Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEC EIR Final EIR Attachments 04-1993 ~~~u~~m~~~nd o~ar~a~~ ~~~ra~ ~G3 U~IC~ PG~P~~~ ~C~11~~ P~ ~C~~~9JC~~4 ~~1~ G~C~~C~MC~~~pf~AC~~4 P~1I~ FINAL EIH ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DfiAFf EIH SCH Number: #92113002 Prepared for the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Engineers and Planners Freedman, Tung & Bottomley, Urban Designers Andrew Leahy, Consulting Civil Engineer Illingworth & Rodkin, Noise Consultants Donald Ballanti, Consulting Meteorologist April 1993 5221FE/RICOVER.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Contents Page iii CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ............. . A. Index to Written Comments Received During the Public Review Period .............................. . B. Index to Oral Comments Made at March 4, 1993 Public Hearing .. . C. Verbatim Written Comments and Responses ............... . D. Public Hearing Comments and Responses ................. . III. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR (FINAL EIR ERRATA) ........... . IV. ADDITIONAL EIR APPENDICES L. Lead Agency, Comments on the Draft EIR Made by City of South San Francisco Departments and Consultants to the City 18, 1993 M. Multi-Family Residential Examples: Photographs and Summary Data for Product Types Ranging in Density from 15 to 125 Units per Acre 3 4 7 9 65 75 5221 FEI R I CON TEN TS. 522 Et Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Contents Page iv 5221 FEI RI CONTENTS. 522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 I. INTRODUCTION Final EIR Attachment 1. Introduction Page 1 The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed EI Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan consists of two volumes: (1) the Draft EIR (DEIR), which was distributed for public review and comment on February 1, 1993, and (2) this Final EIR attachment. In conformance with Section 15132 of the California Environmental Qualit~Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines (1992), this attachment includes the following additional components which, together with the Draft EIR, comprise the Final EIR for the project: (a) A list of persons, organizations, and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period and asummary/index of their comments; (b) Copies of written comments from interested agencies and the public received on the Draft EIR within the public review period; (c) A transcription of oral comments received at the public hearing on the Draft EIR held by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission on March 4, 1993; (d) The responses of the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) to all significant environmental points raised in these written and oral comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; (e) An Errata section which includes EIR text revisions made in response to public and city staff comments on the Draft EIR. All such text revisions to the Draft EIR are indicated with an r in the left margin adjacent to the revised line. All of the revised pages supersede the corresponding pages in the Draft EIR; (f) A memo summarizing comments by the Lead Agency--i.e., City of South San Francisco departments and consultants--pertaining to recommended revisions to the DEIR (this memo has been included in this Final EIR Attachment as additional EIR appendix L, and any changes merited by these comments have been incorporated into the errata; no written responses are required for comments made by the Lead Agency); and (g) An additional EIR appendix M which provides a comparative description of multi-family residential development examples, including photographs and summary data for product types ranging in density from 15 to 125 units per acre. 5221FEIRIF--1.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment I. Introduction Page 2 Certification of this Final EIR by the City must occur prior to any final action on the proposed project. If the Planning Commission and the City Council were to approve the proposed project, selected mitigation measures suggested in this Final EIR could be required as conditions of project approval. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that in order to approve and implement the proposed project, the Lead Agency (the city) must make written findings for each FEIR-identified significant impact briefly indicating: (1) any changes or alterations which have been included in the project to substantially lessen or avoid the impact, (2) measures which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been or should be adopted by that agency; and/or (3) specific economic social or other considerations which make infeasible certain mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 5221FEIRIF-L522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 3 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR After completion of the Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco (i.e., the Lead Agency) is required under CEQA Guidelines to consult with and obtain comments from other public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the general public with opportunities to comment on the Draft EIR. The City is also required to respond in writing to substantive environmental points raised during this Draft EIR review and consultation process. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was distributed for public review and comment on February 1, 1993. The required 45-day public review period on the DEIR ended on March 17, 1993. During the public review period, written comments from the public on the DEIR were , received in the form of thirteen (13) letters and memoranda submitted to the City. A fourteenth letter was received from BART after the close of the public review period. Oral comments were also received by and from the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission at a public hearing on the DEIR held on March 4, 1993. Oral comments on the adequacy of the EIR were received from one member of the public at this hearing. This Response to Comments chapter includes the following subsections: ^ An index to comments (section II.A and B), which lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; identifies the environmental issues addressed in their comments; and indicates by code where the written responses of the Lead Agency (City of South San Francisco) to these comments are provided in this chapter. ^ A responses to written comments section (section II.C), which includes copies of all letters and memos received during the public review period pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR, followed by the written response of the Lead Agency to these comments. Each pertinent written comment is coded in the right margin of the letter or memo. The written responses of the Lead Agency to these various coded comments follow each letter. ^ A responses to oral comments section (section II.D), which includes a paraphrased transcript of comments made at the March 4, 1993 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission public hearing held on the DEIR, followed by the written responses of the Lead Agency to each pertinent environmental point. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 A. INDEX TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 4 The following index is provided to assist readers in identifying (1) who submitted written comments during the DEIR public review period, (2) what DEIR issues were commented upon in writing by whom, and (3) where responses to these comments can be found in this document. Name/Agency Date Code Issues and Concerns 1. Robert J. Mowat, Robert 2-8-93 No comments on EIR adequacy. Mowat Associates 2. Joseph S. D'Angelo, 2-11-93 No comments on EIR adequacy. Hazardous Materials Specialist, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Services Division, County of San Mateo 3. Wayne Joseph, 1241 3-8-93 No comments on EIR adequacy. Mission Road, South San Francisco, CA 4. Richard B. Kerwin, 3-11-93 4.1 Standards for interior noise. Chairperson, Airport Land Use Committee, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 5. David Bliss, Physician- 3-11-93 5.1 Reduced BART parking standards in-Chief and Julie 5.2 Construction noise Brown, Hospital and Health Plan 5.3 Noise disturbance coordinator Administrator, Kaiser 5.4 Kaiser storm drain system Permanent Medical Center 6. Gary F. Adams, Senior 3-16-93 6.1 Oyster Point interchange Transportation Planner, 6.2 Street name error State of California, Department of Transportation 5221FEIRIF-IL522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 5 7. Louis Dell'Angela, 460 3-16-93 7.1 Importance of McLellan Nursery Gardenside Avenue, 7.2 Financial burden of school impacts South San Francisco 7.3 School impact mitigations 7.4 Density-related land use conflicts on McLellan site 7.5 Feasibility of proposed density in two- story structures 7.6 Macys/County Government Center site development assumptions 7.7 Feasibility of density assumptions within height limitations 7.8 Visual and land use compatibility of high density housing 7.9 Figure 10 and 11 misleading 7.10 Possible buildout of project before BART becomes operational 7.11 Mitigation of pedestrian safety impacts 7.12 Aircraft noise/residential compatibility 7.13 Colma Creek trunk sewer line 7.14 Police and fire personnel and facilities 7.15 Need for convenient neighborhood park 7.16 Visual impacts of tall, high density structures 8. William D. Davis, 3-16-93 8.1 Discussion of LAFCO Sphere of Influence Executive Officer, San 8.2 Discussion of Cortese/Knox Act Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission 8.3 Impacts and mitigations pertaining to McLellan site 8.4 "No annexation" alternative 9. Malcolm C. Carpenter, 3-17-93 9.1 Setbacks/landscape buffer along Mission City Planner, Town of Road Colma 9,2 Timing of traffic improvements 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR April 13, 1993 Page 6 9.3 Timing of Hickey Boulevard extension 9.4 Funding and scheduling of traffic improvement mitigations 9.5 Colma Creek right-of-way width 9.6 Building restrictions above Colma Creek 9.7 Storm water retention policy 10. Christine Kinne, Acting 3-18-93 No comments on EIR adequacy. Deputy Director, Permit Assistance, Governor's Office of Planning and Research 11. Janice B. Smith, 3-18-93 11.1 Inadequate mitigation of school impacts Assistant 11.2 Difficulty in changing school boundaries SuperintendenUBusiness Services South San 11.3 Elementary school needs Francisco Unified School District 11.4 Inadequate revenue from impact fees 11.5 Potential additional fee revenue 11.6 Infeasibility of general obligation bonds 11.7 Limited income from sale of surplus property 11.8 Onstreet parking impacts 11.9 Traffic safety concern 11.10 Noise impacts on schools 12. Neil R. Cullen, Assistant 3-16-93 12.1 Unclear intention regarding "covering" Director of Public Colma Creek Works, County of San 122 Implications of staged covering Mateo 13. Thomas E. Lodato, 3-17-93 13.1 City control over phasing Searsville Land Company 13.2 Economic responsibility for pathways 13.3 Cost of "parkway" 13.4 Cost of storm drainage 13.5 Cost of wastewater collection facilities 522lFElRIF-!l.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco It. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR April 13, 1993 Page 7 13.6 Cost of park and recreation facilities 13.7 Cost of school impact fees 13.8 Annexation without participation in the development plan 14. Jeffrey P. Ordway, 3-23-93 14.1 Proposed residential densities Manager of Property 14,2 Preference for mixed-use development Development, Bay Area Rapid Transit District 14.3 Pedestrian connections 14.4 Building height restrictions 14.5 "Constraints" of BART station site 14.6 Impact of project-related development on transit 14.7 Additional parking recommendation 14.8 Source of road maintenance funding 14.9 Impacts of project-related development on transit and BART ridership 14.10 BART/San Mateo County Transit District agreement B. INDEX TO MARCH 4, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING ORAL COMMENTS 15. Lou Dell'Angela 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9 Value of project Fiscal impacts to schools McLellan Nursery landmark Park impacts Visual impacts of high rises along EI Camino Real High density residential on Oak Street Traffic generation of high density housing on Mission Road Sewer system deficiencies Timing of project compared to BART 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR April 13, 1993 Page 8 16. Planning Commissioners 16.1 Location of transit-oriented density 16.2 Design of BART 16.3 Number of units in cumulative projects 16.4 Exterior siding materials 16.5 Units on 915-919 Grand Avenue 16.6 Right-of-way requirements for widening Chestnut Avenue 16.7 Oak Avenue extension 16.8 Single event noise levels 16.9 Samples/models of proposed density 16.10 Feasibility of density within proposed height limitation 16.11 Building height performance standards 16.12 Visual impacts of building heights 16.13 EI Camino Real Parkway concept 16.14 Density transitions 16.15 Grade of proposed parking 16.16 Residential performance standards 16.17 Flood plain implications 16.18 Intersections/driveways on Mission Road 16.19 Alternative mitigation for BART station pedestrian crossing impacts 16.20 Archaeological/cultural resources 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 9 C. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Reproductions of letters received during and after the DEIR public review period are included in the following section. Each letter is immediately followed by the Lead Agency's response to substantive comments therein pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of each letter. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 10 5221FEIRIF-11.522 n ~~ O % I~OB~~RT ~~IUWA7' ASSUCIATFS i.:~~n~c::~i~~~. ~iicairrrc:•rc i;i~: i.~~n i~i.:~~~c~c FEBRUARY 8, 1993 K t •: ~ ~ v ~:. ~ FEB 101993 MS. MAUREEN MORTON PLANNING C/0 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 DEAR MS. MORTON, I UNDERSTAND FROM THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT AREA THAT THE EXISTING CREEK ALONG THE S,P. RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE COVERED WITH A CONCRETE CULVERT, MOST LIKELY BY THE CORP OF ARMY ENGINEERS. _ SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, I HOPE TO HAVE THIS LETTER INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THE E.I.R. STATING MY CONCERNS AND OBJECTION WITH COVERING THE EXISTING CREEK IN A CONCRETE CULVERT. I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY AT HAND HERE. WITH A DWINDLING NUMBER OF NATURAL RESOURCES LEFT IN OUR CITY, THIS CREEK HOLDS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO RECLAIM A VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE, LONG NEGLECTED AND ABANDONED. THIS CREEK, CURRENTLY, DRAINAGE WAY), HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR A FORWARD ~~K~INLGPR~EKLANIAEISETTINGEWITHPTHEEPOSSIBIDITIESOOF BIKEPAND/ORTWALKINGIM A TRAILS. WILLOWS. OAKS, BUCK-EYES AND SYCAMORES ALONG WITH THE WILDLIFE THAT A NATURAL CREEK TYPE SETTING WOULD BRING. COULD SERVE AS A MODEL FOR FINDING NEW USES FOR LOST NATURAL RESOURCES. IT COULD ALSO BE A CATALYST AND TRAIL HEAD FOR A BIKEWAY THROUGH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A CITY HEAVILY DOMINATED AND OPPRESSED BY OUR AUTOMOBILES. THIS CREEK WHICH STARTS AT THE OUTFACE OF A CONCRETE CULVERT AT THE COLMA CITY LIMITS HAS A NUMBER A TREES THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IN THE FUTURE PLANNING OF THIS AREA. ROCK AND WIRE GABIONS PLANTED WITH NATIVE SPECIES COULD BRING BACK A POPULATION OF WILDLIFE INCLUDING, OPOSSUM, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAILS, BLUE HERONS. RACCOON AND FROGS. THIS CREEK SETTING, ALONG WITH OUR MOUNTAIN AND BAY RESOURCES COULD BE A WONDERFUL EDUCATIONAL TOOL FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF PLANTS, WILDLIFE AND ECO-SYSTEMS. THE SETTING AND THE POSSIBILITIES ALONG THE CREEK ARE ENDLESS. BENCHES. PATHWAYS, WILDLIFE LOOKOUTS, VISTA POINTS TO SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN AND/OR THE BAY ARE ALL INCREDIBLY EXCITING. THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USES TO TAKE VIEW ADVANTAGE OF THIS WONDERFUL NATURAL RESOURCE IS ALSO GREAT. THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO INCLUDE THIS STREAM RECLAIMATION IN THE REDEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES WHICH MAKES GRANTS TO LOCAL CITIZEN GROUPS AND CITIES INVOLVED IN FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAMS THAT ENHANCE THE NATURAL RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT, THIS 1988 BOND ISSUE HAS $5 MILLION DOLLARS AVAILABLE IN GRANTS 12 FEBRUARY 8. 1993 PAGE 2 FOR CITIES WISHING TO RECLAIM LOST WATER RESOURCES THIS BOND ISSUE HAS ALREADY HELPED WITH $115.000 FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE) 97 PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER PROGRAM ENTITLED "URBAN STREAM RESTORATION" WHICH IS A SIX YEAR OLD PROGRAM AND ALLOCATES MONIES COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FROM "VANITY PLATES" FOR STREAM/EROSION/FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS THIS PROGRAM IS SIX YEARS OLD AND HAS GENERATED 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS FOR STREAM, RIVER/EROSION TYPE PROJECTS. THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF FIVGINEERS HAS SUCCESSFULLY RE-CREATED A NATURAL LOOKING CREEK SETTING IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND THIS PROJECT, CALLED THE "WILDCAT CREEK PLAN". HAS RESTORED WILDCAT CREEK WITH TREES, SHRUBS, MARSH PLANTINGS AND WILDLIFE, WHILE STILL OBTAINING THE GOALS OF SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. FLOOD CONTROL AND EROSION ABATEMENT. IT IS SO SUCCESSFUL, THE CORPS USES THIS PROJECT AS A MODEL FOR FUTURE CREEK RESTORATIONS AND MODEL EDUCATION OTHER POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES INCLUDE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND OTHER FEDERAL SOURCES WITH GREAT EXPECTATIONS. I HOPE A POSITIVE RESULT WILL COME FORTH FROM THIS RESIDENT'S INPUT OUR CITY NEEDS EVERY NATURAL RESOURCE AVAILABLE THAT WILL ENRICH OUR LIVES MS. MORTON, I WILL CIRCULATE A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN HOPES OF GARNERING SUPPORT FOR THE INCLUSION OF CREEK RENOVATION AND REHABILITATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORTS SI ERELY, ROBERT .1. MOWAT A.S.L.A, REGISTERED L.A. #7158 RJM/MTF EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 13 1 Robert J Mowat, Robert Mowat Associates, 2-8-93 1.1 This letter includes no comments relating to the adequacy of the DEIR. No Lead Agency response is necessary. However, it should be noted that the DEIR does recommend on page 244 that the Community Linear Park along the line of Colma Creek should be implemented as delineated in the City's Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 !A'P 1 r -- - Uepartment of Health Services j E\~'lROtiAtE~TAL HEALTH SERVICES DI~'IS10\ i i fttv_I ~ ~J FEB i 8 i99~ PLANNING ` COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 590 HAMILTON STREET REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94063 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RUBEN BARRALES MARY GRIFFIN TOM HUENING MICHAEL D. NEVIN MARGARETTAYLOR OinECTOn Oc HEAITH SFpv~CES (415) 363-4305 FAX (415)363-7882 February 11, 1993 City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development ATTN: Susan McCue 400 Grand Ave. _ South San Francisco, CA 94080 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Reference: a. Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project (Dated: February 1, 1993) b. Draft Eir for the proposed E1 Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment Redevelopment Plan (Dated: February 1993) c. Letter from Department of Economic and Community Development dated February 1, 1993, titled: Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. McCue: This office is in receipt of your letter (ref C.) and the documents cited above. The purpose of this correspondence is to comment on those documents. Regarding them, there does not appear to be any environmental issue in the reports to be of concern to this office. An area of future attention will be during the construction phase regarding the on-site storage of hazardous materials which will require oversight by this office. At that time, storage of these materials will involve notification from the agency/business/contractor responsible for their placement at the construction site. ay Susan McCue Page 2 February 11, 1993 Should your office require future input or response, feel free to contact the San Mateo County Environmental Division for a response. Sincerely, l~~ Joseph S. 'Angelo Hazardous Materials Specialist - JSD/bf cc: Brian Zamora, Director, Environmental Health Bill Lent, Program Manager, Hazardous Materials Maureen K. Morton, City of South San Francisco EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 16 2. Joseph S. D'Angelo, Hazardous Materials Specialist, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Services Division, County of San Mateo, 2-11-93 2.1 This letter contains no comments relating to the adequacy of the DEIR. No Lead Agency response is necessary. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 i~ Wayne Joseph, D.D.S. General Dentistry 1241 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 588.3710 RECEIVE MAR G 91993 March 8, 1993 PLANNING Maureen Morton Senior Planner, City of SSF 400 Grand Ave. So. S.F., CA 94080 Dear Ms. Morton: I want to thank you for your assistance and the information you sent me regarding the proposed redevelopment of the E1 Camino Corridor. I applaud the efforts of the city to assist BART in bringing the rail system through SSF in the best manner possible. From what I have read in the newspapers and what I heard at one of the public meetings last summer, SSF'~~ appears to be the only city that is trying to work with BART; instead of just complaining. I was born and raised in SSF, as was my mother. I believe that this may be the largest, most important development ever planned for this city. It will effect a large area and a large number of people. I hope the commission and the city are able to create a beautiful and functional housing development that the citizens can be proud and perhaps, be a role model for other cities. It would be a travesty if this became overcrowded and created the problems that have developed in other areas of the city. I was encouraged to hear a comment by one of the Planning Commissioners at the meeting on March 4, that the city doesn't want to make the same mistakes that have been made in other high density housing areas that already exist in the city. During the time I lived in SSF, I saw the creation of apartment buildings where single family homes used to be. Many of these areas have "nurtured" a transient population with single family units becoming "multi-family". I'm sure you are aware of the parking and other problems this has created. ' Again, I thank you for your assistance and hope we can all work together to improve South San Francisco. Si ce/tely, ~~/ ~~ Way J DDS EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page ~ 8 3. Wayne Joseph, 1241 Mission Road, South San Francisco, CA, 3-8-93 3.1 This letter contains no comments relating to the adequacy of the DEIR. No Lead Agency response is necessary. 