Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 98-2001-" RESOLUTION NO. 98-2001 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-99-61/MOD2 AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEIR- 99-61/MOD 1 FOR THE EAST OF 101 PLANNING AREA WHEREAS, on January 4, May 17, and July 19, 2001, and August 2, 2001, the Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions and public hearings to consider the City of South San Francisco General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq. of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city which bears a reasonable relationship to the planning and development of the city; and, WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with state law and the guidelines of the State Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan's Transportation Element identifies future transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further integrate a multi-modal transportation system that encourages transit, meets the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, and programs to help reduce transportation impacts; and, WHEREAS, Policy 4.2-1-6 in the South San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element requires that the City update the Transportation Element, if necessary, including a list of improvements, upon completion of the East of 101 Traffic Study; and, WHEREAS, since 1998, the City has been working with a transportation consultant to prepare a detailed traffic study for the East of 101 Area; and, WHEREAS, the objective of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment is to implement the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: updating traffic projections for the East of 101 Area, identifying specific street improvements, identifying transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area, enhancing street capacity, and providing new linkages to integrate a multi-modal transportation system; and, WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the South San Francisco City Council certified the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of the South San Francisco General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on April 24, 2001 and ending on June 7, 2001. Public notice of the availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies. In addition, all persons who had requested notification were mailed a notice; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearing, which responses clarify, amplify, and make minor corrections to the information contained in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments were published in the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2, 2001, and were distributed to or otherwise made available to the City Council, the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heating on May 17, 2001, on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). The Planning Commission received written and oral comments on the DEIR from the public, responsible agencies, and other governmental and private organizations; and, WHEREAS, staff reports, dated May 17, 2001, July 19, 2001, and August 2, 2001, incorporated herein by reference, were prepared for distribution to the Planning Commission for review, which reports describe and analyze the SEIR and the General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, on August 2, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment and Certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including: 1) the General Plan adopted in 1999 and environmental documents supporting the General Plan; 2) the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2001; 3) the staff reports and documents submitted at the August 30, 2001, Study Session; 4) the environmental documents and staff reports submitted at the September 26, 2001, duly noticed public heating of the City Council; and, 5) the proposed General Plan Amendment and Supplemental Environmental Impact report related thereto: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan and certification of the South San Francisco General Plan EIR on October 13, 1999, included findings that addressed significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the South San Francisco General Plan Update and measures to mitigate those impacts. All findings from the October 13, 1999 heating are hereby restated in their entirety and incorporated herein by reference to support adoption of the General Plan amendment. 2. The General Plan Amendment, which includes revisions to policies in the Land Uses Element and Transportation Element, is internally consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The General Plan Amendment includes policies and programs that are designed to reduce congestion impacts and provide a framework for requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels of service from being reached. Specifically, the General Plan Amendment updates the policies and goals in the General Plan. Analysis: The policies and programs proposed in the General Plan Amendment substantially reduce congestion impacts and provide the framework for requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels of service from being reached. With the street improvements provided in the proposed Amendment, street segments in the East of 101 Planning Area that were projected to experience congested conditions (LOS C or worse) would have reduced V/C levels. Thus, congested conditions would not occur at these locations. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not change the land use classification, approved uses or increase the approved density in the East of 101 Area over that analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Analysis: The proposed amendments implement the policies and objectives of the General Plan. Policy 2-1-4 is revised to require projects seeking an FAR bonus to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage pursuant to the TDM Ordinance. The amendments also revise policy S-I-4a to implement a design review process for those projects seeking an FAR bonus. The proposed amendments also address the results of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study and identify street improvements in the area that, when constructed, will further policy 4-2-1-6 by improving mobility in the area. The General Plan Amendment does not result in an intensification of use or increased development densities but rather implements policies and objectives of the General Plan by providing a means of addressing traffic congestion through the use of reduced parking standards, the TDM Ordinance and assessment of developer impact fees to fund necessary capital improvements to accommodate traffic generated by new development in the East of 101 Area. o o A Notice of Preparation was prepared on December 8, 2000, published in a newspaper of general circulation, and mailed to responsible agencies, public agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, and other interested parties. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, dated April 2001, was prepared for the General Plan Amendment. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 1993081040); and Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and as required by Public Resources Code section 21081~, the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance Supplemental Environmental Impact Report included findings that addressed significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and measures to mitigate those impacts. Additionally, no impacts were identified that were specific to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. As a result, no findings are required by CEQA for environmental compliance on the Ordinance. Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision and its findings are based are located at the Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco in the custody of Chief Planner, Thomas C. Sparks. XAll references are to sections of the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: The City Council hereby adopts GPA-99-6 I/MOD 2 and 1 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. o The City Council hereby certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR-99-61/MOD attached hereto as Exhibit B and C and incorporated herein by reference. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held on the 26th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Karyl Matsumoto and John R. Penna, Mayor Pro Tem Eugene R. Mullin and Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ATTEST: City EXHIBIT A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT " Chapter 2 Land Uses Table 2.2-2 on page 37 should be amended as follows: Table 2.2-2: Development Intensity Bonus Standards Land Use Designation Base Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Total Floor Maximum Area Maximum Spccific Structur Off- Other FAR Ratio Attainable Transport ed xitc Specified (FAR) FAR with ~" ~.,~;~'~ Parking L,,~.,T .... v Design TDM Demand va Standards~ Program Manageme merits nt (TDM) standards Office 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 2.5 Business 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 Commercial Business and 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 Technology Park Hotels 1.2 0.6 0:4 0.2 0.2 1.0 Mixed Industrial 0.4 -- - 0.2 - 0.6 At least 80% of the parking must be structured. ~Discretionary, based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon review by the Planning Commission Revise Policy 2-I-4 on pages 58-59 as follows: 2.I 4 Examine the potential for establishing specific criteria to implement development intensity bonus standards, as established in Table 2.2 3. Elements of this include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) standards, off site improvements, and design standards to be elaborated upon in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, incentives to promote structured parldng for the Office district should also be established. 2-I-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved. The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved. S-I-4a 2. Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2,2- Chapter 4 Transportation Amend Policy 4.2-G-7 on page 148 to read as follows: 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees. Amend Policy 4.2-1-6 on page 153 to read as follows: 4.2 I 6 Update the Transportation Element, if so necessary, including list of improvements, upon completion of the East of 101 traffic study. Improvement proposals for the area, including Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue and a new interchange at Victory Avenue extension/U.S. 101, are being examined as part of the traffic study. 4.2-I-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 area. The East of 101 traffic study, prepared by the city in April 2001, identifies improvements that would result in better traffic flow and a reduction of congestion during peak hours. The following improvements have been proposed and evaluated: Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 Southbound Hook Ramp(s) Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound off-ramp Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way and East Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue Harbor Way Mitchell Avenue Amend Policy 4.2-1-7 on page 153 to read as follows: 4.2-1-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the East of 101 and Lindenville areas. Feasibility of an impact fee for the East of 101 area is being assessed as part of the area traffic study that is currently underway. 4.2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. Amend Policy 4.3-1-8 on page 162 to read as follows: 4.3-I-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element; Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses; Requirements for off site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development; Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip reduction goals; and _ Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. _ Establishment of additional requirements for projects seeking a FAR bonus. _ An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. Reduced parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program i-n proximity to fixed guide way transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. Amend Policy 4.3-I-11 on page 163 to read as follows: 4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed use developments; and Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. See also Section 2.2 and the Land Use Classifications. Amend Policy 4.3-1-12 on page 164 to read as follows: 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include reduce minimum parking requirements based on proximity for projects promixate to transit stations and development intensity. for projects implementing a TDM program. Periodically examine t4:hese standards should be examined as transit service changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are provided. EXHIBIT B DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (A copy of the Draft SEIR was provided to the Planning Commission on May 11, 2001) South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental to South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR; SCH NO. 97122030) SCH NO. 1993081040 APRIL 2001 la Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Approach .................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.3 Documents incorporated by reference ............................. ~ ...................................... 1-5 1.4 Organization of the Supplemental EIR ................................................................... 1-7 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 2-3 2.3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 2-7 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Reasons for the Project ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Components of the Project ...................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Location and Planning Boundaries ......................................................................... 3-7 3.4 Background and Context ....................................................................................... 3-10 3.5 Objectives of General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance .......................... 3-11 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 4-1 4.1 Environmental Issues that Are not impacted ......................................................... 4-2 4.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 4-45 4.5 Biological resources ................................................................................................ 4-55 Impact Overview ............................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .................................................. 5-1 5.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................... 5-3 5.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-4 5.5 Impacts Found Not To Be Significant .................................................................... 5-5 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Alternative A: No Project, Current General Plan ................................................... 6-7 6.3 Alternative B: Initially Proposed Physical Improvements ................................... 6-12 6.4 Alternative C: Moderate TDM Program ............................................................... 6-15 6.5 Alternative D: Moderate TDM Program with Physical Improvements .............. 6-16 Table of Contents 6.6 Alternative E: Intense TDM Program ................................................................... 6-21 6.7 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................... 6-22 6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................. 6-27 7 Report Authors, Organizations and Persons Consulted ............................................. 7-1 7.1 Report Preparation ................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Consulting Team ...................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Organizations and Persons Consulted .................................................................... 7-2 Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) ........................................................................ A- 1 Appendix B: Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ..................................... B- 1 Appendix C: General Plan Amendment ............................................................................. C- 1 Appendix D: C/CAG TDM Program .................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E: Total Delay ..................................................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: Acronyms and Glossary ................................................................................. F-1 Appendix G: Traffix Software Output ................................................................................ G-1 (A copy of Appendix G may be requested from the Planning Department at 315 Maple Avenue.) Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES 3.1-1 3.3-1 3.3-2 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.3-1 4.3-2 4.3-3 4.3-4 4.3-5 4.4-1 4.5-1 4.5-2 4.5-3 6.1-1 6.2-1 6.3-1 6.5-1 Location of Proposed Street Improvements .......................................................... 3-4 Regional Location .................................................................................................... 3-8 Planning Area .......................................................................................................... 3-9 Planning Sub-Areas ................................................................................................ 4-9 Approved Projects ................................................................................................. 4-11 Existing Volumes ................................................................................................... 4-17 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements ......................................... 4-25 Caltrain and ALRS Connection Alterantives ....................................................... 4-27 Caltrain and BART Shuttles .................................................................................. 4-29 Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Project ......................................................... 4-39 California Air Basins ............................................................................................. 4-49 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 4-56 Historic Shoreline and Marshland ...................................................................... 4-57 Ecologically Sensitive Lands and Special Status Species ..................................... 4-60 Congestion Management Program Network ......................................................... 6-3 Current General Plan Alternative ........................................................................... 6-9 Initially Proposed Physical Improvements .......................................................... 6-14 Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative ............................. 6-19 Table of Contents [This page was intentionally left blank.] iv Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1.2-1: Scope of Significant Impact Analysis Based on Supplemental EIR Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 1-4 Table 2.2-1 :Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................. 2-3 Table 3.1-1: Proposed Improvements ................................................................................. 3-2 Table 4.2-1: Approved Development by Sub-area, October 2000 ................................... 4-10 Table 4.3-1: Mode Split in South San Francisco ............................................................... 4-14 Table 4.3-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Definitions ...................................................... 4-20 Table 4.3-3: Stop-controlled Intersection LOS Definitions ............................................. 4-20 Table 4.3-4: Existing Conditions LOS ............................................................................... 4-22 Table 4.3-5: Approved Development Traffic Generation ................................................ 4-32 Table 4.3-6: Potential Development Traffic Generation By Sub-Area ................... : ....... 4-33 Table 4.3-7: Potential Development Traffic Generation - Brisbane ............................... 4-34 Table 4.3-8: Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................ 4-35 Table 4.3-9 Committed Improvements and Proposed Improvements .......................... 4-37 Table 4.3-10: Comparison of the Intersection Operations of the No Project to the Proposed Project ................................................................................................................. 4-41 Table 4.4-1: San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary, 1998-1999 Arkansas Street Monitoring Station ............................................................................................................. 4-46 Table 4.4-2: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment/Nonattainment Designations ........................................................................................................................ 4-47 Table 4.4-3: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Days Over Standard ..............................4-47 Table 4.4-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Percent Contribution by Source Category .................................................................................................................. 4-48 Table 4.4-5: Local, County, and Regional Emissions Estimates, 2000 ............................4-50 Table 4.4-6: Total Delay in No Project versus Proposed Project .................................... 4-52 Table 4.5-1: Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the East of 101 area in South San Francisco ...................................................................... 4-59 Table 5.2-1: Traffic Distribution .......................................................................................... 5-2 Table 6.1-1: Comparison of the Alternatives ...................................................................... 6-4 Table 6.2-1: Mode Split in No Project Alternative ............................................................. 6-7 Table 6.2-2: Committed Projects ........................................................................................ 6-8 Table of Contents Table 6.3-1: Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Scenario Improvements ......... 6-12 Table 6.4-1: Standard Base TDM Program ....................................................................... 6-15 Table 6.5-1: Physical Improvements ................................................................................. 6-16 Table 6.6-1: Mode Split Under The Intense TDM program ............................................ 6-21 Table 6.7-1: Number of Intersections with Unacceptable Traffic Operations ............... 6-22 Table 6.7-2: Intersection Operations ................................................................................. 6-23 Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the No Project and Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Proposed Proiect ..................................................... 6-25 Table 6.7-5: Total Vehicle Delay at Study Intersections (AM + PM Peak Hours) ........ 6-27 I Introduction An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a document that informs decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental impacts of a project. The California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the agency with primary responsibility over the ap- proval of a project (the lead agency) evaluate the project's potential impacts in an EIR. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates reasonable al- ternatives to the proposed project. A required "no-project" alternative discusses the result of not implementing the project or reasonable alternatives. An environmentally superior alternative is identified as part of the process. This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report evaluates the probable effects of the General Plan Amendment to the South San Francisco General Plan and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. No land use changes are proposed as part of this project. Com- ments generated from public review of this document will be used to revise the Supplemental EIR and to prepare the Final EIR (FEIR). Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco I. I PURPOSE The General Plan Amendment to the South San Francisco General Plan implements policies from the Transportation Element. Specifically General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 states "Update the Transpor- tation Element, if necessary, including a list of improvements, upon completion of the East of 101 traffic study." The Element also encourages the City to promote a Transportation Demand Man- agement program. General Plan Policy 4.3-I-8 requires the City to adopt a TDM program or or- dinance which includes a methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses, procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses, re- quirements for off-site improvements, and reduced parking requirements. The information con. rained in this EIR is intended to assist the City of South San Francisco Plan- ning Commission and the City Council in reviewing and acting on the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. I-2 Chapter I: lntroduction 1.2 APPROACH This Supplemental EIR evaluates the probable effects of policies included in the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. This Supplemental EIR is intended to be used together with the 1999 General Plan EIR to meet CEQA requirements. South San Francisco, the lead agency for the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance will use this Supplemental EIR, together with the 1999 Draft and Final EIR, in its review of the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance prior to their adoption. The Supplemental EIR does not repeat all the information and analysis contained in the Draft and Final EIRs prepared on the General Plan. Instead, as allowed by the CEQA Guidelines (§15163(b)), this supplement will contain only those changes that are needed to make the previous EIR adequate for the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. Taken together, this Supplemental EIR and the 1999 General Plan EIR are intended to address the im- pacts of the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance fully and adequately. Thus, this Sup- plemental EIR takes a two-step approach to the various topics. 1) Where information represented in the General Plan EIR is adequate, or no change in impacts is expected as a result of the General Plan Amendment, no changes to the 1999 General Plan EIR are made. For example, because this project focuses on the East of 101 area where no noise-sensitive receptors exist, noise is not ana- lyzed in this EIR. 2) Where changes in the General Plan EIR are needed to respond to impacts resulting from the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance, changes to the General Plan EIR setting, impacts or mitigation measures--as appropriate and pertinentqare made. For ex- ample, changes in the list of transportation improvements in the East of 101 Area would result in changes in future travel patterns. Thus, this Supplemental EIR updates the setting discussion of impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Table 1.2-1 outlines the sections that contain changes and the sections that do not contain changes. This Supplemental EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR. As allowed by the CEQA Guidelines (§15168), a Program EIR can be used where a "series of actions...can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1 ) geographically, 2) as logical parts in the chain of contem- plated actions, 3) in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways." The Program EIR approach allows the lead agency to look at the broad, regional effects of a program of actions before its adoption and eliminates redundant or contradictory approaches to the consideration of regional and cumula- tive effects. When South San Francisco is ready to decide whether to approve the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance, it must consider this Supplemental EIR in conjunction with the General Plan EIR and must issue findings pursuant to 5}15091 for each significant effect shown in the pre- vious EIR as revised. (CEQA Guidelines, §15163, (e).) I-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 1.2-I: Scope of Significant Impact Analysis Based on Supplemental EIR Requirements Supplemental EIR Significant Impact Topics Land Use Urban Design and Aesthetics Transportation Air Quality Noise Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Facilities Flooding, Hazardous Materials, and Emergency Response Police and Fire Protection Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Schools Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Hydrology and Water Quality Biological Resources Cu Itu ral Resources Telephone, Cable, Natural Gas, and Electricity Changes No Changes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I-4 Chapter I: Introduction 1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE CEQA Guidelines §15150 states that an EIR may "incorporate by reference all or portions of an- other document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public." Incor- porated documents could be briefly summarized in the EIR and be made available to the public for inspection or reference. This Supplemental EIR incorporates by reference the documents noted below, which are available at the City of South San Francisco Planning Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNING ISSUES, SEPTEMBER 1997 The Existing Conditibns Report was used as one primary database for development of the Gen- eral Plan. It also serves as the base for existing conditions in the General Plan EIR. Summaries of the appropriate topics in the Existing Conditions Report are provided in the environmental set- ting sections for each of the environmental issues under review in Chapter 4 of the General Plan EIR and the settings were updated and summarized for this Supplemental EIR. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, OCTOBER 1999. The South San Francisco General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council that serves sev- eral purposes: · Outline a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic develop- ment and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community; · Provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be ac- complished; · Establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; · Allow City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environ- mental resources, and minimize hazards; and · Provide the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implement- ing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. The General Plan articulates a vision for the City, but it is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. Plan policies focus on what is concrete and achievable and set forth actions to be un- dertaken by the City. The Plan is both general and long-range. This project is directly implements policies from this General Plan. Additionally, the policies from the General Plan will be used to mitigate any potential impacts from this project. I-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, JUNE 1999. This EIR evaluates the probable effects of policies in the South San Francisco General Plan Up- date. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Comments generated from public review of this document were used to revise the Draft EIR and to prepare the FEIR. This Supplemental EIR will update the information from the 1999 Draft EIR to incorporate any changes that have occurred since its publication of this EIR. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SEPTEMBER 1999. Written and oral comments received during the 45-day review period for the DEIR are addressed in this Response to Comments Document that, together with the DEIR constitutes the Final EIR for the General Plan. The Draft EIR identified two impacts of the project that would be significant and unavoidable. These are in the areas of transportation and air quality. After considering and responding to all of the comments submitted on the DEIR, the Final EIR still concludes that both of these impacts are significant and unavoidable. I-6 Chapter I: Introduction 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR The Supplemental EIR consists of seven chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter describes the purpose, approach, and organization of this Supplemental EIR. Chapter 2: Executive Summary. This chapter summarizes this Supplemental EIR. Chapter 3: The Project Description. This chapter includes a project description that lists the trans- portation improvements included in the General Plan Amendment and outlines proposed changes to the Transportation Element and other elements of the General Plan. It also includes four alternatives, including the Current General Plan (No Project Alternative), Alternative A: Maximum Physical Improvements, Alternative B: Moderate TDM, Alternative C: Moderate TDM with additional improvements, and Alternative D: Aggressive TDM. An Environmentally superior alternative is identified. Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. Impacts are organized by major topic. Each topic area iacludes a description of the environmental setting, thresholds of significance, impacts and mitigation measures. Policies in the General Plan or Gen- eral Plan Amendment that would avoid or reduce the impacts are also discussed. Chapter 5: Impact Overview. This chapter presents an overview of major impacts of the project. Unavoidable, irreversible, growth-inducing, and cumulative impacts are summarized, as required by CEQA. Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives. This chapter analyzes the alternatives that were considered during this project and explains why the alternatives and related mitigation measures would not be preferable to the proposed project. Chapter 7: Report Preparers and Agencies Contacted. This chapter lists the preparers of the EIR and the persons contacted in its preparation, as required by CEQA. Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) Appendix B: Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation Appendix C: General Plan Amendment Appendix D: C/CAG TDM Program Appendix E: Total Delay Appendix F: Acronyms and Glossary Appendix G: Traffix Software Output t-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco [This page was intentionally left blank.] I-8 2 Executive Summary The Supplemental EIR evaluates the potential probable impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency with primary responsibility over the approval of the proposed project. As such, the City is required under CEQA to evaluate the project's potential impacts. As a Supplemental EIR to the General Plan EIR, only changes and updates to the General Plan EIR are included. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. The General Plan Amendment will include a set of policies to implement the East of 101 traffic study and a TDM ordinance. The TDM ordinance will require a 35 percent alternative mode usage for all new development, and an additional increase in alternative mode usage above 35 percent for developments that have requested an increased (Floor Area Ratio) FAR. The TDM ordinance will be incorporated into the City's Zoning Code. Both components of the project directly implement policies from the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance will have a significant beneficial impact on air quality and transportation compared to the existing General Plan, No Project scenario. With the proposed physical improvements and TDM program only five of the study intersections will have an unacceptable level of service, whereas 14 of the study intersections will be at unacceptable levels of service under the No Project Alternative. The potential negative impacts to biological resources are minimal and have been successfully mitigated to a less than significant level. An EIR is intended to inform decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental impacts of a project. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that may reduce or avoid one or more significant environmental effects. These alternatives must include a "No Project" alternative that discusses the result of not implementing the project or reasonable alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. This EIR is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementation of the General Plan Amendment and the TDM ordinance. Physical improvements and other projects that are made possible by the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance will be subject to individual, site-specific environmental review, as required by State law. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The project analyzed in this Supplemental EIR consists of the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. In order to study the East of 101 area thoroughly, a traffic study was completed and the results conclude that both physical improvements and a TDM program will need to be implemented to reduce congestion and improve mobility in the East of 101 area. These results are consolidated into a General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. The General Plan Amendment contains the policies that implement the East of 101 traffic study and TDM ordinance. The TDM ordinance will be incorporated into the City's Zoning Code. A more detailed description of the project is in Chapter 3. 2-2 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 2.2 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2.2-1 presents the summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified in this Supplemental EIR. Because this project will have many beneficial impacts, mitigation measures are necessary for only a few impacts. The policies from the General Plan mitigate the remaining impacts. The significance of each impact is also shown in Table 2.2-1 and rated as "less than significant" (that is, less than significant as measured against significant criteria established for each area of impact), "potentially significant", "significant" or "beneficial." There are no residual impacts. Table 2.2- I :Su mma,ry of Impacts and Mitigation Pleasu res Environmental Impact 4.2 Land Use 4.2-a Street improvements could displace businesses. 4.2-b The General Plan Amendment or the TDM program could limit attainment of the General Plan Land Use Objectives. 4.3 Transportation 4.3-a Future development could cause an increase in traffic as compared to the No Project Alternative. Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan General Plan Policy Number 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations. 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including using development impact fees to pay for a share of improvements. 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hou rs. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: · There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and · The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. 4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of I 01 area. 4.2-1-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. Level of Significance aft. er Mitigation Less than Significant Beneficial Less than Significant 2-3 I! 1 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 2.2- I :Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measu res Environmental Impact 4.3-b The implementation of the East of 101 traffic study could fail to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development_ Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan General Plan Policy Number 4.34-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: · Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than I 0 peak period trips. · Establishment of additional requirements for projects seeking a FAR bonus. · An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TD M measu re are implemented. 4.3-G-I Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-1- I Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. 4.3.1-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-3 [Figure 4.3-4 of the DEIR] in the General Plan, and identi~ additional improvements that inclu de abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. 4.3-1-6 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 10 I, require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. 4.3.1-7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the surrounding and the rail stations - South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station. Components of the program should include: Level of Significance a~er Mitigation Less than Significant 2-4 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Table 2.2-I:Surnrnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact 4.4 Air Quality 4.4-a Development of these roadway projects cou Id resu It in construction- related air quality impacts. 4.4-b Development of the proposed roadway improvements could lead to increased physical emissions of ROG and NOx over the current General Plan. 4.5 Biological Resources 4.5-a The Proposed physical improvements cou Id affect sensitive habitats and special status plant and animal species. Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan General Plan Policy Number · Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; · Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; · Providing intersection "bulbing' to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; · Continuing with the City's cu trent policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and · Providing landscaping that encou rages pedestrian use. 7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines 7.3-G-I Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and state ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling. 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. 7. I -G- I Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. 7. I-G-2 Protect and where reasonable and feasible Level of Significance Mitigation Less than significant Beneficial Less than Significant 2-5 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 2.2-I:Su m mary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact 4.6-a The Proposed physical improvements could result in the reduction or degradation of common habitats and common wildlife species. Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan General Plan Policy Number restore saltmarshes and wetlands. 7.1-1- I Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7-2: Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals. 7.1-1-4 Require development on the wetlands delineated in [General Plan] Figure 7-2 to complete assessments of biological resources. 7. I-I-5 Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. Policies 7. I -G- I and 7. I-G-2 Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than Significant 2-6 Chapter 2: Executive Summary 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires EIRs to consider alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or minimize at least one of the impacts associated with the project. The alternatives must represent a reasonable range of different planning options. Each alternative and its associated impacts, relative to the proposed project, are briefly summarized in this section. A more detailed analysis is in Chapter 6. ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN (NO PROJECT) In the absence of the proposed project, the existing 1999 General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan would continue to guide the East of 101 area. This alternative provides a baseline comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would allow implementation of the physical improvements considered in the General Plan and would implement already committed projects. The City would still be guided by a TDM program required by C/CAG, however no additional TDM measures would be required. In the absence of the additional physical improvements provided in the General Plan Amendment and the new TDM program, the levels of service and delays worsen. The No Project alternative would impact both transportation and air quality to a greater extent than the proposed project. The City's goal as stated in the General Plan is to achieve a LOS D or better for all intersections. With the No Project alternative, 14 of the 38 intersections analyzed in the East of 101 area are at LOS E or F. The impact on air quality would be increased emissions of ozone precursors because of the poor LOS and increased delay times. ALTERNATIVE B: INITIALLY PROPOSED PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS The Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Alternative focuses on a set of improvements that were initially considered adequate for the East of 101 area. This alternative represents the first attempt at supplementing the physical improvements in the General Plan and the physical improvements that are already a part of committed projects. The only TDM program that would apply in this alternative is C/CAG's program. The LOS and delay times are not improved to adequate levels, resulting in transportation and air quality impacts. Fourteen of the 38 intersections analyzed in the East of 101 are at an LOS E or F. This alternative shows only minor improvement over the No Project Alternative for delay times. ALTERNATIVE C: MODERATE This alternative builds on previous alternatives and supplements those alternatives by implementing a moderate TDM program, achieving a 35 percent alternative mode usage (25 percent SOV trip elimination). All physical improvements discussed in Alternative B are implemented, excluding one intersection improvement. Implementing a TDM program achieves a much better LOS and improves delay times as compared to Alternatives A and B. The levels of service and delay times were improved in many of the intersections that were analyzed. However, 2-7 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 12 of the 38 intersections analyzed are still at LOS of E or F, which is far from the City's goal of achieving LOS of D or better for all intersections. ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDP! VVITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS This alternative builds on Alternative C by implementing all of the improvements and the same TDM program. This Alternative also supplements the physical improvements in Alternative C with additional improvements. With alternative D, five of the study intersections are improved to LOS D or better. ALTERNATIVE E: INTENSE TOM Alternative E also builds on previous alternatives by implementing the same physical improvements in Alternative C however this Alternative focuses on implementing an aggressive TDM program with a 45 percent alternative mode usage (35 percent SOV trip elimination). Most of the intersections analyzed in this alternative are at a worse LOS than was achieved in the Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative. With Alternative E, ten of the study intersections analyzed are at LOS E or F. ENVIRON MENTALLY SU PERI OR ALTERNATIVE The proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative. With the proposed project, an intense TDM program and intersection improvements will improve all but four of the 38 intersections analyzed to LOS D or better. This will mean that both transportation and air quality will improve significantly over the No Project Alternative. While biological resources have the potential to be impacted by the physical improvements in all of the alternatives, these improvements are unlikely to have a significant impact, if any, on the special status species and ecologically sensitive habitats in the East of 101 area. 2-8 3 Project Description The project analyzed in this Supplemental EIR is the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance. The reasons for the project and the components of the project are described below. 3.1 REASONS FOR THE PROJECT The 1999 General Plan identifies the need to study the traffic in the East of 101 Area and to implement a TDM ordinance. The following policies in the General Plan outline the need for the proposed General Plan Amendment, followed by explanations of how the proposed project implements these poiicies. 4.2-I-6 Update the Transportation Element, if necessary, including a list of improvements, upon completion of the East ofi01 traffic study. For the past year and one-half the Engineering Division has been working with a consultant to prepare a detailed traffic and fee study for the East of 101 Area. The scope of work for the project includes the following objectives: · Update traffic projections for the East of 101 Area. · Identify specific street improvements. Provide a fee structure to fund transportation improvements. The Transportation Element will be updated, including the following list of street improvements, resulting from the East of 101 traffic study. Table 3.1-1 lists the proposed street improvements and Figure 3.1-1 shows their location. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 3. I - I: Proposed Improvements No. Location Bayshore Blvd & US 101 SB Hook Ramp(s) 2 Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cit- ies/Oyster Point Blvd 3 Dubuque Ave & Oys- ter Point Blvd 4 Dubuque Ave & US I 01 Ramps 5 Gateway Blvd & Oys- None ter Point Blvd 6 Veterans Rd & Oyster None Point BIvd 7 Bay West Driveway & N one Oyster Point Blvd 8 Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 9 Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd 10 Marina BIvd & Oyster None Point Blvd II ** 12 Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SBoff- ramp 13 Airport Blvd & Grand Ave 14 Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave 15 Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave 16 Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd. 17 Grandview Dr & Grand Ave 18 Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Improvement Items Re-stripe the off-ramp right ~,rn lane to be an optional left/right turn lane. Widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to add I additional left turn lane. Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point Blvd to add I right turn lane making it a total of two 650' right-tu rn lanes lane to N B I 01 on-ramp Re-stripe EB oyster Point Blvd to change one of the through lanes to a shared through- right lane. None Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-tu rn lanes for the N B approach. Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one through/right-shared lane. n/a Widen SB 101 off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2nd left turn lane. Re-stripe to change the existing 101 SB off-ramp optional through/left lane into a through only lane. Re-stripe existing SB Airport Blvd~ right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and SB shared through/left lane to a left turn lane. Widen EB Grand Ave to add 2 left turn lanes; restripe the EB through/left shared lane to a through lane and EB right turn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3rd left-mm lane in the WB approach and restrict truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue Widen Grand Ave to improve the turning radius from WB Grand Avenue to NB Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. Re-stripe existing WB Grand Ave to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes Widen WB Grand Ave to add I additional through lane and I additional left turn lane. Widen SB Forbes Blvd to add I through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen NB Harbor Way to add I through lane, I right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a through lane. Signalize intersection Add I SB Grandview Ave. right turn lane; restripe EB East Grand Ave. to provide I left turn lane and I shared left/through lane. Widen WB Airport Bird to add one additional left-turn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. Modify NB Produce Ave to bring the SB 101 to EB Airport Blvd traffic to stop at the inter- seczion to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB Airport Blvd. 3-2 Chapter 3: Project Description 19 South Airport Widen EB Airport Blvd to add one additional right-turn lane; restripe the existing Blvd/Mitchell Avenue through/left shared lane to a through lane & Gateway Blvd Widen Mitchell Ave to add two additional through lanes and a right-turn lane. Widen SB Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane. 20 South Airport Blvd & Widen Airport Blvd to add one SB left turn lane; restripe one of the existing N B Airport Utah Ave Blvd through lanes to a shared through/right lane. * Railroad Avenue Construct a 4 lanes, 2 ways roadway within the existing UPRR right of way between Linden Ave and Gateway Blvd * Harbor Way Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Ave and Mitchell Ave. * Mitchell Avenue Widen Mitchell Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway with parking prohibition between Gateway Blvd and Harbor Way. * These street improvements are depicted on the map with gray shading. ** 11 is a dummy node is the Traffix Software. Source: CCS Planning & Engineering 3-3 Leqend O Study Intersection · -~ Existing 87(65) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Note: 0 is a future intersection related to a driveway 0 is a dummy node in the Traffix software analysis Shoreline Ct. BAY WEST COVE Grand Ave / ,~Mitchell Ave. East SAN FRANCISCO INTERNA770NAL AIRPORT ccs f PLANNING ~ND I~NGINEI~RING South San Francisco East of 101 Location of Street Improvements Figure 3.1-1 Chapter 3: Project Description 4.2-I-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on ser- vice levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements re- quired East of 101. As described above, the East of 101 traffic study also evaluated the need for an impact fee. An im- pact fee is included as part of the General Plan Amendment so that new development pays a fair share of the cost of street and other traffic improvements. 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of dear, overall public benefit. Without the street improvements included in the General Plan Amendment, and the TDM ordi- nance the LOS will worsen. (See Traffic Analysis Section 4.3) 4.3-I-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element; Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses: Requirements for off-site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development; · Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip-reduction goals; and Reduced parking requirements for projects in proximity to fixed-guide-way transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. A TDM ordinance will be incorporated into the Municipal Code. 3.2 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The General Plan Amendment consists of policies to implement the results of the traffic and fee study and policies to implement the TDM ordinance. Implementing these policies will enhance capacity, ease congestion and increase mobility in the East of 101 Area. The General Plan Amendment is included in Appendix C. Draft Supplemental Environmental Irnpoct Report for South Son Froncisco TDM ORDINANCE The General Plan also requires a TDM program to be adopted as an ordinance in the City's Municipal Code. The full TDM ordinance can be obtained from the City of South San Francisco Planning Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California. The highlights of the program are as follows: · Developers are provided with a list of required TDM measures and a list of additional measures from which they must supplement the required TDM measures. · All projects that generate more than 100 trips are required to achieve 35 percent alternative mode use. · Developers seeking to achieve a density bonus must implement TDM measures that achieve a higher alternative mode use. · The TDM Program is performance based. All developments will be required to monitor and report their success annually via an employee survey to be conducted by an independent third party. Developers must pay an annual fee to administer the TDM ordinance. Projects that sought an increased density bonus that fail to file an Annual Report, or fail to achieve stated TDM goals for more than one year, will be subject to financial penalties. · Developers must pass TDM requirements through a method that is agreed upon by the City and the Developer. 3-6 Chapter 3'. Project Description 3.3 LOCATION AND PLANNING BOUNDARIES RE Gl ON AL L OCATI ON The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including US 101, Interstates 1-280 and 1-380, the Union Pacific Railroad (formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) main line, and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 3.1-1. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES The planning area for the East of 101 Area Traffic Implementation Plan includes all land located east of US 101 and within the boundary of the City of South San Francisco. The planning area is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the east, San Bruno Mountain and the City of Brisbane of the north, and the San Francisco International Airport to the south. Figure 3.1-2 shows the East of 101 Area. 3-7 Francisco Linda Mar Mont~ra Ioraga ~Walnut CONTRA COSTA ALA 4 MILES Figure 3. I-2 Regional Location J ~ ' ' ~lv' ."~ ~ ,! .'! -- ~-. .' ~ .,,.,, .. , . ~, · ..., .... .~ ,,,, ~.,.-~., . _ ,.. ~ '. ,~ ..................... .,. · " ~ ~ , ~ San Bruno Canal ~ L;:~::::::::::" San Francisco Bay 0 1/4 1/2 MILES Figure 3. I-3 Planning Area Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 3.4 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area was originally developed with meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. In the post-war years the. City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research and development and biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the 72-acre Genentech campus, employing over 2,500 people at its 72- acre headquarters at the bayshore. While the East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active. Since the city's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. 3-10 Chapter 3: Project Description 3.5 OBJECTIVES OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TDM ORDINANCE Section § 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a description of project objectives. The objectives of the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance include the following: · Identify transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area. · Enhance capacity and provide new linkages to integrate a multi-modal transportation system. · Provide policies and specific implementing actions on the East of 101 traffic study and the TDM ordinance. · Achieve 35 alternative mode use for all new developments and higher alternative mode use when an FAR bonus is requested. · Achieve an LOS D or better on all intersections where feasible. The General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance implement policies from the General Plan and are a result of the East of 101 traffic study. The General Plan Amendment provides guiding policies on the implementation of the street improvements and the TDM ordinance. The TDM ordinance will be adopted into the City's Municipal Code. 3-11 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco [This page was intentionally left blank.] 3-12 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measu res This chapter contains the updated analysis of the impacts of the 1999 General Plan to reflect the TDM program and changes in the proposed 2000 General Plan Amendment. Rather than reproducing the full analysis contained in the 1999 General Plan EIR this updated analysis focuses on the changes needed to make the 1999 General Plan EIR reflect the changes that have occurred since the adoption of that EIR and the changes necessary to focus on the East of 101 area. Refer to the EIR and the Existing Conditions Report for a fuller description of the setting, impacts and mitigation measures adopted. The organization of this chapter parallels the order of Chapter 4 of the 1999 General Plan EIR. The environmental analysis assumes full implementation of the intersection improvements and the TDM program. This EIR does not consider interim development stages. This project directly implements the City's goals for decreasing congestion and increasing mobility in the East of 101 area. The East of 101 Traffic Study concluded a number of intersection improvements together with an aggressive TDM program would improve LOS and delay times in the East of 101 area. The General Plan Amendment establishes a policy framework for implementation of the transportation improvements and the TDM program. The TDM ordinance will be adopted into the municipal code. Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT ARE NOT IMPACTED Some of the detailed analysis of the environmental issues normally required by CEQA is excluded from this Supplemental EIR, because only those environmental issues that were potentially impacted by the project are analyzed. The following issues were not included in the detailed analysis of this project because the threshold of significance set out in the General Plan EIR for each environmental issue was not exceeded. URBAN DESIGN AND AESTHETICS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. · Substantial change to community character (for example, development type, open space pattern or substantial reduction in views). The proposed physical improvements are only minor street improvements to existing streets and therefore will not have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Additionally, these physical improvements will not substantially change community character. The East of 101 area consists predominantly of industrial and office uses; therefore, minor intersection improvements will not affect the existing character. NOISE Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: Exposure of existing noise-sensitive uses to exterior noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or more (as defined by current 65 dB CNEL contours), regardless of the source. Noise-sensitive uses include residential and public uses, such as schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and auditoriums. · Future development of noise-sensitive uses within current or projected 65 dB CNEL contours, regardless of the source. There are no noise sensitive uses, defined as residential, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals and auditoriums in the East of 101 area. Additionally, the General Plan does not propose any of these uses for the area. WATER, WASTEWATER, AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: 4-2 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures · Water demands that exceed available supply or distribution capacity. · Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources. · Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. · Contaminate a public water supply. · Wastewater flows that exceed collection and treatment capacity. · Solid waste levels that exceed available disposal capacity. The status of the water, wastewater and solid waste facilities will not be impacted by the physical improvements or the TDM program that compose this project. This project will not change the land uses and will therefore not affect water usage, generate wastewater or require the disposal and treatment of solid waste. FLOODING, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Increase exposure to 100- and 500-year flood hazards. · Generation of runoff that exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains. · Create a potential public health hazard or increase the exposure or risk of exposure of people to hazardous materials; or · Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The proposed physical improvements will not increase exposure to 100 flood hazards because the General Plan requires the following review under General Plan Policy: 8.2-1-2 Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the lO0-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3. More detailed studies will need to be conducted for each intersection to determine if increased runoff from the physical improvements will exceed the capacity of Planning Area storm drains. Nothing proposed in this project will create a potential public health hazard or increase the exposure or risk of exposure to people to hazardous materials. Additionally, the project is likely to have a positive impact on the response times of emergency vehicles because of the decreased delay times. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: 4-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco · Demand for police services exceeds availability. · Increase in exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards. · Demand for fire services exceeds availability. The proposed project will not create any new development and will therefore not generate a need for additional police or fire facilities. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE A significant impact would occur if it would result in: · A shortage of parks and open space facilities for new residents. The proposed physical improvements will not be built in any existing parklands and no new land uses are being designated with this project. Therefore, this project will not affect existing parkland and open space facilities. SCHOOLS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Generate student levels that exceed available or planned school capacity. There are no schools and no residential uses in the East of 101 area so this project will not impact schools. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including groundshaking and surface fault ruptures. · Increase susceptibility to geologic hazards, including expansive soils, landsliding, and differential settlement. This project will not expose people or property to seismic-related hazards, nor will it increase the susceptibility to geologic hazards, because this project is not proposing any new development. 4-4 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Substantial increase of nonpoint source pollution entering stormwater runoff and entering the regional storm drain system or surrounding water resources. · Substantial increase of construction-related erosion and sedimentation into surface waters. Nonpoint source pollution should be studied to a greater extent with the implementation of each physical improvement to determine if there will be any increased nonpoint source pollution. The following General Plan Policy will mitigate any potential issues: Z2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study. · Have a significant effect on archaeological resources and whether such resources are "unique" under the law. A "unique" archaeological resource is defined as follows (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g)): "An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: - Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; - Has a special and particular quality, such as oldest of its type or best available example of its type; and, - Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." No cultural resources have been identified in the East of 101 area; therefore, no resources will be affected by the proposed project. 4-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco TELEPHONE, CABLE, NATURAL GAS, AND ELECTRICITY Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur if it would result in one or more of the following: · Development that cannot be served with telephone, cable, natural gas, or electricity. · Energy demands in excess of available supply. This project will not create any additional development and therefore neither threshold will be exceeded with implementation of this project. 4-6 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.2 LAND USE ENVIRON MENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The 1999 DEIR found no significant land use impacts. This chapter of the supplement EIR also found no new significant impacts. Since adoption of the General Plan, several new development projects have been approved and are discussed in the settings discussion below. Planning Sub-areas The East of 101 area was divided into four sub-areas to observe geographic trends in land use. The sub-areas were defined based on the ,types of uses, transportation routes, redevelopment plans or other plans within the area, and the types of change that may be occurring. Figure 4.2-1 shows the sub-areas into which die city has been divided for planning purposes. · East of 101. This area primarily houses commercial uses, light industry, and warehousing and many of South San Francisco's business parks, including the 95-acre Genentech campus. Gateway. This area is comprised of the Gateway Specific Plan/Redevelopment area. The area is being developed with a mixture of business parks, high-rise offices, R&D, and visitor services. All of the vacant lots have development proposals under construction. · Oyster Point. The Oyster Point Marina and Business Park were constructed on fill in the 1960s and were central to South San Francisco's post-industrial development strategy. The area also contains the Shearwater site, for which a mix of office, hotel and retail uses is being planned and the Sierra Point, where an office complex is proposed. · South Airport. Hotels and the South San Francisco Conference Center along South Airport Boulevard and near San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) comprise the city's existing core of visitor commercial services. The area also contains the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant and the SamTrans bus facility. Major Development Projects Several new development projects have been approved since the adoption of the 1999 General Plan. Currently, 3,624,570 square feet of development are approved in the East of 101 area plus an additional 700,000 square feet of approved development in the neighboring development of Terra Bay. The new development is concentrated in the East of 101, Gateway, and Oyster Point and South Airport planning sub-areas. The development is due to largely to the conversion of industrial sites to office and R&D and to new hotel development. Table 4.2-1 describes the approved development in each sub-area of the city. Figure 4.2-2 identifies approved development projects in the East of 101 area. As the table 4.2-1 suggests, most of the sub-areas have major projects underway. The majority of Office/R&D development in the East of 101 sub-area is within the Genentech campus and the Bay West Cove Project in Oyster Point. The Office and Office/R&D development in the Gateway sub- area is concentrated along Gateway Boulevard. In the Oyster Point sub-area, the Trammel Crow project and the Opus Sierra Point development. While the Terra Bay Project is outside of the East 4-7 · · T Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco of 101 area, because of its size it will have a major affect on traffic in the East of 101 area and is included in the analysis for this purpose. 4-8 San Bruno Canal ,,,?~==:'" SAAI I~RAblC. ISCO INTI~RAIATIONAL AIRPORT San Francisco Bay Source: Dyett & Bhatia o 1/4 1/2 MILES Figure 4.2- I Planning Sub-Areas Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Forty-three acres of vacant land remains in the planning sub-areas in the East of 101 area. Thirty- one acres are either approved for development or have development projects under construction. The Bay West Cove project on the Shearwater site has been approved for a 1.4 million square foot Office, Office/R&D, and Hotel complex, accounting for a major redevelopment of the vacant land in South San Francisco. Efforts to convert existing industrial development to Office and Office/R&D are also underway. The Gateway and Genetech Master Plans call for additional development and conversions from industrial to Office or Office/R&D are starting to occur throughout the East of 101 area, but the conversions are focused on the areas north of East Grand Avenue, while the areas south of East Grand Avenue remain primarily industrial and freight-forwarding. Table 4.2- I Approved Development by Sub-area, October Commercial Industrial Hotel Sub-areas (s.f.) OfficelR&D (s.f.) O~ice (s.f.) (s.f.)(s.f.) Totals East of 101 (Genentech) 0 629,994 0 0 59,140 689,134 Gateway 0 259,376 389,506 0 0 648,882 Oyster Point 30,000 645,229 1,240,000 0 313,648 2,228,877 South Airport 0 0 0 0 57,677 57,677 Terra Bay 0 700,000 0 0 0 700,000 Total 30,000 1,534,599 1,629,506 0 430,465 -4,324,570 2000 IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the proposed project if it would result in one or more of the following: · A large number of businesses are displaced by any of the street improvements. · The General Plan Amendment or TDM program transportation results will limit attainment of the General Plan Land Use objectives. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.2-a Street improvements could displace existing businesses. There would be no significant displacement of businesses as a result of the proposed street improvements. The Railroad Avenue extension is the only street improvement that will displace 4-10 Opus,'S~erra Point ~Oyster Point Marina Resort Hilton Hotel PSI Net ilarion Inn ~- Britannia Business ,entech 13, 14, 15 1/4 I/2 MILES Figure 4.2-2 Approved Projects Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco businesses and this improvement was planned for in the 1999 General Plan. Only one building will be impacted by this roadway improvement. It is an old bowling alley that currently houses 6 businesses: Yamas Controls, Inc., Architectural Products of California, Eagle Cargo Consolidators, Architectural Door and Hardware, Trans Asiatic Inc., and Pacific Occupational Health. The displacement of this business would be considered adverse but not significant. Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan The General Plan included policies aimed at preventing the displacement of businesses in the city. The policy most relevant to the displacement of businesses in the East of 101 is included below. 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations. Policy 2-G-4 expresses the desire to ensure the continuation and expansion of industrial uses in selected areas in the city. The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses perform an important regional function. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.2-b The General Plan Amendment or the TDM program could limit attainment of the General Plan Land Use Objectives. Analysis of Impacts The General Plan Amendment and TDM program will enhance the mobility in the East of 101 area and will therefore help the City achieve their Land Use goals. The TDM program and the physical improvements will improve the LOS and decrease the delay time on the roads in the East of 101 area. The circulation will improve and new development will be able to reach the desired FAR. Mitigation Measures Included in the General Plan No mitigation measures are required for Impact 4.2-b. 4-12 Chapter 4: Environmentol Settings, Impocts and Mitigation Meosures 4.3 TRANSPORTATION The environmental setting for transportation is contained in Chapter 5: Transportation of the Existing Conditions Report and Section 4.3 Transportation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The only impacts from the project will be on the transportation, therefore this section thoroughly updates information from the corresponding chapters in the Existing Conditions Report and from the EIR and also highlights the East of 101 area in order to provide a comprehensive setting for the impacts of this project. The 1999 DEIR found that the General Plan would result in one significant traff~c impact: that future development could cause an increase in traffic beyond established Level of Service (LOS) standards on Routes of Regional Significance established in the San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP establishes LOS E as the standard for Highway 101. The proposed project is designed to mitigate the significant impact identified in the Transportation section of the 1999 DEIR, and to comply with General Plan Policy 4.2-G-8, which sets a standard of LOS D where feasible. However, there are intersections where it is not feasible to reach a LOS D, yet this project provides a significant benefit over the No Project Alternative. TRAN SPORTATI ON SYSTEM The transportation system serving the East of 101 area in South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system, transit and other public transportation, as well as other alternative modes including informal carpools, formal vanpools, employer-sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by two major north-south freeways, US 101 and 1-280 and is also close to 1-380 running east-west. A system of surface streets collects and distributes traffic to and from the freeways and between the commercial, and industrial areas in the East of 101 area. Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north and San Jose/Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service will be provided to South San Francisco by the BART extension. Local bus service is currently only' provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. The transit needs of the East of 101 area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours only. Opportunities for future transit service to this area include the proposed Airport Light Rail (ART) System, being constructed as part of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) expansion. At present, few bicycle facilities are located in South San Francisco. Possible future facilities in the East of 101 area include the Bay Trail and an east-west link between the proposed linear park on the BART extension right-of-way and the Bay Trail. Mode Split and Commute Patterns The mode split for the East of 101 area specifically is difficult to determine because census data are only provided for the city level, not the neighborhood level. Census data for the City of South San Francisco from 1990 are presented in Table 4.3-1. The data show most people traveling to jobs in South San Francisco using single-occupant vehicles (77 percent), with carpools garnering the second highest mode share at 16 percent. Approximately four percent of South San Francisco 4-t3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco workers use transit as their mode of travel to work. Bicycles accounted for 0.5 percent of travel while walking represented a 1.5 percent share in 1990. These figures represent an increase in single-occupant vehicle travel and a decrease in carpool and transit usage from 1980. One reason for the shift is the relatively high gasoline prices during the late 1970s and early 1980s causing greater use ofcarpools and transit. As traffic congestion increases and the feasibility of constructing more roadways decreases, solutions to maintaining mobility will have to rely on increased use of transit and other alternative modes of travel. Methods to promote the use of ridesharing including carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and walking will be at the core of General Plan policies regarding transportation. The East of 101 area provides a concentrated center for employment and this enables South San Francisco residents and workers short commutes. According to 1980 census data, 7,326 South San Francisco residents worked in San Francisco, while 5,673 people who lived in San Francisco worked in South San Francisco. The number of San Francisco residents working in South San Francisco surpassed the number of South San Francisco residents working in South San Francisco with the 1990 census, as 6,827 San Francisco residents commuted to South San Francisco while 6,448 South San Francisco residents worked in South San Francisco. Table 4.3- I: Mode Split in South San Francisco Share (%) Transportation Mode Residents~ Workers~ D rive Alone 69.7 77.0 Carpool/Vanpool 16.6 16.0 Bus 9.2 3.0 (bus and rail combined) Rail 1.0 Bicycle 0,3 0.5 Walk 2.0 1.5 Other 2.23 1.0 ~ Residents of South San Francisco 16 and over, may work in the City or elsewhere. 2 People employed in South San Francisco; may live in the City or elsewhere. 3 Motorcycle 0.5%: worked at home 1.2%; other 0.5% Source: U.S. Census, 1990; 1990 C-FPP Statewide Element, Part C Regulatory Agencies The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic signals. The freeways, freeway ramps, and State Routes (such as E1 Camino Real - State Route 82) are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The transit service providers have jurisdiction over their services. These include San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) fixed-route bus service and shuttle services and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) commuter rail service (Caltrain). 4-14 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures There are several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs affecting South San Francisco, including the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance. San Mateo Transportation Authority In 1988, voters in San Mateo County passed Measure A that increased the sales tax by 1/2 percent for 20 years in order to finance construction of a specified set of public transit and highway improvement projects. This ballot measure created the San Mateo Transportation Authority that oversees the improvements contained in the Measure A Strategic Plan. Measure A improvements affecting South San Francisco include auxiliary lanes on US 101. City~County Association. of Governments The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the Congestion Management Agency that sets State and Federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway System. US 101 is the only roadway system component of the CMP in the East of 101 area. Improvements slated for State or Federal funding must be adopted by C/CAG and included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the CMP document, which is updated biennially. C/CAG also reviews transportation impact analyses included in environmental clearance documents for land use applications prepared by jurisdictions in San Mateo County to ensure that impacts to the CMP Roadway System are adequately addressed. As C/CAG has no jurisdiction to approve or deny land use decisions of its member agencies, it operates as a review agency only. It can find a jurisdiction in nonconformance should the land use decisions of that agency cause a CMP roadway segment or intersection to violate its Level of Service standard during the monitoring process. C/CAG has not yet had cause to exercise this authority. Congestion management programs are no longer required by law. San Mateo County, like all other counties in the Bay Area, has opted to continue with the CMP. Metropolitan Transportation Commission The regional transportation-planning agency for the Bay Area is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the clearinghouse for both State and Federal funds for transportation improvements. Each county's CMA, including C/CAG, forwards their CIP list of projects to MTC. MTC reviews the lists submitted by all nine Bay Area counties and submits the regional priority list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and/or the Federal Highway Administration for selection of projects to be funded. Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance The Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (the Alliance) is a public/nonprofit joint powers association of cities in San Mateo County, California. The Alliance was formed to help combat the traffic congestion that exists for the people who work in San Mateo County. The Alliance administers the SamTrans shuttle bus services that serve many employers in the East of 101 area. The Alliance is funded by C/CAG's "Transportation Fund for Clean Air" and by San Mateo County's Transportation Authority's Measure A TSM Fund. 4-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Roadway System The East of 101 area is served primarily by Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Regional access is provided by US 101 and 1-380. 1-380 connects 1-280 with US 101 and has exists onto South Airport Boulevard. Street Classifications US 101 is an eight-lane freeway which provides regional access to the Project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area, US 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard, northbound off-ramps at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive and Dubuque Avenue, southbound on-ramps at Dubuque Avenue and Produce Avenue, and southbound off-ramps at Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue. Bayshore Boulevard is a north-south roadway that is the primary road serving the Town of Brisbane, and also serves as a frontage road paralleling the US 101 freeway. Bayshore Boulevard continues as Airport Boulevard south of Sister Cities Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is an east-west arterial street that is the northern access route to the employment areas east of US 101. Oyster Point Boulevard has six total lanes west of Gateway Boulevard and has recently been widened to four through lanes between Gateway Boulevard and Gull Drive. East Grand Avenue is an east-west arterial street that is the central access route to the area east of US 101. Between the US 101 northbound off-ramp and its intersection with the East Grand Avenue Over-crossing, East Grand Avenue is six lanes. It continues east of this intersection as a four-lane arterial. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting Oyster Point Boulevard with Grand Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. Existing Volumes Intersection operations were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours at 19 study intersections. The counts at the study intersections were compiled from a variety of sources. Morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period vehicle turning movement counts were obtained from other recent traffic studies (See Figure 4.3-1). 4-16 ~ ~ ~ ~ veterans produce Ave. 204(324) ~ c Chapter 4: £nvironrnental Settings, impacts and Mitigation Measures Existing Operations Level of Service Roads and intersections are evaluated in terms of level of service (LOS), which is a measure of driving conditions and vehicle delay. Levels of service range from A (best) to F (poorest). Levels of service A, B and C indicate conditions where traffic can move relatively freely. Level of service D describes conditions where delay is more noticeable. Level of service E describes conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, resulting in significant delays and average speeds that are one-third the uncongested speed or lower. Level of service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds available capacity, with very slow speeds (stop-and-go) and long delays (over a minute) and queuing at signalized intersections. The General Plan of the City of South San Francisco sets a performance standard for signalized intersections of LOS "D", and a performance standard, for unsignalized intersections of LOS "E". An exception would be for unsignalized all-way stop controlled intersections that are required to operate at LOS "D". San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county border, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to be E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using greater than one percent of the facility capacity) a deficient CMP system facility that operated at LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would still occur if traffic operating outside the county were excluded from the determination of conformance. Intersection Analysis Methodology Existing conditions at the signalized study intersections were analyzed using the "Operations Method" from Chapter 9 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994). This method evaluates the amount of green signal time available to each traffic approach and the total intersection capacity used by the traffic demand, and assigns a level of service based on the average delay that the drivers would experience at the intersection during the peak hour (See Table 4.3-2). 4-19 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-2: A B C D Signalized Intersection LOS Definitions Very Iow delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths contribute to Iow delay. Delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of average delay. Delay in the range of 15. I to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. Fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. I ndividu al cycle failu res, resulting in drivers having to wait through more than one red signal indication, begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Delay in the range of 25. I to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failu res are noticeable. Delay in the range of 40. I to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. Poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Over-saturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failu res. Poor progression and long cycle lengths. Source: TRB Ciroalar 209 - 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis assumptions include: · 90 to 150 second average cycle length. · 3 seconds lost time per major signal phase. · Minimum green times of 10 seconds for through movements and 6 seconds for turns. The unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the methodology from Chapter 10 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. At these intersections, each turning movement that yields to an opposing movement is evaluated separately and assigned a level of service. The level of service is based on the average delays for turning traffic to find adequate gaps in conflicting traffic flows (See Table 4.3-3). Table 4.3-3: Stop-controlled Intersection LOS Definitions A Very Iow delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. B Short delay, in the range of 5. I to I 0.0 seconds per vehicle. C Average delay, in the range of 15. I to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. D Long delay, in the range of 20. I to 30.0 seconds per vehicle. E Very long delay, in the range of 30. I to 45.0 seconds per vehicle. F Extreme delay, in excess of 45.0 seconds per vehicle, potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: TRB Circular 209 - 1994 Highway Capacity Manual 4-20 Cha~)ter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Existing Intersection Operations Existing levels of service were calculated for each study intersection (See Table 4.3-4). All of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS (D or better) under existing conditions. 4-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-4: Existing Conditions LOS AM PEAK HOUR I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intersec~on Bayshore Blvd. and US- 101 SB Ramp(s) Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave,AJS-101 SB Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave, 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ~ 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 19 South Airport Blvd, and Gateway Blvd. 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Blvd. and US-10/ SB Ramp(s) * 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave, and US-101 Ramps 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 6 Veterans Rd, and Oyster Point Blvd, 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 9 Gull Dr, and Oyster Point Blvd. 10 Marina Blvd, and Oyster Point Blvd. 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller AveJUS- I 01 SB Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd, and Grand Ave. 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave, 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 17 Grandview Ave, and East Grand Ave. ~: 4-22 Control Stop (Signal) Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Stop Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Stop (Signal) Signal Signal Signal Stop (Signal) Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Stop Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Stop (Signal) LOS B D C B B A A (A) B B A C C A C B A (B) C C C C D D B C A A(A) B B B C C A C C A ExisrJng Del~ 9 29 18 7 8 4 0 5 6 4 20 3 21 13 3 19 16 18 II 27 25 12 24 3 0 13 13 7 15 20 3 18 18 3 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.3-4: Existing Conditions LOS Existing Intersection Control LOS Deiay 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. Signal C 2 I 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal D 26 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal C 16 N ate s: A (D)=For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds ;~ Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for f~ture scenarios. ~ Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only. I I is a dummy node in the Traffix software analysis. TRAN SIT AND PU BLI C TRAN SPORTATI ON The only mass transit that currently serves the East of 101 area is the passenger rail service (Caltrain). Future rail service to the city will include the ART extension from Colma to the San Francisco International Airport and the Airport Light Rail (ART) system. CalTrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco, with a stop at the station on the corner of Dubuque and. Grand Avenues in South San Francisco. Trains operate about every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. A Draft Conceptual Study for The Proposed South San Francisco Caltrain Station was completed in July 2000. There are four major improvements to the South San Francisco Station. The first consists of rail property work, including relocating yard track, adding mainline track, relocating a spur track, relocating the platform, adding a separated grade crossing, and improving station parking. The second includes building a gateway to the station at the intersection of South Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The third is possibly adding a childcare facility. The fourth is exploring the addition of access along the east side of the railroad right of way. The Draft Conceptual Plan provides the City of South San Francisco and PCJPB/Caltrain with a guide to determine which elements of the project could be pursued within budgetary constraints. Many alternatives are discussed regarding each segment of the physical improvements and the preferred alternative. BART The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system provides rail service between San Francisco, East Bay locations, Daly City, and Colma. While no BART station currently serves the East of 101 area 4-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco directly, the Balboa Park, Glen Park, Daly City and Colma Stations are all nearby and riders use these stations to commute to the East of 101 area. BART will be extended from its current terminus at the Colma Station to the San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae. A station in South San Francisco will be constructed as part of the extension. A total of 8.2 miles of track will be provided; 7.4 miles of mainline track from the Colma BART Station to a BART/Caltrain station at Millbrae Avenue, and a 0.8 mile east-west connection to the planned Airport International Terminal. A majority of the track will be underground. The only exceptions are in the vicinity of the airport connection (the mainline track will be at-grade and the connections will be on an aerial structure) and the tailtracks which will be at-grade. The projected 2010 daily ridership on the extension is 68,600~. The South San Francisco station, referred to as the Hickey Station, will be located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of the new Hickey Boulevard Extension (See Figure 4.3-2). With the extension and new station, South San Francisco residents will be able to travel to San Francisco and East Bay communities via rail. The projected 2010 daily ridership at the Hickey Station is 8,000. The station, as currently designed, has nine bus bays to accommodate bus access, and approximately 1,350 vehicle parking spaces. The peak parking demand is estimated to be 1,130 parked vehicles. Airport Rail Transit System An Airport Rail Transit (ART) System is being designed as part of the current San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) Expansion Plan. The ART system is a transportation system that will move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within SFIA. The ART system comprises two phases. Phase I would loop around the main terminal and garage area and extend approximately four miles north along McDonnell Road to the future rental car facility. Phase II has been proposed to extend from McDonnell Road to South Airport Boulevard (near the United Airlines maintenance facility) and terminate along the North Access Road. The ART system (gui&way, vehicles, and operating system) will cost approximately $400 million and will convey up to 6,000 passengers per hour during peak periods initially. According to the Project Manual, the system will be fully automated and will use Automated Guideway Technolog3r (AGT). The vehicles will be electrically powered and require no drivers.-' 'Ibid. : San Francisco International Airport, ~'Project Manu~ ~ Final Draft; Vol. 3 - Technical Provisions, Phase I7' Airport Contract No. 5703,A, Phase I - Airport Light Rail Sy~em (ALRSJ Operating S,vstem and Phase I1 - Operation and Maintenance of ALRS at SFIA. 4-24 \,,, Future BART Extension ::::::::: CalTrain : SamTrans Bus Route Source: City of South 5an Francisco, Fehr & Peers 0 I/4 I/2 1'41LES SAN I~RANCISCO INT£RNATIONAL AIRPORT Future BART Station Existing CalTrain Station Potential CalTrain Station Sari Francisco Bay Figure 4.3-2 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco AR T-Caltrain Connection In 1996, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) completed a study to determine the feasibility of a light rail transit connection between SFIA and Caltrain) The study evaluated five alternatives, including new Caltrain stations in San Bruno and west of SFIA and a new BART~ Caltrain station at Millbrae. The different options were evaluated for ridership projections, cost estimates and environmental impacts. The study found two alternatives, Alternatives 3B and 5 to be feasible. Alternative 3B would emend north from the northern terminus of the Phase 1 ART system. It would serve the United Airlines Maintenance Facility and would cross US 101 at the 1-380 interchange to connect with a new San Bruno Caltrain station. Alternative 3B would also emend eastward along North Access Road. This alternative combines Phase 2 of the ART project with a connection to the proposed Caltrain station. Alternative 5 would extend from McDonnell Road, past US 101 to a new station west of SFIA. New tracks would twice pass through the open space between the Caltrain tracks and US 101. Figure 4.3-3 shows the alignment for Phase 1 of the ART project, as well as Phase 2 and Alternatives 3B and 5. The capital cost estimate for Alternative 3B includes costs for the ART - Caltrain connection ($60 million) and Phase 2 of the ART system ($40 million). The capital cost estimate for Alternative 5 is approximately $90 million and includes the McDonnell Road segment between the Outer Loop and Road R-6. The operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be between $10 million and $12 million annually. The findings of the JPB feasibility study are currently being reviewed by the Airports Commission. The commission has been asked by the JPB to evaluate the two alternatives from a technical and policy perspective and to contribute funding to the construction of the project. Light Rail Potential in South San Francisco Ridership and costs (capital and operating) are key elements in determining ifa light rail system is feasible. An ART extension into South San Francisco would cost $15 to 25 million per mile in construction costs. Therefore, the ridership must be sufficiently high to offset these costs and to justify light rail instead of lower cost alternatives such as bus and shuttle bus. Ridership on an extension of ART into South San Francisco beyond the North Access Road would be dependent on several factors including future employment density levels in South San Francisco, levels of congestion on US 101, and travel demand between SFIA and the city. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, A CalTrain-San Francisco International Airport Light Rail System Connection Feasibility Study Program, 1996. 4-26 ALT 3B A, ccess ~% ALT 3A Bruno SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOT TO SCALE ALT lB · .-..--.-...- ALRS (future) ..... Caltrain BART (future) ....... CalTrain ALRS Connection O CalTrain Station F--] Future CalTrain Station ~ Future BART Station Note: For Alternative 5, the ALRS would not run along McDonnell Road between R-6 and the Terminal Loop. [ALT 4el Figure 4.3-3 CalTrain-ALRS Connection Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Froncisco AN CILLAR Y ALTERN ATI VE TRAN SPORTATI ON SYSTE The travel needs of South San Francisco are also served by shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal carpools. These modes provide an alternative to the single-occupant automobile. These modes, plus programs to promote their use, are discussed in this section. Caltrain/BAR T Shuttle Bus Service The following shuttle bus routes serve employees commuting from the Glen Park BART station and the Caltrain station to the East of 101 area: the Gateway/Genentech shuttle, the Oyster Point Shuttle, and the Utah-Grand Shuttle, and the Utah-Grand and Oyster Point Shuttle. The routes are depicted in Figure 4.3-4. · Gateway/Genentech Shuttles (BART and Caltrain) - Genentech operates this shuttle, and service is provided to Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive, and East Grand Avenue. There are 12 morning trips and 14 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. Oyster Point Shuttle (BART)- This shuttle serves BART. This shuttle serves Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, and Eccles Avenue. The shuttle operates six trips in the morning and six in the afternoon. The average daily ridership for 2000 is 230 people. The service will double in July 2001. · Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART) - This shuttle serves both BART and Caltrain. This shuttle serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue and Utah Avenue. The shuttle makes six trips in the morning and six in the afternoon. The average daily ridership for 2000 is 201 people. The service will double in July 2001. · Utah-Grand and Oyster Point Shuttle (Caltrain)- The Utah-Grand Area shuttle provides service on East Grand Avenue, Eccles, Oyster Point, Allerton Ave, Grandview, Littlefield Ave. and Harbor Way. This shuttle has eight trips in the morning and seven in the afternoon. In July 2001, this shuttle will be split and there will one shuttle serving the same route in the Oyster Point Area as the current Oyster Point Shuttle and one shuttle serving the same route as the Utah-Grand Shuttle. The average daily ridership for 2000 is 86 people. The service is fixed-route, fixed schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to the riders. The operating 'costs are borne by the JPB, SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). 4-28 . To ~l~n Park '~'x BAR~, Statior Caltrain Shuttle BART Shuttle gicyle Paths and Routes Caltrain 0 1/4 U2 MILES iJ " San Bruno Canal Existing CalTrain Station Sarl Francisco Bay Figure 4.3-4 Caltrain and BART Shuttle Service and Bicycle Routes Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes: Bike paths are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. · Bike lanes are lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. · Bike routes are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. There are few bicycle facilities within the East of 101 area. Bicycle lanes are provided on the north side of East Grand Avenue between its intersection with East Grand Avenue Over-crossing and Executive Drive. The bicycle lanes continue along the east side of Executive Drive. The proposed Bay Trail, which will ring the San Francisco Bay with bicycle paths, will provide bicycle facilities within the East of 101 area and bike lanes are being proposed for the Railroad Avenue extension. Future bicycle paths will focus on abandoned railroad tracks, many of which are located in the East of 101 area, which can be converted to bicycle paths as part ora rails-to-trails program. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and resting areas. The streets in the downtown area have sidewalks on both sides, and pedestrian signals and crosswalks at the signalized intersections to accommodate pedestrian circulation. Many of the streets in the East of 101 area do not have sidewalks. Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestrians and also encourage the use of alternative modes. Parking The City's Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces are provided on-site for most uses. The Downtown area has a parking district: instead of each property owner providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into thirteen city lots. The lots contain approximately 420 spaces, of which 270 are available for long-term, employee parking. In general, the amount of parking in the Downtown area is sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages. The industrial areas of the city experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and the loading/unloading activities interfere with vehicular circulation. 4~30 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway System Planned Improvements The City of South San Francisco is currently finalizing construction documents and funding arrangements for two improvement projects associated with ramps to and from the US 101 freeway. The Oyster Point "flyover" project will construct a new off-ramp from southbound US 101, connecting directly with east~ ound Oyster Point Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard. The flyover ramp will form a fifth leg of tae intersection. The flyover off-ramp will provide improved access to the East of I01 area,, and ,¢'ill divert traffic from the existing Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp and from segments of southbound Bayshore Boulevard and eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. The "hook ramps" project will replace the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound US 101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp will be constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound US 101. The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Additionally, intersectior: improvements are committed by the Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (change existing 2~d westbound left turn lane to through lane and restripe westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Ro :d & Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and restripe optional through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (restripe existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right lane to a right turn lane and restripe existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane). Trip Generation Trip generation was estimated for future development in the area (See Table 4.3~5). Information on future development was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco identified several sites in the East of 101 area where development has been proposed or sites that are likely to convert from warehouse to either office or research and development uses. Additionally, there are vacant parcels that are known to have development potential for which no development applications have been filed. Traffic generation for the proposed and potential developments in South San Francisco are listed in Table 4.3-6. 4-31 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-5: Approved Development Traffic Generation Project. Size Gateway (Tularik) 259,376 SF 389,506 SF Genentech 407,444 SF Terrabay Residential~ 62 Units 94 Units 135 Units 213 Units Hilton Oyster Point 325 Rooms Oyster Point (Trammel 81,229 SF Crow) Oyster Point (Sierra 440,000 SF Point) 152 Rooms East of 101 (Zymed) 36,000 SF East of 101 (PSI Net) 123,000 SF East of 101 (Clarion Inn) 106 Rooms South Airport (Wingate 87 Rooms Inn) East of 101 (Axys 63,550 SF Pharmaceutical) Totals AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Land Use Rate Trips Rate Trips R&D 0.65 169 0.60 156 Office 1,05 409 0.96 374 R&D 0.65 265 0.60 245 SF Housing 0.87 54 1.16 72 Townhomes 0.45 42 0.54 5 I SF Housing 1.05 142 1.41 19 I Condominium 0.98 209 1.32 28 I Hotel 0.30 98 0.21 68 R&D 0.65 53 0.60 49 Office 1.05 462 0.96 422 Hotel 0.30 46 0.21 32 R&D 0.65 23 0.60 22 R&D 0.65 80 0.60 74 Hotel 0.30 32 0.21 22 Hotel 0.30 26 0.21 18 R&D 0.65 41 0.60 38 2,151 ~ Terra Bay is located West of{3S 101 but will greatly affect traffic in the East of 101 are~ 2,115 Sources: City of South San Francisco Planning; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc; Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 1997 4-32 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.3-6: Potential Development Traffic Generation By Sub-Area AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Sub-Area Size Land use Rate Trips Rate Trips Oyster I, 151,666 Office Point 1.05 1209 0.96 I 106 564,000 R&D 0.65 46 0.60 167 44,653 Commercial 1.03 37 3.74 338 85 rooms Hotel 0.30 26 0.21 18 -94,992 I ndu strial 0.48 -46 0.54 -5 I Gateway I, I 10,283 Office 1.05 I, 165 0.96 1,066 0 R&D 0.65 0.60 36, 100 Commercial 1.03 37 3.74 135 135 Rooms Hotel 0.30 41 0.21 28 - 162,584 I ndu strial 0.48 -78 0.54 -88 East of 101 5,121,972 Office 1.05 5,378 0.96 4,917 1,001,547 R&D 0.65 651 0.60 60 I 165,666 Commercial 1.03 171 3.74 62 I 950 Hotel 0.30 287 0.21 199 °2,045,564 I ndu strial 0.48 -981 0.54 - I, 105 Terra Bay~ 700,000 Office 1.05 735 0.96 672 Totals 9,008 8,624 Terra Bay is located West of US 101 but will greatly affect traffic in the East of 101 area. Sources: Crty of South San Francisco Planning; CCS Planning and En~neering, Inc.; Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 1997; Crone Transportation Group Due to the close proximity to the study area we have accounted for the approved development in the City of Brisbane. Traffic generated by development in Brisbane was estimated based on the City of Brisbane 1993 General Plan ("Traffic and Circulation Technical Memorandum, Brisbane 1993 General Plan," Wilbur Smith Associates, January 1994). The EIR for the General Plan identified 13 planning sub-areas, with potential development in each. The development scenario is based on Brisbane Scenario K, which assumes 10-year development plus other long-term growth beyond 10 years, plus development of the Baylands sub-area (See Table 4.3~7). 4-33 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-7: Potential Development Traffic Generation - Brisbane Planning Sub-area Size Land Use I. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 1,646,990 SF Office I, 100 Rooms Hotel 8,000 SF Restaurant 2. Southeast Bayshore n/a n/a 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 3,500 SF Office 66,500 SF Trade Comm. 4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 16 Units Townhouse 6. OwllBuckeye Canyons n/a n/a 7. Quarry n/a n/a 8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 2,500 SF Retail Outlet 3,000 SF Restau rant 120,140 SF Trade Comm. 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 268 Units Townhouse 214 U nits Condo/Apts. 10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. I I. Northeast Bayshore n/a n/a 12. Baylands~ 2,000,000 SF Retail 500,000 SF Office 690,000 SF RBO/Educ. 75,000 SF Restaurant 2,000 Rooms Hotel (app. I mil. SI:) SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 13. Candlestick Cove n/a Totals n/a = No net additional development planned. n/a AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Rate Trips Rate Trips 0.67 28 2.93 123 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454 0.67 737 0.76 836 3.32 27 4.78 38 n/a 0 n/a 0 0.67 23 2.93 103 1.40 5 1.32 5 0.98 65 1.24 82 0.74 155 1.01 212 0.74 103 1.01 140 0.44 7 0.55 9 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0.12 0 1.70 4 0.36 I 2.14 5 3.32 I 0 4.78 14 0.98 I 18 1.24 149 0.74 64 1.01 88 0.44 I 18 0.55 147 0.67 143 0.82 175 0.98 223 1.24 283 n/a 0 n/a 0 1,540 6,680 700 660 0.77 3.34 738 649 1.40 1.32 249 359 1.07 0.94 1,340 1,520 3.32 4.78 0.67 0.76 4,567 9,868 n/a 0 n/a 0 8,693 14,735 ~ Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF of Iow traffic generating uses. Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. 4-34 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures The current planning for the City of Brisbane assumes that the maximum level of Baylands development which could be accommodated without major transportation infrastructure improvements would range from one million square feet of high trip*generating uses to 4,2 million square feet of low trip-generating uses. This traffic oper~ _ions analysis is based on the most conservative scenario considered in the Brisbane General Pla'~ EIR, which would include 4,2 million square feet of development with high generating uses. T~is scenario would have higher traffic generation than either of the Baylands development scenarios currently assumed by the City of Brisbane. The specific land uses assumed for the Baylands sub-area are not documented, so the land uses shown on Table 4.3-7 were assumed for this study. Trip Distribution The estimated distribution of development traffic was based on employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton- Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was divided according to the percentages shown in Table 4.3-8. Table 4.3-8: Traffic Distribution Direction US I 01 North/San Francisco US 101 South South San Francisco (central area) Daly City/Calma via Sister Cities Blvd, Daly City/Calma via Guadalupe Canyon Parkway Daly City/Calma and South San Francisco (central area) via Railroad Ave. extension Brisbane Airport area via South Airport Blvd. San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue Local east of US 101 Total South San Francisco Development Brisbane Development 29% 47% 48 24 2 4 I 3 0 ? 8 0 7 13 2 0 I 0 2 2 100% 100% I M PACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the General Plan Amendment and TDM ordinance if it would result in one or more of the following: · Cause an increase in traffic so as to degrade the traffic operations at study intersections as compared to the LOS in the No Project Alternative. · Cause a substantial decrease in the level of accessibili~ within South San Francisco. 4-35 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Fail to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development. Analysis of bnpacts The purpose of the East of 101 Traffic Study is to develop policies and to identify major transportation system improvements needed to accommodate the projected growth afforded by the General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the transportation analysis was based on the ability of the transportation system to accommodate the projected peak-hour travel demands. This level of analysis is sufficient to identify roadway improvement needs. Impact 4.3~a Future. development could cause an increase in traffic as compared to the No Project Alternative. The proposed project includes the implementation of the street improvements presented in Table 4.3-9 and Figure 4.3-5 and a TDM ordinance. The street improvements and the TDM ordinance will apply to the East of I01 area. The street improvements in Table 4.3-9 include both committed and proposed improvements. The committed improvements are either included in the Capital Improvement Program or are mitigation measures in approved projects. The proposed improvements are being proposed as part of the General Plan Amendment. The impacts from the proposed improvements will need to be analyzed on a project-by-project basis. The TDM program assumes that all new development will achieve 35 percent alternative mode usage and development requesting an FAR bonus will achieve a higher TDM program accordingly. Without the implementation of this project, the No Project Alternative would guide the East of 101 area. Table 4.3-10 compares the LOS in the No Project to the proposed project. In the No Project Alternative, 17 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Whereas in the proposed project, only 4 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. 