q)enQ.ennlnlQ.en nl Q) ~Q)E~....Q)E>.g>oo.; .... .... ._ .0 l.L. Q.._ en ._ nl _ _ en U nl Q .E 'E ~ '0 Q) mQ)a.. en Q.~....u)nlu ....~.saQ)a:lQ) 5 ;. ~ ~ l.L. 'e .r:.oOnlC/)Q. ~enQ).r:OQ) nlQ)~~-1~ Q)E-Q)Q)- Q.~c::'Eo- ~ (5 Q) .- c:: 5 a.. > ~ 'E .!l:? .r: " ::> nl .... := o ;: Q) > Q) .~ ....-,...Q)Q. onl...._><O N.:::....~Q).... ....Q)oOo5? nl en .... a:l - ." Q)nlC/)t::"CC:: >- U Q Q) .- Q) ::::>~~c:: ~ ~ g>< ._.g Q) nl 0 e nl ....a:l-~Q.Qi gc::nl'SenQ. .- .2 'E 0 .- 0 :2uQ)C/)~Q) ~ Q) e "C .Sr2 en o.....",...~Ctl ~'6a.co~U C/) -I us c:: nl .... - 1i~ u .Sol ~Q. :=Q. U< - o a:~.! C::1i5 m~S ~8 .!Q~B l.c::! ~nl.1::: e'E-.. ~a:l ~~ Q.8~~ .- 0 c:: nl Q) iij Q) "0 C; .2 15. ~ 1;) ~ ~ .!l:?Nn~~80 ;....~u= -'E c::nl...._-;;:;~=Q) Q) Q) Q) 'v'" - E :2 >''E Q) ~ ~ "0 Q) Q) .- :2 := en c:: > ~ n; .!Q '> ~ .~ nl e ....21~ec::nl=Q. m "== = Q..2 -;; en E nlEnlon; ~.- ~ en en .... ~ nl Q) E g c:: co ~'S .r: .~ 0) ~.2:2 0 cr Q.n; .Enl:=~C::~~~ ~ :z "2 ~.2 ._ -B8n~uiea S2Q)SolQ)~Q)Q.Q) Q) c:: == ._ Q) ~ E en .r::.ennle-~oQ) .... nl .: Q..!: 0. -= -= C/) u Q) 'e a.. .r:; := ~ en u Ctl Q .E Q E nl a: > nl ~ Q) Q) .... l.L. Q) en nl U Q) en Ctl a:l - S c:CO'- 0 e>>-nl Q) c:: ..... e":'E Qen.2 Q. .!...o_E~n;Q)~ o.U-=~;-.2Qi(5'f ~ a ~ .~ c:: ~ 8- ~ ~ ~E-:t::2 ~ ""'.... nl c: - Sr2 >- cu b - .: .gl ~ == :0 Cll c:: ~S~CI).2nlnl :::J =c::::Jc:: ':::0.20 "0 e>> 0 .- 0. nl .Q c: r;oC::= E'!: ~ Q..€ nlQi..:cinlQ)....t:o - .... C1J ... ... en Q) e:! c: -o.l;b-jnl> I -=Q:Q.... eOlt::Q) en~~~_~~o= ~ ~ 'It 0 nl .- nl "2 @' Q) nlc:o~CI)'E():::J-:::J ~QJ""en~Q)Q).8-gc:: ll)oQ)tjeen.c:_~ I _N en Q.Q) nl.....v o ..:. Q) .! .S Q. a:l 5 "ti 'It C;...=Q.CI)2gCl)~~ N~~n~~"CQ)~g ~ Q.'C:: .~ ~ c:: Q) -= "5 .0 Q)E~Ol:)nl:g-o:::J :> .... 0 a. C1J -= nl :::. Cll Q Q) c:: ~ ~ ~ e!!!~~ .2 ~>-Q) ~nlnl~ C1J....~- Cll,Q)c:: = Q) 0 00-=:;::: .....-g"Cnl ~85i e:!Q).8B :a::en.r:;Q) onl'S"C "2~~i :::J < 0 "2 o - Q) .Q"tiC::)( -S 0;;;; .2 Q) :::J~u .0 Q) c:: V)~c::nl _5c::-g ~Cll8nl Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 24 U nl Q. .5 Q) 'E:g nl:2 .Sol 0 := > c:: nl Q) .21 5 :0 en ~ E c:: E._ nlnlnl- .Sr2 -= .Sol 8: :=en:=nl c::enc::_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)-1C/)Z II II II II C/)::>< C/)-1C/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g c: cu cu .2 ;:: .~ Cij 5i~.cc '5.21= :: a..C/)3:~ > := :0 C:.- 00 ._ c: ~8 ._ 0 =Q) ~a: Q) _g I:: cucu_o .- 0 :;"- ~:t:o~ c:.s::. ._ ~~~~ '- :;, B .:s:. cu Q) a. ~ <: 'E>. cu_ 2: '5 :;, < E c: >.0 cu+: ~ ~ Q) Q) Q) a. ~ 0 o U <. c: ~ cu cu 0 ....-~= ::Jo.Q)cu OEQ)Q) o~~g. i~ ~ ~ ~-g.8.c :t::8.c.:s:. OQ)5~ "201::0. ...-oo~ .8~~<: "€Q):fi ~ 2 Q) Q) 2 ;::-;-~o ~<( 0 - . c: >. cu .t: 2: 0 :;, cu o a. Q) cu a:u C/) ...J - o _ >. c: =~CU U E .Q ~-c.. = 8 a. U <: Cij .~ i ~ Cij e Q):;' -g!.o.Q)::g l!! -OQ) 0 ~ = .c .- cu Cl."" .c ~ .~ I- g :;, iij ~0=":1::~~ 'Cij 'E :t: g .2 - cu -Q)o.s::.'t:Cl- .o~ E (; .:s:. 8..5 g cu~C\ICUe~Q) I:: e >.x,o.[= ~o..o c: 0 E c: ~ .- .~ - ~'- .- 0 - Q) = c: o .- Cl.o cu 2 cu"O,-Uc-o~:- Q) 'C - cu Q);l!?:;,g~e :2 oS"O.s::..o-.... > _ C >. 0 '- .: [c';;:oco.c .2 E S .2 -0 .2 0- 0.- - -.5(5Q).5Q)lrl ~EU8EEl!? '-C:0cuc2Q) Cl0:21::00'E <: 0 _ :;, 0 > ._ C/) o c o U Q) l!? Q) 'E CU E (5 U I:: o o U CU Q E Q) ~g~ l.;; Q) CU .c ~ .;: ~ .t:~~c ~ ::J ~.- O~Q)~CU .........3;!CU-g ~~:;,~'- C c:: 0 0 Q) - Q ~ .5 :2 t::C_0 t:::'~^cc .. t::: .:.: Q) 8 'Cbt5e ~ '-CI)Q)CbQ)U 1'; Q) l!? 0..0 ~ C6.s::.Q),--o~ Q. - 'E :;, '3 .5: E ..: .- ,g 0 Cb _=-e>.~!/) ';~~i.s::.j c:cu~~~^O Cb = 5 .5 ~ ~ E..:[O)( - c: .!!!0Q)e~ll:l Q, Q) :tl a. E .~ Q; 0 .... a. :t::: ~cu:l:@CU.2C:: CI) .c :.;: I:: 0 .91 ....a......CU>CI) - o Q) 'e a.. C/) ...J - I:: CU .Q c.. a. <: 1:: CU Q) a. o ~~E ..:a..~~ cuUg.g> E Q) '- o '0' CU a. -a,0Q) o CU 0 .~ .5 0 lij CUClCUI:: o.cQ)Q) l!! 'E ~ 'E -0 :;, -0 .- I:: 0 Q) cu < Q)Q).30 "0 .t:::! .2 Q) :;,- .c -ocu-o- oc:_ .E.2cuo C/) ...J >- ~ o c5 LU ~ ~ <( CI) 5 CI) Q)- E B 01::-00 en ~ 0 ~~ ~ -OQ) "0 cu .9 -0 ~Q)~~vlij ~c..:;,-o>0 lijE~o~~ ...J8 -o:g~ g0~~-Q) ._ cu cu Q g 0 "0 ~ .c .!I! .- Q) ~ 0.o..c C)Q)Q)Q)~I- ..:. 0 :2 > Q) ,.; o CU Cii CU v, cf a: ~ .c ~ .~ -oo!!!~e~ Q)--gcuo.'E ~ClN~EQ) cu .S == 0.'- E giB.Q~.c ...J c,.2 0.2.9 Q) _=0CUO - =-1:: cuEgcu"O~"O .- E I:: 0 C C/)C/)0CU"O< cCUQ) .21 5 :0 o ~ 'E C 'E ._ CUCUCU- .Q :: .Q 8: :t: rJ):t: CU CrJ)I::_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)...JC/)Z II II II II C/)=><: C/)...JC/)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 CD _ g c: nsns 0 -.~ - c: :I::: ns ~ c:.r:..2 o .21= ;t:: Q..(/)3::e > == c:;Q oVJ ._ c: ~8 ._ VJ ;t::CD :ea: CD _ g c: nsns_o .- ~ ~.- i~.2~ - 01=:;:: ~Ci53:~ VJ CD ... ~ VJ ns CD :e c: o ~ o :;:: ~ VJ U ns a .E c: -d~~ E' ~ VJ E 'j! ~ ~ >. ~ ~Ciiga;a. c: -g (/) n; .., CD ns .c:.... CD- . o.g .o"O~ens CDCD~o.C: > .~ '5 a. CD nsCi;-ns'E .r:. (.) CD .- o.r:.CDns VJ-_.oE ns .c:c: ~ 1ij .- ns CD nsE5(.):5 CD VJ g VJ ~ a.. CD e ~(ij ~ns c:=oVJ E-"OVJ 3= .- "0 c: ns OVJCD~"O "O...-U CD "OCDCD-gVJ CD>o.NVJ U CD x .- CD CD~CD(ij-o iij ~ 1L~ i (/) ...J 'E ns .S:2 Q. a. < >. = o >..r:. . .00. ~ VJCD VJ Y.!'l::i CD "0 ... Q) ... u ~.!~ ~! ~~ VJ - ~ CD 0 ns'" > ;;: ~ 8.=Oj5!'O 0 ;~O'O"'Onsc:Cl c: .0 in c: c: -= VJ ~ .S ns VJ CD .2 ~ 8 8. ~ .~ -o~~::~m ~'E-o .., 01 ... c: c: ... c: .:: c: .- S .2 CD CD E o ns .- "0 VJ .r:. 01 0 E"OCD-O- "- VJ =.r:.ns,,-...CD- ~ 8. B ~ .~ CD ~ ~ ~ g,.Q~-8.r:.~~c:n; _VJ'2C:~~ CD~ ~g'ns'=2~-dg~ui .2 ~ VJ ; 01 a. ~ ~ ~ CD VJ > CD _ 0... ._ a. o :=....VJ-..."O~o "-l'll"3~1=VJeCDVJ- CD(.)ClCD~"O"OCD VJ ...~ CDnsCD>'VJ:5= '< 8: ~ '2 t e "2 a:OOCDns~ns.r:.Q..ns (/) .r:. 3= .~! 'J ~ 0=0 VJ -x_ CD'iii ECDVJftj.r:.~ CD 0 c: n 0 .- - n .Z c: "0 ~"';.ECDCD VJ .2 ns 0 .0 U c:Q."B~8.2 '-...CDOo- l!:!CDECD_VJc: "0 n; 01 VJ .o~EVJ:gS ~"f)R"c:ECD ns5~nsc.o O .~ 0 >. . ts"-~-'-l'llCD 2 Cl'in 2: ~ E ~ 'iii"2~~nsVJg. c:o!..... CD SeB::.5"fi:g .CDns>. =_ c:o.-.oE"OO .2 '5. 8. i ns CD CD ~ CDj2....'S ~g "0 e VJ .Z VJ c: N l'll CD CD ~ c: '<- VJCD ~og',o.!Q BoO c: .- ~ 0 ns 0 -O"OC:CD ...-- CJ "0 l!:! .2 a. VJ ftj CD ~ = CD "0 !Q) Cln; E ns.sa .r:. ns ns >.o.~ . EE-'EQ)VJ.EVJ-.!~.o~Q)t5 .... 0 Q) Q) j5 8. (.) -;>. n; ~ :: "0 _ :2 ! --VJEeo~=.r:.~ ~;~E .e Q) ~ '6 a. in 0 (.) = e .! c: "0 S '- ~ i;Q.. Q) Q) '5 &.! ~ Cl~:g c: ~ e.r:. Q) VJ.r:. (.) VJ- Oli . ~ ns.!!2 0;.:: .! ~-= 8.~ CD"c:'O g'~ ~ o.a ~~ Q.:=-.QVJ-=~VJ0~o.VJ :=q, g:"3 5 ~'S'O~ ~'E ~~'E~"3... ~ Ol.r:. ~ l!:! 0.:- ns CDE - Ole:: '" ftj g' 0 "0 .: a. ~ = g '5 '0 '0 .~ C:O"O ~ns~~ oCD :,: ~ .~ oS .s g ~ ~ B ~ i ~ ~.~ g :~ "3 e VJ ~'iii'E >.O_a; c: E e ns CI) C) Q) 8.'- Q) .0 ns'" .- .- Q) E >.. ~ .g ~ ~ ! "2 E .~ .!Q ~ ~ "0 ,g ~ Ci;0"'Q) lins.r:.E-.QCD'" c:..._... VJ CD.c:= (.) .r:. VJ~.!:ii .~ Q)E ; ni.! '5. (.) ~ ~ ~ ~ c: ~ - 0 o "OQ)OVJ~C:Oo>'~C:"OQ. W...Z~ c:...;:: Q)... 0 Q) "- ns 0 S c: ns l'll"O"O 0.0 010."0"0 l'lll'll Eu o Q) 1#: ._ (.) ... e .- -g o.E ns . 0 >'Q) ~'UC) .r:.CD(ij O.r:. 0 =-0 "'90- > - ns E~o 0= '::,Qc .!Q ~ .2 .0 8..i Q) VJ (.) "OCDo "O...VJ c: c: VJ ns ,.,.. ns .X' l!? =~Q) VJ<c: CD ~ > . 0 Q VJ Q) E .S E CD l!:! 0 a:"O.r:. Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 26 ~ a. .~ Q) 'E~ ns:2 .~ 0 :1:::> c: ns CD .2' 5 :0 VJ t'3 'E c: 'E ._ nsnsns- .~ -= .~ 8: :l:::VJ:l:::ns C:VJC:_ .21 CD .21 0 (/)...J(/)Z II II II II (/)=>< (/)...J(/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ ~ C nlnl 0 :,; .Si! :,; c: nl .S! C ~ .2 0.21= :t: c..oo3:~ > ~ :0 C.- 01/) ._ C ~8 .- I/) :!::Q) ~a: Q) _ ~ C nlnl_O .- Si! :;).- ~~~~ ~~~~ I/) ~ :;) I/) nl Q) ~ C o ~ o :,; ~ -0 C nl C o .2 - I/) _ 0 o .... < Q) I .5: ," nl . '-J _ I/) -CQ) o 'co i:: 'C: E Zi .~ 'C ~ oc_ _ nl e c-_ Q,? 0 C E Q) 0 Q) fit 0 -cc nl .- 0 ,D >-'- <=n; I/)~'E -0 .- Q) .... 'C E ~ .2 .- nl....'C I 2i ~ I/) o nl o .E 00 ...J - C nl .Si! C. 0. < nl ~ -ol/)C C nl nl nl 0. C .... I/) :;) Q) OQ)''E .5: 0. fij 'co E.QQ)E I/) - 'OSOo 'iij 0 "E .~ 0.= nl e Q)Ecc. ........0- -g.fu~ nln;~~ 0.000 :;)C)0Q) c:' .!:!? ~ m~~= --Q)O oC'Ct= Q)O'Onl =g>~c.E Q) .- .- .Si! nl ,oc.g:.... .2EI/)~Cl ~.2l/)c.e _I/)nll/)c. 00 ...J ~ nl 01 .... .1/) ..: nl I/) -ECOC~ g:;) ~ I/) C nl :,; - nl 'u c..Q)~:E;:e.~m'OQ)"" i (ij>=:g.~'O; Q) ~ ~ g g I/).!:!? n....>.nl~Q)-Q) t=......- a-oQ) .= .. .0 I/) '0 ,D ~ 'L nl E Q) C 0 ~I gQ).2~_Q)c. '-2enlfij o ~ i _ 0. 0 a. 1U :s I/) Snl .- 0. ~ C Q)....UCOCQ) ,Dnl~~'Eol;;Q) 0-:;) nlli) 8 SS, .!:!? 01; 8- Q,?'E '''0."2=- --0.......0.... -0 E.- -Q) :;):;) .".c-,D....:;) "'0. ClQ)81/)0J!1Q)nln;Q)c.~=nl.Q~ < Ci) 8c c.'~ ~ . 5- '0 ~ S ~ ~ Q) nl '>-(1) ~.S!I/)IQ)oC !.~~-o ~~ !.~Ci) ~ !.'>i c.~'E.Q'E'O! 0>1"\'=_ 0_ :;)Q)nll/)nlCUQ) .Q o~ C O-Cii 0 C c'E=_.g'-:2 00 Q) I/) ~ I/) .m ~ nl nl .- :;) :;) : 'E '1/) ~_.... >SI;;Q)Q)nlI/)OCQ)c S - :;) .S! ~ ~ 0 'a- :2 u E C Q) .21:2 S (.) - 0 0 C - '> S ~ I/) '1/) 'E ~~ &a.S*76 ~~i~~ g ~~ .... .2 nl I/) Q) "2 - .Si! _ e .Si! 0 I/) Q) - nln;~~l/)nl~C=Cc.CClQ)c.~ . ~:;)-nlC-E~~~_~~I/).Q~E n;j~g8;8~~~~~ta~e~ oQ)C)c.Q):;)Q)oQ)=Q)o -~c.o C)Q)' c.~=~Q).l:;8>Q)~:;)Oc..... = ....-nl_nl_ClI/) OCll/),O-onlc. 00 ...J 'E nl .g C. 0. < >. :l:: (.) Q) - ~~'E ~!nl.... co=o Q) nlg:;)- 01 ...J I/)c nl .... SC .2 _ C ,g coo 'co cO(ij2~"" .m ~.Si! Ci) .- :B 0.'0 C C Ci) ~ .... ~ S Q) 0- Q) (.) .... ~ ~=~I/)>'o Q) 0 .- :l:: C .... ~ Q) ;: ~ .2 cu 01 01 Q) n; .- i .1/) .5: -0 ~ i>'E5c:"Q) Eenl-ool/) ~2:gQ)~-8 Q) nl2:~ ~= ~l/)nlCQ);: -nlQ) 0 1/)'0 'E~~Q)-8! ~~""''oClQ) Q)'Si! .:g C ~ c. i ~ .2 i '0, .EO~I/)a,li3 00 < nl t: ~~ .2 ,I/) n;1/)1O (:) & >- .... nl 0') Cl-:;)~O') t:;)g~,",,,,, "I/) c....- ~E 0 .!:!? 8 Q) <0 - '0.... -Q)nl_=Q) _",,~cl/),D "::!-Q)-oo 1::1/)Q)I/)CU ii"2:2!~O EnlCiic.....C .s!...J"E1/),g0 ~'O!2~c~ 5" C .... .- .m '0 Y) .2 8. ~ 0. Q) .... n; Q) ,D .!:: ~ Q)nlnl- c:i~'CCi)c.>- ~'O >-~,D ~Q)c=--o = 'E nl ~ .m ~ ~ Q) ~ '0 'i e cOCl'"'"Ec. nl a:Q) ~ Enl Q) 0. ...J _ ....nl Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 27 Q) ~ ..... U nl 0. .E Q) 'E:g nl:2 .Si! 0 : > C nl Q) .21 5 :0 I/) 5 'E C 'E ._ nlnlnl- .Si! S .Si! 2: : 1/): nl CI/)C_ .21 Q) .21 0 OO...Jooz II II II II 00::>< OO...Jooz T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g C CUCU 0 ;: .Q ;: c== cu Q) C .c .2 '0 .Ql:t:: .'= c..(/)3:~ > := c;Q o III ._ C ~8 ._ III :t::Q) ~a: Q) o _C C cucu_o .- 0 ~.- E=o~ Q) c.c '"' - Ol:t::.. ~U53:~ III ~ ~ III cu Q) ~ C o i o .. ~ Q) Ol Q) f!? III .5 " Q) ~5 ~ Q) (ij ,,-,,-gg E 0 Q) -0 "0 cu .- 0 .- 101::~,,:2 ~Q) .E .~ 8.'S; ~ 5 E '0..0 g ~ Q) e cuc..c Q) Ol 0"0 '0 c~c. IIl'";'C.!aCQ) cu ~ Q) - Ol'- cu cu Ol ....^ III Q. ~ C 7i) '0 cu Q) 8..Q 'x :2 >..1Il E .~ Q) Q) Q) ~ .'= E C E ~ .0 ~ < 0 0 cu .2 Q) on Q) "O.c Q) t\ -~ ~ III "".r:. . Q) III .r:. .= III ~ c.t) -0.. <C Ol 0 ~ cu Q) l!? >- a. :E ~1i5 .E(j)~.ocu C '1Il~>-OIllQ)"OQ) 8 III Q) .- :t:: .- _ E Q) .c c_CUOQloo - " .2 "0 g. Q) .2 C C ~ >- C ~ C ~ :; 0 cu := 'S; .0 CUCCUQ) Q)-OQ)"o . 8 C "0 .2 Ol C..5 ~ Q) . g .2 ~ "0 = g> Q) ,j E E .. .~ 10 "0 Q) .5 .;:: c. Q) Q) cu ..!2Ol~cl:: I o.QIIlES (ij .Q Q) .!!:! E III :t:: III 8. ~ III -Olll .ocuc"O a.c ~ Q) .0 ~ ~ C Q C e E 0 ._ Ol 0 _ III cu t:: cu a.._ 0 III ~ c .E ~ '0 0 cuQ) ~ Q) 'r:;. c: C) .- III -. ~ C\I 1i5 "0 ~ = 8. .g .g .2 cu lij ~ -0 - ~ ~'c: C) Ol Q) i .~ .... .5 u) en Q) .= :2 0 CI) ~t)IIl_o..CU~IIlCU ~2~~Eg.8E" 0:1;) EO~-Q)Q) ~cQ)Q)o>-cEQ) Q)o~>c=S~Q):2 .c 0 III e Q) - Q) ~ '1Il -u)-gc.~~>"-c .~ rd ..!2 .S Q) 8 ~ ~ 8 ~EQ)Q)>-~Q)~! CQ)=~-IIlC.C Q):2'Oc2-.Qcu:2 -5~ Q)T~ rd 2 ~E ~t III c rd B .c .~ ~ Q) ~ ~..!2.o~oo.gi-g~ III ~ Q) Ol Q) Q) "0 Q) cu '- c_:;C:2:2~~IIl-0> C C C'-o N> .!!:! Q) Q) ~ cu cu 0 ~ cu ~ c..2:?.::e. a....J...J 0 c..c ~ (/) ...J ~ c_ ~ C 8 .~ >,0.. :t::Q. 0< III III bE 1;) Q) CQ) Q) 15'0 8~ E .= 8 :is - .c Q) ~ .- C .c0.c1ll 1IlQ) :t::~ib ![~ ~.Qc 1IlQ) ~1o-~ .2Q)~ "'I:: cu8 1Il~0l o .r:. .c ._ >- cu ~;.2I1l,g<C:t::l!? -~Ccuoc..OQ) i ~.Q~,,"'= ~ "Oc:t::cc==8. CQ)-g~cu .2 ~008c"':'0'E 1Il-0 ._~-.- 15 E ~ 0 rd .Q Q) .2- Q) cu 8. ;. co Q) 2 .c .0 0 0 - .0 .- :1::' =a~t)E" E~ .2a.C.~Q)o;8Q)C") cu C .- E coco :; t) .; ~ ts .~ ,j lij ~ ....Q)~,...1O.:KQ)"O - c.. '0 cu ~ 0 n .5 ~ .... J"-IIlCU EcuoC\l Q) C..5 .~ "Q) =~ 'E 8 Q) .r:. "0 III "0 .- cu C - C cu Q) Q) cu ~ ~ = cu .0 "0 ~ ~ C .5 J (/) ~ - ..,J :s o ex: ~ ~ ~ .q; UJ ~ ~ ~ (:) " Q) .c 1Il8. ~ III f? 'S l!? Q) .~ -cu '-OOQ)Ol.c.o::: ~ .c E .5 III Q. ~ .5 - _~ 1: .- cu Q) 0 "0 0 Cb 2~.2.:5= rdc.. ~- 8- 1;1O->-cu .c_0l1ll iji ~ Ol E E 5 " .5 ~ .~ ~ a.c:g8~ >-1Il c~ >-~ ~ ~ (/)cu ~ . S.5 ~"O :5 ~ cu ~ Ol>-CUIllCQ)cucIII ...... - Q) :t:: ~ .! 'cu 10 1:: 8.- O...Ol:T _._Q) C '>-IIlC")Q)-coglllQ) ~E~~ii5g~~~ E ~ .:K t:: ~ III III Q) c. Q)8~i~-60::Eg~ ~Q)~ C1OC.r:.~CUIll'ti ~ ~ i ~ ~ 0 ~ is ct ~ .~ ~ f!? - III III ~ iCE c.. .- ~ .E Q) ... .- ~ ... ..!2 cu ~ .., cu - ~ci~c~Q)(/)c-E'Ec: o -Q) ...- bOlQ)- c.. 1't JI:'.~ f!? is 0 -g 'C C E .~ E C6 ~ t) Q) Q) Q) cu ,g '0 .c It:: '0 ~ g ~ 8.~ 'e ~ ~ 3 f? ~ ,~ J-...Q) C.IIl"O....OOCl) Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 28 ~ c. .S Q) _25 C cu ~:2 .2 0 == > C CU Q) .21 5 25 III ~ E 5 'E .- cu .v ~ - .~ :; .2 8: ==1Il==CU cIIlC_ .21 Q) .21 0 (/)...J(/)Z II II II II (/)~<C C/)...JC/)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g c !.~ ~ c:= e Q) c .r. ._ ~cW~~ > := :0 c.- OCll ._ c ~8 .- CIl :=Q) ::!a: Q) _ g c C'llC'll_0 .- (,) ;::,'- ~=O~ c .r. ._ ~~~~ (/) ....J ~ c_ ;::, c o C'll U .Q -- - >.0. :t:: a. U<( CIl Q) ~ ;::, CIl C'll Q) ~ c o ~ o :;:; ~ :>.. ~ Q) ~ 1::9 -5 Q) ",--og 8;::'~"fi (,)C/iccf! 8.:=Q)N.C C'll0_ =0 >. ..... C'll Q) :;:;.... o -~'c5.r.C'll>- 15 "0 C'll Q) Q) CIl .'1: .Q 1: :>..ccc-1:C'll~"O;::, :t:: 0 C'll C'll 01'- Q) Q) (,) :;:; c :s .5 C'llE E -a:"O 8 "0 C'll .~ .... c 0 C~C'll~Q~Q)E_.s ;::, C'll DUO .~ 0 ~ CIl - > - g c C ~ ~ .g Q) .s Q) c .- ;::, 0 ~ _ a..r. 1=1:Q)EC6=:;:;~- ,g -Q) ~C'llEJg8~~"O ~"O"fiC'll C'll (,)~"O = ~ -= > 1= - "0 .- ~ c a.~owQ;~~Q..C'llC'll g. ~ - E' ~ .-. t: g. ~ ~ ~co a.cE~ 'CIl- ~ .- 01 ~ 0..2> 0 ~ "0 C'll .-"0 C CIl C'll ~ (,) .- Q) D e Q) 'E >. - "0 ~ e "0 a. CD .Q CIl 0 ~ _ a. 55 c ~]2g~~~~~E~ 'S .5 ;::, ~ ~ 0 CIl 's E .r. C" E = .- ;::, 50"0 C" 0 (,) <( Q)"OC'llf!!C'llEcQ)(,)C6a.. a: C'll E "0 (,) ._ C'll a: ~ (,) ~ (/) CIl '0 C'll o .E c C'll Q) (/) 01 e15 ~ c: .~ ~ ~ .~ ... E ~ - c -..... ~ .... o;::,c.....oQ)~ 13 0 .- "0 .~ iii c:: c (,) 01 C CIl >'.2> ;::, Q) .5 C'll 8. CIl CI) =.r.CCll Q)>- C'llI-OCQ)Cl:::::: ~ n .~ .r. ~ .~ .r. C\t' E ~ I- 'co c: (,)...!.;::,- .~~ :t::Q=CCIl"OO Clts~~~~Q. -g(Q"O.r..2Q)C'll C'll ~.~ ~ ~ -5 -E .5::;~~'OQ) CIl QI C ._ CIl C'll_Q)"Oo~Q) a:l c: :2 ~ 50.- a 1:~CIlgc~~ ~Ql~~onCll E.... ..l.CIlCQ)"": .r.o..o(,)Q);::,~~ (,) e: ~ .9:!..r. = .a .... -.... C'll 0 (,) ~ C'll.t:!-_ ~~~a~E~~ (/) ....J - C C'll .s.l J C\I ~'O ... Q) .5 'e "00. Q) Q) -g '5 Q)C" E ~ E 8 Q) ~ iii ~ a. ~ .5 ~ ;::,>- CI)~ ~cu E 5- o CD --0 C C'll_ .Q ~ 1: :t:: ~ C'll :g .g .2 C'll a: Q.. .5 Uj g. (/) .., o - Q) U ~E- a.Q)E ~ g' f!! DCCl C'll C'll e g ~ a. 8:CD~':-:' C'll-0Q) C'll~"O ~~g8 -5EUco .- ~ a. ~ 0 ~._ >. CiS '"" .s.l -. C'll C a. CIl .r. ;::, E ">. ~ ::! 0:=._ _ U .(,) Cl 0 ... - - a: c:: ~ E . ~ ~f!! w~~ _~Cl i~ ~ QI > 0 _ 0) - .lo!' 5E5o~g...gCl) _ ~. 0 ~ .c_ ... ~ eO-U I -QI - 0 >'"0 ~ '- .!Vl-eco:=Q) 1: 2:C'll o.g.~-g-E~ :::s - U .2 c" Q) C'll 8. . ~oQ)E~E"O_ts .....cCl....-Ec:....Cl:J ..Q ~~C6 8g C Eo.. CIl _ Q) ~ CIl .- C a."fi .r. Q) C =: '- .Q .g .~ - .s ~ Q ~ ~ C6C'llCl'OcCIl:-Q):'::: - 0 ~ C'll ~ Cl:J 5 .~"E o"',~ ;::, g.... i:t Q) U C'll .'> CIl .- ~ ... a: "'Q)C'llE;::'~ ~1:...~Q)~8~ CD~9!CDC'llEQ)n~ C6....E-CIlCCij) ~ _ Q) a. _ 0 Q) ._ <b E(jg'~~~CIlele ~ ~ cU Ole Q) a.c- .zoa.. .5 C'll (/) 'E cu CIl Z CIl.r.Q)C'll~~ n-.r.oQ).....cu .~ ~ ~ a:l 55 CD ;::, e~:t::oClC6~ a. ~:= CIl ~ =0.-_ ~ C 1: C ->- c: 00Q)0:t::Q) - U(,)-c "Og~CIl>.gC'll ~ :;:; Q) D (/) ~ 'S (,) 0 ~ "0 0 ,g gSQ)5~;'"O ~~.gCll~Q..~ :28~~8g.S ~ ;; ~ Draft SEtR II. Summary Page 29 '0 C'll a. .5 Q) 1:~ C'll:2 .s.l 0 :=> C C'll Q) .21 5 :0 CIl ~ 1: C 1: ._ ~C'llC'll- .~ -5 .s.l 8: :=CIl:=C'll CCIlC_ .21 Q) .21 0 (/)....J(/)Z II II II II (/):J<( (/)....J(/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) o _c: c: CISCIS 0 ;:; .~ ;:; c:= CIS ~ c: .c .2 o .21= = a..C/)~~ > = :0 C:.- 01/) ._ c: ~8 ._ I/) =Q) ~a: Q) _g c: ClSCIS_O .- 0 ;:,'- E:on;o Q)C:.c - 0>=;:; ~Ci5~~ I/) Q) ~ ;:, I/) CIS Q) ~ c: o ~ o E ~ c:: .Q 15 - Ol _ ~ .5 Q) E .!a :s= I/) 8= ~:;; ;:,~ Clc: CIS~,gO c::ClSo>o:ic:'t:! .Q (ij .5 :g I/) Q) '<t :;~~8;:,m~o ::::,,-- Et::' oc.Q) Q)~ 0:. 0."0 n; 0>"0 ...CIS -.cc:c:C: ~ >- '! - :0 ;:, .2 CIS = t: I/) 'C Q) ts ~ 0 Q) .~ 0 J:J Q) (5c.~I/)-I/)_ E - C/) .- ~ := Q) en -';-wts ~Q)- ~ a.. 0 CIS "0 - CI) 'n; C1)&a..C:~~-Q) CIS:>Z~I/)-en"O > 0...0...,__ l!:?~~2~8~.2 t'U .......... .- ..... c.C::.c~.2ts.2e:; l!:?~.1:::: o-8.~-8.W a.. ... ~ 0 0. C/) ~ I/) ts CIS Q ~ ~ E .~ J Ol Lt).c c: m= ~c::m~ Q) .2 - Q) E i.5 g Q) t: "0 CIS ~ClSQ)= ~u.-c... .2Q)EEE 1/)CX:Q)8~ C:_:2c:0> ~Q)' .-2 CIS~~"Oc. ~if~i.~ E~5c.(5 E CIS .- E = o~n;8C: o e:! (5 2 Q)-';_t::E ~~I/)8.c: Q) l!:? 0 .c _ Q) .- =on;~n; C:Q)=C:2I !>>2fi)~= E.-.cClSE jl~c::.2a.. g-Q)S~U _=ClQ):I: C/) t) ;:, -g 8=S _ I/) I/) Q) Q) I/) c.;:, .Q 0 1/)_ ~i :!~ o~ E .- Q) E E~ n; Q) Q)"O.!!i = 0 c: Q)-Q) ~ ~ E ,g:g~ (5 = Q) 'C .- E a..gClS . . >- ."0 e I en a.~CIS "0= l!:? c: Q) CIS CIS n; C E .5 .2 Q)En; e>'- ~ Q)Q;,g EoI/) Q)-l!:? _I/)c: o Q) .- c: :2 I/) 2 .~ E ..€CIS ~Q)Q. ._ .c Q) .01::::> E I;;; .- 8Q)n; e>c: Q) I 5; E 5 ;:)Q)C: . C:"O ~~ CIS ._ Q) ~ I/) >,gQ) CIS I/) )( .c l!:?'e .c c: .~ ._ "0 .c-Q) ~ ;:, Q) 1i) I/) en I/) C Q) Q) .- I/) 0 - I/) 0 .5 CIS ;:, CIS ~I/)'E o>~;:, Q) Q) 2 ~>E ~!-g Q) 0 ;:, ~-2 ~ c: CIS Q) I/) Q) > Q) 1/)2= ;:) 0. I/) . 1;) CIS E~ QCIS si Q).5. E ~ E;; s: "0 ~o ~ e:! ~ ~ en Q) 08I/)ioI/)ClSc.J:J g) ~~~Q)o"O~"OQ)1;)"OQ._o ..... n; Q) I/)Q) 0 "-8: I/) Q) 5 I/) ! .~ Q) 1/)8. >. .c~ oC: CIS.cow =~ ~ . - 0. ~ CO) CIS ~ -= 0> - 1:::: .~ - I/) I/) 0 "C'G ~ ow I/) c: CIS I;;; n; Q) Q) ~ ~g~~ 8j~; ~'e>:g~=.~~ .- CIS ~ Lt) CIS 0 a.: P Q) n; Q)E .c Lt) 0 CIS CIS m _~CIS ~:o~ m~> LL ~ _ 'E c: c:: c: co 8. Q) 15 m Q) .5 en c: Q)'- .2 2 ... l: - - > _ CIS ~ 0 ~ 8. ~ .~ ~ !! ~ $ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ (5;:-m.Q:O~.!!!~c12 gJ~~mc: 1;) ~ Q) ~ >- 0 U Q) ;:, 8 i ca .5 lij ~ ~ Q)::liimQ)--Q)~_ -> 0. 0. CIS a:::.-"OE:gr:x:..:O>.~Q)~I/)I/)E c_~~-Q)I/)=_"O _I/) CIS n;t I Q) ClSn; ~ Q)> 5 gJ.cjl ~ c: 51) = CIS ~ I/) E = CI) ~ I/) I/) 0>._ 0 .2 ~ Q) J:JQ.,.:;CIS~.oClS~CIS;:,;:'CIS'tI/)Q~ $ E Q) ~ Q) CIS ~ ~ Q) c: 2 Q) Q) 2 .21 = ... .... J:J .... c..c ... J: I/) ;:, "0 "0 0. Q) > CIS ~ ~ ;:::! ~ ~ ~ ~ j::: ~ UJ Q) ~ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 30 ts CIS 0. .5 Q) 'E~ ~:2 .~ 0 = > c: CIS Q) .21 ~ :0 I/) B E c: c ._ CIS CIS CIS- .~ = .s.? 8: = 1/)= C'G C:CI)C:_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)..jC/)Z II II II II C/)=>< C/)..jC/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) <.> _c C CUCU 0 E~ ~ ~ C .c: .2 o 2'=.1:: a..Cn~~ > = :c C.- o III ._ C ~8 .- III :t::Q) ~a: Q) _g C CUcu_o .- <.> :;).- Ci:o~ Q) C .c: ._ ~~~~ III ~ :;) III cu Q) ~ C .2 (tl c ~ ~ III c_Q) Q) .- 0 ~ III ~ .... C Q) III ::> cu Q) ~ Q) ._ ::>.o(/).c: >.1Il8c-= '1:: ~ .... .2 en 0 o .- Q) III cu 0 'C ~ ~ e Q) )( 0. <.> .0 Q) .... .- .c:CU CU"C Cl-Q)Q)Q)C .- .... :s ~ C Q) .c:olllooJOo. cu.c: C . 5.~ -<'>Q)"iii e :; 0 'C C "C - E - Q) .2 C cOlllilllcu~ 8~Q)EeCU.!!l C >-.~ Q) ~ 'co .2 .c: E i ~ u.i Q) III "E "0 "C "iii >' "C e ctl Q) Q) '(3 - .... Q) :;) Q) Q) Q) C 0 (!) III III 0. - Q) e e III .2 a: ~::::"C"CQ)n- cuo>->-cQ)UJ ~ CI) .c: .c: ._ III (/) . III ~ o ~ C o o~c: Q) .... III III .2 .~ :;)1Il:t:: Q) ~ c: - .~ ~(tlCl) - := ~:o ~ :>ns- B.c:~ III Q) a3 It)1Il_....; O)Q)ou 0) .c: Q. CIS ....l-cuQ. g en c .S ....:gQ)t) ~ Co ~ .~ .... 5. e "cQ)Q. .2 g ;;; Q) ~ ~ Q) ~ o..2:s~ ....1Il=1:) ,g~~ctl (/) ...J ~ (.) S ~ S:2 ..... ~ Q.. E ~ =0 8:(/) <=> ~u.. =U) O(/) Cij .c: III >- = <.> Q) .c: - ~ Q) .. J2-=:0 .c:o (l)wQ) -(I) - Q) "0 '0 Q) Cij ~~~a(l)la__ l! ... cu .... :E .2' Q) <,>u:;o-=> 1Il~.s.?-Q)E~ .c: Q) ns ns III 0 - ~Q)<'>~ffi-!ij :>.c:Q)cu<.>cSi! ~I-.o""Q)Q)it:: 0. ,,0 CD .- C E (I). -.Q .Si! 2' :;)- .=. 8 ~ ~ ~ i ~ .~ =~~~~~~ !ij 'S ~ .g III (5 g .Q g:o .c: .;;; c: U c......ola=::cu o.Q)O.c:C~o. CUQ).c:-:;) E Q) - <.> Q) Cl ~ .- .: U III E .5 :;) -8 :;)CU.c::;:::;(I)1Il gg-~~5;~ a: ._ Q) _ .c: ~ US ui o ns .~ o (/) ::> u.. U) (/) .... ,g C o i .2' :t:: E (I) < . (/) >- ~ ..; Q) -~"C >- <.> U - 0 (;.^:2 "0 ~Q)~ ~~~~,,:g is 'e'S !ij Lt lii ~ I !ij 7a -2 0. ""0. (/) (/) E .c: 0 - Q) Q) (/)Q)Clc:O.... .c: o..c: - - .- .- B cu <.>l-cu'S~w:!~ _ (/);::-~ S 1;; ~ >-0 ~ B "C .1. ....' Cl'- III cu - ~ .~Y) Q)c co:: ~w cu~ :t: a:. .- - J: i!: Cl c :5t3 &~~ 2'~.E Q)~ ~ ~~ 16 ~ ~.~ ~ j ~ € ,- .- Q) (I) "0 Q) "0 i W (I) cu g_!cQ)=C: Q)_o. nsQl Q)!ECUQ)O"O.c:ns ........ "C'c 0 = CD 'CiS .2' <.> u..~)(:;)::>C\ICU"O=Q)- ceQ)'Ci) ....oc::fJ:cu ~ oS! ! ~ ~ Ui ~ ~ -= ~.~ -= 8::2 c'gg 8 8 8 ~~ :;) ^= :;) 0 cu .c: .c: .c: .c: i!: Q) ~~~reLt~~~~~8- ~ 2;-:: c 'C .~ 0 CU"O III (I) c-"2o .:! 8 :;) ns o.c:-o. ><.>itiE - (I) c .- !ij "fi .2 U .Si! cu ~ .~ c..Q)"Ce o..c: cu 0. cu=_Q) n~liila .~ ~ .~ ,2> ens=:t:: o.:;:::;:;)E _&(1)0 nsQ)Q)_ -=c:g~ -o>ns . (I) _ 0 (I) III ~Q)5.~8 g~~ ~.c: a:cucuc~ . :2 :;) Q) 0 :g~-Q) > (I) c .... e-Q)cu 0. 8 c - o.c:cuc _ <.> E .2 ~:8.g. .... (I) 'Ci)Q)"cQ) .- .c: '0 15 "C-nsns ~ la .2 .~ - E Q) o ~"C - (I) -80Q) (I)""OQ 8 lZ . E "0 ns c cu Q) U .2 laQ)::ui E15EE ~~~~ Q)cu"':lIl Q)g~(I) .c:-Q)cu I-~.oo Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 31 U ns 0. .~ Q) c~ cu:g .Si! 0 :t: > c cu Q) .2' 5 15 (I) B ccc._ cunsns- .Si! -= .Si! ~ =1Il=CU clllc_ .2' Q) .2' 0 (/)...J(/)Z II II II II (/)=>< (/)...J(/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g C COCO 0 :;:::.~ :;::: C ~ co Q) C z::..2 o.Ql:=:t::: a..(J)3:~ > := :c C.- 01/) ._ C ~8 ._ I/) :=Q) ~a: Q) _ g C coco_o .- ~ ::l'- E=o~ Q) C z::.._ o.Ql.'t:::t::: a..(J)3:~ - o C ~ .!a >- .2 0. z::. "2 C;; _ ~ = 0 .21 c: 1/)~0~Q):=.2 :=::lQ)coz::.EU EI/)I/)E--Q) =cCO::lQ)ol/) coQ)uo.o1/) engQ)> OE-gQ) en ~....-~ LO "0 - ..., ~ 0 " coQ)CCCtl-,-, cl/)-Ctl~oE 08. .!r.o.~CQ) .- E I/) - co E U .- .92 ~ I/) E Q) :t:::~cco (1)~13vol/)Q) Q) co co:;:::Q) > "O~=g-B58 o U 0 .- .- I/) ~n;g-gE~~ cz::.uz::.RE- Q)-I/) ..., >- ECQ)u-~.o o_l/)co.o E .- co - C co "0 Q) n; ::l U .2 U ~ >00"Q):==~ o :;::: Q) '-"0 0. 0 ~ 'E ~ [ ~ g. ~ I/) Q) ~ ::l I/) Ctl Q) ~ C o ~ o E ~ I/) U co o E o _ I/) ~cu o >- :;::: co '6 E "0 I/) < E ..: 0 Q) e n; I/) ~ ~ 0(3 ~~ :2 S ::l"O o C ~ co - I/) B .92 :t::: ~13 C Ctl . ._ _"0 EE~ Q) 8 Q) Q) ... ~ -ginQ) ::l~.o I/) I/) Ec :E- Q)CO Oc-O"g"OU U .~ ~ in co ~ y ~ Q) 0 - s >- - .- - .- = := co 0 .... e="O~UC5.~ o.EQ)~ll.Q .q; EC\I'Nsco:==- I'- .Z U :s! ::l c: ,g~~gECii!~ . ~ 4It I/) E Q Q) co 'c: ~ .- -= co Q) ~ ~ ""'I 2 ow z::. .- fI) Q) fI) .~' Si~.~~I/)< _ . :e~o ,co ow - oJ..., I/)~ii:cu;i~o Q) .- 0 .0 c .92 'n ~ 00 ~in Q:=C:::-::> Q) '-.'-0.0" U I/) 0 .- U "- co Q) ~ c:g~ >-i-CI) ~~--_ .0 00 E co :g ~ ow i "0 C ._0 g>-Q)~o "8 ~ .~ g ~ 'g ~ e. ~ t5~~~e~~:~ 00 00 _ co 0. co 0.0 '_ (J) ..J ~ :g co - U I/) =Q)O ~c_ <cog >.~ :='C t5 UalCl) .:Jt:. 1U CD ~ ~ c ~I/) ~~~~ .~ Q) .- >- v 0. in ~ I/) e. co '~::i .- ::l _ Q) al 0 o~g~o5."O - Q) 0."01 c c o E E c 0 E co .2 .- Ctl cu e 0 (,)gCl~I/)-.2 en .- 00 .... .:Jt:. I/) ^(,) Q)n;::>ci)cuEen ~ .21 u. 0:. ~ ~ ~ .0 :=E 00 - Q) ::l la ^ .!a 00 ~ ~ in E ...: mES~=~Q)~ ~~-~CO.2E~ SQ)~-in1UoS!CI) -.8~c w c 0. 1:'- 0 Q) .2 E co - 0 1U - C .'t::z::.z::. (.)Q) -"0 0 tl E ~ g ~ ~ 'Ci) g ~ ~ Q) - .~ 0 co 0. :> _ >- 0. ~ co n; sa oS in ... .0 co ~ l!! co z::. I/) 0 I/) .- t: c: .- - I/) (.) .... 0. z::. 0.'- "0 0 Q) 0 ~ 'C "0 ~ ~ "0 .. (.) ::l "0 Q) e I;-CalQ)-I/)Q)Q)c "Os::_ iji g Q) z::. Q) -fiJ 'C i "0 .2 "0 C ~ ~ -z::."Oo~t:alQ)::l 5coE~ 8:u~.o Q) 8.c cg-g e~- 0 ~ 00 Q) 0 0 I/) .- co 0 S c .5 ~~o ~= ~i i-g~.m- ~~ coEco~c-E .oo.~0.5 . .0 Q) (.) ~ co "fi E .-.- 0. ~ .~ E Ji! (,) j ~ ~ en CD ~ i ...J ::l -al=::lCl) ~~~COQ)uilU c5 Q) ~ ~ ~ S! Eco co E EE'S -~Q)uE;~=i~8g~g ~ n;Q)9oQ)Q)COE~'" Q)~ ~ ~ z::. 'n:.J Q) ~ c (.) Q) g>.: Ji! U 'j' - c::: c 2 oS! I/) I/) .- ::l 00(1) I/) o.-g ~in~W -~~ 0"5 Q)~ s ~co:;:::~:g Q).~::l 5~ ~ cICtl.o-co <C-o.o.l/)- ~ .90 co g ~ Ji! ! ~ ..!. ::l I/) g I/) .~ ~ z::. c::l . W :: Q) z::. 'C EE ~ U Q) O~'C-5;;!"g S (,) al....CtlI-CI)o~l/)alQ)t:Ctlcoen Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 32 U Ctl 0. .5 Q) _:is cCO co:2 .Sl 0 ~ > C Ctl Q) .21 5 :is I/) ~ E c E._ CtlCOCtl- .~=.~ ~ ~I/)~CO CfI)C_ .21 Q) .21 0 (1)...JCI)Z II II II II (1)=>< (1)...JCI)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) -g nsns 0 ;.Q ;: c= ns Q)C.c:O ~ cW~ ~ > = :0 C.- OCll ._ C ~8 ._ CIl :=Q) ~a: Q) _ g C nsns_o .- Q ~.- ~~~~ - 0)"==;: ~Uj~~ C CIl Q) ~ ~ CIl ns Q) ~ C .2 ni o ;: ~ 0) c: 'E o ~ .2 -g ns "E ns >. "8 .c: u CIl "C Q) Q) "C o E ~ CIl '0 ns o .E Q) . - C .0 Q) ns.c: 1: u 8.~ 'ns 80 ~~ Q)o -5&Q)~l&~~~ ~~~uf~~~~ cC\I.....92Q) - ns~:2'OC~'O~ ~ni~~~EQ)ns 'C 0 8. Q) 0. '0 .0 -. '0 ~ .c: ._ Q) CIl ..... Q) ~ - ....J o.'c oniEiij~"C~CD - E ~ C C C C g';: Q .2 :J ns ! 0 '2~fij~~~ ~ 8 ~.!QiE~~ Q.e ns ns E. 0 Q) .!Q u ._ CIl '0 .- ~ .- ... Q) Q) . _ .Q CD '0 Cb Q) .- CIl 0) = - Q) ~ . - e ~ C :J ns '0 Cb >. - 0. ~ .- CIl CIl '"" :> := u -~ o......u ns E 0 .X Q) E ~ ns 0. "C > .0 Q) = .... 0. EeClle-E:JC:ns .- _ ">. 0. g Q) CIl ~ u 15 U co ..... ..... > ~ .~ u o 'C "C 0 ~ 0 ~'C .c:ii),gii):Jc.nsS::::ii) u .- CoO E CIl .~.- 00 0 ._ u ~ ._ <: CI) 0 00 ....J E ns .Q C. 0. <: Q) -= .: E g- S ns nsooo 0.Q) - Q)-CIlo.CIlC ~ ~">. 8 g :2 -g~13g:ej ~ .2 '0 ~ 8. E Q) '0 C 'u 0 Q) . 0..!E .2 0 - ii) >. ij)-~_ >.ns .6 8 ~ ~ .~ CIl . o ... en .g = C '5 -~; 0.:0.2 T C ns ns CIl .- '0 1: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ =us-g8.8Q) o.nsCll;>CIl > 0. ~ E Q) ~ 'C ns Q)g~~o 'O~:o.oQ)ns Q) .- 0 :J U ~ 0 .- ~ ~ a.. C Q) ~ e 0 0. _ ~ ii) '0 o._coQ)nsc e;~o~~~ .- ~ ns '0 ns Q) u. 5-ns~Q)E'-=c Q) e::.= .: _ ~ ns a: ns .6 0 0 0 00 00 CIl t; ~ I E ~ Q) oQ) Q. ni>...!.:O' E Q) ~.-=.c: e g ns .... g Q) ~ .g> 0. i E iins~.c:Q)Q)~~ - C ,... _ ~ > ::: Q) ~ ~ Q) ~ 0 .... ns ~ ~ u E .S Q) - 0 .c: .- g. tl !IIns:=i8,gQ)~E Q. E ~ ni CIl ~ ni CIl '- Q: i ~ .Q '0 ns .! E ~ ~Q.oi ~ Q)i~~ Q) ......Q) CIl"CiL :J Q~ uCQ) oiS.cu E ~.2.o C E oQ)_ Q) 1: ns Q) ... c1) s:::: ii)g8.,gOOUS~Q)~ > ~E=>'vc=;";; 00 CIl 0 Q) :J CIl ns .'c: Q) ~ ;.. ii) ~ ~ s:: i .~ ~ >.= ~ :J eni CI) Q) .'!:::O .S ns 0 21 >. 00 , '\ .- C .c: u -. = .......CIlQ:=Q)CI)"==ns Q)~c-~.ooE;: :=C?8.u ___C CIl . J. .92 ~ >. Q) :;:: Q) C\I)CIl-Q)ns C- O. Q" ~ 8 :.:::. ~ -6 ::> 8. 00 ....J - C ns .~ C. 0. <: ~ -- 'n; ~ 0 o.~c Q) ~ 0 ~ 8 '0 13 ~,g~,g 'OEns~ Q) Q) CIl .g ~~oo. C CIl - CIl .- CIl ~ ,g .~ ~ g c'O-;> Q).o ~=eg = 8 0..0 0. c:J 0. ~ a.. ns Q) .2 U1aca'O Q)~~~ .- Q) :.= 0 eii)c'O o.ns:: ~ ~ ~ C ;:::; ~..... .:; Q) ns CIl g ~ 0.">. a: :g g. 13 00 - u a CQ) EQ)B-= ....uu- _CQ)O S~=CS1: c: Q) u ns CbE~o. E .- Q) CIl !II ns ni ns .... E ~ .~i; i ~-nsS ......g.~~ . 8 Q) .- Ens~~ Q)__C ......o.....Q) ~ c: ~ E 00 CIl 0 Q) ns - > Q).c: >. e ~ ~= 0. Q) .- :0 E 00 U 'en .- Q) C E ~~8.~ -CI)CIlCll oQ,,~~ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 33 ~ 0. .5 Q) E:g ns:2 .Q 0 = > C ns Q) .21 5 :0 CI) ~ c C c ._ nsnsns- .Q -= .Q e: =CIl=ns CCI)C_ .21 Q) .21 0 OO....JOOZ II II II II 00::><: OO....JOOZ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) -g CUCU 0 :; .~ :; c: :I:: cu Q) c: .r= .2 '5 21.1::: [l.Cn3:~ > :5 :0 C:.- oU) ._ c: &8 ._ U) :Q) ~o: Q) o _c: c: cucu_o .- 0 ::::1'- i~.2~ ~~~~ c: 1; U) Q) ii :0 'in c: S. U) Q) ... U) e ::::I U) cu Q) ~ c: o ~ o :; ~ Q) ~ cu c: Q) C 'n; E '5 Q) g cu a Q) . o >. 0: cu 0 U) t) cu c .E U) cu E_ Q) c: :c ~ e Q) ....: 0....0 o.~ c:e.... :8 U) .~ ~ E Q) =.9:!~ :5.g~ c a. ~ Q)Q)- ~ ~ ~ 8:.r= .~ cu-:'~ o i.OI ;n;Ci5 ::::IQ)>' "O~~ ~~~ ec-S. c.::::> C/) ...J - c: .53 8: c( "0 '5 U) Q) 0 Q) c~~"': -0 C --Q) s:; Q)"'Q)C: >."OQ)8~:c n;S "OQ)c:!Il OQ)~olii.!!! ...- 'in~$a en;8.~5.~ >.l!f%Q)eo......Q .~ -g 0 .0 0 ~ _ = ~ ~ .0 g ~ ~ ~ Q) cu II) - Q) ... cu E U)'o. Q) c: "0 Q) 1'::E_CU>"P'I'o-cuo. 32;:::C:Q)"O (;5 I U)U)s.Q)c"''"iEQ)::::I.- ~ ~ ~ "0 cu ~ :2 ::::I :Q .2 'in ~ .~ -c:o CU_U)i.r=E::::I"OU)U)U) U) o en ~ :0 U) E E Q) € Oft ~ & .- Q)s:;"'-' ~8 U)::::I(;50 ui""O 'e := 1:: = e _ Q)::::I 0 Q) cu -g C ~ o.~ ~~ o.Q.6B:2'CU ~~ cu Q) ~ n; c :c .!!! e ....Q) U) - i::::l ~ .r= cu U) ~ ~ Q) ::::I CUc: .:11:0 Q)-c: = - ~ E 'S )( Q).- .~::::I "0 <3 Q) : Q) .~ 'u 0 - Q) ~ "0 n; ~ C/) ~ :2 Q) >. 5 c: ~ -= '5 c: Q) a .r=.- . ~ Q) == 16 U) 8 .... Q) Q 01 - c: c: 0 > ... c: ==en~EcuU)U)oo-c:E~ Q) ... C cu .:11:' E S c C 01 U ~.2 e v o~Q)~~oen!ll!llC:Q)Ct)-~ :: c: E'CU"O 0_ E E~=.~.9:!i:2 Q) cu Q); Q) Q).mj~e 8 C:ot) ~ ~ E .: c: .: :2 Q) Q) Q) .r= ~ 0 Q) cu o cu::::l~::::I >- > > c: U) C:"O-U CTs.CTe~Q)Q)cucu8c:ec: .E .6 e e 0. E "0 "0 ==.= cu 0. cu C/) ~ U) cu 'e ~ '5 - t)~,* E~C: ~ ... .~ Q):: .2"0 ~ uij,gK~~i~~~ Q) Q) Q) 'CU 8 Q) E 8 ~ Q) .~ 0 .- U) 0. c:'~ ~ n; CU c ~ cu 0 ... n e Q)US o.Q) Q)S:;- 0; Q. C/) U) :2 c: 0. Q) - cu Q)' >C:::::IQ) 5'9'n; !1ijY~.Q~ ~ .- V) a. .- - U) ~ Y Q;, Q) ~~ K'~'~ ~"tJ =a13i~:Q)a;o.l-~ U~_-:=5EQ) .~ E -oS! 5'5 En;~.~ CU i c: .90 II) u. 8 ::::I 'C :t: ..._0=... iQ)l:: ~ ~ :~ ~ g 2i ~ i n; .~ [l. ~ e c: ... c: CU E CU Eo.'-o~-Q)Q) ~.9! ~.~~ o.~~~i o a....-._.Q Q) ~- U) ~ Q;'S ~~ Q):2'- ~e Q),~ 0"0:= ~ U)'O 0 0. 0: ~ e e .~ "0 e c:: e e C/) ...J - c: .53 8: c( e ~ c:~~ Q) .2 ~ .- a. CU t) '0 g -~............ g'CU"O o.~ ...~e=::::I Q)"'Q)cu"O Q)o.U)...c: .~ g.'o ,g .!!! c: c: U) Q) ~-g'5.~= cucuU)n;.r= .~ ~ 'in ~ := en .!A? ~ == ~ ::::I > cu 0 Q) 8ei&g cu >._ U) cu i'5~~"E :=o~cuR 'CU-::::IU)u ::::I -occu CT E ~ Q)E .6 cu.ou - c: ::::I Q) e ~ 'n; U) = .- U) Q)"O~a.cu o:i~ea C/) LU ~ 'CU 13 Q)- _E ~ .~ Q) "E ~ -E 0 U) cu .- c:~>:g :: 0'" Q)o: - .- ..... "3 .;::- 0 s~~co...: --0 0 ig=~- -Q)n;~C/) ~-6...J:f; ...U)Woc:: ~Q)Z-cu >Uen"E uiS!c(Q)cu t)Q)CO~> cuU)"O(jQ) ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~.Qi5U) .- Q)'" Q) - Q) o ocu:; ZS~EO .~ :2 Q) Q) i;::-::::I~en ~~8eCi5 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 34 ~ 0. .~ Q) ci cu:Q .Sl 0 := > c:cuQ) .21 5 :c U) ~ 'E c: 'E ._ cucucu- .~ = .Sl ~ :I:: U) :I:: nt C:U)C:_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)...JC/)z II II II II ,,.. ::> c( C/)~C/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g e: .~ t'IS .2 -.Q - ~~.c:~ (5 .Ql:t:: ;e c..CI)3::E > = :0 e:.- o(/) ._ e: ~8 .- (/) :!:::Q) :Ea: Q) C,) _e: e: t'lSt'IS_O .- Q :::l'- ~=O~ e: .c: ._ -0 O:t::.~ c..U53::E (/) Q) ..... :::l (/) ra Q) :E e: .2 (6 c E :E Q)....; :; c:: >-Q) .0 E "O~ Q)LlJ ~Q) .- CI) ~~ (/) Q) (/) (/) ->- "E13 ra Q) -g:; ra e: liS .- >-.c: ~5 .0- ~Qi o.(/) E"O o e: C,) ra Q)~ > ra ~liS "0 e: ra (/) 'E Q) E Q) .!::: "0 ::l Q) 0-"0 Q) ::l .....0 l5 .5 :;:; Q) C,).o ::l e: "0 Q) ~.c: Q)- (/) '0 e: "0 ~ 'E Q) :g Q) .c: f- u ~ Q) 0 'e'~ 0."0 .5 "Qi - o .c: ..... o Q) E o .c: co ::l :g > cu:s ~ .5 (/) ..... e: 0 .2 e: (60) C,) 'iii ::~ C,) Q) Q) o.:t:: (/) (/) "0 e: Q) ::gt'lS(6 :::l (/) in 0"E ~ t'IS ..... "0 Q) -Ie:"O wra5 Zin, () <Q)~ CD '5 t'IS ~ "Oe:a.(ij II) >- Q) "0 <o:!:::8e: e: ~ t'IS ~ t'lSQ)>'(/) ="0= >- .....e:ra:!::: Q) ::l e: == 16 e: .2 :e Q) .2 :g (6 .....-e:O' Ot'lSoE (/) .2> C,) 0 Q) :!:::' C,) >E Q) Q) ~ .o(/) Q) .~ "0 :::l (/)::l"3"O '0 [ 0 e: e:.....~~ (/) U ra Q .s "0 Q) (/) :::l"O~ Q)"3cu ~8! "3 Q) e: 8 (/) ::l Q) 0 (/) .c: (/) "Of-..... .2en~ QiJE .:~~ OQ)_ (/) (/) 0 e: '2 e: .2 t"\ _ Q).K t'IS U .~ ~ 2 ....e:_ E 0 ~ o ~ 0 C,) t'IS C,) ~ .21 Q) o:t::"O .;:: E ~ t'IS C,) > g .5 -I W -Q) Z :Den () raQ) 2< >.a.E CD:t::Q)O ~"O:B8-E .- 0 :;:; ra ~ ~<ora>-o (/)e:~=- ~S 8.~~ :2~Q):!:::(/) :::l(6~"B~ ~~"B8e: (/)0_' ~ Q) (/) ~ Q) . (/)Q)- g"QiQ).o Q)>16:2..... T'\~-r;::::l~ .K VI 0 '- ~ .m ~ ~ ~ co2"B.g; e:.....:::l.....c;, ~ .g .g ~ .~ "0 Q) ._ c: "O-.c:t'IS..... <~~in.E o o .5 (/) ~ E- Q) 0 -"0 (/) Q) ~(6 ..... ~~ o.c: o.::l ::l 0 (/) (/) oiij 0 .c: Q) (/) (/) ~ ::l =B o t'IS l5g; 'iii '2 'S; 0 en o .- ~ c.:g 0 ..... c: "0 :go 8 .5 ..... ~ .- c: t'IS t'IS ._ "0 "3 e: o 0 ~ - ~ " "0 ::l .: Q) Q) - .'t:: =(/)_::l(/) ~~B~'Q) ....c..Q).c::O ~ ~ :0 .Q ~ _ 'iii .c: 0. CI) c: (/) ~ Q) => :2 8. -0 8 E:!:::Q)Q)t'IS O ~ ..... 16 c: ..... Q) o.::l . - -I .c: ._ >- (/) (/) ~ ~ .Q 16 "E ~()~~E~ -; ca (ij .!a g ~ .!a "0 c: 'E' ; 2~~~~E o "0 0. 0. Q) (/) .;:: Q) .Q .Q (/) ..... Q) Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) xC,)>>o.-g W~~~~::l ~ Q) t'IS (/)"Qi<(/) 'g ~ 19 ~ .Q ~ ~ -g ~ 'g Q) 'i - (6c: .....~inQ) 2 .K .c: ...... ~ Q) ~ Q)-.c: >< .5 - "E Q)Q)"Ora Q).c:Q)"O .c:-Q)C: _ _ C,) t'IS Q)<~in ~CDoQ)c: .c:"O_(/) ~ ~ i 'g ~ ~(/)ts.....;; ~ i 8..g fii t'IS Q) )( Q) > Q) C,) Q) 'E 0 B~~~~ -~C:zQ) ..5~~()g. rJ) -I c: ra .Q is. 0. < o "E - Q) t'IS "O-g2"O ~oQ)fij '5 .5 '5 in (/) 0 c: Q) Q) (/) (/) "0 cu 1ij '0 - ..... c: ~co~c: E ~ ';a Q) ~-o~ .~ ~ l5 cb Q) t3 .- c;, ;;; ~ (6 .~ ._ ~ ~ VI ~~:g< cu_(/)< c:~e:u. ra c: 8 Q) Q)Q)Q)= .!a E (6 Q) O~:::l> c: Q. Q) Q)Q:[:2 .c: (1)::J "0 C,) f- rara rJ) I Q).c: c;,:t:: - c: ~ ~ 'iii Q) ~.c:~ , .2> 't Q) .c: Q) - c . ~ -Q) .- (/) uU5~:2 t'IS Q):::l Q~C:O .E~8,~ "O.c: ~'t"3~ ~ae~ 8.s;.!!i ~_.c:Q) Q) ~ .2> ~ (/)c:::c- .- ~ Q) Q) ~ E > .!a Q) 0 0 =-=c: ra5l!-t'lS- ...~...t: ~ ;:) C,) Q) < ~.~ ~ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 35 U [ .~ Q) c~ ra:g .s.2 0 => c: ra Q) .21 5 :0 (/) B c c: C ._ t'lSt'ISra- .Q :; .s.2 8: =(/)=t'IS c:(/)c:_ .2> Q) .21 0 rJ)-ICI)Z II II II II CI)=>< CI)-ICI)Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ ~ c: 113m 0 4=.Q -= c:~ 113 .s c: J: .2 ~ cW~ ~ > :: :0 C:.- 01/) ._ c: ~8 ._ I/) :!::Q) ~a: Q) U _c: c: 113113_0 .- s.l ;::,'- c:o(6o Q)C:J: ~~~~ I/) ~ ;::, I/) 113 Q) ~ c: o ~ o E ~ :!:: I/) U 113 Q E ci Q) Q) Ui_ 010 c: c: .- Q) "0 ... ;::, 113 g.!!2 .- Q) - > I/) Q) Q)- := Q) > I/) ts'o . mC:i cuou .- 'C: ;::, cQ)"O Q)'E~ :2 .- >- 1/)0- Q)-Q) ~,-ca ... 0 ... 8 .- .... ... 0" "O.sQ) c: >< "0 ._ Q) 113 C/) -J C 113 .s.l B: <( I/) Q) c:(6 c: 2 - .- = a. - "0 .- Q) "0 c: iii .~ .s 8(6g~ .s="O"O ~ ~.g ~ 2 c:: Q) c: t:-Q)o.Q) 8~gEa: c: Q) .- E UJ- .- ... - 8 .2~2Q)C/) ~ c: iii ... .~ "'Qc:I/)J: a.. 8Q)- .Q U ...- Q) 2 ;::, 0 ~_(ij~.o .....1/)c:Q).,r ..., c: 0 E . Q)o; :c J:uc:- . __Q)C::> U>Q)- Q) Q) c: E ~ ....- 8 ... '5 e .s.Q go.Q)mU a: .5 = .g ~ C/) Q) I I/) :t:g'OI/)~ lis~oc.. "'~o-J~ Q.e I/) 1: .1/) Q) .... .~ 8. tS c:: - :!:: Q) U S .~ c: c.. Q) c: - .- - CIt~.!!2-gn; e c: ~ 113 0 oS! .2 Q) >-.!!2 ~~-Q)m ...- v Q) - ==-2I/)cu:2 ... - .- > ;::, ~1/)2 0 c: Q) ~ . 8 Q) .~ "0 Q) (6"Oc: .~= > ~ 113 ~"2~~~ c:m>--o .Q;=iij~Bui UI/);U"'C s~lij:&.8~ ~ c.. iii 113 -a, '1/) o .0 Q) .- Q) uc:)'~=~.= C/) -J - c: .~ J .~ C >. Q) J: .2 .~ ... ~ CU'- = v ;::,;::, c: 0 2 0" i .2 113 iii ........c:ca MC .- -.Q Ol ....: 0 ma:U=I/)>u :Bw2Em-U .... C\I iii iii >- ~ .2!. ~cx)C:;::'~t>e c:~8"O.sQ)o. QQ)nC:"OI/)'O t> := .~:B ~ .5 I/) S.5e2;::'S~ I/) "0 a. iii 2:- Q) 113 C:8 .~ ~ C:8 c:~ ~ a :c ",,-,,- Q)1:C: "OCU J: ~ .2 '0 E Q) Ol -:2(6 8"Oc: '0' . 'E I!? c: 'C g Q) 0 I/) Q) ;::, 8 - E U 8 E "0. .!2~~~uE8c:i Q;o.C:m - c::'E- EO... Q)UJ _ ._ U a. ... C/) C/) ~ - ..... ~ o 9: "' C\I "2'E I/)"i ~ ~, mQ) m-c:;::,c:....t: iii ~ I/) .!:2 Q 0 B ~ ,g 13 ;::,._>-U g E'E 113 8.lI) tJS ~ "0 "0 i 113 I/) E .-.21 113 Q.. vQ)m o.I/)8Q)'~'" t:" .2!. - ts ~ E 113 E E Q) 'E .5 e~Q)CU'-"O. "OQ):>.. ui Q. ~ = a: iii .~ ~ 8 .! &:: I/) ~ U Q)m_;::':!::":Q)-;::'~co 113 ;::- 0l:2 UJ "0 C Q) > .5 u) a. ~ Q...!.. ;::'C\I~Q)~m U~.... EU~ 8CX).~:2 ~J:i m"O'~ C:~i~J:~ 8."2~~~~:;: .2 .. U Q) 113 ... J: U .- 0 II) U ~:E~~1:ui~.5iii~a; S E :=! ts ~ ~ ~ (5 -6 .l! ~ I/) - .~ Q) en 2 .X ;::, ... &:: Q) CO g'iiU=m1i5~fd~Q)~:e~ U 1: ~ m ~ C:8 .~ Q)E ~ ~ 'e- U ~ E CIte .Q Q) - >- E C\I a. 8 ~ Q) U (6 .!:2 "0 = c:. cx) . c: c: I- oS! 2 :; 'E .~ ~ B 8 ~ E ~ .2l t::' ~ - f\ Q) ~ c: 113 ._ 113 .::0: lI) a: I/) .::0: :2 'E Q) Ol U Q) 0, ~ E ,g ::s c: t:: '1/) Q) - E 113 ~ 0 ~ 0...; C/) ~ 8 [ ~ :2 8. E a'in a'l/) ~ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 36 ~ a. .5 Q) 'E1ij 113:2 .s.l 0 ~ > c:mQ) .21 S :a I/) fJ 1: c: 1: ._ 113113113- .s.l = .s.l 8: ~CI)~m C:CI)C:_ .21 Q) .21 0 C/)-JC/)Z II II II II C/)~<( C/)-JC/)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) -g CUCU 0 ;;.s.;! ;; C:t:: cu ~ C .c: .2 o .21= = c..CI)3:~ > := :0 C.- o III ._ C ~8 .- III :t:Q) ~cc Q) _ g C cucu_o .- s.;! :3'- E=o~ CI) Q) C .c: ._ -0 Cl=.~ c..Ci53:~ C => CI) - C cu .~ a. a. <( III ~ :3 III cu Q) ~ C o ;; cu o ;; ~ I III E Q) .S cuUQ) ~ u"3E oE Q)OQ) cCU :E .s:::. .!::: Q) .~ E E III 6-'@- '2 a. Q)Q)UQ)-cu~ 1ii :Q .~ ... .Q Q) >'IIlOC:t::U.s:::. III E o..Q (.) Q) - cQ Q) Q) U !. g. >. ci . E.c::3(1)u.o~ E~-:.i .cuuQ)O - .- cc ... III Q) a. <( 8.:3- o.Q).o 0<( III CT W 'C III - c~C\I";":332Q)!Xl cu_ex:>Je-g:3a>Q) .= ~ Ol .~ cu B U ;: Q)(/).....c:-IIlIll.c: .s:::.1-Q)Q) Q) --.s:::.>CiS!!l...= o--CUOCU:33= _CC _ouc C Q) .- Q) Cl Q) 0 QEcn;Jec(.):;:: . Q)o....oQecu ~ g':a Q ~u 0.3 U C Cl ~.- :3 - III cucu;e8~u~c8 .E E E .S co ~ E - 'E Q) .0 III ~~ g7;; o~~ III :3 C C-Q) 8)~ :Q Ill_Ill ~CU~ v.c: . Q)-Q) .- C (.) e co :3 o.o.i Q) C ... ;: .Q .9 ~n;1Il 'S .21 ~ CT'~ :3 ~ E ~ .COQ) C >. E III .Q = _ C .~ (.) o.Q :g .s:::.Q) III ~ co _ !..- co>.E -........Q) en III Q)i Q) g .- ~ Q):t:: _ :Q t:Q) ~ a. 1IlQ) 0 co ~ -.,ta.; C a.. .~ i .;;; w :: :;: ~'OOIll ~Q)~~ It ~ 0> CiS ti ... ... Q) ;CiS1ii.aCl - ;; -Q) co cu ~a3=c:s ~:g!.'O~ E 1IlQ) Q) C enlllQ) 2~~=>~ U 'S .g ..: ..., .- CT VI VI .:0:: ~~"8i:3 Q).01ll0 CC 0 3= .S ~ . - ui ai 1Il~ co~ 5 _ C III ij) U C co :>. U (ij ~ 0 '0 ~ 8. 3= ~ - .~ ~ ~ ~ e. e III III - n 0 co III III <( ... Q) .!::: 5~ ~ a.c:I:R~'E >.oQ):Q co .!! .- .~ 0 U co :3 co Q) co ~ a. III - a:.~ 0 N C ;: ri Q) .c: - !Xl 0 III 8c ~ ::SEu~cuchco.c:c..~Q)<(-g 0 ~ Q) C 0 s.;! III 0.-- 0.c:<(:3 Q)'O -..;._ co III == Je E uf 0 '61- 8..0 Q) - ... co cu ';' ~ ~ ~ g' ~ :2- <Ii ~ C!) ~ .= Q) := '-:2 :0 n 0 :3 5 ~ ~ ~ :s i iU co ~ 'S ~ ~ :s ~ ~ ti Q c.. - ~ n; .c: e. - .0 C (.) .!Q '0 CtI E ~ III a.... -Q) on ... CC - Q) Q)>< C UQ) Q.e - v Q) ... .:0:: .- - cu - U >.~1Il 1:3 COW.c: ~ IIlCC5='- =eco~n~coC\l-Q)oQ).c:Q)Q) co c.. Cl:::...91 :> C ex:> III C III E III 0 ~ ;:! s.;! OIllQOl~Q)"'Q)~""Q) o ,.... 'c )( ... Q)' .... co Cl :3 Cl.c: I .> c-.. CUQ a. III ClQ) Qu (.) co-~"O .!::: ~ Cl E:3 ~ .c: U - ~ C Q) c.. CtI <(",...z -_-c:3o.co(.)g_ - ~ 0 - e .~ C 0 .- 0 ~ C ~ CO_Q)C-1=CO-IIl3=9l co CtI C Q) - (.) .- - >. .. (,) o ~ .~ Cl 0 Q) ; ~ III == 0 = .x cc ;;::: '0 ... U 0 ";" :2 '2 == ~ N CiS ~ III 'c: Q) e- co ... ~ III Cl E co -g 0 :3 Cl'- Q) CC .... ~ '2 c.. ~ 'in 'in lij ctl '0 0 'in f= 'Iii III U cu Q .E 08- ;g ~-g a3!2 :Q'2 III ctl ~ C n; 3= 1Il~C: .ictlQ) s.g 8- o U'S ... Q) CT o _ Q) .g Q) Q) s'Og o Q) ctl .~ ~ a3 :3 :> E g :> .- cc~~ . Draft SEtR II. Summary Page 37 U Cii ~ ;9 C III Q) cu UCl 'in (ij ~ - .a .S cu Q) C :0- !20 '(6 ~ > :3 ctl III ~ ~~ ~,g :3 III III n;"E~ C ctl (.) Q) >. Q) ~t5e cu ctl cu ~.o.o . ~ a. .~ Q) E~ ctl:Q .s.;! 0 :t: > C cu Q) .21 5 :0 III ~ C C C ._ ctlCUctl- .s.;!;:.s.;! 8: :t::1Il:t::ctl clIlc_ .21 Q) .21 0 CI)-1C1)Z " " " " CI)=><( CI)-1C1)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 CI) _ g c: C'llC'll 0 ::: .s,z :; c::= C'll CI) c: .s:; .2 0.21=: a.oo3:~ > = :c c:.- o(/) ._ c: ~8 .- (/) :CI) ~a: CI) _ g c: C'llC'll_0 .- s,z ::J'- E::onio ~ e,~:; ~u;3::E (/) CI) '- ::J (/) C'll CI) ~ c: o :; C'll o :E ~ >< - C:O!~CI)_C'll .2 Z .Q 0 0 5 CI) u 0 CI) c: U .- .sCl)::J'OC:.c~C'll~ CI) -= ~ (/) :g g :: Q.e ... CI) >_'-C:::J c: c:- C'll 0 (/) .Q 0 C) .521'- 0 .0 .s:;(/):C(/)~O(/)CI)=~ 32 U f- .!a _ a: 0 -= - '0 ::JC'll E::J_~ -"E~ ~ 0...; C1).c 00 C:2 C'lll1:l :>EC:-"(/) . c:: .- CI) C'll >- c: <( ~ = ;:) (/)-CJC:C'll2<('" ~ ~ (j) .2 ~ .(/) co ~ -: ~ "ti ~ .g, ~ ~ ~'g ~'E ~ .5 ~ CI) ~ ~ U (/) CI) '0 (j) .s:; E .~ ~ CI) g .~ "E ~ ~ 1ij ~ ~ ~ (/) g L() e 8.::J::J c: CI) 32 -.;; C1)'O E 0. i~ C1)'e-::J~ .s ~ 0 C1)o '- c:t1j 0.01:) -O.=glllO::J ~l1:I 0_>-'O~-8. .'0>-..... C:ct;.c~~E 32_=~ .2 .-"!":' .... CI) 0 0 ::J C'll h - E v '0 ~ .- L() .s:; 0 ::J ~ g. CI) .~:s ~ ~ ~ ~ 32 O"'C:: '0<( -8. e ~ 0 ::J ~ .c .S ,!:: .91 Q.:>_(/)__.cC'llll) (/) t5 C'll o ~ 00 ...J - c: C'll .s,z 8: <( >- C'll - Q) >- N ~ ni "2 .0 .... ec15,-C'll'C ~j N ::J 0 CI) .- 'A CI) oJ 0 CI) C\I ~uE~""ni~BCI)CI)ni ~ CI) 2 E - ~ ~ ~ (/) ! Cl'C: a: '- '-"'::J C'll~' CJ C'll 0. a. -Ci)CI)Oo>CI)~...=oc:o ~ c:.c!!l0 CI) ~ ~<( (j) a..g- s 8 32 .!!! ~ ~ l1S ::J .!!! ::I: g. :g 5!2 ::J"!":'::J(j)=CI)'_OC:c: ,-c OVO_EQ.'C~~C'llC:o~ CI) .~~ ~ ::J 0 CI) '- := .s,z 0 CI) - oe(/)E ....s:; -,-'Oa:(/) ~ Q.~oi Q.f-~(3 ~~"B"E ~ ~.5 c:~!..:~ C1)<( 0 C'll8 .0 'C: .~ 0 > c: .!a ~ .s CI) 0 (/) CI) ::J::J>':::C'llC'llCl- >CI)~'- (/)'OCI)~ O.2>-g:;'-C'llCl) ni'OC6C1)!CI)2~'O~"Ea.~ ~~'6~'OgC'llo~ C'll'Oni E ~ ~ "E ~ .~ ~ CI) 8. ~ g E .s,z C1)::JEC'll~:=C'llgCl) ._~~ ~ 8 .~ '0 : ~ i C'll ~ 5'.~ E (5 CI) c: .- CI) x .(/) .- € .c - e t:: CI) C1)-"!Q.CI) :l::::J C:EC'llC'll .s CI) 0;; 0. E .~ ni - 0 CI) 0. 13 c: '- ~ g 8 .s:; ::J .!a !!l ~ R oCl) ... _C'll:>(/) _0"'OC'll-..... C'll 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 () c: .2 _ >. U ;::- 0 Iii ~ .5 CI) ..:. (/)::J .s,z (/) Q) .. ... >. CI) 2 - c: II) t: (j C'll e '> - 8 32 -.;; ::J .c::J CI) ~ ::J 1 ~~5~a.gf~ii ~ ~ ~ ~ .2 ~ 'e ~ c: C'll--CI)-c:Q.c:<'<:I '- _ C'll c: C'll _ _ .~ ::J <'<:I 0 .- '" Cl '" '"'" = ... .... .!Q E .~ c: € 'e: ::J ~ ~ := CI) ... 'C ::J ~ () I .22 :: 8. ~ -5 ~ .~ ct; .!I -fi 0 <( '0 '0 ~ C ... .... CI) ~ CI) CI) .c ~ .2 ~.c (/) .21 > ... 0 :0:: =::i~.!.c:::~::JC:: :S~i1:: =~ ~oo ~8. <( .-.w.c ....:.. ... . (/)'0 '0 Cl o (/)U c..:! CI) c C'll - .~ CI) C'll ~ CI) '6- ct;(j)'- C'll>CI)C'llC: :;>e~~R.c"'CI)...: coO. .- l1S Cl (/) CJ C1)" "'.c ._:2 - ~ l1:I _ - CI) C;. (/) 'O::J' Q. o .!a .c C'llE CI) c 8 ~ g. E Q.. 0 f- .=::J ::....._ Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 38 ~ 0. .~ CI) Ei C'll:g .s,z 0 := > C C'll CI) .21 5 :0 (/) ~ c c c._ C'llC'llC'll- .~ .s .s,z 8: :=(/):=C'll c(/)c_ .21 CI) .21 0 OO...JOOZ II II II II oo=><( OO...JOOZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Q) _ g e: coCO 0 :;:::.~ :;::: e:= co ~ e: .t: .2 ~cW~~ > := e:;Q oen ._ e: ~8 .- en :=Q) ~a: Q) _g e: coco_o .- ~ ;::,'- ~~~~ - Ol:t:: += ~(j)3:~ en Q) .... ;::, en co Q) ~ e: o += co ~ ~ en .... 0.0 ;::, .-= e a. Ole: Q) Q) en~ Q) co en ::i~ >. "0 'S; .c5U "0 Q) co i:l.oe: .-= "0 ,2 ~"5U t1!~S a. en en en >. e: Q) :t:: 8 ~ 0 ~~'O Q)"Oe: E Q) .2 e: .!:: a o ;::, E .- c- ;::, co Q) en 0l....Q) +="'0.... ~~.Q en U co a ~ 00 ...J E co .~ Q. a. <( ; Q) Q) Q).t: > .....o~ .8 Q)"O= ::;'J co~>"5'e .5 "0 e: en .t: ~ 2 ~ 2 Q) "0 ~co~ g Q) en_co.o Q) a..t: .- en 0 0l.!!2 ~ "0 co - > co e: 01 .- e: 0 .... :;::: c5 Q.'- 0 e: := Q) Q) 0 .- a. (5 co Q) E Q) a. co is Q) a. Q) 00 E.cQ)e:co.o~co ~ 00 "0 ~ .2 -;:g Q) -5 .5 _ "5_Ue:;::,.t:....>.o t1! ~ 8 2 .-= 2 .... co E ~ en en - 7ii ~ en . i 0 .-= e: 0 Q) e: c -"0.- Q) co .2 ~ c 0 '0 ~ 8 ::E co "0 co I 0 0 c .- co co .t: e: Qlco_-Q)=-;::'o;::' . ~oo coa.c-ffi.8 :t::OOE.t:cEenco -0 E <(' ;::, a <( Q) = >..g co e:Q) o E Q) . e: == .0 0 .t: .- ~<:'2"O Q)~;"07ii-Q) O a: .- E .1:: >. .... Q) .-= 0 "0 .- _ E en a. 0 en .... en ~w i!....o-Q).st1!>.~ ..... -t::CO.... ~a.-.... "0 C\l co .- Q) 0..0 Q) e: ~ co co .- ~ C -8.>' ~ g. ~ 5 e .sO'lgEo enen:=Oa. 00 o _~:= .... 0 "0 0 'o..~ Q) .~ C\j';~o~~::;Esi:lQ) ,.:.~e:.52en""_O -os.> ...VQ) "O_CO::Eco _ O[EQ)e:c-CO:;e:;::, -EE5.sl8Eo->.2 ~ ._ 0 .... Q) en Q) "0 ~ Q) Sl-O0'0 Q).... ..t:Q)E'"- ..... Q) "Oene:-e: en e Q) .... E e: := .2 .... ~ '0 ~ - '0 a: ;::, ;::, e: co 0 .~ en - 1ia.-EQ)'-"O~~ 0 _ w.-:t::..: c: 1:: Q) ; - c:: n; C\l .5 en Q) Q) I;; "0 _ Q) ~EmE~~E~~~g> Cb~'P"' co-:= E e:'s 8 E 'Q.8.Q):: g>~ 8.2 e:_ CO . a: .t:.- = Q) - Q) Q) "0 e: ~ i ~ := ~ iii ~ ~ ~ 5 :2 .2 ......=~~ en ~.2 on;"O gU2 .E cO en "0 ....coe (,) Q) co_ ~~oo~! ~ ~2=j-g,S ~ cO'Q) , ;'::.5'E ~ 0 EQ) 'E 8 ~-<(e:-~ :=Q) Q) 00 ~ 0 '5.. ~ co .!!2 .t: co E 's;? ~ , ._ Q) 0.'-= a..t: 1:: .t: 0 == .- <(:t::_coQ) -o~o;::,:; o E 'in 0 7ii 0 '0 z <( t1! en "0 00 ...J - e: co .~ Q. a. <( .... Q).t: ~ e: o .-= >. 'e 0 ~ ~ E 'in ~ ...;::,co;::,......... "P '" 0= 0 """Q) Q)- .0 -e 'E- () .5 e: .0 8 o"O"Cii5caoa.~>'Q) -e:"5....-Q)EEco.... .~ : ~ € .~ ~ :g co E. i:l "E .~ 0 co e: g "0 .... - C\l .2 -0 5 01'- ': "5 ....co'P.t:Q)...cOlCOO 01"0 co 01 co 00 .- e: ~ .t: '0 5 ~ ;::, .t: e: "0 '0. 00 en .8 00 0 0 .- .;! a. , Q) E I ........>.e:OCO<(:t:: Q) Q) <( :: co 01._ 0 0 en EoO"O~.Q>'>'....Q) Q) CO Q) Q) .- 0 ::0 .0 0 .t: ~'t::= e:= ~'en-"O-"" ... ;::, en .- co'" Q) "0 Q) en E;::, .t: oen :> Q) . E.o'O.... c-~ 0.0::> en"OC\l E;::, Q) - 8.~C\l O en Q) Q) co'... . = ..... ~ o g "0 >..g ~ .52 e a3 a: o - co ~.c 0 .2 E a. E c.. - Q).~ ~ ~]2co ~co EO ... en = 0.'- .t: 01 Ol.t: 8 ~ ,g ~ 6, 0 7ii Q) :: 0 - ~ c.. c.. 'in a ~ a ~ a.Q t1! .52 t) Q) 'e a. 00 C .t: Q) 0 .21 .... ~ U .t: .52 C?'olli 2c: ~_ ~ ~ .~ ~ :8 > e: ~ ~ .~ 'J '"- .1:: 8 co co co Q) I;; n t co ~ >. .Ql.t:.g - co "'E:: a.e: v-en~= en ~ Q)7ii2 .-= co.... E Q) 0 .c en ....... 0 co;::, .- e=E.g;::, O"O<('t: en "0 -:=Q)Q)eC:Q) ;::'en"O 1i 0 E en ~"O'-= ~ en.- e: _.!!Ja.cQ)Q)en:;:::.gQ)co 5ico.2Q)~~nCOen~g> e .!!2 ~ .! ;::, Q) .~ Z Q) :: .-= CbC\lQ) ....EOOlen.Q) a. 'P "0 ~ .g E Q.'~ ~ i E a: co iO' ~ a. R Q) 'as ~ = g;::' :::i ~ .c >. as ~ E .0 .~ ~~co.Q.o""co8"O- .<(t::"O"Og;~ e:~~ C\lot!~~w.ooco:=o O'l Q) co .- - iii >. cO:t::"OQ)E~":-Q)a:= ~ 'en ~ ~ e O'l ~ ~ ~ w :is 00 Q) 8..... g.'P"' Q) e: ;::, C\l co ':E enE"O:=Q)Oco.o <(:> e co 0 e: 0-8.~0'l e O>a.:=ocoI ....'P"'a. Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 39 ~ a. .~ Q) 'E~ co:g .~ 0 => e: co Q) .21 5 :0 en ~ 'E e: E ._ co co co- .~ == .~ 8: =en=co e:ene:_ .21 Q) .21 0 OO...JOOZ II II II II 00:::><( OO...JOOZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 40 (1) _ g c: caca 0 ;:; .~ += c:= ca .s c: .r:: .2 cfcW~~ > := :0 C:.- ollJ ._ c: ~8 .- lIJ .1:: (1) :lEa:: (1) _ g c: caca_o .- ~ :).- E:t::o~ .s c: .r:: ._ 0.2>:t:: .'!::: Q..C/)3::E lIJ (1) ~ :) lIJ ca (1) :E c: o Tii o += ~ lIJ U ca o .E C\I 0) cO ca :Eg> C/) ._ <c " (1) ... "-'lIJU (1) (1) l1:I :t:: Q. @. ~ ~ .5 ca - Cl) lIJ g ~ (1) .- Cl) ~U~ :) 2 l1:I 0_ lIJlIJ_ (1) c: c: ~ 0 cu iU () .~ ~ >.:t:: :) ca c: 3.0 ,~ () ~ CI) MQ;~ '" I- -- c: .~ .2 Ol t: :g .~ ~ "0:)0 ca '0 Q. u ca Q. .5 (1) c~ ca:2 .~ 0 = > c: ca (1) .2> 5 :0 lIJ B E c: E ._ cucaca- .~=.~ ~ =lIJ=ca c:lIJc:_ .2> (1) .2> 0 C/)...JC/)z II II II II C/);:)c( C/)...JCJ)Z T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 41 D. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Identified Alternatives Chapter VI of this SEIR contains an assessment of possible substantive changes in the comparative environmental evaluation findings of the 1982 EIR regarding four identified alternatives to the proposed project, including the following: . No Project Alternative (as required by CEQA; assumes that the 332-acre project site would remain in its current state, which now in September 1995 means no extension to the previous Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement entitlements, and no development activity beyond the current entitlement termination date of February 14, 1997. Under this scenario, a limited portion of the Phase I residential development would be completed, and development of Phases II and III would not be initiated); . Concept Plan Alternative (as presented in the concept plan proposed by W.W. Dean Associates in 1982, assumes residential uses and related community facilities similar in type and density to those contained in the approved specific plan and development agreement, but with less intense Phase III commercial development levels); . Alternative Designed to Conform With the Sphere of Influence Study (assumes development of 1,036 residential units and a 10-acre shopping center along the south- facing portion of the project site, and commercial and industrial development along the eastern portion, consistent with the Preliminary Site Utilization Plan included in the South Slope Sphere of Influence Study; and . Alternative Designed to Conform With the General Plan Amendment (assumes development of 985 multi-family residential units, of which 20 percent would be affordable to low and moderate income households, including a high-rise elderly housing complex, plus development of higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses, and a community center with a pre-school, cultural center, library, fire station, police station and religious facilities, consistent with the 1976 San Mateo County general plan amendment for San Bruno Mountain). 2. Conclusions CEQA guidelines stipulate that, "If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." 1 Of the various alternatives re-evaluated in section VI of this Supplemental EIR other than the "no project" alternative, it has been determined that the Concept Plan Alternative would result in the least adverse combination of environmental impacts and would therefore be the "environmentally superior" alternative. 'California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15126(d). WP511548IDSEIRIU548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR II. Summary Page 4~ E. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION For those mitigation measures identified in this SEIR that are included as supplemental conditions of project approval, a mitigation monitoring program would be formulated by the city for use to ensure effective mitigation implementation. Implementation of most of the mitigation measures recommended in this SEIR would be subject to effective monitoring through the city's normal development review procedures. However, to satisfy State AS 3180, a documented record of mitigation implementation will be necessary. Chapter VIII of this SEIR includes a suggested Mitiaation Monitorina Checklist for city staff use in meeting the requirements of AB 3180; i.e., in establishing the "who, what, when, and how" aspects for each supplemental mitigation measure from this SEIR that is ultimately required. WP51 \548\DSEIR\n548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 WP511548IDSEIRI TITLPGS.548 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft SEIR III. Project Description :~ c. / Basic map reproduced by pennission of the California State Automobile Association, copyright owner. REGIONAL LOCATION 01 ~I _I~ ~rth Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION SOURCE: wagstaff and Associates TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN Fl{ANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff cmd Asscx::iates T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 45 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed actions or .project" addressed by this SEIR. The project description is based on information contained in the 1982 EIR, the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement, and on materials submitted to the city by the project applicant. As stipulated by the CEQA Guidelines, the project description that follows has been detailed to the extent needed for adequate evaluation and review of environmental impacts. The description includes: {a} the location, boundaries and local setting of the project site; {b} a historical overview of the site and project; {c} a statement of the basic project objectives sought by the applicant; {d} the project's physical and technical characteristics; {e} the anticipated project phasing and construction schedule; and {f} the various permits and jurisdictional approvals required to allow construction of the project. The physical and technical characteristics of the overall project {Le., the proposed land use and circulation layout, community facilities, grading approach, landscaping concept, storm drainage, water and sewer provisions} are described in detail for project Phase I, and are described in more conceptual terms for future project Phases II and III. A. SETTING 1. Reaional Location As illustrated on Figure 1, the project site is located at the northern edge of the city of South San Francisco, in northern San Mateo County. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, and the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco are located to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, San Francisco International Airport and the city of San Bruno to the south, and the town of Colma and the city of Daly City to the west. U.S. Highway 101 {US 101)--the Bayshore freeway--provides regional access to the site via the Oyster Point interchange. 2. Local Settina As illustrated on Figures 2 and 3, the proposed project site is located along the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain at the northern edge of the city of South San Francisco. Portions of the site proposed for development are located within the city limits {Le., were annexed to the city in 1983}; portions of the site proposed to remain as open space have been left within unincorporated San Mateo County. The site is generally bounded on the north by San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, on the east by Bayshore Boulevard, on the south by Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard, and on the west by Hillside Elementary School and portions of San Bruno Mountain State and WP511548IDSEIRIII/,548 w Z <I: a:l en a: a:l ~\"7 '; A" N ~ . . . . "-.. "4 Q)...... o ~ . ~ ~~ . \ .,<, // ~ 6'0 < CD. \ :. / ._ ~ !- "'./ ~ \ \. . . II!;! ~ ' ~ . Vi I' ~ ----:- t....... i It ~. I. L" .l!;! ~ : 1-4 ~)a: Z cr:"w~ "t \~ 1-4 ~ !~.. U Q) \0 \ I :.. / 1-4 ) I ~"t/ ~~ > "-1lI. "tit Cl"t ~ ~ ~ i:.: cr: ~~ s~ ffi'" ~ ='=0 ~u I ... ... .---. 5: <II CD ='= 'ai leel g <II COOL ~ "0 c: ., = ., 0:; OOS C> ., :: w u a: ::J 0 0 en ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 48 County Park. Present access to the site is provided by Bayshore Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Randolph Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. 3. General Site Characteristics As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the 332-acre project site is approximately "L"-shaped, along the south- and east-facing slopes of San Bruno Mountain. The property consists of rolling, gently to steeply sloping terrain. Nearly half of the site contains slopes with gradients greater than 30 percent. Site elevations vary from 25 feet above sea level at the Airport Boulevard/Randolph Avenue intersection to 575 feet above sea level at the tops of slopes along the northwest edge of the property. The site contains several spur ridges, knolls, ravines and swales. A promontory knoll is located at the southeastern corner of the property adjacent to the Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Although grading and many common infrastructure improvements for the first phase of the approved project (Phase I) have already been completed, the majority of the project site remains as open space. Site vegetation is primarily non-native grassland on the lower portions proposed for development, with native grasses and soft chaparral on the higher, steeper slopes, and riparian-like vegetation in the ravines between knolls. The site is immediately adjacent to the expansive open space areas of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064-acre regional open space preserve with public trails and facilities. The site is also within the planning area of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which was adopted in 1982 to protect mountain habitats for a number of endangered butterfly species. 4. Site Historv San Bruno Mountain is a large expanse of hilly, undeveloped open space amidst some of the most densely developed areas in the Bay Area. Over the past three decades considerable attention and controversy have been focused on the mountain environs, including actions and responses by private developers, public agencies, concerned individuals and environmental organizations. Extensive city, county, state and federal planning efforts have been completed and coordinated to balance protection of the sensitive mountain environment with the increased local demands for housing development. In 1973, a general plan amendment application was submitted to San Mateo County by a private entity in an initial effort to develop 1,244 acres of unincorporated land on San Bruno Mountain. This development proposal included the Terrabay project site which at the time was totally unincorporated. In 1976, a revised county general plan amendment for San Bruno Mountain was approved, limiting development to three planning areas: the Northeast Ridge Planning Area, the Brisbane Planning Area, and the South San Francisco Planning Area. WP511548IDSEIR\III.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 49 The South San Francisco Planning Area (essentially the Terrabay project site) was designated in the county general plan amendment as a potential location for residential and commercial development. As the county general plan amendment was being considered, the presence of habitat on the mountain for endangered butterfly species became a key factor in the planning of San Bruno Mountain. Subsequent to county adoption of the 1976 general plan amendment, portions of the mountain were discovered to provide habitat for three federally-listed endangered butterfly species. First, later in 1976, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated the Mission blue and San Bruno elfin butterflies as "endangered" pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Another butterfly, the callippe silverspot was proposed for listing by the USFWS in 1978. Habitat for each of these species had been identified on the mountain. As a result, implementation of the development actions proposed in the county general plan amendment was stalled because it would have inevitably involved the "taking" of some butterflies, which was prohibited by the Endangered Species Act. To address this constraint, the county in 1980 commissioned an extensive biological study of the Mission blue, callippe silverspot and other butterfly species of concern. The findings of the study formed the basis for the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), adopted in 1982. The HCP provides for the protection and perpetuation of the endangered butterflies by allowing limited development and preserving and improving the remaining habitat. The HCP was formulated as the mitigation document for federal issuance of a limited development permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. The Section 10(a) permit, issued in 1982, allows limited development to proceed on the mountain in strict accordance with the provisions of the HCP. The Terrabay project development area, as subsequently approved by the county and city, was included in the HCP and Section 10(a) permit. Following federal and county adoption of the HCP, the 1982 EIR for the proposed Terrabay project specific plan (the "previous EIR") was certified by the county, and the county and city of South San Francisco jointly adopted a specific plan for the Terrabay project. To implement the adopted specific plan, the city in 1983 amended its city zoning ordinance to add the Terrabay Specific Plan District, annexed the 203-acre portion of the project site proposed for development, and adopted an ordinance approving an associated development agreement. The development agreement was legally executed by the city and applicant in 1988. In 1989, a precise plan and vesting tentative subdivision map were approved by the city for project Phase I; in 1990 a final subdivision map was approved for Phase I. Between 1989 and 1992, approximately 80 acres of the site were graded and most infrastructure improvements installed for development of Phase I. Development of the project was subsequently delayed by changes in ownership. Recently, a new project owner/applicant has requested city approval of a renewed construction program to complete Phase I of the development. In order to proceed on an WP51 \548IDSEIRVII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 50 interim basis, the City Council in April 1995 confirmed an extension of the expiration dates of the specific plan and development agreement until February 14, 1997. Since some components of Phase I, as well as subsequent project phases, may start after this specific plan and development agreement extension expires, the applicant has requested further extension of the termination date~ for the specific plan and development agreement entitlements. B. BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES The basic objectives of the development program, as derived by the SEIR authors from the goals and objectives statements presented in the 1982 Terrabav Specific Plan, are as follows: 1. Help reduce the housing shortage in the San Francisco Bay area and San Mateo County by providing a variety of new housing units within the Terrabay planning area; 2. Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in northern San Mateo County and the city of South San Francisco; 3. Reduce associated eF:lvironmental impacts and preserve open space through use of compact development design; 4. Blend the project into the undulating slopes of San Bruno Mountain by concentrating development in the ravines and leaving the knolls largely intact; 5. Minimize the impact on San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area by providing an open space zone and special development buffer zone; 6. Minimize traffic impacts through construction or participation in construction of roadway improvements, signalization and transportation system management (TSM) projects; 7. Reduce impacts on adjacent neighborhoods by development of a traffic buffer and a buffer zone park adjacent to Hillside Boulevard; 8. Provide water, sewer, drainage and energy utilities to serve the project; 9. Protect the HCP area and minimize water use through carefully planned landscaping featuring non-invasive, drought tolerant species common to San Mateo county; 10. Enhance access to San Bruno Mountain State and County Park recreational opportunities through provision of trail heads and trails to the park; WP51154S1DSEIRIIII.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 51 11. Provide community services and facilities for project and city residents including: a new fire station (SSFFD Fire Station #5), a new community recreation center (Hillside Recreation Center), internal neighborhood parks, a linear park, tot lots, play fields and other associated improvements at Hillside Elementary School, and a childcare center; and 12. Preserve archaeological site CA-SMa-40 through cover and seal measures. C. PROPOSED PROJECT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The new applicant proposes to first implement specific plan Phase I, with no substantive changes to the previously approved precise plan provisions for this phase (i.e., up to 293 homes). Eventually, the city also anticipates applicant implementation of the more conceptual specific plan Phases II and III. The specific plan indicates that these subsequent phases are expected to generally provide for up to an additional 428 homes, 44 acres of commercial development, and supporting community facilities and infrastructure. 1. Overall Development Concept The approved Terrabay project layout is diagrammed on Figure 4. Approximately 200 acres of the 332-acre site are proposed to be developed; the remaining 132 acres (about 40 percent of the site), consisting of the upper, more steeply sloping and less disturbed portions of the property, are to be permanently dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. a. Overall Land Use. The specific plan land use breakdown is summarized in Table 2. The plan includes the following land use components: · 136 single family detached homes (Terrabay Park); · 510 single family attached homes, including 381 townhomes (Terrabay Village and Terrabay Woods) and 129 terraced units (Terrabay Commons); · 99 single family condominiums (Terrabay Point); · an 11-acre office and health club complex; · a 33-acre hotel and trade center complex; · 20 acres of land for public roadway rights-of-way; · 10 acres of common community facilities areas; and · 132 acres of open space to be dedicated to the HCP area. Residential development areas are proposed for the south-facing portion of the site along Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard; commercial development areas are proposed for the east portion along Bayshore Boulevard near US 101. WP51 \548IDSEIRIIII.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 52 Table 2 TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN LAYOUT CHARACTERISTICS Dwelling Units per Acre 6.5 3.5 5.1 6.8 6.2 10.1 8.7 5.9 SOURCE: Terrabay Specific Plan, 1982 (as amended). , Acreages presented are from the 1982 Terrabav Specific Plan. Some acreages were changed in the subsequent Phase I Precise Plan (1989). Similar additional changes in acreage may occur with future approval of precise plans for subsequent project phases. 2 The specific plan (1982) and development agreement (1988) allow up to 181 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 136 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. The subsequent Phase I Precise Plan approval (1989) allows up to 168 townhomes and 125 single-family detached homes. WP51\548\DSElRI/II.548 -f m :D :D ~ OJ ~ -< -f :e m 0 :D 0 ~ c OJ en ~- -< o o 3: 3: -f 0 m z :D en :D , ~ OJ ~ 'tI o ~ ;g o \-I t'r.I q '=' t'r.I < t'r.I ~ o ~ ~ t'r.I ~ ~ ~::!1 >~ Z::. r. r r (J) o m :0 m C1 JJ ~ 5 -f Z m () :D ~ :D -l ~ m OJ :0 ~ 'tI ~ :D " !! :0 m ~ ~ o z o o !: !: m :D o 5> r Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 55 b. Residential Development. The residential portion of the project would be developed in Phases I and II, would occupy approximately 127 acres, and would consist of five separate "neighborhoods" (from west to east along Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard): Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park, Terrabay Woods, Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point (see Figure 4). These neighborhoods would be developed in distinct pockets at the lower elevations of the site, generally within natural swales or ravines, separated from each other by knolls, with the exception of Terrabay Point, which would be developed on the promontory knoll near the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. A total of 745 dwelling units were proposed in the 1982 specific plan: 136 single-family detached homes (18 percent), 381 single-family attached townhomes (51 percent), 129 terraced units (17 percent), and 99 condominiums (13 percent). As shown in Table 1, each of the five residential neighborhoods would feature a single housing product type. Housing densities would range from 3.5 units per developed acre to 10.1 units per developed acre with an average density of 5.9 units per developed acre overall or 3.3 units per gross acre. c. Commercial Development. Commercial development is proposed for the approximately 44-acre eastern portion of the site located along Bayshore Boulevard. Similar to the five residential components, the commercial development would be located in two development pockets, each featuring a different land use subtype: Office Condominium and Health Club Complex. The specific plan identifies an 11.3-acre area immediately north of the knoll located at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection for development of some combination of offices, a restaurant, and a health club. Although the breakdown of uses within this area will probably change in response to future market factors, the plan as adopted in 1982 anticipated development of the following specific components: · a four-story office structure with approximately 57,500 square feet of owner-occupied professional services in units of approximately 1,000 square feet each; · a 150-seat, 5,000 square-foot separate restaurant building located north of and adjacent to the condominium office building; · a private 18,000-square-foot health club with an indoor swimming pool, six racquet ball courts and a weight and exercise room directly behind the office building; and · five tennis courts on three terraced levels, stepping up the hillside behind the health club. Hotel and Trade Center Complex. North of the office condominium complex, the specific plan identifies a hotel and "tech" trade center complex. Although the breakdown of planned uses within this area will also probably change in response to future market factors, the 1982 plan anticipated the following: WP511548IDSEIRIIIJ.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 56 · an 18-story, 400-room hotel adjoining a high technology trade center with a total floor area of 268,700 square feet, including 27,800 square feet of permanent office space and 240,900 square feet of showroom space; · a common three-story atrium/entry lobby to be shared by the hotel and tech trade center. d. Common Community Facilities, Recreation and Open Space Provisions. The specific plan also calls for the following supporting community related facilities within the project's residential areas: a South San Francisco Fire Department fire station; a child care center and tot lot; the Hillside Recreation Center complex; a linear park; and five neighborhood parks. Fire Station 5 was constructed in 1992 on South San Francisco Drive near the project entrance opposite Jefferson Street. The child care center, to be located in Terrabay Village, would include a day care/pre-school center and an adjacent tot lot. The Hillside Recreation Center, a 3.2-acre community park with indoor and outdoor facilities, would be developed near the project entrance opposite Jefferson Street. The specific plan indicates that the recreation building is expected to include an indoor swimming pool, multipurpose room, activity room, weight room, dressing rooms and a tot lot. Outdoor facilities are expected to include a basketball court, par course system, children's playground apparatus, two illuminated tennis courts, a picnic barbecue and lawn game area, and parking for 61 vehicles. Given the amount of time that has passed since these parks and recreation needs were established, the city intends to re-evaluate the specific needs and components to be included in this recreation center facility. A 1 .3-acre linear park would be developed adjacent to Hillside Boulevard, connecting improvements at Hillside Elementary School with the Hillside Recreation Center. Five turfed neighborhood park areas would be provided in Terrabay Village, Terrabay Woods and near Terrabay Commons. A master association would own, operate and maintain the private facilities common to the entire residential area, including the child care center and common landscaped areas. Each individual neighborhood's private common areas and facilities, including the individual neighborhood park areas, would be owned and maintained by an individual neighborhood homeowners association. In the commercial areas, the project applicant would maintain private roads and common facilities until a suitable land sale and/or lease arrangements were made specifying maintenance responsibilities. The city would operate and maintain the public roadways, Fire Station 5, the Hillside Recreation Center, the linear park, and all common landscaping within these public areas (including within public roadway rights-of-way). WP51 \548IDSEIRI/II.