5221FE/RIF-11.522 i~ ~~. RECEIVED City/County Association of Governments MAR 151993 of San Mateo County (UCAG) County Government Center PLANNING 590 Hamilton Street, 2nd Floor Redwood City, California 94063 (415) 363-4161 March 11, 1993 Ms. Maureen Morton, Senior Planner Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Morton: SUBJECT: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Comments on the Draft EIR for the Proposed E1 Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment (GP-93-47) and Redevelopment Plan The C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee considered the airport noise portions of the above-referenced document at its February 25, 1993 meeting. The Committee's primary concern is the potential aircraft noise impacts on a sub- stantial number of new dwelling units that could be constructed in the project area. The Draft EIR indicates the project area is located outside the 1990 and 2006 aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), as shown in the SFIA Master Plan EIR (San Francisco International Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Imaact Report, Volume 1, July 1991). The project area is also located outside the 65 d6 CNEL aircraft noise contour for SFIA, as shown in the 1981 Airport Land Use Plan. Although future dwelling units in the project area are not located directly within the 65 d6 CNEL noise contour, they may be subject to aircraft noise and/or overflight from aircraft using the Runways 28 Gap Departure procedures. The Draft EIR indicates single-event aircraft noise levels at the project site could be as high as 79 dBA (based on field measurements). This is identified as a significant impact. The Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measure for aircraft noise impacts: "As a condition of development approval and/or project assistance, all project-facilitated residential projects in the project area should be designed to achieve the necessary exterior to interior noise reduction to meet the single-event criterion limits and the City's Interior Noise Standard." W Ms. Maureen Morton March 11, 1993 Page 2 This language is somewhat vague regarding the interior noise standard to be achieved. The aircraft noise mitigation measure should be more specific to identify the performance criterion to be evaluated in the Mitigation Moni- toring Program for the project. The C/CAG ALUC suggests the mitigation measure be revised, as follows: "As a condition of development approval, all dwelling units constructed in the project area shall be designed to achieve an interior noise level of at least 45 dBA, in all habitable rooms, as measured for aircraft noise events." The proposed densities in the project area indicate future dwelling units in the project area will be multi-family units. The 45 dBA interior noise level requirement in the suggested revised mitigation measure is the same interior noise level standard required in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code for new multi-family construction. It is also consistent with the City of South San Francisco's Noise Element policies for noise sensitive land uses. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the the above-referenced project. If you have any questions, Carbone, LUC Staff Coordi ator, at 415/363-4417. Sinc el / t Ri and 6. Kerwin, C airperson C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee RBK/DFC:cdn - OFCD0475.ACN Draft EIR for please call Dave '1 i k, i cc: ALUC Members C/CAG members EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 21 4 Richard B Kerwin, Chairperson, Airport Land Use Committee, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 3-11-93 4.1 Comment acknowledged. The mitigation language has been revised on errata page 206 to include specific noise standards; however, the proposed verbatim language of the commentor was not included because it does not address single-event noise impacts. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 2Z ~i ~a~x~r Frnuanentr 1;nlical Crntrr 1'!00 i:l Camino Real South San Francisco, G 940R0~3?99 (41S) 74?-?000 • \Ilti: iv>:sr-~ r~r~nivarvcsrrc Ms. Maureen K. Morton Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division 400 Grana Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Morton: Julie M. Brown RECEIVE 0 Hospital and fieahh Plan Administrator Da~9d M. Bliss, M.D. MaR 171993 Ph?sician-in-Chief Dianne Preston PLANNING btedical Group Administrator March 11, 1993 The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center located at 1200 EI Camino Real has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project and the City of South San Francisco General Plan Amendment. The proposed BART extension and Hickey Boulevard Station would be an important alternate transportation mode for Kaiser Permanente members and employees. We support the City's efforts to find a way to finance the undergrounding of BART through our community. While we clearly see the long term benefits of the BART extension and the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, the Medical Center, representing the interests of its employees and members would like to respond in the following manner to some of the areas identified in the draft Environmental Impact Report. PARKING On page 60 of the draft Environmental Impact Report, policy 11-10 states that due to BART providing additional transit opportunities, reduced parking standards should be developed for transit oriented residential uses, to promote BART use. The reduction of parking standards could have a significant impact on the parking facilities that are used by Kaiser Permanente employees and members. With residential development planned less than 1/10 of a mile away, north of the Medical Center, and the - BART station planned less than 1/2 mile from the Medical Center, misuse of Kaiser's Medical Center parking facilities by BART commuters or transit residential dwellers would likely occur. The misuse of the parking facilities would increase in direct proportion to BARTs inability to deal with over flow parking or their lack of contingency parking. ~ 23 • Unfortunately, problems of this type are quite evident at some BART stations around the Bay Area. In South San Francisco, we're provided with a unique opportunity to acknowledge the parking congestion problem and mitigate it before BART is built. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center would like to ensure that BART and the City consider mitigation efforts that would preserve business parking in lots where overflow BART or residential parking might occur, and that BART formulate a contingency plan to provide immediate temporary parking areas. Unfortunately, not all Kaiser Permanente Health Plan members will benefit from the accessibility that BART provides, simply because they live along the coast or further south as far as Burlingame. Unless East-West bus service improves in San Mateo County, these members will still drive to the medical center. We would not want them to compete for parking spaces in our lot with BART commuters or other people who maylive in the neighborhood. The Medical Center would like to be kept informed and provide input to the activities around the contingency plan development. CONSTRUCTION OF THE BART RAIL LINE -NOISE The BART rail line is planned to run directly behind the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. In some instances the construction site will be approximately 50 - 100 feet from the back of the hospital. On page 191, according to the State of California, Office of Noise Control, dB CNEL for hospital land use is clearly unacceptable if it is greater than 80. Noise is normally unacceptable if greater than 70, but less than 80. On page 204 is a description of equipment noise level at 50ft. Inmost instances, construction equipment noise would fall into the normally unacceptable and clearly unacceptable categories, especially if the CNEL of this equipment remains in the 80 - 90 range. As a property owner within 1000ft of the construction site, the Medical Center would like to ensure that mitigation of noise is adequate before construction begins. The Medical Center would be willing to work with BART in their development of a construction schedule and proposed mitigation plan around noise levels. It would also be important to have the Noise Disturbance Coordinator's name and phone number. Due to the 24 hour nature of hospital operations, it is important that noise is at an acceptable level and properly maintained. , LOCAL STORM WATER COLLECTION On page 211, information on Kaiser Permanente Medical Center's storm drain systems was not obtained. The storm drain system for our Medical Center discharges directly into Colma Creek. The medical center would like to request to be involved in discussions that may change the storm drainage system around Colma Creek. 5.2 53 5.'f 5. Thank you for this opportunity to reply to the draft EIR. Overall, we believe BART will be a valuable asset to our community and will help us in meeting city, county and federal goals to reduce commute traffic. We look forward to additional discussions around this topic. Please contact our Public Affairs Representative, Cynthia Lopez at 742-2329 to further discuss the concerns mentioned in this letter. Sincerely Yours, /~~-' ~ David Bliss, MD Physician-in-Chief it • ~u-U2-1~d~Lr~xa Julie Brown HospitaVHealth Plan Administrator EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 25 5 David Bliss, Physician-in-Chief and Julie Brown, Hospital and Health Plan Administrator, Kaiser Permanent Medical Center, 3-11-93 5.1 This comment relates primarily to impacts generated by the BART project rather than this general plan amendment/redevelopment plan project. Nevertheless, the DEIR adequately describes potential BART parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood on page 163. These impacts would occur with or without the proposed general plan amendment and redevelopment plan and are described as a "base- case Impact. These problems would exacerbate the existing shortage of parking already caused by a lack of adequate offstreet parking at the Kaiser Medical Center. The DEIR recommends several mitigation measures on pages 180 and 181 to offset these base-case impacts. As stated on DEIR page 172, it is assumed that project-related residential and commercial development would be required to provide adequate offstreet parking as per adopted City codes and, as a result, would not create significant additional parking impacts in the vicinity. 5.2 This comment does not directly address the adequacy of the DEIR. However, the comment does indicate a possible misunderstanding of the noise tables in the DEIR. While the construction noise impact concerns expressed in this comment would be considered significant, the single-event noise levels associated with construction equipment identified on Table 24 cannot be directly compared with the 24-hour avera a noise compatibility standards identified on Table 21. 5.3 This comment does not relate to project impacts but rather to those impacts generated by the BART project. The EIR authors acknowledge that cooperation between BART and the Kaiser Medical Center is desirable to maximize noise mitigation measures. 5.4 This comment confirms assumptions made in the DEIR relating to storm water discharges from the Kaiser property into Colma Creek. Also, the changes in runoff rates and other local drainage characteristics as a result of the proposed project and related future changes inland use and development intensity would not directly affect the Kaiser Medical Center property (no project-affected parcels drain into the Kaiser site). The DEIR analysis of potential impacts to the existing stormwater system and recommended mitigations remain valid and adequate. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 RECEIVES ~ STATE GF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ~~ P~E~W~SQ~h~o.errwr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - BOX 23660 PU1N N I N ' OAKLAND, CA 91623-0660 (510) 286-1441 TDD (S10) 286.1454 March 16,1993 SM-280-22.62 SCH: 92113002 SM280059 Ms. Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) : El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, Amendment of the City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements and Annexation of the McLellan Nursery. Located on SR 82. Dear Ms. Morton: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process. We have reviewed the DEIR and forward the following comments: 1.) Referring to page 162 of the document, we concur with the safety concerns outlined requiring right turn deceleration lanes on the approaches to BART driveways and the New Street intersection, and a left turn lane on El Camino Real at New Street. 2.) Please be advised that any proposed signal installations on State highways must meet all applicable signal warrant criteria and Caltrans approval is required. .~ 3.) Concerning the city-planned extension of Hickey Boulevard, please forward all applicable environmental ddcumentation for our review including all traffic studies, clarification of funding issues, and all scheduling information. 