Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 132-2001RESOLUTION NO. 132-2001 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WESTBOROUGH AND GELLERT BOULEVARDS AS SUBMITTED BY DUC FOR THE MARBELLA HOUSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the intersection of Gellert and Westborough Boulevards, specifically the approximate 14.9 acres that constitute the proposed project, is presently a vacant, undeveloped site; and, WHEREAS, the surrounding properties are developed as commercial or medium-density residential, including the Westborough Townhomes Overlay District; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed to develop the site with 280 units of multi-family residential housing in six separate buildings on the site ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Project reserves 70 dwelling units as affordable to persons and families of low to moderate income; and, WHEREAS, the property is designated as "Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential" in the General Plan, as adopted in December 1999 and subsequently amended, and zoned C-1 Commercial; and, WHEREAS, in order to provide the number of units proposed, the General Plan must be amended to designate the property "R-3L," high-density residential and an ordinance adopted to Re- Zone the property "R-3L;" and, WHEREAS, the Project includes a Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement, to be adopted by ordinance, which if approved, will secure a right to develop the property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the application, ordinances now in effect and other conditions that may be imposed by the City Council during the approval process; and, WHEREAS, on September 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments and deferred a decision on the Project until October 4, 2001; and, WHEREAS, on October 4, 2001, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the project off calendar pending re-circulation of a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 2001, a revised Draft Environmental Impact was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and noticed in accordance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended on November 19, 2001 and a response to comments was prepared and a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated beginning November 29, 2001; and, WHEREAS, on November 15, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticed public heating to consider the project and hear comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and deferred a decision on the Project to the December 6, 2001, meeting of the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on December 6, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended by a 5-1 vote that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt the General Plan Amendments, conditionally approve the Vesting Tentative Map, adopt the Re-Zone, approve the PUD, approve the Development Agreement and adopt ordinances related thereto. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Marbella development, including without limitation, the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the proposed Planned Unit Development Permit; the 2001 Revised Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports for the Marbella Housing Project; the Vesting Tentative Map application; the Development Agreement; the Westborough/Gellert Design Guidelines; testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission study session on July 19, 2001; testimony and materials submitted at the public hearing on the 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Report; testimony and materials submitted before the Design Review Board; testimony and materials submitted before the Historic Preservation Commission; testimony and materials, including the Development Agreement for the Marbella Housing Project, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on September 20, 2001; testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 15, 2001; testimony and materials submitted at the December 6, 2001, Planning Commission meeting; and testimony and materials, including the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, submitted at the December 12, 2001, duly noticed public heating of the City Council. Environmental Iml~act Ret}oft: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 15120 requires an Environmental Impact Report for all projects that may have a significant effect on the environment, subject to limited statutory and categorical exemptions. A Draft EIR, containing the information required by sections 15122 through 15131, was circulated for public review and comments from May 24, 2001 through July 31, 2001. A public heating was held by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2001, to hear comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR of May 24, 2001, was revised and recirculated on October 5, 2001. The revised Draft EIR of October 5, 2001, was circulated for public review and comment from October 5, 2001 through November 19, 2001. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating to take comments from the public on the revised Draft EIR on November 15, 2001 and the Final EIR was distributed on November 29, 2001. The Final EIR of November 29, 2001, contained responses to comments received from DTSC, the Planning Commission and all other parties who submitted comments on the documents. The Final Environmental Impact Report was circulated from November 30 through December 8, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15090 (a); the City Council hereby finds as follows: (A) The revised Draft EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (B) The Final EIR has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and has been independently reviewed by the City Council; and, (C) The Commission's recommendation of approval of the Project entitlements was specifically conditioned upon Council's certification of the Final EIR, based on Council's independent judgment and analysis. (D) The City Council, by Resolution # 131-2001, certified the 2001 Environmental Impact Report for the Project, including the adoption of findings, mitigation measures, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. General Plan Amendments: The General Plan Amendments consist of re-designating the property from "Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential" to "High-Density Residential" and modifying language in section 3.11-1-2, Westborough/Gellert Design Guidelines. A Re-Zone is required to maintain consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently zoned "C-1, Commercial." The proposed General Plan Amendment, associated Re-Zone, and text amendments are internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. This finding is based on the following facts and analyses: A. The proposed high-density land use designation conforms with and implements the following Housing and General Plan policies. i. Housing Element Policy lB: Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of the City Government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Action lB-1 Support Private Market Construction. The program is designed to remove hurdles to constructing new market-rate housing units for above- moderate and moderate-income households so that units can be built at a rate that will meet the current and projected housing needs. Analysis: The high density land use designation (18.1-30.0 dwelling units per acre) would provide for an additional 280 housing units on the 14.9 acre Marbella site. The proposed development would conform to this designation at 18.8 dwelling units per acre. Developing to a higher density on this site is substantially limited by steeply sloping terrain and has been determined to be infeasible given the Project's designation of 70 of the 280 units as affordable. Moreover, after reviewing the Project pro forma' s, staff has determined that 280 units is the minimum number of units necessary to achieve project feasibility given that 70 units are designated as affordable and will be sold at below market rates. ii. Housing Element Policy lC: Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well-planned neighborhoods. Analysis: The high-density land use designation on the Marbella site implements this policy. The proposed Project includes a Shuttle Program, designed to facilitate the use of public transportation; two recreation areas; and a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units at varying income levels. Additionally, the Project includes an art/landscape feature that will be visible from multiple sites on and off-property. iii. Action 1C-l: Review the zoning ordinance for adequate tools for flexibility. Encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single- family, condominiums, cluster projects, PUD's, townhomes, cooperatives, mobile homes, senior projects and manufactured housing. Analysis: The General Plan Amendment, Re-Zone and the proposed PUD implement Action lC-1 by using existing ordinances to achieve affordable housing goals of the City. Both the proposed land use designation and the proposed PUD are designed to provide a mix of housing on a vacant site that has terrain that significantly constrains the type and intensity of development. By re-designating the site as high-density, the Project provides more units on the developable portions of the property. In addition, the General Plan speaks to the City's jobs/housing imbalance (page 52 General Plan). The high-density residential land use designation would assist in bridging the gap between the availability of housing in the City and the abundance of jobs. Moreover, by including 70 units as affordable, the Project will provide housing units that are within the budget of many employees in the City that cannot now afford to purchase a home. iv. Airport Land Use Plan: The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The General Plan depicts the Airport Related Height Restrictions on page 34. The proposed Project buildings will be a maximum of 70 feet tall, well within the 450 foot height limitation established by the Airport Land Use Plan. Moreover, the Airport Land Use Committee has indicated preliminary approval of the Project, provided that the interiors of the units are rated to 45 dbs. The Project provides dwelling units that are rated to 45 dbs, at a minimum. The Airport Land Use Commission approved the Project as of September 14, 2001. Vo Text Amendments: Westborough Guiding Policy 3.11-G-l: "Maintain the established land use pattern of Westborough, and require new development to meet specified urban design and steep slope conservation criteria." The proposed text amendment would state as follows: "Maintain the established land use pattern of Westborough, and r-equir-e encourage new development to meet specified urban design and steep slope conservation criteria." vi. Text Amendments: Westborough Implementing Policy 3.11-I-2: The section requires all new development and any rehabilitation of the existing developments along the Gellert Boulevard north of Westborough/Gellert to adhere to the Urban Design Plan dated October 23, 1991. The section is proposed to be modified, as a General Plan text amendment, to state as follows: "Require Encourage all new development and any rehabilitation of the existing developments along the Gellert Boulevard north of Westborough/Gellert to adhere substantially comply to with the Urban Design Plan dated October 23, 1991. Undertake a design review of any proposal in the area for consistency conformance with the recommendations and guidelines contained in the plan. Exceptions may be made to exempt minor projects from this requirement if such proposals do not conflict with the overall goals of the Urban Design Plan and are found to further the goals of the City's General Plan, subject to approval of the City Council." Analysis: The proposed Project was reviewed with respects to the Urban Design Plan during the environmental review process. The Project generally complies with the Westborough-Design Plan recommendations regarding aesthetic character including the following: 1) the proposed Project would incorporate signage and special plantings to announce entrances and would preserve the views of the existing homes at the top of the slope while taking advantage of view opportunities in the new residences; 2) the Project integrates parking facilities into the buildings in a way that reduces their bulk and visual dominance; 3) pedestrian areas of the Project include flowering plantings in pots and seating areas; 4) the hillside open space will be planted with trees and ground-cover; and 5) the buildings feature architectural elements such as towers and roof-forms to emphasize key entry points and comers. The proposed text amendments would allow greater flexibility in guiding project design in the area. The Urban Design Plan was prepared in 1991 and no longer reflects the City's vision for development in the area. Strict adherence to the Urban Design Plan would frustrate the City's goal of ensuring that any new development, or rehabilitation of existing development, is consistent with the surrounding properties and reflective of the character of the community. 3. Planned Unit Develoi~ment Permit: As part of the Planned Unit Development Permit, the applicant seeks an exception to the R-3L height limitation of 50 feet. The Project, as depicted in the Plan Set dated October 5, 2001, would require a height exception of twenty feet (20 ft) such that the maximum height of the buildings would be seventy (70) feet. The South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.84.045, requires the final decision making body to make the following findings. The findings are based on all evidence in the record and the facts and analyses as set forth below: A. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The site is approximately 14.9 acres and contains steeply sloping terrain. The Project has been designed to maximize the developable area without "stepping" into the slope which would necessitate additional cuts into the existing hillside. Even with the reduced developable area, the site can accommodate 280 multi-family residential units under the proposed high-density designation. As proposed, the density would be 18.8 units per acre, just over the medium-density designation which allows for up to 18.1 units per acre. The surrounding uses include commercial and medium-density residential housing. Because medium-density allows up to 18.1 units per acre and the proposed Project contains just over that at 18.8 units per acre, the Project is consistent with the surrounding uses and the intensity of those uses. B. The development will create a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. The Project contains 280 multi-family units in 1, 2 and 3 bedroom configurations. Of those 280 units, 70 are designated as affordable with 28 reserved for families of low- income and 42 reserved for families of moderate-income. Within the Project, there is an indoor recreation area, a "tot-lot" and an art/landscape display. These components add value to the Project and are likely to contribute to a sustainable living environment for the residents. Additionally, a Park In-Lieu fee of approximately $1.6 million is required and will be used to provide additional recreational opportunities to residents of the Project. C. The development will result in an intensity of land utilization no higher than that permitted or required for similar development. The Re-Zone to high-density residential is consistent with City policy to amend zoning, including density restrictions, when doing so aids the construction of affordable housing. D. The project complies with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As discussed in Section 1, the Project has undergone a full environmental analysis in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. E. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as subsequently amended. As identified above, under the General Plan analysis, the proposed Planned Unit Development Permit would conform to the City's General Plan and implement Housing Element Policies lB and lC. Additionally, the Planned Unit Development Permit furthers the following: Housing Element Action 1C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff. All future major housing projects will be evaluated according to the following factors: Effects the proposed densities will have on the surrounding neighborhoods, streets, and the community as a whole; Need for additional infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water, storm drainage and parks; Need for additional public services to accommodate the project including but not limited to police, fire, public works, libraries, recreation, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and or other applicable services; and, Cost/revenue impacts, especially of major projects. Analysis: The proposed high-density land use designation and the proposed PUD further this policy. The density of the project is increased but is compact so as to avoid cuts into the existing hillside. Sewer, water, storm drain and open space are in place or in close proximity to the Project. The developer, through the development agreement, will provide approximately $1.6 million as a Park In-Lieu fee in order to provide additional recreational opportunities to residents of the Project. Design review of detailed architectural and landscape drawings was completed and landscape maintenance responsibilities will be allocated in the Project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are subject to approval by the City Attorney and any project approvals granted prior to City Attorney review of the final CC&R's are specifically conditioned on the acceptance of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. 7 ii. Housing Element Policy 3E: Foster amenities needed by female-headed households. Analysis: The proposed Project includes a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom low- income units which are more affordable to single-parent households and are appropriate for smaller households. Additionally, the Project includes a Shuttle Program to assist residents in using public transportation and an on- site "tot-lot" as a children's play area. Thus, the Project conforms with and implements this policy. iii. Transportation Element Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The proposed Project conforms with and implements this policy by including a Shuttle Program with service to major transit areas and pedestrian walkways throughout the Project, in effect linking the buildings. iv. Transportation Element Policy 4.3-G- 3: In partnership with the local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The proposed Project conforms with and implements this policy. The residential development includes a Shuttle Program that will facilitate the use of public transportation by providing residents an economical and convenient means of accessing the new BART station; the CalTrain stations; and local bus stops Vo Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element Policy 5.1-G-l: Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these facilities, to met the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. Analysis: Implementing Policy 5.1-1-3: Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown in Figure 5-1. The proposed Project conforms with and implements this policy by requiring the payment of approximately $1.6 million in Park In-Lieu fees. Restrictions on dedication of land, and requirements related to dedications, are set forth in the Development Agreement and ensure that any land dedicated meets the requirements of the Municipal Code and Policy 5.1-1-3. 8 F. The proposed development will not be unreasonably adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding properties or improvements. Analysis: The Project, as currently designed, will provide 280 residential units and payment of approximately $1.6 million in In-Lieu fees. The residential units will assist the City in meeting the goals for affordable housing established by the Association of Bay Area Governments, which allocate approximately 1,331 housing units to the City of South San Francisco. The Project incorporates quality of life amenities for the residents, such as an indoor recreational area and child "tot-lot." Additionally, an Art/Landscape display is provided and will be visible to both residents and members of the surrounding community. Any traffic impacts, visual impacts, noise impacts or other environmental issues are analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report and, where required, are mitigated to less than significant levels except one traffic impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project is required to implement a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure all identified impacts requiring mitigation are properly addressed and that the Project proceeds with the proper mitigation in place. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Project will have an adverse effect on the public health, safety or welfare. Additionally, as the site is presently vacant, created as a "road-cut," the addition of the residential Project will enhance the values of the surrounding properties and improvements by adding new residents and creating a visually attractive, landscaped slope, where there presently exist an undeveloped, vacant "road-cut." G. The development generally complies with adopted design guidelines. See discussion in "A" under General Plan analysis. H. The proposed height exception will result in a project of superior design or otherwise be of general benefit to the community or neighborhood. The height exception is necessary to permit additional affordable housing units to be developed on a site that is significantly constrained by a steeply sloping bank. The addition of 70 units of affordable housing on one of the few remaining vacant parcels in the City benefits the community by providing work force housing for employees of businesses in the community as well as employees of the City. I. The proposed height exception will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. Extending the height of the buildings by twenty feet will not, as indicated in the DEIR, significantly impact the view corridors of the surrounding properties. Additionally, impacts to the existing infrastructure are addressed in the DEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the majority are reduced to less than significant levels. Thus, based on the DEIR and evidence received at the public heatings on the Project, the City Council finds that a height exception of twenty feet will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. 9 J. The development will create a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. The Project contains amenities, including two child "tot lots," landscaped areas on the site, a community art display, and on-site Transportation Demand Management coordinator, that support female-headed households and families of lower income. The Project also proposes to landscape and maintain the slope on the northern border of the property. These items, combined with the proposed mix of one, two and three bedroom units, will create a residential community that is stable and enhances the desirability of the residential units and surrounding community. K. The Marbella Planned Unit Development Permit, with the proposed exception, conforms to the proposed High-Density Multi-Family Residential land use designation. High-Density multi-family residential zones allow for up to 30.0 units per acre, with a minimum of 18.1 units per acre. The proposed Project provides 280 units on approximately 14.9 acres, resulting in 18.8 units per acre. Because the actual developable portion of the site is limited, higher densities could not be achieved without cutting into the steep slope or increasing the height of the buildings over the proposed height of 70 feet. Based on the foregoing, approval of the twenty foot exception will not result in a greater utilization of land that is permitted in the R-3L, high-density residential, zone. Vestinl~ Tentative Ma[}: The Vesting Tentative Map, dated October 5, 2001, is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended. The General Plan, and associated Re-Zone, would allow development of 280 multi-family residential units on the property, consistent with a high- density designation of the parcel. Develol~ment A~reement: The applicant and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et. seq. The Development sets forth the duration, property, project criteria and other required information identified in Government Code Section 65865.2. Additionally, the Agreement requires the applicant to provide twenty-five percent (25%) or 70 of the 280 units as affordable to persons or families of low and moderate income. Other terms of the Agreement require re-sale restrictions on the affordable units and payment of Park In-Lieu fees. The Development Agreement, vesting a project for 280 multi-family units, is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended, and consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, as those regulations are amended to accommodate the Project. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: Bo D° Adopt the General Plan Amendments, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Adopt the General Plan text amendments, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. Approve the Planned Unit Development Permit for the Marbella Housing Subdivision, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. Conditionally approve the Vesting Tentative Map, dated October 5, 2001, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12m day of December, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Joseph A. Fernekes, Mayor Pro Tem Pedro Gonzalez and NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mayor Eugene R. Mullin None. Councilmembers Raymond L. Green and Karyl Matsumoto None. ATTEST: City Clerk 11 EXIIIBIT A I)RAFT E1R i~RISVIOUSLY DIS~I-itlBUTED ON NOVEMBI~R 16T}~ I:INAL EIR ATTACIII?D 076 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CT REPORT MARBELLA CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO November 29, 2001 SCH #: 2001062018 077 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW The Draft Environmental lmpact Report (DE]R) for lhe proposed Marbella project (SCH# 2001062018) was prepared by the City of South San Francisco, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to inform decision-makers and ~he general public of the potential impacts related to the proposed Marbella project. The DEIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize potemial]y significant impacts and evaluates reasonable altcrnalives Io lhe proposed project. The DE]R was circulated for public and agency review fi-om October 5, 2001 through November 19, 2001, which is in compliance with the 45 days requh-ed. The comment period provided an opportunity for the public to review the issues addressed in the impact analysis and to offer comments on any aspect of lhe process. The nolice of availability of the DE]R and the public review period was noticed in the Sa, Mateo Times on Wednesday, October 10, 2001, mailed firsbclass to addresses within a 300-foot radius of lhe sile, noticed by mail to local agencies and cities, and the DEIR was circu]aled through lhe State Clearinghouse. Written comments received in response to the DE]R in this Response 1o Comments Document, together with the DEIR, issued on October 5, 2001 constitutes the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be considered by decision-makers before approving lhe proposed Marbe]la project. Section 15132 of the 2001 CEQA Guidelines state that a Final EIR shall consist of the following: · The Draft E]R or a revision of the draft; · Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR eilher verbatim or in summary; · A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; · The response of the Lead Agency to significanl environmental points raised in the review and consultalion process; and · Any other information added by the Lead Ap:ency. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 1-1 O78 METIIOD OF ORGANIZATION ]n compliance with CEQA, 1his Response to Comments Documenl responds ~o all w~duen comments received during the public review period for lhe Focused DEIR. Chapler 2 contains copies of all wriuen comments ~-eceived. ]mmedJalely follox~ing each comment ]eller are responses lo lhe wrillen commenls. This Response to Comments Document, together with the DEIR, constitutes ~he Final EIR. The DEIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this document. The DEIR is available for review at the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City l-]all Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. CONCLUSION The DEIR identifies one impac~ of the projec~ that would be significant and unavoidable. Traffic Impact -2: The imersection of Gellen Boulevarcl~Vestborough Shopping Center Driveway operates al LOS F during the PM peak horn- under existing background conditions and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of the project would not deteriorate lhe existing ]eve] of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle, which conslilules a significant impact. Signalization of the Gellen Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway is not recommended due to ils proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Ge]len Boulevard and Gellen Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellen Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 1-2 073 CltAPTER 2 RESPONSES AND COMMENTS This chaplet includes wrJllen responses and commenls from Ire following organizations and slate, local, and regional agencies. A. Depanmenl of Toxic Substance Comrol, California Environmental PJotect/on Agency B. California Depanmem of Transportation C. Wayne L. Toting D. California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (received after the 45 day review period) E. Summary of City of South San Francisco Planning Commission comments at public .--~,-_ hearing-held on the Draft EIR, November 15, 2001 City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbe]la 2-1 08O Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency November 6, 2001 Department ol Toxic Substances Control Edwin F. Lowry, Diiector '700 Heinz Avenue, Suile 200 Berkeley, California 94710-2-/21 Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94080 RECEIVED PLANNING LETTER A Gray Davis Governor Dear Ms. Kalkin' Thank you for the oppodunity to comment on the final Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated October 5, 2001 for the Marbella Housing Subdivision Project (SCH¢/2001062018) Site (Site)located to the northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco. As you know, the California Depadment of Toxic Substances Control (D-f SC) has provided comments on an earlier version of the draft EIR in a letter to Tom Sparks of your agency dated July-137-20017 As-indicated-in the-lelter, the draft EIR stated that the 2.6 ppm arsenic level in soil samples collected at the Site was "typical of normal background arsenic levels in the San Francisco Bay Area." However, no specific reference and value that would indicate the naturally occurring background levels of arsenic at the Site was found in the draft EIR or the earlier Phase 1 report. DTSC also recommended that additional discrete soil sampling be conducted to determine whether arsenic isa chemical of potential concern. A-2 Please note that the Preliminary Remediation Goal levels (PRGs) are used only as a screening tool. Site-specific cleanup numbers can only be established by conducting a health-based risk assessment or by sampling to establish soil background levels for the Site. Since the Site will be a residential development, D-[SC strongly recommends that additional discrete soil sampling for arsenic be conducled lo ensure protection of future residents. As discussed in our earlier letter, D'fSC can assist your agency in overseeing additional site characterization and, if necessary, cleanup activities through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. We have enclosed another copy of a fact sheet describing this program. We also request that DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are discussed. A-3 The ~ r, erg.F { .'.~ll~ r, ge l~crt,g CalJlorz,,T ir ~cal. E v[ O' C~.lifcrnJ~n t,6E ds to t{ ~ ~ in;med¢¢~( ~:ction to ~edL.,ce energ), c on.~umplion. For a list ol simple ways you can ~educe demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at www. dtsc.ca.gov. tD Printed on Recycled Paper 081 Iv'is. Katkin November 6, 2001 Page -[wo In addition. D'TSC is adminislering lhe $85 million Urban Cleanup Loan Program which will provide Iow. inlerest loans lo invesligale and cleanup hazardous malerials al properiies where redeveloprnenl is likely lo have a beneficial impact lo a community. 'The program is composed ol lwo main componenls: Iow inlerest loans o'1' up 1o $100,000 1o conducl preliminary ondangefmenl assessmenls ol' underulilized proper-lies; ~,nd loans o'I up lo 82.5 million 'lot 1he cleanup or removal ol hazardous malerials also al underulilized urban properlies. -rhese loans are available 'lo developers, businesses, schools, and Iocalgovernmenls. A'lact sheet regarding this program is allached t'or your inlormalion. Please contac1 Annina Anlonio ol my slaff at (510) 540-3844 il you have any questions or would like lo schedule a rneeling. ']-hank you in advance 'lot your cooperation in this mallet. Sincerely, ~':. ~, ~,f~ ~.. .' /i Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief Norlhern Calilornia Coaslal Cleanup Operations Branch Enclosures cc without enclosures Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CEQA 'l'racking Cenler Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 082 m~2. DF~PARTMENT OF TOXIC SI?BSTANCES CONTROL, CALIFORNIA EN\:! R ONM ENTA L PR OTECT! ON A GEN CY With respec! 1o background concentrations of arsenic in shallow soil in lhe San Francisco Bay Area. the most widely-recogni2ed legional evaluation was performed by Lawrence Berkeley Laboralory (Protocol for Dezermi~ing Backgro~nd Co~c'cntra~ion of Metals in Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Labora~o~T (LBNL), Aususl ]995). That study, which examined background mela] concentrations in soils derived fl*om different regional geologic units ranging in age from Jurassic to Holocene, found general background concentrations of arsenic of 9.3 to 31 parts per million (ppm), depending on the specific geologic unit. Fol-lheir geologic units of mid-Tertiary age (their Orinda and Moraga Formations), the), reported an average background arsenic concenn'afion of about 13.5 ppm. The Marbella Housing Subdivision site is underlain by rocks of the Merced Formation of upper-Ten/ary to lower~Quaternary age. Whereas these rocks are not directly correlative to the mid-Tertiary units of the LBNL sludy, the concentration of arsenic measured at the Marbella Housing Subdivision sile (2.9 ppm) is certainly below ~he average concentrations measured durin~ the LBNL study, which covers a much broader and diverse age grouping of geologic formations. In our opinion, the LBNL resu]ls can be used for comparative purposes to evaluate expected background concentrations of arsenic al the subject she. In our opinion, the concentrations of arsenic measured in shallow soil at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site are representative of naturally occurring background levels in the San Francisco Bay area. In addition !o2he ~B _NL sl_udy, review of_our project files al Henshaw shows that we have previously performed a genera] investigation of soil quality at another site along Westborough Boulevard, approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the subject site. Test results for eight soil samples analyzed for arsenic during that investigation ranged from ]ess than the method reporting limit of 1.0 ppm lo a maximum of 2.9 ppm. (Laboratory data fol- that investigation can be made available for review upon request.) These results are virtually identical to those reported for the Marbella Housing Subdivision site. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the concentrations of arsenic measured in soil at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site are representative of naturally occun-ing background levels in the general area. In our professional opinion, no additional evaluation is warranted. Additional soil sampling has already been preformed. In February 2001, Henshaw Associates, Inc., collected additional soil samples at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site to provide confirmation of the test results for arsenic reported in Henshaw's initial Phase I Assessment reporl dated June 9, 2000, and to assess the possible presence of hexava]ent chromium in shallow soil. The test resuhs for these additional samples (collecmd in the same general area as the samples described in Henshaw's June 9, 2000 report) did not indicate the presence of arsenic above the laboratory method reporting City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-4 ,. 083 limit of ].0 ppm. or hc×avalent chromium ahovc the laboratory method reponin,~ limit of 0.2ppm. A copy of these tesl results has been provided lo the DTSC under separate cover. Based on the chemical test resuhs lot' all soil samples collected at the site, il is our professional opinion that arsenic is not a potential chemical of concern al this site. Based on the site history evaluation and soil sampling results presented in Henshaw's previous repons, il is our opinion thal soil contamination by arsenic, or other constiluents, is not presen! at the Marbe]la Housing Subdivision site. As such, there is no need for site cleanup activities prior to development of the site for residential land use. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-5 084 LETTER B DEF'AR-FMEN'I OF 'l ~ANSPOR'I-ArlON CAKL$,~_,. CA E.,c{,[ Novcmbe~ ] 9, 200] Cily oJ Somh San F~a.ucisco Plan~ing Division 3!5 Maple Ax.e~ue South San Francisco, CA 94083 SM-;80-,, 62 SM2g0]0? SCl-l# 2001062018 Dea~ Ms. Kal'kin: MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION ]'hank you fo~ including ~lae Califor~ia Department el Transportation in Ihe environmental review process J'or lhe above-referenced project. \Ve have ~-evJewed lhe Draft Environmental lmpact Report (DEIR) daled October 5, 2001, and offer the follox~ing comments: Traffic l. Projecl ~p distribution shown on Figure 8 of Page 20, Appendix B should be clarified. Project trip percentages a~ ~he site do not to~al 100, and Figure 8 shows 58 percent of p~ ojec~ lsips inbound to the p~oject site dm-lng the A.M. peak. A figure showing p~oject lsips during ~he A.M. peak ~hould also be included. B-1 The numbe~ of trips assigmed to the ¼~erstate 280 (1-2~;0) interchange intersections should be clarified, and level of service at these intersections analyzed if wan'anted. For exnmple: whi_le only 25 trips are assigned ~o 1-280 in the analysis (see page 27 of the Appendi×), project trip ~ssignmen! indicates that 53 percent, or 55 uips u-~ve.l toward 1-280 intersections during ~he A.M. peak, and 41 pe~'cent, or 42 trips l~avel from the intersections during the P.M. peak. Further, since 1-280 is the likely ~oule Io Bay A~ea work, shopping and entertainment destinations due lo ils close proximity to lhe project site, the sxudy should analyze lhe inlerchange intersections. B-2 The level of service on ]-280 belwecn State Route 3 and Interstate 380 interchanges is F in both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods rather than level of service E and D as sta~ed on Page 9, Chapter 4.2 of the DE]IR. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' land use code for the project trip generation should be cited in Table 8 of Page 19, Appendix B. Project ~rlp generation should also be totaled for clarity; for example, the inbound and outbound colurrnas in Table 8 of Page 19, Appendix B should be totaled. B-4 Pa rk ing I. P~oject design should acco~rn'noda~e total project-rela~ed pax'kh~g demand. The txaffic study calculates I ~ total project par'king demand of 632 spaces (Table 1 of Page 4, Appendix B) while the DE'IRI B-5 indicates that on)y 630 spaces ,,,,,ill be pgovided (1" Paragraph on Page 12, Chapter 4.2). 1. Transit demand should be evalualed, the projec! vicinily should be reviewed for existing and potential Fus slops, :~nd any new s~ops should include: · Full bus Ira-hour, · Shelter, t B-6 .... 085 LETTER B · Bench. and RA]',T)ELL H. ]q~,~ASAKI Acdn$ Dislfic~ Director 3EAN C. P,. ~Z Disnic~ Branch Chiet' IGPJCEQA c: Kade Shulle 3oung (Sta~e B-6t(con't.) .. 08~ B CA LI FO ]'L'"4 ] A DEPA RTM EN T OF TRA N SPORTA TI ON Fi2ure 8 of the traffic s~udy illustrates a ~ota] of 100ff~, of the inbound and outbound trips. The ~able be]ow also provides a summary of trip distnbmion. TABLE 1 Intersection Gelled Blvd/Proposed Project Access PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION A.M. Peak Gelled Blvd/Pac'N Save/Orchard Supply Driveway IOIAL SBR: Southbound-Right NBL: Northbound-Left EBR: Eastbound-Right EBL: Eastbound-Left EBR/SB: Eastbound-Right heading Southbound EBL/NB: Eastbound-Left heading Nodhbound WBT: Westbound-Thru Notes: P.M. Peak Inbound' outbound Inbound Outbound 28%(SBR) 19%(EBR/SB) 31%(SBR) 15%(EBR) 19% (EBL/NB) 8% (SBR) 37% (EBL/NB) 14%(SBR) 62%(EBR/SB) 59% (NBL) 4%(EBT) 58% (NBL) 2% (WET) 44% (EBR/SB) 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure l 0 of the traffic study illustrates the project trips dmdng the a.m. peak hour. Figure 11 illustrates the project trips during the p.m. peak hour. g-2. B-4. The number of trips accessing 1-280 is noted in the traffic study. Nol all of the lrips traveling towards the intersections at 1-280 would access the freeway; some would continue to points further east (or come from points fmlher east) along Westborough Boulevard. The intersections analyzed were selected in cooperation with City of South San Francisco staff, and are the ones most likely impacted by the proposed project. The level of service noted in the Draft EIR on 1-280 belween Slate Route I and Interstate 380 is based on the San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Program for 1999, published by the City/Counly Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Table 8 has been modified as shown below lo reflect the comments in the letter. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-8 087 TABLE 8 '[RIP GENERAIlON PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use Size Units Daily AM Peak Percentage Rate }rips Rate (%) In Out Marbella Project Condominiums I I .44 17 83 Trips In Oul 21 103 '~OTAL 124 Source: Institute o'1 'fransportatior, Engineers (3E), }'rip Genefalion Manual, Land Use Code 230, 6"' Ed. 1997 Rate PM Peak Percentage (°/4 In Out .54 67 33 Trips In J Out 1021 50 152 Comment noted. Potenlia] transit impacts are noled in the traffic study. The proposed project Js not expected to generate a sitgnificant number of transil riders or cause increase in load factors on SamTrans buses. There is an on-sile shuttle prog:ram proposed as pan of ~he project, which would service local Iransi! centers and work sites. There are e×isdng bus stops in the site vicinity along Weslborough and Gel]eh (Sam Trans Route 129.2) that serve the Westborough Shoppint~ Center and the residential areas near the projec! sim. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella :2-9 O83 LETFER C Ciw cf Sc, orE San ~ ;ancisc.c Planning Divbion $ou~h 5~n Y~ancisce, California. 9408(, An~mion: Ms S. Kalkin. ?rincipa] Piar, ne: Subiecl: Marbella ]dousing Subdivisior, Public Commem or. The D~a,q EIT. and The Pianning Commission StatTRepon \;,:~ x'ne L Toting Radburn Drivf San J:rancisce. CA RECEIVED NOV lq PLANf4iNG Dea~ Ms Kalkin: ] anended ;he Ncx.'embe] 1:. 200] pub]ir hearinE on ~he Marbella Housing 5ubdNision. ] was x'erv concerned by ~hf description or,he projec: and by th( ir/ormador, ir, ~h~ "Planning Ccmmissior, 5~affRepon" Therefore. i secured a copy or,he D~afi Enx'ironmen~a~ ]mp~c~ ~eF, on da~ed O~obe~ f. ~001 inc]udin~ appendix~. This lene~ ] compiimem ~he Ciw of Somh San }rancisco on d',~ p~e~essional conduc', of fl~¢ public hea:inE n;eedng, and lh~ higl', qualiLv oflhe doc~mems prepared ] have beer, able to ~eadilv achier( ar: unders~andin~e or,he projec~ and an appreciation of 1hr exnem of study already performed. Unfonuna;ely. ] conclude ~ha~ the p~ec~ a~ presemed is a serious mis:akf fo: oar communiw A summus' of my objections i~: Ti-,i.' pro. iec~ ~el::~esems a major, chanff i'. ~h~ overall na!u~f or,he neighborhood. A zoning change 1c accomn-,oda~e a project oflhis magnhude should only be mad~ in con.iuncdon with an overall review oflhe evolmion of~h~ masse., planning..Nc, oc, mpelling rc~son ha., been povided fo? acting on ~he zoning chang~ wi~hom ~his review. Even allowing fo: a zoning change, the pm. iec~ is no~ in compliance wi~h various established requiren-,em? c! the code ~.p~nicularly building heigN.) No compelling ~eason has been presented waiving these reqm~en;e~n~ The ElY, does no~ include all ~he telex'am impact, it error., in assessmem of~lqe significance ofimpacL and i~ doe~, no~ fully conside~ a range of ahernadves to lh¢ project as p~esemed. The proposed ag~eemen~ wiih DUC appears m foreve~ and unnecessarily sunende~ ~he Cily's rigN to enforce subsequem amendmen!s of codes and plans for ~h¢ property e×c, ept as requited b,' fi~ate,rFederal ]~w. h also sunenders necessar}, ~eviews of plans beyond ~hos¢ preliminaU' figures in ~he draft EIR. No reason has been presemed as m why ~he citizens should be iefl ~,i~hom protection afforded by reviews and approvals as ~he projec~ progressively becomes bener defined. ] anach as an enclosure a fall desc. ripdon of my c. ommems and specific re. oueq~, . . fo~ modification of~he E1-R In conclusion, 1 sa~on~l.x., nppn~e fl~e Marhella projem as de~ihed in lhe Piannin~ C~mmis~ion S~affRepon. N~ jusliflcadon has been presemed ~o demonsua~e lh~l il advance~ lhe community irae~es~ ;o chang~ zoning, gram majo~ waivers of cod~ requbemems, and eme~ imo agreemenls wi~h 1he develope~ ~o fasl uack lhe projecl greatly ~es;ricdn~ ~h~ community's righ~ m review ~d appmv~ ;he final p~ojec; design. No beneficiM impacl has been idenlified olher than lhe la;g~ lhal ~/~ of the unils be "affordable" {and % theyefore unaffordable). Conversely, maim dewim~mai impaa~ haw been idemifled. ~o ~h~ ex,em mitigation of ~h~ neg~iv~ impac~ i~ idemifled, ~hese mitigation actions are no~ modification ~o the pr~e~, bm ra;he~ a~ changes beyond the proe. c~ bounda%,. Thes~ ~ t .k ..... ~:.., ' ' ' CiliZC~S ~ccIcG no~ lO Ibc ,,c w;lh no ,dc .......b,c bcncfil .o .~ ' ' ' mmmunily al large. lC-: lC-: Wayne Tori~"--"---'- Encl.: M~rbella piojec! commenls O89 LETTER C !, CEenl~e q/e, Thc N~lI~r_f O! Tht Neifhborhood: mex'i~ab]~ evcludona~' char, p~ ~o Wes~bo~ou~h ~aher 1hat: conforming ~c an approved plan appmpfiae 1o an a~ne~ n',en~ ~La~ fcrex'e~ sUe}ds ~}~ Marbella pro.icc; ~om code chanpe~ ]~ wa., aisc no, ed in 1he n;ee;in!' fi, a'.. l?,er~ is a lack of ia;ga s~.eces ax aiiahie fe~ residemial developmenl in S0ulh San }ranciscc:. LrMarbeli~ s~vi~ high dens]iv housing proposed u esi of Odien i~ allowable, glen ~he whole block efiand north cf OSH ~c.. g,~ t~c;me~ on King fi:~ee: aquld b~ yeU ?~cfnak]> cc, rix. tried lo similar housing on an even larger scait. Similarly. blocks of land bem;een Fac&Saw and ]he Shopping Ceme~ could ~eaditv be ~ed om fm housing fiure]v some develope~ i~ zheady considering 1he cot, version of the enlir~ expanse rom Weslborough E}vd. K.. ~iinf 5uee~ fo: a Ligh-densi~y c. ombinaio~, cf off~ce/homing,upscaie ~e~aii space. In Fosler City, ~he ciU, acmaiiv used hs eminen~ domain pc. wet ~c forc~ ~his ~>,pecor, ve,,..on of ~ Yes~e~ City Eivd communiw oriented re;ali .n,~l, shops area into a facility ~wwe~ed ~e a~uem hig5 ~ecL employees We could be drifting ]mo ~he sam~ l-;oiec: apprc, val be d(fened umii the cve~.ll mas;e~ l:.ianr, in~ fo: XX es~borough either be c. onfl~med as valid and no~ sukiec~ ~c, unc.onuolied evclmic, na? "cree~": o~ ~},~.: :he plan be ~evised in accord with normal . ~rw~,, be denied c,n lh~ basis ff~a~ n i~ c,m of charac~e~ fo~ ~he neighborhood. b) Tt, a ~he areas e. as~ of Gelien as described above bt asse.~sec. Jegarding capaciLv as high-densiLv housing. Tha ~he draft EIR be revised K: include ~ consideration el d',e po~emia] "eas~ of Gellen" uhimae housing load in ar, aherna~¢ as~es~rnen~ nf pr{3jem impac~ upnr, Iraft'~( '. Ti'~t Froiec~ ls _No~ ht C~,mt~li~nre Xx'i~h The Cod{ }:or Th~ Propc, sed Neu' Zoning ~-3-L: The next' zone would evidemlx, allow z 50-foo~ high buiidin~ A~ 50' ~h( building~ would zppear ~o be ve~, high. The Marbeliz plqiem ~equiles an additional a0% inoease in height. (ompeandmg the increase, ~he E~ measurer hei~h~ fi~-~id¢~d ~ev~i i~ fh'e~iidin~ grail. Per figure 2~, ~Sese bui}ding~ will si~ on z raised pad ~bove an 8' high re~aininf wall a ~he edge or,he sidewalk. In all fairness, heigh~ should be measured dom ~he sidewMk and *~ .................. .......... ~ make '~'~ ~ui!ding alines: ~;" *-' ........ ~ course_. ','c~:. ....... nz'.'c ~C s:ep oul ;nlo waff:c lo see beyond Iht ~' relaining wall.) 7o · ' ~', ' meeting, a 30' high lower was disapprox'ed. put 1,n. in con~exn, a thf November ] f'~ ' Visualizf fha 30' rower on mp of a normal 40' high build]nj and g~er, add half a~ain of an additional rower. This height, in conjunction v,,i;h ;he n',ir, imal building se;back i:om the sidewalk, is exuemelv detrimemal to ;he character of lhe area from lhe perspective of Gellen and from ~he overlook vistas ~o the wes1 of lhe propertyl There is no reason for the heigh~ oilier ;hah 'ih¢ desire ~o squeeze ar, addition lave~ of units into ~he buildings, lfthe projec~ economics wiii no~ aiiow ~ building aha fain compiles wid', ~he spiri~ of the zoning requiremems, then don'T do the project. 3. The ErR needs revisions: AESTHETICS. "Subs~amial adverse impact upon scenic vista" and "Deerade existin~ visual quality of mrroundmgs . These are shown as "No lmpacC and "Less than Significant". This i~ simply w~ong. The impact is maim. A key characteristic of;he area wes~ of the si~e. is ils interconnecting web of pleasantly landscaped open space green-belt areas. Al Rowntree, the greenbeh is ~he nonhero boundary of the proposed ]Vlarbella subdMsion. From Rowmree lo Westborough there a~e seven green bells between each court. These anracdv¢, weiMandscaped spaces ail lead to and cormec~ wi~h a waiioa,ay at ihe bluff on lhe west boundasy of the proposed subdMsion. The viaa from this bluff flows fi'om green plants at the top of bluff, down lo The ~qrst 'adde bench, down lo the activity on Gellen, Then The landscaped parking areas of Pac&Sa;'e and then beyond Io Soulh San Francisco and the bay. C-6 C-7 C-8 1 ]/18./01 Page 1 of 4 090 Marbetla Mousing Subdivision LETI-ER C The proposed Mzrbe]ia p~ejec~ ~ugge~ ff, a~ h w,P "fra~C~ th~ v:,~a Rahe:. h desucv~ ~he x'~a by c~ea~m~' an unbroken I-lane of ~.fiep~ al! ~he w~v ou~ pas~ Yz~'fiax'~ see i~ Marbelia ~oofioF ¢ciunered x<lh mechanica] ¢quipmenl) om lc the Ya~Save Roof. On a~x'ing a C~]len, walk ~ulk, enx'isJ~ninE ~he ~' high ~elainir, f wall immediately adjacem m lhe sidewalk ] reoemmend d-m~. 1he Ae~lhefics in-Lr,~c~ b~ revised lo "Fo~en~iallx' Signif~canl ]mpacC. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. This is w~on.r.. The ~epon does noi ack_r, owledg~ ~}-~e hocsing conswuc~e6 wifl-~in applczimaeiy if feel of~h~ ~op of ~he s]opf lhal x~511 h~v~ ils base cu1 ~wav and ~e~laced k.x massivf cascading ~e:aininc walls. Th~ ~epon no~e~ thal e>:is~in~ engineered fitl in ~h~ area has moved. ~o~ O, esf hon'~e~, anx~ ,~ of subsidence is signifmam. ]ypically, you canna: even secure insuranc~ p~e~ecdor, acains~ fraduai subsidenc~ The area i~ iess 1hah a mile fTom ~h~ notorious San ~dreas Yauh. Certainly undercuninfi ~his slope increases ~h~ d~ger of failure in an earthquake. failure. All ~hos~ projects werf c. ons~r~ed based upon design by certified p~ofessienal engineers supponed by pe~echnical analysis They simply were x~qeng and the ~esuhs were caa~ophic Cuuing deep]>' imo ~t-~e slope ciearh' is an impac!. MJfigaion M~ernaives ar~ 1. Best - Don'1 do s'~upid things. F, evis~ ~h¢ design lc, hug lhe e>:islinf slope ra~her ~han cm i~ away. 5. ]f~hev do cul lhe slope, they musl agree ~c, confinual}y b~ing lhe wall imc ~miormanc~ wilh evoivin~ Oes;g~ s~andards. 5. They mus~ agree ~o assume liability for subsidencf or failure wes~ of~}~e pr%iecl ~ha~ can reasonably be shown ~. At ~ht deveiope~ will h, ve ~aken lhf money and ran, a perpetual bond mus~ be es~abiished m land lhe above. NOISE: Subs~amial lempora0' noise is shown as "no impact." The. p~ojec~ construction will span well over one veal Appwximaely 100,000 cubic yards of earthwork are involved. 30.000 yards of maeriai will be hauled off-si~e m disposal dsewher~. Massive quamides of concrele will be requi~ ~o gunhe Iht raw cra-slope, ccnswuc~ the actual re~aining walls, plus the amounl necessaD, for the ........ ~s .... e slopes ,.,:n be ....... ~e~ by soil nails driven deep talc, ,~,,,, ~:n~:a T~;< projecl x,":u,,, probably requirt ~_,000 ~rips by hoaxT earthwork or ~ranspon wdck into or om oflhe sil~. How can this be characterized ~ "no impact."? )! is impossible to tell flora the drawings where Marbella will locate the large diesel generators necessa~, to provide blackout power for devaors, healing & ventilating svsiem operaion, emergency lighting, and any olhe~' load ~he Marbella decides ~o connect. Given ~ha you propose tc waive all further rights To review the project, they couid elect to provide full po,a;e~ generation fm ~enam use in blackouT. They couid place ~he gene~aors on ~ bench of the retaining wall fro- lack of space an}~'here else. You will be unable to aop this having waived all future rcvicw. The noise of construction and the noise of power generators are a significant temporary noise impact. While reasonable mitigation measures can be established, i~ should be addressed as pan oflhe EIR. C-8 COB't' C-9 C-lO i 1/18/01 Page 2 of 4 091 LETTER C POPL~AT] ON: "\vi]] thc p.~cjec', induce suto~anSai pei-~u]aSor~ g~c~h k~ p~opc~m[ n~w home" ~ shewn t~ %0 impact." WhJ]e ff,~ e~sence of~h~ p~cjec~ ~ cons~r~cden ofhigh-der,~i~y housing: ~h~ ia~ger impam J~ a decision ~e rezon~ ~c,m c. ommerdai ~e [~Eh-den~i~y hou~inE ]f~eion~n[ cfMarbeiia i~ ~ed a~ z p~ece~en~ fo~ rezonJnE ~he eas of ~]ien: ~hen ~he impure is m~o~ TK&N ~ PeR TAT] ON ~L'N~D TKAFF] (7 The in-,pac~ on uaflq¢ and F, arLinLz i~, .,n~io~. Nc ciea~ overall p'~bJic benefl~ has been shown. The mitigation p~oposed is to~alh' ~es~ricdons on the public and degradatior, cf the quaiiLv of public life. Nen~ of the mitigation is changes ~e ~he MarbeIla p~ojec~ i~self. 7'Conh Enu'ancf F~oa6 near ~,e .....,,~, the enginee; mcone~h ..... ,.~,,,:~e.:"~ ~ ~',,,, ihe sh~ c;s:anc~ be:ween Y~ov,'n:ree mhd the ex;1 is acceptable. Th~ distance should be measured flora ~h~ flora ~he F. ev.'mree vehicle emezing ~ ~}~e riphi cur~ and after vehicle has puIled omo,. and i~ ~rzvelinf g~rzigh~ dawn C~llen ENd lr, ~ha~ ~cenari~ ~he distance m ~merllne of th~ new ~oad is ie~s mar, 25C?. ]~ i~ imponam tha~ ~i~ Rcwni~ee ,.chick i~ fc~,~ imc ~h~ ~oad because anenlion directed uphill ~o ~h~ rapidly accelerating varec clearing Rin~ ~c, babR, there i~ also a ~equbemenl o~ recommendader, in C~&TR4~S concerning ff~e quzmiU e~ a]ic.w~bi~ acces~ ~oad~ within a given distance. Therefore 'the north ~ccess toad ~o Marbella is likely nm allowable. Parking on Gel]eh: The ~ec. ommendador~ ~ha'~ r, arkin£ on GeiJen be banned as a n;ean.