4-36 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.3-9 Committed Improvements and Proposed Improvements No. Locat/0n Improvement Items Bayshore Blvd & US I 01 SB Hook Ramp(s) Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd 3 Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 4 Dubuque Ave & US I 01 Ramps 5 Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd 6 Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Bird 7 Bay West Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd 8 Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 9 Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd 10 Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Bird I I :~ 12 Airport Bird & Miller Ave/US 101 SBoff- ramp Committed improvements ~PSR) Build bottom hook ramps to provide I right and I left turn lanes for off-ramp; I through and I shared through-right lanes for N B, and 2 through and I left turn lanes for SB of Bayshore Blvd. Proposed Improvements Re-stripe the off-ramp right turn lane to be an optional left/right turn lane. Committed Improvement (Bay West Cove) Change existing WB 2nd left turn lane on Oyster Point Blvd to a through lane. Restripe WB through/right lane to right turn lane. Proposed Improvernents · Widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to add I additional left turn lane. Proposed Improvements Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point Blvd to add I right turn lane making it a total of two 650' right-turn lanes lane to NB 101 on-ramp Re-stripe EB oyster Point Blvd to change one of the through lanes to a shared through- right lane. Proposed Improvement N one Committed Improvement (part of flyover project) A new five-legged intersection as part of the SB 101 to EB Oyster Point Blvd. Flyover project Proposed Improvement None Committed Improvement (Bay West Cove) Widen the SB Veterans Road to add I right turn lane Re-stripe existing SB Veterans Road optional through/left turn lane into a optional right/ through/left lane. Proposed Improvement None None Proposed I mDrovernents Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes for the N B approach. Proposed Improvement Widen N B Gull Drive to provide two left-tu rn lanes and one through/right-shared lane. N one n/a Proposed Improvement Widen SB 101 off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2"~ left turn lane. Re-stripe to change the existing 10I SB off-ramp optional through/left lane into a through only lane. 4-37 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 13 Airport Blvd & Grand Ave 14 Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave 16 Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Forbes Blvd/E ast Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd. 17 Grandview D r & Grand Ave 18 Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave 19 South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Blvd 20 South Airport Bird & Utah Ave Railroad Avenue Harbor Way Mitchell Avenue Proposed Improvement Re-stripe existing SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and SB shared through/left lane to a left turn lane. Widen EB Grand Ave to add 2 left turn lanes; restripe the EB through/left shared lane to a through lane and EB right turn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3r~ left-turn lane in the WB approach and restrict truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue Proposed Improvements Widen Grand Ave to improve the turning radius from WB Grand Avenue to N B Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. Committed Improvements (Bay West Cove) Re-stripe existing NB through/right shared lane to a right turn lane. Re-stripe existing EB approach to provide a separate right turn lane. Proposed Improvements Re-stripe existing WB Grand Ave to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes Proposed Improvements Widen WB Grand Ave to add I additional through lane and I additional left oJrn lane. Widen SB Forbes Blvd to add I through lane and change the existing shared through- right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen NB Harbor Way to add I through lane, I right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a through lane. Proposed Improvements Signalize intersection Add I SB Grandview Ave. right turn lane; restripe EB East Grand Ave. to provide I left turn lane and I shared left/through lane. Proposed Improvements Widen WB Airport Blvd to add one additional left-turn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. Modify N B Produ ce Ave to bring the SB I 01 to E B Airport Bird traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB Airport Blvd. Proposed Improvements Widen EB Airport Bird to add one additional right-turn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane Widen Mitchell Ave to add two additional through lanes and a right-turn lane. Widen SB Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through- right lane to another right-tu rn lane. Proposed Improvements Widen Airport Bird to add one SB left turn lane; restripe one of the existing NB Airport Blvd through lanes to a shared through/right lane. Proposed Improvements Construct a 4 lanes, 2 ways roadway within the existing UPP, R right of way between Linden Ave and Gateway Bird Proposed Improvements Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Ave and Mitchell Ave. Proposed Improvements Widen Mitchell Avenue to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Gateway Bird and Harbor Way. 4-38 Marina Blvd. . Eccles Ave. · "4 I:~- 24(117) Driveway 722(1565) ~ ~" 325(133) 1 (5) Dubuque Ave. 78(341) ~ 99(398) -.~ o(o) o(o) Driveway 193(1373).-~' 51(12)-~"~ 126(43)-- ~ ~'~ ~ ~-111(329) ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ o(o) Driveway ' Veterans Rd. 31(141) o(o) 1' 2(4) ..~ ...~, .~. I'0 "'-" ~ g ~ ~_.~ 138(72~) ~1~¢¢ I~ ~927(333) ' ~ Ba~shore Blvd. Airport Blvd. ~ ~ ~ 29(105) J ¢ 229(346)~ ~ ~fF 371(244) 5~ ~ o ~ 0 ~ ~ US 101 NB on Dubuque Ave. ~'l tt f~ 474(778) 43(206) 1217(326) ~ ~ ~ .1~ ",4 ~83(2~D ~ ~ ~ ~; :.~:.~..:.....,.;......:.. ......... ~ .... 437(231) ~ ~ ~ ... ',, ~ .~ . .... ...- ,. ~ F'''''''L'i d~ ~' ~ ~132(38) ~¢¢ ~ ~85(347) ~ ~ ~ ~33(125) S.~rport Blvd. Forbes ~lvd. $$$ ~ ~ 47(43) ~ ~ Harbor m Dubuque Ave. 372(175) ~ ~ ~ ~335(572) 50(255) S.~rport Blvd. ~ ~1942(595) --~20(~9) ~ 125(368) Grandview Dr. ~**~ ~ 168(55) lO(IB)~ ~ ~ 4 ~ Gateway Blvd. 276(353) ~ ~ ~j '.,~.~ 67(71) Airport ~ 627(525) o "~ ~ Airport Blvd. 32(117) J 318(492) ~ 202(97) --~ ~.. <]..'~ 226(570) ' ~'"~- "~"- 454 (436) ~ .~- 1462(371) ,.,',., f,,, Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.3- I 0: Comparison of the Intersection Operations of the N o Project to the Proposed Project Intersection AM PEAK HOUR Control No Project (Current Proposed General Plan) Project LOS I Delay LOS Delay I Bayshore Blvd. and US- 101 SB Ramp(s) * Stop (Signal) D 27 B 15 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 38 D 31 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 34 D 26 4 Dubuque Ave. andUS-101 Ramps Signal C 18 B 14 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal C 20 C 16 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 13 B 8 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. Stop A (A) 0 A (A) 0 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 37 B 10 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 12 B 8 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 6 B 6 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./U S- I 01 SB Off-Ramp Signal F 78 C 23 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal F 386 C 22 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 4 B 5 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 513 E 55 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 743 C 17 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) F (F) OVRFL B 14 18 Airport Blvdo and San Mateo Ave. Signal C 20 C 17 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal D 26 C 19 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal F 247 C 24 PM PEAK HOUR I Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp(s) * Stop (Signal) F 338 F 82 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal E 42 D 3 I 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 130 F 85 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps Signal D 27 C 22 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 114 F 63 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 32 B 13 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. Stop A (D) I A (C) I 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 69 B 13 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 95 C 17 I 0 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 13 B 13 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US-101 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 16 B 15 4-41 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3- I 0: Comparison of the Intersection Operations of the N o Project to the Proposed Project No Project (Current Proposed General Plan) Project Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS Delay 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal D 38 D 26 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 5 A 4 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 205 C 22 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 410 D 26 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) F (F) 690 C 19 18 Airport Blvd. and Sari Mateo Ave. Signal F 186 C 22 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal F OVRFL D 25 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal C 19 C 17 A (D) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) Delay -- Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds * Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for fut~ re scenarios. ** Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only. I I is a dummy node in the Traffix software analysis. Source: CCS Plonning & Engineering 4-42 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Proposed by the General Plan The following General Plan policies and their related programs would mitigate this potential impact. 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanism such as development impact fees. 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: · There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and · The use's resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overalIpublic benefit. 4.2-I-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 area. 4.2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee for transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. 4.3-I-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: · Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. · Establishment of additional requirements for projects seeking a FAR bonus. · An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. · Reducedparking requirements for newprojects implementing a TDMprogram. Impact 3.3-b The Area Plan could fail to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the General Plan This potential impact would be mitigated by the following General Plan policies and their related programs. 4.3~G-1 4.3~G-2 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4-43 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 4.3-I-1 4.3-I-2 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, indude improvements identified in Figure 4-3 in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. Improvements identified on Figure 4-3 include: · Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of-way, extending from the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART station; · Paths or lanes alongproposed Bay Trail, with continuous shoreline access; and Bike L~ne along the proposed Railroad Avenue extension, which would provide the first bikeway connection linking the eastern and western parts of the city and provide shoreline bikeway access from residential neighborhoods west of US 10I. 4.3-1-4 4.3-I-6 4.3-1-7 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at ail existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations -South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station-and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: · Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed. · Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increasedpedestrian use; · Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signal&ed intersections; and · Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. The policies and programs included in the General Plan provide the framework for expanding and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle routes, amenities, and connections in the city. These policies reduce Impact 3.3-b to less than significant levels. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS There are no residual impacts. Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.4 AIR QUALITY The 1999 DEIR found one significant impact of the General Plan, that over the long-term, development under the General Plan could lead to emissions of ozone and precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM-10 largely due to increases in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). This chapter of the Supplemental EIR found no new significant impacts and will be beneficial compared to the No Project Alternative (Current General Plan). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for air quality is contained in Chapter 12: Air Quality of the Existing Conditions Report and Section 4.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The following represents a summary and update of the contents of Section 4.4 with a focus on the East of 101 area. Types of Air Pollutants Three types of air pollutants affect air quality in South San Francisco: · Criteria air pollutants, · Toxic air contaminants, and · Odors and nuisances Some criteria air pollutants are more regional in nature, such as ozone, while others are more localized, such as carbon monoxide. Toxic air contaminants and odors and dust are generally more localized in nature. The City's ability to regulate the pollutants directly is preempted by state and regional requirements. The Bay Area's air quality is influenced largely by motor vehicle use. Automobile ownership and use are increasing at faster rates than population growth. However, the trend towards a newer, cleaner vehicle mix will serve to counteract some of the negative air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle use. Overall, a net reduction in the emissions of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide is expected, while particulate matter emissions are expected to increase into the future. Regulatory Context Air quality is regulated through national and state ambient air quality standards and emissions limits for individual sources of criteria air pollutants. Criteria Air Pollutants Air quality in the Bay Area is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco. Table 4.4-1 provides a summary of pollutant monitoring data from that station for the years 1998-1999, which updates the information from the time the General Plan EIR was written. The data summarized in Table 4-45 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 4.4-1 shows that air quality in the vicinity, of South San Francisco performs well against state and federal standards for criteria air pollutants. No violations of the standards for ozone or ozone precursors, i.e., reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) occurred in 1998 or 1999, although locally generated emissions of ozone precursors affect downwind areas where violations may have occurred. With respect to carbon monoxide, again the state standard was not exceeded. However, since 72 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted in the Bay Area comes from on-road motor vehicles, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersections and highway segments would be expected to be higher than the monitoring data indicate. The state standard for PM-10 was violated one day in 1998 and 6 days in 1999. PM-10 consists of particulates 10 microns or less in diameter. These small particles can remain suspended in the air, are transported by winds, and can be inhaled and cause adverse health effects. Particulates in the atmosphere result from many kinds of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. Table 4.4- I: San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary, 1998-1999 Arkansas Street Pollutant Ozone (03) Highest I-hr. average, ppm~ .09 Number of Violations-State Number of Violations-Federal Carbon Monoxide (CO) Highest 8-hr. average, ppm 9 Nu tuber of violations-State Number of violations-Federal Nitrogen Dioxide (N 02) Highest I-hr. average, ppm 0.25 Number of violations-State Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Highest 24-hr. average, ppm 0.04 Number of violations-State Number of violations-Federal Particulate Matter (PM-10) 2 Annual Geometric Mean, I~g/m3 30 Highest 24-hr. average, ~g/m3 50 Nu tuber of Violations-State3 Number of Violations-Federal3 State Federal Standard Standard .12 NA .14 Monitoring Station 1998 1999 .05 .08 0 0 0 0 4.0 3.7 0 0 0 0 .08 . I 0 0 .006 .007 0 0 0 0 NA 20.1 22.7 150 NA NA I 6 0 0 [ ppm=parts per million; ~g/m3 =micrograms per cubic meter. 2 PM-10 is only measured every sixth day. Actual days over standard can be estimated ~s six times the number shown. 3 Violations of the 24-hour standard Source: BAAQMD, unpublished data, 2000. 4-46 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Air Quality Summary The following tables summarize the air quality data for the Bay Area. Figure 4.4-1 shows the California Air Basins. Table 4.4-2 lists the attainment and nonattainment status of the Bay Area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide sulfur dioxide and Particulate Matter (PM-10). Table 4.4-3 lists the number of days that the Bay Area air basin exceeded the state and federal standard. Table 4.4-4 lists the percent of contribution that each pollutant comprises of the source category. For example, 72 percent of TOG is found in stationary and area sources. Table 4.4-2: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin AttainmentdN onattainment Designations Pollutant National State Ozone N onartain ment N onartain merit Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Su Ifu r Dioxide Attainment Attainment PM- I 0 Attainment N onattainment Source: BA4QMD, April 1999, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status Table 4.4-3: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Days Over Standard 1997 1998 1999 Pollutant National State National State National State Ozone (I hr standard) 0 8 8 29 3 20 Carbon Monoxide (8 hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 standard) Nitrogen Dioxide ( I hr NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 standard) Sulfur Dioxide (24 hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 standard) PM- I 0~ (24 hr standard) 0 4 0 5 0 12 ~ PM-10 is sampled every sixth day-ac-mai days over standard can be estimated to be six times the numbers listed. 4-47 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.4-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Percent Contribution by Source Category Source Category TOG~ ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM- I 0 Stationary and Area 72 40 7 19 61 92 $7 Sou rces On-road Motor Vehicles 22 48 75 49 5 3 5 Other Mobile Sources 6 12 18 32 34 4 7 N atu ral Sou rces < I < I < I < I 0 < I I Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ~ Total Organic Gases (TOG): Gaseous organic compounds, including reaczive organic gases and the relatively unreactNe organic gases such as methane Source: 2000 E~mated Annual Average Emissions, CARB 4-48 SHASTA TEHAMA 3 \. Gt.~NN ~ COLUSa i } MENTO CRUZ MEAC~D MODOC 50 100 ~ MILES Source: California Air Resources Board, 1996, Proposed Maps of Area Designations for the State and Natio~zal Ambient Air Quality Standards LASSEN PLUMA5 ~'ALAVERAS j TUOLUMNE FRESNO SAN LUIS OB~SPO KERN INYO KERN LOSANGELES ~ OtEGO 9 I North Coast 2 Northeast Plateau 3 Sacramento Valley 4 Mountain Counties 5 Lake Tahoe 6 Great Basin Valleys 7 San loaquin Valley 8 Mojave Desert 9 San Diego 10 South Coast I I South Central Coast 12 North Central Coast 13 San Francisco Bay Area 14 Lake County 15 Salton Sea ~ BERNADINO 8 Figure 4.4- I California Air Basins 11 · I Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Bay Area Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP) was completed on December 20, 2000. The goal of the CAP is to reduce emissions of certain air pollutants--ROG and NOx. Under the California Clean Air Act of 1988 areas not complying with the state standard set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must formulate a plan to decrease ozone. This update focused on near term (three years) actions that can be taken to reduce these ozone precursor emissions. The CAP was rejected and a new CAP is currently being drafted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. A new plan will be submitted by June that shows how they will attain federal standards. Table 4.4-5 below lists emissions for the Bay Area. Table 4.4-5: Local, County, and Regional Emissions Estimates, 2000 Emissions (tons per day)~ Pollutant South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area Carbon Monoxide 25.58 255.79 2873.39 ROG 5.15 51.5 534.55 Nitrogen Oxides 5.24 52.44 558.15 Su Ifu r Oxides .26 2.63 92.33 Particulate (PM- 10) 1.52 15.17 169.43 ~ Emissions estimates for development in South San Francisco assume that South San F~ncisco emissions account for approximately 10% of cou nty-wide emissions, based on ABAG's population and employment projections (ABAG, 2000) which show that South San Francisco accounts for 8.6% of the total population and 12.5% of total county-wide jobs. Source: CARB IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the General Plan Amendment and TDM program if it would result in one or more of the following: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); · Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or · Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4-50 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.4-a Development of these roadway projects could result in construction-related air quality impacts. Construction activities associated with the physical improvements would generate fugitive dust (including PM-10 but also larger-diameter particulate matter). A large portion of total construction-related fugitive dust would be associated with grading activities and heavy equipment travel over temporary roads at construction sites. Fugitive dust emissions at a given construction site would vary from day to day depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and weather conditions. Without abatement measures, fugitive dust emissions can lead to nuisance impacts related to soiling, reduced visibility, and elevated PM-10 concentrations. However, construction-related air quality impacts at a given construction site would be only potentially significant, because a variety of factors contribute to the generation of fugitive dust, and impacts would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Environmental review of individual physical improvement projects, as they occur, will determine site-specific construction-related air quality impacts. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is in the General Plan: Z3-I-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. Additional Mitigation Measures The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.4-b: Development of the proposed roadway improvements could lead to increased physical emissions of ROG and NOx over the current General Plan. With the proposed physical improvements and TDM program, the LOS will improve and the delay time will decrease. An improved LOS and decreased delay time will lessen the output of emissions of ROG and NOx and be beneficial to air quality. Table 4.3-10 compares the LOS for the No Project alternative versus the proposed project. In the No Project alternative 17 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Whereas in the proposed project, only 4 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Table 4.4-6 compares total delay in the No Project Alternative to total delay in the proposed project. Total delay times in the No Project Alternative is 9,838 hours and in the proposed project total delay is 1,046 hours. 4-51 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.4-6: Total Delay in No Project versus Proposed Project No Project Average Total Total Delay Delay Volume (Sec.) (Hours) I ntersec~ons AM Peak Hour I Bayshore Blvd. and US- 101 SB Ramps 3,686 27.2 27.85 3,377 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,152 37.7 53.95 4,859 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,980 34.3 56.98 5,521 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,786 17.6 18.51 3,404 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,769 20.3 32.53 5,167 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,660 12.6 16.31 4,156 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point 3,490 0.0 0.00 3,192 Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 37.1 35.97 3,190 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,282 11.7 7.42 2,150 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 1,041 6.1 1.76 1,033 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- 101 SB 3,288 78.4 71.61 2,908 Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,641 385.6 497.10 4,211 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,723 3.8 3.93 3,282 15 Gateway Blvdo and East Grand Ave. 6,683 512.5 951.40 5,174 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 7,138 743.0 1,473.20 5,335 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave.* 3,243 N/A 253.03 2,785 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 3,647 20.3 20.57 3,644 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. 3,795 25.6 26.99 3,619 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 3,016 246.6 206.60 3,503 AM Total 3,755.70 PM Peak Hour I Bayshore Blvd. and US- I 01 SB Ramps 4,032 337.9 378.45 3,719 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. S, 145 42.4 60.60 4,862 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 7,189 130.3 260.20 6,533 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,922 27.2 29.63 3,589 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 6,767 114.0 214.29 6,122 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,584 32.4 41.26 4,085 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point 3,932 I. I 1.20 3,605 Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,646 68.9 69.78 3,339 Proposed Project Total Volume Average Delay (Sec.) Total Delay (Hours) 14.5 30.9 26.2 13.8 15.9 8.2 0.0 9.8 8.1 5.7 23.1 21.5 5.1 55.0 17.4 13.6 17.0 18.6 24.2 13.60 41.71 40.18 13.05 22.82 9.47 0.00 8.68 4.84 1.64 18.66 25.15 4.65 79.05 25.79 10.52 17.21 18.70 23.55 379.25 82.0 30.5 '85.3 22. I 62.5 13.0 0.6 13.0 84.7 I 41.19 154.80 22.03 106.28 14.75 0.60 12.06 4-52 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.4-6: Total Delay in No Project versus Proposed Project No Project Proposed Project Average Total Average Total Delay Delay Total Delay Total Delay Intersections Volume (Sec.) (Hours) Volume (Sec.) (Hours) 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,305 94.8 60.70 2,172 17.2 10.38 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 953 13.2 3.49 934 12.5 3.24 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- 101 SB Off-Ramp 2,575 16.0 11.44 2,432 14.7 9.93 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,271 37.7 44.73 4,079 25.7 29.12 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,648 4.7 4.76 3,281 4.3 3.92 15 Gateway Blvdo and East Grand Ave. 6,574 205.3 374.90 5,701 21.9 34.68 16 Forbes Blvd. and East G~-and Ave. 6,857 409.7 780.36 5,684 26.4 41.68 17 Grandview D r. and East Grand Ave.* 2,997 689.6 574.09 2,542 18.5 13.06 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 6,202 185.7 319.92 5,704 22.0 34.86 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. 5,694 1793.8 2,837.19 5,119 24.9 35.41 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 2,836 19.1 15.05 2,895 17.4 13.99 PM Total 6,082.05 666.70 AM + PM Total 9,837.74 1,045.95 I I is a dummy node. * Indicates stop-controlled intersection. Delay calculated based on delay of conflict movements if intersection Average Delay was "Overflow". Source: CCS Planning and Engineering Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are in the General Plan: Z3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and state ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. Z3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling. 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle- miles traveled. The Transportation Element also includes policies for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and TDM designed to reduce emissions and alleviate traffic congestion. Specific policies in the Transportation Element include 4.3-G-3, 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-8, 4.5-I-9, 4.3-I-10, 4.4-G-1, and 4.4-I-3. 4-53 · · T Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco The Land Use Element includes policies that encourage pedestrian and transit travel between home and work, reducing negative air quality impacts. Additional Mitigation Measures The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS No residual impacts have been identified. 4-54 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The 1999 DEIR found no significant impacts on biological resources. This EIR found no new significant impacts. ENVIRON MENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for air quality is contained in Chapter 9 of the Existing Conditions Report and Section 4.13 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In the Existing Conditions Report biological resources are divided into five sections: vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, special status species, habitat conservation plans, and wetlands. The following represents a summary and update with a focus on the East of 101 area. Biological Resources Despite a century of urban development and bay fill, the East of 101 area supports remnant areas of biological value including wetlands and Bay communities, and scattered grasslands and scrub vegetation. Many of these areas are protected under regional, state and federal legislation. However, future development is likely to continue to incrementally deplete the remaining biological resources. Vegetation and Wildlife South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, and mud flats and open water, as shown in Figure 4.5-1. The historic shoreline and marshland are shown in Figure 4.5-2. Much of the vegetative area is landscaped. The communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including several species under federal and state protection. The salt marshes in the East of 101 area provide foraging habitat for birds. Primary threats to vegetative communities in the city include: · Further intrusion of urban development into wildlife habitat areas; · Non-native vegetation originally introduced as landscaping, such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, which currently threaten habitat for threatened and endangered plant and animal species within the city; and · Toxic contaminants from commercial/industrial facilities that could result in substantial risks to sensitive waters and nearshore communities of the Bay. 4-55 Source: South San Francisco General Plan EIR SAN FRANCISCO 1NTI~RN~TIONAI., AIRPORT Salt Marsh-Picldeweed Series California Annual Grassland- Coyote Brush Series California Annual Grassland-Ruderal Mud Flats Seasonal Wetland Brackish/Freshwater Marsh San Francisco Bay 0 I/4 i/2 M)LES Figure 4.5-1 Biological Resources -2 Shoreline in mid- 1800's Existing Shoreline ~ - ~-_-£-' Historic extent of marshland Source: South San Francisco General Plan EIR 0 1/4 1/2 MILES San Bruno Canal Sail Francisco Bay Figure 4.5-2 Historic Shoreline and Marshland Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Special Status Species and Ecologically Sensitive Habitats There are no new special status species on the California or federal official list of rare or endangered species. According to CNDDB, three special status species have been observed in the project area: the California clapper rail, San Francisco garter snake, and San Francisco owl's clover. All three of these species are presumed to be present within or near the project area. The California clapper rail is a state and federally-listed endangered species. According to CNDDB's last submission of survey results for the species it was surveyed in 1975 and seen in the small marshes near San Bruno Point. It is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project will impact this species, but intersection improvement projects should ensure that the habitat of the California clapper rail, that is, in saltwater and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, is not adversely impacted. The San Francisco garter snake is an endemic species that is state and federally-listed as endangered. According to the CNDDB's last submission of survey results for the species in the vicinity of the airport (1984), the San Francisco garter snake was observed in this area. It is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project will impact this species, but intersection improvement projects should ensure that the habitat of the San Francisco garter snake, that is, in the vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow-moving streams, particularly areas with dense cover and water depths of at least one foot, as well as upland areas near water, is not adversely impacted. The San Francisco owl's clover is a federal endangered species. The San Francisco owl's clover was last cited when it was last surveyed in the vicinity of the Point San Bruno in 1965, according to the CNDDB database. It is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project will impact this species, but intersection improvement projects should ensure that the habitat of the San Francisco owl's clover, that is, in coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland is not adversely impacted. The following table lists the rare or endangered species that occur in the East of 101 area. The ecologically sensitive habitats that are protected through policies in the General Plan are in Figure 4.5-3. 4-58 Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 4.5- I: Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the East of 101 area in South San Francisco Common Name Scientific Name Birds California Rallus Longirostris Clapper Rail Obsoletus Plants San Francisco Owl's Clover Reptiles San Francisco garter snake Federal Status Triphysaria Floribu nda Status (Fed/CA) Occurrence Data FE/CE Salt marshes on the eastern fringe of the City )rovide only limited habitat for rails. None/None/CNPS This speoes is known from San Bruno List I B Mountain Thamnophis sirtalis FE/CE tetrataenia The closest reported population is located east of 101, south of the City. FE = Species in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range. FT = Species likely to become endangered within foreseeable future throughout all or significant portion of its range. FSS = Former category 2 candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. Now unofficially considered federal sensitive species. FP = Fully Protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. California State Status CE = State listed as endangered. Species whose continued existence in California is jeopardized. CT = State listed as threatened. Species, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. CR = State listed as rare. Plant species, although not presently threatened with extinction, may become endangered in the foreseeable future. CSC = California species of special concern. This is a management designation used to track animal species with declining breeding populations in California. CP = Fully Protected by the State of California under Sections 351 I and 4700 of the Fish and Game Code. SA = Considered a Special Animal by the California Department of Fish and Game. Source: CDFG Natural Diversity Database, 2000 4-59 Wetlands Marine Aquatic Habitat Source: Environmental Science Associates 0 I/4 1/2 MILES Figure 4.5-3 Ecologically Sensitive Lands Chapter 4: Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures I M PACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the General Plan Amendment and TDM program if it would result in one or more of the following: · Substantially affect sensitive habitats and special status plant and animal species. Introduce non-native invasive plant species. · Substantially reduce or degrade common habitats and common wildlife species. CEQA §15380 further provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as "rare or endangered" even if it is not on one of the official lists if it meets the criteria set forth in §15380(b) (if, for example, it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.5-a Proposed physical improvements could affect sensitive habitats and special status plant and animal species. Direct impacts can include mortality of resident species and habitat loss and degradation. Mortality would include road kills and destruction of nests of species such as California clapper rail (if present) during both construction and operational phases of the proposed physical improvements. Habitat degradation associated with temporary construction-related disturbances may include displacement of sensitive wildlife due to construction noise and dust. This project will not convert undeveloped land to developed land and the improvements will not occur within the ecologically sensitive lands. Nevertheless, these projects should ensure that the special status species and their habitats are not adversely affected. This impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures in the General Plan The following mitigation measures are in the General Plan. 7. l-G-1 ZI-G-2 ZI-I-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are state or federally listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. Protect and where reasonable and feasible restore saltmarshes and wetlands. Cooperate with state and federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any state or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in General Plan Figure 7-2: Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals. 4-61 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 7.1 -I-4 7.1 -I-5 Require development on the wetlands delineated in [General Plan] Figure 7-2 to complete assessments of biological resources. Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. Impact4.5-b The Proposed physical improvements could result in the reduction or degradation of common habitats and common wildlife species. Figure 4.5-1 maps the biological resources in the East of 101 area. The proposed physical improvements in the East of 101 area may result in the direct removal of non-native grassland habitat that is common in the region and throughout most of the state. Direct impacts to common wildlife species include both mortality of resident species and habitat loss and degradation. Mortality could include road kills and destruction of nests and species during the operational phases of the proposed physical improvements. Habitat degradation associated with temporary construction-related disturbances may include displacement of animals due to construction noise and dust. These construction-and operational-related disturbances to common species would be considered adverse but not significant. Mitigation Measures in the General Plan Policies 7.l-G-1 and 7.1-G-2 listed under impact 4.5-a. Additional Mitigation Measures The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS No residual impacts have been identified. 4-62 5 Impact Overview According to CEQA Guidelines §15126 (b), an EIR must discuss any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the proposed project. Only minor revisions to the EIR discussion of mandatory findings were necessary to make the EIR adequately apply to this project as revised. The EIR concluded that there were three cumulative impacts, no growth-inducing impacts, two unavoidable impacts, and no irreversible environmental changes. The analysis concludes that this project would create no cumulative impacts, no growth-inducing impacts, no unavoidable impacts and no irreversible environmental changes. 5.