4.) Referring to page 125 of the document, is the proposed U. S. 101/Hillside Interchange the same as the Oyster Point Interchange? ~~' Also, on that page, the last sentence in the footnote should be changed ~1/) from Hillsdale to Hillside. f~ Morton/SM280059 March 16, 1993 Page 2 5.) Any proposed construction or changes on a State right-of-way shall comply with all applicable Caltrans standards. This would include any proposed road closures along El Camino Real. Any work performed within the State right-of-way will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. A completed application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of maps should be submitted to the following address: Mr. Bob Cashion, Chief Caltrans Distric~ 4 Maintenance -Permits P.O. Box 23660-0660 Oakland, CA 94623 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Please forward a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report when it becomes available. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Salimah As-Sabur of my staff at (510) 286-5583. Sincerely, PRESTON W. KELLEY District Director / y / GARY F. ADAM ~~ Senior Transportation Planner cc Tom Loftus, SCH Susan Pultz, MTC Sally Germain, ABAG 2~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 28 6. Gary F. Adams, Senior Transportation Planner, State of California, Department of Transportation, 3-16-93 6.1 The U.S. 101/Hillside Interchange and the Oyster Point Interchange are names commonly used to identify the same facility. 6.2 Comment acknowledged. This correction to the street name has been made on errata page 125. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 ~~ RECEIVED MAR 1 71993 PLANNING 460 Gardenside Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 March 16, 1993 City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner RE: DEIR. El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan February, 1993. Thank you for providing me with copies of the DEIR and support documents for the above project plan. While I commented on the DEIR, general plan amendments and project plan at the March 4, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, I would like to submit the following additional comments on these documents for your consideration: Speck DEIR Deficiencies 1. The importance of the McLellan Orchid Nursery as a South San Francisco landmark and as a valuable open space resource in the region was not addressed in the DEIR. This unique use, which certainly is not blighted, should be protected and preserved rather than development incentives given to encourage this use to be plowed over to make room for a medium to high density housing project in the future. 2. The DEIR should not have placed the primary financial responsibility to mitigate the plan's major school impacts on the South San Francisco Unified School District. This responsibility belongs to the City/Redevelopment Agency. The additional 3,225 dwelling units proposed in the redevelopment plan will generate a great number of new students which our financially-strapped School District may have a difficult time accomodating. The recommended mitigations, which include relocatable classrooms, reopening closed schools, increasing development impact fees and selling school property are neither reasonable or adequate to address these impacts. 3. The DEIR has not realistically addressed the potential development conflicts between a medium and high density 775 unit condominium project on the McLellan site and the low density single family housing which exists west of this property. The conclusion in the DEIR that the proposed density on the McLellan site could be achieved with 2 story buildings also appears to be unrealistic. 4. The DEIR does not question the unlikely assumption that the Macy's warehouse property will be redeveloped with 1,100 apartment units and the County Government Center site will be redeveloped with 300 apartment units in the future. Amore likely building scenario would seem to be that the Macy's warehouse will continue to be used for storage and/or for warehouse retail uses and additional government service uses would be built on the County government center site. These development alternatives should also be studied in final EIR. ~i 7.2 ~a 7.4 ~5 '~.(O z. ~ 5. The DEIR incorrectly assumes that 30 to 40 dwelling unit/acre densities could reasonably be achieved in 2 to 3 story buildings and that 40 to 50 dwelling unit/acre densities could ~ reasonably be achieved in 3 to 4 story buildings. The positive visual and land use compatibility conclusions in the DEIR are, in particular, very questionable in connection ~ with the high housing densities which are proposed on the Water Company's Golf Driving Range site and which are proposed on the Oak Park Farm site, along Oak Avenue. 7 Further, Figures 10 and 11 in the DEIR appear to be visually misleading in that lower density projects are presented as examples of 25 and 45 units per acre projects which are referred to in these Figures. 6. The DEIR should, but does not, discuss the impacts of an accellerated buildout of the ~~ `o project uses before BART is completed and/or before required traffic and infrastructure mitigation measures are completely installed. By using the year 2010 as the target date at which to[al project buildout will occur and all infrastructure improvements will be installed, the City/Agency has no way of determining what service and infrastructure improvements will be required at different stages of buildout. An impact analysis at year 2000, for example, would be beneficial in defining service and infrastructure needs prior to the completion of BART. 7. Potential pedestrian safety problems have, for the most part, been identified in the ate i d i h ~ . na equ er vague or t DEIR. The recommended mitigation measures are, however, e Pedestrian crossings at El Camino Real, at the proposed Hickey Boulevard Extension, and at Mission Road (El Camino High students and BART commuters) are particular trouble spots which require further study and more realistic mitigations measures. 8. Given the fact that the El Camino Corridor is highly impacted by aircraft noise, the i n DEIR raises no question as to wisdom of placing high density residential development ~ this highs noise impact area. This aircraft noise/residential compatibility issue has been • { raised on land located east of Highway ]O1. This issue should also have been discussed in the DEIR for the El Camino Corridor plan. 9. The DEIR contained no engineering analysis of the capacity of the CoIma Creek trunk ~ `~ 1 sewer line. It was, therefore, difficult to identify mitigations which will be required in this important area. This information should be included in the Final EIR. 10. The DEIR contains no information on the estimated ntunber of additional personnel and facilities which the Police and the Fire Departments would be required to have to ~ adequately address the high intensity development proposals in the project plan. This ' . information should also be included in the Final EIR. . il. The DEIR indicates that the project will produce a deficiency of 25 acres of park land. ~'f~ i There is, however, no indication in the document that the 6,500+ people who will live in ii// . the 3,225 new housing units which will be built in the project area will have any more than mini-parks or the Colma Creek linear park to serve their park needs. The construction of a neighborhood park at the Alta Loma or El Rancho school sites, which is recommended in the DEIR, is not conveniently located to adequately serve the people who will live in the El Camino Corridor area in the future. Anew neighborhood park would seem to be required somewhere in the area between El Camino Real and Mission Road to serve these people. 30 'til 3. 12. Considering the building heights of the Macy's warehouse building and the Kaiser Hospital and garage structures, it would appear that the proposed BART parking garage and new 4-5 story high density housing structures will create a visually unattractive ~,~/! continuous wall appearance along El Camino Real in the future if the current project plan is (~ implemented. A great deal more attention needs to be given to this potential problem in the Final EIR. Conclusions After reading the DEIR document, I've come to the conclusion that the proposed intensive redevelopment plan might very well have a greater negative impact on ow City than would the issue of BART being partially or totally underground in our City. Fwther, the information contained in the DEIR leads me to question whether a BART station and it's related massive parking structures should be built anywhere in this El Camino Corridor area in the future. The combined impacts of the intensive redevelopment plan and the BART station proposal, particularly in the areas of traffic, parking, pedestrtan safety, building scale and land use compatibility leads me to believe that only one but not both of these proposals should be approved in this area. If the Hickey BART station is eliminated, the money saved could possibly be used to pay for the undergrounding of BART in this area. Further, the elimination of a BART station in the El Camino Corridor area would also eliminate the possibility of an "end of the line" station being located in the Mission Road area in the future. Our School District and our Sunshine Gardens neighborhood, in general, and El Camino High School, in particular, will suffer greatly by both the BART station and the intensive redevelopment project being implemented in this area. I believe that it is time for the City Council to rethink this entire proposal before major damage is done to our South San Francisco living environment. Finally, given the fact that revenues proposed to be generated by this redevelopment plan will not be sufficient to both underground BART and to mitigate the problems which the plan will produce, I would question the wisdom of any action on the part of the City to annex the McLellan site or change the General Plan or zoning in this area before a final determination is made on whether BART will or will 'not be placed underground in South San Francisco. I understand that this decision is at least 12 months away. Sincerely, w \ Louis Dell'Angela cc. City Clerk EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 32 7. Louis Dell'Angela, 460 Gardenside Avenue, South San Francisco, 3-16-93 7.1 In response to this comment, a discussion of the historical importance of the McLellan Nursery property, project impacts, and related mitigation recommendations has been added to the FEIR. Please see new section K (subsections 1.d, 2.b, and 3.b). 7.2 Project impacts on school services and associated mitigation needs are adequately addressed on DEIR pages 247 through 250. Alternative mitigation measures have been recommended as a means of transferring the financial burden of these impacts and mitigation needs from the District to the benefitting development; e.g., the raising of current school impact fees to the new maximums permitted by recent state legislation, and possible voluntary payment of additional fees. In addition, other mitigation measures with a broader, community based financial backing--e.g., reopening of closed schools, sale of surplus school property, issuance of general obligation bonds--are also recommended. The list of mitigations has been presented as a combination of possible measures to be selectively implemented in the future based on monitored need. Please also see response herein to related comment 11.1. 7.3 All school impact related mitigation measures proposed on DEIR pages 249 and 250 are reasonable. The proper use of some combination of these mitigation measures as needed would result in adequate mitigation of identified impacts. Please also see response to comment 11.1 herein. 7.4 The proposed general plan amendment specifically acknowledges the potential for land use conflicts between the proposed development on the McLellan site and the lower density existing single-family residential neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of the site, and addresses this potential impact through inclusion of policy 11-5, which is reiterated on DEIR page 59. This potential land use impact concern is further discussed on DEIR pages 80 and 81. The EIR authors believe that the proposed inclusion in the subject general plan amendment of policies specifically calling for a transition in densities and sufficient buffering (i.e., Policy 11-5) adequately address this important issue. 