~ ~c, make ihe north access road ~echnicaily ~eesible i~ compie~e}y unac.c, ep~able. This a~ea is used by local residems for ~hei~ ox, e~o~ parking. This is a classic i]luslrador,~, ~ ,,,;,:ga,;,,z~"' ~"~° c,~ d~e ~a~gs ~'' cf am'one excep; :he devdope:. Overflow Marbelia Parking. The ~epon no~es the inadequacy of.Marbelta on-plot parking fo: guests e~c. Th{ milig~lion is ~ reeommend~lion ~h~ ~he?' simply p~rk on private proper~y ~¢'ros~, d,{ ~qreeL Of c. eurse. ~ha~ xxdll quickly resuh in sign being posted ~hat non-cusmme~ cars wiii be ~owed. I ne ~lsx musi effe? ~ ~easonabie soimion ~o overflow parkinlg, if it is nOl lo be on lh~ s~eel, ~hen it musl be on lhe Marbella property. The ~epon nn~es lh~ a sub~tamial irJc~ease ir, traffic delay will c)ccot ~,s. a ~esuh nfMarbella Since no benefit ~h~ public has been shown for this project, this is not an acceptable impact. On "'l~affK-3" impac~ --- DON'T PLr; I-N A STOP LIGH'I~. On "Traffic -~." impacL see Parkin~ on Gellen above. On '"Iraffic-5': impacl, 5'our proposed mitigation require., an illegal lane change and will resuh in many a traffic nckc~ (and probably some C-Il C-12 C-]z C-1¢ GENERAL ITEMS: On lhe west and north, the existing housin~ developmem,, include very large amounl of ex~ended landscaped greenbei~ areas open ~o the general public. The Marbeiia prQect is iikeiy ~o be i 00% ownersdenants only. Still lhey make emensiv¢ demands upon their neighbors. We need to turn lhis around. They should make space · ,~:1~ 1 ' a .....b,e lo non-occup~n:s ~nd nol reqmre any degradalion of neighbors' lives. The real p~oblem with Ibis project is that through greed they have planned way ~oo much in a limited space. i l/]El0l Page 5 of 4 092 LETTER C will sell fc~ damn nea~ a~ much a~ Iht ccndc live m. Whh xhe ' , ,c,,,h,~ c.c. ndc fee~ nec. e~sa~' ~c, support this ccm~lex, t}~e mond~]v kill will b~ n~c:~{ ~)~an ] pay All ~f~l re~ ~rt "modt~' ~nd will eo~l ~ !o $402,000. ne~ghbc, rhood ar~ ~ork~n~ clas~ On fl, ei~ htck~ vc, u a~e mifiEzfinE z massN~ p~ejec~ ~ha ~ha many would nol The ciU, seems lc, sec lh~ park fee canot. The fee will dc no~hinf for the daily life oflhese impacted by lhe projecl. Marbellz would have tc provide land on lheb plol for lhal. The [.lane for lhi~ p;ctiec; are reD.' prefiminau., h is bx definition p~opose.d ~o b~ ve~' dens~. There is no~ su~cienl information ax'ailabl~ upon which ~e bas~ a Desigr, Approval Tou must no1 waive yom responsibility m c.ondnual]x ~ex,ie~ ~he p~ojec~ plan as i~ 6evetopL Nc. ius~if~ca;ion ha~ been identified fo~ z fas~qrack a~eemem. believe tha you need to expiicidy define file financial responsibiii? fo; implementing ali of file midgalion ........... ~ ................ ~ was ~.. ........ A~~,,, ,,~,,,~.,,. ;; mum ~,, ~,,.~, ,,,~, .... O-a~cr .... pay fo~ ...... c modifmaions siaed in midgaion. Th~ e~me~ mus~ pay ~c secure ~he ai~e~,aiv~ parking. _Ne benefli ~c ~he public has been idemifled fo~ Ibis pm)ecl. ] oNect lc lhe provision ~ha you agree lo assisl lhe I'roiec~ lhrough acquishion of Other Prc, peny by utilizing Emmem Domair:. s~vemy affordable unit., a~ inhe:enllv a public beneflL lhe~ is no reason lo believe lha Marbella is a good way achieve ~h~ resuh. Given lhe cunen,, zoning, lhe land is of limited value, i canno~ beiieve ~hai 50 affordable (up $402,000) two moO, condo clusters could no~ be developed and still allow fo~ plemy of open space. This would Italy mhigale all Ibc waff;c problems and provide ~he benefit. 1 toques1 fha1 an analysis be made oflhe cunenl marke~ value oflhe property zoned C-] and ~he value as R-3-L wi~h heighl reswicfions waived and EIF, approved fo~ high densi? housing. Eased upon the C-] value, ii should be clea~ ~ha viable ahernadves to Marbella exisi with negligible negaive community impacl. C-18a C-18t C-18~ C-18C T-] 8e C-II~ C-181 ] 1,"i g/0l Page 4 of 4 093 Co C-2 C-3 WAYNE L. TORING This comment is a project relaled comment and is not related to lhe potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response roi- purposes of disclosure and convenience ~o tile reviewer and decisionmakers. Tile Medium Density Residential Genera] Plan Land Use Designation specifies a density range from 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The High Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation specifies a density range h'om 18.] to 30 dwelling units per acre. This distinction is imporlant ~o no~e, as the project proposes 18.8 dwelling units per acre; 8/]0ths of a unit more per acre than the medium density designation or 12 units more than ~he maximum permiued under the cun-ent medium Density Land Use Designation. The compelling reason for the density increase is discussed on pages 5 through 8 of the stuff report lo the Planning Commission da~ed November 15, 2001. In panicularit is the provision of 70 units of "affordable" housing as defined by state and federal law that is the compelling reason for the project. Additionally, the project would provide an overall 280 unils of housing that would assist the City in meeting the Association of Bay Area Government's housing projection needs for the City of South San Francisco (page 6 of the staff report). This comment is a project related comment and is not related Io the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this docu .mere will contain_ a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. The project exceeds the open space, landscaping and setback requirements of the code, meets the parking requirements of the code and proposes 17% lot coverage where 65% is permiued. The proposed height, at 70 feel, is the one development standard that requires a Planned Unit Development overlay. Page 5 of the slaff report to the Planning Commission dated November 15, 2001, discusses the project's compliance with the City's ordinances. The DEIR identifies the significance criteria in each chapter pursuant to the particular environmental issue. The DEIR analyzes the required alternatives to the project and the alternatives are evaluated in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. The DEIR analyzes the "No Project" alternative as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as a reduced-density project, the "74-Unit" alternative. The DEIR (Chapter 5, Page 4) discloses that both the 74-unit and 280-unit project would result in a significant unavoidable impact the Gellen Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center intersection. The No Project alternative would not increase the impact at this intersection from the existing LOS F; however the LOS would remain at F. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-15 094 This commenl is a projec~ rela~ed commem and is no~ relined to ~he potential envi~onmemal impacts of the projecl. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to ~he reviewer and decisionmakers. A Developmen! Aireement does vesl a developer with ce~nain riahts final are in place and established at the time of execution of tine document between ire developer and the City. ]n the case of the Marbel]a projecl, ire development agrcemenl establishes thai 70 units are ~o be provided for low to moderate income households, art and landscaping provisions and certain in-lieu fees. Property maintenance responsibilities and building and improvement processes are still in place and are not "waived". Pursuant to Government Code § 65864 et. seq., cities are expressly authorized to enter imo development agreements. The primary purpose of a development agreement is to allow a developer who needs addilional dJscrelionary approvals to comp]ele development projects as approved, regardless of any intervening changes in local regulations, rules, or policies. City ofW. Hollywoodv. Beverly To~+'ers, Inc., 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1194 (1991). C-5 C-6 This comment is a project relaled commenl and is not related Io the polential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. The comment is the personal opinion of the author of the letter and is duly noted. Design changes to the project are required as both conditions of project approval and miligations identified in the DEIR. As two examples, the retaining walls are required to be stepped, rather than being constructed as one continuous wall, and the landscape plan is required to be revised to cluster the taller specimen trees at a lower elevation to soften the building and protect views. The conditions of project approval attached to the November 15, 2001 staff report contain 13 pages of conditions that affect the design and function of the project. This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to lhe reviewer and decisionmakers. There area a few important facts to consider with respect to the feasibility of the lands east of Gellert and the area around King Drive befalling high density development "creep". First, the lands mentioned are built-out. Second the King Drive area is designated Medium Density residential and the ]ands east of Gellen are designated Commercial. The project site is designated commercial with a residential overlay that allows for a combination of residential and commercial development. The site is also vacant. A vacant site that is transitional in nature with a residential/commercial City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-16 .... 095 C-7 C-8 C-9 designation is more likely to be developed \vilh or without a zone and general plan modification, than p]operly that is developed and \,,,ell maintained. Secondly, as \~ith the proposed Marbella projecl an), proposed changes lo ;he commercial developmenl on ire easi side of Gellen Boulevard would require environmental review and public hearings would be required lo be conducted. Thirdly, the probability that a developer would purchase commercially zoned land that is developed with successful enterprise and converl the ]and use from commercial to residential is speculative at best. The probability thai a developer would purchase and assemble an adequale quantity of developed and occupied single-family residential lots, demolish the improvements and reconstrucl a high-density residential development is also speculative. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chaplet 3 Section 15144 & 45 addresses impact forecasting and speculation. Section 15145 states that if a lead agency conducted a thorough investigation and finds that an impacl is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should nole its conclusion and terminate the discussion. The traffic Section of the DEIR thoroughly evaluated traffic impacts associated with e×Jsling and foreseeable future development. The impacts of the proposed projecl have been thoroughly analyzed based upon foreseeable development and not land use speculalion. This comment is a project related comment and is not related Io the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience Io the reviewer and decisionmakers. See response to C-2, above. Addilionally, the DEIR measures height according to the definition of height provided in the City's zoning ordinance (Section 20.06.120). The method of height measurement is equally and fairly applied to all structures throughout the City. The personal opinion of the author of the comment is noted. The DEIR and the staff report page 14-15 of the staff report (November 15, 2001) discusses the visual aspects of the project. In particular, page 15 of the staff report does state that with respect to visual issues "Reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions about the significance of visual impacts." Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants perfmTned a preliminary investigation of the site and summarized the results in a report dated June 1,2000. The investigation included excavation and logging of thirteen test pits to depths ranging between 4 and 15 feet. BGC prepared a geotechnica] addendum, dated October 1, 2001, addressing foundations and retaining walls for the currently proposed four-story condominium project. BGC also performed a supplemental study of aerial photographs from 1957 to 1998 and made a recent site reconnaissance to observe site conditions. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-17 096 C-lO BGC's opinions regm'ding various plnases of the proposed Marbella project are summarized below. Drainage. The conslruclion of retaining v,'a]ls and lhe recommended dewalering measm-es will introduce subsurface drainage into the hillside. Shallow groundv,'ater has been a factor in the erosion and slumping seen in the hillside in its present and past unmainlained condition. The relatively deep lowering of the hillside groundwater, provided by the recommended subdrainage, will improve the stability of the slope. Erosion Control. The residential conslruction on the Marbella site will include installation of appropriate landscaping and olher engineered erosion control measures on the slope. These provisions should constitute an improvement of the slope fi-om its present condition. Maintenance. The residential development of the Marbel]a site will include a homeowners association, which will be responsible for performing periodic inspections and maintenance of the seclion of slope that will remain above the proposed retaining v,'al]s. The change from 20 ),ears of neglected maintenance to being fully maintained by the homeowners association will serve to further improve slope stability. Tiered Retaining Walls. As recommend in the BGC October I addendum letter, lhe proposed retaining walls are planned to be designed and constructed as soil nail and shotcrete walls. An advantage of this type of wall is that it does not require the use of tall, temporary, oversleepened backcuts necessary for most other types of walls. The tiered walls can be built in stages, starting at lhe top with each stage fully supported before the next stage is excavated. This incremental approach is very successful in reducing the potential of construction phase instability. The proposed retaining walls will be engineered to retain the slope with generally accepted engineered factors of safety. As pan of such designs, global stability of the overall slope is also checked. The presence of the San Andreas fault, located 1 mile to the southwest, will be taken into account in the project design. hnproved Fil'l Conditions. The southern end of the slope is underlain by engineered fill, which shows evidence of more slumping and erosion than the rest of the slope. Removal and replacement of a portion of the engineered fill on the south end of the project as part of ~he site grading will improve stability of the fill portion of the slope. The addition of subdrainage and maintenance by the homeowners association, for reasons similar to those presented above, will lead to increased stability remaining after construction of the Marbella project. The 30,000 c.y. of off-haul is the estimated amount based on the cun'ent grading plan. At City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-18 C-Il C-12. C-13. C-14 C-15. C-16. 