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 57 e. Overall Circulation and Access. The project would be served by an intemal roadway system consisting of a single local public street and several private roads and lanes in the residential portion, and a private collector street in the commercial portion of the project. (1) External Vehicular Access. Freeway access to the project would be provided via the Oyster Point interchange and, for southbound traffic, the Bayshore Boulevard "scissors" off- ramp. Arterial access to the project would be provided via Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard and Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard. As part of the Phase I improvements already completed, Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the 1982 EIR) has been extended as a four-lane arterial roadway from the former intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Randolph Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard. The main entrance to the project's residential portion has been located and constructed on Sister Cities Boulevard opposite Jefferson Street, as shown on Figure 4. A second entrance has been partially constructed near North Spruce Avenue, as also shown on Figure 4. Access to the proposed commercial development would be provided via Bayshore Boulevard at three locations: two right-turn only driveways along Bayshore Boulevard and one new signalized intersection at the US 101 /Bayshore Boulevard ramps. (The existing "scissors" off- ramp would be reconstructed as a "hook" off-ramp and a new "hook" on-ramp would be added.) (2) Onsite Roadway Layout. The project's internal roadway system would feature a single public roadway, South San Francisco Drive; all other roadways would be privately owned and maintained (Figure 4). The residential and commercial portions of the project would have separate access and circulation. Residential. The internal roadway system for the residential portion of the project would consist of South San Francisco Drive and several private roads and lanes within each neighborhood. South San Francisco Drive is to be constructed parallel to Sister Cities Boulevard, connecting the main residential entrance opposite Jefferson Street and the second entrance opposite North Spruce Avenue, and each of the residential neighborhoods. South San Francisco Drive is to have a 60-foot-wide right-of-way with a single traffic lane and five- foot-wide bicycle lane in each direction, and no parking. Minor residential roads and neighborhood drives would have a 35-foot-wide right-of-way with two travel lanes and parking on one side only. Proposed residential roadway sections include sidewalks adjacent to curbs along one side of the street.' 'South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.63.120G.3 and H, and Terrabav Precise Plan pp. A20 and A36. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR III. Project Description Page 58 Commercial. The commercial area would be served by a 40-foot-wide, privately maintained collector street with a single travel lane and curbside parking in each direction. (3) Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Pedestrian access to and from adjacent existing neighborhoods would be provided at the signalized main project entrance opposite Jefferson Street, at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard with Sister Cities Boulevard, and at a pedestrian crosswalk and pedestrian pathway near North Spruce Avenue. A paved pedestrian/bicycle path would parallel Hillside Boulevard. Pedestrians would travel through the project along a separate pathway system. (4) Other Transportation Improvements. Proposed transit and TSM improvements include bus shelters and bus pullouts along Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard, preferential carpool parking in the commercial area, expanded transit, service, airport limousine service to the hotel and trade center complex, and carpool/van pool programs through the homeowners association. h. Overall Landscapina. Five landscape treatment zones are identified in the specific plan: "accent areas," "streetscape/interface," "view slopes," "transition slopes" and "habitat restoration areas." Accent areas include project entry areas, activity centers and major intersections. These areas would be more densely and formally landscaped with colorful shrubs and specimen trees. The various interfaces with adjacent existing neighborhoods would feature landscape treatment along the edges and in the median of Sister Cities Boulevard, with semi-drought tolerant, irrigated grasses, shrubs and trees planted to partially screen developed areas while maintaining open views of San Bruno Mountain. Interior manufactured view slopes would be planted with semi-drought tolerant, irrigated ornamental plantings to mitigate their visual impact. Transition slopes up to fifty feet wide along the project's perimeter are proposed to provide a gradual progression from view slopes to native grassland, a buffer for range fires, and vegetation restoration and erosion control. The first 25 feet of transition slopes would be a permanently irrigated fire buffer, hydroseeded with indigenous grasses, and interplanted with shrubs. The remaining 25 feet would be temporarily irrigated shrubs and trees in natural groupings. Habitat restoration areas would further blend the transition slopes into the natural grassland with finger-like planting areas extending up selected ravines featuring plant species carefully selected for habitat value. WP511548\DSEIRIIII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 59 The master and/or neighborhood homeowners associations would be responsible for all landscape maintenance, except for landscaping within the linear park, at Fire Station 5 and the Hillside Recreation Center, and within public roadway rights-of-way, which would be maintained by the city. i. Overall Gradino Approach. The project grading concept would include stepped building pads up the swales, leaving the knolls intact or preserving their distinct land form as much as possible. Earth slopes would generally be graded at two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Exceptions include the Sister Cities Boulevard cut near Terrabay Point and several other small areas where steeper slopes are proposed to preserve existing land forms. The plan states that these graded areas are located adjacent to private roads, driveways, and buffer areas where structures are not proposed. Slopes would be terraced and drainage ditches provided to control debris fall and surface drainage. Approximately 1,870,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,900,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed, requiring approximately 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill. Rough grading operations for Phase I and a portion of Phase II have been completed, including grading of Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park, and a portion of Terrabay Woods on the west end of the project, with a borrow operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point. The grading for Sister Cities Boulevard and rough grading of South San Francisco Drive were included in this completed grading phase. It is anticipated that the second phase of the rough grading operations would encompass the remainder of the residential and commercial development areas. Winterization and erosion control provisions are proposed to protect graded areas during the phased grading period. i. Drainaae. Runoff from slopes above the project site, as well as from the project's on-site drainage system, is to be intercepted and transported in three separate storm drain trunk lines (one collecting runoff from residential portions of the project which has already been constructed; one from the offices and health club complex; and one from the hotel and trade center complex) and directed under US 101 to the existing drainage ditch which parallels the freeway, and on to the bay. k. Water. Water service is to be provided by California Water Service from the San Francisco Water District water main in Bayshore Boulevard at a point near the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Booster pumps will lift water to the higher elevations of the project and to a new 1.5-million-gallon storage tank, which has been constructed at the 400-foot elevation near Terrabay Park. California Water Service will assume maintenance of the water tank and service mains. I. Sewer. A new off-site parallel sewer interceptor has been constructed along a segment of Airport Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and North Canal Street to carry project wastewater flows. On-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors have been constructed for WP51 \548\DSEIRI/II.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 60 Phase I, and will be constructed for Phases II and III, connecting to the city sewer system in Airport Boulevard. 2. Phase I Development The currently proposed completion of Terrabay Phase I will consist of continued development to completion of the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods at the western end of the site. a. Phase I Components Already Completed. Grading has been completed and most sewer, water and storm drainage improvements have been installed for Phase I. Sister Cities Boulevard has been constructed and the segment of Hillside Boulevard fronting the site has been widened. South San Francisco Drive has been constructed to full city standards through Terrabay Park, and as an interim paved construction vehicle roadway for the remainder of its length. Fire station 5 has been constructed and is in operation. Playfield improvements have been installed at Hillside Elementary School. b. Proposed Lot Layouts and Home Desion Characteristics. The precise plans approved for the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods specify the following: (1) Terrabay Villaae. The approved Terrabay Village precise plan consists of 168 townhouse lots developed at densities of approximately 6.5 units per acre at the westernmost end of the project site adjacent to Hillside Elementary School. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. There are to be five townhouse building types with two, three or four units each ranging in individual floor area from 1,520 square feet to 1 ,964 square 'feet, in a mix of five floor plan types with two or three bedrooms. Downslope units would vary from upslope units. All units would feature small private yards or decks. (2) Terrabay Park. The approved Terrabay Park precise plan consists of 125 single-family detached residences arranged in clusters of three and four at densities of approximately 3.5 units per acre. The lots are laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. Four floor plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,292 to 2,677 square feet, with three or four bedrooms. D. PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1. Phase I Phase I construction began in 1989. Between 1989 and 1995, most Phase I rough grading and infrastructure improvements were completed. The project sponsor has stated that construction of the Phase I residential units is expected to commence in 1995 and to be completed in 2000. WP511548\DSEIRll/l.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 61 2. SubseauentPhases Construction of subsequent phases is anticipated to occur as follows, with project buildout by 2004: Phase II Phase III Construction Completed 2002 2004 E. REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS 1. City of South San Francisco a. Current Approvals. Following certification of the previous EIR by San Mateo County in 1982, the city of South San Francisco and San Mateo County jointly adopted the specific plan for the Terrabay project. In 1983, the city amended the city zoning ordinance to add the Terrabay Specific Plan District and annexed the 203-acre portion of the project site proposed for development. In 1983, the city adopted an ordinance approving a development agreement. The development agreement was legally executed by the city and applicant in 1988. The current expiration dates of the specific plan and development agreement are February 14, 1997. In 1989, a precise plan and vesting tentative subdivision map were approved for Phase I; a final subdivision map was approved for Phase I in 1990. b. Needed Additional Approvals to Complete Phase I. In order to complete Phase I of the project before the specific plan and development agreement extension expires, and to implement subsequent project phases, further extension of the termination dates of the specific plan and development agreement will be required. Completion of Phase I will also require building permits for the individual homes, the Hillside Recreation Center,and the child care center. c. Needed Future Approvals to Complete Subseauent Phases. Development of subsequent project phases in the future would require approval by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council of related precise plans, and tentative and final subpivision maps for each phase of development. Additional, more detailed CEQA environmental review, "tierring" upon the program-level assessment in this SEIR, would be undertaken at that time. Design review approval for proposed residential and commercial site and architectural designs may also be required, and grading and building permits will also be required. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 62 2. City of Brisbane City of Brisbane approval would be required for implementation of any mitigations for traffic impacts involving Bayshore Boulevard, which is within the Brisbane city limits. 3. San Mateo County Because the project site was located within unincorporated San Mateo County prior to city annexation in 1983, the county acting as "Lead Agency" certified the 1982 EIR and jointly adopted the Terrabay specific plan with the city. The county also issued the grading permits and encroachment permits for Phase I grading operations and geotechnical repairs in 1988. Grading and encroachment permits would be required from San Mateo County for any grading activities for subsequent phases which may occur within county jurisdiction. As the HCP operator, the county will also make compliance determinations for each subsequent phase precise plan. 4. South San Francisco Unified School District In 1988, the South San Francisco Unified School District approved play field improvements at the Hillside Elementary School site. No additional school district approvals would be required for implementation of Phase I or subsequent phases. 5. Joint Powers Authority In 1988, the city and county also adopted an agreement establishing a joint powers authority (JPA) to oversee construction and maintenance of catchment basins on the project site and access roads (see section IV.E of this SEIR, Drainage and Water Quality). The JPA has approved the design of the catchment basins for Phase I and has overseen their construction, but has yet to accept them and assume ongoing maintenance. The JPA (or the county, if the JPA is disbanded and its responsibilities turned over to the county) must also approve design and construction, and accept responsibility for, catchment basins proposed as part of subsequent project phases. 6. Local Aaency Formation Commission The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approved city annexation of the project site in 1983. No additional LAFCo approvals would be required for implementation of Phase I or subsequent phases. 7. Reaional Water Quality Control Board The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been established to control the discharge of pollutants into water bodies. The WP51\548IDSEIRII1I.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR III. Project Description Page 63 project would be required to obtain a NPDES stormwater discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, through the city. These permits are required for the grading of five acres or more of land. Please see section IV.E of this SEIR (Drainage and Water Quality) for more information regarding project-related NPDES compliance requirements. 8. California Department of Transportation In 1988, Caltrans approved storm drain improvements within the Caltrans US 101 right-of-way needed to accommodate project stormwater flows. Additional Caltrans approvals would be required for implementation of any Phase I or subsequent phases mitigations (roadway or drainage) involving Caltrans facilities. See sections IV.C (Transportation) and IV.E (Drainage and Water Quality) of this SEIR for more information regarding these approval needs. WP51\548\DSEIR\/1I.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR III. Project Description Page 64 WP511548\DSEIRlIII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIONS WP51\548IDSEIRITITLPGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations WP51 \548\DSEIR\ T1TLPGS.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page 67 A. LAND USE This section of the SEIR addresses the various land use compatibility issues raised by the proposed project. Existing on-site and surrounding land use and open space patterns are first described and updated, followed by a summary of the land use impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR. To the extent necessary, the section then reevaluates (1) on-site land use impacts; and (2) project compatibility with the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods to the south, major arterials and the freeway, and with nearby commercial and school uses. 1. SETTING 8. Onslle Land Uses (1) Existina Uses and Easements. Existing on-site and surrounding land use characteristics are presented in Figure 5. The 332-acre project site consists of gently rolling to steeply sloping grassy terrain. Most of the site remains undeveloped, although substantial site modifications, including substantial grading have been completed since 1982 in preparation for Phase I. Three billboards and two San Francisco Water department easements containing Crystal Springs Water Mains No. 1 and No. 2 are located on the site along Bayshore Boulevard. A Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) easement traverses the site in a southeast to northeast direction near the South San Francisco Drive/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection (see Figure 2). The easement contains three electrical transmission Iines--the Standard 60kV, the Sierra 115kV and the San Francisco 115kV Iines--which serve San Francisco and deliver power from the city and county of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy system. The easement also contains a natural gas transmission line (Line 101). (2) Phase I Gradino and Habitat Restoration. Between 1989 and 1995, approximately 80 acres of the site were graded and site improvements constructed to prepare the site for Phase I development. Modifications completed since 1982 consist of all grading needed for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park, including all building pads and roadways, except for finish grading of individual home sites. Limited grading has also occurred in the Phase II areas of the project site, including a "borrow" operation and, in conjunction with construction of Sister Cities Boulevard and South San Francisco Drive, grading of the promontory knoll near the Sister Cities BoulevardlBayshore Boulevard intersection. Substantial slope stabilization and geotechnical repair work has also been completed (see section IV.E, Soils and Geology, for a more complete description of Phase I geotechnical WP51 \548IDSEIRI/V-A.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page 68 repairs). Of the 80 acres of the site that have been graded, approximately 30 acres have also undergone habitat restoration activities in accordance with the Terrabay Phase I reclamation plan approved in 1988 (see section IV.G, Vegetation and Wildlife, for a more complete description of those habitat restoration activities). (3) Boundary Adiustment. During grading for Phase I, a minor boundary adjustment was made in the area of the site to be dedicated to San Mateo County as permanent open space. The area of the project site proposed to be permanently disturbed was increased by 0.38-acre to accommodate needed geotechnical repairs encountered during Phase I grading. (4) Phase I Roadway Improvements. Site roadway improvements constructed since 1982 include construction of Sister Cities Boulevard between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard, and widening of Hillside Boulevard and creation of a local traffic frontage road betw,een Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site). South San Francisco Drive has been constructed to full city standards within the Phase I portion of the project, and as a paved construction vehicle roadway for the remainder of its length. (5) Other Infrastructure Improvements. Drainage improvements installed since 1982 include four large catchment basins needed to intercept drainage from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain above the project, the on-site drainage system serving Phase I, and the trunk line which will intercept drainage from Phases I and II and from the catchment basins. Onsite water improvements completed to date include the connection to the San Francisco Water Department pipeline, construction of the main water transmission line and water distribution lines for Phase I, and construction of the 1.5-million-gallon water storage tank above Terrabay Park. Sewer improvements installed since 1982 include all wastewater collection and interceptor lines needed to serve Phase I. Fire station 5 has also been constructed on South San Francisco Drive near the project entrance at Jefferson Street, and is now operational. b. Surroundina Land Uses The relationship of the project site to surrounding land uses is illustrated on Figure 5, and described below. (1) North. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064-acre regional park, is located immediately north of the project site. Although under both state and county ownership, the park is operated by San Mateo County as one facility. The county owns 1,766 acres, including the southeast ridge above the project. Improvement plans for the southeast ridge area are limited to trails. The park, like the site and all of San Bruno Mountain, is also part of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. The city of Brisbane is located on the north side of the southeast ridge. WP51\548\DSE/RI/V-A.548 ~~':e'~l~~'~~1Y/'~~1 AL" ,.' .' <\'~:.\ " \'~";.. ..~\~ '/~~.~i s~~_l16Ei~d!~L' uu_ _ ....,., '\" ':'~~:;.Z .S",' ~.~ ~~CJ7 \.~ . J::..~"( ~0 ~'~;J\ it. I;' (7~=',~~ QOO ..-.: '" -ff/ ':"1 '\ \ ~. '. ' :b~ ~'" \~ ...~ \ I.! ~~y\\~~ ~'I :$' ,~ :'1":' .'...~'~ ~ ~.;\\l. \\, i'l ~\\;;ri~' I ,_I ~..::- ~':"".." .~:, !;.'( ':i~\@", .~:~\JV '000 ,\~:~\~ \ ~ ..,. &>1J :'. '~', ' ~'@.:. 0 ~ ) ieet Jl}~' l .~. ~ . / / 00 ::\-"':.:..@.:..."'.." :..\~,~\cY^ ' i7 ,</ ,'~ ! i' \-,,\" . ///~"../ ..<..~.:.,::'..'.:::"b~~~)i?~f??~\1 ~/' ~~ ~ (If/',@",,;-, 'i3, 'f.~l ll. / A-/' \\~'~;~~~' ~~'::;t~/-~ ,~ ;, ' . /k{~':~'ll'~t, 'Ivlf,fNIHiI ','-, ' /.~ III '~~',:"'" ,..'.~~~~.,), ""{,"X:1" /{(..".,.....,~ 1.,' .':" ~ "'-., ~/ ~/ ~'; .... '.,.~ . :I.. ..' . ", ~. . "'" t+,.,....;, ,,' \ ! ';"'c ' . .~"" "..... " . ,,:.... . ... , , ,..:. ~,..; ~ ",,,., /R.... ' " ~"'--""! ,,'1 ~ ~/..:': :"..; I " ';"', ", ~ ~",....", , ~ ~ , ~#/~:::' ~~';:\\ I I: ~6 0" , '>. I,,'" '<'," ~ ",2A/~"'>\t-,...;r:' .~.( \~' :' J; ~~A- . v. 'i. ;', ",~,:' ;(:, ".." ' ,', ~ ,,~. '<', ~:<.:.", ,.. I ..;'. /'/ ~...~ ~ , ",j \ \ \ ~/'" ~.-/ , '~ ,. s' "-" 1>>' , ,~:/: '" i. v.; "......:: /#.. ~ '>-I'':'~ \ I.'".,?", ,.'~), ., ,ftr, ,~('.{',. .,@.,'."" " ~I, ~, L' \ ~ ~ " ' ,.' .'. .; r$r, ',' .' ~, III / "'" Z ~., ~'I' ~ll----' "'" ~_ /...<,.<""'... '. ,.' )/, :' ,:' ~i$;' ,~~..... . ~ ". ,'. ..--:,.,.:" "" '.~.,,< l; ~ \.\ '}, :!!!!..;, ' ;>~, oJ .1<' $... .! '. - JU ; . AiJ, ."~~~~" ,.' J ," , ~ , ':~~ I~Ui ,,~ ,':I . .....'" "'., ,V ",,~' if "" " r.;.""\.,..~~ . .l4( \....~: ~<." '>-... - f ! I ..' ' ~'."'" 8,. ..' '\1';.". ....~_ ' . . " . . i\' ~. , .' ,.... ~ #' ";1/.;,0., " '*" ;; '0 , Ii '. ~ t~ '\'.."t'~ ~'I'I~'}~<\.t,V.)~. '.;" ).1:;; '0 \)v'~' ': ....~ 1'~"'~~li eiJ .1:'0 . " rd.,l :N'~' "J, ;,~y - <. ~ /.'0 : ,~ .' ,,' \ ~~((,~ 1/ rf.{~~} /#-?: ,\~~: , ~'YV. ~ <l'l '''., ~ " . ,~;d,\\, ~~-.,~, ~'fij/i' }:,:;:;: . :I. ~'. ?G-~'" '. ~., . ~:':\~~D\ t ~~~,~~j1/l'.~V:.:W.,~:.,$~ a7;~' .~.~<rv;~~ ~ ~'~~\~~ "y ~ ~~~/'&Y ~ .'<" ~~'~~ '~i:;,~ 2'_ \'.~/~e~~~ ~~. ~.""'~\ ~<1J""::.,::..... ", .:":_'.~.,>r'/ffiw~"'~~~\lll:,~'., ~r.'1}"'( "'~" s....,' ': ' .. ", ',i .":::~:'.fi' it\. \. " '>i#~": I (PVr~\t'r:'.,',\>, ':~ ' .' ~ ill. >'>" ':< /, ,': ,'! '~ .'5i "'C:S ~_,. ~\")o,, ',: ...~, "~ ~ . " ~"~l '" J.l 4'~' !'\ "~) ~ '. ~ '. " ) ::'r' ......__ ,', ~~~~' ...' .. '"' 'i., t!' "" ',' ti)~.. " ';'" :~ ~i ft.. ;' rij ,l . '\\):r~'Y 11 ,,' ~/J!l7Jt ,...,:., ~~""cii~~ ~:~.:'.:~~!":,~>,':, " "~\. ..' ~~~~. ~~~.:).._~~~;:~~~ ~')~~mt;sr~~t.0.:,~:;~l!liJj,.~~~<:: t; '" ',.; ,....,..' ,(;.,~'::;~~ '1$ 8~: II /i)': rAVe: .' '. ',' "C:S --~ .~< ..'~.", ~" . Ii!> . Ii!> . ' . ~'" 'Iff ,,,: <l!: " " ..,. lIllni!; ~~~~~~'.... ' '. . '" ~ \ / ~ :0~tB'I//:b Ii ~... ,: "';- .~.," ~I;;E ~ .",.:~~, . ""'. ,'@ .,' -~- ''/;t!l'. : il'~: , ' . --, '~H~: oIl!.! I ,.,,/ ", "',,,,::'.f'" ':0' . .... . ',; .'\, i! ~ \ ~""'-:l' ::" I: . 1if4-;v,-.J' <,~. .(~.. ~.^'-...~ ,.- , ,. "".' ~ ""~'~" ,J :: .' fin ?1~/I t(j ~~+< ;(~b ~ II ~ ~. 9 (_ /.... :;..:;:1.- ,'" //.~ I"$,/:,,lj " }fifJ~: . t 7' '~' ~\ yC~~~'\. \\i\~\\~~. ~~rC~:. ' . u, 3.tl bi '^" '" \'PI 7 "'(\)~'~" ~ r. ~,.....,~> /J'/ - .1 .."'I,>., ~. V/!'~ ,~7f] 1 :), ':.,;' .," ..1""/ )) sa I \~"~~)\ n, ~ ! ". '. ....... . ~ . I, ~k-:' ,:. "<11(/J ~ \~~\~. I}/-<.J--. ", . ',/ ../:b'm:~"" z I ;/~7fjl~' :', ~~ '-. ~ il ~ l: ~,-----.,. ~ '". e " ~ . ..'rtf.,. '" .,. '/~ I- ,<;~;xj / e'. 'i':' , T':, ).,./9 .'j.1[J)!~~!i' I;'{ " . \:' /,..~s('~/.~:~~i~ ( , ( ." . '.,' (',! . '~. -< . '^ I \,\,\\~ /~, ..;, :');.. )0 \. ....."" '~- - 1'llllJI \\~~~'7r;Ji.l!~ ,i ....f!I~,:~~~l' , ..{ I ./ ~ '"'' '. . :'1.''''1(1'>:-;,/.'.... "'/~," J"!J3fD .. .-,."~~~' / . '1/ '----- ~'f ~ . I tjifJJJl'.'..'.,~-fr\' ,,' , " ~ ~}jfrl lI17r-'!lTr . .'.,,0:;,<::'.,'. 'f' ,'0' ,fi ":~":" '$ 7'/ ...""... '" '-" """" ./ /' ,. "..... _Ii" ~ '. 'im': * .... . 11. ~r / ~ "f l ~>~r::,~~L, . ji~i~~'. :-';"". '. t\~'~' ..i.:...... I.fb...\j'iz )A:~ . ~\\))~".. . ,~1~0l> . ~M // / \ ~. .-: ~ ~.. "~i" /'._ ;.~11~~'.~,..: .&:.:-:'.~>~Fr-r ;:~p~~< ~~J JiL ~"""--- ~rr1t 'I;?t"<~.\., \ a; 1-:' \,(1.1 C,"\ .. ~~ / ~~" ,) i, ~ \\~\"~~.. X~.' \"\' ~ i...:~~_ 1"'=0~ I' "",' ,; ., ~ J' '1~~~'j..~~~' I Ul ~~.., ." ii' ". "-.. . 0 . o~ . ' /'.. . ~'\'~;~ I ~ . I. _! . . t~ ^'-..."---.,~. se ~~ 'l" ~/ ...~. \ ,/ ' - . .-1.a / . . -' "-I Af ~ \ .f< ---~~~~r \\:~\~q:' j"! I; I' ,/ ~~ ,;'0 ~ 'L< ~/. ~ " \ .~ 1 ~ ~~ '.' ,-' ! -""_.-::::<~, l~~. ~,>:, " I ~ ..I,. ~ ~. .. . ~l~- '1\ " . 0 ~ .~~ ~ sa ii1 ~ 0 c ~ ~ :E i a )> ~ .t g \ rr.I >< ~ trJ ~ ~ z G') r-c > Z o c::::n trJ~ rr.I<.n ~~ ~~ "i ~~ o ~ ~ . , _/- i , , , , , --.--_ ..1____ __un,' ! ! , , : I : I _____________1 -------------. , , mim ml! u.L-_ __ __ __~ i I : I , . ! ! T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page 71 (2) East. The eastern portion of the project site is fronted by Bayshore Boulevard. Immediately east of Bayshore Boulevard is US 101, a drainage channel paralleling the freeway on its east side, a public storage center located on a long, narrow parcel between US 101 and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTCo) railroad tracks, and the railroad tracks themselves. The portion of the city of South San Francisco east of US 101 is generally industrial in nature, with some hotel and retail uses along the US 101 corridor. There are currently no residential uses in this area. Northeast of the project site is the KolI Center Sierra Point business center, located in the city of Brisbane, which includes three high-rise office buildings and a marina. East of US 101 and the SPTCo railroad tracks is the vacant KolI site, which is within the city of South San Francisco, but is accessible only from Sierra Point to the north. South of the KolI site is the 55-acre vacant Shearwater site, located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Further east is Oyster Point, comprised of the Oyster Point Marina and the Oyster Point Business Park, both of which include a mix of commercial and recreational uses. At the southeast corner of the project site is the newly reconstructed Oyster Point interchange. Further to the southeast is a zone of retail, office and light industrial freeway frontage uses, which includes the Caltrain (commuter rail) station. The Gateway area, located east of the SPTCo railroad tracks and south of Oyster Point Boulevard, is a major office, commercial and research park. (3) South. Land uses south of the site consist of single family homes in the "Peck's Lots" and Paradise Val!ley neighborhoods. The PG&E transmission lines and associated easement which traverse the site extend south over a small hill located in the Peck's Lots neighborhood near North Spruce Avenue. South of the Paradise Valley neighborhood is Sign Hill, an open, grassy hilltop whose south-facing side is dominated by the distinctive and familiar "South San Francisco The Industrial City" sign. Further south is the downtown area, which includes the main shopping street on Grand Avenue, some service commercial and retail uses on side streets, and civic facilities including the historic city hall and library. Some multi-family residences are located to the southwest of the site, in the vicinity of Stonegate Drive. (4) West. Hillside Elementary School is located immediately west of the site. Playfield improvements, including an illuminated softball field, soccer field, bleachers and a restroom, were constructed at the school in 1988 as part of the project offsite improvement commitments. Further west, over a ridge beyond the school, is Juncus Ravine, which was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. c. Anticipated Cumulative Development Activltv in the Site Vicinity Current approved and anticipated development in the project vicinity as of September 1995 includes two projects totaling 110 single family detached homes near the Chestnut Avenue/ WP511548\DSEIRI/V.A548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IVA Land Use Page 72 Sunset Avenue intersection, and a 30-unit motel proposed for development at the Airport Boulevard/Armour Avenue intersection. The 55-acre Shearwater site, located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline immediately east of US 101 and north of Oyster Point Boulevard, is designated for development of Planned Industrial and Planned Commercial uses in the East of 101 Area Plan. A specific plan developed for the Gateway area provided for ultimate buildout of 2.5 million square feet of office space, 1,300 hotel rooms, 500,000 square feet of research and development space, and 60,000 square feet of retail. Current development activity within the Gateway planning area is limited to the 125,000-square-foot Britannia Biotech Center, scheduled to begin construction in 1996. Continued near-term buildout in accordance with the specific plan is considered unlikely in today's market. 2. IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS-1982 EIR Project land use and open space impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 2. 3. CHANGES IN IMPACT FINDINGS The discussion below reevaluates the land use impacts of the proposed project, including on- site land use impacts due to the loss of open space; project contribution to cumulative changes in the area-wide open space pattern; compatibility of the project with adjacent land uses including the Peck's Lots and Paradise Valley residential neighborhoods to the south, and the adjacent freeway and arterials; and internal land use compatibility among the various residential, commercial and recreational components of the project. Consistency of the project with adopted land use policies is described in section V of this SEIR, Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies. a. Slanlficance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would be considered to have a significant land use impact if it would: a. Conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; b. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; or c. Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the area. WP511548\DSEIRI/V-A.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IVA Land Use Page 73 Table 3 1982 EIR LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact The project would convert approximately 179 acres (54 percent) of the 332-acre site from open space to residential and commercial uses, contributing to a local and regional loss of open space and recreation lands, and eliminating exiting informal use of these areas by local residents. Approximately 153 acres would be dedicated to San Mateo County and incorporated into San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, thereby increasing the amount of local and regional open space preserved as public lands. Proposed commercial uses would be compatible with existing and proposed land uses along the US 101 corridor. Mitioation No mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. No mitigation is required. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 \5481DSEIR1/ V-A. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IVA Land Use Page 74 b. Open Space Impacts (1) Onsite Loss of Open Space. The proposed project would convert approximately 200 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the 332-acre site from open space to residential, commercial and recreational use. This 200-acre total would include approximately 40 acres of single family detached homes, 86 acres of town homes, terraced units and condominiums, 44 acres of commercial uses, 20 acres of land for public roadway rights-of-way, and 10 acres of common community facilities areas. The remaining 132 acres would be dedicated to San Mateo County as permanent open space for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. As determined in the previous (1982) EIR, this project-related conversion of existing open space to urban use would represent a less than significant impact. (2) Cumulative Loss of Open Space. The 1982 EIR stated that the project would contribute to cumulative reductions in the amount of remaining local and regional open space and recreational lands, eliminating informal use of these areas. As anticipated in the 1982 EIR, approvals of various development projects since 1982 have substantially reduced the amount of remaining open space on San Bruno Mountain (as identified in the subsequent 1982 San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, or HCP). Development projects contemplated in the 1982 HCP and included in the associated Section 10(a) permit would result in a total permanent conversion of 336 acres of open space on San Bruno Mountain (of which 221 acres has already been converted). These cumulative impacts on open space would be mitigated by the provisions of the HCP, including project dedication of Juncus Ravine and 132 acres of the higher-elevation, more steeply sloping portions of the site to San Mateo County as permanent open space for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. c. Land Use Compatibllitv Impacts (1) Permanent Land Use Compatibility Impacts. The project and surrounding land uses are generally compatible. However, the following location-specific potential incompatibilities have been identified. (a) Compatibility with Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods. Adjacent single family residential uses, while lower in density than the proposed Phases I and II town homes, would be separated from these project residences by a minimum distance of approximately 200 feet, by a minimum 30 foot difference in elevation, and by Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard. Hillside Recreation Center would be located approximately 180 feet across Hillside Boulevard from the nearest residences in the adjacent Paradise Valley neighborhood to the south. The proposed recreation center illuminated tennis courts, basketball courts and play areas would be located closest to these adjacent residences. Given the degree of separation and the existing ambient noise setting, noise from recreational activities at the center and nighttime lighting would be expected to have a less than significant land use compatibility impact on these adjacent residences. WP51 \548\DSEIRII V-A. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SErR IV.A. Land Use Page 75 Fire Station 5, which has already been constructed on South San Francisco Drive near the project entrance at Jefferson Street, would be located approximately 300 feet from the nearest residences south of the project across Hillside Boulevard. Noise impacts from fire engine response to emergencies and related mitigation needs are described in section IV.H of this SEIR (Noise). (b) Compatibility With Adjacent Open Space Areas. The project has been designed to be generally compatible with adjacent open space areas, recreational uses and rare and endangered species habitat in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. The project, together with other development on San Bruno Mountain, has been developed in accordance with the provisions of the HCP, is therefore expected to ultimately enhance the overall long- term survival of identified rare and endangered species on San Bruno Mountain. Project development areas would be fenced off from adjacent open space lands. Habitat restoration of temporary disturbance areas and landscape treatment and irrigation of "transition slopes" would reduce potential incompatibility by improving habitat quality and providing a substantial buffer. (c) Compatibility With Adjacent Freeway and Arterials. Project residences and the proposed commercial components may be subject to noise intrusion from the adjacent Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101. Related noise impacts and mitigation needs are discussed in Section IV.H of this SEIR (Noise). (d) Compatibility With Hillside Elementary School Play Fields. Playfields were constructed at Hillside Elementary School immediately adjacent to the site's western end as part of off-site project improvements. These playfields have night-time lighting and permit night games. Games must end by 10:30 P.M. (and usually end earlier) and the lights remain on until the fields are clear. Many units in Terrabay Village border and would be located as close as 120 feet from the edge of the playfields. Related noise impacts and mitigation needs are addressed in section IV.H of this SEIR (Noise). Nighttime lighting at these playfields could be expected to cause a significant land use compatibility impact on adjacent project residents in the Terrabay Village neighborhood. (Supplemental Impact LU-1) (2) Temporary Proiect Construction Period Land Use Compatibility Impacts. Temporary adverse land use conflicts with adjacent residential properties in the Peck's Lots and Paradise Valley neighborhoods would be anticipated with the proposed project construction activities. While most heavy earthwork and construction of Sister Cities Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard have been completed, adjacent residences would still be expected to be exposed to significant construction-related noise and dust impacts. These construction-related land use compatibility impacts would be temporary, but significant. These impacts, and related mitigation needs, are discussed in sections IV.H (Noise) and IV.I (Air Quality) of this SEIR. (3) Internal Proiect Land Use Compatibility Impacts. Potential land use compatibility impacts exist among project residential, fire station, and electrical transmission line elements. WP51 \548\DSEIRIJ V-A.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page 76 (a) Compatibility Between Project Residential Units and Fire Station 5. Fire Station 5 would be located approximately 125 feet from the nearest residences in Terrabay Park. Fire engine response to emergencies would have a significant compatibility impact on surrounding project residences associated with noise. These impacts and associated mitigation needs are addressed in section IV.H of this SEIR (Noise). (b) Compatibility Between Project Residential Units and Existing Electrical Transmission Lines. Proposed units in the western grouping of Terrabay Commons (west) would be located near the PG&E transmission line easement. The location of urban development near high voltage electrical transmission lines raises concems regarding possible health and safety risks for humans related to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from the lines. The question of possible health effects due to EMF exposure has generated a considerable amount of research. The results of the studies have varied. Early studies found no conclusive evidence of harmful effects from power line electric fields. More recent studies have suggested a possible association between residential exposure to EMF and adverse health effects. Other recent studies have found no correlation between magnetic fields and adverse health effects. PG&E easement provisions prohibit the location of any structures or other permanent obstructions within these easements that would inhibit maintenance access to a transmission line or tower. Beyond these easement requirements, PG&E has not adopted any additional guidelines or criteria with respect to residential or other setbacks from transmission lines. Normal landscaping, parking areas and fencing are generally allowable. There are currently no known federal, State of California, Public Utility Commission, San Mateo County, or city of South San Francisco regulations regarding setbacks from electric power lines to limit EMF exposure. The Schools Planning Division of the California Department of Education has formulated a policy that establishes minimum setbacks between transmission line rights-of-way and new schools. Although the division acknowledges that there is no hard evidence proving that exposure to power lines causes adverse health effects, they have taken a conservative stance and recommend a 100-foot-wide setback from the edge of the easement of a 100-110kV line. If California Department of Education setback recommendations for new schools were also applied as significance criteria for residential uses, EMF exposure for residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of the transmission line easements would represent a potentially significant health and safety impact. (Supplemental Impact LU-2) 4. CHANGES IN MITIGATION FINDINGS Section 21085 of the California Environmental Quality Act states that a public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project altemative WP51 \548\DSE/RI/V-A.548 Terrnbay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page n "...if it determines that there is another specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. N Mitigation measures recommended in this SEIR are guided by this provision. a. Land Use Compatibility Impacts (1) Compatibility With Hillside Elementary School Play Fields. (Supplemental Impact LU-1) In order to reduce potential land use compatibility impacts of the Hillside Elementary School playfield nighttime lighting on the nearby proposed project residences in Terrabay Village to a less than significant level, use of the play fields should be prohibited after 10:30 P.M. In addition, playfield lighting should be adjusted as necessary to limit impacts, applying the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America standards for safe sports and recreational lighting for Class IV (social and recreational). If possible, a qualified lighting engineer should specify any modification necessary to ensure that the playfield lighting is no brighter than that required for safety and to orient the lighting away from the housing. Also require disclosure of recreation center operations to prospective project residents. (2) Compatibility Between Proiect Residential Units and Existino Electrical Transmission Lines. (Supplemental Impact LU-2) The significance of the health risks associated with different levels of EMF exposure has not been officially established. However, it is prudent to reduce residential exposure to EMF when possible. As part of the future review process for project Phase II, request from the applicant an independent study of this PG&E transmission line and its potential project Phase II impacts and mitigation needs. Also require that the project-specific environmental documentation for project Phase II include adequate examination of this transmission line, its potential EMF impacts on Phase II residential units and warranted mitigation needs. Measures that should be considered in this project-specific mitigation program to limit EMF exposure include: Setbacks. Modify the project design for the western grouping of Terrabay Commons in Phase II so that proposed residential structures and outdoor living areas are adequately separated from the edge of the transmission line easement (see Figure 5). (This measure would require only minor modifications in the development plan.) Disclosure. Require that all prospective residents of project homes within a prescribed distance from the transmission line easement edge be notified in writing by applicant of the potential EMF health risks associated with power transmission lines. This could be achieved by requiring that such disclosures be included in the sales and rental materials to be signed by future project residents. WP51\548IDSEIRI/V-A.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.A. Land Use Page 78 WP51 \548IDSE/RI/ V-A.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 79 B. POPULATION AND HOUSING This SEIR section describes project population and housing impacts. The section includes a description of the current population and housing inventory in the city, a summary of the population and housing impact findings of the 1982 EIR, and an updated supplemental description of project impacts on current population and housing conditions and needs in the city and region. 1. SETTING 8. Population (1) Reoional and Local Population Trends. Current and projected population estimates for the San Francisco Bay Region, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco are described below in order to provide the proper updated context for considering the population impacts of the Terrabay project. The descriptions are based primarily on the most recent demographic data published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG's Proiections '94), which are summarized in Table 4. Bay Area. As indicated in Table 4, ABAG estimates that there were approximately 6.0 million people living in the Bay Area in 1990, and the current 1995 population of the Bay Area is approximately 6.50 million. ABAG projects that the region's population will reach 6.88 million by 2000, an increase of approximately 5.7 percent over five years. By 2010, ABAG projects that the region's population will reach 7.53 million, an increase of approximately 9.6 percent over ten years. San Mateo County. As indicated in Table 4, ABAG estimates that there were approximately 649,623 people living in San Mateo County in 1990 and approximately 689,600 people living in the county in 1995. ABAG projects that the county's population will grow to 713,000 by 2000, an increase of approximately 3.4 percent over five years. Between 2000 and 2010, ABAG projects that the county's population will reach 749,400, an increase of approximately 5.1 percent over ten years. South San Francisco. In 1990, there were approximately 54,380 people living in South San Francisco. ABAG estimates that there were approximately 57,800 people living in South San Francisco in 1995, and anticipates that by the year 2000 the city's population will rise by approximately 2.8 percent to 59,400. Between 2000 and 2010, ABAG projects that South San Francisco will grow to 62,500, a 5.2 percent increase'over the ten years. WP511548\DSEIRI/V-B.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 80 Table 4 ABAG POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS--REGIONAL AND LOCAL, 1990-2010 Percent Percent Population Increase Households Increase Bay Area 1 1990 6,021,097 2,246,242 1995 6,504,600 8.0 2,361,010 5.1 2000 6,875,400 5.7 2,512,270 6.4 2005 7,249,500 5.4 2,662,170 6.0 2010 7,533,200 3.9 2,792,030 4.9 San Mateo County 1990 649,623 241,914 1995 689,600 6.2 249,570 3.2 2000 713,000 3.4 259,530 4.0 2005 734,100 3.0 268,320 3.4 2010 749,400 2.1 275,340 2.6 South San Francisco 1990 54,380 18,568 1995 57,800 6.3 19,110 2.9 2000 59,400 2.8 19,700 3.1 2005 61,000 1.0 20,330 3.2 2010 62,500 2.5 20,940 3.0 SOURCE: ABAG Proiections 94, December 1993, pages 91, 242, and 245; Wagstaff and Associates, 1995. 1 The Bay Area includes the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region. WP51I548\DSE/RI/V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 81 (2) Existina Onsite Population. There are currently no people living on the project site. b. Housina (1) Existina Reaional and Local Housina Characteristics. Table 4 and the following discussion refer to "households," rather than "dwelling units," since the ABAG's Proiections '94 pertains to households, not dwelling units. The t~rms "households" and "dwelling units," as defined by ABAG, are similar but not equivalent; a "household" is defined as an occupied dwelling unit. The current household projections for the Bay Area, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco are summarized in Table 4 and described below. Bay Area. There were approximately 2.2 million households in the Bay Area in 1990. ABAG estimates that there were approximately 2.4 million households in the Bay Area in 1995, and projects that there will be approximately 2.5 million households by 2000, an increase of approximately six percent between 1995 and 2000. By 2010, ABAG anticipates that there will be approximately 2.8 million households in the Bay Area, an increase of approximately 11 percent between 2000 and 2010. San Mateo County. ABAG estimates that there were approximately 241,914 households in San Mateo County in 1990, and approximately 249,570 households in San Mateo County in 1995. ABAG projects that there will be 259,530 households countywide by 2000, an increase of approximately 4.0 percent over the five-year period. By 2010, ABAG anticipates that the county will have 275,340 households, a ten-year increase of approximately 6.1 percent. South San Francisco. ABAG estimates that there were approximately 18,568 households in South San Francisco in 1990, and approximately 19,110 households in the city by 1995. ABAG projects that by 2000 the total will increase by approximately 3.1 percent to 19,700, and by 2010 South San Francisco will include 20,940 households, a 6.3 percent increase between 2000 and 2010. (2) Existina Onsite Housina. There are no existing homes onsite. (3) Local Housina Needs. Under Sections 65581 and 65584 of the California Government Code, cities and counties are required to make a sustained, serious effort to provide for their appropriate share of regional housing needs, as determined by local councils of governments. In pursuit of this mandate, ABAG, which is the council of governments for the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, periodically makes housing needs determinations for each city and WP51\548IDSEIRI/V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 82 county in the region. The determinations are based on anticipated employment opportunities, commuting patterns, and local site availability for residential development.' State law also requires that the needs determination for each city and county be expressed in terms of four specified income levels, so that each jurisdiction can make plans to provide for its "fair share" of regional housing needs by income group. To make these determinations, ABAG uses the conventional U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined income categories of very low for those households earning up to 50 percent of the median income for the region, low for those earning more than 50 percent to 80 percent of the median income, moderate for those earning more than 80 percent to 120 percent of the median income, and above moderate for those earning more than 120 percent of the median regional income. According to ABAG's Proiections 94, the median regional income for the Bay Area in 1990 was $56,000, and the median regional income for 1995 is projected to be $54,500. The 1995 median income for a four-person household in San Mateo County (i.e., the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area) reported by HUD was $58,800.2 Assuming a 1995 median regional annual household income of approximately $58,800, very low-income households would be those earning up to $29,400 in 1995, low-income households would include those earning from $29,400 to $47,040, moderate-income households would include those earning from $47,040 to $70,560, and above moderate-income households would include those earning over $70,560. The housing needs estimates for South San Francisco contained in ABAG's most recent housing needs determination document published in January 19893 state that the city needed to provide a total of 2,814 housing units between 1988 and 1995 in order to accommodate its share of projected regional growth. Of these 2,814 units, ABAG estimated that 535 (19 percent) needed to be affordable to very low-income households, 450 (16 percent) to low- income households, 619 (22 percent) to moderate-income households, and 1,210 (19 percent) to above moderate-income households in order for the city to meet its fair share of regional housing needs over that period.4 ABAG housing needs estimates beyond the year 1995 are not available as of this writing. 'Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco Bav Area Housina Needs Determinations, Jaooary, 1989, page 20. 2U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Fiscal Year 1995 Income Limits," January 18, 1995. 3ABAG does not anticipate publishing a new housing needs determination document until 1997. 4Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bav Area Housina Needs Determinations, January 1989, page 49. WP51 \548IDSE/RI/V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 83 c. Jobs/Housina Ratio Since 1982, regional planning goals have increasingly emphasized the need to improve the balance between housing and jobs in various subregions as a means of reducing intraregional commuting and associated traffic congestion and air quality impacts. The term "jobs/housing ratio" is commonly used to describe the relationship between the number of local jobs available and the number of local employed residents. While the "jobs/housing ratio" is the term most often used, the "jobs/employed resident ratio" is the more precise measure of the local relationship of housing to jobs, since households, on average, contain more than one employed resident. To the degree that a balance is achieved between local jobs and employed residents, there is greater opportunity for local residents to work close to where they live. A "balanced" local "jobslhousing ratio" therefore tends to reduce a community's contribution to regional traffic congestion, noise, and air quality impacts. Where a city's local jobs-to-employed residents ratio is substantially higher than the regional ratio, a higher tendency toward in-commuting is indicated; where the local ratio is substantially lower than the regional ratio, a higher tendency towards out-commuting is indicated. At a central location within the regional circulation system (like South San Francisco), the goal should be to seek a balanced ratio between employed residents and jobs to minimize in- and out-commuting in the peak traffic hours. Table 5 illustrates the jobs-employed resident ratio trend in South San Francisco as compared to the county and region as a whole. The table indicates that South San Francisco has continued to have more local jobs than local employed residents. In 1980, there were approximately 138 jobs per 100 employed residents, a 1.38 ratio. In 1990, the ratio had increased to 1.53 jobs per employed resident as compared to 0.99 for the Bay Region. In 1995, the ratio had further increased to 1.58, as compared to 0.99 for the Bay Region. The comparatively higher city ratios indicate a higher existing tendency towards in-commuting in South San Francisco. Similarly, the ABAG projected city and county jobs/employed resident ratios for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010 indicate a similar comparatively higher city ratio of jobs to housing and an associated continuing tendency toward high in-commuting. In 1990, the ratio increased to 153 job.s per 100 employed residents. ABAG estimates indicate that the 1995 ratio in South San Francisco is similar to that for 1990, with approximately 157 jobs per 100 employed residents. After 1995, the ratio is expected to increase until 2000 (with a ratio of 1.64) after which a decrease is projected. ABAG projects that in 2010 there will be 156 jobs per every 100 employed residents. 2. IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS-1982 EIR Project population and housing impacts and mitigations identified in the 1982 EIR are presented in Table 6. The 1982 conclusion was that the project would have a beneficial effect in meeting ABAG-identified local housing needs and city-adopted general plan housing development goals for the 1980 through 1985 period. No mitigation was required. The 1982 WP51\548IDSEIR\/V-B.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 84 Table 5 ABAG-ESTIMATED JOBS/EMPLOYED RESIDENT RATIOS--CITY, COUNTY, AND REGION, 1980-2010 1980 1990 1995 ~ 2005 2010 South San Francisco: Total jobs 36,129 43,200 43,900 47,470 48,240 49,370 Total households 17,585 18,968 19,110 19,700 20,330 20,940 Total employed residents 26,168 28,154 28,200 28,900 30,100 31,600 Ratio of jobs/em pI. res. 1.38 1.53 1.57 1.64 1.60 1.56 San Mateo County: Total jobs 259,795 319.120 330,190 367,180 384,720 393,540 Total households 225,201 241,914 249,570 259,530 268,320 275,340 Total employed residents 314,242 353,626 356,200 372,400 387,200 401,700 Ratio of jobs/emp!. res. 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.98 Bay Region: T otaf jobs 2,537, n6 3,110,430 3,037,950 3,358,990 3,715,020 3,971,380 Total households 1,970,551 2,246,242 2,361,010 2,512,270 2,662,170 2,792,030 Total employed residents 2,552,894 3,151.943 3,111,300 3,429,500 3.684,500 3,889,100 Ratio of jobs/empl. res. 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.02 SOURCE: ABAG Proiections 94. December 1993; Wagstaff and Associates, 1995. WP511548\DSE/R\/V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 85 EIR did not directly address project impacts on the local ratio of jobs to housing. In fact, however, project construction did not proceed as anticipated, and the anticipated project effects in meeting local housing needs and goals did not occur. 3. IMPACT FINDINGS 8. Population Impacts By 2002, when it is now expected that all 721 of the units would be constructed and occupied, it is currently estimated that there would be up to 2,156 people living onsite. This projected population total is slightly higher than the 1982 EIR figure based on an updated, higher population per household figure' The applicant anticipates that buildout of the project would occur at a rate of approximately 120 units per year. Conservatively, assuming the construction and occupancy of project Phases I and II at an average of 120 units per year, and assuming that Phase I construction were to begin by 1996 and Phase II construction by 1999, up to 359 people2 would be expected to be added to the site annually until 2002. The relationship between these anticipated project population projections and the cumulative projections for the Bay Area, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco, are described below. Bay Area. By the year 2005, the estimated project buildout population of 2,156 residents would represent approximately 0.03 percent of the 7,249,500 regional population total projected by ABAG for the year 2000, and approximately 0.29 percent of the projected 1995 through 2005 regional population growth increment. San Mateo County. By the year 2005, the estimated project population of 2,156 residents would represent approximately 0.29 percent of the ABAG-projected 734,100 countywide population total, and approximately 4.8 percent of the projected 1995-2005 countywide population growth increment. South San Francisco. By the year 2005, the project population of approximately 2,156 residents would represent approximately 3.5 percent of the 61,000 South San Francisco 'The population estimate is based on the average persons per household figure of 2.99 persons per household identified in ABAG's Proiections 94 (page 244) for South San Francisco in the year 2000, and on consideration of the range of housing types proposed for the project. 2Buildout rate = 120 units per year; average population per household = 2.99 (see footnote above), 120 x 2.99 = 358.9 = 359. WP51\548\DSE/RI/V-B.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 86 Table 6 POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS -- 1982 EIR Impact Summary MitiQation Summary The project would result in construction of 745 residential units. The residential units would accommodate an estimated total population of 1,863. These homes would represent approximately 41 percent of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected South San Francisco housing need for the period 1980 to 1985, and a substantial portion of the housing development goals of the city general plan housing element. No mitigation is required. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabay Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 \548\DSEIRII V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 87 population projected by ABAG, and approximately 67 percent of the projected 1995-2005 citywide population growth increment. These relative project population increases would not in themselves constitute a significant adverse environmental impact. However, the addition of approximately 2,156 new residents would in turn cause significant traffic, public services, air quality, and other environmental impacts that are described in corresponding subsequent sections of this SEIR. b. Housina Impacts (1) Proiect Buildout and Absorption Rate. The applicant anticipates that buildout of the 721- unit project would occur at a rate of approximately 120 units per year. Assuming construction were to begin by 1996 and continue at this annual rate, the residential components of the project would be built out by the year 2002 and all homes sold by the year 2005. Buildout of project Phase III, and associated employment impacts, would be expected to occur by the year 2005. (2) Proiect Housino Types and Affordabilitv. The project would include the following range of housing types: 168 townhouses on 2,445-square-foot average lots and 125 single-family homes on 5,700-square-foot average lots in Phase I, and 428 townhouses in Phase II. As of August 1995, the applicant estimated that sales prices for the town homes would be in the high $200,000 range and sales prices for the single family detached homes would be in the mid- $400,000 range. Assuming townhouse sales prices of $280,000 and single family detached home sales prices of $450,000, annual household incomes required to purchase these homes on conventional terms would be about $93,000 for the townhouses and $150,000 for the single family homes. (3) Proiect Impacts on Local and Reoional Housino Needs. Project housing units would be affordable to "above-moderate-income" households.1 ABAG's current (January 1989) Housino Needs Determinations document does not project housing needs beyond 1995. Terrabay housing units would not be expected to begin being occupied until 1996. According to ABAG, it is not anticipated that the next housing needs determinations will be published until 1997.2 Therefore, the number of units that the project should provide to meet the city's fair share of regional housing needs for the period beyond 1995 is undetermined. It is generally anticipated, however, that the project impact on city achievement of its fair share of regional housing needs would be beneficial. 11n 1995 dollars, above-moderate-income households are defined as those with annual incomes over $70,560. 2Janet McBride. Senior Planner, ABAG, personal communication. WP51 \548\DSEIRV V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.B. Population and Housing Page 88 (4) Proiect Impacts on the City's Jobs/Housina Ratio. Based on an average of 1.48 employed residents per household projected by ABAG for the year 2005,1 the 721 additional housing units provided by Phases I and II could be expected to generate approximately 1 ,067 employed residents. The addition of 1,067 project-generated employed residents to the South San Francisco total would result in a slightly lower (more "balanced") jobs-to-employed- residents ratio in the interim years, following construction and occupancy of Phases I and II, but before Phase III employment-generating commercial development is completed. While the ultimate type and intensity of Phase III commercial development is uncertain, the Phase III development program identified in the specific plan could in turn be expected to generate approximately 1 ,300 to 2,400 new direct on-site jobs.2 The added jobs on-site could also be expected to have an economic "multiplier" effect, generating additional secondary employment increases in the surrounding region. The project would, therefore, be expected to generate a greater number of new jobs than new employed residents. The net effect of the project would be to sustain the city's comparatively high existing and projected jobs-to- employed-residents ratio.3 The environmental impacts associated with this effect, including impacts on traffic, noise, and air quality, are described in corresponding subsequent sections of the SEIR (see sections IV.C, Transportation; IV.H, Noise; and IV.I, Air Quality). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. PODulatlon No significant additional adverse environmental impacts have been identified. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. b. Housina No significant additional adverse environmental impacts have been identified. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. 130,100 employed residents/20,330 households in 2005 = 1.48 employed residents per household. 2Based on employment generation factors for commercial uses presented in Recht Hausrath & Associates, 1981, San Bruno Mountain: South Slope Fiscal Impact Study and Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 Trip Generation: An Informational Report, 5th Edition. 3Without the project there would be 160 jobs per 100 employed residents in South San Francisco in 2005. With the project there would be between 158 and 162 jobs per 100 employed residents. WP51 \548IDSEIRI/V-B.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 89 c. TRANSPORTATION This SEIR section reevaluates project impacts on traffic conditions on roadways in the project vicinity. Existing traffic conditions on the local roadway network and future conditions without the project are first described. The traffic impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are also summarized. The section then describes changes in existing and projected traffic conditions that have occurred since the 1982 EIR, including the recent construction of the Oyster Point interchange and other new roadway improvements, identifies impacts of the project and project-plus-cumulative development in the area on these current roadway system conditions, and recommends roadway improvements necessary to mitigate these updated impact expectations. The findings in this section were developed by the SEIR traffic engineer, Crane Transportation Group. Local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: . Existing (before recent commencement of construction for the new Oyster Point interchange ). . year 2000 Base Case (anticipated year 2000 traffic conditions without the project); . year 2010 Base Case (anticipated year 201 0 traffic conditions without the project); 1 . year 2000 Base Case plus Phase I (anticipated year 2000 traffic conditions with project Phase I; . year 2010 Base Case plus Phases I, /I and 11/ (anticipated year 2010 conditions with project Phases I, II and III). 