7.5 The two-story structures cited in the DEIR are based on demonstrated Bay Area examples of housing products in this density range which have been reviewed and discussed by the EI Camino Corridor Sub-Committee. In response to this comment and to similar comments by the Planning Commission, these examples are now also described in an additional EIR appendix which has been included in this Final EIR Attachment (i.e., Appendix M). In particular, please see the descriptions and photographs of "The Villagio" project in San Jose, an example of a two-story project, containing approximately 23-units-per-acre. 5221FE1RIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 33 7.6 Comment acknowledged. Development of the Macy's warehouse property and the County Government Center site are assumed to be long-term prospects. However, for purposes of worst-case environmental impact evaluation, these sites have been assumed to be developed at their "highest and best use," i.e., at the maximum development potential allowed under the proposed general plan amendment (50 and 30 units per acre, respectively) by the year 2010, for a total of 1,400 multifamily residential units (please see DEIR page 6 for a related explanation of the EIR methodology). 7.7 As explained in response to similar comment 7.5, Appendix M has been added to the errata section of this Final EIR Attachment, which includes photographs and other data demonstrating how these densities can be achieved within the proposed height limitations. 7.8 The proposed general plan amendment specifically acknowledges this impact .concern and sets forth related mitigation policies (e.g., policies 11-5, 11-7, and 11-11), as reiterated on DEIR pages 59 and 60. In addition, the EIR authors share the commentor's concerns with regard to the potential impacts of placing high density housing near existing lower density neighborhoods and have placed special emphasis on the evaluation and mitigation of these potential impacts. (See DEIR pages 80, 81, 95 through 104, and 110.) 7.9 Figures 10 and 11 accurately portray project densities of 25 and 45 units per acre. In response to this and similar comments, Appendix M has been added which includes data and photographs which are consistent with these figures (please also see responses to similar comments 7.5 and 7.7). 7.10 The development assumptions included in the DEIR are predicated on completion of the BART extension the project-facilitated undergrounding of that extension, and construction of the Hickey Boulevard BART station. It is assumed that without these key regional transit developments (including the BART undergrounding), the character and pace of development within the planning area would remain relatively stagnant, as explained on DEIR pages 44 and 49 through 51. As explained in the DEIR, the overall intent of the project is to reverse the current trend towards economic decline in the project area by undergrounding the BART extension and Colma Creek, thereby encouraging high density transit-oriented development near the proposed BART station. The improvements associated with the project (e.g., the covering of Colma Creek and the BART tracks, and other infrastructure improvements) are considered essential to the facilitation of buildout under the proposed general plan changes. It is considered highly unlikely that substantial, accelerated buildout in the project area would occur before these catalytic improvements--i.e., the BART extension, etc.--are completed. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 34 Regarding the comment on the timing of improvement needs, the post-EIR mitigation monitoring program which is required by AB 3180 (see DEIR pages 315 through 320 which describe this proposed monitoring program) will provide an adequate basis for monitoring project area buildout and the timing of associated improvement needs (e.g., periodic traffic counts, sewer capacity evaluation, etc.). With respect to sewer improvement needs, the DEIR specifically calls for a near future evaluation of the Colma Creek trunk line to determine if and when additional capacity is required. The additional year 2000 impact analysis suggested in this comment would simply provide another "screen year" evaluation, and would not replace the need for monitoring program. 7.11 The recommended safety impact mitigations for pedestrians near the high school are considered by the EIR traffic engineer to be feasible, as specific as necessary, and adequately described for EIR purposes. Not all risks to pedestrians can be eliminated, should there be a need to cross a busy street. However, to further reduce such risks, the City could install pedestrian-actuated crossing signals at major pedestrian crosswalks. 7.12 This comment is not correct. The DEIR includes a thorough discussion of project relationships to aircraft noise on page 199. The project relationships to estimated 1990 and projected year 2006 aircraft noise contours are shown on DEIR Figures 31 and 32. Recommended mitigation measures for aircraft noise impacts are adequately . described on DEIR page 206. 7.13 The DEIR includes a quantitative analysis of the capacity of wastewater collection trunk lines on page 230. This evaluation is adequate for general plan amendment EIR purposes. 7.14 The DEIR contains adequate information on police and fire protection and personnel needs on pages 237 through 240. The police and fire protection mitigation discussion in the DEIR follows common practice in calling for annual fire and police call monitoring, and for the addition of police an fire personnel and related facilities as warranted by these ongoing monitoring results. 7.15 The DEIR adequately describes project-facilitated population growth-related increases in demands for park land on pages 241 through 244. The evaluation is based on adopted City Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan distance criteria for neighborhood park provisions. (City standards require that, wherever possible, all new residential development should be located within 3/4 miles of a neighborhood park and one quarter mile of amini-park.) 7.16 The DEIR urban design consultants have recommended "parkway" design criteria in DEIR section IV.6.3 specifically to avoid "the unattractive continuous wall" 5221FEIRIF-IL522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 35 appearance along EI Camino Real referred to in this comment. In particular, please refer to DEIR Figure 12 and the associated "parkway" design descriptions on DEIR pages 97 and 104. In addition, other EIR urban design consultant formulated general performance standards are described on DEIR pages 102 and 103 pertaining to street orientation, building scale, roofs, etc., which would also serve to prevent the appearance of a "continuous wall." 5221FEIRIF-11.522 RECEIVED MaR 181993 SAN MATED PLANNING O LOC ~L AGEI\TCY FOR~I:~TIO\' CO~i~iISSION COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 • ~4t51 363-4224 March 16, 1993 Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report -- E1 Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan Dear Ms. Morton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR for the project referenced above. The Local Agency Formation Commission, as a responsible agency, will need to use the EIR during its consideration of annexation of the McLellan Nursery area to the City of South San Francisco, which is a component of the overall project. I have the following comments on the draft EIR: From references elsewhere in the report, it appears that the authors intended to include a discussion of LAFCo spheres of influence and policy framework relating to the annexation in Section V.C. This section could include the fact that the area has been within the sphere of influence of the city since 1976. The discussion is missing. Including such a discussion would clarify the consistency of the annexation portion. of the project with adopted LAFCo policy. Also in the policy section, it would be useful if the EIR discussed the factors listed in the Cortese/Knox Act (Government Code Section 56841) to the extent that they have environmental impacts. For example, LAFCo is required to consider the effects of a proposal orb "agricultural lands." This is discussed briefly on Page 313 of the EIR, which could be cross-referenced to the policy LAFCo must consider. It would be very helpful to the Commission if the EIR could summarize in one place the specific impacts and mitigation measures that pertain to the Mclellan site alone. I realize that this may be redundant of other sections of the report, but it would make the document much more useful in considering the annexation proposal. COMMISSIONERS: Public Member Mary W. Henderson, Chairman Council Member Malcolm H. Dudley. Vice Chairman Supervisor Ruben Barrages • Supervisor Tom Huening • Council Member Gary.A. Orton ALTERNATES: Council Member Steven 1N. Waldo Public Member Joseph Zucca OFFICERS: Witham D. Davis. Executwe Officer Mary K. Rafterv. Legal Counsel ~. 8, I 8.2 B.'~ 3~ 37 8. City of South San Francisco March 16, 1993 Page 2 of 2 a e 295 a "no ~~~ • In Section VI, Alternatives, beginning on P g , annexation" alternative should also be evaluated. When the annexation proposal is submitted, LAFCo will require ten copies of the final EIR. Please also send us one copy of the city resolution or other certification making findings regarding the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and overriding - considerations, if any. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Please call me or staff analyst Peter Banning if we can be of assistance to you or your consultants. Sincerely, ~` William D. Davis Executive Officer WDD/mp cc: Roman Gankin, San Mateo County Planning Division SAN MATED - . O EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 38 8. William D. Davis, Executive Officer, San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, 3-16-93 8.1 The intent of the DEIR with respect to annexation is to provide the necessary information for LAFCO to make informed decisions on the proposed annexation. The DEIR adequately describes the McLellan site on page 54 as an unincorporated island within the City of South San Francisco's sphere of influence. In response to the comment regarding project evaluation with respect to the LAFCO policy framework, the FEIR has been revised on errata page 291 to include an evaluation of the project with respect to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. 8.2 See Response to Comment 8.1. 8.3 In response to this comment, the following index pertaining to the McLellan site has been provided to direct the reader to those pages of the DEIR which directly address the McLellan site: Pages 1. Project Description 53,56 2. Land Use Factors 72,78 3. Visual and Urban Design Factors 87, 95, 104 1.2. Alternatives 295-307 8.4 DEIR Alternative A.1 (No Project--Status Quo) and, in particular, A.2 (No Project-- Minor Growth) were specifically designed to exclude annexation of the McLellan site. See DEIR pages 295, 296, and 297 through 299. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 /;,^,\ r / \' T y, ii - . . - =--~' March 17, 1993 Ms. Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner Department of Economic and Community Development 400 Grand Avenue RECEIVED MAR 171993 PLANNING South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: South San Francisco/E1 Camino Real Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan EIR Dear Maureen: This letter incorporates comments on the DEIR from my office and the office of our City Engineer. We focussed on the issues of traffic and drainage and we have also looked at the question of land use Compatibility at Colma's southern border. land Use Compatibility In May 1992, Colma approved Phase I of a project known as the Mission Road Business Park to be built on property on the west side of Mission Road just north of the proposed Hickey Boulevard Extension. Colma specifically withheld approval for use of the Phase II site, located south of Phase I, which measures about 1.0 acres. South San Francisco now proposes that the 0.75 acre site, in South San Francisco, just south of the Phase II site be used for transit density residential (50 dwellings per acre). This could result in a four story, 37-unit residential development at this location. We recommend that future development on the Phase II parcel and on the South San Francisco parcel each be required to set back at least ten feet from the common property line to allow room for a landscaped buffer. Traffic The DEIR traffic section analyzes levels of service for 17 intersections under existing conditions and for the year 2010, with and without buildout at the project. Our major concern is with the basic assumption of the DEIR that development can proceed without traffic impacts because certain traffic improvements are either underway or are certain to be completed. Most impor- tant to Colma are assumptions about adding signalization at Mission Road and E1 Camino Real (not funded), construction of the Hickey Boulevard Extension between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road with signalized intersections at both ends (project is in the South San Francisco CIP but not scheduled to be com- pleted until 1997), construction of additional southbound lanes for E1 Camino Real at Hickey Boulevard (not scheduled) and construction of an additional northbound off-ramp lane at I-280 to Hickey Boulevard (not scheduled). TO~~'~ OF COL'~1A • 1198 EI Camino Rcal • Colma. California 9.1014 415-997-8300 • F.AX 415-997-8?08 a,i q.2 ~1 Ms. Maureen K. Morton March 17, 1993 Page Two Signalization and some extra lanes at the Hickey Boulevard/I-280 connection are currently underway in Daly City but the additional lane will be needed in the future. The DEIR also assumes that the County will construct the Hickey Boulevard Extension from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard by 2010. This would allow another outlet for traffic to and from the BART Station, however Evergreen Drive may perform this function adequately and BART's literature shows a more important link to Highway 280 than to the east. Our November 25, 1992 letter to South San Francisco noted that Colma does not have funds to participate in the extension cost. We believe that South San Francisco must participate in the cost of signalizing the Mission Road/El Camino Real intersection and that development of the new E1 Camino corridor area properties should be allowed only concurrent or following the Mission Road/E1 Camino Real signalization, Hickey Boulevard Extension between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road, construction of the additional south- bound lanes at E1 Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard, construction of the addi- tional westbound lane at Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard and con- struction of the additional northbound off-ramp lane at Hickey Boulevard and I-280. We believe that the DEIR mitigation measures are inadequate unless the funding is identified and the improvements are scheduled. r in We have two concerns regarding drainage: 1) the project proposes putting Colma Creek underground in order to expand the size of building sites, and, 2) South San Francisco has no formal runoff detention standard for the Colma Creek watershed (DEIR, page 219). With regard to the first concern, the DEIR notes (page 212) that the San Mateo County Flood Control District has no plans to acquire stream right-of-way or to upgrade the channel through the study area. Therefore it may be necessary for South San Francisco to acquire right•of-way in order to construct a higher capacity channel section through the area. We recommend that this be discussed in the Final EIR. Secondly there is no mitigation measure regarding restrictions on construction of buildings over the creek. If the underground creek channel should be damaged by an earthquake 'it would be very difficult to repair if the alignment is encumbered by buildings. We recommend that a mitigation measure be included restricting the area over the channel to parking or open space use. ~, q,3 94 9.6 Q.6 With regard to our second concern, the DEIR notes (page 215) that areas upstream and tributary to Colma Creek could experience increased flood hazard ~~ Ms. Maureen K. Morton March 11, 1993 Page Three due to increased runoff from the Project Area. In our letter of November 25, 1992 responding to the Notice of Preparation, we also urged that South San ~, Francisco adopt Colma's stormwater detention policy. We recommend strongly 7 that South San Francisco incorporate a stormwater detention policy applicable to new development in the Project Area in addition to the intended upgrade of the channel itself. Sincerely, ~..o~ Malcolm C. Ca penter, AICP City Planner q. cc: Frances Liston, City Manager Rick Mao, City Engineer EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 42 9. Malcolm C. Carpenter, City Planner, Town of Colma, 3-17-93 9.1 As illustrated on DEIR Figure 4,_ the 0.75 acre site referenced in this comment is not proposed for an increase in development potential as part of this project. The existing City of South San Francisco General Plan designation for this site is Planned Commercial, which allows residential densities of up to 30 units per acre. No change in that designation is proposed. Nevertheless, any future City of South San Francisco decision-making with respect to development of this property shall give full consideration to these Town of Colma concerns and recommendations. 9.2 The DEIR traffic analysis uses a year 2010 "snapshot" of future conditions. Because of the long-term nature of project buildout, this analysis required that certain conservative assumptions be made regarding the implementation of anticipated future roadway improvements. In consultation with City staff, the DEIR traffic engineer assumed that those improvements which could be "reasonably foreseen," even though some might not be specifically funded at this time, would be completed by the year 2010. It is assumed that these improvements would be completed either in conjunction with other development in the area or as a result of other sources of funding, such as local offsite traffic mitigation fees. The DEIR traffic engineer believes that it would be unrealistic to assume these specific future improvements listed in the DEIR would not be completed by the year 2010. 9.3 As explained in the footnote on DEIR page 125, the section of the planned Hickey Boulevard extension between EI Camino Real and Mission Road is included in the City's current program of capital improvements and is expected to be completed in the near future. Construction of the new US 101/Hillside Boulevard interchange at the opposite end of the planned extension is also proceeding. The DEIR traffic analysis assumes that these two improvements will provide the impetus for county completion of the planned Mission Road-to-Hillside Boulevard segment of the Hickey extension within the next 18 years (by 2010) in order to meet substantially increased demands for an east-west arterial connection between the completed South San Francisco segment and the new interchange. Evergreen Drive is not appropriate for this east-west arterial connector function due to its residential nature. Such a use would be heavily resisted by residents along Evergreen Drive. 9.4 The DEIR traffic engineer agrees that South San Francisco should participate on a fair share basis in the funding of the Mission Road/EI Camino Real intersection. The DEIR traffic engineer believes that all the improvements listed in this comment will be completed in conjunction with other future anticipated developments in the area (e.g., the construction of BART) and will be on-line when substantial cumulative increases in project area buildout begin to occur. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 43 9.5 Comment acknowledged. In response to this comment, the EIR language addressing potential new drainage capacity requirements has been revised; see errata herein for page 219. 9.6 Although not explicitly stated in the text, the DEIR development assumptions do not include the construction of any structures over Colma Creek. The reference on DEIR page 78 to increased development potential resulting from culverting of Colma Creek pertains to the use of the covered portion for parking; open space, landscaping, setbacks, and other non-structural uses, thereby freeing other land for more development coverage. The City of South San Francisco fully concurs with the Town's concerns regarding the building structures over the Creek. 9.7 This comment is consistent with DEIR recommendations on page 219. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 ~~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor RECEIVED MaR 191993 l0, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTt~ STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Mar 18, 1993 MAUREEN K. MORTON CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 PLANNING Subject: EL CAMIP:O CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN & MCLELLAN ANNEXATION SCH # 92113002 Dear MAUREEN K. MORTON: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Michael Chiriatti at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ~j _ Christine Krone Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 45 10 Christine Kinne, Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance, Governor's Office of Plannincl and Research, 3-18-93 10.1 This letter contains no comments pertaining to the adequacy of the EIR. No response by the Lead Agency is necessary. 5221FEIRIF-1!.522 SoutF San Francisco `Llni~~ed SchooC ACMWISTRATION Dr. RkMrd J. Rfyy suo~r+s+nd~e•i March 18, 1993 A~MINISTrV,TIGN BUILDING. 398'8' STREET SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94084 (41 S) 877-8700 ys. Elaine Costelio assistant Executive Airecto: City of South San Francisco P. 0. BOX 711 South San :rancisco, California 94083 Dear Ms. Co§tello: ` ~istrlct BOARO of TAUSTE~S Aomob J. Braschl >'ti~klN NrA Raymond Latham Gonnta J. Ng Lw ' Yictorla Von 8ehali RECEfVED M~aR Z 2 iss3 . ~~CC ~EP~'. i i ~ _._ ._ This letter is in resp~s~ri6ortGeneraltPlan A>nendment a~d cRedevcl ppent the Proposed ,r'1 c:a>a~no Co ~ Plan dated February 1993. The areas of greatest concern for the Suutlt San Francisco Unified School District are: 1.) Projected growth in enrollment and the itnpacC on eleentarq schools,. middle schools and high schools' facility needs. , 2.) Issues relating to traxfic, parking and tluisC in the area of E1 Camino High School and possibly Sunshine Gardens Elemehtary School. 3.) Potential loss of funds to maintain and t=ctltanc= ;the educational prograa by losing the opportunity to convert surplus 1~ nd to a revenue stream. 1.) The Draft Envi*onmental Impact P,eport's analysis of im acts on schools does identify impacts as significant but fails to rovide adequate. >nitigation. The point of C.E.Q.A. is to take care ur;problems caused. by the project and not to suggest ideas far other agency es to consider. {Draft Environmental Impact Report Summary - Page 36} 37 and "Other Public Services" - Page 248-1~1). i II, ll.l Pro'ect Im acts (Pa a 248) While future District-wide enrollment fluctuations ma ~be accommodated '~ through the adjustment of individual school atten~ce areas and/or • the reopening of one or more of the closed suhvols, ~t muat be noted that the South San Francisco tJnified School District does not have "home to school" transportation aakirg the changing of attendance areas a hardship on parents. 'fhe barriers ut Highway 280, Junipero Serra Boulevard and EI Camino Peal add to the difficulty we experience when we consider changing attendance boundaries. I h1~,R-==-1'='?