20 c.y. per truck this would equal about 1,500 trips, a small percentage of the average daily trips on Gellen Blvd. Approximately 1,000 trucks would be required to deliver the concrete for the retaining wall conslruction. We were not able to verify the writer's eslimate of 25,000 trips for earthwork or transport truck for malerials. If this were the actual number it would equal 80 trips per day or 10 per hour based on an 18 month, 300 working day construction time. These are small percentages of the existing daily and peak hourly trips in the area. There are no generators proposed for the project. Battery packs for emergency lighting will be provided pursuant to Code. The battery packs will be ]ocamd within the light fixture itself. The City's noise ordinance controls the level of allowable noise that is permitted from construction related activities. The ordinance will be enforced for the project. The Initial Study (page 12) Appendix A idenlifies the project as having a beneficial impact on housing. The Initial Sludy also quantifies the housing population as a one percent increase, which is not a significant impact. It is true lhat the proposed transportation mitigation measures are off-site. They would relieve lhe existing traffic congestion as well as that genermed by the proposed project and cumulative growth. The site distance has been checked and verified as acceptable under the standard guidelines published by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Ca]frans did not express any concern regarding the north access road in their written correspondence on the proposed project. The project civil engineering firm, WilseyHam, has indicmed that adequate sight distance can be maintained for the north access driveway without the removal of the five on-street parking spaces. However, sight distance would be improved with the removal of these on-street parking spaces The potential for overflow parking noted in the traffic study would occur when the number of guest vehicles exceeds the number of available guest parking spaces. As with the existing housing in the study area, overflow parking would seek spaces either on- street (if allowed) or in the shopping center. However, based upon other high density projects it is expected that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the project demands. For points 1, 2 and 3, the comments are noted. For point 4, the movement would not be an illegal lane change assuming that the roadway striping was marked correctly. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-19 C-17. C-18a C-18b C-18c C-18d C-18e C-18f C-18g The opinion of the author of the ]euer is no~ed. No additional response is necessary. The opinion of lhe author of the letter is noted. No additional response is necessary. The opinion of the author of the ]eller is holed. However, it is important to note that the park in-lieu fees would be used in the project area to improve and expand existing recreational uses. Improvements to the Westborough Park picnic area or additions of a skate board and dog park area are identified as potential uses of the funds. The project plans full}, disclose the elevations, materials and colors both in the DEIR and attachments to the November 15, 2001 staff report. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reponinlg Program (MMRP) is attached to the November 15, 2001 staff report. The MMRP identifies the party that is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures. No eminent domain is being implemented on the project. The benefit is the provision of housing and affordable housing. The opinion of the author of the letter is noted. No additional response is necessary. The DEIR fully addressed project and project alternative impacts. Any development of the site would result in an impact to the Ge]left Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center intersection. See response C-3 above. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-2O O99 LIZ'I'I IZR D Sq ~,'~ ! O! C~LI~OR'X'It ~ PL'~I~E~{~. 'IFx~,'<SPOWI ATIO~' A'X'D HOUSF'~G .~G£NCT GRAT DAVIS. Govtrnor DEFAI~'~MENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISiON OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.~,40 ] ])a N STREET P 3OX 942873 S, ~MENTO, CA 94273~0001 PHvJ~E (916) 654-4959 FAX 1916) 653-9531 November ]6, 2001 Ms. Susy Ka]kin CiD, of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 fvok 2 01 Dear Ms. Kalkin' Re' Cil~t of South San Francisco's DE]Riot the Marbella Housing Subdivision; SCH# 2002 062018 The California Departmenl of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts pursuant lo CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for a high-density, multi-family residential development comp~:ised-0f-280 housing"-units on a 14.9-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellerl Boulevard. The project is to include one, two and three-bedroom aparlments in six 4-story buildings. According to the DEIR, the project site is localed outside of the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL} contour for San Francisco International Airport (SF1A). According to the DEIR, the site is within the "boundaries of the retrofit area" as designated by the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Comprehensive Land Use Plan. As indicated in the z,~0 I}, at enclosed Quarlerly Noise Report for SFIA {quarter ending March 31, ~'~' least a portion of the project site does appear to be within the 65 dB CNEL contour for SF1A; immediately adjacent to the emended runway centerlines of Runways 28L and 28R. D-1 The DEIR states that the entire City of South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts due to the presence of SFIA and that the city lies directly in the flight path of a large percentage of departing aircraft. While recognizing the probable increase in operations at SFIA, the EIR states that the increase is "counterbalanced by the ongoing phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft in favor of quieter Stage 3.' In fact, the noise reduction benefit of the shift from Stage 2 to Stage 3 has already been achieved. It is not known whether additional modifications to aircraft in the future will significantly affect SFIA's noise contours. D-2 hds. Susv Ka]kin November ]6, 2001 Page 2 LETTER D According to Miligation Measure NOISE-2 (pg. 4 of C]napler 4.6), the project "should be designed 1o comply with the retrofit guidelines for ALUC retrofit area" which may include ~se of"doublc-paned glass, insulation requirements or other noisc-reduction measures." The project site is beneath the flight path for the airport and future lenants will be subjecl 1o frequenl aircraft overflight and the subsequent noise and safeD' /mpacls. The cumulative effect of the roadway and aircraft noise will magnify the effect. The Final EIR should specify the "retrofit guidelines" for residential development within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Additionally, st~ould this project be approved, we strongly encourage the applicant provide an ay/gat/on easement Io SF]A that includes aircraft noise. Such an easement is necessary because the County of San Mateo has designaled SFIA as having a "noise problem." The need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a state issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the Division of Aeronautics views SFIA as part of the statewide transportation system, which is vital to the state's continued prosperity. This role will no doubt increase as California's population continues to grow and the need for efficient mobility becomes more crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports from incompatible land use encroaclhment is vital to California's economic future. Thant~ yo{h-~-[ln~-~'srs~-fi-i-~;- lcd-review ~nd comment on this proposal. If you have an), questions, please call me at (916) 654-5314. Sincerely, SAND¥"HESNARD Aviation Environmental Planner D-3 c: State Clearinghouse, SFIA, San Mateo ALUC Enclosure 101 D-I D-2 D-3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMF-NT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS The City's General Plan Noise Elemenl Figure 9-1, "Aircraf! Noise and Noise Insulation Program Areas" page 279, adopted October 1999 clearly shows lhe project site outside lhe 65 dBA, CNEL The Figure uses the 1995 FAA Approved Noise Conlours and the projecled 2000 FAA Approved noise contours. The noise conlours are from the County of San Maleo Airport Land Use Plan and the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan EIR. Noise Exposure Map (?',rEM) update 2001 (dated September 2001) cun-ently under review by the FAA for acceptance as pan of the San Francisco International Airport's FAAR Pan 150 Noise Compatibility Program shows the project outside the 65 dBA, CNEL contour. Similarly, the projecl area is not shown within the 65dBA, CNEL on the 2006 Projections Map also being reviewed by FAA. Comment noted. Again, the 1995 and the projected 2000 FAA Approved Noise Contours (City of South San Francisco General Plan) show lhe project area well outside the 65 dBA airport impact zone. Impact and Mitigation Measure Noise-3 (Chapter 4.6 Page 4) identifies noise retrofit measures that would be employed. The Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include noise disclosure. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-23 102 SUMMARY OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMI SSI ON COMMENTS-NOVEMBER 15, 2001 E-I. Traffic Congestion in General. Con'ln'lent: Several commentors noted lhal Iraffic is cun-ent]y congested near the Westborough Shopping Center. Response: Any project proposed for the site would add traffic to the area, regardless of its size and land use. The proposed project would not result in any service level changes at study intersections, but it would increase delays, particularly at unsJgna]ized inlersections, to lhe exlent holed in the traffic study. E-2. 1-280 off-ramps at Westborough Boulevard. Comment: One Commissioner asked if changes to the traffic control at freeway off-ramps would improve traffic conditions and potentially mitigate project impacts. Response: Typically, Caltrans determines the traffic control at freeway access points so that safety is maintained for the highest speed vehicles (on-ramp, off-ramp and freeway mainline traffic). The traffic control at ramp intersections also depends on local street conditions, including the volume and travel speeds of local traffic. It isn't certain that changes lo the freeway ramp junctions along Westborough Boulevard would improve traffic flows along Westborough, and it may be at the expense of traffic flows on the freeway ramps or on parallel arterial roadways. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-24 103 SLBIMARY OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS-NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Comment: Response: E-2. Comment: Response: Traffic Congestion in General. Several commenlors noted that Iraffic is cun'ent]y congested near the Westborough Shopping Center. Any project proposed for the site would add traffic to the area, regardless of its size and land use. The proposed project would not result in any service level changes al sludy Jnlersections, but it would increase delays, particularly at unsigna]ized intersections, to lhe extent noted in the traffic study. 1-280 off-ramps at Westborough Boulevard. One Commissioner asked if changes lo the traffic control at freeway off-ramps would improve traffic conditions and potentially mitigate project impacts. Typically, Caltrans determines the traffic control at freeway access points so that safety is maintained for the highest speed vehicles (on-ramp, off-ramp and freeway mainline traffic). The traffic control at ramp intersections also depends on local street conditions, including the volume and travel speeds of local traffic. It isn't certain thai changes to the freeway ramp junctions along Westborough Boulevard would improve traffic flows along Westborough, and it may be at the expense of traffic flows on the freeway ramps or on parallel arterial roadways. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-24 .. 104 APPENDIX A Nolice of Availability- Oclober 5, 2001 San Mateo Times Notice of Availability- October 10, 2001 State Clearinghouse Letter-October 15, 2001 Henshaw Letter-November 19, 2001 105 DE PAR] ME N'I O[ ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'f PLANNING DIVISION (650) 677-8535 FAX ~650} ,529-6639 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY State Clearinghouse Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Streel, Suile 222/P.O. Box 3044 Sacramcnlo, CA 95814-3044 October 5, 2001 OCT - 5 STAI'E CLEARING HOUSE Subject: Notice of Availabilityofa Draft Environmenlallmpac! Reporl SCH # 2001062018 Lead Agency: Cio' of Somh San Francisco Planning Division 3J5 Maple Avenue/P. 0.. Boz 7J ] South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Sus3' Kalkin,, Principal Planner (650) 877-8535 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha~ a draft Environmental Impact Report (DE[R) has been prepared for the projec~ described below, and is available for public review and comment for 45 days. The DEIR and reference materials are available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. Copies of the DE[R are also available at the West Orange Library, 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library, 306 Walnut Avenue, and the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue.: Projecl Tille: Marbella Housing Subdivision Project Location: Approximately 14.9 acres located on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, north of Westborough Boulevard (APNs 091-661- 240/250/2601270/280/290/310/320/330). Project Description: A 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 vacant site. The project would be configured in six four-story buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: General Plan Amendment: 1) io change ~he current land use designation of the site from Mi~ed Community Commercial/%/ledium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 2) to modify Policy 3.11-I-2 requiring adherence to the Westborough Gellert Urban Design Plan. 106 Re2oning to change the zone designation from C-I Retail Commercial to R- 3-L Multiple Family Residential Vesting Tcmafive Subdivision Map Planned Unil Development Permit \vilh exceptions lo: I) allow private s~reets', and 2) permil an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone from 50 feet to ?0 feet. Developmem Agreement Potential Significant Environmental Effe¢ls: · Traffic · Visual Resources · Noise · Geology COMMENT PERIOD: The commenl period for this document commences on Friday, Oclober 5, 2001, and will close on Monday, November 19, 2001. Wriuen comments regarding the Draft EIR must be received by the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, Soulh San Francisco, by no later than 5:00 PM on November 19, 2001. Please send all comments to: Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083. Signature: Title: Principa}?lanner Telephone: (650) 877-8535 LOCATION MAP: .,. 