1. SETTING a. Prolect Area Circulation Network Substantial post-1982 changes have been made in the project area circulation network considered in the 1982 EIR. With respect to regional freeway access, the Oyster Point 1 For the future year scenarios, the following conditions have also been assumed: . Wherever a new signal is .warranted by projected traffic conditions at study intersections, it has been assumed in place. . Roadway and intersection geometries have been assumed to remain the same from 2000 to 2010 unless specifically stated otherwise. All specific future roadway improvements needed as a mitigation are listed in section 2.c, Changes in Mitigation Findings. WP511548\DSE/RI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 90 interchange has been recently reconstructed and the Sierra Point interchange and associated Bayshore Boulevard connectors have been constructed. With respect to the local roadway network, several of the mitigations identified in the 1982 EIR and subsequently incorporated into the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement have been completed as part of the Phase I roadway improvements. Additional improvements were completed as part of the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction project or other projects in the vicinity. These roadway improvements and changes in traffic controls include: · construction of Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the 1982 EIR) between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard; · widening of Hillside Boulevard and creation of local traffic lanes and a landscaped buffer separating local access movements from higher speed through traffic along Hillside Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site); · signalization of intersections at the new Oyster Point interchange and the Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street-South San Francisco Drive, Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections; and · removal of the existing stop signs for Hillside Boulevard traffic at the Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street intersections. A new all- way stop sign was installed at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection to permit vehicles to exit Lincoln Street under conditions of heavy truck traffic, high speeds, limited line-of-sight and downhill grade along Hillside Boulevard at this location. In addition, existing and projected future traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project are higher than those in the 1982 EIR due primarily to greater than anticipated development in the East of 101 area. Traffic analyses performed for other projects in the vicinity indicate increasing traffic volumes and worsening operations, with several intersections performing poorly. Future Base Case traffic volume projections used in this SEIR traffic analysis are based on traffic volume projections in the East of 101 Area Plan Draft EIR and Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element. The network of freeways, arterials, and local streets serving the project area is diagrammed on Figure 6 and described below. (1) Reoional Freeway Access U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) is the principal freeway providing access to the project area. US 101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco with auxiliary lanes provided between interchanges where the on-ramp and off-ramp have a common transition area. Access to US 101 in the project area is provided by the new Oyster Point interchange and by on- and off- ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard (to the north) and Airport Boulevard (to the south). The new Oyster Point interchange was not considered in the 1982 EIR traffic analysis. The WP51\548IDSEIR\/V-C.548 -<I) _""c. o~a _<I)a .- "" jXl(,)!l:: CZl;'-lO, II i ~ W ...J < o 00 ~ t- O Z - > a: < o z ::> o CD W t- OO b w (3 a: l:L pAla ap!stnH ~ > c:i - - ~ .~^ V ~nbqna ... B 5' 101 's'n "P^1a: atoqShlla -- ., . . -- I l --....., ~ I:I~ '---1 0 I ~ . I (i3 II I : ~ r= . ... ;1 j--J ,.. I ~. J ~ Vi "p^Ia lJodJN' .. -'8 aOSJa.J.J~r cs = G) e ... ~ & ~ ~ ~ e .~< ~~~ ~ C-' < ~ o ~~ a~ ~'~ ~C/) ~)-I C/) )-I < ~ o < o ~ ~ o <Il T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 92 interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north and southbound US 101 as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on- ramp extends northerly as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Southbound US 101 traffic accesses the project area via a stop sign- controlled off-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard just north of the site. The southbound off-ramp is designed in a "scissors" configuration, including a two-way stop with northbound Bayshore Boulevard (see Figures 6 and 7). Southbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is not stop sign-controlled at this location; rather, it has a separate travel lane, as does off-ramp traffic departing the all-way stop intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard. A northbound US 101 off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is provided north of the project area. U-turns back toward the project site are prohibited well into the city of Brisbane. Interstate 280 (1-280) provides secondary regional freeway access to the project area. To the north, the eight-lane freeway provides access to Daly City, San Francisco and points beyond (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, etc.); to the south, 1-280 provides access to the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Redwood City and points beyond to San Jose. Local 1-280 interchanges serving the project area are located at Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, and Avalon Drive. (2) Local Roadway Network Hillside Boulevard is a four-lane roadway in the project area along the base of San Bruno Mountain, extending north to Mission Street (Le., to State Route 82, the northbound extension of EI Camino Real in Daly City) and southeast to the downtown area of South San Francisco. Traffic flows are predominantly north/westbound in the evening. Hillside Boulevard extends along the southern project boundary at the western end of the project site. It intersects the recently completed Sister Cities Boulevard about one-third of the distance along the southern site boundary and then turns to the southeast and continues as a two-lane roadway towards downtown South San Francisco through the residential neighborhood just south of the project site. It ends at an intersection with Linden Avenue, which connects directly to Airport Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard has signalized intersections with Sister Cities Boulevard, Jefferson StreeVSouth San Francisco Drive (the Phase I project access), Stonegate Drive, and Linden Avenue. All-way stop sign control is provided at Lincoln Street. All other roadways (such as Chestnut Avenue and Evergreen Drive) are stop sign controlled on their approaches to Hillside Boulevard. Evergreen Drive is a two-lane residential roadway that extends between Mission Road on the west and Hillside Boulevard on the east. The route runs along the southern border of EI Camino High School just east of Mission Road. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 /~VIQ ;uoqdllQ -'" ... +~ ~ ~ l>. -6 C> .. -.::: ...- ..,0 O~ ~ ~ ;:: - o ... ... PAIQ aplstnH .. Q 0: .. :: ~ .. .. > gg PAIQ ~IodI'V r-.. tJ"j .-. ~ rT' ('f") ~ ..... 0"1 .!:P ~ 0"1 ~ ~ l'""4 ::J)04 ~< O~ >~ U~ ~::J ~O <=: ~ .~ ~< Z~ E=~ tJ"j~ 1-1 >< ~ on o . ... - I-- I I ..., > ii .. = U .. > ;: Q 0 u .. U 0: ~ '" 0: .. Cf.l ..c ;; 0 Cf.l '- .. ~ .. ;;; on on ... '"' - - ~: ~. t.i' '0: .. - X ~Lon on 0 oc-.._ +-- C) ~~L..r~ \ oo~ ~!r)' \,~ Q. ::0 e Cl c .2 a; 'C 8- l!! e ~ ~ ~ U W <~ ~ " / / --- III ~ "g ~ ij 13 ~ ;: T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 94 Chestnut Avenue extends easterly from EI Camino Real to Hillside Boulevard. The route has four lanes near EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard, but narrows to two lanes in places where roadway widening has not yet occurred (Le., east of Commercial Drive). Traffic flows are predominantly westbound in the evening. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway running along the southern project boundary. It extends from its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard on the west to its signalized intersection with Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard on the east. There is only one intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard--Le., with South San Francisco Drive about halfway between Oyster Point Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard. This intersection is now signalized and will provide access into the Phase II area of the project. (South San Francisco Drive has been constructed as a paved construction vehicle roadway only between this intersection and the Pha~e I portion of the project-- indicated by a dashed line on figures in this SEIR section--and to full city standards in the Phase I portion of the project.) Bayshore Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway extending northerly from South San Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west of US 101. It continues southerly through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard south of its intersection with Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the US 101 southbound off-ramp. Bayshore Boulevard is within the city limits of Brisbane and is thus within that city's jurisdiction. This includes the roadway right-of-way extending to the south and connecting with the city of South San Francisco, which is an incorporated "peninsula" of Brisbane, surrounded on the west, south and east by lands within the city of South San Francisco (see Figure 2). Airport Boulevard is a north/south arterial which parallels US 101. The arterial is four lanes wide except for a short, six-lane-wide section between Grand Avenue and the undercrossing at the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Because of its close proximity to US 101, freeway connections are provided to Airport Boulevard at several locations. Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending easterly from Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard across US 101 and the CalTrain rail line into the Oyster Point Business Park. It has been recently widened and realigned in the vicinity of the freeway as part of the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction. The freeway overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median. Dubuque Avenue is a frontage road running along the east side of US 101 from Oyster Point Boulevard southerly to East Grand Avenue. It has two travel lanes along its entire length except from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp, where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised median are provided. It has signalized intersections with East Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps and Oyster Point Boulevard. WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 95 b. Existina Traffic Conditions (1) Existino Intersection Operation (a) Study Intersections. Ten specific local road system locations have been identified by the city of South San Francisco staff as those most likely to be affected by the project. Seven are signalized intersections and three are stop sign-controlled intersections. These intersections were evaluated for PM peak hour conditions. In addition, at California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) request, all intersections within or in close proximity to the Oyster Point interchange were also evaluated for AM peak hour conditions. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 6; they include: Sionalized: . Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street-South San Francisco Drive (project Phase I access); . Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard; . Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive (primary project Phase II access); . Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard (AM and PM); · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue-US 101 northbound on-ramp (AM and PM); . Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp (AM and PM); and . Bayshore Boulevard/project commercial access (Phase III)/Realigned US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps (for 2010 conditions only) (AM and PM). AII-way-stop-sia n-controlled: . US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (AM and PM). Side-street-stop-sion-controlled: · Hillside Boulevard/Evergreen Drive; and · Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. (b) Level of Service Scale. In order to understand the status of a local roadway network, a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used by traffic engineers and planners. The LOS grading system typically used involves a rating scale which ranges from LOS A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to LOS F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B list the definitions of the LOS scales used in this analysis for local signalized intersections (based on volume-to-capacity ratios) and for local unsignalized intersections (based on delay in seconds). WP51 \548IDSEIRV V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4; 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 96 Cc) Level of Service Methodolooy. Signalized intersections are evaluated in this study using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 planning methodology, adjusted as described in Appendix B for more accurate application to this project. The Circular 212 methodology is a standard level of service calculation method1 and is appropriate for a planning analysis where future levels of service are to be projected. Unsignalized intersection operation was determined using the methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as described in Appendix B. Following the procedures used in the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR (1994) traffic analysis prepared by Barton-Aschman, Inc., and the Oyster Point Interchanoe Reconstruction and Grade Separation DEIR (1990) traffic analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., lane capacity adjustments were incorporated into the analysis of intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS C or worse. Cd) Level of Service Standards. Level of Service D is considered by the city of South San Francisco to be the poorest acceptable. operation for signalized and all-way stop intersections; LOS E is considered to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized intersection turn movements. Ce) Intersection Turnino Movements. Figure 7 presents existing2 PM peak hour turn movement volumes at major project area intersections. The PM peak hour turn movement volumes were well below capacity limits along Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard. The counts indicated that the peak afternoon traffic hour along Bayshore Boulevard was from 4:30 to 5:30 PM, whereas the peak traffic hour along Hillside Boulevard was from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. (f) Existino Sionalization Needs. Traffic signal "warrants" are conventional standards used to determine whether a traffic signal is needed. A traffic signal should not be installed if no warrants are met, since installation of traffic signals may increase delays for the majority of through traffic and increase some types of traffic accidents. If one or more warrants are met, a signal may be appropriate. A signal warrant analysis has been performed for the three unsignalized study intersections for the 1993 PM peak hour, using Caltrans Warrant 11 criteria (see Appendix B). None of the three analyzed intersections had 1993 volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. 11t is one of the methods specifically identified in the state's Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation and is, therefore. accepted by the regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2As explained in Appendix B, "existing" traffic volumes used as a basis for the year 2000 and 2010 base case traffic projections are 1993/1994 volumes taken from recent traffic studies in the project vicinity. It was determined that traffic counts of current (1995) traffic volumes would not produce meaningful results due to the effects of Oyster Point interchange reconstruction road closures and delays occurring at the time (1995). WP51 \548\DSE.1R1IV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 97 (2) Existino Freeway Operation Table 7 shows that existing (1993/1994) PM peak hour peak direction (southbound) operation along US 101 in the project vicinity is LOS E at all locations. Level of Service E operation is the minimum acceptable condition for peak hour operation of US 101 in South San Francisco as set by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan. Criteria used to relate freeway level of service and volume to capacity ratio are presented in Appendix B. . (3) Existino Transit Service (a) Local Bus Routes. Transit service is provided to the project area by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Table 8 describes the Sam Trans routes serving the project vicinity. Routes 7B and 24B travel along Bayshore Boulevard adjacent to the eastern project boundary while Route 26H travels along Hillside Boulevard west of Jefferson Street as well as along Jefferson Street. SamTrans service also provides/accepts inter-agency transfer passes to/from Santa Clara County Transit at shared bus stops, San Francisco Municipal Railway routes at selected points, and AC Transit routes at shared bus stops in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. (b) BART. BART currently does not directly serve the city of South San Francisco; rather, BART currently provides direct (BART station) Peninsula service as far south as Daly City, although a new station has been constructed in Colma and will be opening for passenger service within the next year. (c) Caltrain. An existing CalTrain station is located in the city along Dubuque Avenue just north of East Grand Avenue. Service is provided seven days per week, extending from San Francisco to Gilroy. c. Base Case Traffic Conditions This section describes anticipated local traffic conditions in the future without the project. Two future years are included in this analysis: 2000 and 2010. These year 2000 and 2010 traffic conditions are the "base case" to which project traffic will be added and serve as a benchmark against which project impacts will be evaluated. (1) Planned Transportation System Improvements (a) Hickey Boulevard Extension. The proposed Hickey Boulevard extension will extend from EI Camino Real eastward to Hillside Boulevard. The segment of the extension between EI Camino Real and Mission Road will be constructed by the BART District as part of the new Hickey Boulevard station improvements; San Mateo County will construct the segment between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard. The extension design includes four lanes with WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 98 Table 7 EXISTING AND BASE CASE US 1 01 FREEWAY OPERA TION--PM PEAK HOUR One-Way Hourly ExistinQ (1993/1994) Base Case (2000) Base Case (2010) SeQment Capacitya VolumeD VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS North of Sierra 8,800 8,400 .95 E 9,050 1.03 F 12,300 1.40 F Point Sierra Point to 9,300c 8,000 .86 E 8,530 .92 E 11,180 1.20 F Oyster Point Oyster Point to 9,300c 8,400 .90 E 8,820 .95 E 13,850 1.49 F Grand Avenue Grand Avenue 8,800 7,100 .89 E 8,600 .98 E 13,390 1.52 F to South Airport SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, East of 101 Area Plan DEIR, and City of Brisbane 1993 General Plan DEIR, Volume III. a Peak direction capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour through lane and 500 vehicles per hour per auxiliary lane. Transportation Research Board, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. b From Caltrans traffic volumes 1994 for peak hour with assumed 55/45 directional split peak. Peak direction southbound. c On-ramp to auxiliary lane or off-ramp from auxiliary lane assigned increased capacity. WP511548IDSEIRI/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 99 Table 8 PROJECT AREA LOCAL BUS ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS (SAMTRANS) Route Description ST 24B Local service along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Daly City, Brisbane, South San Francisco and the San Francisco Airport. ST7B Regional service along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between downtown San Francisco (Transbay Terminal) and Reclwood City. ST 26H Local service to Tanforan Shopping Center along Mission Road, Hillside Boulevard, Jefferson Street, Linden Avenue, and Airport Boulevard. All three bus routes pass within 500 feet of the South San Francisco CalTrain Station. SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, Samtrans. WP51 \548\DSE/RI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 100 separate turn lanes at intersections. Signalized intersections will be provided at Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road and EI Camino Real. The city of South San Francisco portion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension was included in the city's 1992 program of capital improvements and is expected to be constructed before the year 2000. The county's portion will be constructed after the city's portion has been completed. (b) Oyster Point Interchanoe Reconstruction. As of this SEIR writing, this project was in the final stages of construction and almost fully operational. Final paving and lane striping were in progress at many locations. (c) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Intersection Sional. A signal is planned for the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. No specific date has been determined, as funding is still needed. No other roadway improvements are programmed and funded by the city of South San Francisco in the immediate project vicinity.' Likewise, no improvements are programmed or funded by Caltrans for the US 101 freeway between the South San Francisco city limits and 1- 380.2 (d) BART Extension Plans. Plans are being formulated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and BART to extend BART from Colma to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) via an 'alignment that would pass through the EI Camino Real corridor via the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad right-of-way. The extension plans also call for construction of a South San Francisco BART Station just south of the planned Hickey Boulevard Extension. EI Camino Real would border the BART site to the west, Mission Road to the east, and a new street to the south. (2) Base Case Traffic Assumptions. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for project study intersections for year 2000 Base Case conditions are presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively, while Figures 10 and 11 present AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, for year 2010 Base Case conditions.3 These traffic volumes are based on future traffic projections contained in studies prepared for other projects in the area, adjusted to produce a 1 Mr. Richard Harmon, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. 2Mr. John Low, Caltrans District 4. 3For purposes of this analysis, two existing unsignalized intersections were assumed to be signalized by either the year 2000 or 2010, since volumes at each would exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria: · Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (by 2010 - however, volumes would be approaching warrant levels by 2000); and · US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (by 2000 for AM peak hour; by 2010 for PM peak hour). WP51 \548\DSEIRI/ V-C.548 Sister Cities Blvd L 760 110 190 1345'-- 80 JtL.t65 60 J ~ t r+ 380 ~ 10 30 220 10 t ~rth SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group 1225 SB 101 OHram p +- 135 t 130 # 275 j i t I 1205 ~ 120 810 30 "tl ..:: =:a to =:a 95 L 0 310 0 .-- 0 J~L.tO 8653 o~ 1St itr+ 30 0 95 .- ~ 5B 101 NB 101 ~ On ramp Offramp g .s::. ::s o Figure' 8 YEAR 2000 BASE CASE TRAFFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff and Associates ~ ... -6 o. -.::: ...- (1)0 o~__~ :;:~~ - '" o '"' PAIQ aplslt!H L:! ---c~ .r~ ~i~ o 0 ~~~ ... PAIQ azoqdllQ f-- - :; > I ii I :: - I u I ~ I ;; \ aAV anliiiCjna G "0 ll. l>. \- s \:~ zo l>. .0 S - . .. = c:; ",0 L", _ 0 ... .r':. ",j .. ~ .. >- o ~ - 5+_ gj 0'" ::: -- =+ .. Q c .. .. .. IlC .. .. > gg o u .. U 0: .. .. IZo 0: : .. - .. Q ..c ; o '" ::: 0 L~ 1 L. ;?:: i~ 0\ C/) ~ ~~::J .~~o ~ ::J :t ~~ 0< >~ u~ ~~ ~~ <. ~~ ~u ~~ r:J:J ~ <0 u~ ~~ C/)~ <::J =0 o:t o~ o~ ~~ < ~ )-I Q. ;:) e Cl c o 16 1: 8- l!! l!! ~ ! l!! u W <~ ~ 2150 SB 101 Offramp +- 165 -r- 390 210J 2700~ 185t itl 105 2015 30 .., > - ra 110 445 0 +-0 545 L 75 j'r~ -r-O 70 2445 +- 110 j ~ ~ -r- 85 2090 J itl O~ 40 0 60 J i t I 60t 60 ~ 380 ~ 35 150 lOt 245 ~ CII ... o ..c: III > as ra Sister Cities Blvd SB 101 Onramp NB 101 ~ OHramp g .Cl =' Q Figure 10 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE TRAFrlilC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR ~ SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR ClTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANClSCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff and Associates l>. -6 o. -.::: ...- .~ ~ ~ .... - .... ... !:: ~ I r:- \ \~~-~ ;L ~, PAIQ a!pstuH \ ... l>. o 6 - . =~.. ZO ..., > iii ~AV- ~nDnqna PAUl a~oqsAlIQ \-~ ~ ~ =::: \:; ~ ~ ... c: (1)0 0: "0 "" .. ~ . >- o g;J ~ i ~ _ -+ 1ft II) - _0\0 o _... ~"""1- - g 1ft L~ lL. ~ i~ o 0 _ 0 ... ... .. Q 0: .. .. .. .. .. .. > gg ;::: C/) ~ ~~~ .[c~ 0 ~~::t ~~ 0< >~ U~ ti::~ ~~ <. .~~ ~U ~~ C/) ~ <0 U~ ~~ C/)~ <~ =0 O::t ~~ O~ ~~ < ~ )-I Q. ::0 o $ c .2 (;j 'I:: 8. l!! 01 ~ ! ~ u UJ (l ~ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 105 coherent set of volumes for the project area circulation network (see Appendix B). Figure 12 presents intersection geometrics assumed for both year 2000 and 2010 background conditions without the project.1 (3) Base Case Intersection Operation. Table 9 presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour levels of service at study intersections. (a) Year 2000. All analyzed study intersections would operate acceptably during the AM peak hour, with one exception: the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Even if signalized, this intersection would operate at LOS E during the year 2000 AM peak hour. All study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during the 2000 PM peak hour with one exception: Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. The stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard would operate at LOS F. Significant extended delay would be experienced by drivers attempting this movement. PM peak hour volumes at this location would be approaching, but not at the borderline, of meeting peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. (b) Year 2010. Three intersections would experience unacceptable operation during the AM peak hour: . Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (LOS F signalized operation); . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (LOS F signalized operation); and . US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (LOS F signalized operation). Four intersections would experience unacceptable operation during the PM peak hour: . Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point BoulevardlBayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (LOS E signalized operation); . Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp--southbound on-ramp (LOS E signalized operation); . Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (if this intersection remains unsignalized, the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard would be operating at LOS F); and 1The assumed geometries are those currently in place along Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, and Dubuque Avenue. WP51 \548IDSEIRI/V-C.548 .,.'b ~ . 'b" #...../~ ~J L~ ~ iT r '- "....~ It sea;);)v ~;)a!O~d -: ,\S uouanal // __ iii /~ I .. / ' / + // ~ I A"' 1\ __...&...) ( G~/, 'Y (i ~ ;J III +t- \ \T j. ~. ! · ", \ ~ A \ ~ 1 ir / ~~/ ,,~/ " ""-" ~/ I".. _________ ~.) /~. / L \-e I III -- ~ .. I~ ,I t- \ ": ~ ~ ... '+'+.. :z~ /... \ .-nir/r+~ ~ ~ ~ .... o ~ PAll! aloQUlIll c ClD Vi c.. to o c - ~ en en .. '. 'Z' SSaJJV ~3a(Oldu .:: ii O~ .. ~ll ~ J -I ii ~ "+ II n ...&.... c:: . 0 .., u .. - - _ u - c:: '" . o .. ...... Q .. .. .. e .. ~ III """ ~~ ~ ~ Z '...) ~~~ .!:P ~ 1-\ ~~O Z~ O~ 1-4~ ~::J ~O C/):t: ~~ ~1-4 ~~ ZC/) ~U ~~ C/)~ <~ U~ ~:E C/)o <~ =C-' o ,-I o N o Z < o o o N ~ < ~ )-I Q. ::0 o c'5 c o 16 'I:: o Q. !! ~ ~ ! ! u Iii <~ ~ III Q) "5 -g . III 4! 'tl 6 ~ ~ ~ /-/ C--""",;f aAV anbnqnQ / I A " ( .-J.+ +f=- \ ~ ~ \i.":~: -- +tIt r+ ) ~ ~ 1 / ... 0: ,. . <I) 0 t ./ ~~ /.J+!ll ? \ I . :) \~ liiy "-..~/ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 107 Table 9 BASE CASE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR Intersection Year 2000 Base Case Year 2010 Base Case Signalized Hillside Blvd/Jefferson SV South San Francisco Drive (Phase I Access) A - .26* A - .40 Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities Blvd A - .33* A - .46 Sister Cities Blvd/South San Francisco Drive/(Phase II Access) N/A N/A Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd/Bayshore Blvd/ Airport Blvd (D - .72)* (F-1.11) A - .48* E - .90 (B - .52)* (F - 1.20) A - .40* D - .82 (A - .35)* (D - .75) A - .31 * E - .87 N/A N/A Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp Bayshore Blvc:llUS 101 SB ramps/Project Commercial Access (Phase III) Unsignalized Hillside Blvd/Evergreen Dr US 101 SB off-ramp/NB Bayshore Blvd (All-Way Stop) B - 7.5u C - 12 FU FU . A - .40 (E - .90)* (F - 1.42)* C - 13.6u* FU* B - .51 * E - .89* Hillside Blvd/Chestnut Ave SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group. * Signalized level of service - volume/capacity ratio. U Unsignalized level of service/average vehicle delay (in seconds) - eastbound left turn from Evergreen Drive. *u All-way stop Level of Service - average vehicle delay in seconds (overall intersection). WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 108 · US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (This all-way stop intersection would be operating at LOS F. If signalized, but without additional intersection approach lanes, operation would be an unacceptable LOS E). (4) Base Case Freeway Operation. Table 7 also presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case PM peak hour operation for US 101 in the project vicinity. (a) Year 2000. All segments of US 101 would have peak direction (southbound) traffic operating at the minimum acceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour with one exception: the segment north of Sierra Point would be in the LOSF range although very close to LOS E operation. (b) Year 2010. All freeway segments near the project would be experiencing unacceptable LOS F PM peak hour operation for peak direction (southbound) traffic flow. Demand would be from 20 to more than 50 percent greater than capacity, depending upon the freeway segment. (5) Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation. Table 10 presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case AM and PM peak hour operation for US 101 ramps included in this study. (a) Year 2000. Year 2000 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at all three US 101 freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange (northbound on and off, as well as southbound on) and the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard would be well under capacity. Although the southbound off-ramp would have volumes well within the acceptable range, the off-ramp intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard would be operating at an unacceptable AM peak hour LOS E with existing geometries and with signalization. It would be expected that off-ramp traffic would back up to the southbound freeway mainline unless additional lanes were provided on the intersection approach or unless off-ramp detectors would control signal operation and allow off-ramp traffic to clear whenever backups approached the freeway mainline. (b) Year 2010. During the 2010 AM peak hour, traffic volumes would exceed capacity at the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard and the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. As a result, southbound off-ramp traffic could be expected to back up well into the freeway main line. Northbound off-ramp traffic would back up well into the auxiliary lane extending from the Grand Avenue on-ramp. Traffic volumes at the on-ramp intersections would be well below capacity. Year 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes at all three freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange (northbound on and off, and southbound on), as well as the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard, would be under capacity. The two-lane southbound on-ramp would be operating at 80 percent of capacity with a demand of almost 2,600 PM peak hour vehicles. The northbound on-ramp at the Oyster Point interchange would be operating at 88 percent of capacity. Although the southbound off-ramp would have volumes well within the acceptable WP511548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 109 Table 10 BASE CASE US 101 FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR WITHOUT THE PROJECT Base Case (2000) Base Case (2010) US 101 Ramp Capacity. Volume Operation Volume Operation SB off-ramp to Bayshore 1,800 (1,225) (under (2,150) (over Blvd capacity) capacity) 520 under 1,060 under capacity capacity NB on-ramp from Oyster 2,000". (485) (under (595) (under Point Blvd capacity) capacity) 880 under 1,765 under capacity capacity NB off-ramp from Dubuque 2,000". (880) (under (2,150) (over Ave capacity) capacity) 350 under 870 under capacity capacity SB on-ramp from Dubuque 3,200 (340) (under (485) (under Ave capacity) capacity) n5 under 2,565 under capacity capacity SB on-ramp from Bayshore 1,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A Blvd (Project Phase III) SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, TRB Special Report 209, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. · Passenger cars per hour. .. New southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. at Terrabay Commercial Access ... On-ramp to auxiliary lane or off-ramp from auxiliary lane assigned increased capacity. WP51\548\DSE/R\/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SErR IV.C. Transportation Page 110 range, the off-ramp intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard would be operating at an unacceptable PM peak hour LOS E with existing geometrics and with signalization. It would be expected that off-ramp traffic would back up to the southbound freeway mainline unless additional lanes were provided on the intersection approach or unless off-ramp detectors would control signal operation and allow off-ramp traffic to clear whenever backups approached the freeway mainline. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS The 1982 EIR traffic analysis was based on the conservative ("worst case") assumption that construction of all project phases would be completed by 1990. Table 11 presents 1982 and estimated 1990 traffic conditions without the project, Hillside Boulevard Extension (Sister Cities Boulevard) or the Oyster Point interchange project, and estimated 1990 and 2000 traffic conditions with the project at the key project vicinity intersections. Associated traffic impact findings and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 12. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS The Terrabay project will be adding incrementally to cumulative (Base Case) traffic impacts in the project vicinity. Traffic analyses performed for other projects in the vicinity indicate increasing traffic volumes and worsening operations. As a result, several of the study intersections would be operating poorly under Base Case conditions without the project. Impacts identified in this SEIR are generally similar to those identified in the 1982 EIR. The project trip generation estimate prepared for this SEIR is substantially similar to that estimated in the 1982 EIR (see Table 12). Intersection operation impacts were also identified at the same general locations: the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection, the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection, and the US 101 ramps at Dubuque Avenue (although these ramps have been reconstructed as part of the Oyster Point interchange project). The 1982 EIR also identified intersection operation impacts at the intersections of Linden Avenue with Hillside Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. These intersections were not included in this analysis, primarily because construction of Sister Cities Boulevard has diverted a substantial amount of traffic from this route. Freeway link impacts were also similar to those identified in the 1982 EIR. However, freeway ramp impact findings in this SEIR are different than the 1982 EIR due to the reconstruction of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. This section presents the potential transportation impacts of the project for the years 2000 and 2010. The year 2000 analysis assumes only Phase I of the project will be built, occupied and WP51\548\DSE/R\/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 111 Table 11 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPUTATIONS--1982 EIR With Project Without Proiect With Proiect and Mitiaations Existing ( 1982) 1990 1990 2000 1990 2000 Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue A A A C/O A B/C Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street A AlB' AlB' C/O' A' A' Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street A AlB' C' ElF' A' B' Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Avenue A C A B Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue A B B/C ElF AlB C Linden Avenue/Airport Boulevard C F F F E5 ElP Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard B F2 F2 F2 -- 6 __6 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue B F2 E4 pi -- 6 6 US 101 Southbound Off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard B F E4 E4 AlB B Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard -- __3 F -- 6 __6 SOURCE: EIP Corporation 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. , Assumes removal of stop signs on Hillside Boulevard from existing 3-way stops. 2 Assumes existing interchange still in place. 3 Depends on intersection configuration and Oyster Point grade separation'. 4 Assumes off-ramp widened to two lanes 5 Can be improved by two service levels if Oyster Point interchange includes southbound on-ramp. 6 Depends on design of Oyster Point interchange and Sister Cities Boulevard. WP511548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 112 Table 12 1982 EIR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary The proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 16,570 daily trips on an average weekday following full occupancy (85 percent for the hotel): 6,100 (37 percent) by the residential areas and 10,470 (63 percent) by the commercial area. Approximately 1,710 pm peak hour trips would be generated. Approximately 15 percent of these trips would occur between different on-site activities and would be entirely onsite or would only affect roadways fronting the site. The project would result in increased peak period traffic congestion at the following key intersections in the project vicinity: · Hillside Boulevard/Linden Avenue · Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue · Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard · Oyster Point interchange ramps (Dubuque) · US 101 southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard The project would increase peak hour traffic volumes on the US 101 main line (on which . traffic volumes would already be at capacity) by approximately four percent in 1990 and by a greater amount in 2000 contributing to a significant cumulative impact. The project would increase traffic volumes on Hillside Boulevard between Chestnut Avenue and Randolph Avenue to levels requiring traffic controls. The project would increase traffic volumes along Hillside Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue and Randolph Avenue by 100 percent in 1990 and 180 percent in 2000, which would significantly impact residents along that segment of Hillside Boulevard. WP51\548IDSE/R\/V-C.548 Mitiaation Summary Construction of the Oyster Point Interchange. before completion of the proposed project. Construction of the Sierra Point interchange and Bayshore Boulevard connectors to intercept traffic bound for the Linden Avenue US 101 southbound on-ramp via Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard. Redesign of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp, before hotel occupancy, including relocation of Bayshore Boulevard slightly west into the project property to accommodate a redesigned hook off-ramp and new hook on- ramp, and signalization of the new project commercial accesslUS 101 ramps intersection. Project sponsor fair share contribution to traffic signals at the following intersections before 1990: · Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Street · Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Extension · Hillside Boulevard/Airport Boulevard · Oyster Point interchange (at one or more locations depending on final design) · US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp · Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street · Terrabay commercial access Removal of the existing all-way stop signs on Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street intersections in conjunction with installation of traffic signals along Hillside Boulevard. Create a frontage road or traffic free zone with landscaped buffer separating local access movements from higher speed traffic along Hillside Boulevard. T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 113 The project would generate an additional approximately 400 daily transit trips and contribute to a cumulative increase in demand for transit of at least 2,000 daily trips. Implementation of the following transportation system management (TSM) measures, primarily in conjunction with development of the office condominium/health club/restaurant complex: · limousine service from the airport to the hotelltech trade center; · bus pullouts and shelters along Bayshore Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard; . Preferential carpool parking in the commercial area; . Encouragement of staggered work hours; . Encouragement of vanpooling/carpooling through the homeowners association; and · Encouragement of expanded transit service. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 \548\DSEIRII V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SErR IV.C. Transportation Page 114 adding traffic to the local road network by that time. For the year 2010, two impact scenarios are evaluated: Phase I only, and Phases I, II, and III. This SEIR analysis has been designed to conform with CEQA, city of South San Francisco, and San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) traffic impact analysis requirements. a. Sianlflcance Criteria The following criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of identified transportation impacts: · If a signalized or all-way stop intersection with Base Case (without project) volumes is operating at LOS A, B, C, or D and deteriorates to LOS E operation (or worse) with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and will require mitigation. If a Base Case stop sign-controlled turn movement deteriorates to LOS F operation with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant. · If the Base Case LOS at a signalized or all-way stop intersection is already at LOS E or F, or the Base Case LOS of a stop sign-controlled turn movement is already LOS F, an increase in traffic of two percent or more due to the project is considered to be significant. · If traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection increase above Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant 11 criteria levels with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant. · If Base Case traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection already exceed signal warrant criteria levels, an increase in traffic of two percent or more due to the project is considered to be significant. · If, in the opinion of the SEIR traffic engineer, certain project-related traffic changes will significantly increase safety concerns, the impact is considered to be significant. · If freeway link operation is currently at LOS A, B, C, D, or E, and changes to LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant and will require mitigation. · If freeway link operation with Base Case volumes is already LOS F, an increase in peak direction traffic of two percent or more due to the project is considered significant. · If acceptable freeway on- or off-ramp operation changes to unacceptable levels with the addition of project traffic, or if project traffic increases Base Case volumes by two percent or more when operation is already unacceptable, the impact is considered significant. A two percent increase was selected as the significance criterion for intersections or freeway facilities that already exceed unacceptable levels of service or signal warrant criteria levels because, although neither the city nor the CMA have officially adopted significance standards WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 115 that apply in such cases, a two percent increase is commonly considered by professional transportation planners as noticeable to most drivers, whereas anything less than two percent would typically not be noticeable. b. Proiect Trip Generation Tables 13 and 14 present updated trip generation projections for each of the three project phases based on current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Trip rates from the 1991 and 1995 ITE Trip Generation manual, 5th Edition, were used to update trip rates used in the 1982 EIR. Phase I (293 single family residential and townhouse units) would be expected to generate about 2,700 daily two-way trips with 70 inbound and 160 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 185 inbound and 110 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. About 80 percent of the total AM and PM peak hour trip generation would be associated with residential uses. All Phase I traffic would access Hillside Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive at the Jefferson Street intersection. A small proportion of generated trips would be expected to be internal within the site (trips back and forth to the recreation center as well as drop off and pick up trips at the day care center by project residents). Phase /I (428 townhouse and condominium units) would be expected to generate about 2,600 daily two-way trips with 30 inbound and 160 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 155 inbound and 85 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Phase II traffic would access Hillside Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive at the Jefferson Street intersection, and Sister Cities Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive. Phase 11/ development of office, restaurant, health club, hotel and trade center commercial uses would be expected to generate about 10,600 daily two-way trips with 920 inbound and 180 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 385 inbound and 920 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The commercial area trip generation projections assume full use of the hotel's proposed 600-seat seminar center and the tech trade center's 240,900-square-foot showroom. Commercial area trip generation would decrease by more than 30 percent with no activity at the hotel seminar center and minimal activity at the trade center showroom. It would be expected that about five percent of the total commercial area AM peak hour trip generation and 10 percent of the total commercial area PM peak hour trip generation would remain internal to the site (back and forth trips between the hotel, restaurant, office, trade center and health club uses). Phase III traffic would access the west side of Bayshore Boulevard at three locations to the north of the Oyster Point interchange; two right-turn in and out driveways and one new signalized intersection. Figure 13 presents the lane striping assumed for analysis purposes at this new intersection along Bayshore Boulevard. Total project gross trip generation would be 15,770 daily two-way trips with 1,020 inbound and 500 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 725 inbound and 1,115 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that other than the internal trip capture described WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 116 Table 13 PROJECT DAIL Y AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION No. of Daily Two-Way PM Peak Hour Trips Units or Trips In Out Phase Use Size Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume Residential-Single 125 units 9.55 1,200 .65 85 .36 45 Family Residential- 168 units 6.01 1,010 .37 65 .20 35 Townhouse Childcare Center 2,880 f1.2 79.3 230 6.40 20 7.22 20 Recreation Center .40 200 .024 ~ .016 --2Q Phase 1 Total 2,640 185 110 II Residential- 428 5.90 2,530 .36 155 .19 85 Townhouse/ Condo/Terraced Units Phase 2 Total 2,530 155 85 III Office 57,500 ft.2 * 930 ** 20 ** 105 Quality 150 seats 2.86 430 .16 25 .08 15 Restaurant Health Club 600 members .40 240 .024 15 0.16 10 Hotel 400 rooms'" 8.70 2,960 .41 140 .35 120 Seminar Center 600 seats 2.40 1,440 .11 65 .50 300 Restaurants 500 seats 2.86 1,430 .16 80 .08 40 Tech. Trade Center Office 27,800 ft.2 * 520 ** 15 ** 55 Showroom 240,900 ft.2 11.0 2,650 .10 ~ 1.15 275 Phase 3 Total 10,600 385 920 Total Project 15,nO 725 1,115 SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and 1995 Update. * Ln(T) = .756 Ln(x) + 3.765 ** Ln(T) = .737 Ln(x) + 1.831 *** 85 percent occupancy assumed WP511548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 117 Table 14 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION No. of AM Peak Hour Trips Units or In Out Phase Use Size Rate Volume Rate Volume Residential-Single 125 units .19 25 .55 70 Family Residential- 168 units .07 15 .37 65 Townhouse Childcare Center 2,880 ft.2 8.20 25 7.00 20 Recreation Center 500 members 5 5 Phase I Total 70 160 II Residential- 428 units .07 30 .37 160 Townhouse/ Condo/Terraced Units Phase II Total 30 160 III Office 57,500 ft.2 * 110 * 15 Quality 150 seats .028 5 .002 0 Restaurant Health Club 600 members .015 10 .005 5 Hotel 400 rooms" .40 140 .27 95 Seminar Center 600 seats .50 300 .05 30 Restaurants 500 seats .028 15 .002 5 Tech. Trade Center Office 27,800 ft.2 * 65 * 5 Showroom 240,900 ft.2 1.15 275 .10 25 Phase III Total 920 180 Total Project 1,020 500 SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and 1995 Update. Ln(T) = .777 Ln(x) + (89% in/11 % out) T = Trips, X = size in 1,000 sq. ft. .. 85 percent occupancy assumed WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 118 above, no other specific reductions in trip generation due to increased transit use, carpooling, etc., were factored into the trip generation projections. c. Project Trip Distribution Table 15 presents the estimated PM peak hour in and outbound distribution of project residential and commercial traffic. AM distribution would be expected to be approximately the reverse of PM distribution. Distribution projections are based upon input from both the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR and EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Prooram DEIR traffic analyses. Figures 14 and 15 present the AM and PM peak hour volume increments, respectively, for project Phase I while Figures 16 and 17 present AM and PM peak hour volume increments, respectively, for all project phases (Phases I, II and III), distributed to the local roadway network. Figures 18 and 19 present the sum of the 2010 Base Case plus the project incremental traffic volumes for AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions, respectively. d. Project Sianalizatlon Needs Impacts Year 2000 - Phase I. Phase I traffic would increase year 2000 Base Case PM peak hour volumes at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection from "approaching" to "borderline" signal warrant criteria levels. This is a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-1) Year 2010 - Phase I. Phase I traffic would aggravate the Base Case warrant criteria need for signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and US 101 southbound off-ramp/ northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersections. Unless signals were installed, the project would be expected to cause significant adverse impacts on the operation and safety of these intersections. (Supplemental Impact T-2) Year 2010 - Phases I, 1/ and III. Signals would be provided by the project at the reconstructed Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound hook ramps/project commercial access intersection. However, the cumulative traffic from Phases I, II and III would further aggravate the Base Case warrant criteria need for signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, resulting in a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-3) e. Project Level of Service Impacts--Studv Intersections Table 16 presents AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service. Year 2000 - Phase I. No significant impacts were identified during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, all intersections would be operating acceptably with the addition of project Phase I traffic with one exception: Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. The project would increase PM peak hour volumes by more than two percent at this intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable (LOS F) operation with Base Case volumes for the stop WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 119 Table 15 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTIONupM PEAK HOUR Residential Inbound Outbound Commercial Inbound Outbound North (Daly City/San Francisco, . North Bay, Bay Bridge via 101/ Bayshore Blvd.lI-280, EI Camino Real & Hillside Blvd. 35% 20% 35% 30% South (cities south of SSF via 1 01/1-280/EI Camino Real) 40% 25% 40% 50% Local (Brisbane/South San Francisco) 25% 55% 25% 20% SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group; East of 101 Area Plan DEIR Traffic Analysis, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994; ABAG, 1994; San Mateo County CMP. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 ~C/)~ ~uu So 1-4 ~ .- ~~ ~'""'O ~~ ~~ O:I: ~~ - C-'~ ~- e~ ~ ~~z ~~o< c.~ c; e Z - .. .. ... c: (1)00 ~ ~ u ~ C/) ~ ~ ~ z ~ Q ?'-4 o N ~ < ~ )-I "" l>. :;2 C;2 ~:: ... ra- :c: <I) 0 Cf.l 0 L L ~llll 1= . iiir~ ~ "0 c. Q. ::0 e Cl c .s! (;j 'I:: o Q. l!! ~ ~ ! e u w <~ ~ en Gl ~ .:( '0 8 ~ g ~ _ l>. o Ei :~~ zo ..., > ii aAV anDllqna \/ .. ~ .. >- o PAIQ a~oqsA8Q ~ L lll~ ~ l>. S"" c" ..- -. -t: 0_ .oS 0= - .. ..... Cf.l- ....c ..- - .. 00 zz - +!ll r . (~ ii ... ---1 ----l - - :--'\ " ssa:l:lV 18Huaplsall r pa!OId..., : ~ ;:: II> Q c :: u E on 0 c: - -.2 qj:= 1lO"C c: c: c: ell 0 IlO .c:U Vi U c; qj c.. >-on c: - ell 0 IlO C:U ..- Vi 0 In qj II II II on ns -*- . *a:l .. ~ .. ;;; 0: . 0 ... :0: .c::u ; ~ o .. ...'" '- SSU:lV 11lHuaplsall ~:la!OId ." > ii .. ~ j!!l + :E . J. 1 it- + PAIQ aplslHH Q 0: .. :: ~ .. > "", 5 SB 101 OHramp -+- 5 ,ro Lo o 50+- 15 J ~ L. t 0 10 J ~ t i 75 -+ 0 0 25 J i ti 10 0 o . ." ::- - lZ:I - tIS lZ:I Sister Cities Blvd Lo 5 25 0 +- 0 J~L.,ro 10 J ~ t i 0-+ 0 0 o Ot 5. o ~ 5B 101 NB 101 ~ Onramp OHramp g .c :: Q ~ ~h Figure 14 YEAR 2000 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENT AM PEAK HOUR PHASE I ONLY SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff and Associates l>. -Ii: o. -.::: ...- u>0 ~~ ~ o '"'- o~ PAIQ aplstnH .. Q c: .. :: :l .. > It:l \ Lo +~ cs ~ - .. ;}J----:?i, ~ ~y \~! ! ~~: ~ow> \ zo ] .JlL.+o \ l>. :.: ~~"'r+ =; ... 0 --l I I I .... ... ~.. - --+- ~ 0= >- ~oo... /0 , ...~ aAV anDnqna _ 0 PAIQ uoqdeQ oj ,---: I ~ I . = I u I .. ~ I ;; Lo o u ~ u = .. .. ..c"''' ;c:~ \..~.:;o l L. ;?:: t~ == ~'~:. .../~ '"' o -.:J ~ ;;; .. -.:J ~ 5:: ~E-c~ ~Z ~ ~~ Z .!:P~ ~~ 0 ~I-I ~~ UC/) Z< I-I:t ~~ ~I ~~ ~~ 00 >:t U~ 1-1< .tt ~ <~ ~~ ~~ E-c U ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ < ~ )-I Q. ::0 e C!l c o 1ii I ~ ! CIS o w <~ ~ ~ III CI) "E ~ .( " 6 ~ & o ~ 20 35 J L . .r-- 10+ Proiect x~::er~ial 10 45 20 Lo J L 25 0 - 190 + J L L. r 10 20 35jiti 50 --+ 645 0 35+ 20 SB 101 "Hook" Offramp < SB 101 "Hook" On ramp -60 ro ( L440 j ; 5~ ;=- ~ 195j 150 --+ iti 405 0 20 "l:l .:: I'D u .. o .c '" ;.. .. I'D Sister Cities Blvd L 15 0 SO 0-0 JLL.ro <\~85jlti ~ 0--+ 0 0 o + 20 IT u > < .. =' a ~ SB 101 NB 101 Onramp Offramp Figure 16 YEAR 2010 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENT AM PEAK HOUR PHASES I, II AND III ~h SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITYOFSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstatf and Associates ~~ r-- o 1I')+......tI) ~ o .Sl .... = "" ... Ei o . -.::: ""- Cf.l0 v ..~ r-.. L.. ...... ....["""""'~ ~z~ ~~ 1""'\ rt'~ Z ~< ~...... U...... z~ ~C/) aAV anonqna ~ ~ ;;; ~\'~ C/) L.. ~;~< ... _. =,;::J= ~ ~~L.+o ,:ZC~~ llo ... ~ 0 I B ~oJ~ir-- ::~> I t'ooo~ C =c ~ g. =~ :00 <l)CUS S:O PAIQ ~lO " ~ :I: ~~ ~< ~~ U~ ~::E O~ ~ ~ o 't""4 o ~ ~ < ~ )-I ~ o o ~ Q. ... Ei ~ ~ :::6 "\ Lo ~ ..,- Lo -::: EJ Q. ::l E Cl c .2 a; 'I:: o Q. Ul <:: as .= CIl c as U W <~ ~ ~ "g ~ '0 B 13 ~ t:l ~ s.a:l:lV T~t'U;npsa'lJ r ~:laIOId /5-r(i .. :::J ~ i ~ ~~~ g - ~+ :: 8 <I) .. .c::u - = .. . o .. m?:, Slla:l:lV 11lH1nlp.a!: pa!Old PAIQ aplslUH Q 0:; .. :: .. .. .. > '" r- -- 190 . 2160 35 -' 50 --. Sister Cities Blvd ... 550 L 515 90 2415 -- 135 J~L.~85 305-' 630 --. SB 101 "Hook" --.-.J Offramp ) SB 101 "Hook" Onramp ( -- 225 .390 iti 510 2015 J 30 / "Cl ~ ;; . .. o .r::: . > .. lID L 125 0 395 0 -- 0 j~L..O 2415 -' 0--' \ 60. ii! 40 0 80 / ~ SB 101 NB 101 ~ Onramp Offramp g J:> := Q Figure 18 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AM PEAK HOUR-- PHASES I, II AND III 1\ north SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff and Associates _ :l.: 10 '" L:il .:.l 8 0"'0. '0 0' ..... ~ ~: 4-- m ~ l>. ~ ( .J ~ 4 r =M> ~~ :5\ it~ =\?~ _ l>. o Ei ~r-h~ 2:0 ..., ... ii '\ /.- . -...........,/ uy ~nbnqna (.... M> ~..~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ .J~4 r= \\ -~5 _; \ ...J i i ~ ; "" c; 6' . 4""41~ II') OJ .... >- ..oCf') ~1I)Cf') cae: o ~+ / (1)0 ~AI9. JIO<UW ,,~\ ( j r l. ?=~ , I \ .. t ~:!o::= c Ei~ ~ - ,t ~<r .J ~ 4 ::5J i t r+ =--.. 00= ~~ -:;" \ ~- i ~ \\.~+ ~::: ~ P~I9. ~p~smH PAIQ a.1oqs,uQ SU33V ~t~ua1)ts~x '. 43a,0.1d .:: .. ::a ~~J i i r+ _ ----. .", <II') - 0 If') co.. ~+ cot ~ .. = U- ~b ~" ::lJ ~ ~~..b~ ~;. ~ ~!'1~ ~ ) o ~ -V ""~PlP' ~ P"~ i ",-' 0J :E l.Ji4+~ I \ .. ~-=: ~!~) \ "'+ '"' ti,l. ~/ ..~.:> 0\ t..... 1oooo4 .... ['"'""' 1oooo4 ~UIoooo4 .~~O ~OZ ~< ~100004 C/) 1oooo4.... ;J1oooo4 ~C/) ~~ ~C/) C/)< <::r:: U~ ~. C/)~ <;J =:l0 O::r:: S~ N< ~~ <~ ~~ )-I~ Q. ::l o ~ c .2 t6 1: o Q. <Il c: ~ t- l!! OS U w <~ ~ <II Q) '5 "H ~ '0 6 ~ ~ ~ .... C/) ~ ~ ;J ~ o > U 1oooo4 ~ ~ < ~ 0004 Q = .. ~ ~ .. . III T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 127 Table 16 BASE CASE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR, WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2010 Base Case Base Case Base Case & Year 2000 & Project Year 2010 & Project Total Project Intersection Base Case Phase I Base Case Phase I (Phases I. II. III) Signalized Hillside Blvd/Jefferson StI A - .26' A - .33 A - .40 A - .44 B - .53 South San Francisco Drive (Phase I Access) Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities A - .33' A - .37 A - .46 AlB - .50 B - .56 Blvd Sister Cities Blvd/South San N/A N/A N/A N/A A - .42' Francisco Drive/(Phase /I Access) Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster (0 - .72) (0 - .74) (F-1.11) (F - 1.37) Point Blvd/Bayshore Blvd/ A - .48 B - .52 E - .90 E - .94 E - .95 Airport Blvd Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque (B - .52)' (B - .52) (F - 1.20) (F - 1.22) Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp A - .40' A - .41 D - .82 D - .83 E - .89 Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB (A - .35)' (A - .35) (D - .75) (E - .86) off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp A - .31' A - .33 E - .87 E - .88 D - .81 Bayshore Blvd/US 101 SB (F - 1.50)' ramps/Project Commercial N/A N/A N/A N/A F - 1 .29' Access (Phase III) Unsignalized Hillside Blvd/Evergreen Dr B - 7.52 B -7.5 C - 12.0 C - 12.2 C - 13.4 Hillside Blvd/Chestnut Ave F2 F F F F A - .32' A - .40 A - .43 B - .52 US 101 SB off-ramp/NB (E - .90)' (E - .91) (F - 1.42) Bayshore Blvd (All-Way Stop) C - 13.63 C - 14.9 F3 F N/A B - .51' B - .52 E - .89' E - .91 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group. , Signalized level of service - volume/capacity ratio. 2 Unsignalized level of service/average vehicle delay (in seconds) - eastbound left turn from Evergreen Drive. 3 All-way stop Level of Service - average vehicle delay in seconds (overall intersection). WP51 \548\DSEIRII v-c. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 128 sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue. This would be a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-4) Year 2010 - Phase I. During the PM peak hour, Phase I traffic would result in significant adverse impacts at the following locations: · Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (more than two percent increase in traffic volumes added to Base Case LOS F signalized operation.) (Supplemental Impact T-5) · Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (If this intersection remains unsignalized, more than two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to Base Case LOS F operation for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue.) (Supplemental Impact T-6) Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and III. Phase III would include construction of new US 101 southbound on and off hook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at a signalized intersection that would also serve as the primary access to the project's commercial portion. These ramps would be located at about the same location as the existing southbound off- ramp connection to Bayshore Boulevard. Provision of a new southbound on-ramp along Bayshore Boulevard would remove a substantial amount of Brisbane traffic bound for southbound US 101 that previously would have travelled through the Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp at Dubuque Avenue. Thus, during the PM peak hour, even with the addition of traffic from full Terrabay development, operation at two of the three intersections within the Oyster Point interchange would be better with project Phases I, II and III (and the new southbound on-ramp along Bayshore Boulevard) than without the project.' During the AM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and III would result in significant adverse impacts at the following locations: · Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (more than two percent increase in traffic volumes added to Base Case LOS F Operation). (Supplemental Impact T-7) · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (more than two percent increase in traffic volumes added to Base Case LOS F operation). (Supplemental Impact T-B) · Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp (LOS D Base Case operation would deteriorate to LOS E). (Supplemental Impact T-9) · Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps/project commercial access (LOS F operation for this new intersection). (Supplemental Impact T-10) 'The project commercial area would also be acce~sed via two right turn in/right tur~ out driveways along Bayshore Boulevard, one north and one south of the commercial area's signalized access. WP51 \548\DSEIRII V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 129 During the PM peak hour, traffic from the total project would result in significant traffic impacts at the following locations: · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (LOS DBase Case operation would deteriorate to LOS E). (Supplemental Impact T-11) · Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps/project commercial access (LOS F operation for this new intersection). (Supplemental Impact T-12) · Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (If this intersection remains unsignalized, more than two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to the Base Case LOS F operation for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue.) (Supplemental Impact T-13) In addition, during the PM peak hour, construction of new US 101 southbound hook ramps as part of project Phase III would result in substantial beneficial effect at the following location: · Dubuque A venue/US 101 northbound off-ramp--southbound on-ramp (Base Case LOS E operation would improve to an acceptable LOS D). f. Proiect Freeway Link Impacts Table 17 presents year 2000 and 2010 PM peak hour project traffic impacts on US 101 freeway link operation. Year 2000 - Phase I. Phase I traffic would not significantly affect PM peak hour operation of US 101 in 2000. Project traffic would not change level of service of any analyzed freeway segment and would not increase traffic volumes by two percent or more along the one segment (north of Sierra Point) projected to experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2000. Year 2010 - Phase I. Phase I traffic would not significantly affect PM peak hour operation of US 101 in 2010. Project traffic would not increase volumes by two percent or more along analyzed segments, which are all projected to experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2010. Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and III. Traffic from Phases I, II and III would increase PM peak hour peak direction Base Case traffic volumes by three percent along US 101 between the Oyster Point interchange and the South Airport Boulevard interchange, which is projected to experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2010. This would be a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-14) Q. Proiect Freeway Ramp Impacts Table 18 presents project impacts on year 2000 and 2010 AM and PM peak hour operation of the Oyster Point interchange ramps and the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. WP51 \548\DSE/R\/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 a: ::) o ::r: ~ < W l:L ~ a.. I I Z o t- < a: W a.. o > < 3: W W a: u. T"" o T"" (/) ::) o l- (/) t- O < l:L ~ t- ,...0 T""W Q)J :00 ctla: t-a.. _ Cl)1 -0 Ul"O...J ::l c: Q. III <.)1 5l~:> Ill- <.)UlQl Ql ~ E Ullll..:! Ill.c 0 CO(l.> Ul 31 ::l Q. <.) I 5l :> 8-Ql Ql51E Ullll..:! Ill.c 0 CO(l.> o (; C\I ~ Ql >- 5l ~I III <.)Ql Ql E Ul..:! III 0 co> Ul .gl ::l ~ ~I III <.)-;~ ~l{!..:! Ill.c 0 CO(l.> o o o C\I ~ Q) >- 5l ~I III <.)Ql Ql E Ul..:! III 0 co> gl ~I g "Ql .- E U; ::l 'xc UJ> >0 "> III _ 3: >0'0 . "t: co Q) ::l Q c: 0 III O:I:<.) CI) o ...J gl c: Q) E o Q) CI) u. .... "<I: It) C\I V C\i .... u. o "<I: It) C\I CI) N' u. o "<I: o o CI) N' .... u. CI) ~ Ie o ai u. CI) ~ o It) o ai UJ It) Ol o o v ai o o co ai III ... Iii en 15 .c _ 1::.: 00 Z(l. u. o "! o co .... .... .... u. o "! o co .... .... .... u. o "! o co .... .... .... UJ C\I Ol o C') LO ai UJ C\I Ol o C') LO ai UJ <0 CX! o o o ai o o CI) ai .9 - - c: C:._ .- 0 ~(l. III Iii t::- .~ ~ Cl)0 u. C') ~ o <0 C\I ..; .... u. Ol "<I: o Ul co M .... u. Ol "<I: o It) co M .... UJ It) Ol o CI) co ai UJ It) Ol o C\I co ai UJ o Ol o o v ai o o C') ai .9Ql _::l c: c: .- Ql 0> (l.< i-g Ullll >0... 0C!) u. .... ~ o ~ M .... u. C\I ~ o o v M .... u. C\I ~ o Ol CI) M .... UJ co Ol o .... Ul ai UJ co Ol o o <0 ai UJ Ol CX! o o .... ,.: o o co ai 1:: ~8. c.: ~< <.c "0'5 c:0 asCI) (5.9 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 130 v Ol Ol .... Ql E ::l 15 > rL Ui o c: III a: 1ii Iii c: Q) C!) CI) Ol Ol .... "ti ~ o co .s= ~ III Q) Ul Ql a: c: o .~ 1:: 8. Ul c: III .= cD c: .!!! >0 ~ 'x ::l III ... Q) a. :; o .c ~ c: ::l .8 .c '5 o Ul c: .2 U l!! '5 .::t: III Ql (l. Ql c: III J:J .!!! Iii 15 ~ C3 rL Ui o c: III a: III Q) < CD ~ a. : Ul a. Ql - "'0 :a:>. :i: Ul 013 Ql -- > Ille. o C:o III o ._ u It) U"O -g .~ 5l III ."0 III ~]~ l!! 1llQ).....g - a. It) .- .s=UlIt)"O 01 c:"O Q) ::lClQlC: e.Ui E.2> .cQ)::lUl -"OUlUl ...>oUlIll ::l III III Q) ~3.sc: ... Ql'~.!!! 8.~,-~ -::llll ~-a~~ u E.::t: ::l :i:o III as ~<O ~E o 01... e 0.: 0- C\I Ul - a. N'::ld';E c:~0l~ oc:,.-= ]~~~ :a~Eo J:JI-..:!Q) ~...: g i 'u III u- III ~= ~ a. as as III ~~.=~ g.~~ i t$l;l~o ! ft~ ~ '5<.)<.)E ~>OE~ :~ec: (l..s=u.0 ..~ . . J:Q : .... o 15 Ui as UJ c:i ::l o C5 c: .2 ~ 1:: 8. Ul c: as .= Ql c: III U UJ <.) a: :J o CI) T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 en or- Q) :0 as t- ..... () W J o a: 0... J: t- ~ o z <( t- :::> o J: t- ~ a: :::> o J: ~ < W 0... ~ l:L o Z < ~ < - I Z o t- < a: w l:L o 0... ~ < a: > < ~ w w a: u.. 0r- a or- (J') :::> w (J') < () w (J') < CD c: .2 iU ~ a ~ 0 c.'O CD CD rJ.e (.)a.~ 5l~~ <<l 0 0 lIH-> c: .2 _iU ~ -; ~ _CI)a a.<<lO CD~ (1)a. <<l- (.)_CD CD ~ E (1)'- :;, <<leCi coo.> o (; N lii CD >- c: o .~ ~ a o CD CI) <<l (.)CD CD E (1)~ <<l 0 co> c: .2 _iU ~ -; ~ _CI)a a.<<lO CD~ 1/)0. <<l- (.)_CD CD g E 1/)'- :;, <<lea coo.> o o o N ~ <<l CD >- c: o "ii ~ a o CD I/) <<l (.)CD CD E (1)~ <<l 0 co> ~ ~ .. u ~ ~ l!.~ -2.l!5 s It) C') ci . . It) <Xl ..... ~ >- '- - .. u ~.u ~ i~ [ -2.u5~ in It) ..... ci It) <Xl q ~ >- '- - .. u ~.u ~ i~ [ -2.u5~ s It) .... ci o co q ~ ~ .....- .- Q) 0 .... 0 "O<<lCD<<l c: 0."0 a. :;, <<l c: <<l ~u:;,u s C') "!. .... ~ It) '<t It) ....~ .~ CDU~U "O<<lCD<<l c: 0."0 a. :;, <<l c: <<l ~u:;,u in N "!. .... o N It) . ~ 'u <<l a <<l (.) o o lX.l a E <<l a: CD o ~ I/) >- <<l co g a. E <<l ~ == 0"0 co~ U)CO (; .... U) ::> ~ .~ a. <<l U Cl c: ,,:.E ~u~ .....