- -_:it_ ~r°.'L1 TO l~ll"J`-ll+-1'~'_~ F'. U_ i I It must also be noted that, according to the Draft Envir nmental Impact Report`s Land i,~se Section, Table 4, approximately 6 0 more housing units could be developed elsewhere in the City outs de the project area boundaries {an additional 355 students). (Page 249, '+-'e agree tY:at these additional students as well as 11.,698 generated from this proposed project area and additional students~in the District associated with the commercial space facilities of ~he project and any enrollment growth that may he generated from the ow and aoderate income rousing requirements of the Health and Saf ty Code, would re resent si nificant cumulative ifl act on Sou*_h San F ancisco Unified Sc oo District. ~ The District's response to ''mitigation" {c., pages 249, ~50) Purchase of rely^arable classrooms and reopen schools (lt and 2.) Table 26 (p. 247) uses a ratio U f~10 .53 the ~lhav erdi ` dedt this 3in?o dwelling units o: about 1,700 p p K 5 middle (6-8) and high thirds caith equal parts to be elementary ( ), school (9-12). The elementary s*_tendance boundary co~Id be modified by the District but 566 students justifies a compl to school. If there are more students in K-5 schools then the impact s even greater. Reopening of E1 Racicho School is one potential action f r the District. Cost of completely reconstructing a school may be 75% of a new construction cost, or $4+ million including demolition costs. Middle school espar.sion appears feasible at an estimated cost; of $5 million. Expansion of F1 Camino High School wi21 be approYi~ately the same amount, for a total cost of $14+ million dollars. Rev nue from impact fees does not cover the full cost of new and reno~ated facilities to accommodate additional students. 'i'he California State Architect's Office (O.S.A.) requirements must be met for all school facility construction and reconstruction projects. Other Sources of Fundfng to Meet Facility Needs (3., 4.,~5., 6.) Increased School Impact Development Fees ma• be approved by the Board of Trustees after appropriate and required stuTies and ublic hearings. The District plans to begin this process in the comin~ months. While it may be possible for the District and City to re uest developers voluntarily pay additional school fees on top of the a tablished fees, this approach cou~~expected to receive conside able resistance from developers. General Obli a:ion Bonds currently require a 213rds ivoter approval!. This is y no caeans a certain method of funding schoo reconstruction and expansion. Thz District is considering conducting a community poll to determine the level of support for such a fandin measure. The Sale of Sur 1us Fro ert is currently being consid red as a source o un ing rot t e maintenance and reconstruction of existing facilities needed to house current enrollment. The "i~aylor QA~ct" requirement to offer portior:s of the progerty to the City at 25/e ;of market value w}rollnentc res~ e i g ofrom the pprojectl will omeduceA po~~entialeprope.ty en sales. ~ I 4~ III 11.9 ua 11.5 p.6 i~~ -2- PiH=''-_~-i'?~: -- -. rFO;•1 TU 1`_'a~`-:u-3'~'~~8 F'.%~-1 i ! ~ 2. D. Traaspo:tstion (Pages 125 - 18i and Noise CPages 87 - 2 The District is very concerned cbout *_he impact on El Casino High School of the Hickey Boule~:ard Exte:~sion, the proposed Bart Station, and the in`rease in housing on both sides of El Camino Real. The mitigation meZSUres (Sutunary Pages 28 - 29) doi not adequately acldresu the concerns the District has regarding rkin traffic and noise. Gn-street parking availability in exis ing resi~entisr areas near E1 Camino High School will be affected by overflow parking. Increase in traffic on Evergreen and Mission will create safety concerns for high school students crossing both stxeets. This impact is rated "LS" (Less than Significant) The District believes rhP impact on E1 Camino High School is "S'~ (Significant). The mitigation measure includes making Bart ~fesponsible for adequately monitoring their parking. The District t}as no authority to require Rarr. to enforce their parking regul tions. It is suggested that the District may need to fence EI Ca~ina High School property ir. order to protact the parking lots or high school vse. The District understands that additional traffio and noise in the area of F1 Camino High School will be directly related to the location of the Bart Station and the proposed housing in the area. The District is very concerned about the direct mitigation of imaacts on E1 C:amino High School from the Hlickey Boulevard Extension Project, the Bart Station and the pro[~osed E1 Canino Corridor P.edevelopment Project. In summary, the District is concerned about the impact ~f the proposed projects on the District's ability to provide a qualit~ instructional prosraa~ to the studentc of South San Francisco Unified chool District. The District will continue to meet and discuss the mitigation measures that will meet the needs of the cor..munity. Sincerely, - ~~`ha~ ~ 3anice B. Smith Assistant Superintendent/ Business Services sc cc: Board of Trustees Superintendent Richard Godino, Esq. n.e u.q I~.~o -3- EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 49 11 Janice B Smith, Assistant Superintendent/Business_Seruices South San Francisco Unified School District, 3-18-93 11.1 The EIR authors disagree with this comment. The EIR includes an adequate description of six mitigation measures on pages 249 and 250. Future implementation of some combinations of these six measures as needed would be expected to reduce project-related growth impacts on District school enrollment to less than significant levels for the following reasons: (a) The District itself projects adistrict-wide decline in enrollment over the anticipated project buildout period, as described on DEIR page 246. As stated in the DEIR text, District enrollment reached its peak of approximately 13,000 students in the early 1970s, and dropped sharply in the mid-1980s to 9,500. Existing enrollment is approximately 9,895. Enrollment is projected to rise again to a high of 10,180 in the year 2004 and then decline to 9,631 by 2010--i.e., a decrease of approximately 550 students between 2004 and 2010. (b) The District has closed several existing schools in the recent past and has publicly noticed their intention of selling these sites as surplus property. (c) The District's current school impact fees are significantly below the maximum allowed by state law. The District currently requires $1.50 per square foot of residential development. Recent legislation (i.e., SB 1287) allows the District to raise its fee to $1.65 per square foot plus an interim additional fee of $1.00 per square foot, provided certain criteria are met. Although this recently legislated fee increase opportunity has been implemented by many other California and Bay Area school districts, neither of these fee increase allowances has been adopted by the District, as acknowledged in comment 11.5 herein. (d) The multipliers used in the DEIR to compute project enrollment impacts were provided by the District, and after re-evaluation in response to this comment, have been found to be excessively high. These multipliers were derived by the District based on an existing multi-family development in South San Francisco. However, there are no existing multi-family housing developments in South San Francisco which incorporate the density ranges proposed in the subject general plan amendment for the project area (i.e., there are no existing developments as dense as 40 to 50 units per acre). The highest existing multi-family housing density in South San Francisco is 25 to 30 units per acre. In addition, and an equally important consideration, there are no existing multi-family developments in South San Francisco that are specifically BART-oriented. A survey of comparable high density residential projects (40 dwelling units or more per acre) constructed in proximity to BART stations in Richmond, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek indicates that (1) such projects have their own unique household characteristics which include a disproportionate number of single residents and 5221FEIRIF-IL522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 50 working couples without school age children, and (2) as a result, an enrollment multiplier of 0.12-0.25 is a more indicative figure for these units than the 0.53 used in the EIR. The table on the opposite page summarizes the results of the survey of comparable higher density BART-oriented projects. If the 0.12-0.25 rather than 0.53 multiplier is applied, project impacts on school enrollment would be reduced from an average annual District-wide increase of 113 students to an average annual District-wide increase of 21 students per year. This would result in a 15-year total enrollment increase of 320 rather than 1,698 students. This total project-related increase would be more than offset by District projected cumulative enrollment declines. 11.2 The DEIR language on page 248 regarding possible accommodation of future district- wide enrollment fluctuations through the adjustment of school attendance boundaries and/or the reopening of one or more closed schools is included for informational purposes only. The recommended mitigation measures do not include the adjustment of individual school attendance areas, although such a measure may be implied or inherent in other measures (re-opening of closed schools, etc.). Presumably, any future attendance area adjustment to address the enrollment needs of the project area would be dictated in part by locational convenience criteria. 11.3 See responses to comment 11.1, particularly with respect to appropriate enrollment multipliers for the project area and the low school impact fee currently applied by the District. (The current District fees of $1.50 per square foot of residential development are 43 percent below the current state authorized maximum of $1.65 and also do not include the state-authorized $1.00 interim additional impact fee. Such fee increases have been adopted by many other Bay Area school districts.) 11.4 See response to comment 11.3. 11.5 The question of popular acceptance or resistance of school impact fee increases by the development community should not be highly relevant. Numerous school districts throughout the Bay Area and the state have recently increased their development fees to these state-mandated maximums despite the negative opinion of the local development community. 11.6 Comment acknowledged. However, it should be noted that if Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 6, is passed by the state's voters in June 1994, the requirement for approval of school financing bonds would be reduced to a simple majority. In addition, general obligation bonds are described as one of six possible mitigation measures listed on pages 249 to 250 of the DEIR. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 ~"' Z W J J 0 Z W J 0 V Q N W O ~ Za QZ ~ W ~a a~ OW J ' W W W ~ ~ W J ~ Q 0 W ~ 0 ~ 0 V W ~O W Z Z za U J J a W o. Q ° ° O O ~ ~ E ° O o 0 0 0 0 0 N > ~ N N N N N N 0 LL ~ M O O to O ~ O ~[) O O O a O O E O j ~ O N O N N N N N N H N y C) M COO f`07 N C7 n p O N ~O N ~ O Y m N m °a ~ CD ~ °'' ° n O o v ~ ~ a C U "' ~ N N M N N C7 N ~ ~ m ~ Q Q O O O Q O Q O K « ~ O O N O O N C O C p O O O O O C O W V ~ O LL w O (n V N N Y N ~ ~+ OOO .; 000`x- OOO ~; O~~O '~ OOO ~; O~~O `~ OO .: 00'x- a0 N OO .; LL'1 iOw n OOO .; 01n ~`~ tO n 01 OO ~: 00'~ do N y m Q a0 O N y 1D n m y 10 n 0) y y Q y y ~ . N Q'~~O m ~ O y0: 0:0 CO m 0]O 220 m0]m0 RHO m~0 KmO mN0 K2KO mm0]O O ~ O mQ0 Z ~m d0 O~Np ONO ~m~ ~ . O•-N ' ~m r. ~ ' N0~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~O N N aQ + ~ 1R ~ ~ > IR ?R dt > ~R ?R a > ~ ~ ~ > tR ' 11~~~ ~ N IA OtAQ N~C9 in OIAQ N~f7 ~~ ~ N~ O Q <O ~OO~Q N~f`9 tO aQ a NInQ ~ OmQ Q n n C t0 N X ~ ~ N 'c C7 U d d ~ d d U d U ~ U ~ C N ~ ~ th ~ d l 0 ( J N p~ ~ G ~ q G ~ ~ N N > o > > ° ~ ° ° c ~ ,O c c (Oj .: N IC v O .% N ~o O U ~ O n p ~ v O O N Z n v m c'7 ~ M M ~ a 0 v 0 m ~ c .°. ~ d d Q y L ~ N O O °tJ N m > o Z m ~ ~ U ~ > o d m o N > c :~ ~ Q Y Q R lC N L ~..' Q V 7 « p r ~ ~ -~ ~ j N 0: m Y O N w A ~ p U p F- N i0 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 52 11.7 Comment acknowledged. The sale of surplus property alone would probably not provide adequate mitigation to offset school enrollment impacts. However, the measure is listed as one of six measures, which as explained on DEIR page 249, are intended to be implemented selectively and in some combination (based on monitored need) in order to reduce anticipated future enrollment impacts if and when they occur. Please also see response to comment 11.1. 