107 DE F-AR'f ME N'I OF E C, ONOMIC Af'~D COMMLtNITW DEVELOPMEN"f PLANNING DIVIS, ION (650) 877-8535 FAX (f, 50) 829-6639 Oclober 5, 2001 OCl - 5 2o01 Ms. Katie Shulty-Joung Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Suite 222 Sacramento, CA 95814 SlAlE CLEARING HOUSE RE Drafl Envbonmenlal lmpacl Report - Marbella Housing Subdivision State Clearinghouse No: 2001062018 Dear Ms. Shulty-Joung: The City of South San Francisco is submitting a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marbella Housing Subdivision. The City previously submiued a Draft Environmental Impact Report, titled Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, for this project on May 24, 2001. The prior draft was issued State Clearinv..house No: 2001062018. During the public review period which began May 24th, City staff identified procedural and technical issues lhat necessitated re-circulating the May 24th DE1R. Staff prepared substantial revisions to the May 24'h Draft, and in an abundance of caution, has chosen to re-submit the document, in ils enlirety, for re-circulation. Because thc projcct has not changed, the City is requesting tha~ a new State Clearinghouse number not be assigned to the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report dated October 5, 2001. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner, at 650.877.8535. Sincerely, Susy/al, jffn, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco .,.. 108 · Nolice ot' Complelion and Environmcnlal Documen! Transmillal Form Mail lo: Stale Clearinghouse, 141)0 Tcnlh Slreel, Sacramcnlo, CA 95814-0613 SCH# 2001062018 ]o Projecl Tille Marbella ltousing Subdivision Lead Agency Ciw of South San Francisco Planning Division Contacl Person Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner St~eetAddress 5]5 Maple Avenue 3b City: South San Francisco Zip:. 94080 Phone: 1650) 87%8535 3c. County: San Mateo Project Location - Specific tt~ - 4. County San Mateo 4a City~Community South San Francisco l~l 4b. Assessor's Parcel No. 091-661-740/25~/260/270/280/290/310/320/330 4c. Section T~. Range 5a. Cross Streets: Westboroueh/Gel]ert Blvds. 5b. For Rural, Nearest Community 6. Within 2 miles: a. State Hwv#:]-280, SR35, SR82 b. Airporls San F c. Railways d. Waterways S.F. Bay, Colma Creek ?. Documen! Type CEQA 014 ] NOP 05. [ ] Supplement/ NEPA: 09. [ ] NOI OTHER: 13. [ ] Joint Document Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.: ) 024 ] Early Cons 06. [ ] NOE 10. I ] FONSI 14. [ ] Final Document 03.1 ]NegDec 07.[ ]NOC ll.[ ]DraftElS 15.1 ]Other 0,~.[X] Draft EI]I 08. [ ] NOD 12. [ ] EA 8. Local Action Type 01.1 ] General Plan Update 02.[ ] New Element 03.X] General Plan Amendment 044 ] Master Plan 05. [ ] Annexation 06. [ ] Specific Plan 07. [ ] Community Plan 08. [ ] Redevelopment 09. [X]Rezone 10. [X] Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) 11. [ ] Use Permit 12.[ ] Waste Mgm~ Plan 13.1 ] Cancel Ag ~eserve 14.[X] Other- Planned Unit Development & Development Agreement 9. Development Type 01.IX] Residential: Units 280 Acres 1~.9 07.[ ] Mining: Mineral 02.[ ] Office: Sq.fl. Acres Employees 08.[ ] Power: Type 03.[ ] Shoppin~Commercial Sq.fl Acres Employees 09.[ ] Waste Type Treatment 04.[ ] Industrial: Sq.fl Acres Employees 10.I ] OCS Related 05.1 ] Water Facilities: MGD 11.1 ] Other Watts 06.1 ] Transportation: Type: 10. Total Acres 14.9 1 1. Total Jobs Created NA ........................................................................................................................................... 77'i-'6'§ .... ' · · Project Issues Discussed in Document 01.[X] Aeslhetic/Visual 024 ] A~icuhural land 034 ] Air Quality 04.1 ] ~chaeological/Historical 0fl ] Coastal Zone 06.1 ] Economic fill ] Fire Hazard 054 ] Flooding/Drainage 09 IX] Geologic/Seismic 10. l ] Jobs/Housing Balance II. I ] Minerals 12. IX] Noise 13.1 ] Public Services 14.1 ]Scbools 15. [ ] Septic Systems 16. I ] Sewer C]apacity 1'7. [ ] Social 18. [ ]SoilL, osion 19. I ] Soil\Vast¢ 20. IX] Toxic/Hazardous 21. IX] Traffic/Circulation 22. [ ] Vci'eta6on 23. [ ] \Vae! Quality 24. I ] \x"a~e~ Supply 25.IX] Welland/Riparian 26.[X] Wildlife 2-/.[ ] Grov, qh Inducing 2g.[X] 12nd Use 29.[ ] Cumulative Effects 30.1 ] Other 13. Funding (approx.) Federal $ 0 State $ 0 Total $ 0 14. Present Land Use and Zoning: Mixed Relail Commercial/Medium Densily Residential Land Use Designation; C-I Retail Commercial Zone District 15. Project Description: A 280-unil residenlial condominium project on a 14.9 acre vacan! site. The project would be configured in six four-s~ory buildings wilh both underground and surface parking. 16. Signature of Lead Agency Represenlalive: ;/-- _ .. .~-':-',<_~..,9~:-~%-~ .... Dale: '--~-. ..~ ~...'// ,~7 2. (,r ., -~. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a pmjec! (e.g.. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please also fill it in. '"' 110 APPENDIX Vi - CEQA GUIDELINES AND DISCUSSIONS Revicwin8 Agencies Checklist Resources Agency Boating~Vaterways Conservation Fish and Game Forestry Colorado River Board Dept. Water Resources Reclamalion Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Commission S. F. Bay Cons. and Dev't. Commission Coastal Commission Energy Commission State Lands Commission Ai~ Resources Board Solid Waste Management Board SWRCB: Sacramento RWQCB: Region # San Francisco Water Rights Water Quality Caltrans District Dept. of Transportation Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Housing and Community Dev't Statev,'ide Health Planning Health Food and Agricuhure Public Utilities Commission Public Works Concctions General Services OLA Santa Monica Mountains TRPA OPR - OLGA OPR - Coastal Bureau of Land Management Forest Service Other: Bay Area Ai~ Quality Mgmt. District Other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Date Received at S' Dale Review Sta~ Date to r cncies D:" ::;CH Noles: For SClt Use Only: Catalog Number Applicant: Duc Housing Partners, lnc 1410'7 Winchester Blvd., Suile H Los Gatos, CA 9.5032 (408) 866-5511 Consultanl Contact: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650 8'7'/-8535) Address: 315 Maple Avenue/P.O. Box ?11, South San Francisco, CA 94083 111 ACBLNOWI~EDGE51ENT OF RECEIPT DATE: TO: Oclober 15, 2001 Susy Kalkin Cily of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue Soulh San Francisco, CA 94080 O C 2 2 2001 PLAA,'NiIV RE: Marbella Housing SubdMsion SCH#: 2001062018 This is lo ackmowledge lhal lhe Slate Clearinghouse has received ),our enviro]m~ental document for sla~e review. The review period assigned by the Slale Clearinghouse is: Review Slan Date: Review End Date: October 5, 2001 November 19, 2001 We have distributed your document lo lhe following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 4 Cahrans, Division of Aeronaulics Department of Conservalion Department offish and Game, Region 3 Deparlment of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The Slate Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any stale agency comments to your atlenlion on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. 916-445-o¢a1:, FAX 910-325-5Olb: \V\V\V. OPR.CA GOV/CI.I.-'ARIN( l-{M]SL q"I'M 112 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF Draft Environmental ]mpact Report Marbella Subject: Notice of Availabiliu of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised) SCH # 2001062018 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a drafl En,,ironmenta] Impact Report tDEIR) has been p~epared for lhe project described below, and is available for public rexiew and comment for 45 days. The DEIR and reference materials are available for review al lhe Plannin~ Division, City Hall Annex. 315 Maple Axenue, South San Francisco. Copies of the DElRare also available at the \Vest Orange Librau,. 804 W. Orange Avenue. the Grand Avenue Libra/3.. 306 Walnut Avenue, and the City · Clerk's Office, City Hall. 400 Grand Avenue. South San Francisco, CA. Project Title: Marbella Housing Subdivision P~oject Location: Appro×imatet) 1,a.9 acres located on the wes~ side o'f Gellen Boulevard. north of Westborough Bou]evard (APNs 091-661-240/250/260/250/280/290/3 ] 0/320/330). Project Description: A 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 acre vacant site. The projecl would be configured in six four-stor), buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: · General Plan Amendment: 1 ) to change the current land use designation of the she from Mixed Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential:' and ~) modi~, General Plan Policy 3. I 14-2 regarding the WestborougrdGellen Urban Design Plan. Rezoning to change the zone designation from C-I Retail Commercial to R-3-L Multiple Family Residential Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map · Planned Unit Development Permit with exceptions to: l ) allow private streets; and 2) permit an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone dom 50 feet to 50 feet. · Development Agreement Potentially Significant Environmental Effects: ~: · Traffic · Visual Resources . ~ · .-.. I · . Noise · '"".-""'" Geology .... ..:. ':.-'-':" -" ~ . ;: .'.'. ::'".' COMMENW PERIOD: The comment period for this dOCument commences on Friday. October 5. 2001. and will close on Monday, Noxember 19, 2001. Wriuen comments regarding the Draft EIR must be received by the Planning Division. 315 Map!e Avenue, South San Francisco, by no later than 5:00 PM on November 19, 2001. Please send all comments ~o: Susy ' Kal}iin. Planning Division. City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco. CA 94083:7' LOCATION MAP: /s/Thomas C. Sparks - Thomas'C; Sparks~ Chief Planner - ' . Piiinnin~:Divisi~n', City Of sou'th 'San Fra}icisco ¥ 5;, -: "~-'--'...~]', ,'.~. ,~_,=2-'. ;,.', T~i- :'.:57 '<-:<.*,'3%~Y.'<;'- ',. ". .-'~... ~ ...e"~ 'ix ~t ~ ',"-i,-'G ~.,~ ." -'* .',~."~c ., "t .N'",'~ ? . ,' ::i~"'~.,= '.' 7-'..~,',',',',',',',',',~ 'x " ' ,3 q ~...1~ .*i °~";"/Z'a"5/~,.~'K ";'/-' ~'/'X ~ /5' · ' ,*~-..~ "~. I '.'.....-~"ac,"~,--~li,~~- ~;.gt ~. ',ff.-., -.7-.~.~,,," ,.~,,~,~,, ~~.~"Y't:" : . -~. ,,..- .., ,~- .=,. ,,i;.-'~.- ', . , .9,"-. aT~.,,~., ..,;, ',15 '"---~?3'X."~fa~ '~ .... :"'.:'.I~ ...4 · ."',~-~, ,..,;e;.',--:;~!)'~.;<:~%--'~'~ -~, .... -. ~x'~:, '~/, ,*' .' . '-.."t~. _."* ;.?<.'::_'NN .N"5~. ~.' ,,'.a. X"' /55...5:/. ...... · ., -::...... i. · i Date: October 5, 2001 Published once in lhe San Mate~ County Times, Wednesday, 10; 2001 San Mateo Copn~y 7~mes ff7763 October 10, 2001. · 113 12/26/2061 ~5:49 9255517a64 HENSHAW ASS©C]ATES PAGE Henshaw Associales, Inc. Environmenlal Engineering Services November 19, 2001 Ms. Armina Anlonio Califon:da Environ.mental Pi otection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 Re; Mm'be]la Houshag Subdivision Project \Ves~borou~h and Gellen Boulevmds: Soud-~ San Francisco: California Project No.: 268. B. 01 Dear Ms. Amonio: In response 1o you~ November 6, 2001 leuer io Ms. Susy Kalkin of the City of Sarah San Francisco, Henshaw Associales, Inc. (Henshaw) has p~'epm'ed lhis' letter addressing the issue of background concenlralions of arsenic in shallow soil at the Masbella Housing Subdi¥ision project in South San F~'ancisco, California (the site). As discussed with yoti in our telephone conversation of November ]5, 2001, it.is our professional opinion tha~ the level of arsenic fomad in shallow soil a~ thc site, as reported in Henhsaw's June 9, 2000 report tided Phase ] Preliminary Site Assessment andLimited Soil QualiLv ]nvestigation, Gellert Boulevard, South San J:'rancisco, California, and summarized in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated October 5, 2001, is representative of naturally-occurring background levels thsoughom the San Fr,'mcisco Bay Area. The level of arsenic reported in lqenshaw's previous report was 2.6 parts per million (ppm). At your request, we are providing additional in£ormadon on regional background concentrations of arsenic. Based on our recent telephone conversation, you m'e appmently unaware that additional soil samples were collected at the site in February 2001. As indicated in the attached letter dated February 9, 2001, Henshaw collected additional soil samples m the site to provide confirmation of the test results for arsenic reported in Henshaw's previous report, and to assess the possible presence of h¢xavalent chromium in shallow soil. The ~es~ ~esults fat these additional samples (collecled in the same general area as lhe samples described in Henahsaw's June 9, 2000 report) did not indicate the presence of arsenic above the laborato~ method reporting limit of 1.0 ppm~ or hexavalent chromium above the laboralory method reporting limit of 0.2 ppm. Based on the site history evaluation and soil sampling results presented in t-Ienshaw's previous reports, it is our opinion that soil contamination by arsenic, or other constituents, is not present at the site. 11875 Dublin Boulevard, Suite A-200 · Dublin, CA 94568 · Tel: 925/551-7272 Fax: 9251551-7464 114 ]5:49 ~q~=~i-~mB~ HENSHAW AE%DC]ATES PAGE Hensh w A soci tes, Inc. \Vith ~'epect lo background concennmions of arsenic in sh~lov,~ soil in fl~e S~ Fz~cisco ~ay A~ea, ~e mosl wjdel)'4eco~n~zed rcgion~l ex'alualion was performed by Lax~ence Berkeley Laboralow (P~otocol for Df~erminf~g Bcckgrva~;d Conce;~trati~t~ of .h~e~al~ in Soil at La~'rence Berkeley NoEo~al L~beratoD, (~), g~Su.