(3 ca.- CD~e~ "0 Q. a. a. C:~a.<<l .2.U<<lU in co ~ o co at ~ ~ Ql ~ Gi.i "0 Q."O a. C:~C:<<l .2.u:;,u o N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q; ~ Ci;.~ "0 Q."O a. c: III C <<l 2.u:;,u in 0) ~ It) co "- >: >- ......13 .~ Gl~~~ "0 Q."O a. C ~ C <<l .2.u:;,u o .... ~ o 0) <Xl .....~ ~ CDU~U "0 <<l Gl <<l C 0."0 a. :;, <<l c: <<l ~u:;,u in <Xl ~ o <Xl <Xl . . b o o N ~ iii >- o E .g a. E"O <<l > ~- cCO oc CO '0 zoo ~ >- 1:1 .~ Iii l ~ ~ ~!lI-gi' .....u~U in fa ci o q ..... ~ 1) Iii!ll~ :i i"O -2.u5 s co ..... ci It) o 0) ~ >- ....(3.....'6 ~ i~ [ ~u5~ s It) .... ci o " <Xl ~ ~ .....- .- GlU"'U "O<<lCDCIl C 0."0 a. :;, <<l C CIl ~u:;,u o 0) !:2. It) <Xl C') ....~ .~ CDU"'U "OCIlGlCll c: 0."0 a. :;, CIl C CIl ~u:;,u S <Xl !:2. o It) C') . . . o o o N CD :;, cr :;, .D :;, Cl E .g a. E CIl ~ :g co~ z< ...~ ~ CD ~ ~.~ "0 0."0 a. cCIlC:CIl .2.u~u in C') ~ o 0) o N ~ .~ a. CIl U ~ ~ Qi.o .....0 "OCIlGlCll c: 0."0 a. ~CIlC:CIl ~u:;,u o .... ~ t! It) N ~ ~ Ci;.o ....0 "O<<lGlCll C 0."0 a. :;,<<lC<<l ~u:;,u in <Xl ~ It) co It) N ~ ~ ~.~ l5.~ "0 0."0 a. C:<<lCCIl .2.u~u in co ~ '<t <Xl " ~ ~ woo ....0 "OCIlGlCll c: 0."0 a. :;,CIlC<<l ~u:;,u S '<t ~ It) " " o o N c? CD :;, cr ~ .D ~ Cl E e - a. E CIl ~ c OCD co> U)< ~ ~ ~.~ ~.~ "0 0."0 a. cCIlCCIl .2.u~u o " ::::. ~ ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z o o lX.l CD o ~ 1/)= >-= CIl CD co I/) E CIl o~ ...0. -'0 ~.~ CIl 0 ... ~ '0. C ~ 0"0 co~ U)CO o <Xl <Xl Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 131 <- CIl ~ ~ Cl :c '<t 0) 0) .... >. .1:: U CIl a. CIl I/)u 1/)"0 CD CD 8 I/) <::l -t; .!!! C U.- ~"O CD CD E C E .2> o I/) (.)rJ >-Gl <<l C .DCIl ~- ~>- CD ... ....Jl1 iU'~ -CCll ~E COo CD-= ~a. ,gE I/) CIl >-~ CIl . co:g o ~ -0 . a. CD 5 E C o CIl CIl ~ ...- ~== ~ Gl 0 CIl 0."0 ;: I/)C:X ~ :;, ~ ~.8 CIl CD';: S Cl~a. C 0 E CD I/) CIl ~~... CIl CD C a.ZO ai o N 1:: o a. CD a: < o U) . . . . . . T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 132 Year 2000 - Phase I. Phase I AM or PM peak hour traffic would not significantly affect any of the four US 101 freeway ramps in the year 2000. Year 2010 - Phase I. Phase I AM or PM peak hour traffic would not significantly affect any of the four US 101 freeway ramps in 2010. Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and III. During the 2010 AM peak hour, total project traffic would result in significant adverse impacts (more than two percent increase in traffic volumes added to Base Case over capacity operation) at two ramp locations: the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard and the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque A venue. (Supplemental Impact T-15 and Supplemental Impact T-16) During the 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and III would not increase traffic volumes at any ramp above capacity. The addition of 195 project vehicles would, however, increase volumes at the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard from 88 percent of ramp capacity with Base Case volumes up to 98 percent of ramp capacity. This would be a less than significant impact. h. Proiect Impacts on Colma Intersections The city of Colma has expressed concern regarding project traffic impacts at three intersections along Serramonte Boulevard: at Hillside Boulevard, EI Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard--1-280 northbound on-ramp. Projections were made as to the likely amount of PM peak hour Phase I and Phases I, II and III traffic that would likely travel through each of these intersections. Table 19 presents the total amount of traffic' passing through each of these intersections, the amount of project traffic expected to pass through each intersection and the percent traffic added by the project. The percentages shown in Table 19 attributable to project traffic would be 10 to 20 percent lower if an approximately one percent per year growth in traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volume base to the years 2000 and 2010. No significant impacts were identified for year 2000 or 2010 Base Case plus Phase I traffic conditions. However, in 2010 with Phases I, II and III, the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside - Boulevard intersection would be expected to experience an approximately four percent increase in traffic volumes, which would be considered a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-17) - '1992 and 1993 traffic volumes from the Cypress Hills DEIR, May, 1994. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 133 Table 19 PROJECT IMPACTS TO COLMA INTERSECTIONS Traffic Added by Terrabay Total Existing* PM Phase I (2000) Phases I, II and III (2010) Peak Hour Volumes % Added % Added Intersection Enterina Intersection Volume to Existina Volume to Existina Serramonte Blvd! 1,197 20 1.7% 50 4.2% Hillside Blvd Serramonte Blvd!EI 3,043 15 .5% 40 1.3% Camino Real Serramonte Blvd! 3,463 10 .3% 25 .7% Junipero Serra Blvd! 1-280 northbound onramp SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group and the city's Cypress Hills DEIR, May 1994. * 1992 and 1993 volumes, Cypress Hills DEIR, May 1994. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 134 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS . Transportation impact mitigation needs have changed from those identified in the 1982 EIR. Several of the mitigations identified in the 1982 EIR were subsequently incorporated into the specific plan and development agreement and have been completed as part of Phase I roadway improvements. These completed mitigations include: · construction of Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the 1982 EIR) between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard; · widening of Hillside Boulevard and creation of a landscaped buffer separating local access movements from higher speed traffic along Hillside Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site); · signalization of intersections at the new Oyster Point interchange and the Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street, Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections; and · removal of the existing stop signs for Hillside Boulevard traffic at the Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street intersections. (A new all- way stop sign was installed at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection to permit vehicles to exit Lincoln Street under conditions of heavy truck traffic, high speeds, limited line-of-sight and downhill grade along Hillside Boulevard at this location.) Mitigations recommended in the 1982 EIR that are still proposed in this SEIR include: · reconstruction of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard as a hook off-ramp (however, the recommended lane geometrics at this location have changed due to changes in projected traffic volumes) and construction of a new hook on- ramp for southbound traffic, both in conjunction with project Phase III; · signalization of the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and US 101 southbound off- ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersections; and · implementation of transportation system management (TSM) measures (the types and number of measures required has changed due to adoption of a TSM ordinance by the city and TSM requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District). Additional mitigations have also been recommended in this SEIR for identified significant impacts at the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection in Colma and at the northbound off-ramp from US 101 to Dubuque Avenue. These remaining 1982 EIR and new SEIR mitigation needs are described below. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 135 a. Base Case MitiQation Needs Without Proiect Figure 20 presents Year 2000 Base Case mitigation needs without the project. Figure 21 presents Year 2010 Base Case mitigation needs without the project (although the mitigations shown would also provide acceptable operations for project Phase I traffic volumes). Levels of service after mitigation at those intersections for which significant impacts have been identified are presented in Table 20. (1) Intersection SiQnalization The following Base Case mitigation needs should be implemented by the city to reduce significant impacts identified for anticipated Base Case future traffic conditions (without the project) to less than significant levels, with fair share contributions from all Base Case developments: (a) Year 2000: . Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Signalize if and when warranted by monitoring (traffic counts). Coordinate (sequence) this signalization with the nearby Hillside Boulevard/Stonegate Drive signal. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A at Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. Note: Alternatively, the monitoring (traffic counts) and associated engineering evaluation necessary to determine when signalization is warranted may also indicate that the Stonegate Drive signal (and associated sequencing) is no longer needed and that instead of signal sequencing, the Stonegate signal can be replaced with a stop sign on the Stonegate approach only (i.e., if the new Chestnut Avenue signal will provide sufficient gaps in eastbound Hillside Boulevard traffic flow to allow safe stop sign- controlled turn movements from Stonegate Drive). The monitoring/evaluation mayor may not also indicate that a change in the nearby all-way-stop-sign-controlled Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection--i.e., removal of stop signs on the Hillside Boulevard approaches--may be possible. . US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Signalize when warranted and add second off-ramp intersection approach and departure lanes. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS NB in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. (b) Year 2010: . Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Signalize when warranted. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A . US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Signalize when warranted and add second off-ramp intersection approach and departure lanes. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. WP51\548\DSEIR1/V-C.548 ~C/) ~ ~o j .!:P~ ~ ~~""'""" ZO ZS: ~ \ ~5 II J11 11 III I 4=- t \ E 9 < S ~.. ~ ().... .Tin.r~ /~ (// ~".<,~aAvanb:qnaEt:: ~ ~ 4. +L- "', ;6::E> ;;; " ~.. -- j;> "0 ., \ ~ ~ \J. :\ -ZQ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~J; "': ~ CIJ ~ 1IlC:: < " / ",0 U PA(Q aIo1{UI( ./ ~ ~ !~ +-1l1 ~ \ =:I I '+ r 0 \ ~. \ 0 \ ~ i i i r) ~ ,,,~---,/j ~ ~ )-I l>. ... Ei 0_ -.::: 1Il- ",0 ~ ... C l:lO Vi ~ cu Z II II @--+ m \~ A "'(11 "'C CU "'C CU CU Z {----- I ..s > I jji I ~ U ..:~ <b' . .'1>" ~$-"'" /~ (u L~ \ \ ii! /J "-... /' ---- J: ~ IS UOI%ilI1il[ ~ V/~ ~ (J III + \ \ . \ \ ~ lir) '" /' '-.---'/ Q .. .:l .. ;;; ... c o ;:; ... -E :::E Cl u .:!l u c:: - .. ... c:: - '" ..c :; o '" ... Q. ::0 e Cl c o 16 'I:: ~ f! ~ i u w ~~ Q c:: .. :: III .. .. >- ... lI.l Q) B . ~ .:t! 'tl B ~ ~ /"'----:: I > ii I . "0 I = cu I U "0 cu Q .. cu ~ Z .. c u; -;; ... OJ . C C U QO 0 C ;;; - . '" .. 1:10 ... ~ - c cu ~ . Z '" '" II II -= @ -. c '" '- ~( ~ PAIlI iI[lIPSIIIH Q = .. ~ III ~I l>. ... Ei 0. - .. ...::: coO A-............. ~ OlAV i1nbnqna ~.,~ ... ..t.. r \ E2 " .- \~~~ A. I ... ~ ~ir+ E~ -. ~O -. "\ ... C; Ei ~~~ ;;:0 ... > ;;; ;: "0 ... .. .. . :>-. o PAIQ ilIo'ldllll ~~ Wllll:= \ !.~ r ' , . \ \~~ o <II E :::l '0 > ,g g 3l lIS oS:. a. ~ oS c .2 ! <II 0. o <II :c lIS Q. 5 o lIS <II "0 os e 0. o '" Iii '" 'E <II E <II e 0. .5 w .... o z ~~~ <1l~~ :; ~ > .!:p0 0 ~:t ~)-I ~~ ~~ C/)~ O::J ~O ~:t Z~ ~ Z~ 01 ~~ ~~ e,,< ~:t t:~ ~j ~~ C/)~ <0 U~ ~~ C/):t <~ ~~ ~~ Q~ NO ~ < ~ )-I Q. ::0 e Cl c o 1a "5 Q. .. c f! ~ ~ f! u W <~ ~ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 138 Table 20 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AFTER MITIGATION--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR Year 2000 Year Base Case 2010 Base Year 2010 Year 2000 & Project Year 2010 Case plus Base Case plus Intersection Base Case (Phase I) Base Case Phase I Phases I. II. III Supplemental Impact T-3 SB US 101 off-ramp/ (AlB - .56) 1 (A/B - .56)' (0 - .83)' NB Bayshore Blvd C - .60' C - .621 (B-7.1)'F (C - 19.0)'F Supplemental Impact T-5/T-7 (0 - .80)2 Sister Cities Blvd! (D - .85)2 Bayshore Blvd/Airport C - .592 C - .602 C - .662 Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd (B - .54( (C - .65t D - .753 D - .832 Supplemental Impact T-8/T-11 (0 - .81)3 Oyster Point Blvd/ (0 - .82)3 Dubuque Ave/US 101 A - .503 A - .503 B - .5s:' NB on-ramp (C - .6~r (C - .70t1 0-.82 C - .633 1 Supplemental Impact T-9 Dubuque Ave/US 101 (0 - .85)4 NB off-ramp/US 101 D - .834 D - .844 SB on-ramp Supplemental Impact T-10/T-12 Bayshore Blvd/US 101 (0 - .85)5 SB ramps/Project C - .705 Commercial Access (0 - .80t (Phase III) o - .825 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group. 1 Add 2nd southbound lane to off-ramp/signalization. F All-way stop level of service - average vehicle delay in seconds, with second off-ramp lane 2 Add 3rd SB left turn lane on Bayshore approach; 2nd EB left turn lane on Sister Cities approach; second WB through lane on the Oyster Point approach; and restripe the NB Airport Boulevard approach to provide 1 left. 2 through and 1 right turn lane. 2 Add second left turn lane on eastbound Sister Cities approach. 3 Add 2 EB through lanes on Oyster Point approach and a second right turn lane on westbound Oyster Point approach. 3F No improvements needed. 3Fl Add a second right turn lane on westbound Oyster Point approach. 4 Add 2nd left turn lane on northbound Dubuque approach with or without flyover mitigation. 5 Add 3rd left turn lane on off-ramp approach; add 2nd SB left turn lane and 3rd through lane; add 2nd NB left turn lane; add 2nd EB through lane. SF Add second through lane on project driveway eastbound approach. EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound SB = Southbound F = with flyover L = left turn lane T = through lane R = right turn lane TR = combined through/right turn lane WP51 \5481DSE/Rl/V-C.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 139 (2) Intersection Geometric Improvements (Base Case without Proiect) (a) Year 2000: · US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp and signalize the intersection. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS A/B in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. (b) Year 2010: · Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Widen/restripe the four intersection approaches to provide the following lane geometrics (see Figure 21): Bayshore Boulevard southbound - add a third left-turn lane Airport Boulevard northbound - provide 1 left-turn/2 through/1 right-turn lanes Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second through lane Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound - add a second left-turn lane Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. Provide a US 101 southbound flyover off- ramp to connect with eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to the east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection.' (Figures 22 and 23 present 2010 AM and PM peak hour Base Case traffic volumes, respectively, without the project and with the flyover. Figure 24 presents 2010 Base Case intersection approach lane needs with the flyover.) Resultant peak hour operation: LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. Note: As can be seen by comparing Figures 21 and 24, provision of the southbound off- ramp flyover significantly reduces the level of improvement (i.e., number of new lanes) needed for the year 2010 Base Case conditions at both the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections (year 2000 Base Case mitigations shown on Figure 21 would suffice), and eliminates the need for , Such a southbound off-ramp f1yover was proposed and approved as part of the recently completed Oyster Point interchange reconstruction project, but was not constructed due to cost reduction measures. The flyover has been identified as an "ultimate" mitigation need for the traffic impacts of cumulative development in the vicinity. WP51 \548\DSEIR1IV-C.548 Sister Cities Blvd \ iii 105 2015 30 US 101 910 -- +-- 165 t 390 \ 210 j J 1800 \~85 ~ "0 =- a:i u .. o ~ III > lIS llCI L 545 7S 70 645 +-- 110 J~L.t85 90 j 500 --+ 215. ~h SOURCE:CnmeT~rt~bn~p L 110 0 "50+-- 0 J~L.tO - <~09~ i i i 0--+ '0 0 60 . 60 SB101..,/.;~ : NB 101 u Offramp ~ =' -'=' =' , Q ~ Figure 22 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR--WITH FL YOVER TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CiTY OF SOUTH SAN Fl<ANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstaff and Associates ... o - (' 0 0:;: 0",__ =tn_ .J~L. \ \ \. rn ::l - on ... ~ ~ \ ~- ~ ~ \\~--. ::: g / ~, PAIlI a!psIHH .. 0 '-:2 +--on ...on .r~ ~C/)~ Q)~ ~ :;~ :> ~~O ~)-I O~ :>~ "\ U~ ~ i' .1'''V ......a . it ~ . ~.. _b / -........J'f _ a < I ~ 5 /~ ~ / .. '--.., N:€ "'" ~ ~t7 / '-on \.... ~o ~ ~ ,,..:-,,,,,,,,,,, +--...::: \' ~~ ~ -f .J l L. .-' ~~ ~ 0 t:h ~ -\ ",J ~ i ~ i-; ~ ::z:: "'" \.. "'... ~~~ / ~ .... \ ~ ~~ ;: '" "'/ Q, u ~ S ~_ / ~2~< ~A1S ~~O~ ~ 5 C/) ~ .. ~ 0 L~ ~ ~ ... - ~ "':-~;l \ ""'"" ~ . I ~ I I r- ~N \ 0 ~ } +-'.4;. - \ T""I... i ~J ~ .. ~ i 0 ~ \ ~... - :!l ~:: j N U \ ~+ -l;: / ~ ~ r oJ ~ i "-.~ < a o~ olli ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ::z:: ~ 100-4 ~ ~i~ 2.n: _:WJ/ ./ PAIQ aloqs 1I11 o 1ft o ::: .J~ .. I u: . = u ..'I> ~" .'1>"- ..../~ ~~ ~ - '''-, I g 1ft L~ \ / 1l..r~ ! I ~,- i '\ I I / \~ ~ ~~S uou~H~I ai ~. .. '<:>'" \ .." co \- 1,1) ~ 0 ::: ~ +- 0 \ ~ ~.J ~ L. ~ :::. \! oJ ~ i ~ ) c ----. If') / =", o~-J "~.. , .."-..... I~ "$'~ .. ~ . ;;; ... -; c u: ~ Q = .. :: "" .. .. > ... Q. '" o c'5 c o 16 I .. ;; ! ~ u W <~ ~ I I ~ co ... ~C/)~ ~O~ .!:P~ > ~~o Z)-I Z~ o~ ~:I:: ~t: 0& I "\ C-'~ ~ ~ ~ -II- / .,v ....q"<l E=: ..1 :;.;;--- /~ I / /.L ..... ~7,j I .-- '{'~! ~ ~ ..; +r '.:J;~ ~< ~c J eT ~~ C/)"""" o \" \~ ~ JooIooI ".: ::--\ ~ -'1+ J 'l..t ~, ~ ---, I ~ /~~ U ,oooot ",. ...q.... ~ "" "i /,.- ~ :J "",. "~'1V / rI:J ~ ,,/~ ~~ ~O jJ I" ~ ,\.0 g ~ i ~44 t \ B L.. \ ". _. L' \ =5 11',.1 ~O;J "', =: \ I I / < :I:: '-.==:!_-.-// ~ ~ )-I~ ~ ~ o :I:: ~ ~ <n ~ L L JUll - \ .r II ir[ji - - - - ....... -.. --.. - ~ SU))V 'Wt.u u . aOlsa}f > ~)~!Old- ~ i.J!~~ . . U 4"/:, 3 ~1i"l ~ .'I7t.~ 'l' ~ +".,~ i~ / ~ ~ i ~! ( III L \ .~ .~ \ ..4'--/ \ .. ~. \.... I t @ , -v,.......... \ ii r / ~J..!IUd . ~~/ .17\ AA~ ~)~su:~ \ _ -L. ., ~ ' \7 ,.)' \ ,.<--.51 JlJl.1-\ '. / "'-. I I .' ~........ . h \' · ~ - '\.... / \ -'-> .," . ",. ''''IIIH ~ . \ ~ I 11 ~ / \ .. I I '- . .-------"/ <Ii 01 E ::l (5 > () == ~ 01 (j) as .s::: D.. ... .2 c: o .. l!! 01 8- 01 :is .s c. CD 8 as ~ '> e c. o (j) Gi III i:: CD E CD > e c. .E Q r:: .. :: ~ .. .. 1Zl. w ~ o z ~ go e Cl c o ~ t ftl ~ ! ftl U W u a: => o (J) Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 143 signalization at the US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp. Implement one of the following al~ernative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Widen the Oyster Point Boulevard approaches to add the following lanes (see Figure 21): Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second right-turn lane Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound - add two through lanes Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. Provide a US 101 southbound flyover off- ramp as described above for the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection. No additional intersection improvements would be needed (see Figure 24). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS C in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. . US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Add a second lane to the southbound off- ramp and signalize the intersection (see Figure 21). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. Provide a southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp as described above and add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp (see Figure 24). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. . Dubuque A venue/US 101 northbound off-ramp - southbound on-ramp. Add a second left-turn lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach (see Figure 21). Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS D WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-C.548 T errabay Project City. of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 144 (3) US 101 Freeway Improvements (Base Case without Proiect) (a) Year 2000: · Caltrans does not plan to add additional travel lanes to the segment of US 101 through and just north of South San Francisco by the year 2000. Therefore, mitigation of projected unacceptable commute peak period operational impacts would require a combination of transportation system management (TSM) measures to reduce peak hour demand. Such measures should include incentives to car/vanpool, increased transit availability, provision of flex time working hours for employees, expansion of telecommuting, etc. All South San Francisco businesses should comply with the South San Francisco TSM ordinance in order to reduce commute peak hour travel on the local freeway network. Bus/shuttle access to CalTrain and BART should be promoted. (b) Year 2010: · Same mitigation as for year 2000 Base Case without Project, above. (4) US 101 Freeway Ramp Improvements (Base Case without Proiect) (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation measures are required. (b) Year 2010: · Southbound Off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the southbound freeway mainline and an extended deceleration lane along the freeway mainline. Resultant AM peak hour operation: Under Capacity. · Northbound Off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the northbound freeway mainline. Resultant AM peak hour operation: Under Capacity. b. Base Case Plus Proiect Mitiaation Needs (1) Intersection Signalization (a) Year 2000 - Phase I: (Supplemental Impact T-1) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. With project Phase I, provide a fair-share contribution towards signalization of this intersection. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A. ,..-,' WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 145 (b) Year 2010 - Phase I: (Supplemental Impact T-2) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. For each project phase, provide a fair-share contribution towards signalization for this intersection (Le., with Phase I, Phase II and Phase III) Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A. US tOt Southbound Off-ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Provide a fair-share contribution towards signalization and off-ramp widening (with Phase I, or Phases I and II). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. Note: Bayshore Boulevard is within the Brisbane city limits. Mitigations involving improvements to Bayshore Boulevard must be coordinated with the city of Brisbane. (c) Year 2010 - Phases I, II and III: (Supplemental Impact T-3) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-t. (2) Intersection Geometric Improvements (a) Year 2000 - Phase I: · (Supplemental Impact T-4) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-t. (b) Year 2010 - Phase I: · (Supplemental Impact T-5) Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard. The intersection geometric improvements only, or the southbound to eastbound f1yover off-ramp only, as recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions, would also provide acceptable operation for 2010 Base Case with proiect Phase I conditions. Project Phase I should provide a fair share contribution towards geometric improvements or to the flyover. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour with lane additions only -- LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour with the flyover only. · (Supplemental Impact T-6) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Implement mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact T-t. WP51 \548\DSEIR\lV-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 146 (c) Year 2010 - Phase I, II and III: Year 2010 Base Case plus project Phases I, II and III mitigation needs without and with the southbound off-ramp flyover are diagrammed in Figures 25 and 26, respectively. . (SupplemefJtallmpact T-7) Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Recommended 2010 Base Case without Project improvements would also provide acceptable operation with the project. Provide a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards these recommended Base Case intersection improvements (see Figure 25); Le.: Bayshore Boulevard southbound - add a third left-turn lane Airport Boulevard northbound - provide 1 left-turn/2 through/1 right-turn lanes Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second through lane Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound - add a second left-turn lane Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. With a southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp, the geometries recommended at this intersection for the 2010 Base Case conditions with the flyover and without the project would not provide acceptable operation with the project (see Figure 26). To mitigate this deficiency, add a second left turn lane to eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard, with a fair-share cost contribution from each project phase. Figures 27 and 28 present AM and PM peak hour Base Case plus Total Project (Phases I, II and III) traffic volumes, respectively, with the proposed flyover mitigation. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS C in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. · (Supplementsllmpact T-B and T-11) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Recommended Year 2010 Base Case without project improvements would also provide acceptable operation with the project. Provide a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards these recommended Base Case improvements; Le.: Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second right-turn lane Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound - add two through lanes WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-C.548 " r ~L L ~, ;; a aAV aRDll'l"U ))lll~ 1= \ ~J--A <~.;::< ~~ II iiirr~ i \1 '. ~ \ \..:: ! ~ ~1 r+) ;;; >. 1 '" o \,. / "'--. + / PAIlI P04.l'fY L -- (~ttll r . ". \ 2 Tlli)i "~/ til I: oa 01: u; G) I: .!!! .S: /j tll + \ l r . . ~ \ :;-li~) ! Ii "--~ Oe ~ ~ ~.) B G) fI) as m Iii I- o Z ~ o o .,.. - = c. - Ei ... . -.::: ID- ",0 ~ o o ::t : ..- C. - Ei ~ ~ ... c: ",0 \( -. r -L u __ ~h(' III ~ r ,;: ~<.. ~ r_-...r- \ J~ \J iyi r ssa:l:lV Twnuaplsall - r pa!O.lcl..., ~ ~ ~ -. Q .. ! ~U ~ j\~.lii" - =c -c < <;j I: tll) Vi ~ GI Z II c: . 0 CI) :;: ..cu n -;; :; @ -. ,g P: S5a:l:lY lWnUapT5all , -L' ~:I: \ =r I )\ ~ ""-.. / '---< ~' PATS. ap!sTtTH Q c: .. ~ ~ .. > ... "\ Il") I-oC ,., N ~ ..... ~ I-oC ~ := 1""'\ > .!:P I--l 0 ~Z <)-I ~ =~ ...~ 1-oC~ ~O C/):I: <~ :I:1-oC ~~ , . IIIIIj . '.JC/) ~O ~~ O~ ~Z ~Z C/)o ~1-oC ~~ ~< ~C-' C/)~ <~ u~ ~~ C/) < ~ o ~ o N ~ < ~ )-I Q. ::> o (; c o 1ii 'I:: 8- !! l!! ~ ~ ~ u Iii .s: u <g ~ \0 I-oool ~ N ~ rTl Q)~ ~ :; :> .!:pO 0 ~Z <~ =~ ~~~ C/)~ /--0\ ~ uy "''''0 . ~ ~ ~ · .. J-/.. E-o~ ' ill rj' .~ J, -3 ., ~ u Z ~. 2:. -\ - ~i~/~ ~ '- f' /0. .... \""1 / ~Z -:; "'""1.--/' &' 0 0 b "-.. ~;. - - - - -- "Ii ...."v : . ~.... r- "Ii ~,. .. ~. 0 ll-o ~ ~- - ~ W.{u. r \ ;g l:l 1: e: II II -- (. ~ I-oool !5~(++ ~ r '\ .d ~nHf7 ~ ~ ----!- i t i ~ ssa))v T.t~Uaptsax ::::: -', '/ ~ =:::: .. .~!.., ',,~ ~ ~..., ~ · ~ ~ U .. .! 4~ ~ U ~ C/) .~~."'~" < ~.. ~ II, L \ Q I ~~L.~! S I AA r / N '\ II / g> ~ ~ :~< -: fTl 4S uouaJJal _ ~ ~ )-I "', , .5 \ "i IJlll + \ ~ -- } .= ... ~tr+/ ~ \ --'--0 I I" ~ \ ~ .-2> " , ',,-- ./ 'e ------ <II tIJ B :Jl III !Xl W I- o Z - - +~ .. .. c c ~ ; ~ ..., .. .., z < . . ~+ /~ / ::: ~ i -- -:r+ ) \ -r I . ~. PAlS ap!SllIH .., .. .., .. .. Z .. ~ ;;; . .. c .. ... -. c::~ .. 0 CIlu . .c::- _ u "'" o. ..,.. IZo sla))y 11lHlIaplul; "\.. l..hl!UoAd-.::f > ii .. ~ i .. Q Q. ~ Cl c: o ii 't: i l! I- eI) c l! u W .s:. u <2 ~ ~ '" .. :: ~ .. > c.I T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 149 Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS B in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. With the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp, also add an additional right-turn lane to the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach, with a fair-share cost contribution from each phase of the project. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS C in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. (Supplemental Impact T-9) Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp. 2010 Base Case without Project improvements would also provide acceptable operation with the project. Provide a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards recommended Base Case improvements (addition of a second left turn lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach.) Resultant AM peak hour operation: LOS D (Supplemental Impacts T-10 and T-12) Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound ramps/project commercial access. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Provide a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards to the following lane additions to the base geometrics presented on Figure 25: · Off-ramp westbound - add a third left-turn lane · Bayshore Boulevard southbound - add a second left-turn lane and a third through lane, and widen the southbound on-ramp to accommodate two travel lanes near Bayshore Boulevard. · Bayshore Boulevard northbound - add a second left-turn lane . Project driveway eastbound - add a second through lane In addition, provide a channelized median opening at the north driveway to the project commercial portion along Bayshore Boulevard to allow left turn inbound movements (in addition to proposed right turn in and outbound movements). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. With the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp, also add a second through lane to the eastbound project commercial access to the base geometrics presented in Figure 26, with a fair-share cost contribution from each project phase. WP51 \548\DSEIR\I v-c. 548 ... ... 35 -./ US 101 / ------, .It. ".'-...... L- 355 ~ 225 ~ 390 " / ~tr+ i i i. 6'5 40 430 I ; / 280J I -to r+ i i I / 965 ---+ 510 2015 , 130 ---.., 30 / " ... / " 50 --. \ "'" 35 i '........... ./ ',---- / / ." > iiil ~ .. o -= r.o > fd == ..~ ..~ '.395 125 0 t ....,. I - 515 g J ~ L. ~ 135 ~ < 550 90 515 I I I .."..L. ... 305 -./ 630 --. ", 220-, ". " ~O ~ 0 " ,.. 85 ., ....,...r+ 247s-J I I i I o ---+ 40 0 , 60 \ 80 , / ," , "....~ ......-'/ 51 101 A-rL ~ On Ramp / 4( , NB 101 41 OHramp ;. ::l ,.Q ::r o ~ .,+~ i I I 40 130 295 /- -'-----...-' ~h SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group Figure 27 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PROJECT PHASES I, II AND III TRAFFIC VOLUMES-- AM PEAK HOUR WITH FL YOVER I TERRABA Y PROJECT SEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Wagstatt and Associates oo~ ~ NI-4~ ~~~ .~O> ~ZO <)-I 1-4~ ~~ ~::c ......... C/)~ ~ I \ ~1-4 i~~g L~''\ -6'. C/)~ (/.J~ i ~ -~::: \ ~ i ~-fJ ... Uyanbnqna:$ ~ -1-4 r'" \ZT~~IJ /' -"/' E~ ~~ \ "l i r- I~I~... L., N~ ~ 0 \." =.=/ t1.J~L. ;::-=" ~~,g5::C ~ ~n '-Y"lir-,-t ...l~ 7 i~ - r-! ,\ '.~ ..s /~'- ~ <: :. '\~... / ~~ o ~ - ! r'" ~ PAIS: ;uoqdllS: '-'Ala ~loClny 2....,.J _ ,1Dc: ~~ . ~ ",0 ~~ t::Ei~"! co ,/ '+..."\ U~ u" o"'~ olno ",--" \ · 'OEi:: '" ...... ! :::;::: ~ ---g ~ · .-: 8< .J! L. ! .J I I r =: '" \ C/) C/) ~ .. "-+ ... \ ~ '\ 2~~ 1 i c: i ~ ~ o "'...... ) ........ ~+ ....::: 0....., '\~/ ~ S ~> <u ~1-4 )-I~ ~ < .~ o0oi - .,. - (l) :;I =~J ~ i ~ = ----.. '=" Co ~+ _!:l !~'\ r= ~ \ ~- ~ ~) \ ~+ 0 rot " - '" ~, PAlS: ap!8111H ~ 88a33V ,wUUapt8ax .. pa!OIcl :N~~ ~ '"' - .. .J! 5 .. ::J ~ i ~ ~. ~ t ) ;;; =J :~ ..c~ _u ,. C o. enst 4~ ~" ,~" ~$-" /~~" I/~o L~ "\ ( 1l. rj; \\ A ~ r+ I \ ~~/J " ssa33V lwt~uaptsa'll ~ .-... ~ \"?0 . C"l .... C " - --- -+- ' fE J.J ~ L. r~'" \ \ ~J ~ i r+ ! \ . ~~ :l ~ ~/J ,,~ ....--/ I" __ 9'.) Q. ::l e Cl c J2 7ii 'I:: o ~ f! r- CIl c: 1lI Q w <~ ~ Q c .. :: ::: .. '" ~ " II> Ql ~ ~ 'tl 8 ~ ~ :; T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 152 Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. (Supplemental Impact T-13) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Implement mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact T-1. (3) Freeway Operation Improvements (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. (b) Year 2010: (Supplemental Impact T-14) Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and III. Caltrans does not plan to add additional travel lanes along the segment of US 101 between the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange and South Airport Boulevard interchange undercrossing by the year 2010. Therefore, mitigation of projected unacceptable commute peak period operational impacts would require a combination of transportation system management (TSM) measures to reduce peak hour demand. Such measures should include incentives to car/vanpool, increased' transit availability, provision of flex time working hours for employees, expansion of employee telecommuting, etc. The project Phase III commercial area would be responsible for most of the project-related impact to this segment of US 101. All project businesses must comply with the South San Francisco TSM ordinance to reduce commute peak hour travel on US 101. (4) Freeway Ramp Improvements (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. (b) Year 2010: (Supplemental Impact T-15) Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and III: US 101 Southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. Each phase of the project should provide a fair share contribution towards recommended Base Case improvements. This would reduce impacts at this location to a less than significant level. (Supplemental Impact T-16) Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and 11/: US 101 Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque A venue. Each phase of the project should provide a fair share contribution towards recommended Base Case improvements. This would reduce impacts at this location to a less than significant level. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/ v-c. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 153 (5) Colma Intersection Mitiaations (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. (b) Year 2010: (Supplementsllmpact T-17) Year 2010 - Phases I, /I and 11/: Hillside Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard. Require that project phases II and/or III provide a reasonable fair share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. In addition, any major new development projects in the town of Colma located along or in close proximity to Hillside Boulevard should be required to provide their fair share contribution towards needed improvements along Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco. WP51 \548\DSEIRII v-c. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996' Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 154 WP51 \548\DSE/R\/V-C.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 155 D. SOILS AND GEOLOGY This SEIR chapter describes project impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. The chapter includes: (1) a description of the existing soils and geologic setting, focusing on changes in soils and geologic conditions since the 1982 EIR; (2) a summary of the impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR; and (3) a supplemental reevaluation of project impacts and associated mitigation needs based on the changed conditions. The updated findings in this section were developed by the SEIR engineering geologic and geotechnical consultant, Harlan Tait Associates (HTA), based on review of 1993 stereo-paired aerial photographs of the site, a September 1995 site inspection, review of geotechnical reports completed for the site since 1982, and a review of new and revised geologic information pertaining to the site. 1. SETTING 8. Existina Settina -- 1982 (1) TOPoQraphy. As shown on Figure 29, the site consists of rolling, gently to steeply sloping terrain on the south and east-facing slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Site elevations vary from approximately 25 feet above sea level along Bayshore Boulevard to 575 feet at the tops of ridges at the northwest corner of the site. Spur ridges extending approximately perpendicular to the main mountain ridgeline create eight moderately sloping swales which become steeper, narrower ravines at higher elevations. Nearly half the site is characterized by slopes greater than 30 percent. Slopes are generally steeper on the east-facing portions of the site. (2) Bedrock GeoloQY. The northern and eastern portions of the site are mapped as being underlain by Franciscan sandstone, which is generally hard, strong, erosion-resistant rock not affected by major faulting. The remainder of the site is mapped as being underlain by Franciscan melange, which generally consists of deeply weathered claystone, siltstone, and fragments of sandstone, chert and metamorphic rocks. The melange unit is considered to represent ancient fault zones. (3) Soils. Site bedrock is overlain by discontinuous rocky loam soil consisting of colluvium (slope wash), alluvium (stream deposits), and a small amount of artificial fill. The soils are classified as part of the Gaviota eroded Rockland association generally found on steep slopes containing numerous exposures of bedrock. Soil thickness ranges from less than three feet on the upper slopes to 20 feet in swales. WP51 \5481DSEJRIIV-D.548 LEGEND Geologic Units: ~I Of Artificial fill ~I Oa Alluvium ~I OC Colluvium 51 Ols Landslide deposit ecn Franciscan Complex: =Ea Qu.I KJf predominantly sandstone with minor ~~ :::>5 shale beds and melange .., ~ IIIIIIlIIlIIIII --'\/' <<<<<<<<< ~1.D ~+- ~ ] L.. \._/ Symbols: Geologic contact, approximately located Site boundary, approximately located Umits of grading completed during Phase I, appproximately located (CREM, 1991) Soil creep Gully Slope Stability: Landslide: hachures indicate scarp area; arrows indicate direction of downslope movement State of Activity: 1 = Active or Recently Active 2 = Dormant 3 = Quatemary Certainty of Identification: 1 = Definite 2 = Probable 3 = Questionable Dominant Type of Movement: 1 = Soil Slip I Earth Row 2 = Debris Slide, including Talus Fall 3 = Debris Row 4 = Slump I Rotational 5 = Translational Thickness of Deposit: 1 = Less than 5 feet 2 = 5 t015 feet 3 = Greater than 15 feet NOTES: 1. Geology not shown in areas graded during Phase I. 2. Sources for geologic mapping include: a} EIP, 1982, Terrabay EIR, Figure 13 b) PSC Associates, 1983, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park, November 15, 1983, Plate 1. c} Aerial photograph review and reconnaissance-level field mapping for Terrabay Supplemental EIR, 1995. .L- UlU .. ~~ ~ m- I~~i'i ~i~~.~ i~l~i 1000 Jl~1 m leet ii~~Jl ci~i~i "~il~ ~:'<~ ~aa.f ~~I-l r -'.., ~ l8 i' . i~jj ~'f m. G"} t'11 o ~ o G") ~ ('1:::1 ~! I .--1 i7 ::r 8>>- Ell l~. III ;~! :3'3' ~ii 'Vo i~ -i s' ea T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 159 (4) Seismicity. The project site is located in a region of high seismicity. Major regional fault zones that have been historically active include the San Andreas fault (approximately three miles southwest of the site), the Seal Cove fault (approximately ten miles southwest), the Hayward fault (approximately 15 miles northeast), and the Calaveras fault (approximately 27 miles northeast). There are no known active faults crossing the site, and no portion of the site is located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. However, the area would experience strong groundshaking during a major earthquake along the San Andreas fault. Inactive faults near the site include the San Bruno fault (approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the site) and the City College fault (approximately 2.5 miles north of the site). A trace of the Hillside fault trends northwest across the site, and a second trace of the Hillside fault has been mapped northwest of the site.' Fault trenches excavated on the site across these fault traces revealed no evidence of activity on the Hillside fault. (5) Landslides. A large number of landslides have occurred on the site (Figure 29). In addition, many areas are undergoing active soil creep (Le., the slow downslope movement of surficial soils). All areas proposed for development are affected by landslide and/or soil creep conditions to some extent. Some of the major landslides range in maximum thickness from 25 to 35 feet, while numerous minor landslides are approximately 10 to 15 feet in thickness. These landslide deposits are susceptible to future sliding. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS The soils and geology impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 21. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Chanaes in Settina - 1982 to 1995 (1) Topoaraphy. In 1989 and 1990, approximately 80 acres of the site were graded to accommodate Phase I development. The approximate limits of Phase I grading are shown on Figure 29. Phase I grading included all grading needed for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park in the western portion of the site, and some grading in the central and eastern portions of the site for construction of Sister Cities Boulevard and South San Francisco Drive, and drainage catchment basins at the base of three south-facing swales. , Bonilla, M.G., 1971. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point Quadrangle, California: Basic Data Contribution 29, 1 :24,000. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 160 Table 21 1982 EIR SOILS AND GEOLOGY IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary Vegetation removal during site preparation and grading would expose site soils to increased erosion, particularly during the rainy season. Numerous landslides underlie or are located upslope from areas proposed for development. Differential settlement would be expected in cut and fill ares. Springs and slope present the potential for erosion or unstable soil conditions. Strong groundshaking during an earthquake could cause landslides, liquefaction in some fills, and structural anclJor aesthetic damage to buildings and structures. Improper drainage of hillside fills or static loads on incorrectly designed slopes could cause seismic slope instability. Proposed large amounts of impervious surlace could reduce what little groundwater recharge may occur on the site. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-D.548 Mitiaation Summary The preliminary design criteria for each proposed development area provided in the geotechnical feasibility study and general geotechnical summary should be used as a guideline for planning. Detailed, design-level geotechnical investigation for each specific project site should be conducted to provide design recommendations for each area. The grading plans should be reviewed by project geotechnical engineer after detailed geotechnical information is obtained from the design-level investigation of each project development area. All grading and site preparation should be done under the direct supervision of the project geotechnical engineer in accordance with the design-level recommendations supplied by the geotechnical consultant. Weak or unstable soils should be over- excavated and replaced with competent material properly keyed. compacted and drained. Fill slopes and cut slopes should be inclined no greater than 2H:1V unless specifically reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Subdrainage and surlace drains should be installed to prevent sloughing or raveling of slopes. Cut slopes should be designed on an individual basis and approved by the city. High fill slopes should be overlilled and graded back to obtain stable surfaces. All fill slopes must be compacted to city specifications with no loose outer slopes. Cut and fill slopes should be planted to reduce erosion. Cut slopes should be terraced between benches for silt retention where appropriate. T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 161 Storm drainage and subdrainage should be installed and maintained to prevent erosion of fill. Retaining walls should be subdrained and designed to resist pressures appropriate to the configuration of the backslope. Graded building sites (cut pads) should be inspected and treated as necessary by over- excavation and backfilling per design-level recommendations provided by the project geotechnical consultant. Moisture prevention treatments should be used beneath building slabs, as appropriate. All landslides and areas of weak soil in or near proposed development. should be repaired. Landslides should be repaired by over- excavation, installation of subdrains and engineered backfilling, by the installation of retaining walls, or by some other geotechnically appropriate method on the basis of design-level investigation. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as possible either by vegetation or mechanical methods. During construction, limits of grading should be defined by fencing. Both temporary and permanent erosion control measures should be employed. Slope lengths and gradients should be reduced as much as possible. Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas using water bars or other diversions during construction. Construction sediment should be trapped before it leaves the site. Adherence to grading principles and recommendations to reduce geologic and hydrologic impacts should be made a condition of approval of the proposed project. It should be the responsibility of the City/County to see that the recommendations are carried out. WP51 \548\DSEfRIIV-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 162 Grading, drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted to, and reviewed by, the city/county for each final subdivision during the phased development of the site. Site-specific soils and foundation studies for each neighborhood would be necessary to complete these plans. Maps for each final subdivision located along a fault trace should reference the report documenting its inactivity. Setbacks should be provided as warranted. The project sponsor should investigate landslide insurance programs. Liability for landslide damage to on-site and off-site areas should be clarified. Construction on hillsides should avoid areas of potential landslide or erosion problems. Cut and fill should be balanced within each site; insofar as possible. Grading activities during the rainy season should be avoided. ' SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-D.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 163 (a) Terrabay Villaoe Gradino. Prior to grading, the natural topography of the Terrabay Village portion of the site sloped down towards the south, with two main swales located near the eastern and western ends of this neighborhood. With the Phase I grading, the lower portions of these two swales were filled with up to 60 feet of fill material, and cut slopes up to 80 feet high were constructed in the upper slopes of the swales.' (See Figure 29.) Benches with concrete v-ditches were constructed on most of the cut and fill slopes to intercept surface runoff. A debris basin was constructed at the upper limit of grading in the western swale. (b) Terrabay Park Gradina. Prior to grading, the natural topography of the Terrabay Park portion of the site sloped down towards the south, with three south to southeast-facing swales. With the Phase I grading, the lower portions of the swales were filled with up to 30 feet of fill material, and cut slopes up to 60 feet high were constructed in the upper slopes of the swales.2 (See Figure 29.) Three debris basins were constructed at the upper limit of grading in the three swales. (c) Sister Cities Boulevard and South San Francisco Drive Gradino. Prior to grading for construction of Sister Cities Boulevard and South San Francisco Drive, the natural topography of the central portion of the site sloped down to the south with three south-facing swales. With the Phase I grading, the lower portions of t~e swales were filled with fill materials, and cut slopes were constructed in the lower reaches of the spur ridges separating the swales. A large cut slope was constructed on the southern and eastern sides of the prominent knoll at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Siltation basins were constructed in the lower portions of the three swales in the central portion of the site. (2) Bedrock Geolooy Encountered Durino Gradina. In general, the geologic conditions encountered during the Phase I grading were considered by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to be substantially as anticipated.3 However, there were three localized areas where geologic conditions encountered were substantially different from those anticipated--Le., at Landslides C, D, and R (discussed in subsection 1.b.5 below), and at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes along Parkridge Circle and Skypark Circle in Terrabay Park (see Figure 29). 'PSC Associates, Inc., 1995(a), Gradina RepOrt Showina Summary of Testina and Observation Services Durina Mass Gradina of Terrabav VilJaae at Terrabav Development, South San Francisco, California; Job No. 95125.10; July 24,1995. A copy of this report is included in the separate Geotechnical Appendix to this SEIR, which is available for review at the offices of the city's Department of Economic and Community Development. 2PSC Associates, Inc., 1995(a). 3PSC Associates, Inc., 1995(a); and PSC Associates, Inc., 1995(b), Gradina Report Showina Summary of Testina and Observation Services Durina Mass Gradina of Terrabav Villaae at Terrabav Development. South San Francisco, California; Job No. 95125.10; July 27,1995. A copy of this report is also included in the separate Geotechnical Appendix to this SEIR. WP51 \548\DSEIR\/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 164 Prior to grading of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes in Terrabay Park, it was anticipated that the cut slopes would expose bedrock along their full length. The planned inclinations and anticipated long term stability of the cut slopes had been based on the anticipated shallow bedrock conditions. However, the actual grading of the cut slopes exposed bedrock along only a portion of the cut slopes, with the remainder of the cut slopes located within alluvial and colluvial materials. The deposits were interpreted to represent "buried valleys", or deep valleys eroded into the underlying bedrock, which were subsequently filled in with alluvial and colluvial deposits from higher slopes. In response, a subsequent additional geotechnical reevaluation of the cut slopes was prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of these unanticipated conditions.' No shear planes or other evidence of landslide movement were observed in the alluvial and colluvial deposits exposed during grading. (3) Revised Soils Data. In 1991, a revised Soils Survey was published for the soils of San Francisco and San Mateo counties by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS).2 According to the 1991 Soils Survey, soils developed on bedrock, colluvium, and alluvium in the site vicinity generally consist of the Barnabee-Candlestick Complex, Candlestick Variant loam, and Orthents. Barnabee-Candlestick Complex. This soil type, which occurs on the upper slopes of the site, is characterized by gravelly, sandy loam which is highly susceptible to slippage (Iandsliding) when wet. Runoff is rapid to very rapid and erosion potential is high to very high. Candlestick Variant loam. This soil type, which occurs on the lower slopes and swales of the site, is characterized by loam to clayey loam that has a moderate shrink-swell potential. On gentle slopes, runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. On steep slopes, runoff is rapid and the hazard of erosion .s high. Orthents. This soil type, which consists of soils that have been cut and filled for development, has highly variable characteristics because of the differences in the type and amount of fill material used. Rl!noff is rapid to very rapid, and erosion potential is very high. (4) Updated Seismicity Information. The state of knowledge regarding fault activity in the San Francisco Bay area has advanced considerably since 1982. The probability of a large (magnitude 7.0 or greater) earthquake along the San Francisco peninsula segment of the San 'PSC Associates, Inc., 1991, Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation of Completed "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes, Terrabav Development - Phase I, South San Francisco, California; November 27, 1991, Job No. 89140.20. 2U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part and San Francisco County, California: Soil Conservation Service, 110 pp. WP51 \548\DSEIR\/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 165 Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 23 percent over the 30-year period from 1990 to 2010.1 Overall, the total probability that one or more large earthquakes will occur during the same time period in the San Francisco Bay region is estimated to be 67 percent. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act of 1972, revised 1994), Earthquake Fault Zones were established by the California Division of Mines and Geology along "active" faults (Le., faults along which surface rupture occurred in Holocene time, that is, the last 11,000 years). According to the current Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.2 The closest mapped active fault to the site is the San Andreas fault zone located approximately three miles to the southwest. The estimated maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 8.3 along the San Andreas fault zone could result in a peak horizontal ground acceleration at the site of approximately 0.60g.3 One trace of the Hillside fault had been previously mapped as trending northwest-southeast through the site. The Hillside fault zone separates a fairly coherent block of unnamed sandstone of Jurassic or Cretaceous age on the northeast from extensively deformed sandstone and shale of the Franciscan assemblage (Jurassic or Cretaceous) on the southwest. The fault is not known to be active. The few recorded epicenters in the general vicinity of the Hillside fault could have been produced by other faults. Seismic information is insufficient to determine the present activity of the Hillside fault zone.4 A fault investigation of the Hillside fault by the applicant's geotechnical consultant found evidence of minor faulting, but concluded that the fault was inactive.s In addition, there are no geomorphic features on the site suggestive of fault traces, such as fault scarps, shutter 1U.S. Geological Survey Working Group, 1990. Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the San francisco Bay Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 10532, 51 pp. 2California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982. State of California Special Studies Zones (Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), South San Francisco 7.5' quadrangle: CDMG, 1 :224,000. 3Using attenuation formulas developed by Sadigh (1989). Horizontal ground acceleration expresses, as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity, the change in speed at which soil or rock may be displaced by seismic motion. 4Brabb, E.E. and Olson, J.A., 1986. Map Showing Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-1257-F, 1:62,5000. spSC Associates, Inc., 1982(a), Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Phase I, South Slope San Bruno Mountain, South San Francisco Area, San Mateo County, California: April 5, 1982, Job No. A82103; PSC Associates, Inc., 1982(b), Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Phase II, South Slope San Bruno Mountain, South San Francisco Area, San Mateo County, California: May 24, 1982, Job No. A821 03. WP51 \548\DSEIR\/ V-D. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 166 ridges, sag ponds, offset drainage courses, and linear ridges or linear valleys. The report also concluded that the melange unit, considered to represent an ancient fault and associated shear zones, has not been active in "historic" time (Le., the Holocene epoch). A shear zone encountered during the Phase I grading at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes above Parkridge Circle and Sky Park Circle is believed to be associated with the Hillside fault and may represent the northernmost splay of the fault zone.' The shear zone ranges in width from a few feet to over 50 feet, and separates Franciscan sandstone on the north from Franciscan melange on the south.2 No evidence to suggest that the shear zone was active was encountered during grading. No other faults or indications of faults were observed during the Phase I grading.3 (5) Updated Landslide Information. The Phase I grading included repair of four previously identified landslides: Landslides B, C, D, and R. The geologic conditions encountered during repair of Landslide B were substantially as anticipated in geotechnical engineering investigation reports prepared prior to grading operations. However, as explained previously under "(2) Bedrock Geology Encountered During Grading," geologic conditions were different than expected at Landslides C, D and R, where "buried valleys" (Le., deep valleys eroded into the underlying bedrock, which were subsequently filled in with alluvial and colluvial deposits from higher slopes) were encountered. Landslide C. A "buried valley" encountered during repair of Landslide C required additional grading to remove and replace most of the slide materials. A deep keyway and detailed drainage system were installed as part of the buttress design.4 Repair of Landslide C has been completed. Landslide D. Landslide D is located above the western terminus of Parkridge Circle in Terrabay Park (Figure 29). Prior to the Phase I grading, Landslide D was believed to be a dormant landslide less than 20 feet thick with relatively shallow active landslides on its upper surface.5 A tieback wall, consisting of cast-in-place concrete piers approximately 35 feet 'PSC, 1995(a). 2PSC, 1991. 3pSC, 1995(b). 4pSC Associates, Inc., 1989; Landslide "C" Repair Program: Memorandum to Roger Foott Associates, Jerry Sullivan, W.W Dean & Associates, Maurice Valencia, City of South San Francisco from Gary Parikh, PSC Associates, dated October 11,1989; PSC, 1995(a). 5PSC Associates, Inc., 1983, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Grading Design for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park (Neighborhoods A and B), Terrabay Development, South San Francisco, California: November 15,1983, Job No. A83103-01. WP51 \548\DSEIR\/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 167 deep with tie back anchors, was constructed near the middle of the landslide to repair the relatively shallow surface landslide (upper six to eight feet) and contain potential debris flows. However, this repair did not address the underlying dormant landslide. During construction of the tieback wall, sheared clay surfaces were observed in a cut slope below the wall. Following construction of the tieback wall, nearly horizontal drains (hydraugers) were installed at various locations to de-water the slope. A buttress key was then constructed below the tieback wall to remove the sheared clay surfaces and to replace the sheared material with engineered fill. However, additional shear surfaces were observed at the base of the buttress key, suggesting the possible presence of continuous shear surfaces and a significantly deeper and larger landslide.' To evaluate the potential for Landslide D to be significantly deeper and larger than previously believed, and to develop a repair scheme, two supplemental geotechnical investigations of Landslide D were completed, one in 1992 and one in 1995. The first supplemental investigation, completed in 1992, included 12 soil borings and installation in 1991 of two slope inclinometers to monitor potential downslope movement of the landslide.2 Based on the soil borings, it was concluded that Landslide D is an ancient landslide overlying bedrock of the Franciscan assemblage, and that the upper portion of the landslide remobilized as a translational landslide along a thick, pre-existing clay layer. Accordingly, the first incremental investigation proposed remedial measures consisting of reducing the driving forces of the landslide by removing a portion of the landslide mass, constructing a shear key above the existing tieback wall, and constructing a second shear key below the existing tieback wall. The data from the two slope inclinometers installed in 1991, and from subsequently installed inclinometers, indicate that there has been no significant downslope movement of Landslide D since the 1991 slope inclinometers were installed. The second supplemental investigation, in 1995, generally concurred with the findings of the first investigation, but refined the estimated extent and depth of the landslide deposit, based on two additional soil borings, which suggested a shallower landslide plane with a more limited toe extent.3 lLeighton & Associates, Inc., 1992, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Landslide D, Phase I, Terrabay Project, South San Francisco, California: January 28,1992, Project No. 1910096-01. 2lbid. 3Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 1995(a), "Area D" Slope Stability, Analysis and Remediation, Phase I, Terrabay Project, South San Francisco, California: July 26, 1995, Project No. 1866-002. A copy of this report is included in the separate Geotechnical Appendix to this SEIR, which is available for review at the offices of the city's Department of Economic and Community Development. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 168 In addition, the second investigation also evaluated five remediation alternatives for Landslide D and recommended Alternative 4 as the most desirable alternative. This preferred remedial alternative consists of removing the upper 10 to 20 feet of the landslide mass, constructing a bottom "shear key" at the base of the landslide, and providing subdrainage improvements. Upon further review of the preferred remedial alternative by the city and by the previous investigators, the preferred alternative has been refined to address shallower landslides above the proposed bottom "shear key," and to lower the groundwater level below the landslide failure plane by constructing two additional drainage keyways.1 The city approved this refined remedial alternative on October 6, 1995.2 Landslide R. A "buried valley" was revealed in initial cuts north of the repair work for Landslide R. There were indications in the exposed cut face that past shearing had occurred within, or at the base of, the valley fill. The Landslide R repair was expanded to include excavation of the unstable soil from the "buried valley" cut slopes, keying into stable bedrock, and replacement of some of the excavated unstable material with engineered fill containing subdrains.3 b. Supplemental Impact FindinQs (1) SiQnificance Criteria. According to the CEQA Guidelines,4 exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards should be considered a significant adverse impact. For purposes of this SEIR, additional determinations of any of the following project conditions would be considered additional significant adverse impacts: (a) Grading and other aspects of the project identified since release of the 1982 EIR that would alter existing geologic conditions on the site or in the surrounding area in a manner which may create additional unstable geologic conditions that would expose people and improved property to significant geotechnical hazards and that would last beyond the short- term construction period; and 1Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 1995(b), Addendum - "Area D" Slope Stability, Analysis, and Remediation, Phase I, Terrabay Project, South San Francisco, California: September 5, 1995. Project No. 1866-002. A copy of this report is included in the separate Geotechnical Appendix to this SEIR. which is available for review at the offices of the city's Department of Economic and Community Development. 2City of South San Francisco, 1995, Landslide Area D Mitigation: Letter to Sterling Pacific Management Services from Interim Director of Public Works, dated October 6, 1995. 3pSC Associates, Inc., 1990, Geotechnical Report on Gradina Work to Repair "Buried Valley"/Landslide "R", Terrabay Development - Phase I, South San Francisco, California; December 10, 1990, Job No. 89140.20. 4State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1992, Appendix G, Item r. WP51 \548\DSE/RI/V-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 169 (b) Aspects of the existing project site identified since release of the 1982 EIR, such as additional underlying geologic soils conditions, or regional seismic conditions, that may expose people and improved property to significant hazards or would present significant engineering or construction limitations. (2) Small, Localized, Post-GradinQ Landslides. In the period since grading for Phase I was completed, some small, localized landslides up to 40 feet wide and 100 feet long have occurred on cut and fill slopes throughout the graded area. Some of these landslides blocked or damaged downslope improvements, including v-ditches and catchment basins. These slides and affected downslope areas have been recently repaired. However, similar, small, localized landslides can be expected to occur in the future. Such small, localized slides are not considered to be a significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development; rather, their cleanup is expected to be part of the overall project maintenance program.' (3) Erosional Gullies. Numerous erosional gullies, some up to four feet wide and three feet deep, have formed on cut and fill slopes throughout the Phase I grading area, resulting in downslope sedimentation of v-ditches and the storm drainage system. Repairs to date, as prescribed by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, have consisted of over-excavation of slope materials below the depth of the gullies, and rebuilding the slopes to original grade using engineered fill. The repaired slopes have then been hydroseeded and surface water has been directed away from the slope. However, based on EIR geotechnical consultant observations and discussions with the city's geotechnical consultant, it is evident that this problem persists on the cut slopes. Seepage was not apparent at the time of our field investigation. Observations of the city's geotechnical consultant suggest that the problem is related to perched groundwater daylighting in the cut slopes, causing piping and erosional gullies. Gullying persists on some fill slopes due to surface water flow over the slope. The threat to downslope improvements presented by the continued erosion of the cut and fill slope faces and the formation of gullies is considered to be a potentially significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact G-1). (4) "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes. Standard geotechnical practice recommends cut slope inclinations no steeper than 2H:1 V within alluvial or colluvial materials, and shallower slopes are commonly recommended. Phase I grading cut slope inclinations in alluvial and colluvial materials at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes are as steep as 1.5H:1 V (horizontal to vertical). Relatively shallow, localized "earthflow-type" failures have occurred on the "Goat Farm" area cut slopes and will likely continue to occur. There is also a 10- to 15-foot-thick wedge of granular material near the catchment basin which has been installed at the base of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes, which could slump if it were to become saturated or were subjected to 'Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (city's geotechnical consultant), personal communication; November 6, 1995. WP511548\DSEIRI/ V-D. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 170 strong seismic groundshaking.' However, a geotechnical evaluation by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of the Phase I "Goat Farm" cut slopes within alluvial and colluvial materials concluded that the completed cut slopes are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view.2 None of the proposed residential units will be constructed directly downslope of any of these overly steep cut slopes, but debris could reach the street and catchment basin at the base of the cut slopes. The applicant's geotechnical consultant concluded that if such minor slumping and erosion occurs in the future, the existing street will provide an adequate "buffer" area for collection and clean-up of debris, and such collection and clean-up should be considered as part of an overall project maintenance program.3 (5) Landslide D. As previously explained, lower and weaker shear surfaces discovered at Landslide D during the Phase I grading suggests a larger and deeper landslide. Recent evaluation of Landslide D suggests that the landslide is only marginally stable in its present configuration. A remedial repair plan for Landslide D was approved by the city on October 6, 1995.4 The plan consists of removing the upper 10 to 20 feet of the landslide mass, constructing a shear key at the base of the landslide mass, and providing subdrainage improvements including two additional midslope keyways with subdrainage.5 Repair of Landslide D has not yet been completed. If Landslide D is not successfully repaired, continued downslope movement could expose project residents and improvements to geologic hazards and would be considered a significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact G-2). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Small, Localized Landslides. The small, localized landslides occurring in the Phase I graded (cut and fill) areas have been recently repaired. Similar small, localized landslides can be expected to occur in the future. These landslides are not considered to be a significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development can be appropriately addressed as a maintenance problem.6 Include the clean-up and repair of small, localized landslides occurring in the Phase I and future project phase graded areas as a specific part of the overall project maintenance program. 'PSC, 1991. 2lbid. 3pSC, 1991. 4Cityof South San Francisco, 1995. 5Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 1995(b). 6Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (city geotechnical consultant), personal communication; November 6, 1995. WP511548\DSEIRIIV-D.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 171 b. Erosional Gullies. (Supplemental Impact G-1) Repair erosional gullies on cut and fill slopes by over-excavating slope materials below the depth of the gullies and rebuilding the slope with engineered fill under the direction of the applicant's geotechnical consultant.' Cover repaired slopes with erosion control blankets and hydroseed. Care should be taken to water the slopes after hydroseeding to ensure germination of grasses. Surface water should not be permitted to drain over cut and fill slopes. In addition, to reduce the potential for erosional gullies on slopes to persist into the future, a subdrain system to intercept perched groundwater prior to exiting the slope face should be constructed, using recommendations to be provided by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. In addition, midslope benches with drainage ditches may be constructed just below the zone of seepage. Remove silt and debris from v-ditches and storm drains. Assign responsibility to the city, project homeowners association, or a local Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD) to periodically inspect and maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities. c. "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes. A geotechnical reevaluation of the Phase I "Goat Farm" cut slopes which has been conducted by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of steep cut slopes within alluvial and colluvial materials concluded that the completed cut slopes are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view.2 However, some minor slumping and erosion has occurred, and can be expected to occur in the future. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has concluded that if minor slumping and erosion occurs in the future, the existing street will provide an adequate "buffer" area for collection and clean-up of debris, and that such collection and clean-up should be considered as part of an overall project maintenance program.3 The city's geotechnical consultant concurs that minor slumping on the cut slope will continue to occur, but that it poses no significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a maintenance problem.4 Include the clean-up and repair of such minor slumping on the "Goat Farm" cut slopes as a specific part of the overall project maintenance program. d. Repair of Landslide D. (Supplemental Impact G-2) To reduce the threat to project residents and improvements from continued downslope movement of Landslide D to a less than significant level, implement the remedial repair plan for Landslide D which was approved by the city on October 6, 1995. To ensure correct implementation of the repair plan, the 'PSC. 1995(a) and 1995(b). 2pSC, 1991. 3pSC. 1991. 4Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (City geotechnical consultant), personal communication, November 6, 1995. WP511548\DSE/R\/ V-D. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SErR IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 172 applicant's geotechnical consultant should be onsite during construction for grading observation, density testing of engineered fill, observation of the installation of subdrainage, and confirmation of anticipated geologic conditions. A summary report of the observation and testing services provided during the landslide repair should be prepared and submitted to the city. The report should include an as-built geologic map. A long-term monitoring plan of selected existing piezometers and slope inclinometers should also be proposed, reviewed by the city, and implemented by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. WP51\548IDSEIR\/V-D.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 173 E. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes potential project impacts on drainage, flood control and water quality. The chapter presents a description of the existing hydrologic setting, focusing on changes since the previous 1982 EIR, followed by a summary of the impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR, and a supplemental reevaluation of project impacts and mitigation needs based on the changed conditions. 1. SETTING 8. Existlna Settina -- 1982 (1) Climate. The average rainfall in South San Francisco is about 20 inches per year with most rainfall occurring between October and March. Prevailing winter winds increase total rainfall on the south-facing slopes of the project site. (2) Surface HydroloQY. The 332-acre project site occupies the lower areas of two watershed sub-basins on San Bruno Mountain: . In 1982, the south-facing portion of the site was part of a larger 552-acre watershed that drained into the South San Francisco-Paradise Valley drainage system. Prior to construction of the project Phase I storm drainage improvements, including the new Sister Cities Boulevard collection system, the portion of this watershed west of Arden Avenue drained into the city's existing municipal storm drainage along Hillside Boulevard, and while ~he portion east of Arden Avenue had no defined municipal storm drainage system, drainage from this portion of the site filtered through backyard drainage systems to Randolph Avenue and east to Airport Boulevard. · In 1982, the east-facing portion of the site was part of a 182-acre watershed that drained into Bayshore Boulevard roadside ditches, which fed into culverts under US 101 to a drainage ditch located east of and parallel to the freeway. This ditch ultimately drained to San Francisco Bay. The steep (greater than 30 percent) slopes above the project site were not drained by any major streams, but several seasonal streams had cut well-defined channels that appeared as ravines on steeper slopes and as swales on shallower slopes. Given the steep slopes and fairly impervious, easily saturated soils of the site, a runoff coefficient of greater than 50 percent was considered representative of the site's existing surface hydrology in 1982. WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 174 (3) Groundwater. Several springs and ponded drainage areas above landslides were identified in the 1982 EIR at the western end of the site. Standing groundwater levels reported in various onsite bore holes varied considerably, and were considered to represent shallow seepage of infiltrated surface water rather than a true water table. (4) Local Flooding. In 1982, no part of the project site was within a designated 100-year flood zone, although much of the nearby area east of US 101 and north of Oyster Point Boulevard was in a 100-year flood zone. b. Chanaes In Settlna - 1982 to 1995 (1) Overview. Since the 1982 EIR was prepared, the following changes have occurred that have affected hydrologic conditions on the project site and in the vicinity: · on- and off-site project-related municipal storm drainage system improvements have been constructed; · the city of South San Francisco and county of San Mateo have adopted a joint powers agreement for maintenance of catchment basins on San Bruno Mountain; · the county of San Mateo has indicated that a portion of the San Bruno Mountain storm drainage system (Le., the catchment basins and ditches on the southern slope of San Bruno Mountain) is not functioning adequately; and · federal and local regulations have been adopted to more stringently control water quality in local storm drainage systems. These changes are discussed below. (2) Floodino and Groundwater Conditions. No recorded changes in flooding conditions have occurred since 1982,1 and no changes have occurred in the project that would affect its relationship to the 100-year flood zone as described in the 1982 EIR. Similarly, no changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that would affect the 1982 EIR's conclusion that the project would not have a significant impact on groundwater quantity or flows.2 Flooding and groundwater conditions described in the 1982 EIR are therefore assumed to be unchanged for purposes of this SEIR analysis. (3) Post-1982 Storm Drainage Improvements. Since 1982, all storm drainage improvements associated with Phase I, and the Phase II storm drain trunk line, have been installed. These 1Telephone conversation with Ray Towne, Interim Public Works Director, city of South San Francisco, September 1,1995. The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project site and vicinity were prepared in 1981. 2City of South San Francisco, Initial Study for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Aareement Extension, prepared by Wagstaff and Associates, August 1995, items 3(f) and (g), page 15. WP51 \548IDSEIRI/V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 175 improvements carry most runoff from the Phase I and II development areas (and associated upstream areas) east across US 101 and north to San Francisco Bay (see "Relationship to Existing (1982) City Storm Drainage System" below for discussion of the portion of the system that does not follow this drainage course). The installed Phase I and II storm drainage improvements consist of the following: (a) V-ditches and associated catchment basins along the southern slope of San Bruno Mountain. Most of the constructed ditches in this southern slope area drain runoff into catchment basins that have been installed at the foot of ravines on the project site. The ditches, some of which are located within the city limits of South San Francisco and some within the county of San Mateo's jurisdiction, are currently owned by the project applicant. The catchment basins are all located within the city limits and are currently owned by the applicant. The ditches and catchment basins were constructed in 1990- 1991, and depending on their location are intended to be maintained by a single public authority established through a joint powers agreement between the city and the county (see further discussion under item 4 below). The catchment basins drain runoff into: (b) Storm drain trunk lines, which extend through the project site and under Sister Cities Boulevard to US 101. These lines, which are within the city limits and are to be dedicated to the city, carry runoff into: (c) A box culvert and drainage channel within Caltrans right-of-way. Runoff from the culvert, located under US 101, flows into the drainage channel on the opposite side of US 101, which extends north to an area near Sierra Point, where it discharges into San Francisco Bay. Caltrans owns the culvert and drainage channel and is responsible for their maintenance. The culvert and drainage channel improvements were constructed in 1990. (4) Status and Capacity of Post-1982 Storm Drainaae System. In accordance with the Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning, project-related storm drainage improvements have been designed with capacity to accommodate the 100-year storm or the worst storm on record, whichever is worse (Section 20.63.080(B)(2) of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan District, adopted February 2,1983). All necessary municipal storm drainage improvements for Phase I of the project have been completed. The on-site storm drainage improvements for Phase II and Phase III of the project have not been completed.' The box culvert under US 101 and the associated drainage channel improvements were constructed with capacity to serve buildout of the Terrabay project, and no 'Telephone conversation with Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician, City of South San Francisco Engineering Division, September 1, 1995. WP51 \548\DSEIRI/ V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 176 further improvements to this portion of the system are expected to be necessary to serve the project.1 The storm drainage improvements constructed for the project generally bypass the city of South San Francisco system that was in existence in 1982. One exception is a portion of the developed Phase I area near the project site entrance; runoff from this area drains into the existing municipal storm drain system under Hillside Boulevard and discharges into Colma Creek. The city of South San Francisco determined that connection to the existing municipal system was acceptable for this portion of the project site because (a) the elevation of this area was too low to allow it to be served by the project's new main trunk line, and (b) the installation of storm drainage improvements in this area resulted in a net decrease in the amount of runoff handled by the existing city system.2 (5) Adoption of Joint Powers Aareement. On June 21, 1983, the City of South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo adopted a "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain." The purpose of the agreement is to establish a single public authority to maintain the catchment basins (and associated access roads) on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain that are contemplated in the Terrabay Specific Plan, and to provide a method of funding the maintenance, including associated liability insurance and administrative costs.3 The agreement established a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), with a Governing Board consisting of one City Council member, one County Board of Supervisors member, and one at-large member, to oversee construction of the catchment basins and access roads and, upon their dedication to the JPA, to provide for their maintenance.4 The agreement provides that the county will be responsible for funding all required maintenance and administrative costs.5 Since its establishment in 1983, the Governing Board of the JPA has approved the design of the catchment basins and has overseen their construction. Recently, however, the JPA has come to be perceived as a cumbersome entity for ongoing maintenance of the catchment basins. County staff have proposed the possibility of disbanding the JPA and turning over 1Telephone conversation with John Gibbs, City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Project Manager's Office, September 5, 1995. 2Telephone conversation with Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician, City of South San Francisco Engineering Division, September 1, 1995. 3City of South San Francisco and County of San Mateo, "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain," June 21, 1983, Section 1, item (b). 4City of South San Francisco and County of San Mateo, Joe. cit., Section 5, item (b). 5City of South San Francisco and County of San Mateo, loc. cit., Section 6. WP51 \548\DSE/Rl/V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 177 basin maintenance responsibilities to the county;' before accepting these responsibilities, however, the county would require that the apparent malfunctioning of the catchment basins be corrected (see item 6, "Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning," below). (6) Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctionina. The county has indicated that the catchment basins and ditches on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain have not been functioning adequately, and has requested that the cause of the malfunctioning be determined prior to dedication of this portion of the storm drainage system to the county. Following a November 8, 1994 inspection, county Department of Public Works staff made the following observations and recommendations regarding the catchment basins and ditches: "Ditches. Ditches will have to be cleared of debris. Ditches with cracks within that area designed to carry water will have to be replaced in accordance with the original ditch design. Adequate earthen support shall be provided adjacent to the existing ditches. This is a concern where runoff has been directed outside of the ditches by debris buildup, and the adjacent slopes have been extensively eroded. Catchment Basins. Debris and vegetation in the catchment basins will need to be removed. Catchment basin weepholes will have to be cleared of any debris. Catchment basin outlet pipes will have to be flushed to ensure that they will function as intended. Missing metal grates within the catchment basins will need to be replaced. H2 Based on these findings, county staff has requested "adequate studies or reports to show that the drainage system and catchment basins, in fact, have been properly installed and repaired, as well as designed."3 (7) Adoption of Federal and Local Additional Stormwater ReQulations. Since 1982, additional federal and local regulations have been adopted to improve water quality in local storm' drainage systems. Federal Regulations. In 1987, the federal Clean Water Act was amended to establish a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. On November 14, 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published final regulations that establish , Letter from Robert L. Sans. Director of Public Works, County of San Mateo, to Jesus Armas, City Manager, City of South San Francisco, reo "Agreement for the Maintenance of Catchment Basins- South Slope of San Bruno Mountain," January 13, 1993. 2Letter from Roman Gankin, Principal Planner, County of San Mateo Environmental Services Agency. Planning Division. to Lida Budko. Project Planner. Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, August 3. 1995. page 2. 3lbid. WP51\548IDSE/RI/V-E.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 178 stormwater permit application requirements for specified categories of "industries." The regulations require that stormwater discharges from construction activity on sites of more than five acres be regulated as an "industrial activity" requiring an NPDES permit. Local Regulations. On July 22, 1994, the city of South San Francisco adopted a "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code.1 In accordance with the federal Clean Water Act as amended, the purpose of the program is to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent feasible, and to control the discharge from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater into the storm drainage system. The program seeks to ensure consistency with the federal Clean Water Act, applicable implementing regulations, and the city's general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on September 13, 1993, which remains in effect through June 30, 1998. The program establishes a system of charges for use of the city's storm drainage system, as well as requirements for construction and operation of activities (e.g., industrial and commercial facilities, parking lots) that may cause pollutants to enter the storm drainage system.2 All construction projects in the city are required to comply with the city's current stormwater control program. Applicants for construction projects on sites of more than five acres are also required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board (and pay a $250.00 fee) in order to be covered by the city's general NPDES permit; alternatively, applicants may apply to the State Board for an individual NPDES permit, at a cost of $500.00. In addition, applicants for construction projects on sites of more than five acres are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures that will be undertaken to control the pollutants.3 2.1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS The analysis of drainage and water quality impacts and mitigation needs in the 1982 EIR was based on the Terrabay SpeCific Plan stipulated storm drainage concept, which consists of the construction of a new on-site drainage system and trunk line to intercept runoff from the open spaces upstream of the developed areas. No portion of the site was proposed to drain to 1City of South San Francisco, Municipal Code, Sections 14.04.020 and 14.04.030 in Ordinance No. 1145-94, adopted July 22, 1994. 2Telephone conversation with Ray Honan, Senior Source Control Inspector, Office of the Superintendent of Water Quality Control, City of South San Francisco, September 5, 1995. 1"elephone conversation with Cheryl Mitchell Wade, Storm Water Management Project Coordinator, City of South San Francisco, September 21, 1995. WP51\548IDSE/Rl/V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 179 existing city storm drains; rather, the project drainage system would instead transport runoff directly to San Francisco Bay, thus helping to alleviate existing capacity problems along Hillside Boulevard and Randolph Avenue. The project applicant was to be responsible for constructing the system to meet city of South San Francisco standards. Upon acceptance of the system, it was intended that the city would assume maintenance responsibilities for the portions of the system dedicated to the city as municipal facilities. The remainder of the onsite system was intended to be maintained by a private homeowners association or group of homeowners associations. The drainage and water quality impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 22. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Storm Drainaae Improvements The post-1982 installation of storm drainage improvements in accordance with approved plans for the project does not, in itself, present any new significant adverse environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the 1982 EIR; with the exception of identified new system maintenance needs which are described under sections band c below. b. Joint Powers Aareement As discussed under the Setting subsection above, the county of San Mateo has recently raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 city-county joint powers agreement in adequately maintaining of project-related catchment basins on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, and has proposed disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority. This uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins represents a new potentially significant adverse impact of the project storm drainage system (Supplemental Impact D-1). c. Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctionina As discussed under the Setting subsection above, the county of San Mateo has identified malfunctioning in the project-related catchment basins and constructed ditches on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The possible malfunctioning of this portion of the project drainage system represents a new potentially significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact D-2). d. Stormwater Reaulations Amendments to the federal Clean Water Act and the city of South San Francisco's adoption of a "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the WP51\548lDSE/RI/V-E.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 180 Table 22 1982 EIR DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary Water Quality. Conversion of the site from grassland to suburban development would increase the amount of non-point urban \ pollutants flowing from the site to San Francisco Bay. This would be a project contribution to a regionally significant cumulative impact. Erosion. As explained in SEIR Table 20, which summarizes soils and geology findings of the 1982 EIR, the project could cause significant erosion and related impacts due to steep slopes, the susceptibility of site soils to erosion, and the large quantity of grading proposed. Drainaae and Floodina. No significant drainage or flooding impacts were identified. The project would increase the area of impermeable surface on the site, which would increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from the property. This would be mitigated, however, by the proposed on-site drainage system and trunk line that would intercept runoff from the open spaces upstream of the developed areas. Groundwater. The addition of large amounts of new impervious surface would reduce the rate of any groundwater recharge that did occur on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. Since soil percolation here is fairly low and the static water table appears to be very deep, and since no groundwater use is proposed by the project, the impact of reduced recharge would be less than significant. Maintenance. Improperly maintained drainage facilities could increase sedimentation in downstream drainage facilities and in San Francisco Bay. Mitiaation Summary The project should include on-site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation. The project grading plan should include erosion control mitigation (as summarized in Table 21 of this SEIR). Related erosion control mitigation recommendations are also summarized in SEIR Table 21. No mitigation required. No mitigation required. See mitigation for water quality impact above. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-E.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 181 Municipal Code do not present any new significant project-related water quality impacts that were not addressed in the 1982 EIR (see SEIR Table 21). The new stormwater regulations do suggest a revision to the water quality-related mitioation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR, however (see section 4, Supplemental Mitigation Needs, below). If these new mitigation standards are not met, the project could result in a potentially significant adverse water quality impact (Supplemental Impact 0-3). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Storm Dralnaae Improvements No new mitigation required. b. Joint Powers Aareement (Supplemental Impact 0-1). Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority for catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by the county of San Mateo. If the Joint Powers Authority is to be disbanded, work with the county and the project applicant to ensure that the catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the county as the county suggests (see item c, "Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning," below). If the Joint Powers Authority is to be maintained, continue to fulfill city responsibilities in accordance with the joint powers agreement of June 21, 1983. C. Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctionina (Supplemental Impact 0-2). Require the project applicant to fund a city- or county- administered independent evaluation of possible malfunctioning of the catchment basin and ditch drainage system on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The evaluation shall analyze the cause(s) of the apparent malfunctioning (e.g., improper design, installation, or maintenance) and shall recommend measures to correct any identified problems. Require the project applicant to comply with any recommended measures prior to dedication of the catchment basins and ditches to the county and/or JPA. d. Stormwater Reaulations (Supplemental Impact 0-3). In addition to the measures recommended in the 1982 EIR for water quality impacts (see Table 21), require the project applicant to: (1) Comply with all applicable provisions of the City of South San Francisco "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code) and five year management plan; WP51 \548\DSEIRl/ V-E.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 182 (2) As required for projects involving construction on sites of more than five acres, file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by the city's general NPDES permit;.2!: apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit; (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures/practices that will be undertaken to control the pollutants. The SWPPP should, at a minimum, include activities that will: · stabilize areas denuded due to construction with temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, vegetative buffer strips, plastic covering, and/or other measures; · address the use of sediment controls and filtration measures; · protect adjacent properties and storm drains by use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, mulching, and other appropriate measures; · address the use of proper construction material and construction waste storage, handling, and disposal practices; and · include detailed Post Construction Treatment Controls Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the storm drains and water quality after construction is completed. WP51\548IDSE/RI/V-E.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 183 F. VEGETATION AND WilDLIFE This section of the SEIR updates the description of biotic features on the project site, and reevaluates potential project impacts and associated mitigation needs. The current vegetation and wildlife setting is first described, including the most current pertinent rare and endangered plant and animal species listings and population distribution information, and the project relationship to the 1982 San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are then summarized, followed by a supplemental re- evaluation of project biotic impacts and mitigation needs. The re-evaluation reflects changes in the listing status of pertinent rare and endangered species, changes in the populations and distribution of these species, the possible presence of additional species of concern on the project site, and the status of onsite implementation of the HCP (project-related restoration activities, etc.). The findings in this section were developed by the SEIR biological resources consultant, Thomas Reid Associates, based on 12 years of butterfly monitoring and rare plant survey data, a recent burrowing owl survey of the project site, review of aerial photographs and previous environmental documents for the site, and a recent assessment of the status of project habitat restoration efforts. Thomas Reid Associates has managed implementation of the HCP since its adoption in 1983. 1. SETTING a. Veaetation (1) Plant Communities. Although the vegetation on the project site consists almost entirely of annual grassland, substantial floral diversity exists, generally related to topography and exposure. The grasslands themselves can be divided into those dominated by introduced plants and those retaining substantial native plant components. Areas of sparse soft- chapan:al cover certain hillslopes; ravines and water courses support riparian-like vegetation. (a) Non-Native Grassland. The more level portions of the site, approximately below the 400- foot elevation, are composed mostly of non-native annual grasses and herbs, including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and squirrel-tail fescue (Vulpia bromoides). The better moisture holding capacity of the deeper, better watered, alluvial soils in these more level areas compared to the slope areas above, allow a longer growing season resulting in higher grassland productivity. WP51\548IDSEIRI/V-F.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 184 (b) Native Mixed Grasslands. The upper slopes and ridges of the project site provide a variety of different grassland habitats with substantial native plant components. The dominant vegetation here is valley needle arassland, which typically occurs on dry, south slopes. Purple needlegrass (stipa pulchra) predominates; other species include California melic grass (Melica Californica), blue wild rice (Elymus glaucus), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), big squirrel-tail grass (Sitamion jubatum), foothill needlegrass (Stipa lepida), San Francisco blue grass (Poa unilateralis), coast iris (Iris longipetala), mule ears (Wyethia angustifolia), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianium), Ithuriel's spear (Triteleia laxa), blue dicks (Sisyrinchium bellum), and Helianthella castanea. (c) Soft Chaparral. On some onsite slopes, a variety of shrubby plants typical of soft- chaparral, mostly Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), are mixed with the grassland at low densities. This shrubby element is best developed on the steep slopes above the northeastern and western portions of the site. (d) Riparian-Like Areas. The ravines traversing the site's upper slopes create a variety of microclimates favorable for the growth of plants requiring greater moisture. (2) Sensitive Plants. There are several rare plant species found on San Bruno Mountain, including two California state-listed endangered plants, Arctostaphylos pacifica and A. imbricata, and a federally listed endangered plant, Lessingia germanorum germanorum. These rare plants, their current status (which for some species has changed since 1982), and their occurrence on San Bruno Mountain are presented in Table 23 and described below, based largely on information from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Botanical surveys have been conducted throughout San Bruno Mountain to document the occurrences of these plants. No occurrences of any of these plants have been documented on the project site. · Arabls blepharophylla (Coast Rock cress) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area from Sonoma County south to Santa Cruz County. It is rare, but not endangered. On San Bruno Mountain, A. blepharophylla is mostly found on rock outcroppings and occasionally on the surrounding grassy slopes and areas of thin soil. · Collinsia franciscana (San Francisco collinsia) is endemic from San Francisco to the Monterey Peninsula. It is an occasional annual found in level grassland and on shaded slopes. On San Bruno Mountain, it has been located from Calma Canyon to the west and on the north-facing slopes above Brisbane. · Arctostaphylos Imbricata imbricata (San Bruno Mountain manzanita) is endemic to San Bruno Mountain. It is common in grassy ridges and slopes with shallow rocky soils from Kamchatka Point to Powerline Ridge. The population appears to be slowly increasing with two new plants now growing with a colony of A. uva-ursi forma coactilis along the San Bruno Mountain ridge trail just east of the summit parking lot. · Arctostaphylos imbricata montaraensis (Montara Mountain manzanita) is endemic to Montara Mountain and San Bruno Mountain. On San Bruno Mountain, it occurs on rocky WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-F.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Table 23 RARE PLANTS ON SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 185 Scientific Name Arabis blepharophylla Collinsia franciscana Arctostaphylos imbricata imbricata Arctostaphylos imbricata montaraensis Arctostaphylos pacifica Erysimum franciscanum Grindelia maritima Helianthella castanea Lessingia germanorum germanorum Silene verecunda verecunda Common Name coast rock cress San Francisco collinsia San Bruno Mt. manzanita Montara Mt. manzanita Pacific manzanita Franciscan wallflower San Francisco gumplant Diablo helianthella San Francisco lessingia San Francisco campion R-E-D Code* 1-1-3 1-1-3 3-3-3 3-2-3 3-3-3 1-2-3 3-3-3 3-2-3 3-3-3 3-2-3 SOURCE: CNPS Rare Plant Inventory, 1994. *RARITY (R): ENDANGERMENT (E): DISTRIBUTION (D): 1 = rare, 2= several populations, 3= one population 1= not endangered, 2= endangered in portion of range, 3= endangered throughout range 1 = widespread, 2= rare outside California, 3= endemic to California WP51\548\DSEIRI/V-F.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 186 or shallow soil in coastal scrub near Pacific Rock. This area continues to be the only remaining population. The San Bruno Mountain population is stable and is composed of an even-aged stand with all individuals being approximately 26 years old. · Arctostaphylos pacifica (Pacific manzanita) is endemic to San Bruno Mountain. It is found only on a sandstone outcrop near Pacific Rock close to the mountain's summit. · Erysimum franclscanum spp. franclscanum (Franciscan wallflower) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area from Sonoma County to Santa Cruz County. It is a biennial to short-lived perennial which is occasional on grassy, rocky slopes and in open coastal scrub communities. · Grindelia maritima (San Francisco gumplant) is endemic to San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. It is occasionally found on open hillsides and in open coastal scrub communities. The taxonomy of this plant is currently being examined by botanists to determine if it should be lumped with other species of Grindelia. · Helianthella castanea (Diablo helianthella) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area with occurrence limited to a few restricted populations. On San Bruno Mountain, populations of this plant are only found in the hills above Brisbane. · Lessingia germanorum germanorum (San Francisco lessingia) was recently listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is endemic to San Francisco and northern San Mateo County. It is associated with sandy soils and is found only in the San Francisco Presidio and on the west side of Reservoir Hill on San Bruno Mountain. · Silene verecunda verecunda (San Francisco campion) is found on San Bruno Mountain on the south side of the southeast ridge at the telecommunications property site. It is associated with rocky outcrops just below the radio towers. b. Wildlife (1) Habitat Quality and Wildlife Use. Wildlife use of the project site is typical of annual grassland and brushland areas throughout the San Francisco Bay region, except for the presence of certain rare and endangered species, most notably grassland butterflies. Although the home range and habitat requirements of certain small mammals and birds may be contained entirely within the project boundaries, many local animals would be expected to range more widely, taking advantage of the open space and additional resources available offsite. Since completion of the 1982 EIR, habitat quality and wildlife use of the project site have been diminished by grading of approximately 80 acres between 1989 and 1995 to prepare the site for Terrabay Phase I. The expansive grasslands of the site afford prime foraging habitat for raptorial birds which may hunt but probably do not nest within the project boundaries. A variety of resident WP51 \548IDSEIRII V-F. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 187 songbirds are found in the grasslands and more densely vegetated ravines. San Bruno Mountain is also visited by migratory species, although the relatively limited nature of onsite trees and shrubs, and the site's location away from the ocean, do not suggest extensive use of the site by migratory species. Reptiles, including various snakes and lizards, are often associated with the more rocky portions of the site. Small mammals which are expected to use the project site include black- tailed hare, California vole and California ground squirrel. Wide-ranging carnivorous mammals may include gray fox and long-tail weasel. Deer may occasionally reach the project site, but due to the proximity of the site to urbanized areas and the absence of tall vegetative cover, substantial deer use is not expected. (2) Sensitive Wildlife Species. San Bruno Mountain contains habitat for four rare butterfly species, two of which are federally-listed endangered species. The butterflies are dependent on specific host plants on which the larvae (caterpillars) feed (larval food plants) and the adults (butterflies) nectar (nectar plants). The presence onsite of the larval food plants indicates the likelihood that the butterflies are present on the site during the 9 to 10 months of the year that adult insects are not detectable. The onsite density of larval food plants and mix of other plants are indicators of habitat quality. Table 24 lists the rare butterflies on San Bruno Mountain, their status, and larval food plants. Other rare wildlife species which have the potential to live on San Bruno Mountain, but which have not been confirmed there in recent years include: . the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), a federally listed endangered species; and . the San Francisco forktail damselfly, (/schnura gemina) a federal Candidate species. . the burrowing owl, (Athene cunicularia) a state Species of Special Concern. Each of these local sensitive species is discussed below. Mission Blue Butterfly. The Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis), listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1976, is a geographically restricted subspecies of a species widely distributed in weste~n North America. The best-known locality for this species is on San Bruno Mountain. A remnant population has long been known to exist on Twin Peaks in San Francisco. Since the 1982 EIR was prepared, two previously unrecorded populations of the Mission blue butterfly have been discovered: a population about one-quarter of the size of the San Bruno Mountain population near Skyline College, and a population possibly equal to the size of the San Bruno Mountain population at the Marin Headlands. Mission blue larvae feed on three species of lupine: Lupinus albifrons, L. formosus, and L. variicolor. Adults visit several plants for nectar, including wild buckwheat (Er;ogonum WP51 \548\bSE/RI/V-F.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 188 Table 24 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES Butterfly Federal Status Larval Food Plants Mission blue (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) Endangered Lupinus albifrons, L. formosus, L. variicolor CalJippe silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe) Candidate Viola pedunculata San Bruno elfin (Incisalia fotis bayensis) Endangered Sedum spathulifolium Bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis) 1 Threatened Plantago erecta, Orthocarpus densiflorus SOURCE: Thomas Reid Associates, August 1995. 1 The Bay checkerspot has the potential to live on San Bruno Mountain but has not been confirmed there in recent years. WP51 \548IDSEIRIl V-F. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 189 latifolium), golden aster (Chrysopsis villosa), and blue-dicks (Dichelostemma pulchella). On San Bruno Mountain, the Mission blue uses the grassland and, to a lesser extent, the coastal sage scrub habitats. The butterfly's range encompasses approximately two-thirds of the mountain. It generally occurs at low density, but may reach higher densities where lupine colonizes locally disturbed areas such as rock outcrops, mudslides, and roadcuts. The largest and closest Mission blue colony to the site is the southeast ridoe colony, comprising about 60 percent of the total Mission blue population on the mountain. This colony is located above the project site, and suitable habitat for the species occurs on the site where several of the Mission blue host plant species are present, mostly on ridges or upper slopes. The Mission blue population on San Bruno Mountain was the subject of an intensive study in 1981, and has been monitored yearly since then. The 1981 study and subsequent monitoring were performed by Thomas Reid Associates, the SEIR vegetation and wildlife consultant. The project site has been included in this ongoing monitoring program. Figure 30 shows the estimated distribution of the Mission blue population on San Bruno Mountain and the project site during the 1991 through 1995 flight seasons, after most of the Phase I grading had already occurred on the project site. Each square represents an individual sighting of a Mission blue butterfly made while performing walking transect surveys for the HCP monitoring program. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly. The species Speyeria callippe ranges from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast. The subspecies S. c. callippe, is limited to the San Francisco peninsula. Tl:te callippe was proposed for listing as an endangered species in 1978 and again in 1994. A decision on the listing has not yet been made. The callippe's sole larval food plant is the violet, johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata). Adults obtain nectar from a number of flowers, including four species of introduced thistles (Carduus pycnocephalus, C. tenuiflorus, Cirsium vulgare, and Silybum marianum), a native thistle (Cirsium quercetorum), golden aster (Chrysopsis villosa), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), and coyote mint (Monardella villosa). On San Bruno Mountain, this butterfly's primary habitat coincides with the grassland areas. Two major populations of the callippe silverspot occur on the mountain. The southeast ridge supports approximately 75 percent of the total callippe silverspot population. The project site contains populations of many of the callippe host plants, including localized patches of johnny-jump-up, the larval host, generally on the slopes and ridges of the site. Like the Mission blue, the callippe silverspot was the subject of an intensive study in 1981 and has been monitored yearly since then. Figure 31 shows the estimated distribution of adult callippe on San Bruno Mountain and the project site. WP51\548IDSEIRI/V-F.548 T1~~qHqH:qis /t~ ~~~~ H:L SS~5SSPSS~S:S /..... ill .. sssss SSccoSS sSss r"", U i_~~1 SS<ll<..?ss:s s _~~"'IJ'/~~f' :' ~ ;:gj:S::s ~l777IJ'J II '/Tj ,ot/ sSisss (/Uljllk'/J'J'/J J.. fr IS r_-- "'[~'J 'J i;l;Jo."L,,' ~ \~- ~~///J I l,lr / I/""o~o 'Q".. .' '.....,. (I ~ ~ ~'~:-_d"~O"'Jl:. r-,," II 1/11+6 ... 'j'Jy I I/II~"";:; ..... fJT11 I/I/:~CD. ". ~~ ~ '-_ T _,Vir (( /1 ..' &~ "'IX o ~ '5,- .c::-<. 'I ~ [I "JfI '. ." ~,. :'Y . '"- .....'.. ~ /.,1.'1 ~ r I r'...> > ,> 1J ~ ~ ~ T/)/ ~C)'< ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ A 0/&;/; .f ..-"'.@ ~ 'j 2< ~j I 'III I JI ~o..... ....... ,) l!!7~' .R a /. '{ 11111/1 1;111 " .......... 1f0XX'S:~. Lr" LC. ..c. J ?~jj I~ )1,> .... ~.. ..... ~ L-.>W/! I I II?> .'Go ...... ...) ,m ),nrr<<11 II ,..... >~, .... r, ?? \/??, ". ~..'~.. > >>\ .' < )'-01 <) ....' <I' - .cr > /\, ........ ......,., ~.......... 2/ .'.'..' I )H U6'~ (> .<'>. .~ cf.... ~ -j~)< / ...>< '/ ~.~) /, ~ )j / F ~ \IS 10\ ~:~~ ~o i o.~ .., p!i:C ($ UNNEL AVE, '!>\.'lIl. ~~~~ "", l"" /,11 ~~ 'I j i, ~ ~ \ ,~~.C~ ~~ 6'13: g () . ...". lUi,\ , ~<.~ ) ..... . '. ...'..< ~J. .... ..<BF~ ~ l ...... ......UF 7 J ." C c..... >: ... .~ .. · '. .'-..2............,.........7 'Ilar,L/" (~~> L() en en I "0 ~ '" en .D en 3 ~ .!!l '" "0 -0 ::l ~ ~ co 0 'f c: "0 0 '" :;; '(ji a. a. .~ >- 0 0 0; ~ :::;;: -0 > V c: -0 <1> -0 0 ::l '" -0 E '" 0 > c.. c: ::l ..CJ :;; >. 0 c: "0 "0 0 'S: Vl 0 0; Q. a.. c: <1> > '5 ~ 0 '" c: S u <' 0 ::> ~ D ~ ~ rza 0 ',',' cU) Ct)0"\ ~O"\ Ehl-4 .- I ~l-4 0"\ 0"\ l-4 I . C/) Z o """'" ~ < ::> ~ ~ C/) ~ o )-I ~ 00 ~ ='2~ cP, ~ aJa; ~ -4 ;:J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o """'" C/) C/) """'" ~ <~ ! (ij leal ~ Ol.t) core ::E CD g~ 2C' CD.!!! co.. ooo~ ~ ~ ~~ -~~ o g8 CIl Q) '8 'g ~ '0 8 ~ ~ ~ :.- ~.~.ClIlOO 'tdO~ A ~) .', ...... I )..<=%>. !I!i@. ... I .($) ..~~ ... ,J) j 21, 0), ~ ......,.... ~ ~. .' ,.'. y ~)1 . ........ ' ~ 'JJ 'J 'J 'JsIT< .'~ ~ ,I '~I; '~l. ~ go '/ )./J 'J 1/ J ~ :)< .... ~.. : z~ ~o 1'71 I "(. ';'1 'I ~..> .....'.', ~~ ~nFy~II/< .......~ '/JljmR JU :;t ~k<"/7 \\~ ~... "t ~ )'Nts.., ....%\ ........ .... .... .~od .'. ~ 0 "Lj ~ ..../.\ . ... ,../ '- ~ )A >X ~f~ ?\< . .... I v " "7<\ o.~) \. I '. , () ) ~> LH) ')1,(,/' rr'\ }'\ ~ ... .-o;J.' II. ' ..<<0 >........ <U. I ~. ..... .. .' ..- Cl"" ,( ~..~ :..j,/ ~1 '.. .......... \,< ... .......... J ... f\ ...) <. '" ... y;.. ... ..... .,' .... ) . \)1 . .\ ...."... > '/ ...... ...... .>) ~0, ).... \...7 )~.....~\) xII V- - :.S'S'~~5~\~">" . ~ \JS 10\ ~ -1! ruNNEL AVE. ~~' ~~'ti- i. ~ ~ ~ 1m .lJ.~ ~ ..~ ~ . S .i :~ ~ ~ "- $I y~ ~ ~ ; S S ~ ; S S : ~ ; S sSWzSSlllSlllSI 1W: II~OISSISIS~S ~ I Ilmol lIS ~ ~ :S!?o: l l S s ~~ //1)1 I Igs:51 S s ///'1;//11/ J //I/J I l ; S I I ~ 1 // j j I.JtJ:.I 'j I I ~_~ ""l \,::::lI'j, ~-- ~ ~~ ~~~I '/~ ~ V '/1 'II \,-~' ~ >~:~ ~ ( ,\~ FO, "":'0"" : .'tj., . >.. o -0 c:: ::J o .a CL u :r: ~~ [c -0 '" -'" :; Vl :.0 -0 i:: '~ '" 0.. ;; S I I I I. S S I S ~; ~'V ~ " ~' '\Ill I-. ~ , ~ ~ 8: ,l... ~ ~ k? ~ Jj , L{) 0'> 0'> I 0'> 0'> v 0.. 0.. o U ~ 0 c:: ::J c:: '0 o 'S: 0. :.0 :5 c:: \ D~~tZjO -0 '" > Q; en c:: o u '- o -0 '" 0.. o a:; > '" -0 V E 0.. o a:; > l1) a >- -0 o ~ <i: "~, " ~U") Q)O"I "'0"1 SSo~ ~~ 0\ 0\ ~ I I rJ'J Z o ~ ~~ :> ~ ~ rJ'J ~ o ;>4 ~ ~ o ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ rJ'J ~ ~ :> ~ ~ rJ'J ~ ~ ~ 1-4 ~ ~ c::- 2c lXl.!!! eel. ooo~ ~ ~ ~~ a:CIl -o5~ C/lU T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 192 San Bruno Elfin Butterfly. The San Bruno elfin butterfly (Incisalia fotis bayensis) was declared endangered by the USFWS in 1976. Caterpillars feed only on the succulent plant stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium). Adults are known to visit several flowers for nectar, but particularly favor bladder parsnip (Lomatium utriculatum) when it is available. The San Bruno elfin butterfly is known only from San Bruno Mountain, Montara Mountain, and Milagra Ridge in San Mateo County, where it is found in association with north-facing rock outcrops in coastal sage scrub vegetation. The elfin has also been monitored on San Bruno Mountain since 1983. Fourteen colonies are known, all on north-facing slopes within coastal chaparral. The elfin's larval food plant does not occur on or near the project site. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly. The Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), listed as threatened by the USFWS in 1987, is a subspecies of checkerspot found historically in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. It occurs in islands of grassland within chaparral on serpentine-derived or similar soils. Its primary larval host plant is the small native annual plantain, Plantago erecta, with owl's clover (Orthocarpus densiflorus) serving as a secondary food plant. On San Bruno Mountain, the Bay checkerspot had been found on the summit of the southeast ridge. The population underwent a severe decline following the drought of 1976-1977, it recovered somewhat in the early 1980's, but declined again following the extremely wet spring of 1983. A few butterflies were seen in 1984 and 1985, but none have been seen since 1985. San Francisco Garter Snake. The federally-listed endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is a subspecies of the common garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis. It is endemic to the San Francisco peninsula, ranging from Big Basin Redwoods State Park in the south to the vicinity of San Francisco International Airport in the north. The snake prefers areas with year-round fresh water bordered by dense vegetation. It feeds chiefly on tadpoles and frogs, especially the red-legged frog (Rana aurora) and the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). Recent studies indicate that the snake is not strictly aquatic, but will use upland habitats up to 175 yards from wetlands, presumably as hibernation sites for the winter. Recent studies have failed to confirm the presence of the snake on San Bruno Mountain. Potentail habitat for the snake on San Bruno Mountain is mapped in the HCP (p. 11I-8); none of the mapped potential habitat is within the project sit~. No San Francisco garter snakes are expected to occur on the site. San Francisco Forktail Damselfly. The San Francisco forktail damselfly (Ischnura gamina) is a candidate (Category 1) for federal listing (1984a). It occurs in San WP51 \548\DSEIRI/V-F. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 193 Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. Damselflies are found near water and the nymphs are aquatic. Two localities for the damselfly are historically known in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain; neither is near the project site. The damselfly requires wetland habitat similar to that required by the San Francisco garter snake. This type of habitat does not occur on the project site. Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a California Species of Special Concern, is a year-long resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats throughout the California deserts, Central Valley, coastal areas, and pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. The owl uses rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover. Agricultural and urban conversion, along with ground squirrel poisoning programs, have contributed to the decline of this species. A burrowing owl nest was observed near the site in the late 1980s. An August 1995 survey of the site for burrowing owls noted several potential burrowing owl holes. Evening surveys to determine utilization of these holes found no owls. C. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1) Purpose. The purpose of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), adopted in 1982, is to conserve and enhance as much of the remaining natural habitat on the mountain as possible and thereby provide for the indefinite perpetuation of the Mission blue and callippe silverspot butterflies on the mountain, and conserve and enhance other rare species and the unique and diverse ecology of the mountain as a whole. (2) Development Restrictions. To achieve this purpose, the plan allows for a limited amount of land to be developed on the mountain in order to preserve and improve the remaining habitat. The Terrabay Project is included in the development area contemplated in the HCP. (3) Butterfly Habitat Protection and Enhancement Proaram. The HCP addresses both the problem of the butterflies' potential extinction and private landowners' desire to develop their land. The underlying premise of the HCP is that allowing limited development will enhance the butterflies' survival by making possible the transfer of nearly 800 acres of privately held lands to the public, by providing the funding source for the conservation and enhancement activities described in the HCP, and by mitigating the impacts of development through required compliance with provisions set forth in the HCP. If no HCP biological program were undertaken, the butterflies would be expected to become extinct from continued habitat loss due primarily to the spread of invasive exotic plant species and off-road vehicle use. (4) Section 10(a) Permit. Development approvals on the mountain have required the issuance of a permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. The HCP was a supporting document for a consolidated San Bruno Mountain Section 10(a) permit application. The Section 10(a) permit has been approved, authorizing the taking of some of the butterflies by development with the understanding that the development, occurring within the framework of the HCP, is expected to ultimately enhance the overall survival of the species (see Chapter WP511548\DSEIRII V-F.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 194 V of this SEIR for an additional explanation of the projecfs relationship to the HCP regulatory and institutional framework). (5) HCP Implementation Status. Since HCP adoption in 1982, developers have contributed over $60,000 to fund species' monitoring, exotic pest plant control, and habitat maintenance and enhancement for San Bruno Mountain. Approximately 221 acres of privately owned habitat have been or are being developed and an additional 132 acres have been approved for development or are pending approval. Approximately 732 acres or private property have been or are assured to be dedicated to San Mateo County as open space, and 200 acres of private property remain unplanned and have no development proposals pending. The relative population sizes of the Mission blue, callippe silverspot and San Bruno elfin on the mountain have fluctuated since 1982 due primarily to environmental conditions such as weather and fire. The Terrabay project, known as the "South Slope project" in the HCP, is within the HCP Southeast Ridge planning area. The project, as currently proposed (Le., the adopted Terrabay Specific Plan) is generally consistent with the "South Slope project" described in the HCP, with minor modifications approved by subsequent HCP amendments, as described in section IV.F.3, which follows. The HCP quantifies Terrabay project impacts on the butterflies and identifies associated specific mitigation needs. The general HCP approach to the project is to prevent sudden loss of habitat all at once by phasing the project so that reclamation of cut and fill slopes with host plant species can begin in Phase I, and be established before the final phase of development (Phase III) takes place (HCP p. VII-165). The current status of the project's habitat reclamation program is discussed in section IV.F.4 below. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS The 1982 EIR found that the Terrabay project would involve permanent removal and temporary disturbance of various vegetative and associated wildlife habitat resources on the site, and would result in associated significant adverse impacts on certain species of concern. Vegetation and wildlife impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 25. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS The 1982 EIR identified three types of vegetation and wildlife impacts of the project: permanent and temporary disturbance of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat; resulting elimination of a portion of the Mission blue and calJippe populations; and project contribution to a regional cumulative increase in the probability of extinction of the butterflies. Minor changes in vegetation and habitat disturbance, and in associated impacts on the Mission blue and callippe populations, which have occurred since 1982 are describ.ed below. These minor WP511548\DSEIRI/V-F.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 195 Table 25 1982 EIR VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Veaetation and Habitat Disturbance. The project as proposed would involve permanent removal of vegetation from approximately 126 acres of the 332-acre project site, and additional temporary (construction period) disturbance (grading followed by reclamation and revegetation) of an additional 33 acres. Most of this vegetation would consist of common non-native annual grassland, but some would also include native grassland, soft- chaparral and riparian-like vegetation. The direct loss of this vegetation and associated habitat values would be biologically significant and would contribute to a significant regional cumulative loss of open wildlife range. Endanaered Butterflies. The project as proposed would eliminate an estimated 2.22 percent of the total Mission blue butterfly population and 0.45 percent of the total callippe silverspot butterfly population, which could accelerate and increase the probability of these species' extinction. Cumulative Impacts. The project as proposed would contribute to a regional cumulative increase in the probability of extinction of between eight and 15 percent for the Mission blue butterfly and six to 11 percent for the callippe silverspot butterfly. Mitiaation The project sponsors and future resident homeowners associations shall fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with respect to the project site (e.g., dedication of conservation habitat, contribution to the HCP funding program, phasing of grading and construction, reclamation and native plant revegetation provisions, pesticide control, establishment of vegetated buffer areas, and inspection provisions). See above. See above. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 I548IDSEIRII V-F.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 196 changes do not represent a change in the severity of impacts identified in the 1982 EIR, and no new significant impacts have been identified. a. Chanaes in Veaetation and Habitat Disturbance In 1985, the HCP, HCP agreement and Section 10(a) permit were amended to reflect the precise plan for Terrabay, which slightly changed the areas of temporary and permanent disturbance to accommodate needed geotechnical repair of landslide areas. The 1982 EIR, which was certified before adoption of the HCP, indicated that the project would result in permanent disturbance of 126 acres and temporary disturbance (followed by reclamation) of 33 acres of vegetation. The HCP, adopted in 1983, identified permanent disturbance of 140 acres and temporary disturbance of 33 acres. The amendment increased the area of temporary disturbance by 25 acres (from 33 acres to 58 acres) and decreased the area of permanent disturbance by five acres (from 140 to 135 acres). The HCP allows minor boundary adjustments not to exceed a total of 10 acres of habitat disturbance to accommodate additional geotechnical repairs that may be needed. During grading for Phase I (between 1989 and 1995), five minor boundary adjustments were made: four resulting in temporary disturbance and no lasting habitat damage; one resulted in an additional 0.38 acre of permanent vegetation disturbance. These adustments are well within the 10-acre allowable total and, therefore, would not represent a significant adverse impact. b. Post-1982 Chanaes in Proiect Impacts on Endanaered Butterflies The impacts of development (including the Terrabay project) on the Mission blue and callippe butterfly populations described in the HCP were based on the proportion of the total species population found within the proposed development areas. Using this same approach, the geotechnical repair activity covered by an 1985 HCP amendment was estimated to result in destruction of an additional one percent of the Mission blue population and 0.1 percent of the callippe population. These minor development boundary adjustments would therefore be expected to have a negligible impact. Even without the additional mitigation which is being provided above and beyond the 1983 HCP requirements, the incremental increase in destruction of the butterfly populations brought about by the 1985 HCP amendment would have a less than significant impact on the species' chances of long-term survival. c. Habitat Restoration Failures The 1986 South Slope HCP Amendment required two additional project mitigation measures: (1) restoration of the additional area of temporary habitat disturbance; and (2) funding of an offsite program of exotic pest plant control on a 10-acre parcel elsewhere on the mountain. WP51 I548IDSEIRII V-F. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 197 Between 1989 and 1995, approximately 80 acres of the site were graded to prepare the site for Phase I development. Of the 80 acres, 50 acres were permanently disturbed and 30 acres underwent habitat restoration in accordance with the Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan, approved in 1988. However, the restoration work was done during seasons of unfavorable weather conditions; unusually cold temperatures and subsequent drought killed most emerging seedlings. A detailed evaluation of the habitat restoration work performed in May 19951 identified severe erosion, a sparse cover of native plants, and vigorous spread of invasive pest plants in almost all reclamation areas. Butterfly observation data for the period 1991 to 1995 show little use of the restoration areas (Figures 30 and 31). These habitat restoration failures represent a potentially significant adverse project impact (Supplemental Impact VW-1 ). d. Cumulative Impacts There have been no substantive changes in cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts from those identified in the 1982 EIR and in the HCP. The numbers of acres of anticipated development on San Bruno Mountain has increased slightly due to development proposals on several parcels originally identified as "unplanned" (those parcels which were not designated as conserved habitat and for which development plans were not set forth in the HCP). The number of acres of conserved habitat actually increased slightly due to the purchase of unplanned parcels by the California Department of Fish and Game. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS As described in the 1982 EIR, the landowner/developer/future residents obligations set forth in the 1982 HCP and associated 1985 HCP amendments attached to the Section 10(a) permit compose the required mitigation for project vegetation and wildlife impacts. These obligations include: . dedication of conservation areas; . funding of the conservation activities described in the HCP; and . compliance with the HCP provisions for phasing of grading and construction, reclamation and native plant revegetation, establishment of vegetated buffer areas, erosion control, fencing, pesticide control, and monitoring of construction and reclamation. Any City of South San Francisco issuance of grading and building permits, and other required discretionary approvals, is to be conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of the HCP agreement and Section 10(a) permit. A finding of compliance with the conditions of the 1 Pacific Open Space, June 13, 1995. Letter to Jim Sweenie, Sterling Pacific Management Services re: Site Evaluation of Terrabay. WP51 \548IDSEIRII V-F.548 Terrabay Project CitY of South San' Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 198 agreement and permit would fulfill the city's obligation under CEOA to assess project impacts and mitigation needs regarding species of concern. No new significant impacts or changes in the severity of previously identified significant impacts have been identified; no new or additional mitigations are necessary. However, the following minor changes in mitigation are needed to correct the failure of habitat restoration work performed to date: a. Reauired Remedies for Habitat Restoration Failures (Supplemental Impact VW-1) The 1995 evaluation report completed in compliance with the HCP mitigation monitoring program identified several recommendations for remedying the failure of the Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan habitat restoration work, including certain regrading measures which would correct erosion and restoration problems without significantly affecting the Mission blue or callippe populations. The 1995 evaluation report is included in Appendix E and the report recommendations are summarized below: · Prior to retreatment of the failed slopes, conduct soil tests to determine the need to use soil amendments. · Use a combination of emergent and pre-emergence herbicides to eliminate "weedy" non- native plants in the restoration areas. · Use more native grasses, which have proven to be very successful in restoration sites around the mountain, in the seed mixes; and · Make erosion control a high priority. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw in the hydroseed mixes to ensure better cover of hydro seeded material. Use erosion blankets in especially erosion prone areas. WP511548IDSEIRIIV-F,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 199 G. PUBLIC SERVICES This SEIR chapter describes project impacts relating to public facilities and services, including police, fire, parks and recreation, schools, water service, sewer service, and recycling program collection services. The chapter presents a brief description of the existing setting, focusing on any changes since 1982, followed by a summary of impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR, and a supplemental reevaluation of project impacts and mitigation needs based on the changed conditions. 1. SETTING 8. Pollee Protection The entire project site was located within unincorporated San Mateo County in 1982; police service was provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Department. Since then, the portion of the project site proposed to be developed was annexed to the city (in 1983). Police service for this area is currently provided by the South San Francisco Police Department. Remaining unincorporated portions of the site remain under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Department. (1) City Police Department Staffina. Police Department staffing, organization, operations and facilities have not changed substantially since 1982. The department has a personnel total of approximately 105 full-time employees and approximately four part-time employees, including 73 sworn officers of whom 51 are involved in street patrol activity.1 The current per capita ratio of officers is 1.26 per 1,000 population. The Police Department seeks to maintain a ratio of 1.35 officers per 1 ,000 population in planning for future development in the city. (2) City Response Times. The average response time to serious felonies and Priority 1 calls for the entire city does not exceed three minutes, and is less for the project site. Response to all other calls for police service does not exceed 15 minutes.2 1 Letter from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Planning UaisonlTraffic, City of South San Francisco Police Department, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, July 31, 1995. 