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed project implements a very aggressive TDM program with a 35 percent alternative mode usage on all new developments and an increased alternative mode usage for all projects re- questing an FAR bonus. Additionally, the project implements a number of physical improve- ments. This project provides a significant benefit over the No Project Alternative and the General Plan standard of LOS D or higher, is met at most intersections. This project will provide a clear benefit and no significant unavoidable environmental impacts to the East of 101 area, South San Francisco and San Mateo County. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires that the EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines § 15130 (a)(1), a cumulative impact "consists of an impact which is created as a result of the com- bination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall "reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence" (CEQA Guidelines §15130 (b)). In order to assess cumulative impacts, the EIR must analyze either "a list of past, present, and probably future projects" or "a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document." Due to the close proximity to the study area this EIR accounts for the approved development in the neighboring city of Brisbane. Traffic generated by development in Brisbane was estimated based on the City of Brisbane 1993 General Plan ("Traffic and Circulation Technical Memoran- dum, Brisbane 1993 General Plan," Wilbur Smith Associates, January 1994). The total AM peak hour trips generated in Brisbane based on future development is 8693 trips and 14,735 PM peak hour trips. Table 4.3-7 details the traffic generation from Brisbane. TRIP DI STRI BUTI ON The estimated distribution of development traffic was based on employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton- Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was divided according to the percentages shown in Table 5.2-1. Table 5.2- I: Traffic Distribution Direction South Son Francisco Development US I 01 North/San Francisco 29% US 101 South 48% South San Francisco (central area) 2% Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. I Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Canyon Parkway 0% Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) via Railroad Ave. extension Brisbane 7% Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2% San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue I% Local east of US 101 2% TOTAL 100% Source: CCS Planning & Engineering Brisbane Development 47% 24% 4% 3% 7% 0% 13% 0% 0% 2% 100% 5-2 Chapter 5: Impact Overview 5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The EIR must also examine irreversible changes to the environment. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to consider whether "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such re- sources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c)). "Nonre- newable resources" refer to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land, air, waterways, etc. CON STRU CTI ON-RELATED I M PACTS Significant irreversible environmental changes could occur in the course of construction of the physical improvements. These projects must be assessed through a detailed project-level envi- ronmental review, in accordance with CEQA and procedures already established in the South San Francisco Municipal Code. They would result in consumption of building materials, natural gas, electricity, water, and petroleum products. Due to the non-renewable or sloMy renewable nature of these resources, this represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. 5-3 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 5.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The EIR must examine the potential growth-inducing impacts of the General Plan. More specifi- cally, CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR "discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of addition housing, either di- rectly or indirectly" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2 (d)). Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project are difficult to assess. While the land uses are not changing, this project is improving mobility and decreasing congestion in the East of 101 area. General Plan buildout is more likely to occur because of the improved mobility. This project may have the indirect effect of inducing growth by easing congestion, but no direct growth- inducing impacts will occur. 5-4 Cl~apter 5: Impact Overview 5.5 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT CEQA requires that an EIR provide a brief statement indicating why various possible significant impacts were determined to be not significant and were not discussed i:: detail. Chapter 4 of this EIR discusses all potential impacts, regardless of their magnitude. Impacts found to be less than significant are addressed by a similar level of analysis as impacts fount! to be significant. Signifi- cance of an impact is assessed in relation to the thresholds of significan e provided in each section in Chapter 4. A summary of all impacts is provided in Chapter 2: Exec, ztive Summary. 5-5 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco [This page was intentionally left blank.] 5-6 6 Alternatives 6.1 INTRODUCTI ON CEQA mandates consideration and analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. The range of alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts" (CEQA Guidelines §15126(d) (2)). The alternatives may result in new impacts that do not result from the proposed project. The analysis must explain why the alternatives and related mitigation measures would not be preferable to the proposed project. Case law suggests that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and that alternatives be subject to a construction of reasonableness. The impacts of the alternatives may be discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d) (3)). The Guidelines also permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed level for general plans and other program EIRs, compared to project EIRs, but do not specify what comprises an adequate level of detail. For some impacts, quantified information is presented; for others, only partial quantification was available. Five alternatives are considered: · Alternative A: No Project (that is, no change to the existing General Plan); · Alternative B: Initially Proposed Improvements · Alternative C: Moderate TDM · Alternative D: Moderate TDM with Additional improvements · Alternative E: Intensive TDM Alternative A is a continuation of the current General Plan, also considered the No Project Alternative. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs. The remaining four alternatives consider physical improvements and TDM measures in various configurations. Table 6.1-1 compares the physical improvements and TDM programs that are used in each alternative. A thorough description of the intersection improvements and TDM programs are in the following sections. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) requires a TDM program as part of their Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for all cities within San Mateo County. C/CAG's TDM program requires all new development that meets the following guidelines to implement a TDM program: · The project will generate a net 100 or more peak period trips on the Congestion Management Program network (Figure 6.1-1 ); · The project is subject to CEQA review; and · The project will not have completed the scoping and initial study process prior to May 25, 2000. 1~ ~ T Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco New development is required to reduce the net number of trips that it will generate on the network using a formula set by C/CAG that measures trips credited based on TDM measures implemented. C/CAG's program is in Appendix D. Any TDM program that the City implements will supplement the C/CAG program and not replace it. 6-2 ~I~ON ST GE:~NE~A AV BAY'57HO¢~ ~ San Franc~r,o $~n rmnc~co ~ N, // ~III_L~F~ AV Ett~M~D WAY PE~IIN~"ULA AV '~ I..IOLZY ST WHtP'Pt..~ A~, ST RD Pcc~flc Ocean Not to ~cale · Designated Intersections ~ S~nta C,"uz Coun~ Figure 6. I- I 1995 Congestion Management Program Roadway System f~ m T Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 6. I - I: Comparison of the Alternatives Physical Improvements Current General Plan, No Railroad Ave Extension Project Alternative East Grand Ave Committed Projects* 6-4 Initially Proposed Improvements Alternative Moderate TDM Alternative Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative Railroad Ave Extension Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Airport BIvd & US 101 Underpass Dubuque Ave and East Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd2 Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd2 Utah Extension Committed Projects Railroad Ave Extension Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Airport Blvd & US 101 Underpass Dubuque Ave and East Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd2 Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd~ Committed Projects Bayshore Blvd & US 101 SB Hook Ramp(s)~ Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd~ Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Forbes Blvd/Harbor Way & East Grand Ave East Grand Ave & Grandview Dr. Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Railroad Ave Extension Harbor Way Mitchell Ave TDM C/CAG program without supplemental City TD M program C/CAG program without supplemental City TD M program C/CAG program with Moderate TD M program C/CAG program with Moderate TD M Program Chapter 6: Alternatives Table 6. I - I: Comparison of the Alternatives Physical Improvements Committed Projects Intense TD M Alternative Railroad Ave Extension Proposed Project (I ntense TD M with Additional Improvements Alternative) TDM Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Airport Blvd & US I01 Underpass Dubuque Ave and East Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd2 Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd2 Commicted Projects Bayshore Blvd & US I01 SB Hook Ramp(s)2 Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd2 Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Forbes Blvd/Harbor Way & East Grand Ave East Grand Ave & Grandview Dr. Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Railroad Ave Extension Harbor Way Mitchell Ave Committed Projects C/CAG program with Aggressive TD M Program C/CAG program with Intense TD M Program Intersections that have committed improvements, i.e. improvements included in the CI P or as mitigation measu res for approved projects include: Bayshore Blvd & US 101 SB Hook Ramp(s); Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd; Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd; Veterans Rd. & Oyster Point Blvd; Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave. This intersection is listed as a physical improvement under this alternative as well as under the committed projects because this alternative includes an additional improvement beyond the committed project for this intersection. Subsequent sections of this chapter describe each alternative in greater detail. 6-5 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco ASSU MPTI ON S The following assumptions were used in determining which alternatives to include: · ABAG indicates that South San Francisco's employment population '~dll increase by another 10,000 employees. Even if there is no new development in the East of i01 area, existing facilities and businesses will grow. The University of California Fisher School of Real Estate forecasts that demand for office space in the Bay Area will continue for the foreseeable future (the forecast anticipates declines in dot corn employment) in the service, finance, and high-tech sectors of the economy. South San Francisco is the largest biotech employer in the United States. It is assumed that the City's economic development objective would be to retain that leadership status and continue to promote the biotechnolo~o3~ industry over other uses. · The EIR will not assume any changes in approved land use classifications. · Rather than implementing a "no growth" policy on development, the City would support a policy that reduces a new project's traffic impact to "no new trips." 6-6 Chapter 6: Alternatives 6.2 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT, CURRENT GENERAL PLAN CEQA requires that one of the alternatives be a "No Project Alternative." In the absence of the proposed project, the existing General Plan, as it stands without the General Plan Amendment, and the TDM ordinance would continue to guide the citv,'s development. The physical improvements that currently exist in the General Plan and the committed projects would be implemented, however no additional improvements would be made to the current system. The objective would be to reduce congestion by using the existing local/regional transportation systems and regulatory tools. This alternative assumes the existing shuttle system would grow as new development occurs in the East of 101 area, without any significant changes in funding, routes and management. In addition to the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, the City's CIP, and C/CAG's TDM program could all be used in this alternative. Table 6.2-1 describes the assumptions on mode.split that were used in the No Project Alternative. Table 6.2-I: Mode Split in No Project Alternative Mode Current Mode Split SOV Trip Elimination Single Occupancy Vehicle 77.0% Alternative Mode Use Carpool (assumes 2.0 per car) 16.0% 8.0% Walk 1.5% 1.5% Bike 0.5% 0.5% Transit/shuttle 4.0% 4.0% Other 1.0% 1.0% Alternative Mode Use Subtotal 23.0% Total 100% I 5.0% *Source: U.S. Census (I 990) The General Plan provides for the following physical improvements in the East of 101 area: · Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general alignment of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. · East Grand Avenue extension from its existing terminus near the Fuller O'Brien property to the Southern end of Point San Bruno near Genentech. The General Plan provides for the Railroad Avenue extension. This extension is not yet a committed project, but due to the high probability of its construction, it is analyzed in all of the alternatives. The East Grand Avenue extension is included in the General Plan, and therefore is included in the No Project Alternative. However, the construction of this improvement is uncertain, and as a consequence the East Grand Avenue extension is not included in any of the other alternatives. 6-7 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco The following intersection improvements are committed through other projects and therefore these improvements are considered in all of the alternatives. The traffic volumes and lane configurations under this scenario are depicted in Figure 6.2-1. Table 6.2-2: Intersection Number I 15 Committed Projects Intersection Improvements Bayshore Boulevard & US 101 SB Hook Ramp(s). Build bottom hook ramps to provide I right and I left turn lanes for off-ramp; I through and I shared through-right lanes for NB, and 2 through and I left turn lanes for SB of Bayshore Boulevard. Bayshore/Airport Boulevard & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard. Change existing WB 2nd left turn lane on Oyster Point Boulevard to a through lane. Restripe WB through/right lane to right turn lane. Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. A new five-legged intersection as part of the SB 101 to EB Oyster Point Boulevard. Flyover project. Veterans Road & Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen the SB Veterans Road to add I right turn lane. Re-stripe existing SB Veterans Road optional through/left turn lane into a optional right/through/left lane Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing N B through/right shared lane to a right turn lane. Re-stripe existing EB approach to provide a separate right turn lane. 6-8 ~Z °~ pl Gull Rd. 363(637) .,~ 8(3) 39(28) -,~ Marina Blvd. 90(160) 2(3) I 55(308) ',1--~1(7) 1(3) Driveway · '-', N.1 CO :~ ~. D~_29(145) ~4r ~4 Driveway ..q ._~ '-,1 Ecdes Ave. 223(1040) --~ 81(30) --~ 744(1698) ~ ~ ~ ~ 378(148) ~,1 ~,& I,~ ii_ 1(5) Dubuque Ave. 88(406) J ,~o o .--, 107(448) ~ o(0) Gateway Blvd. 199,1423,-~r / 62(15)) ~'~ 144(48 ' I ~ '~ "~ 122(407) ~ ~.~ ~ 0(0) Driveway Veterans Rd. o(o) ~ ~, 2(6) ~ ~ ~ 114 <1-- 1401 (926) <I--- /¢" 500(916) Bayshore 831 (923) --~ ""'~ ~t ~ 202(349)~ /k % F ~m~-, '~ '~ =.c~ ~,_ 138(725) 660(532) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1058(398) Airport Blvd. * ~ Bayshore Blvd. 30(110) J ¢~h f~ 376(245)~ "o ~ ¢ Dubuque Ave. 533(799) .~ 49(245) 1380(368) ..~ US 101 NB on ~ed~, -' r,o .-, .~ ~ '"- 122(114) * 8O2(lO89) Produce Ave. "Airport Blvd. Harbor Wy. >~ Littlefield Ave, 190(135)_~ 183(217)--I~ 328(200) ~ ~ '~ '~ '~ ~- ~ 422(1838) m ~ m 337(1252) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~141(230) ~ ~S ~¢ 99(433) ~ ~ ~ ~162(45) ~' ~29(20) S.Airpor, Blvd. Gateway Blvd. Harbor Wy. Forbes Blvd. J so(=3e) J h f 487(625)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w asao 78) ~ ~ ~ ~ a 346(422) ~ ~ ~ 736(212)~ m ~ ~ 165(95) ~ ~ ~ m O~ O¢~ ~ ~e -~ ~,- 6(5) o, oo ~._347(1431) ~ ~ ~ 340(587) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1410(490) ~ ~ '4 '23(20) Grandview Dr. S.Airport Blvd. 290(358) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < 641(192) -x~ ~ '~'~ OO~ Ir, ~- 36(140) ~-- 47 (48) Dubuque Ave. oo O) '"-" ~4~ t~ ~/- 169(56) Gateway Blvd. ~ f f ~ 82(148)~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ 323(195)~ ~ ~ 612,245,~[ ~ w ~ m Airport 53(142) 288(527) .~67(71) 665(551) ° ~ '~ 'K <> ~%. 228(585) ~ ~ ~ v ~ 457(442) ; ~ ~ 1812(457) Airport Blvd. 33(117) J h~ f ~ 322(493) ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 204(97) ~ ~ w o & ~O Chapter 6: Alternatives Under the No Project Alternative, a TDM program specific to the City of South San Francisco would not be implemented. However, C/CAG's regulations regarding a TDM program would be in effect. This alternative does not respond to the issues that created the need for the additional physical improvements and the TDM program. Under the No Project Alternative (current General Plan/, 14 of the study intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or F) during AM and/or PM peak hours, including: · Bayshore Boulevard & US 101 SB Ramps (LOS F in PM) · Airport Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS E in PM) · Dubuque Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F in PM) · Gateway Boulevard 8: Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F in PM) · Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F in PM) · Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F in PM) · Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (LOS F in AM) · Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (LOS F in AM) · Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (LOS F in both AM and PM) · Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (LOS F in both AM and PM) · Grandview Avenue & East Grand Avenue (LOS F in both AM and PM) · Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue (LOS F in PM) · South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (LOS F in PM) South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue (LOS F in AM) 6-11 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 6.3 ALTERNATIVE B: INITIALLY PROPOSED PHYSICAL I P! PROVEMENTS In this alternative, the public sector would emphasize physical improvements. This alternative would emphasize the City, and region's existing approach (noting the existing regulatory and permitting systems) that is used to mitigate increased traffic impacts in the City. This alternative assumes the existing shuttle system would grow as new development occurs in the East of 101 area, without any significant changes in funding, routes, and management. The alternative also includes C/CAG's CMP standards for the TDM program for new development that is discussed in the No Project Alternative. The set of physical transportation improvements included in this alternative include the committed projects described in Alternative A and the additional improvements described in Table 6.3-1. These additional improvements were determined based on an initial assessment of the road improvements that were needed in the East of 101 area. These improvements will be funded by a development impact fee. A TDM program supplementing C/GAG's program is not utilized in this alternative. Table 6.2-1 in Alternative A defines the mode split that was also used to calculate expected LOS in this alternative. Figure 6.3-1 depicts the location of the intersection improvements. Table 6.3- I: Intersection Number A B C D E G Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Scenario Improvements Intersection Improvement Railroad Avenue extension. Extend Railroad Avenue eastward from Linden Avenue to Gateway Boulevard. Airport Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. Provide three westbound left turn lanes, as well as two left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared through/right turn lane on the eastbound approach and two left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared through/right turn lane on the southbound approach at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection. Widen the Airport Boulevard underpass of Highway 101 using a tie-back wall. Grand Avenue & Dubuque Avenue. Provide a truck flyover lane from westbound Grand Avenue to northbound Dubuque Avenue. Oyster Point Boulevard & Northbound 101. Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard/N orthbou nd I 01 on-ramp intersection to provide two westbou nd right turn lanes as well as one eastbound right turn lane and one eastbound shared through/right turn lane. Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard. Provide two eastbound left turn lanes, as well as one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane on the westbound approach at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Utah Avenue extension. Extend Utah Avenue westward from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue. 6-12 Chapter 6: Alternatives The traffic operations levels of service for this alternative are presented in Table 6.7-2. Under the Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Alternative, 13 study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the Current No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) in the AM peak hour: Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS E to LOS D in AM). 6-13 LiSister Cities Blvd./Airport Blvd. Intersection Improvements Shoreline Ct. ;~ Oyster Point Blvd./NB 101 on-ramp Intersection Improvements Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. Intersection Improvements Railroad Avenue Extension Extension Airport Blvd./US 101 I Underpass Widening Tie Back Wall / Extension Mi[cheil Ave. BAY WEST COVE Oyster Pt Blvd. ']?~¢°v~:'~e"B~Z_~u~u~~.o~~ Ave SAN IN TERNATiONAL A IRPOR7 ~ CCS I South San Francisco East of 101 Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Figure 6.3-1 Chapter 6: Alternatives 6.4 ALTERNATIVE C: MODERATE TDM PROGRAM Alternative C would reduce congestion by implementing a TDM program in addition to improvements A through F listed in Table 6.3-1, the Railroad Avenue extension and the committed projects described in Alternative A. The projected traffic volumes were adjusted to reflect TDM at moderate levels. The moderate TDM program assumes single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trip elimination of 24.5 percent, a 35 percent alternative mode usage, for all new development in the East of 101 area. Based on current mode split information derived from 1990 census data, the existing SOV trip elimination is estimated to be 15.0 percent for South San Francisco. Therefore the moderate TDM program would result in a net increase in SOV trip elimination of about 9.5 percent. Table 6.3-1 describes the mode split that was assumed in this alternative. Subsequently, the future traffic projections were reduced by 9.5 percent to account for the implementation of the moderate TDM program. Therefore, the total trip generation for South San Francisco development with Moderate TDM is about 10,099 trips and 9,719 trips, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, compared to 11,159 trips and 10,739 trips (approved + potential), for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, under the No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative. Table 6.4- I: Standard Base TD I*1 Program Mode Current Mode SOV Trip Split Elimination Single Occupancy Vehicle 65.0% Carpool (assumes 2.0 per car) 22% I 1.5% Walk 2% 2% Bike 2% 2% Transit/shuttle 8% 8% Other I% I% Alternative Mode Use Subtotal 35.0% Total 100% 24.5% Traffic operations levels of service for the Moderate TDM scenario are included in Table 6.7-2. Under the Moderate TDM scenario, 12 of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General Plan) scenario, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) in the AM and/or PM peak hours: · Airport Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS E to LOS D in PM) · Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM) The following intersections improve but remain unacceptable: · Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS E in PM) · Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from LOS F to LOS E in AM) 6-15 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 6.5 ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM PROGRAM WITH PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS Alternative C would supplement C/CAG's TDM program using the same TDM program as described in Alternative B. However, this alternative would also use physical improvements to reduce congestion. These physical improvements are the same improvements that are included in the proposed project. The only difference between this alternative and the preferred project is that this Alternative implements a Moderate TDM program with a 24.5 percent SOV trip elimination, 35 percent alternative mode use and the proposed project implements a TDM program with a 34 percent S©V trip elimination, 45percent alternative mode use for all new developments. In addition to the committed projects listed under Alternative A, Table 6.5-1 describes the physical improvements that are included in this alternative. Figure 6.5-1 depicts the intersection improvements and peak period traffic volumes. Traffic operations levels of service for this alternative are also included in Table 6.7-2. Table 6.5- I: Intersection Number I 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 Physical Improvements Intersection and Roadway Improvements Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 SB Hook Ramp. Re-stripe the off-ramp right turn lane to be an optional left/right turn lane. Bayshore/Airport Boulevard & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen E B Sister Cities Boulevard to add I additional left turn lane. Dubuque Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point Boulevard to add I right turn lane making it a total of two 650' right-turn lanes lane to NB 101 on-ramp. Re-stripe EB oyster Point Boulevard to change one of the through lanes to a shared through-right lane. Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-tu rn lanes for the N B approach. Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one through/right shared lane. Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/US 101 SB off-ramp. Widen SB 101 off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2nd left turn lane. Re-stripe to change the existing I 0 I SB off-ramp optional through/left lane into a through only lane. Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing SB Airport Boulevard. right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and SB shared through/left lane to a left turn lane. Widen EB Grand Ave to add 2 left turn lanes; restripe the EB through/left shared lane to a through lane and EB right turn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3rd left-turn lane in the WB approach and restrict truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue. Dubuque Avenue & East Grand Avenue. Widen Grand Avenue to improve the turning radius from WB Grand Avenue to N B Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing WB Grand Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes. Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue & Harbor Boulevard. Widen WB Grand Avenue to add I additional through lane and I additional left turn lane. Widen SB Forbes Boulevard to add I through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen 6-16 Chapter 6: Alternatives Table 6.5- I: Intersection Number 17 18 19 2O Physical Improvements Intersection and Roadway Improvements NB Harbor Way to add I through lane, I right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a through lane. Grandview Drive & East Grand Avenue. Signalize intersection. Add I SB Grandview Avenue right turn lane; restripe EB East Grand Avenue to provide I left turn lane and I shared left/through lane. Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Ave.nue Widen WB Airport Boulevard to add one additional left-tu rn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-tu rn lane to make it a total of three left-tu rn lanes. Modify N B Produce Ave to bring the SB 101 to E B Airport Boulevard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB Airport Boulevard. South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard. Widen EB Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-tu rn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane. Widen Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and a right-turn lane. Widen SB Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane. South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue. Widen Airport Boulevard to add one SB left turn lane; restripe one of the existing N B Airport Boulevard through lanes to a shared through/right lane. Railroad Avenue. Construct a 4 lanes, 2 ways roadway within the existing UPRR right of way between Linden Ave and Gateway Boulevard Harbor Way. Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. Mitchell Avenue. Widen Mitchell Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway with parking prohibition between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. With the additional improvements, four of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) in the AM and/or PM peak hours: · Airport Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) · Eecles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS B in PM) · Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS C in PM) · Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from LOS F to LOS D in AM) · Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM) · Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) · Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to LOS D in PM) 6-17 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco · Grandview Avenue & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to LOS C in PM) · Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) · South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in AM) 6-18 ~ ~ 0 OullR ~ ~ 1(3) ~ ~26(131) ~ ~ ~ ~730(1628) ' ~ ~(5) ~ ~ ~ w m 83(372) ~ Marina Blvd. & 2(3) 212(967) ~ ~ ff ~ 78(2e ~ ~ ~ ~ 196(1396) ~ ~ ~ 56(13) ~ ~ 135(45) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ %112(366) ~ ~ ~ - Drive = ~ ' Veterans Rd. ,2' 34(162) = 0(0) ~ ~ 2(5) ~ 1336(884) ¢¢- 497(889) Bayshore 781(857)_.._.. ~ ,~ ~ ~: ~_. 138(725) ~_. ~:- 989(361) Airport Blvd. 3O(lO6) j f 373(244)~ ~.~ ~ Dubuque Ave. Prod uce Ave, 274(186) "' "' Airport Blvd. '"' '"' ~ ;I"~'*-~'320(1147) ~ '~ ~ ~' ~=::t~-~1--140(224) ~ ~ ~ = .... ~ ~ ~ ~ 398(1684) ~146(41) ~~ ~92(387) ~ ~ ~ ~35(132) gateway Blvd. ~{ %~ ~ ~29(20) ~ ~ . S.AirportBlvd. ~ ~ H.rborWy. Forbes Blvd. ~ ~ ~47(46) 485(624)~ ~ ~ ? 177(216) J J ~ ~ Dubuque Ave. 377(177) ~ 150(90) ..,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 128(392) 282(355)_. ~ o ~ ~ 630(189)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 302(190)~ ~ ~ ~ 576(234)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oO s~. - ,), .o % ~/ -~67(71) Airport ~ 645(537) 53(142) .~ ~'1 ~ 274(507) ~ ~ ~"?'1 f o ~ jO- ~'- 1562(389) Airport Blvd. 32(117)_ } 320(492) ~ ~ f ~ 203(97) ~ ~ ~ ~ Chapter 6: Alternatives 6.6 ALTERNATIVE E: INTENSE TDM PROGRAM Alternative E requires the same physical improvements as Alternative C: Moderate TDM program (committed projects in Table 6.2-2 and the initially proposed physical improvements A through F in Table 6.3-1.) The difference is that in this alternative new development is required to implement an intense TDM program. Table 6.5-1 describes the mode split assumed under this TDM program. In this alternative, 35 percent SOV trip elimination is assumed, which is a 9.5 percent decrease in SOV trips from the moderate TDM program, tt is achieved by requiring developers to implement the elements of the moderate TDM program (See Table 6.3-1) in addition to allowing the developer to choose some combination of elements from the menu of measures listed in Table 6.5. This TDM program requires the developer to implement basic TDM measures and allows the developer flexibility to choose from among many more aggressive measures in Table 6.5. in order to achieve this 35 percent SOV trip elimination, 45 percent alternative mode use. Table 6.6- I: Mode Split Under The Intense TO M program Mode Mode Split SOV Trip Elimination Single Occupancy Vehicle 55.0% Carpool (assumes 2.0 per car) 25.0% 14.0% Walk 2.25% 2.25% Bike 2.5% 2.25% Transit/shuttle 12.5% 12.5% Other 3.0% 3.0% Alternative Mode Use Subtotal 45.0% Total 100% 34.0% Traffic operations levels of service for this alternative are included in Table 6.7-2. Under the Aggressive TDM Alternative, 10 of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General Plan) scenario, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) in the AM and/or PM peak hours: Airport Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) · Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) · Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from LOS F to LOS D in AM) · Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM) The following intersection improves, but remains unacceptable: Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS E in PM) 6-21 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco 6.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section presents the impacts for each alternative by major issue area, in comparison to the proposed project. Impacts in the following areas are discussed: · Land Use · Transportation · Air Quality · Biological Resources LAND USE The land uses are not changing in any of the alternatives or in the proposed project. The impacts on the land uses are the same for every alternative. The approved development projects will be developed regardless of which alternative is implemented. The only displacement of existing businesses by street improvements will occur because of the Railroad Avenue extension. This road improvement will occur regardless of which alternative is implemented because this improvement was planned for in the General Plan. The proposed project will do the most to help achieve attainment of the General Plan Land Use objectives because this alternative will decrease congestion the most, i.e. decrease delay times and improve LOS to the highest level. TRAN SPORTATI ON The transportation impacts vary greatly depending on the alternative. The General Plan policy states that the City's goal is to achieve a LOS of D or better for all intersections. Table 6.7-1 compares the overall number of intersections with unacceptable traffic operations, i.e. LOS E or F. Table 6.7-2 compares the LOS and delay time for each of the study intersections under each alternative. As with the improvements in LOS, the overall delay times improve significantly with the proposed project also. Table 6.7-3 provides an overall measure for comparing each intersection by using total volumes to weight the overall delay. The total delay for the No Project alternative is 9,838 hours, total delay for the Moderate TDM program with Additional Improvements alternative is 1,302 hours, and total delay for the Proposed Project is 1,046 hours. Table 6.7- I: Number of Intersections with Unacceptable Traffic Operations No Project Initial Maximum Moderate TDM Moderate TDM Aggressive Proposed Project (Current Physical with Additional TDM General Plan) Improvement Improvements 6inAM 5inAM 5inAM I in AM 4inAM I in AM II in PM II in PM 10 in PM 3 in PM 9 in PM 3 in PM 6-22 Chapter 6: Alternatives Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the N o Project and Moderate TD M with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Proposed Project N o Project AM Peak Hour I Total Average Total Total Delay Volume Delay Delay (Hours) (Seconds) (Hours) Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB 3,686 Ramps 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Poin~ Blvd. 5,152 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point 5,980 Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,786 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point 5,769 Blvd. Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,660 Bay West Driveway and Oyster 3,490 Point Blvd. Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,282 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 1,041 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./LJS- 3,288 101 SB Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,64 I 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,723 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,683 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 7,138 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave. . 3,243 Moderate TDM with Addi- Proposed Project tional Improvements Total Average Total Total Average Volume Delay (<Sec- Delay Volume Delay onds) (Hours) (Seconds) 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 3,647 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway 3,795 Blvd. 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 3,016 AM Total PM Peak Hour I Bayshore Blvd. andUS-101 SB 4,032 Ramps 27.2 27.85 3,524 15. I 14.78 3,377 14.5 13.60 37.7 53.95 4,999 31.6 43.88 4,859 30.9 41.7 I 34.3 56.98 5,736 27.7 44.14 5,521 26.2 40.18 17.6 18.51 3,581 15.3 15.22 3,404 13.8 13.05 20.3 32.53 5,450 17.6 26.64 5,167 15.9 22.82 12.6 16.31 4,388 9.5 I 1.58 4,156 8.2 9.47 0.0 0.00 3,331 0.0 0.00 3,192 0.0 0.00 37. I 35.97 3,331 12.9 I 1.94 3,190 9.8 8.68 I 1.7 7.42 2,210 8.2 5.03 2,150 8. I 4.84 6. I 1.76 1,036 5.8 1.67 1,033 5.7 1.64 78.4 7 t.61 3,022 26.4 22.16 2,908 23. I 18.66 385.6 497. I 0 4,348 23.5 28.38 4,21 I 21.5 25.15 3.8 3.93 3,427 3.7 3.52 3,282 5. I 4.65 512.5 951.40 5,387 72.2 108.04 5,174 55.0 79.05 743.0 1,473.20 5,686 19.3 30.48 5,335 17.4 25.79 N/A 253.03 3,004 22.7 18.94 2,785 13.6 10.52 20.3 20.57 3,712 17.0 17.53 3,644 17.0 17.2 I 25.6 26.99 3,770 18.8 19.69 3,619 18.6 18.70 246.6 206.60 3,709 36.8 37.91 3,503 24.2 .23.55 3,755.70 461.54 379.25 337.9 378.45 99.7 j 106.96 I 3,7 1 9 82.O 84.7 I I I 3,862 I 6-25 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the N o Project and Moderate TD M with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Proposed Project N o Project Total Volume 6 7 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,145 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point 7,189 Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,922 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point 6,767 Blvd. Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,584 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,932 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,646 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,305 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 953 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- 2,575 101 SB Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,27 I 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,648 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,574 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,857 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave. . 2,997 Average Delay (Seconds) 42.4 130.3 27.2 114.0 32.4 I.I 68.9 94.8 13.2 16.0 37.7 4.7 205.3 409.7 689.6 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 6,202 185.7 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway 5,694 1793.8 Blvd. 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 2,836 19. I PM Total AM + PM Total I I is a dummy node. Moderate TDM with Addi- Proposed Project tional Improvements Total Total Average Total Total Average Total Delay Delay Delay (Sec- Delay Delay (Hours) Volume onds) (Hours) Volume (Seconds) (Hours) 60.60 4,991 30.8 42.70 4,862 30.5 4 I. 19 260.20 6,836 105.0 199.38 6,533 85.3 154.80 29.63 3,740 24. I 25.04 3,589 22. I 22.03 214.29 6,416 84.6 150.78 6,122 62.5 106.28 41.26 4,313 19.2 23.00 4,085 13.0 14.75 1.20 3,756 0.8 0.83 3,605 0.6 0.60 69.78 3,479 13.8 13.34 3,339 13.0 12.06 60.70 2,234 19. I I 1.85 2,172 17.2 10.38 3.49 944 12.8 3.36 934 12.5 3.24 I 1.44 2,478 14.7 I 0.12 2,432 14.7 9.93 44.73 4,146 27.7 31.90 4,079 25.7 29.12 4.76 3,433 4.5 4.29 3,281 4.3 3.92 374.90 5,997 24.6 40.98 5,701 21.9 34.68 780.36 6, I 17 35.4 60.15 5,684 26.4 41.68 574.09 2,755 21.7 16.61 2,542 18.5 13.06 319.92 5,963 25.5 42.24 5,704 22.0 34.86 2,837.19 5,409 28.5 42.82 5, I 19 24.9 35.4 I 15.05 2,955 17.6 14.45 2,895 17.4 13.99 6,082.05 840.79 666.70 9,837. 74 1,302.33 1,045.95 * Indicates stop-controlled intersection. Delay calculated based on delay of conflict movements if intersection Average Delay was "Overflow". Source: CCS Planning and Engineering 6-26 Chapter 6: Alternatives AIR QUALITY The impacts to air quality are improved most by the proposed project. As noted in Table 6.7-2 the LOS and Delay times are improved the most with the proposed project. The decreased delay times and improved LOS will improve ozone precursors, especially over the No Project Alternative. Additionally, the overall delay times are compared for the No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Project. Table 6.7-3 details intersection by intersection the overall delay times for each intersection weighted by traffic volumes. The proposed project will significantly decrease total number of delay hours, especially over the Current General Plan Alternative. Table 6.7-4 Table 6.7-5: Total Vehicle Delay at Study Intersections (AM + PM Peak Hours) No Project Alternative '(Current Moderate TDM with Additional Project (Aggressive TDM General Plan) Improvements Alternative Additional Improvements) 9,838 hou rs 1,302 hou rs 1,046 hou rs with BI OLOGI CAL RESOURCES The physical improvements are the only elements of the current project that could potentially affect biological resources. Refer to Section 4.5 for a detailed discussion of the affect the physical improvements will have on the biological resources. In summary, there are three special status species in the East of 101 area: the California clapper rail, the San Francisco garter snake, and the San Francisco owl's clover. The California clapper rail was last seen in the marshes near San Bruno Point and it normally makes its habitat in saltwater and brackish marshes in the vicinity of the San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco garter snake was last observed in the vicinity of the airport and it's habitat is in the vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow-moving streams, particularly areas with dense cover and water depths of at least one foot, as well as upland areas near water. The San Francisco owl's clover was last sited near Point San Bruno and makes its habitat in coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. It is unlikely that any of these species will be impacted by any of the alternatives. The physical improvements that are proposed in all of the alternatives are far from the habitats of these special status species. 6.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The proposed project, the Aggressive TDM w/th Additional Physical Improvements, is the environmentally superior alternative. By improving LOS and delay times to the greatest extent, the proposed project improves both air quality and transportation more than any of the alternatives. Neither the proposed project nor any of the alternatives will impact land uses. Like all of the alternatives, the proposed project is also unlikely to impact biological resources. 6-27 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco [This page was intentionally left blank.] 6-28 7 Report Authors, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 7. I RE PORT PREPARATI ON This Supplemental EIR has been prepared by: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner (Project Manager for the City) 7.2 CONSULTING TEAM Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, Primary Consultant 70 Zoe Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Susan Exline, Planner Mark Chambers, Graphics Manager CCS Planning and Engineering, Transportation Consultants 1440 Broadway, Suite 402 Oakland, Ca 94612 Chwen Siripiconant, Principal-in-Charge Tom Wintch, Principal Civil Engineer Gary Weinstein, Senior Design Engineer Bill Cisco, Project Engineer Shusuke Iida, Project Engineer Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Subconsultants contributing to the DEIR are the following: The Hoyt Company, TDM Consultants 660 J Street, Suite 444 Sacramento, CA 95814 Wendy Hoyt, Principal-in-Charge Elizabeth Williams, TDM/Transportation Manager 7.3 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRAN CI SCO Planning Division Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner, Project Manager for the City Engineering Division Dennis Chuck, Acting City Engineer Tracy Scramaglia, Assistant Engineer OTHER AGENCIES Bay Area Air Quality Management District Aaron Richardson, Public Information Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Chip Fussell, Executive Director City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Walter Martone Dave Carbone San Francisco International Airport Nancy Schneider, Planning and Environmental Affairs 7-2 Appendix A. Notice of Preparation DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829-6639 NOTICE OF PREPARATION DATE: TO: SUBJECT: December 8, 2000 Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE EAST OF 101 AREA' TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) The City of South San Francisco is currently preparing the East of 10l Area Traffic Improvement Plan, which includes amendments to both the South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan, and has determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be necessary. The City, in compliance with CEQA, is the Lead Agency and will direct the preparation of the SEIR for the project. The City requests your input regarding the scope and content of environmental information that is relevant to your respective agency's statutory/regulatory responsibilities in order to ascertain potential impacts of the proposed project. The project description is provided in the attached Notice of Preparation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 (b) mandates each Responsible Agency to respond to an NOP within thirty days (30) after receipt. The review period will extend from December 10, 2000 to January 9,2001. Please send your written response, with the name of your agency contact person, to the following address: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Your views and comments on how the project may impact the environment are welcomed. Please contact Michael Lappen at (650) 877-8535 if you have any questions regarding this Notice of Preparation. 315 MAPLE AVENUE · P.O. {3OX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94083 Notice of Preparalion City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan SEIR December 8, 2000 Page 2 Project Title: The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Thomas C. Sparks Chief Planner NOTICE OF PREPARATION East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report City of South San Francisco December 2000 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Notice of Preparation is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to inform all interested parties that the City of South San Francisco intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City's East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan. The plan includes amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. This notice is to request comments and guidance on the scope and the content of the environmental information to be included in the SEIR. PROJECT TITLE City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES Regional Location The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including US 101, Interstates 1-280 and 1-380, the Union Pacific Railroad (formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) main line, and the San Francisco International Aiqaort. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 1. Planning Area Boundaries The planning area for the East of 101 Area Traffic Implementation Plan includes all land located east of US 101 and within the boundary of the City of South San Francisco. The planning area is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the east, San Bruno Mountain and the City of Brisbane to the north, and the San Francisco International Airport to the south. Figure 2 shows the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan planning area. P'IA RIN M A T'IE:O AL DA ~ / 'L Regional Location ? 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In October 1999, The City of South San Francisco Ciw Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan and certified the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Plan presents a long-term, comprehensive plan to help the community, understand the issues and find solutions for land use, housing, economic development, transportation, and consepvation needs for the various neighborhoods that make up the city. The General Plan's Transportation Element identifies future transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages lo further integrate a multi-modal transportation system. The Element also encourages alternative modes of transit (including bicycle routs and pedestrian amenities) that woul.d help reduce transportation impacts. East of 101 Traffic Study The City's Engineering Division is currently preparing a detailed traffic and fee study for the East of 101 area. The scope of work for the project includes the following objectives: 2. 3. 4. Improve the process for traffic studies for individual developments. Update traffic projections for the East of 101 area. ldentify specific road improvement alternatives. Identify long-range mitigation, including traffic reduction' measures as well as road improvements. Recommend fee Structures to fund transportation improvements. The Transportation Element identifies furore physical improvements and alternative transportation systems that will help the City manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area. Many of the physical improvements identified in the General Plan require more detailed study and analysis in order to determine how they will be implemented and the appropriate funding mechanism. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of local and regional programs, including the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the County's Congestion Management Program (CMP). Therefore, the Transportation Element provides the City with the flexibility to identify future physical improvements and transportation programs. Spe'cifically, General Plan Policy 4.2-t-6 states "Update the Transportation Element, if necessary, including a list of improvements, upon completion of the East of 101 traffic study". The Element also encourages the City to promote a Transportation Demand Management program. General Plan Policy 4.3-I-8 requires the City to adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes a methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses, procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses, requirements for off-site improvements, and reduced parking requirements. Project Objectives The implementation of the physical improvements and the TDM program will require that the City 4 incorporate the improvements into the General Plan Transportation Element. the General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Elemenl, other elements, and the East of 101 Area Plan for consislency. The current efforts underway for traffic analysis for the East of 101 Area will be consolidated into General Plan amendments. It is anticipated that the amendments will be in the form of: Changes to the Transportation Element. Specifically, the Supplemental EIR and Amendment to the Transportation Element will list specific transportation and roadway improvements. The Element and Supplemental EIR will also increase focus on alternative transportation modes (for example, shuttles) and transportation demand management. Changes to' the other elements for consistency. For example, the Planning Sub-areas Element may need to be amended. Changes to the East of JO1 Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan will be updated to reflect the General Plan policy direction. Preparation of the TDM Program and Ordinance. The City will prepare a comprehensive and enforceable TDM Program. The Traffic Improvement Plan will be a separate document, adopted concurrently with the GPA. The General Plan amendments, East of 101 Area Plan amendments, street and infrastructure improvements, and the TDM Program wou!d forn~ the "project" for the EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] [] Biological Resources [] [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Materials [] Mineral Resources [] [] Public Services [] [] Utilities/Service [] Systems Agricultural Resom'ces Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Sigrfificance [] [] [] [] Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 'the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially sign/ficant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, bm it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date 6 Appendix B. Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ?~,',ST LA~D RIGHT OFFICE ~ 408 282 7118 02/28/01 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1~ ^~,~¢. Blvd.. Roo,. s~ 8an Jose Division San Jo~, CA 95115 408-282-7138 11:00~]:02/04 N0:649 January 5, 2001 Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Notice of Preparation East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Dear Mr. Lappen: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Plan. PG&E has the following comments to offer. PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities which are located within and adjacent to thc proposed project. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities, To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers shold be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilties should be referred to PG&E for additional information and assistance in the development of their project .schedules. ........... ,.,-,,,,, ~,~,~n, ,.,rr-~.c '0 ~u~ ~'~' t"ll~ 02/28/01 11.`00 ~ '.03/04 N0~649 We 'would also like to note that continued development consistent with your Plans - will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and my require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence Of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the faclity has capacity to connect to new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development'projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. this will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City of Milpitas to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Notice of Preparation. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. "Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, shoois and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request". PG&E remains committed to working with thc City of Milpitas to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to the planned area. We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. Thc California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. ] · T ~¥~ln ~.~,~u ~Z~rl~ urrzc~- -$-Q~J~ E~2 f118 02/28/01 11'00 ~ '04/04 N0:649 ShoUld you require any additional information or have any questions please call me at (408) 282-7389. Sincerely, Len Orilli Land Agent Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Jose Division SSF PLANNING Ill Almaden Blvd., Room 814 San Jose, CA 95115 408~282-7138 PAGE January 5, 2001 Michael Lappen, Senior Plarmer City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 R E C E t ',/E ~.", JAN - 9 2001 PLANNING Re: Notice of Preparation East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Dear Mr. Lappen: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Plan. PG&E has the following comments to offer. PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities which are located within arid adjacent to the proposed project. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance w~th these standards, pro)ecl proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easemem encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers shold be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric t~ansmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilties should be referred to PG&E for additional information and ass/stance in the developmem of their project schedules. 01/18/2001 i1~]6 6S~82966~9 SSF PLANNING P~GE ~? We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your Plans will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and my require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessaril7 mean the faclity has capacity to cormect to new loads. Expansion of disn-ibution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of gro~vth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on lhe gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project, this will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City of Milpitas to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Notice of Preparation. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. "Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, shools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request". PG&E remains committed to working with the City of Milpitas to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to the planned area. We wound also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PO&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our T ~1/1~/2~! 11~6 65~$2966]~ SSF PLANNING obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cosveffective energy supply in compliance with the rules and t~iffs or'the CPUC. Should you require any additional information or have any questions please call me at (408) 282-7389. Sincerely, Thomas J. Zlatunich Land ' o · cc.R.Romagnoli 81/82/2881 12:~ December 27,2000 R E C E 1 V E i. PLANNING SM~101-22.71 1993081040 SM101331 e Mr. Michael Lappen City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear M.r. Lappen: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the, East of 101 Area Plan; City of South San Francisco Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the en¥ironmental revmw process for the proposed East of 101 Area Plan. We have examined the NOP and recommend an updated traffic ~mpact analysis be conducted as pan of the SEIR. Please ensure to include the following information: Information on the pro3ect's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment.. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be discussed. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulative for the intersections in the project area. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing, recently approved and future, that would affect the facilities being evaluated. Mitigation measures that consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternative solutions to circulation problems, which do not rely on increased highway construction. All rmtigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring 12:44 65082966]9 $SF PLANNING Mich~el Lappen. Cip/of South San Franmsco/SM 101331 December 26. 2000 lVage 2 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding Nandini Shndhar of my staff at (510) 622-1642. Sincerei y, HARRY Y YAHATA District Director IE,~"~ C. R. F~ ~-5': Dist~._: Z:anc~ ..... !G?JCEQA c: Kat:e Sbu!re Joung, State Clcannghouse P&GE letter, please call Appendix C. General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment Chapter 2 Land Uses Table 2.2-2 on page 37 should be amended as follows: Table 2.2-2: Development Intensity Bonus Standards Land Use Designation OMce Business Commercial Business and Technology Park Hotels Mixed Industrial Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Base Maximum Transportation Other Floor Attainable Area FAR with A~an~gcmcnt Specified Ratio TDM ~ ..... ~ ~m~,~ Design (FAR) Program) :tsndards ~-;-~ Improvements Standards~ 1.0 1.3 ~ O-Z, 0~5 0.2 Total Maximum FAR 2.5 0.5 0.4 O~ - &~ 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 ~ - ~ 0.1 1.0 1.2 0.6 ~4 .- ~ 0.2 2.0 0.4 - - - ~ - 0.6 ; At least 80% of the p,~rkin§ must be str~czured Discretionary, based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon review by Planning Commission. Revise Policy 2-I-4 on pages 58-59 as follows: 2 I-.q Examine the potential for establishing specific criteria to implement development intensity bonus standards, as cstablishcd in Table 2.2-3. Elcmcnts o~ this include Transportation Demand/Vlanagcmcnt (TDIVI) standards, off- site improvements, and dcsign standards to bc elaborated upon in thc Zoning Ordinance. In addition, incentives to promote structured parking for thc Office district should also be established. 2-1-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2 ~o achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements of the TDM program t'or pro,jeers seeking an FAP, botqtts are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved. 2-1-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2. i · I General Plan Amendment Chapter 4 Transportation Amend Policy 4.2-G-7 to read as follows: 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as -development impact fees ~ Amend Policy 4.2-I-6 to read as follows: 4.2-1-6 Update thc Transportation Element, if so necessary, including list of improvements, upon completion of thc East of I 01 traffic study. 4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of ! 01 oreo. The East of 101 traffic studF, prepared by the ciW in April 2001, identifies improvements~-that would result in better traffic flow. The following intersections have proposed improvements: Bavshore Boulevard and US lot Southbound HookRamp~s! · Bavshore/Airvort Boulevard and Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard · Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard · Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard · Gull [)rive and Ovst'er Point Boulevard · Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound off-ramp · Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue · Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue · Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue · Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Was' and East Grand Avenue · East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive · Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue · South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard · South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue · Harbor Way · Mitchell Avenue Revise the explanatory text following Policy 4.2-1-7 to read as follows: 4.2-1-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the East of l 0 i and Lindenville areas. General Plan Amendment Feasibility of an impact fee for the East of lot area is being asscsscd as part of the area waffle study that is currently underway. 4.2-I-7a Establish a stat'tic improvement fee to £und transportation il.,~proYements in the East of I0I area. Revise Policy 4.3-I-8 to read as follows: 4.3-1-8 Adopt a TDA4 program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: Methodology to determine eligibility fi~r land use it~tensity bonuses for TDF,'t program:; idc.ntificd in thc Land Use Element: Procedurc:~ to ensure continued maintenance ofmcasttrcs that rcsuh in intensity Requirements for off site improvements (such as bus shelters and pcde!;trian connection:;) that are directly ncccssa~T as a resuh of development Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact lbo that n~av be established in the ffiture fi:)r projects that meet specific tr~p reduction goals; and Establishment of: baseline TDM requirements ff~r all new prcdecrs ?nerating more than 100 peak period trips. Establishment of additional requirements fi)r pro,iects seeking a FA~ bonus. An ongoing monitoring and enff~rcement pro,ram to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. Reduced parking requirements for new .projects implementing a TDM program. proximity to fixed guido way' transit or those wit'h demonstrated rnca:;tlrc5 that would reduce trip generation. Revise Poli~ 4.3-I-11 to read as follows: 4.~-I-I I Establish parking standards to su~o~ tri~ reduction goals ~lo~ng parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and ~or mixed usc developments; and 'Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking ff~r carpools and vanpools. Sec also Section 2.2 and the Land Usc Classifications. See also Chapter 20.74 Parking and Loading of the Zoning Code. Revise Policy 4.3-I-12 to read as follows: 4.3-1-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include reduce minimum parking requirements for proiects proximate to transit stations and dcvc~opmcv, t i~.ten~ity f__or projects implementing a TDM program. General Plan Amendment Periodically examine tZlZhese standards as transit services changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are also .provided. Appendix D. C/CAG TDM Program C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton ! Belmont ! B~sbane t Burlingame ! Colma ! Daly Ci~_ t East Palo Alto t Foster Ci~ t Half Moon Bay. ! Hillsborough ! Menlo Park t Millbrae Pacifica ! Portola Valley ! Redwood City ! San Bruno '. San Carlos '. San Mateo ! San Mateo Count. ! South San Francisco ! Woodside TO: All City Managers and Planning Directors FROM: Walter Martone DATE: October 11, 2000 RE: REVISED C/CAG GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE 1999 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM At the C/CAG meeting on August 10, 2000, the Board adopted revised guidelines for the land use component of the Congestion Management Program. The purpose of the revision is to increase the options for reducing the impacts of the traffic created as a result of new development. The new options include trip credits for transportation demand management programs that increase the access and availability of child care services so that parents can rely less on the automobile to utilize these services. The changes to the guidelines are noted in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS. The revisions to the guidelines will take effect immediately. As a reminder, the Congestion Management Program policy and guidelines must be followed for all projects that meet the following criteria: 1. the project will generate a net 100 or more peak period trips on the Congestion Management Program network, and 2. the project is subject to CEQA review, and 3. the project will not have completed the scoping and initial study process prior to May 25, 2000. If you have a project that meets these criteria, you should follow these steps: 1. review the Guidelines with the project applicant and determine if a combination of the acceptable options/measures will fully reduce the net number of trips that this project is anticipated to generate on the CMP roadway network. 2. if yes, include this information as part of the environmental documents that are circulated and adopted by the local jurisdiction Board. 3. if no, or if new or revised measures are being proposed, contact Walter Martone for C/CAG review and approval as early in the process as possible so that the agreed upon plan can be included in the environmental documents placed in circulation. 4. if agreement is not reached with C/CAG staff on the plan, an immediate review by the C/CAG Board will be scheduled so that the local jurisdiction project approval process will not be delayed. Although the C/CAG policy must be followed when a project generates 100 or more peak hour trips, local jurisdictions may want to consider implementing the policy at lower thresholds (less than 100 trips) in order to manage the traffic impacts more effectively. All City Attorneys will be receiving further clarification on this item from C/CAG Counsel. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\LANDFiNL-revZsed 1O-i!-O0.DOC 555 COUNTY CENTER. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227 Local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop creative solutions to reducing the traffic impacts of development. To that end it is highly beneficial that C/CAG staff be consulted at the very early stages of project development. Working together we can ensure that this new requirement provides benefits to the community and does not add further paperwork and delay to the development review process. Contact Walter Martone at 650 599-1465 (or e-mail at wmartone@co.sanmateo.ca.us) if you would like to discuss this policy and/or have specific projects to be reviewed. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\LANDFINL-revised 10-!I-00.DOC 555 COUNTY CENTER, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM All land use changes or new developments that require a negative declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that are projected to generate a net (subtracting existing uses that are currently active) 100 or more trips per hour at any time during the a.m. or p.m. peak period, must be reported to C/CAG within ten days of completion of the initial study prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Peak period includes 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Although projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips are not subject to these guidelines, local jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to apply them to all projects, particularly where the jurisdiction has determined that the impacts of the project will have an adverse effect on traffic in that jurisdiction. These guidelines are not intended to establish a Countywide level of significance of 100 peak hour trips for CEQA'purposes. The determination of what level of traffic results in a significant impact is left in the first instance to the local jurisdiction. These guidelines do contemplate, however, that all trips resulting from projects that are reviewed by C/CAG and fall under these guidelines will be mitigated, whether or not it rises to a level of significance under CEQA. Local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will reduce the demand for all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. The local jurisdiction can select one or more of the options that follow or may propose other methods for mitigating the trips. It is up to the local jurisdiction working together with the project sponsor to choose the method(s) that will be compatible with the intended purpose of the project and the community that it will serve. The options identified in these guidelines are not intended to limit choices. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to be creative in developing options that meet local needs while accomplishing the goal of mitigating new peak hour trips. The additional measures that are not specifically included in these guidelines should be offered for review by C/CAG staff in advance of approving the project. Appeals to the decisions by C/CAG staff will be taken to the full C/CAG Board for consideration. When considering land use projects, local jurisdictions may either require that mitigation for impacts to the Congestion Management Program roadway network be finally determined and imposed as a condition of approval of the project, or may conditionally approve such project, conditioned on compliance with the requirements to mitigate the impacts to the Congestion Management Program roadway network. In those instances where conditional approval is given, a building permit may not be issued for the project until the required mitigation is determined and subsequently imposed on the project. Some of the choices for local jurisdictions include: 1. Reduce the scope of the project so that it will generate less than 100 net peak hour trips. o o Build adequate roadway and/or transit improvements so that the added peak hour trips will have no measurable impact on the Congestion Management Program roadway network. This means that 100% of the demand for new trips will be reduced. If a local jurisdiction currently collects traffic mitigation fees, any portion of the fees that are used to mitigate the impacts of the project=s traffic on the Congestion Management Program roadway network will count as a credit toward the reduction in the demand for trips required under the Congestion Management Program. The developer may also contribute a one-time only payment of $20,000 per peak hour trip (including the first 100 trips) to a special fund for the implementation of appropriate transportation demand management system measures at that development. These funds will be used to implement transportation demand management programs that serve the development making the contribution. Require the developer and all subsequent tenants to implement Transportation Demand Management p.rograms that have the capaci .ty to fully reduce the demand for new peak hour trips. The developer/tenants will not be held responsible for the extent to which these programs are actually used. The following is a list of acceptable programs and the equivalent number of trips that will be credited as reduced. Programs can be mixed and matched so long as the total mitigated trips is equal to or greater than the new peak hour trips generated by the pr~ect. These programs, once implemented, must be on going for the occupied life of the development. Programs may be substituted with prior approval of C/CAG, so long as the number of reduced trips is not lessoned. Additional measures may be proposed to C/CAG for consideration. Also there may be special circumstances that warrant a different amount of credit for certain measures. For example a developer may elect to contract with the Alliance or another provider of TDM services to meet this requirement. These situations can also be submitted to C/CAG in advance for consideration. It is up to each local jurisdiction to use its best judgment to determine the extent to which certain measures are greasonable and effective. @ For example, there will be a point where additional showers will not result in more people riding bicycles or walking to work. Adopt Congestion Management Program guidelines for projects within its jurisdiction and submit those guidelines for approval by C/CAG. The local jurisdiction would then apply these guidelines to the appropriate level of project and provide an annual report describing affected projects and guidelines applied. C/CAG would review the jurisdiction's efforts on an annual basis and could require amendments to the jurisdiction's guidelines if the jurisdiction's guidelines were not meeting Congestion Management Program goals. Adopt the C/CAG guidelines for application to the appropriate level of project in the jurisdiction, and submit an annual report describing affected projects and guidelines applied. C/CAG would review the jurisdiction's efforts on an annual basis and could require amendments to the j urisdiction's guidelines if the j urisdiction's guidelines were not meeting Congestion Management Program goals. Negotiate with C/CAG staff for other acceptable ways to mitigate the trips for specific developments on a case-by-case basis. Transl~ortation Demand Manaeement Measure Bicycle lockers and racks. Showers and changing rooms. Operation of a dedicated shuttle service during the peak period to a rail station or an urban residential area. Charging employees for parking. Subsidizing transit tickets for employees. Number of Trills Credited One peak hour trip will be credited for every 3 new bike lockers/racks installed and maintained. Two peak hour trips will be credited for each new combination shower and changing room installed. One peak hour trip will be credited for each peak-hour round trip seat on the shuttle. Increases to two trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place. FIVE ADDITIONAL TRIPS WILL BE CREDITED IF THE SHUTTLE STOPS AT A CHILD CARE FACILITY ENROUTE TO/FROM THE WORKSITE. One peak hour trip will be credited for each parking spot charged out at $20 per month for one year. One peak hour trip will be credited for each transit pass that is subsidized at least $20 per month for one year. ONE ADDITIONAL TRIP WILL BE CREDITED IF THE SUBSIDY IS INCREASED TO $75 FOR PARENTS USING TRANSIT TO TAKE A CHILD TO CHILDCARE ENROUTE Rationale Experience has shown that bicycle commuters will average using this mode one- third of the time, especially during warmer summer months. Two bicyclists can sequentially use one shower/changing room during the peak commute time. Yields a one-to-one ratio (one seat in a shuttle equals one auto trip reduced); utilization increases when a guaranteed ride home program is also made available. Yields a one-to-one ratio (one parking spot charged out equals one auto trip reduced. Yields a one-to-one ratio (one transit pass equals one auto trip reduced). Creation of preferential parkir.g for carpoolers. TO WORK. Two peak hour trips will be credited for each parking spot reserved. Yields a two-to-one ratio (one reserved parking spot equals a minimum of two auto trips reduced). Creation of preferential parking for vanpoolers. Implementation o ~ a vanpool program. Operation of a commute assistanze center, offering on site, one stop shopping for transit and commute alternatives information, preferably staffed with a live person to assist building tenants with trip planning. Seven peak hour trips will be credited for each parking spot reserved. Seven peak hour trips will be credited for each vanpool arranged by a specific program operated at the site of the development. Increases to ten trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place. One peak hour trip will be credited for each feature added to the information center; and an additional one peak hour trip will be credited for each hour the center is staffed with a live person, up to 20 trips per each 200 tenants. Possible features may include: $ Transit information brochure rack $ Computer kiosk connected to Internet $ Telephone (with commute and transit information numbers) $ Desk and chairs (for personalized trip planning) $ On-site transit ticket sales $ Implementation of flexible work hour schedules that allow transit riders to be 15-30 minutes late or earlv (due to problems with Yields a seven-to-one ratio (one reserved parking spot equals a minimum of seven auto trips reduced). The average van capacity is seven. This is based on staff=s best estimate. Short of there being major disincentives to driving, having an on site TDM program offering commute assistance is fundamental to an effective TDM program. Implementation of a parking cash out program. Implementation of ramp metering. Installation of highband width connections in employees: homes to the Internet to facilitate home telecommuting. Installation of video conferencing centers that are available for use by the tenants of the facility. transit or vanpool). One peak hour trip will be credited for each parking spot where the employee is offered a cash payment in return for not using parking at the employment site. Three hundred peak hour trips will be credited if the local jurisdiction in cooperation with CalTrans, installs and turns on ramp metering lights during the peak hours at the highway entrance ramp closest to the development. One peak hour trip will be credited for each connection installed. Twenty peak hour trips will be credited for a center installed at the facility. Yields a one-to-one ratio (one cashed out parking spot equals one auto trip reduced. This is a very difficult and costly measure to implement and the reward must be significant. Yields a one-to-one ratio. Assumes that there will be one teleconference per day that includes twenty people. Implementation of a compressed workweek program. One peak hour trip will be credited for every 5 employees that are offered the opportunity to work four compressed days per week. The workweek will be compressed into 4 days; therefore the individual will not be commuting on the 5th day. Provision of assistance to employees so they can live close to work. If an employer develops and offers a program to help employees find acceptable residences within five miles of the employment site, a credit of one trip will be given for each slot in the program. This assumes that a five-mile trip will generally not involve travel on the freeways. Conduct a local-based hiring program by registering with and using the Alliance Job Link Program. One peak hour trip will be credited for every 2 job listings posted with this program. This is based on staff=s best estimate. Implementation of a program that gives preference to hiring local residents at the new development site. One peak hour trip will be credited for each employment opportunity reserved for employees recruited and hired from within five miles of the employment site. This assumes that a five-mile trip will generally not involve travel on the freeways. Provision of on-site amenities/accommodat ions that encourage people to stay on site during the workday, making it easier for workers to leave their automobiles at home. One peak hour trip will be credited for each feature added to the job site. Possible features may include: banking grocery shopping clothes cleaning exercise facilities CHILD CARE CENTER This is based on staff=s best estimate. PROVISION OF CHILD CARE SERVICES AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ONE TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR EVERY TWO CHILD CARE SLOTS AT THE JOB SITE. THIS AMOUNT INCREASES TO ONE TRIP FOR EACH SLOT IF THE CHILD CARE SERVICE ACCEPTS MULTIPLE AGE GROUPS (INFANTS = 0-2YRS, PRESCHOOL = 3&4 YRS, SCHOOL-AGE = 5 TO 13 DEVELOPER/PROP ERTY OWNER MAY JOIN AN EMPLOYER GROUP TO EXPAND AVAILABLE CHILD CARE WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE JOB SITE OR MAY PROVIDE ONE TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR EACH NEW CHILD CARE CENTER SLOT CREATED EITHER DIRECTLY BY AN EMPOYER GROUP, BY THE DEVELOPER/PROPERTY OWNER, OR BY AN OUTSIDE PROVIDER IF AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE THIS SERVICE INDEPENDENTLY Join the Alliance=s guaranteed ride home program. Combine any ten of these elements and receive an additional credit for five peak hour trips. Work with the Alliance to develop/ implement a Transportation Action Plan. The developer can provide a cash legacy after the development is complete and designate an entity to implement any (or more than one) of the previous measures before day one of occupancy. Encourage infill development. Encourage shared parking. DEVELOPER/PROPERTY OWNER THAT MAKES THE CHILD CARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE WORKERS AT THE DEVELOPMENT. One peak hour trip will be credited for every 2 slots purchased in the program. Five peak hour trips will be credited. Five peak hour trips will be credited. Peak hour trip reduction credits will accrue as if the developer was directly implementing the items. Two percent of all peak hour trips will be credited for each infill development. Five peak hour trips will be credited for an agreement with an existing development to share existing parking. Experience has shown that when a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is added to an over-all TDM program, the average ridership increases by about 50 %. Experience has shown that offering multiple and complementary TDM components can magnify the impact of the overall program. This is based on staff=s best estimate. Credits accrue depending on what the funds are used for. Generally acceptable TDM practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet). Generally acceptable TDM practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Participate in/create/sponsor a Transportation Management Association. Five peak hour trips will be credited. Coordinate Transportation Demand Management programs with existing developments/employe rs. Five peak hour trips will be credited. For employers with multiple job sites, institute a proximate commuting program that allows employees at one location to transfer/trade with employees in another location that is closer to their home. One peak hour trip will be credited for each opportunity created. Pay for parking at park and ride lots or transit stations. One peak hour trip will be credited for each spot purchased. Additional Measures for Residential Developments Develop schools, convenience shopping, recreation facilities, AND CHILD CARE CENTERS in new subdivisions. Five peak hour trips will be credited for each facility included. PROVISION OF CHILD CARE SERVICES AT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR AT A NEARBY TRANSIT ONE TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR EVERY TWO CHILD CARE SLOTS AT THE DEVELOP- MENT/TRANSIT CENTER. THIS AMOUNT INCREASES TO ONE TRIP FOR EACH Internet). Generally acceptable TDM practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet). This is based on staff=s best estimate. Yields a one-to-one ratio. Yields a one-to-one ratio. This is based on staff=s best estimate. CENTER Make roads and streets more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Revise zoning to limit undesirable impacts (noise, smells, and traffic) instead of limiting broad categories of activities. Create connections for non-motorized travel, such as trails that link dead-end streets. Create alternative transportation modes for travel within the development and to downtown areas - bicycles, scooters, electric carts, wagons, shuttles, etc. Design streets/roads that encourage pedestrian and bicycle access and discourage automobile access. Install and maintain alternative transportation kiosks. Install/maintain safety and security systems for pedestrians and SLOT IF THE CHILD CARE SERVICE ACCEPTS MULTIPLE AGE GROUPS (INFANTS, PRESCHOOL, SCHOOL-AGE). Five peak hour trips will be credited for each facility included. Five peak hour trips will be credited. Five peak hour trips will be credited for each connection make. One peak hour trip will be credited for each on-going opportunity created (i.e. five bicycles/scooters/wagons = five trips, two seat carts = two trips, seven passenger shuttle = seven trips). Five trips will be credited for each design element. Five trips will be credited for each kiosk. Five trips will be credited for each measure implemented. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. This is based on staff=s best estimate. bicyclists. Implement jitneys/ vanpools from residential areas to downtowns and transit centers. One trip will be credited for each seat created. Yields a one-to-one ratio. Locate residential development within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station. All trips from a residential development within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station will be considered credited due to the location of the development. This is based on staff=s best estimate. The local jurisdiction must also agree to maintain data available for monitoring by C/CAG, that supports the on-going compliance with the agreed to trip reduction measures. Appendix E. Total Delay I -- 0 o o o 0 0 o 0 ~ E 0 0 "-,I 0 0 0 0 0 bo 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 o", ~0 __ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 < -- ~. ~0 0 0 0 04 ¢4 0 -- 0 f~ 0 0 0 0 ,'~ 0 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~ m i ~ ~0 J-- I ~ o o ~ ~o ~ O~ ~ O0 0 'Il · T Appendix F. Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms and Glossary ART. Airport Rail Transit system. Light rail to move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport. Arterials. A vehicular right-of-way whose primary function is to carry through traffic in a continuous route across an urban area while also providing some access to abutting land. Major arterials are typically divided (have raised medians), have more travel lanes, and carry more traffic than minor arterials. Major arterials in the city include E1 Camino Real (State Route 82), Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor arterials do not have divided or raised medians; examples include Mission Road and Orange Avenue. Attainment Area. An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than federal or State air quality standards as defined in the federal Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area for others. BAAQMD. Bay Area Area Quality Management District. BART. Bay Area Rapid Transit. Bike Paths (Class I facilities). Paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used bv motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities). Lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. Bike Routes (Class III facilities). Roadways are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. Buildout. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum probable level of development envisioned by the General Plan under specified assumptions about densities and intensities. Buildout does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations. CalTrans. California Department of Transportation. CAP. Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The multi-year scheduling of public physical improvements based on studies of fiscal resources available and the choice of specific improvements to be constructed. CARB. California Air Resources Board. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas, formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels, which is toxic because of its tendency to reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. C/CAG. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act. CMP. Congestion Management Program, San Mateo County Collectors. Streets that connect arterials with local streets, and provide access and circulation within neighborhoods. Delay. Average delay for vehicles passing through the intersections. Endangered Species, California. A native species or sub-species of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant, which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, due to one or more factors, including loss in habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, or disease. The status is determined by the State Department of Fish and Game together with the State Fish and Game Commission. Endangered Species, Federal. A species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, other than the species of the Class Insect determined to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended, would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans. The status is determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior. Environment. The physical conditions in an area, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance, which will be affected by a proposed project. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. F-2 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The ratio between gross floor area of structures on a site and gross site area. Thus, a building with a floor area of 100,000 square feet on a 50,000 square-foot lot will have a FAR of 2.0. Habitat. The natural environment of a plant or animal. Hazardous Material. A material or form of energy that could vause injury or illness to persons, livestock, or the natural environment. Impervious Surface. Any material which reduces or prevents absorption of water into land. Indirect Source. Any sti-ucture or installation which attracts an activity which creates emissions of pollutants. For example, a major employment center, a shopping center, an airport, or a stadium can all be considered to be indirect sources. Infrastructure. Permanent utility installations, including roads, water supply lines, sewage collection pipes, and power and communications lines. Intersection Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one direction during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. JPB. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Operates Caltrain. Land Use. The purpose or activity for which a piece of land or its buildings is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. Level of Service (LOS). The different operating conditions which occur in a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. A qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors such as special travel time, interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort, and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating cost. Levels of service are usually described by a letter rating system of A through F, with LOS A indicating stable traffic flow with little or no delays and LOS F indicating excessive delays and jammed traffic conditions. Mitigation. A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure. Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing F-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mobile Sources. A source of air pollution that is related to transportation vehicles, such as automobiles or buses. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Chemical compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; reacts with volatile organic compounds, in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. It is also a major precursor to acid rain. Non-point Source.'A pollutant source introduced from dispersed points and lacking a single, identifiable origin. Examples include automobile emissions or urban run-off. Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in the General Plan or designated on a local, regional, or state open- space plan as one of the four types of open space defined by state planning law. Oxidant. The production of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen. Ozone. A compound consisting of three oxygen atoms, that is the primary constituent of smog. It is formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Ozone can initiate damage to the lungs as well as damage to trees, crops, and materials. There is a natural layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. PM-10. The current standard for measuring the amount of solid or liquid matter suspended in the atmosphere ("particulate matter including dust"). Refers to the amount of particulate matter over 10 micrometers in diameter. The smaller PM-10 particles penetrate to the deeper portions of the lung, affecting sensitive population groups such as children and people with respiratory diseases. Peak Hour Traffic. The number of vehicles passing over a designated section of a street during the busiest one-hour period during a 24-hour period. Peak Period. The peak period in South San Francisco is 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Planning Area. The City and the land outside its boundaries that bear relation to its planning. See Figure 1-2 for a graphic representation of South San Francisco's Planning Area. F-4 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Precursor. A chemical compound that leads to the formation of a pollutant. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides are precursors of photochemical oxidants. Rare Species. A condition in which a species or subspecies, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if the quality of its environment worsens. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Classes of hvdrocarbons (olefins, substituted aromatics, and aldehydes) that are likely to react with ozone and nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere to ~brm photochemical smog. Response Time. The amount of time for an emergency service response, measured from the time of the distress call until arrival on the scene. Right-of-Way. A strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, forced dedication, prescription or condemnation, and intended to be occupied or actually occupied by a road, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary storm sewer or other similar use. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). A photochemically reactive chemical gas, composed of non- methane hydrocarbons, that may contribute to the formation of smog. Also sometimes referred to as Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOGs). (See also Volatile Organic Compounds and Hydrocarbons.) Sensitive Receptors. Members of the population who are most sensitive to air quality include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. The term "sensitive receptors" can also refer to the land use categories where these people live or spend a significant amount of time. Such areas include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. SFIA. San Francisco International Airport. Solid Waste. Unwanted or discarded material, including garbage, with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing. Sphere of Influence (SO1). The ultimate service area of the City of South San Francisco as established by San Mateo County LAFCO. Stationary Source. A source of air pollution that is not mobile, such as a heating plant or an exhaust stack from a laboratory. F-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco Sulfur Oxides. Pungent, colorless gases (sulfates are solids) formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Considered major air pollutants, sulfur oxides may impact human health and damage vegetation. Sulfur Dioxide (SO,). A heavy, pungent, colorless air pollutant formed primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels. It is a respiratory irritant, especially for asthmatics and is the major precursor to the formation of acid rain. Threatened Species, California. A species of animal or plant is endangered when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy form one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors: or when although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers that it may become endangered if its environment worsens. A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be rare or endangered as it is listed in: Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations; or Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered. Threatened Species, Federal. A species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Trip Generation. The number of vehicle trip ends associated with (i.e., produced by) a particular land use or traffic study site. A trip end is defined as a single vehicle movement. Roundtrips consist of two trip ends. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Measures designed to reduce demand for automobile trips, typically focused on peak-periods. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geographical area (whether the entire country or a smaller area) over a given period of time. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). A group of chemicals that react in the atmosphere with nitrogen oxides in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone: does not include methane and other compounds determined by EPA to have negligible photochemical reactivity. Examples of VOCs include gasoline fumes and oil-based paints. Zoning District. A specifically delineated area on a zoning map within which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. Zoning Ordinance. The City ordinance which divides South San Francisco into districts and establishes regulations governing the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. F-6 EXHIBIT C FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Response to Comments Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental to South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR; SCH NO. 97122030) SCHNO. 1993081040 JULY 2001 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Method of Organization .......................................................................................... 1-1 Written and Oral Respones and Comments ................................................................ 2-1 A. California Department of Transportation .............................................................. 2-2 B. Jon Bergschneider, Slough Estates .......................................... : ................................ 2-6 3 Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ........................ 3-1 Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) ........................................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Letters from the Office of Planning and Research ....................................... B- 1 Appendix C: Notice of Availability ..................................................................................... C- 1 Appendix D: Public Notice ................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E: City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Staff Report on the General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Public Hearing ............................................................................................ E-1 I Introduction The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (SCH NO. 1993081040) 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 the general public of the potential environmental impacts related to the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance. The Draft EIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant impacts and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The DSEIR was circulated for public and agency review from April 25, 2001 to June 8, 2001, which is in compliance with the 45 days required. The comment period provided an oppor- tunity for the public to review the issues addressed in the impact analysis and to offer com- ments on any aspect of the process. The lead agency, the South San Francisco Planning Divi- sion, held a public hearing on May 17, 2001 at the South San Francisco Municipal Services Building, to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the adequacy and accu- racy of the DSEIR. The date and time of the meeting was published in the San Mateo Times on April 23, 2001. Written comments were accepted throughout the review period. Written and oral comments received in response to the DSEIR are addressed in this Response to Com- ments Document that, together with the DSEIR constitute the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be considered by decision makers before approving the proposed General Plan Update. Section 15132 of the 1999 CEQA Guidelines state the Final EIR shall consist of the following: · The draft EIR or a revision of the draft; · Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; · A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; · The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental pints raised in the re- view and consultation process; and · Any other information added by the Lead Agency. I.I METHOD OF ORGANIZATION In compliance with CEQA, this Response to Comments Document responds to all written and oral comments received during the public review period for the DSEIR. Chapter 2 con- tains copies of all written and oral comments received. Immediately following each comment is the response to the comment. Each comment has been labeled with an identification letter and number in the margin of the comment letter for reference to its response. The comments are labeled alphanumerically by letter and comment number, as in "Comment A-2" (meaning the second comment in comment letter A). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report If a comment did not relate to an environmental issue or was worded more as a statement to be entered into the record, it is indicated by the response "comment is noted." If a comment related to the General Plan Amendment or TDM Ordinance and not the DSEIR, it is indi- cated by the response "comment relates to the General Plan Amendment" or "comment re- lates to the TDM ordinance." Chapter three is a compilation of all the text revisions to the DSEIR. These revisions include revisions identified in the response to comments. Revisions to the DSEIR and General Plan Amendment or TDM ordinance are indicated herein as redline for additions and strikeout for deletions. The Response to Comments Document, together with the DSEIR, constitutes the Final EIR. The DSEIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this document. The DSEIR is available for review a the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community De- velopment, Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. 2 Written and Oral Comments and Responses to Comments This Chapter includes written and oral comments from the following organizations and indi- viduals and a State agency. WRITTEN COMMENTS A. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) B. Jon Bergschneider, Slough Estates STATE. OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P O BOX 23660 OAKLAND. CA 946230660 Tel: (510) 286-4444 Fax: (510) 286..5513 TOO (510) 286-4454 GRAY DAVIS. Governor May 29,2001 Mr. Michael Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue S. San Francisco, CA 94080 SM-001-22.71 1993081040 SM101331 Dear Mr. Lappen: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan; City of South San Francisco; Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. We have examined the SEIR and have the following comments: A-1 Please provide an explanation as to why the northbound U.S. 101 on-and-off ramps at South Airport Boulevard are not included in this traffic study. If. the northbound ramps carry traffic to and from the east of 101 area, wouldn't the traffic on northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard have a significant impact on the east of 101 area? A-2 2. Are there any mitigation measures proposed to relieve the current queuing and spillover on the northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard? A-3 3. On page 4-16, under roadway systems, line 3, please correct the word "exists" to "exits." A-4 A-5 Please provide a mainline freeway, ramp and weaving (if applicable) analysis. Please explain why the traffic volumes with the proposed project are lower than the existing volumes at certain locations. For example, the eastbound right turn volume at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection is 596(234) under the proposed project conditions and 698(662) under existing conditions. A-6 6. The loss time at signals was left out in the Traffix analysis for some intersections. A-7 o The Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 southbound flyover interchange was not modeled correctly in the Traffix analysis for the following reasons: Mr. Michael Lappen May 29, 2001 Page 2 A-8 (a) (b) No minimum green signal time was assigned to southbound movements. The traffic from U.S. 101 southbound flyover should not be added directly to the eastbound traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard to treat it as a four-leg intersection. The extra green signal time given to the eastbound traffic on Oyster Point Blvd. for the traffic coming from the U.S. 101 southbound flyover is insufficient because the traffic demand was under-estimated. This is due to the fact that three lanes instead of two serve the traffic from U.S. 101 southbound flyover in the model. Therefore, for purposes of modeling, traffic demand numbers from U.S. 101 southbound flyover should be modified slightly before adding them to the eastbound traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard. o Finally, should there be a need to perform any work or traffic control within the State right-of-way (ROW), please note that such activities will require an encroachment permit. To apply for an encroachment permit all applicants are required to submit a completed application with appropriate environmental documentation and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which also show State ROW to the following address: Mr. Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits Caltrans, District 04 P. O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Nandini N. Shridhar, AICP, of my staff at (510) 622-1642. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director JEAN C. R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Katie Schulte (State Clearinghouse) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Re A-2 A-3 A-4 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The project is designed to help the City reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 area by 1 ) identifying new streets and physical improvements, 2) establishing an effective TDM program, 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements, and 4) complying with State and San Mateo County requirements. The project would implement the General Plan trans- portation policies that provide the City with the flexibility to identify future physical improvements and transportation programs. The General Plan's Transportation Ele- ment identifies future transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. Thus, the traffic portion of the study focused on key intersections to develop a transportation improvement plan for the General Plan Amendment. Additionally, there was a comprehensive citywide transportation analysis conducted in the EIR for the General Plan and this DSEIR is supplemental to the General Plan EIR (See Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR for the General Plan). Some of the freeway interchange ramps are not included in the DSEIR because the Project would generate less peak hour trips than the No Project Alternative (Current General Plan) would. The Project Alterna- tive would generate an additional 18,424 and 23,758 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The No Project Alternative would generate an additional 20,483 and 25~848 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This Project would re- sult in fewer adverse impacts on the roadway system, including the U.S. 101 on and off-ramps as compared to the No Project Alternative. Additionally, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the General Plan EIR indicating that there would be transportation impacts. This General Plan Amendment and TDM Or- dinance and the Supplemental EIR was prepared in response to these transportation impacts. We recognized that queuing and spillover on the northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard exist. However, the Project, which includes significant TDM measures would generate less traffic than the No Project Alternative. The comment is noted. The third sentence in the section tiffed "Roadway Systems" on page 4-16 has been changed. The revised text is as follows: "I-380 connects 1-280 with U.S. 101 and has cxists exits onto South Airport Boule- vard.'' No mainline freeway, ramp, and weaving analyses were performed in the traffic study because all of the changes in the General Plan being sought through the Project would lower, not increase, traffic volumes. Also, the San Mateo County Transportation Au- thority is finalizing a Project Report and an environment document for the proposed widening of U.S. 101 to provide auxiliary lanes through the City of South San Fran- cisco. 2-4 Chapter 2: Written and Oral Comments and Responses to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco A-5 A-6 A-7 Traffic volumes under future scenarios are lower for certain movements because of traffic diversion to new roadway projects. In the particular case described in the comment above, the eastbound right-turn movement traffic at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue have been diverted from the southbound U.S. 10! on-ramp at Dubuque Avenue to the new hook-ramps on Bay- shore Boulevard. The loss time was inadvertently left out at three of the study intersections: Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue, and South Air- port Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. Adding the loss time at these intersections would increase the critical volume/capacity ratio and in some cases worsen the level of ser- vice. Signal timing data at these intersections were not provided, therefore, the opti- mal cycle length was assumed at these three locations under each scenario. The levels of service before and after the addition of the loss time are presented in the attached tables. The intersection of Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under Project conditions. Revisions to the text of the DSEIR are made in Chapter 3. The Traffix software does not evaluate intersections with more than four approaches. Traffic volumes and intersection geometry of a five-legged intersection would have to be modified to fit into four approaches in order to evaluate such an intersection in Traffix. The five-legged intersection of Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boule- vard/U.S. 101 southbound flyover ramp was therefore modeled using the Synchro software. The intersection level of service is based on signal delay as defined in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. The AM and PM peak hour levels of service previ- ously calculated for each scenario at this intersection were LOS C and LOS F, respec- tively. The calculated levels of service for each scenario using the Synchro software would be as follows: · Current General Plan: LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours · Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements: LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour · Proposed Project: LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour A-8 Thank you for the comment. The City will obtain encroachment permit for any work that will be performed within the State right-of-way. 2-5 Slough Estates USA Inc. 33 West Monroe Street Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone 312.558.9100 Facsimile 312.558.9041 VIA FACSIMILE #(650) 829-6639 & EXPRESS MAIL June 6, 2001 Mr. Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: SSF General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance Comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 1993081040 RECEIVED PLANNING B-1 B-2 Dear Michaek Slough Estates USA Inc., as a landowner in the East of 101 Planning Area, offers the following comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, prepared by the City of South San Francisco dated April 2001. We would additionally like the opportunity to offer comments to the TDM Ordinance and associated Facility Financing Plan once those are available to the public. Ch. 2, sec. 2.2, table 2.2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, item 4.3-a: "Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including using development impact fees to pay for a share of improvements." - We would like to participate in the process of determining the fair and equitable means for anticipated street improvements. Ch. 3, pg. 3-5: "As described above, the East of 101 traffic study also evaluated the need for an impact fee. An impact fee is included as part of the General Plan Amendment so that new development pays a fair share of the cost of street and other traffic improvements." - Again, we would like to participate in the process of determining the fair and equitable means for anticipated street improvements. A wholly owned subsidiary of SLOUGH ESTATES plc, 234 Bath Road, Slough SL I 4EE, England Mr. Michael Lappen June 6, 2001 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity consideration of these matters. Sincerely, S~...~g.lou h Estates.~. USA In~~". C: Bill Rogalla Jeff Marcowitz to comment on this document. Thank you for your Final Supplementol Environmental Impact Report JON BERGSCHNEIDER, SLOUGH ESTATES B- 1 Comment noted. The City encourages participation in finalizing the TDM Ordinance. B-2 Comment noted. The City encourages participation in the process of determining street improvements. 2-8 Chapter 2: Written and Oral Comments and Responses to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco ORAL COMMENTS No public comments were received. Planning Commissioners briefly discussed the alterna- tives and the costs, which are not CEQA issues. The minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on May 17, 2001 follow. 2-9 increasing the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) above 0.5, situated at 475 Eccles Avenue in the Planned Industrial Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.32. 