~t ]~95). That study, which examined background melal concent~elions in soils de~ived f~om d~ffetcnt rc~Jonal geologic units r~gin~ in a~e flora J~assic ~o Ho]ocene, fo~d general b~ckgrom~d concenualions of msenJc of 9.3 to 31 ppm: depending on ~e specific Reolosic mill Fm thei~ ~eologic units of mid-ToniC- age (lhei~ Or~nda and Moraga Formations), ~ey ~eponed ~ average back~ ound ~senJc concemratJon of aboul 13.5 ppm. ~e Marbella Housin~ Subdiv~Mon she is underlain rocks by fl~e Me~-ced Fon~afion ofuppe~-Tenia~ ~o lower-Qua~erna], a~e. ~q~ereas lhese ~ocks a~'c no~ directly con'dative io ~he mi&Ten~' units of the LBNL study, lhe concenn'a~Jon of a;~enic meastued at thc si~e is certainly a~ or below lhe ave~'age concenu'ations measured during; Ihe LBNL study which covers a much broader and diverse age groupin~ of~eologic fon~ations. In our opinion, fl~¢ LBNL results c~ be used m evaluate expected back,round concemraliens ofaresenic at ~h¢ subjecl site. " Finally, review cf om p~-ojecl files at Henshaw ~hov,;s that we have previously performed a general in~,'estigaiion of soil quality at another sile along Weslbo~ouah Boulevard, ~pproximately 2:500 feel soulhwest oflhe subject site. Tes~ results fo~r eigh! soil samples analyzed for arsenic during that invesfit~alion ranged from less ~ha.". ~.he me~hod reponSng limit of 1.0 ppm to a maximum of 2.9 ppm:' These results'are, identical to those'reported fo~ lhe Marbella Housing Subdivision site. As such, ii is ou:~ opinion, that lhe concemrations of arseni c measured in soil at lhe Marbella Housing Subdivision si~e are represen~atjx, e of namrally-occm'ring backg~'ound levelk. In our opinion, no addilional evaluaiion is ',~'arranted. Please don't hesitme lo call if you have an}, questions oz require additional information. Sincerely, Henshaw Associates, Incorporated Dennis Laduzinsky, C.E.G. Senior Project Manage~ Arlachments: February 9, 2001 Additional 5oil Qua!ixy Evaluation cc: Joe Fanelli Susy Kalkin 115 Henshaw Associates., Inc: Environmenlal Engineering Services February 9; 2001 Ms. carol Anne Painter iDuc Housing ?armors, Incorporated 14107 Winchester Boulevard.. Suite lq Los Gatos, CA 9.5032-5960 .:Re: Additional Soil Quality Evaluation Oellert Boulevard: South San Francisco, CalJ£o]'nia P,'oj'ect No.' 268.,~. O] Dear Ms. Painter: As requesled, Hep. shaw Associates, Incorporated. has performed an ~ddidonat evaluation of shallow soil quailb' at lhe Gellert Boulevard project site in South San Francisco, California. The evaluation was performed ~o provide confirmation of the ~est results for arsenic previously reposed in the Phc~se I Preliminw7 ,Ute A.s~eszment (md Limited Soil Qualio' Im'ezligc~lion, Gellert Bo.le~:ard,_Sozah San F~_'a.cLsco, Col~br~:io~ submitted as a draft on June 9, 2000. The evaluation was additionally performed to assess the possible presence of chromium VI in shMlow soil nt the site. The site is located on Ocllerl Boulevard in South San Francisco, northwest of the intersection of Gellcrt and Westborough Boulevards. Tb.e site consists of a steep, narrow parcel, sloping east to Geller[ Boulevard. A limited soil quali'ty investigation was previously conducted in a level area on the southeast portion of tl~e site where concrete debris and other trash had been obse~'ed. During the present evalualion, soil samples ,,','ere collected at depths of approximately one fool and four feet at 'fl',ree locations, in the vicinity of the soil samples previously collecled and analyzed during 'the June 2000 Phase I investigation. Samples were collected wi~h a hand auger, manually placed in laboratory-supplied sample ja,-s~ labeled, and stored in a cooled container for transport to the laboratory under chain-of-custody control. Tv,'o composite samples, one from one foot bgs (RS-1,2,3-1) and one from four feet bgs (RS-1,2,3-4), were analyzed for total arsenic using EPA Method 6010B and hexavalent chromiun'~ (Chromium VI) using EPA Method '7196A. G:\r- ile.~L26~\! 0341-01 .wp~ 02109101 11875 Dublin.Boulevard, Suite A-200 - Dublin, CA 94568 · Tel; 9251551-7272 Fa~: 925/551-7464' 116 ~czc~ - c ~ ,~ 3112~t2~B1 ]5:~9 S ..... l ~4B~ HENSH~W P~_SOC~A ES Pf~GE i-~l Henshaw Associales, Inc. }Ci'~cmical test tes',:lts a.,e sulm'narized in Table 1, and ~he laboratory an?,l?'dcal ~epon is a~tached lelxey. As S]lOXV~q o1~ Table 1. xhe conqpOs{le soil samples did no~ contain arsenic or hexavalent chtomiun~ above the labo~aton' method reporting limits. Based on the chemical test shallow soils at the site do not appear to be imF. acted by arsenic or clTonqium VI. We api:,reciate the oppo,"tunity To pro'vide scr:'ire ~o .you on fi-tis project. Plea.~e do nc,~ hesitate to 'call shottId .vou have any queslions or require additional info,'marion. Sincerely, iHcnshs'w Ass.ocinles, Jncorpor:~lcd Dennis LaduT. insky, C.£.G., R,£.A. Senior Project Manager D'L:kd /encl: I Table L,~borntory Reports (5:\Filesk265\ 10341-01 .wpd 02/09/01 .. 117 ]]/2B/:'0B] ]5:4S S ..... ]/dB~ HENSHA~ ASSOCIATES PAGE 'l-ABLE 1 Soil Analytical Resulis Geller! Boulevard $oulh San }Francisco, California Ansl)qe ArSenic - EPA 601 OB Cfa omium VI - EPA 7196A ND ND 500 22 ND ND 500 30 NOTES RS~1,2,3-1: composite of samples collected f~om ~e¢ locations at a deplh of one fool. RS-1,2,3-4: composite of samples collec~ed from fl-~see ]ocalions at a depth of four feet. Results ~-eported in rog/kg (pans per million) ND: Not de'tec~ed at or above ~he laboralory method repo~ing limits PRG: PreliminaU, Remediafion Goal Ibr rcsidemial land use ~ EPA Region IX TTLC: 'l-o'tal Thseshold Limit Concen~r~lion Co:\ :iles\)68\ 10236-0!.a!5 02/09/01 118 3~ 2~/28r~1. 3.5:49 e~2¢.~o3.'i~n~ ,:lB4 HENC. SHAI4 AS%OC]A"I-ES PAGE 0'7/~.8 STL ChromaLab Env~rc. qmenta! Services (CA 1094) Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Date: February 7, 2001 Henshaw 11E?5 Dublin Blvd, Suite Dublin, CA 94.568 Attn.: Ms, Katherine Davem Project: 268.A.01 Geltert Dear Katherine, Aitached is our repod for your samples ~eceived on Monday February 5, 2001 'fhis repofl has been reviewed and approved for release. Reproduction of this report is permitted only in its entirety. Please note that any unused podion of the samples will be discarded after March 22, 2001 unless you have requested otherwise. We appreciaie the opportunity to be cf service to you. If you have any questions, please call me at (925) 484-1919. You can also contact me via email. My email address is: vvancit@¢hromatab.com Sincerely, Vincent Vancil Prjnl~d [,n: 02!07/2001 10:39 1220 Qu-m/Lane ' P]eassnton, CA 94566-4756 'fel~phone: (~25) 484-1919 ' Facsimile: (925) 484-1096 CA DHS ELAP¢:1096 Ps.ce 1 of 1 ..- 119 STL Chrom ,..ab [ n,.4ronme nra} Services HE N~HAN Hexers. lan! Chromium ASSOC'~ A-f ES PAGE BE;Ii 8 Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Hen~.haw Assoclales ~ 11875 Dublin Blvd, Suite A-2O0 Dublin. CA 9,~568 Attn: Katherine D~yem Phcne: (925') 551-7272 Fax: (925) 551-'7464 Project ¢~: 268.A_01 Project: Oellert Sample~ Reported S~mple ID Metri× Date Sampled Lab # RS-1,2,3-1 Soil 02/05/200'1 1 RS-1,2,3-4 Soil 02/05/2001 2 Printed un: 0210712001 10:23 1220 Quarry Lane * Pleasenlon, CA 94586-4756 'Telephone: (925) 464-1919 ' Facsimile: (925) 464-1096 Page 1 of 5 120 i STL Chrom ,..ab E nv~ronmenl~l ;,~rvi£e~ ICA, Attn.: Kathedn~ D~yem Sarqple ID: R$-1,2,~-1 P.~oi~ct: 268.A.01 G~llerl S~mpled: 02/0512001 Matrix: Soil Submission I~: 2001432-0063 Chromium '~ est t~e~ho6: 7 ~, 96A Prep MEthod; 71 e6A soil Lab Sample ID: 200'i-02-00~3-091 RecEived: 0210512001 17:50 Extracted: 02/06/2001 15:09 OC-~tch: 2001/02/06-01.31 Chromium IHe%8¥b~ef~t) ND ' ' 0.~0 m§/Kg 1.00 02/06/2001 15:30 Prlnled on: 02107~2001 10:23 1220 Ouarr~ Lene ' Plsasanton, GA g,~566-4't56 'Telephone: (g25I, 484-1I~1g ' FecWmiI,.: (925) 484.1098 Page 2 o'~ 5 ,.. 121 i S'I-L Chroma"ab HENSHA~ He×avalent Chromium PAGE 16/18 Submission ¢; 2001..02-0063 .lest Method: 7196A Prep Method: 7196A soil Sample ID: RS-1,2,3-4 Pr.o jeer 268,A.01 Gelled Sampled: 02/05/2001 Matrix: Soil Compound Result Lab Sample ID: 2001-02-0063-002 Received: 02/05/2001 17:50 Extr¢cted: QC-Batch: 02/06/2001 15:09 2001.I02J06-01.31 Rep. Limit Units', Dilution Analyzed ¢'lag Chremlum (Hexavalent) ND 0 20 mg/K9 1.00 02106/2001 15:30 Printed on: 02/0712001 10:23 1220 Quarry Lane ' Pleasanton, CA 94566-4756 Telephone: (925) 484-1919 ' Fac~;imile: {925) 484-109§ P~ge 3 of $ ..... 1,,2 IS 2B/20B~ ]5:49 S2555~7dB4 HENSHA~ ASBOCSATES PAGE , STL Chroma",_ab En',4ronm~otal Services (CA 1094) Submission #: 2001-02-0063 To; Henshaw Associates lest Method: 7196A Atm.: Katherine Dsyem Prep Method: 7196Asoil Batch QC Report Hexavalent Chromium Method Blank Soil QC Batch # 2001/02/06.01.31 MB: 2001/02106-01.31-001 Date Exlracted: 02/0612001 15:30 .... Co~'Z~r~ci ........................... R'~'~uit ..... 'Rep',[i'~"i't ............... 'O'~i'i'-~ .......... ~,r;al~;~ed ....... ~,l'ag' · Chromium (Hexavalent) ND 0.2 mglKg 02/0612001 15:30 Printed on: 02/0712001 10:23 1220 Quarry Lane ' Pleasanton, CA 94566,.4756 Telephone: (925) 484-1919 ' Fecsimile: (925) 484.1096 Page 4 of ~ 1,,3 1 iS'fL Chroma"'ab HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE Submission Cf: 2001-02-0065 E nGronmental Servlces (CA 1094) 'fo: Henshaw Assoc~ate~ Test Method: T19'eA ~,ttn; Katherine Dayem Prep Method: 7196A soll ~atch QC Report Nexav~lent Chforr~ium LaboJatory Control ,Spike (LCS/LCSD) Soil OC Batch # 2001i02106-01.31 LCS: 2001/02/06-01.31-002 Extrscled: 02/06,'2001 15:30 Analyzed 02/06,'2001 15:30 LCSD: 2001/02/06-01.31-003 Extracted: 02/06/2001 15:30 Analyzed 02/D6/2D01 15:30 Compound Con(;. [ rog/Kc ] · Exp Conc. [ mg/Kg'] Recovery [%] RPO Cld. Limits [%] Flags i LCS · LCSD LCS LCSD LCS LCSD [%] R~¢cvery RFC) LCS LCSD Chromium (Hcxav~lent} 2.10 2.10 2.0 2.0 105.0 '~05.0 0.0 60-120 20 Prinled on; 02/0712001 10:23 1220 Ouarry L~ne ' Ple~santon, CA 94566-4756 Telephone: ([~25) 484.1919 ' Facsimile: [g25) 484.1096 Page 5 of 5 .. STL Chroma,..ab Environmental 5¢rvices (CA 1094) HENSHAW ~ESOC] ~TES P~GE 13/18 Submission #: 2001 HenshawAssociates g_~ 11875 Dublin ENd, SuiteA-200 Dublin, CA 94568 Attn: Katherine Dayem Phone: (925') 551-7272 F~x: (525') 551-7464 Project ~: 268.A.01 Project: Gelled Semple$ Reported Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Lab # R S- 1,2,3-1 Soil 02/05/200'1 1 . ._Es.: ! .,2_,~.:.4. ............................................................. _s_o!l .............. o_2./_9.s_L/.2.0_0..! ............ _2 ......... Printed on: 0210712001 10:24 1220 Ouarr~ Lane ' Plee.~enlon, CA ~4566-4756 Telephone:, 9251 484.1919 ' Facsimile: (92.5) 484-1096 Page 1 of 5 .... 125 ]]/29/2881 ]5:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE la/lB STL Chroma-ab Environmental Services (CA 1094) TO; Hen~haw A~sociale$ Attn,: Katherine Dayem Submission #: 2001-02-0063 T¢.~t Method: 6010B Prep Method: 3050B Metals Sample ID: R8-1,2,3-'1 Pr.oject: 268.A.01 Gelled Sampled: 02/05/2001 Matrix: Soil Lab Sample ID: 2001-02-0063.001 Received; 02/05/2001 17:50 E×trscted: QC-Batch; 02/0612001 06:18 200110:,/06-02.15 Compound Arsen c ' ND I 0 rr, glKg ~ 1.00 02/06/2001 15:54 Prlr, led on; 02/07,c',001 ~0;24 1220 Ouerry Lone * Pleasanton, CA ,94556-4755 Telephpne: f925} 484-1919 ' Facsimile: (925) ,~84-1096 Page 2 of 5 1£6 STL Chroma,'ab Envircnm~ntal Services (CA 1094) 'fo: Henshnw Associates Attn.: Kalher~ne Dayem HENSHAN AS50C] AWES PAGE 15 / 18 Submission #: 2001-02-0063 -rest Method: 6010B Prep Method: 3050B S~mple ID: R$-1,2,3-4 Prgjecl: 268.A.01 Sampled: 02/05/2001 Mstrix: Soil Compound Result Lab Sample ID: 2001-o2-0063-002 - Recek, ed: 02/05/2001 17:50 E×trsded: QC-Batch: Rep. Limit Units 02/06/2001 06:18 2001/02/06-02.15 Dilution Analyzed Flag Arsenic ND 1.00 02/06/2001 15:57 10:24 1220 Quarry Lane ' Ple~.,santon, CA 94566-4756 'Telephone: (925)484-1919 ' FacsimiLe: (925} 484-1096 Pa§e 3 of 5 127 STL Chroma,..ab E nv;r~nmentel Services (CA 10~) TO: Henshaw Associates At~.: Katherine Deyem Batch OC Reporl Metals Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Method: 6010B Prep Method: 3050B Method Elank Soil QC Batch # 2001/02/06-02.15 ' MB: 2001/02/06-02,15-023 Date Exlracted: 02/06/2001 06:18 Arsenic ND 1.0 rog/Kg 02/06/2001 14:56 PHntecl on: [~2J07/2001 10:24 1220 Quarry Lene ° Pleasanton, CA 94566,4756 Telephone; (925) a84,1919 ' Fecsimile: (925) 484-109(I Page 4 of 5 ]~/28/2B0~ ]5:4~ S2555~74B4 HENSHA~ ASSOC~ATES PAGE STL Chroms._ab En,,4ronmental Service~, (CA 1094) 70: Henshaw Associates Attn: Katherine Dsyem l~atch QC Report Metals Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Melhod: 6010B Prep Method; 3050B L~bof~tory Control Spike (LCStLCSD) Soil QC Batch # 2001/02106-02.1§ 'LCS: 2001/02/06-02.15-024 Extracted: 02/06/2001 06;18 Analyzed 02/06/2001 14;59 LCSD: 2001/02/06-02.15-025 Extraded: 02/06/2001 06:18 Analyzed 02/06/2001 15:03 LCS LCSD LCS LCSD LCS LCSD [%] .Recovery RPD LCS LCSD Ar~emc 10,5 107 100.0 100.0 105.0 107.0 1.9 80-120 20 Printed on': 02/07/2001 10:24 1:220 Quarry Lane ' Pleasanlon, CA 94566-4756 Telephone: (925) 484-1919 ' Facsimile: (925) 484-1096 Pege 5 of 5 .. 129 Geller' EXHIBIT C Westborough Design Policy Amendtnent Text Amendments: Westborough Guiding Policy 3.11-G-l: "Maintain the established land use pattern of Westborough, and r-equce encourage new development to meet specified urban design and steep slope conservation criteria." Text Amendments: Westborough Implementing Policy 3.11-I-2: "Require Encourage all new development and any rehabilitation of the existing developments along the Gellert Boulevard north of Westborough/Gellert to adhere substantially comply to with the Urban Design Plan dated October 23, 1991. Undertake a design review of any proposal in the area for conformance consistency with the recommendations and guidelines contained in the plan. Exceptions may be made to exempt minor projects from this requirement if such proposals do not conflict with the overall goals of the Urban Design Plan and are found to further goals of the City's General Plan, subject to approval of the City Council." 131