2lbid. WP51 I548\DSEIRlI V-G,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G: Public Services Page 200 (3) Current Service to Proiect Site. The project site is located within South San Francisco Police Department Beat 4, which is roughly bounded by the project site boundaries on the north, and by Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue from Chestnut Avenue to San Francisco Bay. Each beat is typically staffed with one officer, with between six and nine other officers (citywide traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units) available for backup and overlap, depending on the time of day and day of the week. The undeveloped project site is currently not internally patrolled.1 The Police Department expects to rely heavily on specific-plan-required project onsite security personnel to report activity of concern. Security design measures recommended by the Police Department have been incorporated into the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement as approved by the city. b. Fire Protection (1) Fire Protection Chanaes Since 1982. The portion of the project site proposed for development was annexed to the city in 1983 and since then has been provided with fire protection services by the South San Francisco Fire Department Remaining unincorporated portions of the site continue to be served by the California Department of Forestry district office in Belmont Since 1982, the most notable change in conditions with respect to fire protection services has been the construction in 1992 of Station 5 within the project site, on South San Francisco Drive near the project entrance at Jefferson Street. The new Station 5 site has been dedicated to the city in accordance with the development agreement for the project2 Station 5 includes one engine (relocated from Station 1) and is staffed by one captain, one engineer and one fire fighter. (2) Existina (Pre-1982) Provisions. Station 1 (Central Fire Station), located at 201 Baden Avenue, also continues to provide service to the site; it is equipped with one engine and one truck, and is staffed by two captains, two engineers, one fire fighter, and one battalion chief. Emergency medical services continues to be provided from Station 3, located at the municipal services building at 33 Arroyo Drive near EI Camino Real.3 (3) Current Response Times. The Fire Department maintains a response time goal of 3.5 minutes. The previous response time to the project and adjacent areas of approximately four 1 Petrocchi. 2Development Agreement dated April 14, 1988 between Terrabay and the City of South San Francisco, section 4. 3Letter from Fred Lagomarsino, Fire MarshaVChief Building Official, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, reo "Terrabay Project," August 1, 1995. WP51I548\DSEIRI/V-G,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 201 minutes has been improved substantially with construction of Station 5. Backup response times from Station 1 continue to be about 3.5 to four minutes. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating for the South San Francisco Fire Department is Class 2 on a service rating scale ranging from 1 (best) to 10 (worst).1 c. Parks and Recreation (1) Existina Park and Recreation Facilities. The South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation provides park and recreation services throughout the city. The city's current park inventory includes two community parks, five neighborhood parks, ten miniparks (including tot lots located in housing developments), six special facilities such as indoor recreation centers (one with an indoor swimming pool), shared recreation facilities at 13 school sites, and eight linear parks.2 The project site is also located adjacent to San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064-acre regional park. Although under both state and county ownership, the park is operated by San Mateo County as one park. The county owns 1,766 acres (86 percent) of the facility, including the southeast ridge above the project site. Improvement plans for the southeast ridge area are limited to trails. Juncus Ravine has been recently dedicated to San Mateo County and is now included in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park (see Figure 5). (2) ExistinQ Park Standards. The city currently provides approximately one acre of traditional developed city parkland (mini, neighborhood and community parks) for every 1,000 residents, which is well below the national standard of 5 acres per every 1,000 residents, and below the amount provided by other nearby, younger cities. Adding existing school grounds to the developed parklands yields 3.15 acres per 1,000 population, which is closer to the national standards and is consistent with many nearby cities.3 Due to the mature, developed nature of the city, few opportunities exist to acquire new land for park development and, because limited additional residential construction is planned, the city does not expect to be receiving large financial contributions through park-in-lieu fees. For these reasons, the city's Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (1990) does not call for an increased standard for the provision of park acreage. The master plan instead emphasizes methods other than simple provision of park acreage to adequately serve the community's recreation needs, including creation of more individual, specialized recreation 1 Ibid. 2City of South San Francisco, Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, July 11, 1990, pages 46 ft. 3Cityof South San Francisco, loc. cit., page 8. WP51I548\DSE/Rl/V-G.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 202 facilities such as tennis courts, community centers and baseball fields, and improvements in the location of facilities.l (3) Park and Recreation Chanaes Since 1982. Park and recreation facilities have been added throughout the city since 1982. In addition, the City of South San Francisco adopted a Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan in 1990. The plan identifies the project site as "Planning Area #4," and notes that:2 This area is a planned neighborhood development and will include one baseball and one soccer practice field at Hillside School, an indoor swimming pool, community center, four- acre neighborhood park, and linear park along Hillside Boulevard. These facilities will serve the new neighborhood, the adjacent Sign Hill neighborhood, and will also serve the entire community. As part of project Phase I improvements, one baseball and one soccer practice field have been installed at Hillside Elementary School in accordance with the Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. d. Schools (1) Attendance Areas. The project site is located within three school districts: The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD), Brisbane School District, and Jefferson Union High School District. The SSFUSD boundaries include Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park and Terrabay Woods, which together would include a total of 125 single family houses and 368 townhomes. The Brisbane School District boundaries include Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point, which include 493 multi-family units. The Jefferson Union High School District boundaries include all of the project area. (2) South San Francisco Unified School District. Students in the South San Francisco Unified School District would attend Hillside Elementary School, Parkway Heights Middle School, and EI Camino High School. All district schools operate on a ten-month basis. Current Enrollment. During the 1994-1995 school year, Hillside Elementary School had an enrollment of 343 students, Parkway Heights Middle School had 867 students, and EI Camino High School had 1,351 students. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are currently operating at capacity. Future Enrollment. The enrollment in the 1999-2000 school year is projected to be 392 students at Hillside Elementary School, 906 at Parkway Heights Middle School, and 1,187 at llbid. 2City of South San Francisco, page 21. WP511548IDSEIRIIV-G,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 203 EI Camino High School. There are no imminent plans for new schools or school closures in the district (2) Brisbane School District Students in Brisbane School District would attend Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School. Both schools currently operate on a ten- month basis. Current Enrollment. During the 1994-95 school year, Brisbane Elementary School had an enrollment of 209 students, with three available classrooms and a capacity to serve 285 students, including one special education classroom. Lipman Intermediate School had an enrollment of 150 students, with capacity to serve 300 students.1 Future Enrollment. The Brisbane School District does not currently plan to increase the capacity of its schools (e.g., by adding portables), and does not anticipate any school closures. It is expected that when the Northeast Ridge project is fully developed, enrollment will increase by 120 students at Brisbane Elementary School and by 60 students at Lipman Intermediate School. A change in grade configuration may be required to accommodate this enrollment increase. As enrollment at Brisbane School grows, its lunch and physical education facilities will become increasingly inadequate.2 Transportation. Brisbane School District does not provide transportation for its students. Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School are within walking distance of the project site.3 (3) Jefferson Union Hiah School District Students in the Jefferson Union High School District would attend Jefferson High School and Westmore High School in Daly City, with most students expected to attend Jefferson High School. Both schools operate on a ten-month basis. Current Enrollment. During the 1994-1995 school year, Jefferson High School had an enrollment of 1 ,615 students and a capacity to serve 1,655 students. There are currently "portable" classrooms in use at Jefferson High School, although these have been in use at the school for some time and are considered permanent classrooms by the District. Westmore High School had an enrollment of 1,571 students, with capacity to serve 1,625 students.4 1 Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, reo "Terrabay," September 13, 1995. 2lbid. 3lbid. 4Telephone conversation with AI Pucci, Associate Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District, September 21, 1995. WP511548IDSE/RI/V-G.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 204 Future Enrollment. The Jefferson Union High School District does not currently plan to increase the capacity of its schools and does not anticipate any school closures. Enrollment at Jefferson High School in the 1999-2000 school year is projected to be 1,720, and 1,890 at Westmore High School.' e. Water Service The California Water Service Company (CWSC), a privately owned utility, provides water service to South San Francisco. Approximately 90 percent of the water supply for CWSC's South San Francisco service area comes from the City of San Francisco Water Department; approximately 10 percent is from CWSC wells. The current CWSC contract with the San Francisco Water Department, which is in effect through the year 2009, entitles the CWSC to 47,400 acre-feet of water per year, or 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd). Up to an additional 1,530 acre-feet per year can be pumped from groundwater. Thus, the total supply of water currently available to the city is 48,500 acre-feet per year, or 43.3 mgd. The CWSC projects a demand of 37,300 to 41,800 acre-feet in the year 2010. Assuming no modification of the San Francisco Water Department contract, current supply would exceed projected high demand for the year 2010 by more than 10 percent. 2 Water mains in the vicinity of the project site are located along Bayshore Boulevard, Hillside Boulevard, Randolph Avenue and Airport Boulevard. f. Sewer Service Wastewater services for the project site would be provided by the City of South San Francisco. The project site is located within Basin 6 of the city's wastewater collection system. The main interceptor for Basin 6, located on Airport Boulevard, joins a main interceptor that follows Colma Creek and terminates at the San Mateo Pump Station, from which wastewater is pumped to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The city has recently completed a study of wastewater treatment capacity of the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The study found that the plant may be operated with a reasonable factor of safety at 9.0 mgd with the completion of the interim improvements which are currently under design. It is now treating an average of approximately 8.0 mgd. A subsequent study, to be completed in 1996, will determine the treatment plant expansions necessary to accommodate development over the next 20 years. , Pucci. 2Telephone conversation with Eugene Gravelle, California Water Service Company, September 12, 1995. WP51l548IDSEIRIIV-G,S48 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 205 In the meantime, the South San Francisco City Council has recently approved interim capital improvements to ensure the ongoing reliability of the treatment plant.1 a. Recyclina Proaram Collection Services In 1989, after the 1982 EIR was prepared, the State of California passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939) mandating that, by January 1, 1995, each California city must divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. The mandated minimum diversion rate increases to 50 percent by January 1, 2000. In order to comply with the provisions of AB 939, the city of South San Francisco maintains a voluntary residential and commercial recycling program. South San Francisco Scavenger Company, a private contractor, provides residential, commercial and construction site collection of recycled materials. Recyclables are processed at the Blueline transfer station. Solid waste is hauled to the Ox Mountain landfill in Half Moon Bay.2 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Public services impacts and mitigations identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 26. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS 8. Police Protection The impact findings in the 1982 EIR for project and cumulative effects on Police Department services remain generally unchanged. It can be estimated that the project population (approximately 2,156 people) would generate a need for approximately three new police 1Telephone conversation with Ray Towne, Interim Director of Public Works, city of South San Francisco, September 15, 1995. 2Secky Casazza, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, November 6, 1995. Personal communication. WP511548\DSE/RI/V-G.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 206 Table 26 1982 EIR PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary Police Protection Project development and annexation to the city would extend the SSFPD service area and result in the need for additional police protection and law enforcement services, and would contribute to the cumulative need for additional police officers. Fire Protection Project development and annexation to the city would significantly increase the SSFFD service area and the population located outside the existing range of adequate SSFFD emergency response time. The substantial new project population would also increase service calls. Relocation of one engine company plus its staff to the new fire station would be expected to result in a fire fighter manpower shortage at Station 1. The project proposes to control fire hazards associated with San Bruno Mountain by installing a 50-foot wide fire break between project structures and natural hillside vegetation. The first 25 feet would be permanently irrigated to sustain ornamental plant species, and the remaining 25 feet would be temporarily irrigated long enough to establish native and drought-tolerant species. Parks and Recreation The project would dedicate all undisturbed areas of the project site to the county as permanent open space. The project sponsor would also dedicate Juncus Ravine, a separate 157-acre parcel located west of Hillside Elementary School, to the county as permanent open space. WP511548IDSE/RI/V-G.548 Mitiaation Summary A new, separate, fully staffed beat should be established to meet the demands of the project and other cumulative growth in the project vicinity. The project should also incorporate the specific security design features recommended by the SSFPD. A new fire station should be constructed as planned in the Terrabay Specific Plan. The project should provide .its fair share of the total capital cost by building the new station during Phase I. The project should also incorporate the specific additional development design measures recommended by the South San Francisco Rre Department. Additional fire fighters should be added to Station 1 as necessary by the city to maintain current fire protection service standards. No further mitigation would be required for fire hazards due to proximity to San Bruno Mountain. Open space areas of the project site should be deeded in fee to the county and fenced, in accordance with recommendations of the County Department of Parks and Recreation. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 The project would include two trailheads providing access to San Bruno Mountain. The project would also provide (1) a child care center (with tot lot), (2) Hillside Recreation Center (including indoor pool, multi-purpose room, activity room, weight room, dressing rooms, tot lot, basketball court, parcourse system, children's playground apparatus, two illuminated tennis courts, and picnic, barbecue, and lawn game area), and (3) installation of play fields at Hillside Elementary School, to be dedicated to the city. Schools The project would generate an estimated 286 additional students: 224 would attend SSFUSD schools; 45 would attend Brisbane School District schools; and 17 would attend Jefferson High School. Water Service The project would consume an average .32 mgd of water, about 0.8 percent of system capacity, which would easily be accommodated by the CWSC. The project would require construction of the water distribution system planned for in the T errabay Specific Plan. Sewer Service The project would require construction of the wastewater collection system planned in the T errabay Specific Plan. The city sewer master plan estimated that the project would generate wastewater flows of .25 mgd. The existing sewer system in Airport Boulevard between Randolph Avenue and Armour Avenue and a 627-foot-long segment of the Basin 6 interceptor near Village Way would not accommodate project wastewater flows. Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 207 No additional mitigation proposed. No mitigation proposed. The project applicant would be responsible for all water distribution system improvements required to serve the project. The project would be responsible for all wastewater collection system improvements required to serve the project. The project should be coordinated with planned enlargement of the Colma Creek interceptor to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate estimated wastewater flows. The project should install a parallel interceptor in Airport Boulevard between Randolph Avenue and Armour Avenue and should enlarge the 627-foot-long near-capacity segment of the Basin 6 interceptor near Village Way. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51\548IDSE/R\/V-G,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 208 officers, based on the Department's current goal of providing 1.35 officers per 1,000 population.' One new police vehicle would be needed to accommodate three new officers.2 b. Fire Protection As stated in the 1982 EIR, the substantial new project population would increase calls for Fire Department service and would increase fire hazards associated with the site's proximity to San Bruno Mountain. These anticipated impacts of the project remain generally unchanged. The possible fire fighter shortage at Station 1 discussed in the 1982 EIR has been resolved, however, and is no longer a potential impact of the project.3 c. Parks and Recreation The park and recreation aspects of the project have also not changed substantially since 1982. As noted in the "Setting" subsection above, one baseball and one soccer practice field have been installed at Hillside Elementary School as part of project Phase I improvements, in accordance with the city's Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1990. Additional improvements to be installed as part of Phase I would include: (1) the Hillside Recreation Center, which would serve community-wide as well as project needs (to be dedicated to and maintained by the city); (2) a child care center with tot lot (to be operated and maintained by the project homeowners associations); and (3) a linear park along Hillside Boulevard connecting the playing fields at the Hillside Elementary School with Hillside Recreation Center (to be dedicated to and maintained by the city). A series of "in-tract parks" (Le., small undeveloped areas covered with grass turf) would be included in Phases I and II and trailhead improvements (providing trail access to San Bruno Mountain State and County Park) would be added in Phases II and III. These in-tract parks and trailhead improvements would be maintained by the project homeowners' associations. 12,156 people (project population) divided by 1,000 = 2.156 x 1.35 officers = 2.91 officers needed to serve project. ~he Police Department's current ratio of officers per marked unit is 2.7 officers per unit (cited in "Estimated Police Department Expense Impacts Per Officer," attachment to letter from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Planning Liaisonrrraffic, city of South San Francisco Police Department, July 31, 1995). ~elephone conversation with Fred Lagomarsino, Fire MarshaVChief Building Official, City of South San Francisco, September 14, 1995. WP51\548IDSE/Rl/V-G.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR IV.G. Public Services Page 209 d. Schools Changes in impacts identified in the 1982 EIR would consist of the following: According to the 1982 EIR, the 745-unit project approved in the specific plan would generate an estimated 286 additional K-12 public school students; 224 would attend South San Francisco Unified School District schools, 45 would attend Brisbane School District schools, and 17 would attend Jefferson Union High School District schools. Based on more current enrollment multipliers provided by the districts, and the revised number of total project units (721), the 721-unit project would now be expected to generate an estimated 370 additional K- 12 students; 260 would attend SSFUSD schools, 90 would attend Brisbane Elementary School District schools, and 20 would attend Jefferson Union High School District schools. It should be noted that these total enrollment increases would be expected to occur incrementally over the proposed six-year project buildout period. (1) South San Francisco Unified School District. The project would be expected to generate approximately 260 new students attending South San Francisco Unified School District schools; 120 attending Hillside Elementary School, 60 attending Parkway Heights Middle School, and 80 attending EI Camino High School. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are already operating at capacity. Based on an estimated cost of $140,000 per relocatable classroom, the total estimated cost to the district to provide classrooms would be $1.4 million. Costs to add permanent classrooms, a more desirable option, are undetermined but would be greater. Additional restroom facilities and core classrooms may be needed for child care and special education classes at Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School. School impact fees accruing from the project to the South San Francisco Unified School District are estimated by the district at $1.372 million in today's dollars. The district has indicated that this amount will not be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional classroom capacity and associated facilities to serve the additional students generated by the project. As a result, the project can be expected to have a significant adverse impact on SSFUSD capacity (Supplemental Impact PS-1). (2) Brisbane School District. Another major development in the project vicinity, the Northeast Ridge project, would contribute 120 students to Brisbane School and 60 students to Lipman School, causing Brisbane School to exceed its capacity. It is likely that students would be transferred to Lipman School to accommodate this enrollment increase. In addition, a local ballot measure (Measure E, on the November 1995 ballot) would, if passed, require the School District to reduce classroom sizes. Based on these factors, the School District WP51\548IDSE/RI/V-G,54B T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 21 0 anticipates that enrollment of students from the Terrabay project would cause both schools to exceed capacity.' The project-related enrollment increase is expected to generate a need for two new portables, which would most likely be located on the Brisbane School site. In addition, physical education, school assembly, and lunch space at Brisbane Elementary School would be inadequate to serve the expected number of additional students from the project, and a multi- purpose room and playground upgrade would be needed. The facility would also require upgrading to meet fire code and disabled access requirements. Lipman Intermediate School would require upgrading restrooms, one portable, a remodeled school yard, and a functioning kitchen for food preparation in order to accommodate the additional enrollment.2 School impact fees accruing to the Brisbane School District from the project are estimated at $246,000 in today's dollars.3 This amount would cover the cost of providing two additional portables, but would not be sufficient to fund other necessary improvements at Brisbane and Lipman Schools.4 As a result, the project could be expected to have a significant adverse impact on Brisbane School District capacity (Supplemental Impact PS-2). (3) Jefferson Hiah School District. Applying estimated project student generation rates provided by Jefferson Union High School District, the project would be expected to generate approximately 20 additional students at Jefferson High School and Westmore High School, at which future enrollments are already anticipated to exceed capacity.5 This enrollment increase would contribute to a need for new portables, and would place additional demands on other school facilities. School impact fees accruing from the project to the Jefferson Union High School District are estimated at $164,000 in today's dollars. This amount would be expected to be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional portable classroom activity. , Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, reo "Terrabay," September 13. 1995, pages 1-2; telephone conversation with Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, September 14, 1995. 2Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, reo "Terrabay," September 13, 1995, pages 1-2. 3Current school impact fees are set at $1.50 per square foot of habitable residential area. Of this amount, the Brisbane School District receives $0.90, and the Jefferson Union High School District receives $0.60. 4Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, reo "Terrabay," September 13, 1995, page 2. 50.08 students per unit for Terrabay Commons and 0.1 students per unit for Terrabay Point. WP51\54SIDSEIRl/V-G.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR IV.G. Public Services Page 211 e. Water Service The water service impacts identified in the 1982 EIR (Le., water consumption rate, need for construction of a water distribution system) remain generally unchanged. Since 1982, portions of the onsite water system required for the project, including a 1.5-million-gallon water tank at the 400-foot elevation, as well as the distribution system for Phase I and the main lines under South San Francisco Drive, have been installed. The remaining water system improvements are anticipated to proceed as originally planned for the project.1 As discussed in the 1982 EIR, a water pump station is to be constructed to serve the majority of the proposed Phase I single-family detached units, plus development in subsequent phases of the project. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) has delivered a letter of assurance to the city that commits CWSC to providing water service to the project. f. Sewer Service The impact of the project on wastewater flows and the need for an onsite wastewater collection system, as defined in the 1982 EIR, remain generally unchanged. (1) Onsite System. Since 1982, portions of the onsite wastewater system required to serve the project, including the collection system for Phase I and main lines for Phase II, have been constructed. The offsite wastewater collection system, and the portion of the onsite system located within the South San Francisco Drive public right-of-way is to be dedicated to and maintained by the city. The city will not be accepting the remainder of the onsite wastewater collection facilities as part of the municipal (public) sewer collection system. The city has not yet accepted maintenance responsibility for the portions of the system located within the South San Francisco Drive public right-of-way, because the system appears to have problems due to storm and/or groundwater infiltration.2 Until mitigated, these problems represent a potentially significant adverse impact of the project (Supplemental Impact PS-3). (2) Offsite System. The project impacts on the offsite wastewater collection system (Le., the Colma Creek interceptor, the Airport Boulevard system between Sister Cities Boulevard and North Canal Street, and a segment of the Basin 6 interceptor near Village Way), as identified in the 1982 EIR, have since been mitigated through completion of offsite wastewater system improvements to serve the project. The offsite system extends down Sister Cities Boulevard to Airport Boulevard, south to Armour Avenue, west to Cypress Avenue, south to Baden 'Telephone conversation with Ray Towne, Interim Public Works Director, city of South San Francisco, September 15, 1995. 2Letter from Ramon (Ray) Towne, P.E., Interim Director of Public Works, city of South San Francisco, to Robert Sprague, General Superintendent, Richmond American, reo "Terrabay Bay Park Subdivision," July 19, 1995. WP511548\DSEIRIJ V-G,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 212 Avenue, west to Linden Avenue, and south to the Colma Creek trunk line, where flows are diverted to the San Mateo Pump Station. However, as with the onsite wastewater improvements, the City of South San Francisco has not accepted maintenance responsibility for this offsite system due to apparent infiltration problems.' Until mitigated, these problems represent a potentially significant adverse impact of the project (Supplemental Impact PS-4). a. Recyclina Proaram Collection Services Under the city's new recycling program, project single family residences and townhomes in project Phase I would receive recycling containers and be provided with individual curbside collection service. Similarly, depending on their physical characteristics, residences and commercial uses in project Phases II and III could either receive individual (curbside) or centralized (dumpster) recycling containers and collection services. Because recycling services are provided on an "enterprise" fee-for-service basis, it is expected that the project will generate adequate additional revenues to meet the increased demand for recycling services. State law requires provision of adequate space for recycling in multiple family residential projects with five or more units and all new commercial developments.2 Future project phase multi-family residential and commercial development may not include adequate provision for collection of recyclable materials. This situation would represent a significant adverse project impact (Supplemental Impact PS-5). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Pollee Protection No changes in the mitigation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR are necessary. In order to provide the new fully staffed beat recommended in the 1982 EIR, (1) require the project applicant to fund acquisition of one new Police Department vehicle,3 and (2) monitor project build-out over time to assess when the new beat should be established and new officers hired. 'Telephone conversation with Mike Rozzi, Senior Construction Inspector, city of South San Francisco, September 15, 1995. 2California Public Resources Code Division 30 Part 3 Chapter 18 section 42905. ~he cost of a new police vehicle is estimated at $21,320 (cited in "Estimated Police Department Expense Impacts Per Officer," attachment to letter from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Planning LiaisonlTraffic, City of South San Francisco Police Department, July 31,1995). WP511548\DSEIRlIV-G.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 213 b. Fire Protection Construction of a new fire station has been completed, as recommended by the 1982 EIR. The potential fire fighter shortage at Station 1 has also been resolved, and no mitigation is required. Remaining 1982 EIR recommended mitigations, which require installation of a fire buffer and compliance with additional development design measures recommended by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department, are unchanged. c. Parks and Recreation The mitigation need identified in the 1982 EIR remains unchanged; no new mitigation required. d. Schools (Supplemental Impacts PS-1 and PS-2). As mitigation for SSFUSD and Brisbane School District impacts, the city shall: . Require the applicant to comply with school impact fee requirements. The exact fees for each school district would be calculated at the time that habitable floor area for the project housing units is known. Because this measure may not be sufficient to mitigate the school impact to an insignificant level, also: . Request that the project applicant voluntarily agree to negotiate with each school district and provide reasonable additional funds and/or measures as necessary to mitigate project impacts on schools. Government Code Section 65996 limits the types of mitigation that can be imposed to ensure adequate school facilities. In the case of this project, school impact fees and voluntary additional contributions appear to be the only applicable measures among the forms of mitigation allowed by this Government Code section. The project applicant should also be responsible for installing sidewalks along Bayshore Boulevard to allow students from the project to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School. e. Water Service As called for in the 1982 EIR, ensure that a water pump station for the project is under construction prior to construction of Phase I single-family detached units. No other changes to the mitigation suggested in the 1982 EIR are required. WP511548\DSEIRI/V-G,548 Terrabay Project City of South San'Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.G. Public Services Page 214 1. Sewer Service (1) Onsite System. (Supplemental Impact PS-3) As stated in the 1982 EIR, the project would be responsible for all onsite wastewater collection improvements required to serve the project. As part of this responsibility, require the project applicant to inspect and repair the apparent onsite wastewater collection system infiltration problems to the satisfaction of the City of South San Francisco Director of Public Works prior to city acceptance of maintenance responsibilities for the portion of the onsite improvements located within the South San Francisco Drive public right-ot-way. (2) Offsite SYstem. (Supplemental Impact PS-4) Mitigations from the 1982 EIR regarding offsite wastewater system improvements are no longer applicable, because these offsite improvements have been completed. As with onsite improvements. require the project applicant to inspect and repair the offsite wastewater collection system to correct apparent infiltration problems to the satisfaction of the City of South San Francisco Director of Public Works prior to acceptance of maintenance responsibilities by the city. a. Recyclina Proaram Collection Services (Supplemental Impact PS-5) In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with the state-mandated requirement that the city divert at least 50 percent of potential waste from landfill disposal by 2000, require the design of future project development to provide common exterior trash and recyclable material storage areas in commercial developments and in those multi-family developments that would use dumpsters, rather than relying on individual curbside pickup for trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, signed, screened, and architecturally integrated into the development. WP511548\DSE/RI/V-G,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 215 H. NOISE This SEIR chapter addresses project impacts related to environmental noise. General information on noise and noise measurement is first presented to aid in understanding the findings. Relevant current noise compatibility standards and guidelines are then identified, followed by a description of existing noise sources and noise levels in the project vicinity. The noise impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are then summarized, followed by a supplemental,re-evaluation of project impact potentials and mitigation needs. The section includes consideration of: (1) project construction noise impacts on the local noise environment; (2) the compatibility of the specific plan proposed land uses with the latest projected noise conditions on the project site; and (3) the possible need for related revision to the 1982 EIR noise mitigation recommendations. 1. SETTING Substantive changes in the circumstances under which the Terrabay project is to be undertaken from those described in the 1982 EIR include changes in local noise compatibility standards and guidelines, and changes in projected noise conditions on the project site associated with roadway and aviation traffic. a. General Information on Noise and Noise Measurement Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The effects of noise can range from interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, to physiological stress, and, at higher noise levels, to hearing loss. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other related technical terms are defined in Table 27. (1) Human Sensitivity to Noise. The method commonly used to quantify environmental noise involves measurement of all frequencies of sound, with an adjustment to reflect the fact that human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to midrange frequencies. This measurement adjustment is called "AN weighting. A noise level so measured is called an WP51\548\DSEIRIIV-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 216 Table 27 DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS Term Definitions Decibel, dB A-Weighted Sound Level, dB Equivalent Noise Level, Leq Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Day/Night Noise Level, ~n Ambient Noise Level Intrusive Noise A ul')it describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc" 1995. WP51l548\DSEIRI/V-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 217 A-weighted sound level (dBA).' The following are examples of typical A-weighted noise levels: Jet takeoff at 200 feet Motorcycle at 20 feet Freight train at 50 feet Freeway traffic at 50 feet Vacuum cleaner Average office Library Recording studio Leaves rustling 125 dBA 110 dBA 95 dBA 80 dBA 70 dBA 50 dBA 40 dBA 20 dBA 10 dBA Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time. Therefore, time-averaaed noise level computations are typically used to quantify noise levels and determine impacts. The two average noise level descriptors that are most commonly used are ~n and CNEL. ~n' the day/night average noise level, is the 24-hour noise intensity average, with a 10 dBA "penalty" added for nighttime noise (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for the greater human sensitivity to noise during this period. CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to ~n' but adds a 5 dBA penalty to evening noise (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM). One way of anticipating a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare the new noise with the existing noise environment to which the person has become adapted, Le., the so-called "ambient" noise level. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this SEIR section: . Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived. . Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. . A change in noise level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. . A 10 dBA increase is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. b. NoIse Compatibilitv Standards and GuIdelines (1) City of South San Francisco Noise Standards. Current city noise standards are set forth in the Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1990, and in a city 'In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. WP51I548\DSE/RI/V-H,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 218 Noise Ordinance, also adopted after the 1982 EIR was certified. State noise standards have not changed since 1982. (a) General Plan Noise Element. The city's 1990 Noise Element contains policies for evaluating the compatibility of proposed land uses with surrounding environmental noise. Those Noise Element policies pertinent to the Terrabay project are listed below: Policy N-1 All new noise sensitive land uses developed within areas impacted by 65 dBA CNEL or more, regardless of the noise source(s), shall incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Policy N-8 The City shall evaluate development proposals based on the criteria contained in Table N-1* and shall only approve proposals that are consistent with criteria contained therein. .oNote: Table N-1, which sets forth city land use compatibility criteria for aircraft noise to address the issue of city proximity to San Francisco International Airport, is reproduced as Table 28 on the following page. Policy N-11 Development proposals located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour due to traffic noise shall include analysis by a qualified acoustical engineer so as to determine appropriate measures to mitigate traffic noise impacts. (b) City Noise Ordinance. In addition to these policies, the city has adopted a Noise Ordinance that sets forth special provisions for construction, alteration, repair and landscape maintenance activities. The ordinance specifies that no individual piece of construction equipment may produce a sound level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet and that construction period sound levels at any point outside of the project construction limits shall not exceed 90 dBA. (2) San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission Policies.' The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted noise compatibility standards to evaluate proposed land uses affected by aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport. The ALUC policy allows residential development without noise insulation in areas with exterior noise levels up to a 65 dBA CNEL. In areas where noise levels from air traffic are between 65 dBA and 70 dBA CNEL, residential uses are allowed with special noise insulation. (3) State Noise Standards. The California Department of Health Services' (DHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation between noise levels and their effects on different land uses. Table 29 presents the results of these state findings. The table suggests 'San,Mateo County Airport Land Use CommissiOn/Regional Planning Committee, Airport Land Use Plan, March 12, 1981. WP51 I548IDSEIRII V-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 219 Table 28 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT TABLE N-1. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE Land Use Residential, etc. Single family Multifamily Mobile homes Schools Libraries Churches Hospitals Nursing homes Auditoriums Commercial Retail Restaurants Office Bldgs. Hotels-Motels Movie theaters Sports arenas Playgrounds Cemeteries Golf courses Industrial Manufacturing Transportation Communications Utilities Open Agriculture Mining Fishing CNEL Ranae less than 65 65 to 70 Greater than 70 Less than 70 70 to 80 Greater than 80 Less than 75 75 to 85 Greater than 85 Less than 75 Greater than 75 General Land Use Criteria Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. New construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction' requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. New construction or development should not be undertaken. Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. New construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. New construction or development should not be undertaken unless related to airport activities or services. Conventional construction will generally be inadequate and special noise insulation features should be included in construction. Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. New construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. New construction or development should not be undertaken unless related to airport activities or services. Conventional construction will generally be inadequate and special noise insulation features should , be included in construction. Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. Land uses involving concentrations of people (spectator sports and some recreational facilities) or of animals (livestock farming and animal breeding) should generally be avoided. SOURCE: City of South Sat:l Francisco General Plan, Noise Element. WP51\548\DSEIR\JV-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 220 Table 29 STATE LAND USE/NOISE LEVEL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS LAND USE CATEGORY INTERPRETATION Residential: Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home Residential: Multi-Family Transient Lodging: Motel, Hotel School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheatre Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Park Golf Course, Stable, Water Reaeation, Cemetery Office Building, Business, Commercial & Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture COMMUNITY NOISE LEVEL Ldn or CNEL, dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 D NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. 1~~~~l~f~fMf CONDITIONAllY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction reqUirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. _ NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. _ CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Noise Source Characteristics The land use-noise compatibility recommendations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft or railroad noise is normally made up of higher single noise events than auto traffic, but occurs less frequently. Therefore, different sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise environment. Suitable Interior Environments One objective of locating both single and multi-family residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environment no greater than 45 dB CNEL or l.in. This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type of structure under consideration, should govern the minimum acceptable distance to a noise source. Source: State of California, Office of Noise Control. 1975. WP51I548\DSEIRl/V-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 221 maximum community threshold levels for various land uses. For example, for single family and mobile home development, an exterior CNEL of 60 dBA would be considered "normally acceptable;" noise levels in excess of a CNEL of 55 dBA would warrant mitigation. For multi- family residential uses, an exterior CNEL of 65 dBA would be considered "normally acceptable;" noise levels in excess of 60 dBA ~n would warrant special noise studies and possible mitigation. For office and commercial uses, an exterior CNEL of 70 dBA would be considered "normally acceptable;" noise levels in excess of a CNEL of 68 dBA would warrant special noise studies and possible mitigation. For schools and hospitals, CNELs up to 70 dBA are normally acceptable, but levels above 60 warrant mitigation. For parks, CNELs up to 70 dBA are normally acceptable, although CNELs above 67 dBA are generally discouraged. In addition to these guidelines, the state has enacted into law a set of California Sound Transmission Control Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards, Chapter 2.35) establishing minirnum noise insulation performance criteria to protect persons within new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings (e.g., townhomes). Under this state-mandated criterion, interior noise attributable to exterior sources, with windows closed, shall not exceed an average level of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. In addition, residences or hotels within a 60 dBA CNEL contour related to airport, vehicular or industrial noise sources shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed building has been designed to limit intruding noise to the allowable 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. The State has also defined a CNEL level of 65 dB as the maximum noise level "acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport." The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) includes qualitative guidelines for determining the significance of adverse environmental noise impacts. According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a "substantial" increase in noise at a sensitive location such as a residence is considered to cause a significant adverse impact. (4) Federal Aviation Administration Noise and Land Use Compatibility. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noise/land use compatibility guidelines are contained in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150. The FAA guidelines suggest that residential development is compatible with an aircraft-generated ~n below 65 dB and office and commercial development is compatible with an ~n below 70 dB. In addition, the FAA suggests that maximum single- event noise levels in bedrooms not exceed 55 dBA. c. 1982 Noise Environment (1) Primary 1982 Noise Sources. The 1982 noise environment at the project site varied with location. The eastern portion of the site was exposed to traffic noise from Airport Boulevard- Bayshore Boulevard, US 101, and passing trains on the Southern Pacific Railroad line east of WP511548\DSE/R\/V-H,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR tV.H. Noise Page 222 US 101. The portion of the site fronting Hillside Boulevard was exposed to traffic noise from this roadway. The entire site is exposed to aircraft noise. (2) Monitored Noise Levels at the Proiect Site. A noise monitoring survey was conducted to quantify noise levels at the project site for the 1982 EIA. The results of the 1982 EIR noise survey are presented in Table 30. Average A-weighted noise levels for the measurement period (L,q) at most of the project site measurement locations exceeded 65 L,q. Maximum measured noise levels from aircraft overflights at the various measurement locations were typically 75 to 85 dBA but ranged up to 90 dBA. d. 1982 to 1995 Chanaes In the Noise Environment (1) Chances in Noise Sources. The noise environment at the project site continues to be dominated by traffic and aircraft noise. The noise environment on south-facing portion of the site proposed for residential uses (Phase I) continues to be affected primarily by traffic noise from Hillside Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard is a primary noise source for portions of project Phases II and III fronting this roadway, as well as for established neighborhoods to the south. (Noise from Sister Cities Boulevard was considered in the 1982 EIR noise impact assessment.) Traffic noise from US 101 and, to a substantially lesser degree, Bayshore Boulevard and other local streets, continues to be the primary noise factor affecting the eastern portion of the site proposed for commercial uses. The entire site continues to be exposed to aircraft noise from two specific San Francisco International Airport aircraft departure routes: (a) the Shoreline Departure from Runway 28; and (b) the Porte Nine Standard Instrument Departure (SID) from Runway 1. (2) Chanaes in Noise Levels. Projected future 24-hour average noise exposure level contours on the project site, as depicted in the city's Noise Element, are illustrated on Figure 32. The noise contours on Figure 32 include projected noise levels along the newly- constructed Sister Cities Boulevard. The contours convey projected noise levels associated with roadway and aviation traffic. The contours generally reflect the effects of topography, but do not account for attenuation provided by man-made structures such as buildings. The depicted noise exposure contours are approximations intended for use as a planning tool to identify the need for further noise investigation in areas of potentially high noise exposure. The actual noise exposure at a particular location may be less than that shown by the contours. The contours depicted on Figure 32 reflect the fact that traffic noise along local roadway routes including Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard is not expected to change substantially in the future. The South San Francisco population is expected to grow by eight percent between 1995 and 2010, with an attendant proportional growth in traffic. However, some minor but unpredictable decrease in noise exposure may be expected due to replacement of current vehicles with future quieter vehicles. Caltrans projections for US 101 traffic volumes range from 158,000 to 225,000 vehicles per day, as compared with the current volume of 214,000 vehicles per day. As a result, future changes in US 101 noise levels are also unpredictable. WP5115481DSEIRIl V-H.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 ' Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 223 Table 30 1982 EIR NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS Measurement Location Lea' 1 Side of promontory knoll near Randolph Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection 400 feet from and 80 feet above US 101 70, 72 dBA 2 Top of promontory knoll 1,000 feet from US 101 66, 66 dBA 3 At rear of homes 100 feet north of Pecks Lane and Randolph Avenue 61,56 dBA 4 40 feet from Hillside Boulevard 440 feet west of Kearny Street intersection 68 dBA 5 120 feet from Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street intersection 67 dBA SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. 1 Leq __ The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Measurements were taken for 15-minute periods on the morning of April 5, 1982. Two measurements were taken at locations 1, 2, and 3. WP51\548\DSE/RI/V-H.548 .... ~u < (3 Q)~ a: :;~ w .~< :E :E ~::E 0 CJ ~ ::r= u rJ'J ~ ~ ~~- L, 0 -,' ~ Z , \\ 0 U ~ rJ'J , ~ ',\ 0 Z ~ ~ ~ ;:( I ~ , ,.'':.1 ~ ~ -- a: W ~ Z W () Z o i= < W a: () W a: W c Ci5 -' -' J: tn Z o :E :E o CJ > ,< tn m c < o a: o a: ~ ~ > < m < a: a: w to- '2 as ~ - -Eli- ~2 .sill! wii! ]!~ ~w -CIl .i~ a..z -'C l!~ (1 ~< <g'iG 1Il~ ~e9J ~ ~ ool'\~ u..~ "" a -; ~~ 'Sl!! 000 ~ ~ ~ we ~~ - 58 o 00_ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 225 Aircraft operations in the project vicinity have increased substantially since 1982 and are predicted to increase even more in the future. However, the noise impacts of this increase in operations have been and will continue to be offset by the replacement of older, noisier "Stage 2" aircraft with newer, quieter "Stage 3" aircraft (each approximately 10 dB quieter), resulting in an overall decrease in CNEL noise exposure substantial enough to be noticed by the community. Project site noise exposure levels due to aircraft overflights have decreased substantially. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Project noise impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 31. Potential noise impact concerns identified in the 1982 EIR included construction noise, the compatibility of the proposed project with the anticipated onsite noise environment, and project generated traffic noise impacts on surrounding uses. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Compatibility of the ProJect with the ProJected Future Noise Environment (1) Traffic Noise Impacts. As shown on Figure 32, exterior noise levels due to traffic noise could exceed 65 dBA CNEL at those Phase I residential units in Terrabay Village which are closest to Hillside Boulevard, on those Phase II residential units in Terrabay Woods and Terrabay Commons closest to Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard, and in the eastern grouping of Terrabay Commons and all of Terrabay Point due to US 101 traffic. Residential noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL would require mitigation under the city's noise standards and would be "conditionally acceptable" under state land use compatibility standards. Additional residences would be subject to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL which, under state land use compatibility standards, would be "conditionally acceptable" for single family residences and townhomes. Exterior noise levels from US 101 traffic would exceed 70 dBA CNEL within the Phase III development area where possible hotel development is anticipated, which would represent a "normally unacceptable" situation under state standards. In those areas where the exterior traffic noise level exceeds 60 dBA, the interior noise level can be expected to exceed the state 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard when windows are open for ventilation. These findings regarding potential exposures of project residents and hotel visitors to "normally unacceptable" or "conditionally acceptable" exterior noise levels are similar to the WP511548\DSE/RI/V-H,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 226 Table 31 1982 EIR NOISE IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary No significant construction period noise impacts on offsite land uses were identified. Maximum construction noise levels at the nearest existing building would range from 50 to 85 dBA, which would be equal to or below existing aircraft noise levels. Exterior noise levels would range up to 70 CNEL, and would be acceptable under city exterior noise exposure standards, but would exceed State Office of Noise Control normally acceptable interior noise exposure standards for multiple-family housing of 45 Ldn when windows are open. Exterior noise levels from aircraft overflights would range up to 90 dBA, which would exceed State Office of Noise Control normally acceptable interior noise exposure standards of 50 dBA for bedrooms and 55 dBA for other rooms, even when windows are closed. Exterior noise levels at existing homes adjacent to the new Sister Cities Boulevard would increase from the existing 56 dB (without aircraft noise) to 63 dB due to traffic noise. Noise levels along other project vicinity roadways would remain unchanged or decrease, but any decrease would be negligible (Le., no more than 3 dB). Mitiaation Summary Construction equipment and vehicles should be properly muffled. Construction hours should be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Proposed multiple-family residential units exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 dB or greater should be provided with mechanical ventilation so that windows can be closed. In some cases, sound-rated glazing may be required. Proposed residential units and hotel rooms shall feature sound-rated windows, ceilings, roofs and walls. A sound barrier should be constructed on the south side of Sister Cities Boulevarcl. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP511548IDSEIRIIV-H,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 227 1982 EIR impact findings (see Table 32), but under city standards and requirements established since 1982, will require a revised mitigation approach. If these effects are not mitigated to meet the noise level compatibility standards for the affected land uses, a potentially significant impact could be anticipated (Supplementsllmpact N-1). (2) Aircraft Noise Exposure Impacts. The 1995 San Francisco International Airport noise exposure maps' indicate that all proposed project residences would be subject to future average daily aircraft noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL and, therefore, would meet associated city and state noise/land use compatibility guidelines.2 However, similar to the conclusions of the 1982 EIR, the current data still indicate that single-event aircraft overflights would generate high single-event noise levels, which would interfere with indoor residential activities, including sleep, if exterior to interior noise levels are not adequately reduced. The project site would be subject to frequent high single-event noise levels from two specific San Francisco International Airport aircraft departure routes: (a) the Shoreline Departure from Runway 28 (the lower and noisier of the two routes), which is used several times weekly; and (b) the Porte Nine Standard Instrument Departure (SID) from Runway 1 (a higher and quieter route), which is used daily.3 If these single-event noise impacts are not mitigated to meet the FAA maximum single-event noise level standard, a potentially significant impact could be anticipated (Supplementsllmpact N-2). b. Construction Noise Construction of proposed new housing and commercial devel9pment would consist of grading, construction of infrastructure, foundation work and the actual construction of buildings. These activities would involve the use of earth moving equipment, trucks delivering and removing materials, hammers and saws, compressors and generators, and other loud equipment. Typical hourly average construction noise levels for residential construction range from 70 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Phase I and II would substantially elevate noise levels in portions of the adjacent Paradise Valley and Peck's Lots neighborhoods and would also affect new Phase I residents. These construction period noise impact findings differ from those in the 1982 EIR, and represent an additional potentially significant short-term impact (Supplementsllmpact N-3). 'The 65 dB CNEL contour depicted on this new 1995 noise exposure map will be used by the Federal Aviation Administration to determine dwelling units eligible for insulation with federal funding under the Federal Aviatioll Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. 2The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan currently contains the 1983 noise exposure maps, which indicate that portions of the project site along Bayshore Boulevard (the Phase III commercial portion of the project) would be subject to future aircraft noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL. The Airport Land Use Plan will be updated to include the new 1995 noise exposure maps. 3personal communication, David F. Carbone, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Airport Land Use Committee. WP51 \548\DSE/RI/V-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 228 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Compatlbilitv of the Proposed Residential Development With the Future Onslte Noise Environment (1) Traffic Noise Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-1) Retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare and submit for city review and approval a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for all project phases, in accordance with the land use/noise level compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element (see Tables 28 and 29 herein). The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications shall then be included in the project site or individual home designs or hotel designs. Various combinations of methods could be used to mitigate onsite noise levels. These could include the construction of berms or soundwalls and/or provision of fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, and use of sound-rated glazing in windows. (2) Aircraft Noise Exposure Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-2) The noise analysis requirement described for Supplemental Impact N-1 shall also include adequate consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the FAA maximum single-event noise standard of 55 dBA in bedrooms. b. Construction Noise (Supplementa/lmpact N-3) Reduce construction period noise impacts associated with Terrabay project residential and commercial development to acceptable temporary levels by implementation of the following measures. These mitigations should be required as a condition of any development approval within the project area, and should be included in the work agreement with the construction contractor(s). (1) Construction Schedulina. Umit noise generating construction activities including truck traffic going to and from a site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, to the hours stipulated in the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.050 dated 2-91). (2) Construction Eauipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muftle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. (3) Idlina Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. WP51\5481DSEIRIIV-H,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 229 (4) Eauipment Location and Shieldina. Locate all stationary noise generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical, from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. (5) Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. (6) Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a project construction supervisor as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a'telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. WP51\548\DSE/RI/V-H,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.H. Noise Page 230 WP511548IDSE/R\/V-H.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4! 1996 Draft SEIR IV.1. Air Quality Page 231 I. AIR QUALITY This SEIR chapter addresses project impacts on local and regional air quality. The current air quality setting is first described, including current local and regional air quality standards and conditions, with emphasis on related changes that have occurred since 1982. The air quality impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are then summarized, followed by a re- evaluation of project impact and mitigation needs using current methodologies, standards, and thresholds of significance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1. SETTING a. Air Pollutants and Ambient Standards Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe contaminant levels that avoid the specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of these pollutants are described in USEPA-prepared "criteria" documents. These federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempt to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. The federal and state standards are summarized in Table 32. (1) Ozone. Ozone is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. The major sources of these reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, known as ozone precursors, are combustion sources such as factories and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. The health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung tissues. Ozone also damages some materials such as rubber, and may damage plants and crops. (2) Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels, and its main source in the Bay Area is automobiles. WP511548\DSEIRI/V-I,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV. I. Air Quality Page 232 Table 32 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Federal State Pollutant Averaaina Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM Carbon Monoxide a-Hour 9.3 PPM 9.0 PPM 1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 PPM 1-Hour 0.25 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 PPM 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM 1-Hour 0.5 PPM Particulates AGM 50 ug/m3 30 ug/m3 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 Lead 30-Day Ave. 1.5 ug/m3 3-Month Ave. 1.5 ug/m3 SOURCE: Donald Ballanti, 1995. PPM = Parts Per Million ug/m3 = Micrograms Per Cubic Meter WP511548IDSE/RI/V-/.