0 East of 101 City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant GPA-99-061/MOD2, ZA-01-021 and DSEIR 99-061/MOD1 East of 101Transportation Improvement Plan and Traffic Impact Fee, Draft SEIR, General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to establish a citywide Transportation Demand Management Plan -Public Hearing to take comments on the DSEIR during review period. Chief Planner Sparks introduced more discussions on the plans. Purpose of meeting to accept comments from the public on DSEIR. Senior Planner Lappen gave presentation. Commissioner D'Angelo asked the staff to go back to the slide on the alternatives. Very impressed. Mentioned that there is no consideration of costs associated with any of the alternatives. Chief Planner Sparks there are cost but not related to DSEIR the environment superior alternative is not the most expensive. Senior Planner Lappen The presentation was to focus on the E1R Draft nexus study needs to be done to justify the project. TDM consultant is advising as to the cost of the project. Information will be given to commission. Commissioner D'Angelo noticed that Railroad Avenue extension was a very hot issue during the General Plan and is in every alternative. Why? Chief Planner Sparks The desire to have other connections across the freeway between east and west is strong. Anytime we can come up with a possibility we throw it into whatever program. Won't stay in this one because it is too expensive. Commissioner Teglia mentioned the no build option included the Railroad extension maybe that alternative should have been deleted. It would have then impacted some of the early traffic analysis. Chief Planner Sparks doesn't show a large impact and very expensive and very convenient for other things but not so clearly useful in terms of improving traffic flow in an area of intense development. Senior Planner Lappen one of the masons why the information in the General Plan was not to look at it in context with the East of 101 area, but serving downtown. The east-west extension that would get traffic from eastside of the freeway to the Lindenville area. Truck traffic going through downtown going directly to the freeway. Nexus study to leave out Railroad. Commissioner Sim Practically implementing these potential alternatives it takes phases and master plan strategies. Do we have any strategies in mind? Will they be shared at next presentation. Senior Planner Lappen stated that the consultant's scope of work is to provide implementations. Vice Chairperson Romero comment on Airport Blvd./Grand Ave .area. East of Grand Ave. intersection and overpass section Categories 12, 13 and 14 in Table 3.1 is a real problem area. Would like the consultant to revisit that area to see if there was something to be done to improve the level of service for the people who need to get in and out of the East of 101 area and to get to the Grand Ave area during lunchtime. To provide the businesses of that area mom ease of access. Intersection is difficult to traverse before and after work and lunchtime. Leaning toward Category D because of the improvements to the intersections indicated. Chief Planner Sparks We have parts of the proposal that would significantly improve the Grand/Airport intersection. Will be going through ali in considerable detail when the project is bought forward intersection by intersection. Commissioner Ochsenhirt commented that the at Dubuque intersection a semi tried to make a right-hand turn on Dubuque and got caught up on the island. Vice Chairperson Romero stated that being no other comments, the review period continues until June 6th and if anyone from the public wanted to comment they should pick up the document and do so. S:\Mimucs\051701 RPC.(hw Parc 2 o1' 4 3 Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). These changes are incorporated as part of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. These revisions include text changes made in Chapter 2 of this document in response to comments. Revisions to the DSEIR are indicated herein as redline for additions and strikcout for deletions. Text on page 2-8 is revised as follows: With the proposed project, an intense TDM program and intersection improvements will improve all but four five of the 38 intersections analyzed to LOS D or better. Text on page 4-16 is revised as follows: 1-380 connects 1-280 with U.S. 101 and has cxists exits onto South Airport Boulevard. Text on page 4-21 is revised as follows: Existing levels of service were calculated for each study intersection (See Table 4.3-4). All of the study intersections except South Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard, which oper- ates at LOS E, operate at acceptable LOS (D or better) under existing conditions. Table 4.3-4 on page 4-22 and 4-23 of the DSEIR is revised as follows: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-4: Existing Conditions LOS Intersection Control LOS AM PEAK HOUR I Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp(s) * Stop (Signal) B 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal C 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- I 01 Ramps Signal B 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal A 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. Stop A (A) 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal A 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal C 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal C 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal B 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) A (B) 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. Signal C 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal C 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal C PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp(s) * 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- I 01 Ramps 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off-Ramp F_xistJng Del~/ 9 29 18 7 8 4 0 5 6 4 16 20 3 21 4-31~4 3 19 ~2~2 18 Stop (Signal) C II Signal D 27 Signal D 25 Signal B 12 Signal C 24 Signal A 3 Stop A (A) 0 Signal B 13 Signal B 13 Signal B 7 Signal C 15 3-2 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco Table 4.3-4: Existing Conditions LOS Exist/ng Intersection Control LOS Delay 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal C 20 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 3 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal C 18 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal C 4~t9 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) A (B) 3 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. Signal C L~1-2~4 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal ~_E ~4~0 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal C 16 Notes: A (D)=For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) Delay = Average delay for alt vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds * Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for future scenarios. ** Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only. 11 is a dummy node in the Traffix software analysis. The text on page 4-36 (under Impact 4.3-a) is revised as follows: In the No Project Alternative, 514 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Whereas in the proposed project, only 4-_5of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Table 4.3-10 on page 4-41 is revised as follows: 3-3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.3-10: Comparison of the Intersection Operations of the No Project to the Proposed Project IntersectJon Control AM PEAK HOUR I Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp(s) * Stop (Signal) D 27 B 15 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 38 D 3 I 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 34 D 26 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- I 01 Ramps Signal C 18 B 14 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal C- 20 C- Jr6 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 13 B 8 7 Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. Stop A (A) 0 A (A) 0 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal D 37 B 10 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 12 B 8 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 6 B 6 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off- Ramp Signal F 78 C 23 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal F 386 C 22 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 4 B 5 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 513 E 55 7~3 -~ 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 977 C 2_LI 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) F (F) OVRFL B 14 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. Signal C C 2--2 ~8 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal E) Z-~ C 4-9 E 42 21 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. Signal F 247 C 24 PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp(s) * 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- I 01 Ramps 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. No Project Proposed (Current General Plan) Project LOS Delay LOS I Delay Stop (Signal) F 338 F 82 Signal E 42 D 3 I Signal F 130 F 85 Signal D 27 C 22 4-t-4 F 6-3 Signal F Il7 E 78 3-4 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact RepOrt for South SOn Francisco Table 4.3-10: Comparison of the Intersection Operations of the No Project to the Proposed Project Control Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal Bay West Cove Driveway and Oyster Point Stop A (D) I Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 69 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal F 95 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. Signal B 13 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off- Signal C 16 Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. Signal D 38 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. Signal A 5 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 205 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. Signal F 603 17 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. ** Stop (Signal) F (F) 690 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. Signal F 286 OVRFL 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. Signal F 2297 Signal C 19 Intersection 6 7 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. No Project (Current General Plan) LOS Delay D 32 Proposed Project LOS Delay B 13 A (C) I B C 17 B B 15 D 2..6 A 4 C 22 E 4_.Z C 19 D ]9 C 17 A (D) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds * Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for future scenarios. ** Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only. 11 is a dummy node in the Traffix software analysis. Source: CCS Planning & Engineering Amend the text on page 4-51 of the DSEIR (under Impact 4.4-b) to read as follows: In the No Project alternative 4-714 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Whereas in the proposed project, only 45 of the study intersections operate at LOS E or F. Table 4.4-6 3-5 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco compares total delay in the No Project Alternative to total delay in the proposed project. To- tal delay times in the No Project Alternative is 9,83-°11,776 hours and in the proposed project total delay is -1-~3461,21.6 hours. Amend Table 4.4-6 on page 4-52 as follows: 3-6 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.4-6: Total Delay in No Project versus Proposed Project No Project Average Total Total Delay Delay Total Intersections Volume (Sec.) (Hours) Volume Proposed Project Average Delay (Sec.) Total Delay (Hours) AM Peak Hour I Bayshore Blvd. and US- I 01 SB Ramps 3,686 27.2 27.85 3,377 14.5 13.60 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,152 37.7 53.95 4,859 30.9 41.7 I 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,980 34.3 56.98 5,521 26.2 40.18 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,786 17.6 18.51 3,404 13.8 13.05 20.3 32.£3 I ~c.9 22.°~2 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,769 92.1 147.59 5,167 54.4 78.08 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,660 12.6 16.31 4,156 8.2 9.47 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 0.0 0.00 3,192 0.0 0.00 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 37.1 35.97 3,190 9.8 8.68 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,282 11.7 7.42 2,150 8. I 4.84 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 1,041 6.1 1.76 1,033 5.7 1.64 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off-Ramp 3,288 78.4 71.61 2,908 23. I 18.66 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,641 385.6 497.10 4,21 I 21.5 25.15 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,723 3.8 3.93 3,282 5. I 4.65 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,683 512.5 951.40 5,174 55.0 79.05 7'!,3.0 I ,'I, 73.20 17..'1 25.79 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 7,138 977.3 1,937.77 5,335 21.2 31.42 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave.* 3,243 N/A 253.03 2,785 13.6 10.52 20.3 20.57 17.0 17.2 I 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 3,647 21.6 21.88 3,644 18.1 18.32 25.5 25.99 ~ ~°.5 ~ 8.70 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. 3,795 41.7 43.96 3,619 21.1 21.21 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 3,016 246.6 206.60 3,503 24.2 23.55 AM Total 4,353.61 443.76 PM Peak Hour I Bayshore Blvd. and US- I 01 SB Ramps 4,032 337.9 378.45 3,719 82.0 84.7 I 12 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,145 42.4 60.60 4,862 30.5 4 I. 19 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 7,189 130.3 260.20 6,533 85.3 154.80 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- 101 Ramps 3,922 27.2 29.63 3,589 22.1 22.03 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 6,767 ' I ~,.0 ~, A ,o 6,122 '~" ,~, ~o 3-7 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 4.4-6: Total Delay in No Project versus Proposed Project Intersections Total Volume 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,584 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point 3,932 Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,646 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,305 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 953 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US-101 SB 2,575 Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,271 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,648 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,574 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,857 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave.* 2,997 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 6,202 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. 5,694 '20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 2,836 PM Total AM + PM Total 11 is a dummy node. No Project Proposed Project Average Total Average Total Delay De/ay Total Delay Delay (Sec.) (Hours) Volume (Sec.) (Hours) I 16.7 219.36 77.7 132.13 32.4 41.26 4,085 13.0 14.75 I. I 1.20 3,605 0.6 0.60 68.9 69.78 3,339 13.0 12.06 94.8 60.70 2,172 17.2 10.38 13.2 3.49 934 12.5 3.24 16.0 11.44 2,432 14.7 9.93 37.7 44.73 4,079 25.7 29.12 4.7 4.76 3,281 4.3 3.92 205.3 374.90 5,701 21.9 34.68 602.9 /, 148.36 5,684 47.0 74.2 I 689.6 574.09 2,542 18.5 13.06 ,oct ~,~o~ 22.0 285.6 492.03 5,704 38.7 61.32 .............. 5,119 2296.8 3632.77 34.3 55.88 19. I 15.05 2,895 17.4 13.99 7,422.81 772.0 I o o~-~ ~A 1,0~,5.95 I 1,776.42 1,215.77 * Indicates stop-controlled intersection. Delay calculated based on delay of conflict movements if intersection Average Delay was "Overflow". Source: CCS Planning and Engineering The text in the bullets on page 6-11 is revised as follows: · Gateway Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F in both AM and PM) · South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (LOS E in AM and LOS F in PM) 3-8 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco The text on page 6-13 is revised as follows: Compared to the Current No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) in the AM peak hour: Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS ]~_F to LOS D in AM). The Text on page 6-17 is revised as follows: With the additional improvements, fo'ar seven of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during the AM and/or PM peak hours. · Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS GD in AM~ and from LOS F to I,OS D in PM) The text on page 6-18 is revised as follows: -Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) -South Airport Boulevard & Catcway Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) The text and Table on page 6-22 is revised as follows: The total delay for the No Project alternative is 9¢¢3811,776 hours, total delay for the Moderate TDM program with Additional Improvements alternative is 1,3021,552 hours, and total delay for the Proposed Project is 440461,216 hours. Table 6.7- I: Number of Intersections with Unacceptable Traffic Operations No Project Initial Maximum Moderate Moderate TDM with Aggressive Proposed Project (Current Physical TDM Additional TDM General Plan) Improvement Improvements 68 in AM -56 in AM -5_6 in AM -I-_2 in AM 4 in AM I in AM I I in PM I I in PM 10 in PM -3_6 in PM 9 in PM ~ in PM Table 6.7-3 will be amended as follows: 3-9 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the No Project and l~loderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Proposed Project AM Peak Hour !Moderate TDM with Addi- Proposed Project No Project tional Improvements Total Average Total Total Average Total Total Average Total De/ay Delay Delay Delay (Sec- Delay Delay (Hours) Volume (Seconds) (Hours) Volume onds) (Hours) Volume (Seconds) I Bayshore Blvd. and US- I 01 SB 3,686 27.2 27.85 3,524 Ramps 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,152 37.7 53.95 4,999 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,980 34.3 56.98 5,736 15.1 14.78 3,377 14.5 13.60 31.6 43.88 4,859 30.9 41.7 I 27.7 44.14 5,521 26.2 40.18 4 Dubuque Ave. and US- I 01 Ramps 3,786 17.6 18.51 3,58 I 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point 20.3 32.53 Blvd. 5,769 92. I 147.59 5,450 15.3 15.22 3,404 13.8 13.05 74.0 I 12.03 5,167 54.4 78.08 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,660 12.6 16.31 4,388 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 0.0 0.00 3,33 I 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,490 37. I 35.97 3,33 I 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,282 I 1.7 7.42 2,210 I 0 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 1,041 6. I 1.76 1,036 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- I 01 SB Off-Ramp 3,288 78.4 71.61 3,022 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,641 385.6 497. I 0 4,348 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,723 3.8 3.93 3,427 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,683 512.5 951.40 5,387 ............. 5,686 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 7,138 977.3 1937.77 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave. . 3,243 N/A 253.03 3,004 9.5 I 1.58 4,156 8.2 9.47 0.0 0.00 3,192 0.0 0.00 12.9 I 1.94 3,190 9.8 8.68 8.2 5.03 2,150 8. I 4.84 5.8 1.67 1,033 5.7 1.64 26.4 22.16 2,908 23. I 18.66 23.5 28.38 4,21 I 21.5 25.15 3.7 3.52 3,282 5. I 4.65 72.2 108.04 5,174 55.0 79.05 25.8 40.75 5,335 21.2 31.42 22.7 18.94 2,785 13.6 10.52 3,647 .... 20.57 3,712 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 21.6 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway 25.6 26.99 Blvd. 3,795 41.7 43.96 3,770 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 3,016 246.6 206.60 3,709 17.0 18.2 18.77 3,644 18. I 18.32 22. I 23.14 3,619 18.6 18.70 36.8 37.91 3,503 2 I. I 21.21 3-10 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the No Project and Moderate TDM with Additional the Proposed Project AM Total PM Peak Hour Moderate TDM with No Project tional Improvements Total Average Total Total Average Volume Delay Delay Volume Delay (Sec- (Seconds) (Hours) onds) 3,755.70 4,353.61 I Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB 4,032 337.9 378.45 3,862 99.7 Ramps 2 Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 5,145 42.4 60.60 4,991 30.8 3 Dubuque Ave. and Oyster Point 7,189 130.3 260.20 6,836 105.0 Blvd. 4 Dubuque Ave. and US-101 Ramps 3,922 27.2 29.63 3,740 24.1 5 Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point 6,767 ........... 6,416 .... Blvd. I 16.7 219.36 96. I 6 Veterans Rd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 4,584 32.4 41.26 4,313 19.2 7 Bay West Driveway and Oyster 3,932 I.I 1.20 3,756 0.8 Point Blvd. 8 Eccles Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. 3,646 68.9 69.78 3,479 13.8 9 Gull Dr. and Oyster Point Blvd. 2,305 94.8 60.70 2,234 19.1 10 Marina Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd. 953 13.2 3.49 944 12.8 12 Airport Blvd. and Miller Ave./US- 2,575 16.0 I 1.44 2,478 14.7 I 01 SB Off-Ramp 13 Airport Blvd. and Grand Ave. 4,271 37.7 44.73 4,146 27.7 14 Dubuque Ave. and East Grand Ave. 3,648 4.7 4.76 3,433 4.5 15 Gateway Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,574 205.3 374.90 5,997 24.6 16 Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave. 6,857 ~ 780.36 35/, 602.9 1,148.36 6,117 69.0 17 Grandview Dr. and East Grand Ave. 2,997 689.6 574.09 2,755 21.7 ~ 85.7 18 Airport Blvd. and San Mateo Ave. 6,202 285.6 19 South Airport Blvd. and Gateway 5,694 ..... Blvd. 2,296.8 20 South Airport Blvd. and Utah Ave. 2,836 19. I PM Total 3 ~ 9.92 25.5 492.03 5,963 49. I 2,837. ~ 9 28.5 5,409 3,632.77 49.9 15.05 2,955 17.6 ~,082.05Z 422.81 Improvements Alternative, and Addi- Proposed Project Total Total Average Total Delay Delay Delay (Hours) (Hours) Volume (Seconds) 561.89 443.76 106.96 3,719 82.0 84.7 I 42.70 4,862 30.5 4 I. 19 199.38 6,533 85.3 154.80 25.04 3,589 22. I 22.03 171.27 6,122 77.7 132.13 23.00 4,085 13.0 14.75 0.83 3,605 0.6 0.60 13.34 3,339 13.0 12.06 I 1.85 2,172 17.2 10.38 3.36 934 12.5 3.24 10.12 2,432 14.7 9.93 31.90 4,079 25.7 29.12 4.29 3,281 4.3 3.92 40.98 5,701 21.9 34.68 I 17.24 5,684 47.0 74.21 16.61 2,542 18.5 13.06 81.33 5,704 38.7 61.32 74.97 5, I 19 39.3 55.88 14.45 2,895 17.4 13.99 989.61 772.01 3-tl Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Table 6-7.3 Total Delay in the No Project and Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative, and the Proposed Project Moderate TDM with Addi- Proposed Project No Project tional Improvements Total Average Total Total Average Total Total Average Total Delay Delay Delay Delay (Sec- Delay De/ay (Hours) Volume (Seconds) (Hours) Volume ands) (Hours) Volume (Seconds) AM + PM Total I 1,776.42 1,215.77 1 is a dummy node. Indicates stop-controlled intersection. Delay calculated based on delay of conflict movements if intersection Average Delay was "Overflow". Source: CCS Planning and Engineering 3-12 Appendix A. Notice of Preparation DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION · (6,5o) 8774535 FAX (650) 829-6639 NOTICE OF PREPARATION DATE: TO: SUBJECT: December 8, 2000 Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ..IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) The City of South San'Francisco is currently preparing the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan, Which includes amendments to both the South San Francisco General Plan and. the East of 101 Area Plan, and has determined that a Supplemental.Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will. be' necessary. The City, in compliance with CEQA, is the -Lead Agency and will direct the preparation of the SEIR for the project. The City requests your input regarding the scope and content of environmental information,that is relevant to your respective agency's statutory/regulatory responsibilities in order to ascertain potential impacts of the proposed project. The project description is provided in the attached Notice of Preparation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 (b) mandates each Responsible Agency to respond to an NOP within thirty days (30) after receipt. The review period will extend from December 10, 2000 to January 9, 2001. Please send your written response, with the name of your agency contact person, to the following address: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division- P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Your views and comments on how the project may impact the environment are welcomed. Please contact Michael Lappen at (650) 877-8535 if you have any questions regarding this Notice of Preparation. 315 MAPLE AVENUE · P.O. BOX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Notice of PreParation City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan SEIR December 8, 2000 Page 2 Project Title: The City of South San Francisco " East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Chief Planner NOTICE OF PREPARATION East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report City of South San Francisco December 2000 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Notice of Preparation is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to inform all interested parties that the City of South San Francisco intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City's East of 101 Arm'Traffic Improvement Plan. The plan includes amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. This notice is to request comments and guidance on the scope and the content of the environmental information to be included in the SE1R. PROJECT TITLE City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUND~S Regional. Location The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco BaY, in northern San Mateo County. 'The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including US 101, Interstates I~280 and 1-380, the Union Pacific Railroad :(formerly.owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) main line, and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 1. Planning Area Boundaries The planning area for the East of 101 Area Traffic Implementation Plan includes all land located east of US 101 and within the boundary of the City of South San Francisco. The planning area is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the east, San Bruno Mountain and the City of Brisbane to the north, and the San Francisco International Airport to the south. Figure 2 shows the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan planning area. Berkeley -' .-_' ...; C O NT RAN~,~'~ COSTA '",( ALA~A' 4 Figure I Regional Location 0 0 .J c',4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In October 1999, The City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan and certified the General Plan Environmental lmpact Report (EIR). The Plan presents a long-term, comprehensive plan to help the community understand the issues and find solutions for land use, housing, economic development, transportation, and conservmion needs for the various neighborhoods that make up the city. The General Plan's Transportation Element identifies future transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further integrate a multi-modal transportation system. The Element also encourages, alternative modes of transit (including bicycle routs and pedestrian amenities) that would help reduce transportation impacts. East of 101 TraJ~u: Study . .... The City's Engineering Division is currently preparing a detailed u'affic and fee study for the'East of 101 are,x · The scope-of work roi' the project includes the following objectives: 1. Improve the process for Waffic StUdies for individual developments. 2. Update traffic projections for the East of !01 area. 3. ldentify specific road improvement alternatives. 4. Identify long~range mitigatiOn, including traffic reduction' measures as well as road improvements... 5. Recommend fee ~uCtures to fund tmnsp°rmfion improvements. - . _.--~-~:j~: ,...-...~ . . The Transportation Elernem identifies future physical improvements and alternative.transp0rtation systems that will help the City manage anticipated growth in the East of 101'Area. Many of the physical improvements identified' in the General Plan require more detailed study and analysis in Order to determine how they will be implemented and the appropriate funding mechanism. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of local and regional programs, including the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the County's.Congestion Management Program (CMP). Therefore, the Transportation Element provides the City with the flexibility to identify future physical improvements and Uamportation programs. Specifically, General Plan Policy 4.2-}-6states "Update the Transportation Element, if necessary, including a list ofimprovements, upon completion of the East of 101 traffic study". The Element also encourages the City to promote a Tmns~rtation Demand Management program, General Plan Policy 4.3-I-8 requires the City to adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes a methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses, procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses, requirements for off-site improvements, and reduced parking requirements. Project Objectives The implementation of the physical improvements and the TDM program will require that the City 4 incorporate the improvements imo the General Plan Transportation Element, the General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element, other elements, and the East of 101 Area Plan for consistency. The current efforts underway for traffic analysis for the East of 101 Area will be consolidated into General Plan amendments. It is anticipmed that the amendments will be in the form of: Changes to the Transportation Element. Specifically, the Supplemental EIR and Amendment to the Transportation Element will list specific transportation and roadway improvements. The Element and Supplemental EIR will also increase focus on alternative transportation modes (for example, shuttles) and transportation demand management. Changes to' the other elements for consistency. For exarnple, the Planning Sub-areas Element may need to be arnende, d. Changes to the'East of JOl Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan will be updated to reflect the General Plan policy direction. Preparation of the TDM Program and Ordinance. The City will prepare a comprehensive and enforceable TDM Program. The Traffic Improvement Plan will be a separate document, adopted concurrently-with-the GPA. The General Plan amendments, East of 101 Area Plan amendments, street and infrastructure improvements, and the TDM Program wou!d form the "project" for the EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFEC~D The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least'°ne'imPact that is a' "Potentially Significant ImPact" as indii:ated by the checklist on the following.pages.:' :.. . ':- - - I-I Aesthetics I-'l - Agricultural Resources ['-I Air Quality [] Biological Resources [-I Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology/Water Materials Quality [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Land Use/Planning [] Population/Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 5 Appendix B. Letters from the Office of Planning and Research Gray Davis GO\'ERNOR June 11, 2001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Steve Nissen DI RECTOF, Michael Lappen City of San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 City of South San Francisco, CA 94080 RECE!V£D JUN 1 3 Subject: East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan (SEIR) SCH#: 1993081040 Dear Michael Lappen: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 8, 2001, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be camed out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that You have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, put.quant tO the Ca!ifomia Env,.'rommenta! Quali~' Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Semor Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency I400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CAI_IFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 \V\X'\V.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.I-ITML Appendix C. Notice of Availability DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829-6639 DATE: Ap~I 23, 2001 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan in the City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco has prepared a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to analyze the proposed East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan, which includes specific infrastructure improvements, the adoption of a Transit Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and program, and the establishment of an area wide traffic fee. The 4S-day public review period for this document began on April 23, 2001 and will close on Monday, June 6, 2001. The Planning Commission will hold a public heating to take comments on the adequacy and completeness of the draft SEIR on May 17, 2001 in the Municipal Services Building. The document and reference materials to complete the draft SEIR are available for public review and comments at the Planning Division. A copy of the draft SEIR is also available for review and downloading (Adobe PDF format) from the City's website at http:/Avww.ssf, net/ecd/page78.html. Purpose of the Project In October 1999, The City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan and certified the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan's Transportation Element identifies future transportation and circulation needs for 2020, which is the long-range planning horizon. The Transportation Element identifies future physicalimprovements and alternative transportation systems that will help the City manage anticipated growth and includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further integrate a multi-modal transportation system. The Element also encourages the City to promote a Transportation Demand Management (TI)M) program and alternative modes of transit (including 400 GRAND AVENUE · P.O. BOX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 bicycle routs and pedestrian amenities) that would help reduce traffic congestion. For the past year and one-half, the City has been working with a consultant to prepare a detailed traffic and fee study for the East of 101 area. The scope of work for the project includes the following objectives: Update traffic projections in the East of 101 area. Identify specific street improvements. Provide a fee structure to fund transportation improvements. Adopt a performance-based TDM program. The implementation of the physical improvements and the TDM program will require that the City amend the General Plan Land Use and Transportation Elements for consistency, adopt an TDM Ordinance and adopt an Area-Wide Traffic Fee. Many of the physical improvements identified in the General Plan require more detailed study and analysis in order to determine how they will be implemented and the appropriate funding mechanism. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of local and regional programs, including the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the County's Congestion Management Program (CMP). If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco or call (650) 877-8535. Sincerely, Attachment 1. Location Map 2 .J Sign Hill Park ./ LOCATION MAP EAST OF 101 AREA PLANNING AREA County Park ,/ San Bruno Canal "San. .... i Bay . Appendix D. Public Notice San Mateo County Times c/o ANG Newspapers 1080 South Amphlett Blvd. San Mateo, CA 94402 50) 348-4467 Fax (650) 348-4459 , _agalNo. 2048857 NOTICE OF.A P~MC ~G OF ~ SO~ S~ ~~CO ~G CO~ON ~ P~~ON OF A-D~ ~PI;E~ ~O~ ~A~ ~'~T OF 101 ~ ~S~~ON ~RO~ P~ N~ IS ~Y G~ ~t a'~ Supplemcn~ ~en~ ~p~t ~n ~S~)-~ ~n ~p~ for.~ ~j~t ~ ~low, ~d is av~le for pubic m~ew ~d m~nt for 45 ~y~ W~cn Dillon by 5:~ EM. on J~c 6, ~1. ~ d~ent ~d mf~ncc ~s to ~le~ ~ DS~. ~ av~lc f~ ~b~c m~ew ~d c~cn~ ~ ~c P~g ~sio~ Ci~ ~ ~e~ 315 M~lc Avenue, S~ S~ ~c~. C~i~ of ~ DS~ ~ ~so a~le ~ ~e W~t ~gc Li~, 8~ W. ~gc Av~, ~ ~dAvcnuc Li~, 3~ - W~ut Avenue, ~d ~e Ciw ~ffk's ~, 'Ci~ H~'~d Av~uc. '" CO~ P~OD: ~c 45~y cogent ~ for ~c d~u~nt ~. :~::~ on ~_~, ~1 ~d ~ d~.on W~y, June 6, 2~1. You of ~u~ ~ ~, ~O. Box ~11, ~ S~ F~cisco, CA9~8~. ~e ~ ~mm~ ~ ~.~ a.pu~c ~ m ~ive . ~ ~ .~e ad~ ~ ~p~ ~ ~e ~ on May 17, ~2~1 :-at 7:~ P.M.,~ :~e M~cip~ Se~ B~g, 33 · ~iu~ ~c-~ ~men~, a T~on ~d :, ~nt'~'~ ~'-~ ~d ~c f~. ~e ~.~ ~lu~: ~ . ~ - C~ges ~o ~ T~m~n E~; S~y,.~ S~I~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~e T~on ~m ~ ~. s~c ~, ~on ~ ~way ~ve~. ~ Element ~d "".~:, ' '.~'(f~ e~e, ~u~) ~d ~~ ~d ~nt. ~'~ -. C~ges lo t~ ot~ e~nts for co~t~. ~r exile, ~ ~:: , - -H~g Su~ ~ement n~ m~ ~n~. ',: - · C~ges to ~ ~t of ]OI A~a P~ %e ~t of'lO1 ~ PI~ ~1 .... ~M Pmg~ .~ O~e.~ ~ d~t ~clu~ a ' ~m~iVe ~ ~le ~M ~. · T~Fee. ~ Ci~ is ~fly~g a nex~ :.~ ~.~1~ orate f~. -~ -.-~: t~-:IK~I ' ORIGINAL '2 2001 PLANNING. PROOF OF PUBLICATION In the matter of: PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 17, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. The undersigned below, deposes and says that he/she was the public Notice Advertising Clerk of the SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES a newspaper of general cimulation as defined by Government Code Section 6000 adjucated as such by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Case No. 55795 September 21, 1951) which is published and circulated in said county and state daily (Sunday excepted). That the PUBLIC NOTICE of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in every issue of the SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES, on the following dates: APRIL 23. 2001 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Public Notice Advertising Clerk Appendix E. City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Staff Report on the General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Im- pact Report Public Hearing Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: May 17, 2001 Planning Commission East ofl01 Area Transportation Implementation Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) and TDM Ordinance: South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact. Report (DSEIR) Public Heating RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) and accept comments on the dra~. BACKGROUND: In October 2000, the City Council authorized the Planning Division to hire Dyett & Bhatia to prepare the General Plan Amendment, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The project is designed to help the City reduce furore traffic congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 area by 1) identifying new streets and physical improvements, 2) establishing an effective TDM program l;or employers, 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements, and 4) complying with State and San Mateo County requirements. The project would implement the General Plan transportation policies that provide the City with the flexibility to identify future physical improvements and transportation programs. The General Plan' s Transportation Element identifies future transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further integrate a multi-modal transportation system that encourages transit, meets the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, and programs to help reduce transportation impacts. The Transportation Element identifies future physical improvements and alternative transportation systems that will help the City manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area. The Element also encourages the City to promote a Transportation Demand Management program. Dyett And Bhatia has submitted the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for public review and comment. The 45-day public review period for this document began on April 23, 2001 and will close on Monday, June 6, 2001. The document and reference materials Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) Public Hearing May 17, 2001 Page 3 · Alternative D: · Alternative E: Moderate TDM with Additional Improvements Intensive TDM The project will have a significant beneficial impact on air quality and transportation compared to the existing General Plan, "No Project Alternative" scenario. With the proposed physical improvements and TDM Plan only five of the study intersections will be at levels of service (LOS) exceeding LOS D, whereas 14 of the study intersections will exceed LOS D under the No Project Alternative that discusses the result of not implementing the project or reasonable alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, the DSEIR identifies an environmentally superior alternative. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) and accept comments on the draft. Respectfully submitted, Senior Plas~tn~r Attachment: South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Delivered to the Planning Commissioners on May 7, 2001)