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.!. Air Quality Page 233 Carbon monoxide's health effeots are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities. (3) Nitroaen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown toxic gas. It is one of the oxides of nitrogen that result from combustion. It is the only oxide of nitrogen that is toxic; however, other oxides of nitrogen, particularly nitric oxide, are converted to nitrogen dioxide in the , presence of sunshine. Major sources of oxides of nitrogen are automobiles and industry. Nitrogen dioxide reduces visibility and is a pulmonary irritant. (4) Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor. It is created by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels. This substance is known to oxidize to sulfur trioxide, which combines with moisture in the atmosphere to form a sulfuric acid mist. Sulfur dioxide damages and irritates lung tissue, and accelerates corrosion of materials. (5) Suspended Particulate Matter. Suspended particulate matter consists of solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols and other elements that are small enough to remain suspended in the air for a long period of time. A portion of the suspended particulate matter in the air is due to natural sources such as wind-blown dust and pollen. Man-made sources include combustion, automobiles, field burning, factories and unpaved roads. A portion of the particulate matter in urban atmospheres is also a result of photochemical processes. The effects of high concentrations on humans include aggravation of chronic disease and heartl1ung disease symptoms. Non-health effects include reduced visibility and soiling of surfaces. b. Chanaes in Ambient Standards Since 1982 Two revisions to the ambient air quality standards have occurred since certification of the 1982 EIR. The state standard for "oxidant" was revised to consider only ozone, the major constituent of oxidant. The state/federal ambient air quality standards for Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) were rescinded and replaced with ambient standards for fine particulate matter, known as PM-10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). Additionally, within the last decade, increasing attention has been given to health risks associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs). TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. No safe ambient levels have been established for T ACs. California assumed national leadership in T AC exposure reduction through two major programs. State Assembly Bill 1817 (Tanner) requires a continuing evaluation of candidate WP51 I548IDSEIRII V-I. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.I. Air Quality Page 234 T ACs. Those pollutants identified as carcinogens are included in a program of emissions reduction through elimination, substitution, or other means to reduce public exposure. AB-2588 (Tanner) is a subsequent program to identify emission levels of all known or suspected T ACs, and to protect the public from related health risks. The current inventory of TAC sources maintained by the BAAQMD reveals no TAC sources in the vicinity of the project site.' c. Current Air Quality South San Francisco is within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District operates air quality monitoring sites throughout the Bay Area, although none are located in South San Francisco. The closest monitoring sites are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. As measured by the network of Bay Area monitoring sites, air quality has been steadily improving for most pollutants since 1982. From 1991 to 1994, there were no violations of either the one-hour or eight-hour CO standards, or the standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide or lead recorded at either the San Francisco or Redwood City monitoring sites. The federal PM-10 standard also was not exceeded, although the more stringent state PM-10 standard was exceeded for between five and 15 days each year at the San Francisco monitoring station and for 5 to 12 days each year at the Redwood City monitoring station during the four-year period between 1991 and 1994. d. Reaional Air Quality Plans and Attainment Status The federal Clean Air Act required that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate as "nonattainment areas. those portions of the state where the federal ambient air quality standards were not met. As of 1982, the San Francisco Bay Air Basin had been a nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The 1979 Air Quality Plan was the adopted management plan for the region at the time the 1982 EIR was certified. This was then replaced by the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, which set forth a regional strategy to show how the federal standards were to be attained by 1987. Despite considerable improvement in air quality, the Bay Area did not meet the 1987 deadline for attainment of the federal air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. Major new federal and state legislation was enacted since 1982, requiring expansion of regional air quality planning and control efforts. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandated a fresh attempt at attaining the national standards, requiring that 'Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Toxic Air Contaminant Control Proaram Annual RepOrt 1993: Volume II, 1993. WP51 \548\DSEIR\lV-I,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.I. Air Quality Page 235 nonattainment areas develop plans and strategies that will reduce pollutants by certain increments or face imposition of sanctions (e.g. withholding of highway project funding). Concentrations of federal nonattainment pollutants have been gradually declining in the Bay Area over the past decade. The Bay Area was recently redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a "maintenance area" for ozone, and a request for, redesignation to "maintenance area" for carbon monoxide has been submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. With the enactment of the California Clean Air Act of 1988 regional air quality planning has shifted emphasis from the federal ambient standards to meeting the state ambient air quality standards. This legislation empowers regional air quality management districts with new authority to design, adopt, implement, and enforce comprehensive plans for attaining and maintaining both the federal and the more stringent state air quality standards by the earliest practical date. Among its provisions, the California Clean Air Act provides districts with the authority to establish new controls on mobile sources of pollution. The area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted by the BAAQMD in October 1991.' The 1991 Clean Air Plan imposes controls on stationary sources (factories, power plants, industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) designed to reduce emissions from automobiles, including indirect sources. Since the Plan does not provide for a five percent annual reduction in emissions, it proposes the adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule." The Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan forecasts continued improvement in regional air quality. An analysis of carbon monoxide trends shows attainment of the standards throughout the Bay Area by the mid-1990s. However, implementation of the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standard even by the year 2000. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Air quality impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 33. The 1982 EIR identified air quality impacts of three types: short-term construction-related dust impacts, 'increases in carbon monoxide concentrations along streets providing access to the site, and increases in regional pollutant emissions. An updated reevaluation of project short- term construction impacts, long-term local and regional air quality effects is provided below. 1Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan (CAP), 1991. WP511548IDSE/RI/V-/,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.1. Air Quality Page 236 Table 33 1982 EtR AIR QUALITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary Project construction would generate significant quantities of airborne particulate matter (PM-10) which could adversely affect surrounding uses near the project site. Project generated emissions of carbon monoxide would increase concentrations in the project vicinity, but would not result in concentrations above federal standards, The project would result in emissions of regional pollutants (Le., pollutants which affect the entire San Francisco air basin) for two precursors of ozone (reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen) and for sulfur oxides. Mitiaation Summary The project sponsor shall maintain wet surfaces on unpaved roads and disturbed soils through appUcation of 0.5 gallons of water per square yard of earth surface twice daily. The following transportation system management (TSM) measures shall be incorporated into the project: · limousine service from the airport to the hotelltech trade center; · bus pullouts and shelters along Bayshore Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard; · Preferential carpool parking in the commercial area; · Encouragement of staggered work hours; · Encouragement of vanpooling/carpooling through the homeowners association; and · Encouragement of expanded transit service. These measures would be expected to decrease one-hour and eight hour carbon monoxide concentrations by five percent and 10 percent respectively, and would decrease emission of regional pollutants. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51I548\DSEIRI/V-I.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV. I. Air Quality Page 237 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS Methods used for predicting and analyzing air pollutant emissions are constantly being revised and updated to account for changing technology and emissions control programs. Since 1982, new analytical tools have been developed that enable a more precise prediction of project air quality impacts. The following updated discussion of local and regional air quality impacts also describes the criteria and methodologies used in this SEIR that differ from those used in the 1982 EIR. a. Chanaes In Sianiflcance Criteria Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines establishes that a project will normally have a significant impact on air quality if it will: violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ' Since certification of the 1982 EIR, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established revised thresholds of significance for use in local and regional air quality impact assessments of projects. A significant impact on local air quality is defined in this SEIR as a predicted violation of these revised carbon monoxide ambient air quality standards due to project-related traffic increases on the local street network. For regional air quality, a significant impact is defined as an increase in emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen, (NOx) or fine particulate matter (PM-1 0) of 150 pounds per day or greater. b. Short-Term Construction Impacts Project construction activities such as clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate dust and particulate matter. Construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times during the build-out period of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area creates a high potential for dust generation. Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being dependent on wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of construction activity, and the number of acres affected by construction activity. A rough estimate of uncontrolled construction PM-10 (Particulate Matter, 10 microns) emissions is 0.6 tons per month per acre of active construction. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM-10 near the area of construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could lCEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, item x. WP51 \548\DSEIRIIV-I.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.1. Air Quality Page 238 affect existing residential areas adjacent to the project. While most Phase I rough grading has already been completed, including grading for project components located nearest to existing adjacent residential areas, remaining finish grading for Phase I and grading for subsequent project phases could affect adjacent existing residential areas as well as the new project Phase I residential areas. The 1982 EIR has already identified these construction period dust impacts as potentially significant and has identified associated mitigation measures. Since 1982, however, other measures have been commonly suggested in addition to those identified in the 1982 EIR. If these additional "common practice" measures are not included in the mitigation program, the project dust impacts, under post-1982 significance criteria, would represent a short-term significant adverse air quality impact. (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) c. Chanaes in Lena-Term Air Quality ImDacts (1) Local Air Qualitv Impacts. On the local scale, the pollutant of greatest concern is carbon monoxide. Concentrations of this pollutant are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. · The CALlNE-4 air pollutant dispersion model has replaced the CALlNE-3 model used in the 1982 EIR as the BAAQMD-required impact assessment tool for local carbon monoxide. The CALlNE-4 program has an intersection mode that allows quantification of carbon monoxide concentrations near intersection "hotspots" and also can be run in a "worst case" mode that automatically finds the wind direction that yields the highest concentration, two features not available in the CALlNE-3 model. · The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has also periodically published maps of background levels of carbon monoxide and correction factors to allow forecasts of background carbon monoxide levels in future years for use in environmental documents. These maps and correction factors have been used in this SEIR and yield significantly higher background emissions levels compared to those assumed in the 1982 EIA. The CALlNE-4 computer simulation model was applied to two selected intersections selected as those most affected by project traffic generation to estimate existing and future localized carbon monoxide levels in the study area. The CALlNE-4 program and the assumptions made in its use are described in Appendix D. The results of the CALlNE-4 modelling for the two intersections are shown in Table 34. Predicted future 1-hour concentrations in Table 34 are to be compared to the state standard of 20 parts per million (PPM) and the federal standard of 35 PPM. Predicted 8-hour concentrations in Table 34 are to be compared to the state and federal standard of 9 PPM. Existing concentrations in Table 34 are below the state and federal standards. Future year concentrations are also expected to be below current levels due to increasingly stringent emission control programs for automobiles. Project traffic in the year 2000 (Phase I traffic) would increase concentrati,ons by up to 0.6 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and up to 0.4 PPM for the 8-hour averaging time, while project traffic in the year 2010 (traffic from Phases I, WP511548\DSE/RI/V-/.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.1. Air Quality Page 239 Table 34 PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR SELECTED INTERSECTIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM) Intersection Sister Cities Blvd-Oyster Point Blvd/Airport Blvd- Bayshore Blvd Hillside Blvd/Jefferson St-South San Francisco Dr Scenario Existing (1995) No Project (2000) Phase I (2000) No Project (2010) Phases I, II and III (2010) Existing (1995) No Project (2000) Phase I (2000) No Project (2010) Phases I, II and III (2010) Concentration (PPM) 1-Hour 8-Hour 12.9 10.6 10.7 6.7 6.9 8.9 7,3 7.4 4.5 4.7 8.4 6.2 6.8 4.3 4.6 5.7 4.2 4.6 2.9 3.1 SOURCE: Donald Ballanti, 1995. WP511548\DSE/RI/V-/,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV. I. Air Quality Page 240 II and III) would increase concentrations by up to 0.3 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and 0.2 PPM for the 8-hour averaging time. These concentrations would remain below the state and federal standards. The project impact on local air quality is therefore still considered less- than-significant. (2) Reaional Air Quality Impacts. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay air basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using EMFAC7F emission factors. The EMFAC7F emissions program is now typically used instead of the EMFAC7C emissions program used in the 1982 EIR. The EMFAC program has been updated every few years to reflect current control programs and emissions control technology. In general, the EMFAC7F program yields lower emission estimates because it reflects the most current emission standards for vehicles and considers the effects of a variety of emission programs (reformulated fuels, for example) not considered in the EMFAC7C program. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Appendix D. The estimated incremental daily emissions associated with project-related traffic are shown in Table 35 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone), and PM- 10. Daily ROG and PM-10 emissions associated with proposed residential uses are also shown in Table 35. Residential uses contain a number of dispersed and intermittent sources of pollutants such as space and water heaters, household paints and solvents, fireplaces and woodstoves, lawn mowers and other equipment. Project emissions shown in Table 35 for Phase I of the proposed development would not exceed 150 pounds per day, and would therefore have a less-than-significant regional air quality impact. However, similar to the 1982 EIR findings, the updated analysis indicates that buildout of Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors exceeding 150 pounds per day. Unless the most current mitigation methodologies recommended by the BAAQMD are incorporated in the project, this ROG/NOx effect would be considered a significant adverse impact on regional air quality. (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) 4. SUPPLE""ENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Construction Impacts (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) The 1982 EIR recommended twice-daily watering for dust control. However, under current practice, this recommendation may not be sufficient to reduce construction dust impacts to a less than significant level. The following are construction dust mitigation practices commonly used today at construction sites in the Bay WP51 \5481DSEIRII V-I,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Table 35 PROJECT EMISSIONS IN POUNDS/DA Y ROG NOx PM-10 Phase I: Vehicle Use 34.1 41.2 11.3 Residential Sources 33.5 6.7 2.2 Total 67.6 47.9 13.5 Phase I, II, & III Vehicle Use 99.3 144.0 78.9 Residential Sources 82.3 16.4 5.3 Total 181.6 160.4 84.2 SOURCE: Donald Ballanti, 1995. ROG = Reactive Organic Gases NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen PM-10 = Particulate Matter, 10 Micron Draft SEIR IV. I. Air Quality Page 241 WP511548\DSEIRI/V-I.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.1. Air Quality Page 242 Area that should be implemented in place of the construction period air quality mitigation identified in the 1982 EIR. · Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing activities during periods of high winds when watering is insufficient to avoid visible dust plumes. · Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. · Sweep construction area and adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. · Limit the speed of all construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour while travelling on unpaved surfaces. · Water all inactive portions of the site with an appropriate dust suppressant, followed by covering and seeding. b. Lona Term Air Quality Impacts (1) Reaional Air Quality Impacts. (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) In addition to the transportation system management (TSM) requirements identified as mitigation in the 1982 EIR, the following measures should be implemented: · The project should incorporate a vehicle-trip reduction requirement applicable to all land uses. Specific trip reduction goals should be adopted and enforcement procedures developed by the applicant in consultation with the BAAQMD. In addition, require the project sponsor to submit to the city a mitigation plan that includes these types of measures to reduce residential emissions: · Restrict the number of fireplaces in residences, or require residential use of EPA-certified woodstoves, pellet stoves or fireplace inserts. The use of natural gas fired fireplaces should be encouraged. · Require outdoor outlets at residences to allow use of electrical lawn and landscape maintenance equipment. · Make natural gas available in residential backyards to allow use of natural gas-fired barbecues. Adoption of these measures would have the potential to reduce regional impacts of the project by from five to 15 percent. This reduction would reduce project regional emissions of NOx to below 150 pounds per day, but would not be sufficient to reduce emissions of ROG to below the 150 pounds per day BAAQMD significance threshold. Even after mitigation, the impact of buildout of project Phase I, II and III on regional air quality would remain an unavoidable significant adverse impact. WP511548\DSEIR\I V-I,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 243 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES The following section describes project cultural resources impacts. The cultural resources setting is first described, followed by a summary of impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR and a reevaluation of project impacts and mitigation recommendations. This update is based on a new file search by the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. 1. SETTING The following description is based on the archaeological evaluation of the project site performed for the 1982 EIR and a new file search performed for this SEIR update. The 1982 EIR evaluation included archival review at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Survey Inventory, field reconnaissance and limited subsurface testing. a. 1982 Archival Review The archival review completed in 1982 revealed that two prehistoric sites, CA-SMa-40 (a large shell mound) and CA-SMa-92 (a smaller shell midden) were located within areas proposed for development. Also in 1982, local informants reported the potential presence of human internments at CA-SMa-40, as well as the presence of historic resources at another location: an early San Francisco water system and two mine shafts. b. 1982 Surface Reconnaissance General surface reconnaissance performed in 1982 located recorded prehistoric site CA-SMa- 40. Recorded site CA-SMa-92 was not located during this reconnaissance because erosion had covered it with soil. A previously unrecorded prehistoric site, CA-SMa-234 (a smaller shell midden similar to CA-SMa-40) was also located. Only a section of the former water system pipeline and one mine shaft are actually found to be on the project site, and few other traces of these former historic activities were noted. c. 1982 Subsurface Testina Limited subsurface testing was also conducted in 1982 to determine the location of the buried site, CA-SMa-92, and to establish the subsurface boundaries of CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-92 was revealed to have been seriously disturbed by prior underground construction. However, CA- SMa-40 was found to include an extraordinarily rich subsurface component. WP51 \548IDSE/RI/V-J.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 244 d. 1982 Evaluations of Sianificance Although the 1982 EIR indicated that a determination of the significance of the prehistoric sites was not possible due to the limited available knowledge and understanding of the sites, the EIR did state that CA-SMa-40 could possibly be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. With respect to the fourth identified onsite cultural resource, the historic mine shaft and water distribution system, the remnants were determined to have minimal local significance, not suffi.cient for National Register listing. No significant new information or substantive changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken from those described in the 1982 EIR have been identified with respect to cultural resources. 2. 1982 IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Cultural resources impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 36. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries Records indicate that 100 percent of the project site has been studied for cultural resources. The 1982 EIR impact evaluation was limited to evaluation of project impacts on four specific cultural resource sites identified in these studies. However, the staff at the State Historical Resources System, Northwest Information Center indicate that the project site as a whole, which is located on the bay margins and at the base of hills near sources of fresh water, has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites, which could be encountered during project construction (i.e., grading).' Such disturbance would represent a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-1) b. Adeauacy of 1982 EIR Site-Specific Mitiaations (1) CA-SMa-40. To mitigate identified potential project impacts to site CA-SMa-40, the 1982 EIR recommended capping the site with a minimum of one foot of sterile fill and sealing the site under landscaping or parking areas. However, in its recent review of this mitigation recommendation, staff at the Northwest Information Center or the California Archaeological 'August 18, 1995 letter from Lynn Compas, Researcher II, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re: Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Supplemental EIR. WP511548\DSEIR\/V-J.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 245 Table 36 1982 EIR CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary The historic mine shaft and water distribution system, and prehistoric site CA-SMa-234, are located outside areas of proposed development. CA-SMa-40 is rich and relatively intact and could possibly be eligible for National Register listing. Disturbance of CA-SMa-40 during project construction would be a significant adverse impact. CA-SMa-92 is in the direct location of development but has been so disturbed that its integrity is substantially minimized. Mitiqation A minimal research program should determine the historical background of the mine shaft (age, builder, period of use). A minimum of one foot of sterile fill should be placed over CA-SMa-40 and the area sealed under landscaping and/or parking areas. A small-scale program of surface collection and minor sampling should be conducted prior to placement of fill. Scarification, earth moving and compaction for site burial should be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Trenching activities for underground utilities and subsurface drainage should be avoided. Subsurface utilities and drainage plans should be inspected by a qualified archaeologist to verify site avoidance. Should construction earthwork disturbance of native soils at CA-SMa-40 be unavoidable, a five percent sample of the affected area should be hand-excavated, and construction activities monitored and specific mitigation recommended by a qualified archaeologist. If human remains are encountered, a Native American representative should be consulted. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact RepOrt for the Terrabav Development Proiect. San Mateo County, California. WP51 I548\DSEIR11 V-J.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 246 Inventory' determined that the recommended one foot of fill soil may not be sufficient to avoid damage to this resource during construction. As a result, potential damage to CA-SMa-40 during project construction under the 1982 EIR mitigation program may still result in a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) (2) CA-SMa-92. The 1982 EIR indicated that site CA-SMa-92 was revealed to have been seriously compromised by prior underground construction, although a determination of its significance was not possible due to the limited available knowledge and understanding of the site. While site CA-SMa-92 is also within the area of proposed Terrabay development activities, the 1982 EIR recommended no mitigation. However, because the project site does have a high potential for containing Native American resources, and because subsurface testing for the 1982 EIR was limited, there is a substantial probability of encountering and disturbing additional cultural resources at site CA-SMa-92 during Terrabay construction, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-3) 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION FINDINGS a. Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries (Supplemental Impact CR-1) In the event that subsurface cultural resources2 are encountered during project construction, work in the immediate vicinity should be immediately stopped and alteration of the materials or their context should be avoided until the resources and their significance can be properly evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources should also be reported to the California Archaeological Inventory and the Native American Heritage Commission, and recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation archaeological site records forms (DPR 422). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the city should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. b. AdeQuacy of 1982 EIR Mitiaation Recommendations (1) CA-SMa-40. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) In addition to mitigations recommended in the 1982 EIR (Table 36), the following mitigation shall be implemented to avoid impacts to CA- SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 should be capped with fill soil at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site. An engineering fabric, such as polypropylene matting, should be placed over the site before fill is placed. The capping 'Ibid. 2Such "subsurface cultural resources" could include prehistoric resources such as chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars or pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bore dietary debris, heat affected rock, or human burials; or could include historic resources such as stone foundations or walls, structural remains with square nails, old wells, etc. WP5115481DSE/RI/V-J.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 247 should be supervised by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County so that the boundaries of the site will be properly defined. The site should be recorded on form DPR 422. Additional or different measures for site capping, and for a sampling program/test excavations prior to capping, may be recommended by the monitoring archaeologist. (2) CA-SMa-92. (Supplemental Impact CR-3) Prior to commencement of grading for project Phase III, the subsurface boundaries and the significance of site CA-SMa-92 should be properly determined through further subsurface testing by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County. Mitigations, possibly including a sampling program followed by capping in a manner similar to that proposed for CA-SMa-40, may be recommended. The site should be recorded on form DPR 422. WP511548\DSEIRlIV-J.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 248 WP51l548\DSE/RI/ V-J.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies v. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES WP511548\DSEIRITlTLPGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies WP51\548\DSEIR\ TlTLPGS,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR v. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 251 v. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES The project site is located at the northern edge of South San Francisco. Portions of the site proposed for development were annexed by the city in 1983; portions of the site to remain as open space are still within unincorporated San Mateo County. As required by state law, all development review in South San Francisco and San Mateo County is guided by the polices set forth in the applicable general plans of these two jurisdictions. Section 15125(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to "...discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general and regional plans." The Guidelines indicate further that the objective of such a discussion is to provide information and find ways to modify the project if warranted to reduce any identified inconsistencies with relevant plans and policies. This SEIR chapter identifies project inconsistencies with pertinent goals and policies of: (1) the South San Francisco General Plan, (2) the city's Park. Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan, (3) the city's East of 101 Area Plan, (4) the San Mateo County General Plan, (5) the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and (6) relevant adopted regional plans, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) 1991 Clean Air Plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) San Francisco Bay Area ReQional Plan (1980), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCS) 1991 Water Quality Control Plan, the San Mateo County Conoestion Manaoement Proaram (CMP), and the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan (1992). This chapter also includes an analysis of the plans and policies consistency findings of the 1982 EIR. A. 1982 EIR PLANS AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY FINDINGS In 1976, when all of the subject property was still unincorporated San Mateo County land, the San Mateo County General Plan was amended to allow for a previous development proposal which encompassed the project site. Subsequently, in 1983, one year after the adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan by the city of South San Francisco and the county of San Mateo, the residential and commercial portions of the project area were annexed to the city of South San Francisco. The major open space component of the project remains under San Mateo County jurisdiction. The 1982 EIR analyzed the consistency of the Terrabay project with the San Mateo County 1976 General Plan Amendment for San Bruno Mountain, the 1969 South San Francisco WP511548\DSEIR\ V.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 252 General Plan, the 1980 ABAG San Francisco Bay Area Reaional Plan, and the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan. The 1982 EIR found that the Terrabay project was consistent with the four analyzed plans, except as follows: · San Mateo County General Plan Consistency. The 1982 EIR found that the Terrabay project was not entirely consistent with the 1976 general plan amendment to allow development of portions of San Bruno Mountain. The following specific inconsistencies with the general plan amendment were identified: (1) the Terrabay plan did not include the high-rise housing complex for the elderly specified in the General Plan, (2) the plan did not provide for 20 percent low and moderate income housing, (3) the plan did not include a provision for warehouse development in the Sierra Point subarea, (4) the plan did not include a cultural center, library, police station and religious facilities; and (5) the project included plans for development of slopes exceeding 30 percent. However, the 1982 EIR concluded that no project modifications or general plan amendments would be necessary because "the County's Department of Environmental Management has found the proposed project is generally consistent with the General Plan Amendment." · South San Francisco General Plan Consistency. With respect to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, the 1982 EIR identified an inconsistency in (1) the project's commercial land use along Bayshore Boulevard versus the General Plan's designation of that area as single-family residential; and (2) the lack of school facilities in the specific plan versus the general plan's designation of an elementary school in the project area. The EIR concluded that these inconsistencies could be eliminated with general plan amendments that would accommodate Terrabay project characteristics. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONSISTENCY FINDINGS With the exception of ABAG's San Francisco Bay Area Reaional Plan, all of the plans analyzed in the 1982 EIR have been updated and several new plans have been adopted since 1982. Local plans adopted since 1982 include the city's 1994 East of 101 Area Plan and 1990 Park. Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. New regional plans include the BAAQMD's 1991 Clean Air Plan, the RWQCB's 1991 Water Quality Control Plan, and the WP511548IDSEIRI V.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 253 1992 San Mateo County Conaestion Manaaement Proaram. Terrabay project consistency with these post-1982 plan revisions is described below. 1. South San Francisco General Plan a. General Plan Land Use Desianations and Plannina Areas. The current South San Francisco General Plan was adopted in 1986. To establish consistency with the Terrabay Specific Plan, the general plan land use designations for the project site were revised to include Planned Commercial, Low and Medium Density Residential, and Open Space designations corresponding to the specific plan land uses. The project is located within Planning Area 4 of the 1986 South San Francisco General Plan. b. General Plan Policies. The following section identifies relevant 1986 general plan policies and the proposed project relationship to those policies. Land Use, Transportation and Circulation Elements--General Land Use Policies. The 1986 Land Use Element of the General Plan was established after the implementation of the Terrabav Specific Plan. The land use and circulation policies of the Terrabav Specific Plan were incorporated into the Land Use Element and the Transportation/Circulation Element of the General Plan (Planning Area 4) in a manner which results in project consistency. The Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan was adopted in 1992. The project is consistent with the 1992 Housing Element's policies (such as Policy 1 B, p. 67) which encourage production of new housing in South San Francisco. 2. Park. Recreation. and Open Space Master Plan The South San Francisco Park. Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was adopted in 1990. The open space and recreation components of the project are consistent with the goals and policies contained within this document. 3. East of 101 Area Plan The City of South San Francisco's 1994 East of 101 Area Plan does not encompass the Terrabay Development project area, which is located entirely to the west of US 101. However, several of the transportation and circulation improvements contained in the East of 101 plan, such as the widening of the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp from US 101, will affect vehicular circulation in the project area. All of the relevant roadway improvements called for in the East of 101 plan have been considered in the Transportation section of this SEIR (section IV.C). WP51\548\DSEIR\ V.54S T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 254 4. San Mateo County General Plan When the 1982 EIR was prepared, the entire project site was located within unincorporated San Mateo County. The area of the site proposed for development was annexed to the City of South San Francisco in 1983 and is therefore no longer subject to the goals, objectives and policies of the San Mateo County General Plan. However, the 132-acre open space component of the Terrabay development would be permanently dedicated to the county for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. The San Mateo County General Plan as updated in 1986 now incorporates the open space specified in the Terrabay Specific Plan. 5. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan The 1982 Terrabay EIR found the project to be consistent with San Mateo County's San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, which has not been modified since that time. The vegetation and wildlife section of this SEIR provides an updated assessment of Terrabay project consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan as amended since 1982. 6. Proiect Relationship to Reaional Plans New regional plans adopted since 1982 which are relevant to the project area include the BAAQMD's 1991 Clean Air Plan, the RWQCB's 1991 Water Quality Control Plan, the San Mateo County Conaestion Manaaement Proaram (1991), the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan (1992), the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, and the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Proaram. (a) 1991 Clean Air Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) policies set forth in the District's 1991 Clean Air Plan call for consideration of traffic-related air quality impacts in the review of proposed projects. Specifically, the District calls for such air quality effects to be analyzed in the environmental impact reports on such projects, subject to BAAQMD review. The air quality section of this SEIR includes such an analysis. The analysis indicates that the transportation demand management measures required by the existing Development Agreement would not be sufficient to meet 1991 Clean Air Plan standards. However, large businesses within the project will be required to comply with the city's TSM Ordinance. Adequate TSM measures have also been incorporated as mitigation measures in the transportation section of this SEIR. (b) 1991 Water Quality Control Plan. The RWQCB's 1991 Water Quality Control Plan is a document that contains policies to control water quality, including urban runoff management and construction activity control. To implement this plan, the Regional Board is currently developing guidelines identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing non-point source pollutants. These practices are expected to encourage increased street cleaning, oil and grease separators for large parking areas, infiltration areas, and trash racks. WP511548\DSEIR\ V.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 255 Section IV.E of this SEIR, Drainage and Water Quality, recommends water quality related mitigation measures to ensure that the project will be consistent with the latest adopted RWaCB adopted policies. In addition, project development will be subject to the city's 1994 South San Francisco Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program. (c) San Mateo County Conaestion Manaaement Proaram (CMP). Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089(a), the San Mateo County Transportation Authority has adopted a San Mateo County Conaestion Manaaement Proaram (CMP). The CMP identifies a number of highway and other principal roadway segments in the county as routes of regional significance warranting special consideration in local decision making. US Highway 101, at the eastern periphery of the project area, is identified in the CMP as a route of regional significance.' No local roadways in the project vicinity are identified as part of the CMP network. The impacts of the project on the operation of US 101 in the project vicinity, and related mitigation needs, are addressed in traffic analysis contained in section IV.C of this SEIR. (d) San Francisco ,International Airport Master Plan. The San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles to the southwest of the project site. In 1992, the San Francisco Airports Commission adopted the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan which identifies $2.4 billion of planned improvements of the airport and supporting facilities, including a new international terminal. These future improvements have been considered in the transportation and noise sections of this SEIR (sections IV.C, Transportation, and section IV.H, Noise). (e) San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), as adopted by the Airport Land Commission in 1981, addresses noise and safety considerations relevant to land surrounding the airport. The aim of the plan is to ensure that compatible land uses are established in areas affected by airport operations by identifying noise/land use compatibility standards and height restrictions. The noise-related policies have been considered in the noise section of this SEIR (section IV.H), including a recommended mitigation measure requiring a detailed noise analysis of the site prior to construction. This noise analysis would ensure that the sound insulation of project structures meet minimum ALUP standards. The project height limits fall within ALUP height limits. (f) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Proaram. The San Francisco Airport Commission maintains a San Francisco International Airport aviation traffic Noise Exposure Map. The map includes a 65 dBA CNEL boundary which is used to determine whether residential units are eligible for federal sound insulation funding under the airport's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. No Terrabay project units are included within the current (1995) 65 dBA CNEL boundary. 'San Mateo County Conaestion Manaaement Proaram, November, 1992, Policy 1.5, page E-2. WP51\548IDSEIRIV,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Page 256 WP511548\DSEIR\ V,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WP511548\DSEIR\ TITLPGS,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project WP511548\DSEIR\ T1TLPGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 259 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Supplemental impact findings and mitigation recommendations for the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement extension are described in detail in this SEIR. CEOA also requires that EIRs include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or eliminate impacts. The 1982 EtR included such an analysis. This section of the SEIR identifies any substantive changes in conditions since 1982 which may affect the findings of the 1982 EIR regarding four identified alternatives to the proposed project. A. SUMMARY OF 1982 EIR FINDINGS 1. Identified Alternatives No Project Alternative (as required by CEOA): This 1982 alternative assumed that the 332- acre project site would remain in its current state, which (in 1982) meant no development. Concept Plan Alternative (as presented in the concept plan proposed by W.W. Dean Associates in 1982): This alternative assumes Phase I and II residential uses and related community facilities similar in type and density to those contained in the approved specific plan and development agreement, but with less intense Phase III commercial development levels. Alternative Designed to Conform With the Sphere of Influence Study: This alternative assumes development of 1,036 residential units and a 10-acre shopping center along the south-facing portion of the project site, and commercial and industrial development along the eastern portion,' consistent with the Preliminary Site Utilization Plan included in the city's 1982 South Slope Sphere of Influence Study. Alternative Designed to Conform With the General Plan Amendment This alternative assumes development of 985 multi-family units, of which 20 percent would be affordable to low and moderate income households, including a high-rise elderly housing complex, plus development of higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses, and a community center with a pre-school, cultural center, library, fire station, police station and religious facilities, consistent with the 1976 San Mateo County general plan amendment for San Bruno Mountain. 2. Impact Comparison Summary The 1982 EIR contained the following comparative impact findings: WP51 \548IDSEIRI VI.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 260 No Project Alternative. The no project alternative would avoid the impacts identified for the project, but would not provide additional housing and employment opportunities, and would not contribute toward construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, the Hillside Recreation Center, Fire Station 5, playfield improvements at Hillside Elementary School, and wastewater collection system improvements. Concept Plan Alternative. The impacts identified for this alternative would not differ substantially from those identified for the project. However, less intense commercial development with this alternative would result in lesser traffic, noise, water and air quality impacts. Alternative Designed to Conform to the Sphere of Influence Study. This alternative would provide approximately 39 percent more housing units than the project, which would result in greater traffic, noise, water, air quality and public services impacts. Development on the knolls as well as within the swales of the project site would be inconsistent with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Alternative Designed to Conform With the General Plan Amendment. Higher intensity residential development provided with this alternative, including apartments and a high-rise senior citizens housing complex, would be incompatible with adjacent single family neighborhoods. More intensive residential, as well as commercial, development would also result in greater traffic, noise, water and air quality impacts. 3. Conclusions--Environmentallv Superior Alternative CEOA guidelines stipulate that, "If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Of the three alternatives evaluated in the 1982 EIR other than the no project alternative, it was determined that the Concept Plan Alternative, because it would be less intensive than the other alternatives, would result in the least adverse combination of environmental impacts and would therefore be the "environmentally superior" alternative. B. SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS The only changes in the comparative impact findings of the 1982 EIR that are warranted are with respect to the no project alternative. Because a specific plan, development agreement, Phase I precise plan, and various other entitlements have been approved for the project, and substantial on- and off-site improvements have been constructed, the No Project Alternative now means no extension to the previous Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement entitlements, and no development activity beyond the current entitlement termination date of February 14, 1997. Under this scenario, a limited portion of the Phase I residential development would be completed, and development of Phases II and III would not be initiated. Project contributions toward construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, Fire Station 5, playfield improvements at Hillside Elementary School, and wastewater collection system improvements WP511548IDSEIRI VI.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 261 have already occurred. With the no project alternative. some additional housing would be provided. Most impacts identified for development of Phase I of the project would still occur under this alternative. Impacts identified for Phases II and III would be avoided with the no project alternative. Identified changes in the comparative impact findings of the 1982 EIR do not warrant a change in the 1982 EIR's determination with respect to the Environmentally Superior Alternative. WP511548\DSEIR\ VI.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 262 WP51l548\DSEIR\ VI.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS WP5115481DSEIRI TITLPGS,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions WP511548IDSEIRITITLPGS,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions Page 265 VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS This chapter summarizes the SEIR findings in terms of five assessment categories suggested by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for EIR content: (1) growth- inducing impacts, (2) unavoidable significant adverse impacts, (3) irreversible environmental changes, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) impacts found not to be significant. A. GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS Section 15126(g) of the CEQA guidelines states that an EIR should discuss "...the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." The growth- inducing impacts of the Terrabay project would consist of direct and indirect population, housing and employment increases. The project would enable development of up to 721 additional housing units in the city of South San Francisco. This housing would accommodate approximately 2,156 people. As discussed in section IV.B (Population and Housing) of this SEIR, this population would represent approximately 3.5 percent of the South San Francisco population projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the year 2005. The 2,156 residents would represent approximately 88 percent of the 1,500-person population increase projected by ABAG for South San Francisco between 1995 and 2005. Extension of public services to the project site would not be expected to induce significant additional growth because development allowances on San Bruno Mountain are limited to those specific projects permitted under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10(a) permit. B. UNAVOIDABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS Section 15126 of the CEQA guidelines states that "unavoidable significant adverse impacts" are those significant impacts for which no mitigation is available. Impacts identified in this SEIR as significant and potentially unavoidable include the following: 1. Air Quality. (Supplemental Impact A-2) Even with recommended mitigations, project impacts on regional air quality would remain significant and would represent a significant unavoidable adverse impact. 2. Statement of Overridinq Considerations. In order to approve the project as proposed, the city would be required to adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for any WP51 \548\DSEIR\ VII,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VII. CEOA-Required Assessment Conclusions Page 266 unavoidable impacts, in accordance with the CEOA guidelines. Sections 15093(a} and (b) of the guidelines state that "if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable,'" and that ''where the decision of a public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record." C. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 211 O(f} of CEOA requires that any EIR identify any significant irreversible changes that would result from implementation of the project. Section 15126(f} of the CEOA guidelines suggests that irreversible environmental changes may involve uses of nonrenewable resources or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. None of the project aspects would result in such effects. The project would not displace any nonrenewable agricultural or extractive resources. While the project would eliminate some of the endangered butterflies present on the site as permitted by the section 1 O(a} permit, through strict adherence to the provisions of the associated HCP, the project is expected to enhance the long-term survival of the species. D. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The CEOA guidelines (section 15355) define "cumulative impacts" as "u.two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." In the case of the proposed project, cumulative impacts could result from the combination of project impacts with approved and pending development in South San Francisco described in section IV.A Land Use. The cumulative effects of the project and surrounding development are discussed where applicable in the findings described in section IV for each environmental topic area (e.g., land use, transportation, public services, vegetation and wildlife, noise, air quality, etc.). E. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT In completing the Initial Study contained in Appendix A of this SEIR, it was determined by the city that the following possible environmental effects of the project and needed mitigation measures would be insignificant, were adequately addressed in the 1982 EIR, or could be adequately addressed by city staff in the development review process, without reevaluation in this supplemental EIR: (1) light and glare, (2) risk of upset, (3) energy, (4) human health, and (5) aesthetics. WP5115481DSEIRI VII,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 WP51 \548\DSEIRI TITLPGS.548 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING Draft SEIR VIII. Mitigation Monitoring T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VIII. Mitigation Monitoring WP5115481DSEIRI TITLPGS,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR VII\. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 269 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN A. BACKGROUND On January 1, 1989, AS 3180 became law in Califomi~. The bill requires all public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to environmental impact reports.' The complete text of the bill can be found in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Pursuant to this law, a mitigation monitoring program must be implemented by the city of South San Francisco following certification of the Terrabav Specific Plan and Development Aareement Extension SEIR. Most of the environmental mitigation measures recommended in this SEIR will be subject to effective monitoring through the city's normal development review procedures, including precise plan and subdivision applications, design review approval, building permit approval, and associated plan check and construction period field inspection procedures. However, to satisfy CEQA Section 21081.6, a documented record of implementation will be necessary. B. RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION 1. Implementation Responsibilities The party responsible for implementing each mitigation measure identified in this SEIR is suggested in Chapter II of this SEIR (see column four of the summary table). The project applicant will have primary responsibility for implementation of most of the required mitigation measures. 2. Checklist A Mitigation Monitoring Checklist form is suggested by Table 37 for city use in meeting the requirements of AS 3180; Le., in establishing the "who, what, when, and how" aspects for each mitigation measure from this SEIR that is ultimately required as a condition of project approval. The checklist format includes spaces for: (1) a summary of each significant impact identified in the Final SEIR (excerpted directly from the Summary chart in SEIR section II.C); (2) a summary of each mitigation measure identified in the Final SEIR which has been adopted as a condition of project approval by the city; (3) an identification of the type of 'Randy Pestor and Ron Bass, "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting," California Planner, January 1989. WP51I548\DSEIR\ VIII.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VIII. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 270 monitoring action required; (4) an identification of the party responsible for performing and verifying the monitoring action; and (5) an identification of associated timing requirements. WP51 \548IDSEIRI VIII. 548 ~ i-8 !! ~ _ 0 ~ QlO II CL0 Q u I E ~ II II "-= 8 ~ ----- ~ a-ID J:: ------ I- 0 < g -- CD 'C- t :l.l! ~ JIi~ e_ z :I liS ~ () () 0 ! u- IU5 ~8 E ::s F= ti i'" -0... c( l .l!.ll ~ -~ () ! ~ ~g u:: :l S U ~(? a: iii 1 i'"' I!@ C ..:5 ~ ~ffi w 0: It 11I0 ~ > en j" -.. '~ >. ------ 0_ Ql25 -------- >:1 U i Mil '0 E b .!~ @f: Ql III '00:: ~>o ~c'2 lj.fi ." ~ ~i Ql 0 mC iQ, '0- c.E ~~ 0'" - - Ji sl - - ... II i s 0 1- ..CD @l,,,, c!E ell "" Ql o t it !lil E..s ::E> ",It i~ ~ ~"i ~------ ----- Jls CD CD !! "l ...CD Ql'O ~~ @" "E.i! C ell ~~ ~~ @ 0; E CD'" .e:a CD II d m! ;';;'0 Si - c .5"5 ~... ! g CP E i -... ~! '0' .8 CD" i=1Z: r~ "-a ~Ql CD.. j! ----- ------- CD"- ..0 @ m "'go IJ C @ l!!S!J 'i: i:a ,,~ ... c S ~ ~ ~ c )~ ~.t 0 ':i ~ .! .~ ::E .0 - ::s -s -CD ... a- CJ o"c !i li:... j .g ~ !~l ~2' zs.,g IIi JCDO ->.0 !; IIID 0;:: a:1-< 00 ~S ~------------- CD- @" 0.- ..1 t"- :. III C Z .}: jlt alJii 0 @ '0 E CDU OG.O:: .. II ~-~ mb ~s :!EEc t... I!. oS _w -el ~ E tn ------ ---- .liiQ, !! t6 '2'0 ---- >00. ~ ! ..a- 8 lij i:l lIa~ G.- @" .!~ :0_ "a ".Iii "-.l!- Ilfm - () ",,- SoS .an; w 0_ ...- ~ .s-S a: tiO ..0 iii' 0- jJ~ i'2 ::) Q,!: (/) 110 ti .. II - III 81: iiB @]I l!! - c( ~ 8.E w_ ...e l!oto ... ~ :!E.... ;,;s _i~ @f: 8'0 z~ ~~ '::(1)11: @f: .s .9/ 00 o=.i CG. U'" Ii:: ~ ! ~ F=IZ: ill CD- c(Q. -:I lie CJ~ ...... -~1 CP C II'" > CP F=II.. u= !...... .!.8 -0 "'e 0" :!Ez CD CD ... . -..1: ~ ~ 0 ffiQ j... 1-" .!2.! ~J t!- @f: 0:1: .8- ....t: !!~j I C :5~ i;g ~ ~ _:0 c3.l!c wO .lD 1I:i5::l c: .g a: 2. e- l!i& E ::J ~: ~_. .ai &.. o~ @" ----- ._.I! o ... ------ -- ui ~i~ ~ () C ai ,5,g s~ ~i" ~ '0 III SiS ....0 g.2> Ii .2 i5a~ ==> ",:: @f: = E i lilt 10-0 ~ Sloe Ue II Jii !s ~ JOQ, .... '" Ql - -f l! ~ is al_ I ~11 jij ii- CS i ili_l:J ~ fl uJgJ-s al ,- .... ~lS ~:I ~ ,g>-g () 'E ~ c( S' :le "i @ Q,-r_~"C 7ii ~ a.. l~!"'lD ~~ -'I::"":' :!E ~j!..e~1I c.!~ i ~Q,.Iii >000 ~()a; C ,g go.U ~: a"C~ w t;lal- II C.. .~ ~ N u:: ~~..J~ U ~~ ~.2lg F= CP '" '"" Z i!fs!~e'i~ ~~ CP'O~ W etsol~ >! f f=.lii(/) c r.. . ao Q, T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR VI1I. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 272 WP51\5481DSEIR\ VIII. 548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED WP51 \548\DSEIRIT1TLPGS,548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted WP51\548\DSEIR\ TITLPGS,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IX. Organizations and persqns Contacted Page 275 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED A. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Steve Solomon, Chief Planner, Department of Economic and Community Development Lida Budko, Project Planner, Department of Economic and Community Development Ron Petrocchi, Sergeant, Police Department Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official, Department of Economic and Community Development Barry Nagle, Director, Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician, Public Works Department Ramon Towne, Interim Director of Public Works John Gibbs, Oyster Point Project Manager's Office Ray Honan, Senior Source Control Inspector, South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Mike Rozzi, Senior Construction Inspector B. APPLICANT James Sweenie, Vice President, Sterling Pacific Management Services Mark Woods, KLH Engineers Dan O'Connell, PSC Associates, Inc. Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc. C. OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Janice Smith, South San Francisco Unified School District AI Pucci, Assistant Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane Elementary School District Mr. Gravelle, California Water Service Company Roman Gankin, Principal Planner, County of San Mateo Environmental Services Agency Lynn Compas, Researcher II, Historical Resources Information Center Louise Bohnen, County of San Mateo Environmental Services Agency David Kaplow, Pacific Open Space, Inc. Neil Cullen, Director of Public Works, County of San Mateo WP51l5481DSEIRIIX,548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted Page 276 WP511548IDSEIRI/X.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR x. Appendices Page 2n x. APPENDICES WP51\548\DSEIRlX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR X. Appendices Page 278 WP51\548\DSEIRIX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY WP51\548\DSEIRIX,548 Draft SEIR Appendix A T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix A WP51l548\DSEIRIX.548 NOTICE OF PREPARATION Department of Economic: and Community Development PLANNING DlVSON 415/871-8535 FAX 811-7318 TO: RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES (Mailing List Attached) FROM: City or South San Francisco Planning Division Post Office Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECf: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFf SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcr REPORT TO EXTEND THE TERMS OF TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The City of South San Francisco as the Lead Agency will prepare a supplemental environmental impact report for the project identified below. We wish to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project Your agency will need to use the SEIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached Initial Study. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, please send your response at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Address your responses to Lida Budko, Project Planner, at the address shown above, please include the name of a contact person in your agency. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Budko at (415) 877-8535. Project Title: Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Date: August 4, 1995 Steve Solomon Chief Planner Attachments 400 Grand Avenue. P.O. Box 711 . 94083 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR Appendix A WP511548\DSEIRlX.548 INITIAL STUDY FOR THE TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION Prepared for the City of South San Francisco by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners August 1995 WP5115481MISCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page I CONTENTS Pace Preface ............................................................. iii I. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 II. Environmental Impacts/III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ..... 10 1 . Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 2. Air........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 3. 'Water .................................................. 14 4. Plant Ufe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 5. Animal Ute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 6. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 7. Light and Glare ...................... - . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 8. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 9. Natural Resources .......... _ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 10. Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 11. Population ............................................... 20 12. Housing.................. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking .............................. 20 14. Public Service ............. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 15. Energy..................:............................... 24 16. Utilities ................................................. 24 17. Human Health ............................................ 25 18. Aesthetics ............................................... 26 19. Recreation............................................... 26 20. Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 21. Mandatory Findings ot Significance .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 IV. Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 WP5115481MISCICHKLST.S48 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST I. Back2l"ound 1. Application: 2. Project Description: WP51l548IMISCICHKLST.548 Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement extension A. SETTING 1. ' Realonal Location The project site is located in the northern portion of the city of South San Francisco, in northern San Mateo County. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park in unincorporated San Mateo County, and the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco are located to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, San Francisco International Airport and the city of San Bruno to the south, and the town of Colma and the city of Daly City to the west. U.S. Highway 101 (US 101)--the Bayshore freeway--provides regional access to the site via the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. 2. Local Settlna The proposed project site is located along the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain at the northern edge of the city of South San Francisco. Portions of the site proposed for development are within the city of South San Francisco (annexed to the city in 1983); remaining portions of the site, proposed to remain as open space, are within unincorporated San Mateo County. The site is generally bounded on the north by San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, by Bayshore Boulevard to the east, by Randolph Avenue and Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard to the south, and by Hillside Elementary School and portions of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park to the west. Present access to the site is from Bayshore Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Randolph Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 WP5115481MISCICHKLST.548 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 2 3. General Site Characteristics The 332-acre project site is approximately "L "-shaped, along the south- and east-facing slopes of San Bruno Mountain. The site consists of rolling, gently to steeply sloping terrain. Site elevations vary greatly from 25 feet above sea level at the Airport Boulevard/Randolph Avenue intersection to 575 feet above sea level at the tops of slopes along the northwest edge of the site. The site contains several spur ridges, knolls, ravines and swales. A promontory knoll is located at the southeastern comer of the site adjacent to the Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Nearly half of the site contains slopes with gradients greater than 30 percent. Although grading and many common infrastructure improvements for the first phase of the approved project (Phase I) have already been completed, the project site remains primarily as open space. Site vegetation is predominantly non-native grassland on the lower portions proposed for development, with native grasses and soft chaparral on the higher, steeper slopes, and riparian-like vegetation in the ravines between knolls. The site is immediately adjacent to the expansive open space areas of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064- acre regional open space with developed trails and recreational facilities. The site is also within the planning area of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which was formulated to protect habitat for endangered butterflies. A Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission line and easement cross the site near North Spruce Avenue. 4. Site History San Bruno Mountain is a large expanse of undeveloped open space amidst some of the most densely developed areas in the Bay Area. Over the past three decades, considerable attention and controversy have been focused on the area by private developers, public agencies, concerned individuals and environmental organizations. Extensive planning efforts have Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 WP51 I548IM/SCI CHKLST. 548 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 3 been made to balance protection of the mountain environment with the increased demand for housing. In 1973, an application for a county general plan amendment was submitted to San Mateo County in an initial effort to develop 1,244 acres of unincorporated land on San Bruno Mountain. This proposal included development of the unincorporated Terrabay project site. In 1976, a county general plan amendment for San Bruno Mountain was approved which limited development to three planning areas-- the northeast ridge planning area, the Brisbane planning area, and the South San Francisco planning area. The South San Francisco planning area (essentially the Terrabay project site) was designated by the county as a potential location for residential and commercial development. The presence of endangered butterflies became a key element in the planning of San Bruno Mountain. Subsequent to the county's 1976 adoption of a general plan amendment, portions of the mountain were discovered to provide habitat for a federally-listed endangered species. In 1976, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had designated the mission blue and San Bruno elfin butterflies as "endangered" pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Another butterfly, the callippe silverspot was proposed for listing by the USFWS in 1978. To ascertain the extent of these resources, the County commissioned an extensive biological study of the mission blue and callippe silverspot and other species of concern. The findings of the study formed the basis of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), adopted in 1981. A portion of the Terrabay project site is included in the HCP area. The T errabay project was approved by the city of South San Francisco in 1982 and 1983. The Terrabay Specific Plan was adopted by the city in 1982 and a habitat conservation agreement executed that same year. In 1983, the city annexed the 203-acre portion of the project site proposed for development and amended the city zoning ordinance to add the Terrabay Specific Plan District. A Development Agreement for the project was adopted in 1983. In 1989, a precise plan and vesting tentative subdivision map were approved for Phase I; a final subdivision map was approved for Phase I in 1990. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 4 Recently, a new applicant has requested city approval of a renewed construction program to complete Phase I of the development. In order to proceed on an interim basis, the City Council in April 1995 confirmed the tolling of the expiration dates of the specific plan and development agreement to February 14, 1997. Since some components of Phase I, as well as Phases II and III, may start after this specific plan and development agreement extension expires, the applicant has requested further extension of the specific plan and development agreement entitlements. This extension request represents the proposed action or "project" considered in this Initial Study. B. PROPOSED PROJECT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Note: With the exception of a slightly reduced number of Phase I residential units, no substantive changes are proposed to the Terrabay project physical characteristics described in the 1982 certified EIR approved by the city in 1982. Only the timing of the project entitlements would change-i.e., would be extended. For purposes of determining in this initial study whether any potential new significant impacts may occur or whether any aspects of the previous EIR will otherwise need to be updated or reevaluated, a summary description of the project as previously approved is provided below. The applicant, SunChase G.A. California I, Inc., has requested extension of the Terrabay specific plan and development agreement to allow for completion of Phase I of the Terrabay development program. The applicant proposes to first implement specific plan Phase I, with no substantive changes to the previously approved precise plan provisions for Phase I (up to 293 homes). Eventually, the city also anticipates applicant implementation of the more conceptual specific plan Phases II and III.' These subsequent phases generally 'The supplemental EIR to be prepared for the specific plan and development agreement extension will provide a less detailed assessment of Phases II and III, since the ultimate physical characteristics, sequencing and timing of these subsequent phases are more conceptual. When these subsequent phases are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required approvals in the future, more specific information would be available and additional, more detailed environmental review, with opportunities for public input, would be undertaken at that time. WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 WP5115481MISCICHKLST.548 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 5 provide for up to an additional 428 homes, 669,300 square feet of commercial space, and supporting community facilities and infrastructure. The overall characteristics of the 332-acre Terrabay development plan are described first, followed by a more specific description of project Phase I. 1. Overall DeveloDment ConceDt The approved Terrabay project layout is diagrammed on the next page. Approximately 200 acres of the 332-acre project site are proposed to be developed; the remaining 132 acres (about 40 percent of the site), consisting of the higher- elevation, more steeply sloping and less disturbed portions of the site, are to be permanently dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and the HCP area. a. Overall Land Use. As summarized in Table 1, the project includes the following specific land use components: . 136 single family detached homes (Terrabay Park); . 510 single family attached homes: 381 townhomes (Terrabay Village and Terrabay Woods) and 129 terraced units (Terrabay Commons); . 99 single family condominiums (Terrabay Point); . 11-acre office/restaurant/health club complex; . 33-acre hotel/tech trade center complex; . 20 acres of land for public roadway rights-of-way; . 10 acres of common community facilities areas; and . 132 acres of open space to be dedicated to the HCP area. b. Overall Circulation and Access. The project would be served by an internal road system consisting of a single local public street and several private roads and lanes in the residential portion, and a private collector street in the commercial portion of the project. " ;;!,~::;:;;",. : " ,,,,,', .1" 'j~ ~/{l ;, ,\. , , JL~''( (((;t I \.~~ , ~,I, <r~,~~ -'I'~ ~._....~ '. J ft,,': ,J ...;;.;:;r;-.' \, '1'\' '. j :; ... - ~ G < ~= -~ 5= ~ ~~ ::::~ <= ,..".: ~- ~ .Ii ((' :~-)' ~~ L(" . , . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 7 Table 1 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LAYOUT CHARACTERISTICS Acreaae Number of Dwellina Units Dwelling Units oer Acre Residential T errabay Village Townhomes Terrabay Point Condominium Units Subtotal 27.8 181* 6.5 38.8 136* 3.5 11.1 57 5.1 21.1 143 6.8 9.3 58 6.2 7.0 71 10.1 -1Li 99 8.7 126.5 745 5.9 T errabay Park Single Family Detached Terrabay Woods Townhomes (west) Townhomes (east) Terrabay Commons Terraced Units (west) Terraced Units (east) Community Facilities Areas Child Care Center & Tot Park Rec. Center Complex Public Street Unear Park Unear Greenbelt Subtotal 0.5 3.2 20.1 1.3 5.0 29.6 Commercial Office Condos & Health Club Hotel High Tech Trade Center Subtotal Subtotal Developed Acreage Open Space to be Dedicated to the Habitat Conservation Area TOTAL PROJECT SITE 11.3 17.3 -1ll 43.8 199.9 132.1 332.0 SOURCE: Terrabay Specific Plan, 1982 (as amended). *The Specific Plan (1982) allows up to 181 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 136 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. Phase I Precise Plan approval (1989) is for up to 168 townhomes and 125 single-family detached homes. WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 8 Freeway access to the project would be provided via the Oyster Point Interchange and, for southbound traffic, the Bayshore Boulevard scissors ramps. Arterial access to the project would be provided via Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard and Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard. The main entrance to the projects residential portion is opposite Jefferson Avenue. A second entrance is located near North Spruce Avenue. As part of the Phase I improvements already completed, Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the previous EIR) has been extended as a four- lane arterial roadway from the former intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Randolph Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard. Access to the proposed commercial development would be provided via Bayshore Boulevard at a single entrance opposite the US 101 Bayshore Boulevard scissors ramps. The project's internal roadway system features a single publiC roadway, South San Francisco Drive (constructed); all other roadways would be privately owned and maintained. The residential and commercial portions of the project would have separate access and circulation. c. Overall Gradina Approach. The project grading concept would include stepped building pads up the swales, leaving the knolls intact or preserving their form to the extent possible. Earth slopes would generally be graded at two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Exceptions include the Sister Cities Boulevard cut near Terrabay Point and several other small areas where steeper slopes are proposed to preserve existing land forms. These areas are adjacent to private roads, driveways, and buffer areas where structures are not proposed. Slopes would be terraced and drainage ditches provided to control debris fall and surface drainage. Approximately 1,870,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,900,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed, requiring approximately 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill. Phase I rough grading operations have been completed, including grading in Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park, and a portion of Terrabay Woods on the west end of the project, with a borrow operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and T errabay Point. The grading for Sister Cities Boulevard and Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 9 rough grading of a haul road from Terrabay Point to Terrabay Village were included in this completed grading phase. (Sister Cities Boulevard has been constructed.) The second phase of the grading operation would encompass the remainder of the residential and commercial development areas. Winterization and erosion control provisions are proposed to protect graded areas during the phased grading period. d. Drainaae. Runoff from slopes above the project site, as well as from the project's on-site drainage system, would be intercepted and transported in storm drain trunk lines under US 101 to an existing drainage ditch which parallels the . freeway, and on to the bay. e. Water. Water service would be provided by California Water Service from the San Francisco Water District'water main in Bayshore Boulevard at a point near the Sister Cities BoulevardlBayshore Boulevard intersection. Booster pumps (currently not constructed) would lift water to the higher elevations of the project and to a one-million-gallon storage tank (constructed) at the 400-foot elevation near Terrabay Park. California Water Service would assume maintenance of the water tank and service mains. f. Sewer. On-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors would connect to the city sewer system in Airport Boulevard. An oft-site parallel interceptor would be constructed in the near-capacity segment of Airport Boulevard between Randolph Avenue and Adolph Avenue to carry project wastewater flows. 2. Phase I Development Terrabay Phase I, the principal subject of the current application, consists of continued development of the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods at the westem end of the site. a. Phase I Components Alreadv Completed. Most common infrastructure and improvements for Phase I have already been completed. Grading for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park has been completed. Sister Cities Boulevard and the Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 10 landscaped buffer have been constructed. The associated Randolph Street cul-de-sac is now under construction. South San Francisco Drive has been constructed through Terrabay Park. The Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Avenue-South San Francisco Drive and Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersections have been signalized. Play field improvements have been installed at Hillside Elementary School. Sewer, water and storm drainage improvements for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park have been installed. Finally, Fire Station NO.5 has been constructed and is in operation. Private intemal roadways have a1$0 been constructed. b. Terrabav Villaae. The approved Terrabay Village precise plan consists of up to 168 townhouse lots developed at densities of approximately 6.0 units per acre at the westemmost end of the project site adjacent to Hillside Elementary School. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. c. Terrabav Park. The approved Terrabay Park precise plan consists of up to 125 single family residences arranged in clusters of three and four at densities of approximately 3.2 units per acre. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. 3. Applicant: SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. 4. Address and Phone: 6001 North 24th Street, Suite A Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 468-1090 II. Environmental Impacts and III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1 The purpose of this evaluation is to identify ~ potential significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project which were not considered in the previous EIR, 'Sections II and III of the city's Environmental Checklist have been combined in this Initial Study to provide for easier understanding of initial study determinations regarding whether there are new potential significant impacts not considered in the previous EIR, or whether there are areas where the analyses in the previous EIR will need to be updated or re-evaluated. WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 11 and to identify any aspects of the previous EIR will need to be updated and reevaluated, in the supplemental environmental impact report. 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: The principal geotechnical issues associated with the project involve existing and future slope instability. Numerous areas of landsliding and soil creep have been identified in the project area and upslope of the property, as described in the previous (1982) EIR. Substantial additional information has also been gathered during Phase I grading regarding the extent and distribution of landslides and other geologic features. Since preparation of the previous (1982) EIR, the site has experienced several wet winters, notably 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1995. As a result, landslide and other onsite slope conditions may have changed significantly in the interim. In addition, the state of professional knowledge regarding landslides in general has advanced as a result of the wet winters of the early to mid-1980s. New or revised site-specific geotechnical information may have been developed since the 1982 EIR, including information developed during Phase I grading activity and subsequent slope stability studies, which may warrant revision of the previous impact and mitigation conclusions; and new published general information may indicate that certain site conditions, impact potentials, or mitigation approaches identified in the 1982 EIR should be supplemented or revised. b. Significant disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of soil? Answer: NO Explanation: These impacts were adequately addressed and adequate mitigation measures were recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information, nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 12 project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. c. Significant change in topography or ground surface relief features? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Answer: Explanation: NO There are no unique geologic features on the project site that would be affected by the proposed development. e. Any significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. f. Significant changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Answer: Explanation: WP51I548IMISCICHKLST.548 NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 13 g. Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for item 1.a above. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The air quality analysis in the previous EIR must be reevaluated and updated to reflect the current environmental impact assessment requirements and standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), including state and federal carbon monoxide standards which may have changed since 1982, BAAQMD thresholds of significance, and new and revised local, state and regional air quality plans and programs. b. The creation of significant objectional odors? Answer: Explanation: NO The construction of conventional residential and commercial development does not typically involve the creation of significant construction period or permanent odors. Nothing about the project or its location would change these typical conditions., c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 NO The scale and nature of the project would prevent it from having any influence on local or regional air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 14 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Answer: Explanation: NO The site does not include any marine or fresh water courses. Runoff-related impacts would not be great enough to affect the course or water movements in the San Francisco Bay, to which the project site runoff would eventually drain. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The description of existing topographic and drainage conditions in the 1982 EIR may need updating regarding drainage improvements installed since 1982 as part of the Phase I improvements, and other pertinent changes since preparation of the 1982 EIR. Current drainage facility conditions should be described based on the city's current storm drainage master plan, including existing capacities, downstream drainage features, and areas of flooding (this will include examination of current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and/or revisions). Mitigation measures specified in the 1982 EIR may need to be re-evaluated and revised to reduce or avoid project-related impacts on the local storm drain system and on flooding problems within affected drainages. Measures may include a revised identification of drainage infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate increases in runoff and flooding potential. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Answer: Explanation: WP51\548IM/SCICHKLST.548 MAYBE No part of the project site is within a 100-year flood zone. However, much of the land east of US 101 and north of Oyster Point Boulevard is in a 100-year flood zone. The flooding analysis in the previous E IR must be reevaluated and updated to reflect changes in drainage features, drainage system capacities and associated flooding potentials, and Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 15 revisions of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps which may have been made since 1982. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Answer: Explanation: NO Project runoff changes, which would drain directly to San Francisco Bay, would not increase the amount of surface water in the bay. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. However, there may have been changes in jurisdictional water quality control policies, standards, and criteria which have occurred since 1982 that warrant revision to the previous EIR impact and mitigation findings. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Answer: Explanation: NO According to the 1982 EIR, project grading is not expected to be deep enough to interrupt ground water flows on the site. No changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that would affect this conclusion. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Answer: Explanation: WP511548IMISCICHKLST.548 NO According to the 1982 EIR, the project would not affect the quantity of groundwaters. No changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that could affect this conclusion. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 16 h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The 1982 description of existing local water source and distribution capabilities, and the ability to serve anticipated buildout, may need updating. Similarly, project and cumulative water demands and the adequacy of the existing supply and distribution system to accommodate these increases should be reevaluated. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Two principal biological data updating needs have been identified: (1) the need to update the 1982 EIR to reflect current knowledge of the distribution of rare and endangered plants and wildlife known on San Bruno Mountain, and (2) the need to update the described status of Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) implementation, both mountain-wide and for the Terrabay project site. Principal biotic issues and areas on which the 1982 EIR update should focus are: the status of restoration activities on the Terrabay site; changes in population and distribution of known rare and endangered species; presence of additional species of special concern on the site, such as the burrowing owl; and changes in the status of the callippe silverspot butterfly from candidate species to a species proposed for listing as endangered. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SC1CHKLST.548 MAYBE Same as for a. above. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 17 c. . Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a. above. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Answer: NO Explanation: The 1982 EIR indicates that the project site has not been used in recent times for agriculture and does not contain significant potentials for agricultural production. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. WP511548IMISCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 18 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The noise section of the 1982 EIR should be reevaluated to confirm the validity of or update previous measurements and conclusions (including the implications of updated traffic volume projections) and to reflect changes in ambient noise levels and/or noise standards. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for a. above. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light glare? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Answer: Explanation: WP511548IMISCICHKLST.548 MAYBE An updated description of the existing land use and open space setting should be provided, including an updated description of the local, citywide, and San Bruno Mountain open space system, nearby residential development patterns and densities, and the type and condition of nearby commercial and industrial uses. The land use and open space impacts of the project should then be reevaluated and described, including: . Any changes in or new direct impacts on the character of the site itself; Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 19 . Project development plan compatibility with the adjacent Randolph Avenue residential neighborhood, the adjacent major arterials and freeway, and adjacent and nearby commercial uses; and Any changes in or new project impacts on the vicinity, citywide, and regional land use and open space pattem. . 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural resources? Answer: Explanation: NO The project is a standard residential and commercial development which would not increase the rate of use of natural resources more than any other conventional subdivision activity within the city. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Answer: Explanation: NO The potential for such impacts and necessary mitigation measures were adequately addressed in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 NO The project would not directly affect any known emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 20 11. Popullltion. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The 1982 EIR description of the existing population and housing inventory in the city, and special housing needs, should be updated. Project impacts on the city's population and housing stock should then be briefly reevaluated and described to provide a statistical basis for identification elsewhere in the SEIR of population and housing based project impacts (public services, schools, etc.). 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for 11 above. Also, the previous EIR should be reevaluated to identify project relationships to current city policies regarding jobs/housing balance, special housing needs, inclusionary housing, and housing location. 13. Transportation/Circullltion/Parking. Will the proposal result in:. a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The traffic impacts of the project on the off-site roadway system should be re-evaluated to reflect current citywide traffic assumptions, with particular attention to the impacts on the soon-to-be-completed Oyster Point Boulevard interchange with US 101. Prior data may need adjustment to reflect changed conditions at the interchange. Intersection level of service (LOS) operation should be re-evaluated for each of the following intersections:1 . Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard, 1 Subject to city staff concurrence with intersections to be analyzed. WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 21 . Other key intersections along Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps, and Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound off-ramp (or revised southbound on- and off- hook ramps). . . . The update scope should also include a qualitative analysis of the operation of project minor driveway connections to Hillside BoulevardlSister Cities Boulevard. Updated mitigation measures should be provided for any identified significant impacts. The discussion should clearly distinguish between fair share mitigation responsibilities associated with Phase I, and future mitigations necessary to carry out subsequent project phases. b. ,Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Answer: NO Explanation: These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a. above. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a. above~ WP511548\MISC\CHKLST.548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 22 e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Answer: Explanation: NO There are no local water, rail, or air traffic systems in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be directly affected by the project. The project would not impact regional water, rail, or air traffic systems. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclist or pedestrians Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for a. above. 14. Public Service. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? Answer: Explanation: b. Police protection? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 MAYBE Information in the previous EIR on existing fire station locations, response times, backup service arrangements, firefighter-to-population ratio, ISO rating, and facilities and equipment adequacy to serve project and vicinity needs should be updated. Potential project impacts related to increased demands on fire services, the adequacy of existing and planned personnel, facilities and equipment to serve the area, and site-specific fire prevention needs (e.g., emergency access, fire breaks for hazards associated with San Bruno Mountain, and other needs) should be reevaluated. MAYBE Information in the previous EIR on existing station locations, beats, response time, officer-to-population ratio, and related facilities and equipment adequacy should be updated. Potential project and cumulative impacts on police service demands and the 'adequacy of planned personnel and facilities to serve these demands will be reevaluated. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 c. Schools? Answer: Explanation: Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 23 MAYBE Information on the current location, capacity and enrollment of existing and planned school district facilities serving the project area should be updated, including to the extent possible, existing and anticipated enrollment vs. expansion capacity conditions. The description should be based on review of recent enrollment and facilities studies and other data provided by the district. The comparative demands of project Phase I and cumulative buildout on current existing and planned school district facilities, and the adequacy of district school plans to accommodate demands, should be described based on enrollment multipliers provided by the district. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Previous information related to parks and recreation facilities in the city and the project vicinity (including nearby school facilities and associated public use arrangements) should be updated and compared to the city's current park and recreation standards. The project park provisions should then be reevaluated with respect to local neighborhood park provision standards and guidelines and the updated information regarding existing and projected community-wide park and recreation needs. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. f. Other governmental services? Answer: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 NO Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Explanation: Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 24 These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Answer: Explanation: NO The project would not result in any unusual usage of fuels or energy other than normal usage associated with the construction and occupancy of residential and commercial development. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Answer: Explanation: ' NO The project would use existing natural gas and electricity supplies at rates expected of conventional residential and commercial development. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Answer: Explanation: NO The project would require normal natural gas service which is readily available in the project vicinity. b. Communications systems? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 NO The project would require normal telephone and cable television service which is readily available in the project vicinity. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 c. Water? Answer: Explanation: Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 25 MAYBE Same as explanation for item 3h. d. Sewer or septic tanks? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The sewer analysis in the previous EIR should be reevaluated to consider the current capacity of existing collection and treatment facilities to handle project and cumulative wastewater generation demands. e. Storm water drainage? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The drainage analysis in the previous EIR should be updated to consider changes in the adequacy of the offsite drainage system to accommodate project and cumulative stormwater flows. f. Solid waste and disposal? Answer: Explanation: NO The project would generate solid waste at rates typical of similar residential and commercial development in the vicinity, which is currently served adequately by South San Francisco Scavengers. Project impacts on this service would be offset through payment of collection fees. 17. H uman Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Answer: Explanation: WP511548IMISCICHKLST.548 NO The site is currently open space; no hazardous substances associated with the site were identified in the previous EIR analysis that could result in a potential human health hazard. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 26 b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Answer: Explanation: NO Same as for a. above. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstructi~n of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? Answer: Explanation: NO Project visual impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIA. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which wrll require reevaluation of these issues. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Answer: Explanation: 20. Cultural Resources. MAYBE Same as for 14d above. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481MISCICHKLST.548 MAYBE, The 1982 EIR identified three prehistoric resources and traces of former historic activities on the project site, and recommended appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts. The potential for discovery of cultural resources on the site should be reevaluated based on a' new file search by the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. The description of the potential impacts of project site clearing and grading activities on surface or subsurface resources should then be updated. Recommended mitigation measures should also be modified and/or added to, as needed, to Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 27 address any potential new impacts discovered as a result of the updated file search. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for a. above. c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for a. above. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Answer: Explanation: NO There are no known existing religious or sacred uses associated with the project site. 21. 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 history or prehistory? Answer: Explanation: WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 MAYBE This Initial Study has determined that the following factors require preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) under section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA): significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous 1982 EIR may be expected as a result of the project; substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require important revisions to Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 28 the previous EIR; and new information of substantial importance to the project has become available since completion of the previous EIR. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The proposed project may adversely affect new significant open space, biotic or other significant long-term environmental values or opportunities not addressed in the previous EIR. c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Some new impact potentials identified in this Initial Study as potentially significant and/or requiring reevaluation or updating of the previous EIR to reflect changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken may be cumulatively considerable (e.g., traffic operation, air quality, etc.). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Answer: Explanation: WP51\5481MISCICHKLST.548 MAYBE Project effects identified in this Initial Study which may have possible new substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, not fully considered in the previous EIR include slope stability (e.g., landslide and soil creep, erosion, etc.), air quality, potential drainage capacity problems, plant and animal life, noise, land use, population and housing, transportation and circulation, public services, utilities, recreation, and cultural resources. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and [. ,opment Agreement Extension Page 29 IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that ~e proposed project may have new potential significant adverse effects on the environment, and a SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT is required. X 4~ Signature ~:J l11t} Date \ . WP5115481M/SCICHKLST.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION WP511548\DSEIRlX.548 Draft SEIR Appendix B Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B WP511548\DSEIRIX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B 1. TURNING COUNTS During the course of this study, reconstruction of the Oyster Point interchange resulted in the following road closures: . Sister Cities Boulevard - closed from Hillside Boulevard to Airport Boulevard. . Dubuque Avenue - closed just south of the new ramps intersection for most of the time. . US 101 southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue - under construction. . US 101 northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue - newly constructed, occasionally open. In concurrence with city of South San Francisco staff, it was determined that a count program and analysis of current (mid-1995) volumes would not produce meaningful results due to the construction road closures and delay. Rather, year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) traffic projections would be developed based upon recent studies in South San Francisco and Brisbane. A series of turn counts at some project intersections were available from a variety of studies conducted in 1993',2,3 following the opening of Sister Cities Boulevard, but before reconstruction of the Oyster Point interchange. Two new weekday PM peak hour counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in July 1995 (at the US 101 southbound off- ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street intersections) in order to determine the magnitude of traffic volume reductions due to construction. Overall, 1995 PM peak volumes along Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard were 10 to 20 percent lower than in 1993. 2. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY In order to understand the status of a local roadway network, a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used by traffic engineers and planners. The LOS grading system typically used involves a rating scale which ranges from LOS A, indicating un congested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to LOS F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. 'Guadalupe Valley Quarry Use Permit Renewal, San Mateo County by Thomas Reid Associates and Crane Transportation Group, 1993. 2East of 101 Area Plan DEIR by Brady Associates, July 1994. 3Stonegate Residential Development Initial Study by Wagstaff Associates, Crane Transportation G~oup, 1993. WP511548\DsEIRlX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B Signalized Intersections. Signalized intersections were evaluated in this study using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 planning methodology. This is a standard level of service calculation method' and is appropriate for a traffic analysis where future levels of service are projected. Following procedures used in the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR (1994) traffic analysis prepared by Barton-Aschman, Inc., and the Oyster Point Interchange Reconstruction and Grade Separation DEIR (1990) prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., lane capacity adjustments were incorporated into the analysis of intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS C or worse. The Circular 212 methodology has been found to be overly conservative when applied to intersections in the Bay Area, especially to those approaching their practical capacity. The actual capacity, when compared to the Transportation Research Board's 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, is about 20 percent higher than predicted by the Circular 212 methodology. The degree of over-conservativeness when applying the Circular 212 methodology was found to be less at better levels of service. Specifically, the standard Circular 212 thresholds were adjusted as follows: Circular 212 Revised Critical Level of Service Critical Volumes Volumes" Threshold 4-Phase Sional Adiustment 4-Phase Sional Revised VIC Ratio ElF 1,375 +20% 1,650 .87 - 1.00 DIE 1,220 + 15% 1 ,400 .71 - .86 CID 1,100 +5% 1,155 .59 - .70 B/C 965 0% 965 .51 - .58 AlB 825 0% 825 .00 - .50 .. Equivalent adjustments were also utilized for two- and three-phase signals. LOS ElF DIE C/D BIC A/B Revised Critical Volumes 2-Phase Sianal 1,800 1,553 1,260 1,050 900 3-Phase Sional 1,710 1,475 1,197 1,000 855 Table B-1 summarizes level of service definitions used in this analysis for signalized intersections. 'It is one of the methods specifically identified in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation and is, therefore, accepted by the regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. WP5115481DSEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEtR Appendix B Unsignalized Intersections. LOS ratings for the three unsignalized study intersections were determined using methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. With this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one letter designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Delay values are also calculated. Unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis, LOS designations for intersections with only side streets that are stop sign-controlled are computed for individual turn and through movements rather than for the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay is also calculated for individual turn movements as well as for the entire intersection. Tables B-2 and B-3 summarize level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections. Freeways. Criteria used to relate freeway level of service and volume to capacity ratio are presented in Table B-4. 3. SIGNAL WARRANT METHODOLOGY Traffic signal "warrants" are conventional standards used to determine whether a traffic signal is needed. A traffic signal should not be installed if no warrants are met, since installation of traffic signals may increase delays for the majority of through traffic and increase some types of traffic accidents. If one or more warrants are met, a signal may be appropriate. A signal warrant analysis was performed for the three unsignalized study intersections in South San Francisco for the 1993 PM peak hour. The analysis was completed based on the "Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant" (Warrant #11) standard from the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The Peak Hour Warrant standard is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that, for at least one or two hours of the day, the minor street suffers long delays in entering or crossing the major street or there are long backups on one or more approaches of an all- way stop. Signal warrants vary depending on whether the intersection is located in an urban or rural setting. For this SEIR, warrant analysis was conducted using urban conditions criteria. Warrant #11 criteria are presented in the following figure. 4. BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Future traffic projections contained in the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR were used as a basis for determination of year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour volumes at all study intersections along US 101. The Terrabay project was not specifically included in the East of 101 Area Plan traffic analysis. Future traffic projections contained in the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project DEIR for the city of South San Francisco' were used as a basis for determination of year 2000 and 2010 Base Case PM peak hour 'Brady & Associates, January 1993. WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 I '\ I Q.. > I 60'0'-- I I-U w~ wo a: a: 1-0... Wo... a:~ 300-- Ow z ~ 20'0' ____ ~=> -l o > 100' ------ I CJ I 50'0'- .......... 40'0- * ,--------- 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES * 400 600 800 1000 120'0 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH -NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH 'TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. (COMMUNITY lESS THAN 10.000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) I 0... > I I I-U w~ wo a: a: I-Q.. Wo... a:~ Ow Z~ 2=> -l o > I l? I 400 ~ /2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES "J/' I I I I ' .........~ ~2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ~ ~ I I I "'-..... '" , 1 LANE & 1 LANE 300 200 10'0' * * 30'0' 400' 50'0' 600' 70'0', 80'0' 90'0' 10'0'0', 110'0' 120'0' 130'0' MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH -NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. '- ../ "'\ ( \. PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT #11 ../ T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B Table B-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS--SIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Volume to Service Capacity Ratio Descriotion A 0.00-0.50 Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. B 0.51-0.58 Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. C 0.59-0.70 Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach phases fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D 0.71-0.85 Approaching UnstablelTolerable Delays: Drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. E 0.86-0.99 Unstable Operation/Significant Delays: Volumes at or near capacity. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. F ~ 1.00 Forced Flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions. Intersection operates below capacity with low volume. Queues may block upstream intersections. SOURCE: Circular 212, Planning Analysis - with adjustments, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1980. WP511548IDsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B Table B-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS--ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Stopped Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) A <5 B 5 - 10 C 10 - 20 D 20 - 30 E 30 - 45 F > 45 SOURCE: Hiahway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, 1994. Table B-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS-UNSIGNALlZED SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Average Vehicle Delay Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle) A :5;5 B >5and:5;10 C > 10 and :5; 20 D > 20 and :5; 30 E > 30 and ~ 45 F > 45 SOURCE: Hiahway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B Table B-4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS Level of Service Volume-to-Capacitv Ratio A B C D E F 0.00 to 0.27 0.28 to 0.44 0.44 to 0.66 0.67 to 0.83 0.84 to 1.00 Greater than 1.00 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, based on 60 mph freeway design speed. WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B volumes at all intersections analyzed along the Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard corridor. The following adjustments/assumptions were made to produce a coherent set of volumes for each horizon year along Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. East of 101 Area Plan DEIR Adjustments · This study contained existing traffic volumes from 1993, as well as traffic projections for year 2000, 2003 and buildout (no specified year) conditions for three alternative development plans for the East of 101 Area Plan study area. City planning staff determined that the "Directed Growth" land use buildout alternative was most likely to occur. Straight line growth projections were developed using 1993 and 2003 land use and traffic volume relationships in order to develop year 2010 volume projections. The 2010 PM peak hour projections were approximately 70 percent of buildout traffic levels, while the 2010 AM hour peak projections were approximately 75 percent of buildout traffic levels. · The East of 101 Area Plan DEIR traffic projections and analysis contained no traffic increment from specific developments proposed within Brisbane. In order to assign a representative level of Brisbane traffic to the South San Francisco roadway system, Brisbane and South San Francisco planning staffs agreed that development projections and their associated traffic levels contained in the city of Brisbane 1993 General Plan Draft EIR' (Volumes II and III) would be appropriate for use in this SEIR. While the Brisbane General Plan Draft EIR analysis examined a 10-year (2003) horizon as well as a buildout (2013) horizon, both city staffs agreed that the incremental increase in traffic expected could be assumed to occur at year 2000 (for the 2003 projections) and at year 2010 (for the buildout projections). The Brisbane buildout alternative used for traffic projections (Scenario K) assumed development of the Baylands project within Brisbane and assigned a high trip generation potential to its suggested mix of land uses. By the year 2010, during the PM peak hour about 800 southbound and 100 northbound vehicles were projected to be added to Bayshore Boulevard just north of the Oyster Point interchange, while about 1,600 southbound and 240 northbound vehicles were projected to be added to US 101 at the same location. For the same horizon year during the AM peak traffic hour, about 100 southbound and 50 northbound vehicles were projected to be added to Bayshore Boulevard at the same location. · The EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project DEIR traffic analysis had projected a 0.5 percent per year growth in ambient traffic from 1990 to 2010 along Hickey Boulevard. In addition, traffic from the proposed redevelopment area, the proposed Hickey BART station and the Hickey Boulevard Extension, were also included in the projections. Straight line analysis was then initially used to obtain a preliminary set of year 2000 PM projections for Hillside Boulevard. 'Thomas Reid Associates, January 1994. WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B . Year 2000 and 2010 PM peak hour volume projections developed from the EI Camino Corridor DEIR were then compared to those from the combined East of 101 Area Plan DEIR and Brisbane General Plan DEIR along Sister Cities Boulevard, as this roadway connected the three study areas. For the year 2000 there was close agreement in westbound volumes between the Bayshore Boulevard intersection and the Hillside Boulevard intersection. Eastbound volumes, however, were more than 50 percent higher leaving Hillside Boulevard than arriving at Bayshore Boulevard. Since the higher Hillside Boulevard projections closely matched eastbound traffic volumes on Sister Cities . Boulevard before construction activities, they were assumed to be correct and were used. For 2010 conditions, there was a close match in eastbound traffic volume projections between the Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard intersections, but a significant discrepancy in the westbound direction. Westbound volumes on Sister Cities Boulevard leaving the Bayshore Boulevard intersection were about 35 percent (240 vehicles) higher than those projected to be arriving at Hillside Boulevard. In order to provide a conservative worst-case analysis, the higher volume projections from the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR were assumed to be correct, as they reflected a specific development plan that had not been developed during preparation of the EI Camino Corridor study. The higher volumes were distributed along Hillside Boulevard. . No significant diversion of commute period traffic from US 101 to Bayshore Boulevard was assumed. However, the potential exists that, should peak direction commute volumes reach excessive levels, some diversion may take place. WP511548\DsEIRlX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix B WP511548\DSEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE DATA WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 Draft SEIR Appendix C T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix C WP511548\DsEIRlX.548 .fl PACIFIC OPENSPACE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & RESTORATION Jim Sweenie Sterling Pacific Management Services 6001 North 24th Street, Suite H Phoenix, A:l 85016 June 13, 1995 RE: Site Evaluation at TerraBay Dear Mr. Sweenie: The following report addresses the findings of my evaluation of the revegetation work at Terrabay. The site survey and evaluation were performed during May, 1995. Follo}Ving the evaluation are general recommendations for restoration in the coming year. East End Location - The "East End" is a collection of cut and fill slopes, all located at the eastern portion of the Terrabay development. Vegetation - Almost all the revegetation projects at the east end have failed. A description of the subunits follows: E1 - A steep, rocky cutslope with some annual grasses, but not enough for effective erosion control cover. There are almost no native plants. E2 - A steep cuts lope below the water tank, near the traffic circle at the end of Greenpark. Although covered with jute netting, the slope, is actively 'eroding. There is virtually no vegetation. , E3 - A small cut and fill slope with relatively deep soil. There are some native plants, but there ,are also many weeds, including ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), oats (Avena barbata), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). , E4 - A west facing cut slope near the approach road to the water tank. It is covered with jute netting, but has severe erosion. E5 - A north facing cutslope along Greenpark Drive, with the most severe erosion at Terrabay. E6 - A rocky cutslope overlooking South San Francisco Drive. There are many established natives, but they'form an extremely sparse cover. E7 - Upper half has some oats with scattered natives. Lower half also has many, natives, but there are also many weedy exotics. P,O, BOX 744, PETALUMA, CA 94953. 707,769,1213, FAX 707.769,1230 Recommendation - Almost the entire East End requires revegetation. About half of the slopes are sufficiently eroded to require regrading. The other half can be revegetated ~thout regrading. ~See "Restoration-Goals", below) Central Location - The restoration plots in the central portion of Terrabay are south facing cut slopes above Parkridge Drive and Skypark Drive. Vegetation - All of these slopes were seeded with the "South Aspect Cut Slope" seed mix. Few plants established on these slopes. The Central sites have almost no vegetation, except for occasional grasses and lupines. Erosion - Site C3 was cut into rock, and does not have significant surface erosion. However, slopes Cl, C2, and C4 were cut into soil. Cl and C2 are actively eroding, despite jute netting placed for erosion protection. In addition, a portion of Cl, near the drainage, has mass movement. C4 does not appear to have significant surface erosion at this time. Recommendation - There are not enough established natives to justify preserving them. It is better to remove the old jute netting, regrade the slopes, and reseed them. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or erosion blankets. West-Central Location - The West-Central sites are located west of Parkgrove Drive. They are east facing cutslopes. Vegetation - Almost the entire slope was seeded with the "East Aspect Cut Slope" mix. The bottom portion of the slope was seeded with the "Fire Buffer" seed mix. Most of the slope is vegetated with annual grasses and broadleaves. Wild oats (Avena barbata) is the most common grass. These areas have few, if any native plants, and will eventually need ~ be cleared and revegetated. There are, however, significant patches of thin soil, where the weedy annual grasses cannot compete. Some of these areas are virtually devoid of vegetation, but others have significant populations of native plants, particularly lupines. In fact, the best lupine stands are found on this slope. Lupinus .variicoloris the most successful lupine, but many Lupinus albifrons are also found there. There are other native plants, but none are growing in abundance. They include: purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), horkelia (Horkelia californica), yarrow (Achillea mille(olium), ~d phacelia (Phacelia califoinica). Erosion - There is rill and gully erosion on a portion of the lower slope. It occurs, however, in an area where there are many'native plants. This area may require regrading, but it would be worthwhile to discuss alternatives involving reseeding, planting, and hydromulching. Soil is likely eroding from the bare ground common to this slope, but most can be . Page 2 corrected by revegetation, without the need for regrading. Recommendation - Due to the varied nature of the vegetation on this slope, there will be different recommendations for the different site conditions. Please refer to the "Restoration Guidelines" section, below. West End Location - The West End sites are south facing slopes located above Highcrest Drive. Vegetation, W1 - This is a highly eroded slope at the intersection of Northcrest and Highcrest. There is a sparse cover of annual grasses. The natives include Lupinus variicolor, Grindelia hirsutula, and Danthonia californica. The natives have a 3 ft to 15 ft spacing between them. There is mass movement on this site that will need repair. The best lupines are on and immediately adjacent to the landslide. Main slope - The major of the West End is dominated by ryegrass (Lolium TrJ,ulnflorum) and wild oats (Avena barbata). There are also plantain (Plantago lanceolata), mustard (Brassica rapa), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). There are scattered purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). Drainages - These are the most consistent sites to find natives. Along much of the drainage channels, the soil is thin, and natives can survive against th~ weed competition. W3 - This is a visibly open area in the middle of the slope. There are few annual exotic grasses, but there are many Lupinus albifrons, along with L. variicolor. There are occasional Nassella pulchra. East of W3 there is a weedy grassland, with a relatively high concentration of natives (Lupin us variicolor, L. albifrons, Eriogonum latifolium, Nassella pulchra). Above the 3rd ditch at the east end of the slope -- There is a large population of fennel. W4 - This is a particularly good stand of Lupin us variicolor. and L. albifrons. It is in the midst of fennel. Erosion - There is an .area of mass movement in area Wl. Aside from this, there is very little erosion of note. Recommendation 1. Regrade B.nd reseed WI. 2. Mow weeds along drainage channels. Apply preemergent herbicides. 3. Spray fennel. Page 3 General Evaluation In general, the original Terrabay'restoration work did not succeed. There are distinct areas where many natives became established, such as the West-Central slope, but in general, ~e slopes are either barren or weedy. The restoration work was performed under very unfavorable weather conditions that could not have been anticipated. During the winter of restoration, there was a week of particularly cold weather, with,temperatures dipping into the low 20s. The deep freeze may well have killed many seedlings. Further, this was a drought year, and many seedlings died because. the soil dried before they could become established. Thus, it is very difficult to determine how much of the project failure was due to weather, and how much was due to general site conditions. Soil conditions did have a clear effect on the restoration. Much of the soil was too thin, droughty and/or infertile to support vigorous plant growth. This allowed the establishment of native perennial plants in many locations, particularly on the western portions of the property. The poor soil conditions, however, led to almost complete project failure on the central and eastern portions. The droughty soil conditions can be partly mitigated in future work by use of denser erosion control material than was used in the original restoration project. The first project relied upon jute netting and standard hydromulch. Neither the jute netting nor the hydromulch provide much moisture retention. Materials such as erosion blankets, tackified straw, or Soil Guard hydromulch (see below) have much higher water retention. They will foster more germination, and will give the seedlings a better chance to become established. Soil infertility was probably a factor. Soil tests are highly recommended, so that fertilizer may be used, as needed, during the reseeding. The seed mixes from the original plan look good. The plants are species that should do well on these site conditions. However, it is recommended that more native grasses be added to the seed mixes. The grasses have proven to be some of the most consistently successful plants on this project. Page 4 Restoration Goals If site were on level, flat ground, with no obstructions, I would recommend regrading the entire site, and starting over. However, the site is quite steep and there are many obstructions, such as cement drainage channels. Regrading is not a reasonable option in most locations. While it is recommended to regrade much of the central and eastern portions of the site, the western portions will be restored incrementally. The restoration goals' below make reference to "Soil Guard hydromulch". This is a new kind of hydromulch fiber. It creates a much thicker blanket than regular hydromulch. This provides better erosion control, and holds more moisture, creating improved germinating conditions. The following restoration work is recommended for the winter of 1995-96: East End El- Mow dead foliage with weed eater. Spray weeds when they germinate. Reseed with natives and Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw. E2 - Regrade and reseed. Use Soil Guard hydromulch, tackified straw, or erosion blankets. E3 - Mow dead foliage with weed eater. Use preemergent herbicide to prevent weed germination. E4 - Regrade and reseed. Use Soil Guard hydromulch, tackified straw, or erosion blankets. E5 - Regrade and reseed. Use Soil Guard hydromuich, tackified straw, or erosion blankets. E6 - Overseed with native seed mix and hydromulch or tackified straw. E7 - Overseed upper half with native seed mix and hydromulch or tackified straw. Mow lower half, arid then apply preemergent herbicide to prevent germination of annual weeds. Central - Remove the old jute netting, regrade the slopes, and reseed them. Use Soil Guard hydromulch, tackified straw, or erosion blankets. West-Central and West End Drainages - Mow the weeds within 10 feet of either side of the drainage channels. Apply preemergent herbicide prior to seed germination in the fall. Preemergent 'herbicides - Locate areas with high concentrations of native plants, but are overrun with exotic, annual grasses. Mow the dead foliage within these areas. Apply preemergent herbicide prior to seed germination in the fall. Fennel- Spray all fennel by mid-summer, prior to seed production. Wi - Reseed. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw. Page 5 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 APPENDIX 0 SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY INFORMATION WP511548IDSEIRIX.548 Draft SEIR Appendix D Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix D WP51I548\DSEIRIX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix D CALlNE-4 MODELING The CALlNE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway.1 Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALlNE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc. The intersection mode of the model was employed, which distributes emissions along each leg of the intersection for free-flow traffic, idling traffic and accelerating and decelerating traffic. The intersection model extended 500 meters in all directions. Receptors (locations where the model calculates concentrations) were located at distance of 20 feet from the roadway edge for all four corners of the intersection and at locations 50 feet in either direction, for a total of 12 receptors. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the location of receptors. The worst case mode of the CALlNE-4 model was employed. In this mode the wind direction is varied to determine which wind direction results in the highest concentration for each receptor. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC-7F model. Adjustments were made for vehicle mix and hot start! cold start! hot stabilized percentages appropriate to each roadway. Temperature was assumed to be 40 degrees F. The computation of carbon monoxide levels assumed the following worst-case meteorological conditions: Windspeed: 1 mps Stability: F Category Mixing Height: 1000 meters Surface Roughness: 100 cm Standard Deviation of Wind Direction: 10 degrees The CALlNE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level attributed to more distant traffic. The assumed 1-hour background levels were 5.4 PPM in 1995, 4.5 PPM in 2000 and 3.5 PPM in 2010. The assumed a-hour background levels were 3.6 PPM in 1995, 3.0 PPM in 2000 and 2.3 PPM in 2010. These background concentrations were developed using carbon monoxide background levels and correction factors for future years developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. To generate estimates of a-hour concentrations from the 1-hour CALlNE results a persistence factor of 0.70 was employed. 1California Department of Transportation, CALlNE-4- A Dispersion Model for Predictino Air Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways, Report No. FHWAlCArrL-84-15, 1984. WP511548IDsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix D AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS CALCULATION Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using daily trip generation data and trip length information for the project area.1 The daily increase in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and daily vehicle trips resulting from each alternative were calculated as input to the emissions calculation procedure. Daily VMT and vehicle trips were processed using a spreadsheet program and EMFAC7F2 emission factors to estimate emissions from the following sources: Running exhaust emissions Cold start emissions Hot start emissions Hot soak emissions Diurnal emissions The EMFAC7F emission rates were based on summertime conditions (temperature 75 degrees F) and an average vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour. The following average trip lengths were used: Trip Type Average Trip Length (miles) Home-Based Work Home-Base Shop Home-Based Other Work Non-Work 2000 9.67 4.90 6.98 13.13 5.60 2010 9.62 5.05 7.11 13.43 5.45 The cold start percentage assumed for each trip type was: Home-Based Work: Home-Base Shop: Home-Based Other: Work: Non-Work 27.3% 21.2% 51.5% 75.9% 26.2% 'Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Bay Area Travel Forecasts. Conoestion Manaoement Proaram Databook #1: Reoional Summary. March 1991. 2California Air Resources Board, MethodoloOY for Estimatino Emissions From On-Road Vehicles Vol. 1: EMFAC7F, June 1993. WP511548IDsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix D The EMFAC7F program provides emission rates for Total Organic Gases (TOG). The TOG emission was multiplied by 0.91 to estimate Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 Figure 1: Location of CALINE-4 Receptors . 3<> of" T .' 30 -F+ r., 20 ~'t, . zo.f''t ~ "-- \ I . . . . . . . . T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SE I R Appendix E APPENDIX E: CEQA STANDARDS FOR EIR ADEQUACY According to Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, the standards for Adequacy of an EIR are as follows: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR.inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. , WP511548IDsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix E WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix F APPENDIX F: CEQA DEFINITION OF "MITIGATION" According to Section 15370 of the CEQA EIR Guidelines, the term "mitigation" Includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 199? Draft SEIR Appendix F WP511548\DsEIRIX.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix G APPENDIX G. SEIR AUTHORS WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners; Prime Contractor--EIR John Wagstaff, Principal-in-Charge Ricardo Bressanutti, AICP Natalie Macris Drummond Buckley, AICP Steve Ridone Toni Fricke CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Transportation Engineers Mark Crane, P.E. Carolyn Cole HARLAN TAIT ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Geologists Robert Wright, Ph.D., CEG Reid Fisher, Ph.D., CEG Drew Kennedy THOMAS REID ASSO,CIATES Consulting Biologists Victoria Harris Lawrence Kobernus Lion Baumgartner DONALD BALLANTI Air Quality Consultant GRAPHICS STAFF Graphics Subcontractor--EIR Lynda Wagstaff WP511548IDsEIRIX.548 T errabay Project City of South San Francisco January 4, 1996 Draft SEIR Appendix G WP511548\DsEIRIX.548