11.8 The mitigation measures referenced on DEIR Summary pages 28 and 29 are intended to summarize parking and traffic mitigation measures described in more detail on DEIR pages 176 (High School Vicinity Safety Concerns), 179 (Mission Road High School Access), 180 (BART Station Crosswalks, Parking Restrictions in BART Station Vicinity, BART Station Parking Contingency Plan, and BART Station Parking Structure Design Contingencies), 183 (BART Station Pedestrian Crossings), and 184 (Onstreet Parking Restrictions for New Residential Areas). 11.9 The EIR authors maintain that proposed mitigation measures recommended to offset safety impacts on pedestrians reduce these impact potentials to less than significant levels. The EIR authors acknowledge that impacts could be further reduced through installation of pedestrian-actuated crossing signals. 11.10 With respect to noise impacts on EI Camino High School, one of the principal objectives of the project is to im rove the noise environment at the high school and other local schools by facilitating the undergrounding the BART line. This is a fundamental goal and beneficial impact of the project. (See DEIR pages 50, 51, 54, 56, and especially 249.) The noise impacts of the BART station and BART line extension as currently proposed by the San Mateo County Transportation Commission (SamTrans) and BART are not the subject of this EI Camino Corridor Program EIR. Rather, the EI Camino Corridor DEIR specifically addresses this proposed undergrounding of the BART extension. Please see BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Alternative Analysis/EIS/EIR, Volume 1, March 1992 for an evaluation of those projects, including the adverse noise impacts if constructed at- grade or in a retained cut configuration through South San Francisco. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 Ti i 1= ii ~~-3u~~E~E~ F'. LAS department of Public Works R E C E t V E b ~ BOARD OF SUPSRYt50RS ANfJA G. ESH00 MaR 2 2 X993 ~ flM HUEN NG I ~ TOM NOLAN Qt.ANNiNG lv1LLIAM ,i. SCHUMACHER i ROBERT L. SANS T ~~ i i ~ ~j i' ~ ~y Q ~T I~L~ i `Q m ~~ i ~© ' NE~S ~ C d. . . ~ a , D 4E 'CP '•C ~l~`.ti L~G:.~r!i'i LhliV~. $U~ ~ E ~.•':~'~ • ~e~ 1^!'J~i~.^. _~ • il, ! =JRiJIA ?d`?.•1'.6~ • o''OfVE ~et^ 35.•at7j Fax tet5i 59a.g?SG March 16, 199 Ms. Maureen K. Morton i City of south san Francisco P.O. Box 711 South san Francisco, CA 94083 j Dear Ms. Marton: Thi6 is in response to the Draft EIR for the E1 Carina Corridor Plan, dated January 31, 1993. This office admfniste.x-s t2ie San Diateo County Flood COt><trol District, and has been actively involved with flood cointrol improvements within South S«n Francisco just downstream of the described E. camina corridor project area boundary. As the FEMA Fioad Insurance Rate Map shows, the existi~ig Colma channel xitrin the project area is undersized to handle a 100- year flood. the project as described includes "caveri~q" the channel to maximi2c~ the available land use. Zt is not, clear if it is intended Lo cover the channel as it exists, or tp rebuild the channel with upsiEed capacity and atop. i He have same concerns about the nature of the use of tale land over the channel. i4'hile improved surface use, such asjstreets, parking, or open space is compatible with the channel,~we would express so;.te concern if structures, such as buildings pr fences, were allowed, so as to exclude access for maintenance,; or create a blockage of the flaodway. A description of the project implies that the channel ill first be enclosed through the area of the Hickey BART statio with the remainder of the channel to be "covered' later. Stage construction needs to be planned carefully, as interim, improvements can benefit some properties by removing a~flood hazarQ, but possibly wox'sen trie conditions for others. very truly yours, j i Ne 1 R. Cullen Assistant Director of ?ul~lic Works NRC:RGZ:sdd I~ fibers\wcdbdc+r ryz iz.~ 153 I~ 1 12•Z EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 54 12. Neil R. Cullen, Assistant Director of Public Works, County of San Mateo, 3-16-93 12.1 Please see response to similar comment 9.6. As clarified in this response, no structures are proposed over Colma Creek. 12.2 As explained on DEIR page 218, "the project-facilitated undergrounding of Coma Creek should not worsen existing flooding in the project vicinity if the new channel is constructed wtih sufficient capacity to carry a 100-year flood flow, in accordance with FEMA guidelines." The "staged" covering of Colma Creek would consider potential upstream and downstream flooding impacts. This issue would be addressed in more detail during the engineering design stage of the improvement. 5221FEIRiF-IL522 5S TO 1`tG~~-lu-t"'88 F.G~ i~. R K 1~' h h March 17, 1993 I RECEiIVEQ MAR z~ 1993 PGtNf~t~ i i ls. Maureen K. Morton i Senior Planner ~ City cf South San Francisco i P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 440$3 ~ I Re: The McClellan's Comments to the February,1993, Driaft EIR i I Dear Maureen: I As we discuSSBd, I am writing on behalf of the McClellans to voice their co7rraents and concerns with respect to the~Draft EIR. I will. address the iEaues in the order they appear in the document. ~ 1.-On page 26, the EIR refers to "density transitRon policies" in the General Plan Amendment to minimize 'Fhe fapaCt of the McClellan property being available for development. Although we do presently plan to develop; the property in phases which would most liY.ely be consistent with the City's preferences we would like it made cl¢ar '~ ~ that the City would not dictate the timing of the , construction of each phase. 2. The economic responsibility for any patY:ways b~tweel't d d l i I~~ u e nc neighborhoods as contemplated on page i7, should be in any Mello-Roos financing program and not be the , responsibility of the individual property owners. , 3. We are concerned with the costs associated hit2R the i 3 '~~ no desire to create a "garkway" out of the portion of E1;Cam in the redevelopment area (page 19). The costs of signalizing and altering the roar as part of "offsiteM transportation m;tige-tion xvuld be very significant tv ttia McClellan site developer. ~ 4. The iiaprovements to the storm drainage system are a.n '~ ~ above average incremental cost far the McClellan property ~ (pages 30 & 31). j 330] u :,~r,?tr F~~:.. ~;re Irv"", A*4_~'c?y. C,w~o.n,~ s4U2; -3844. Tr~cr_ri~ 515.3e5.0673, TEt;e07~ER 415.365.1645 S~ i i Ms. Maureen Morton ~ March 27, 1993 page Two t 5. The wastewater collection racilities are also ~n I11 above average incremental cost for the McClellan property !~~ (page 33). 6. The park and recreation costs do not appear toi be I~1~ above average, but they are very substantial (page 35). 7. The school impact fees will be an above average expenditure for the developer of the McClellan property, I~~~ particu~arly if they are raised as per the suggestion; of the Draft EIR (page 36). 8. If the McClellan property is annexe4 into the city, ~ doQS it autoraatically requi~a inclusion in the redevelopment plan? (page 72) j sttnuld you have any questions regarding any of these items, please call me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~~~ Thomas E. Lodato TE'L : vs cc: Frank J. I,odato TuTA~ R.u~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 57 13 Thomas E Lodato, Searsville Land Company, 3-17-93 13.1 This comment may reflect a misunderstanding of the DEIR language. The term "density transition" as used in the DEIR refers to gradations of density from the outer edges of the property (e.g., lower density) to the center of the property (where higher densities would not be incompatible with adjacent properties). The term as used in the DEIR does not refer to project phasing. 13.2 The commentor's opinion regarding financial responsibility for the recommended pathway is noted. 13.3 The commentor's opinion regarding participation in funding of "parkway" treatment and offsite road improvements is noted. 13.4 Storm drainage improvements recommended in the DEIR for the McLellan site would be necessitated by the anticipated development of the property and associated changes in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. 13.5 Wastewater collection improvements recommended in the DEIR for the McLellan site would be necessitated by residential development of the property as currently anticipated. 13.6 Comment noted. 13.7 School impact fees for the McLellan site would be determined based on square feet of development. The City of South San Francisco's current school impact fees are currently $1.50 per square foot of new residential development, a rate which is approximately 43 percent less than the maximum allowed by state law. 13.8 Any piece of property can be annexed to a City subject to the approval of the City and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Because the McLellan site is an unincorporated island surrounded by the City, is within the City's Sphere of Influence, is designated in the City's adopted general plan for residential use, and is considered to be an integral part of the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, it is unlikely that the City would exclude the site from the Redevelopment Area. In addition, the cost to develop the site would be more likely to increase rather than decrease if it were omitted from the redevelopment area (the redevelopment program may result in the funding of some offsite infrastructure improvements which might otherwise be required as offsite conditions of project approval). 5221FEIRIF-IL522 B A R T NELLO BIANCO rr>FSIOExr MARGARET K. PRYOR VICEOT]!T FRANK J. WILSON oer~R~u w~ruoeR DIRECTORS DAN RICHARD Tsr olsrRlCr NELLO BIANCO a+0 DISTR~cT ROY NAKADEGAWA 3RD DISTRICT MARGARET K. PRYOR m+ DISTRICT SHERMAN LEWIS sTM oISTRICr JOHN GLENN sr-T olsrRlcT . WILFRED T. USSERY TTH o1STRICt JAMES FANG sTa olsrnlcT MICHAEL BERNICK am osTwcr BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street - Lake Merritt Station P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 84604-2888 Telephone (510) 484-8000 Ms. Maureen K. Morton Senior Planner City of South San Francisco RECEIVED MAR 3 01993' • PLANNING March 23, 1993 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed E1 Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan Dear Ms. Morton: As I noted in my response to your Notice of Preparation on this matter, the City of South San Francisco should be commended for its effort to create a new redevelopment project area along the E1 Camino Corridor to take advantage of the proposed BART station. Providing the proper land use designations and densities prior to the introduction of the fixed rail BART station is entirely appropriate and will greatly assist BART in more effectively developing a transit market to take advantage of the fixed rail service. With respect to the subject document, I have the following comments: 1) I suggest that residential densities, particularly /~/ next to the BART station, be a minimum of 50 dwelling units/acre (du/ac), not a maximum of 50 du/ac. Densities could then be reduced as one moves away from the station towards existing, lower density areas. I would also suggest that this minimum density be applied to areas next to and on BART's station property, including: Portions of Macys Service Center property on the Hickey Boulevard Extension and E1 Camino Real; the McClellan Company Nursery property along El Camino Real, the property immediately southeast of the BART station site; and the BART station site itself . 2) Emphasis should be placed on mixed-use development // to provide more pedestrian activity over more hours ~ of each day. Ground floor retail can be most effective if placed along the pedestrian paths between residential areas and the BART station. ~r Specific locations and amount of square footage should be determined by the private sector. However, in order to provide the flexibility to the private sector, each of the areas noted in comment 1) should be designated as mixed-use areas, not just residential. 3 I concur with your suggestions that strong/`', 3 pedestrian connections should be provided between the surrounding development and the BART station. In addition to making all street crossings "pedestrian-friendly," ground floor retail or other uses which provide activity over more hours of the day should be planned for and encouraged. Such activity would provide pedestrians with the sense of a safe and secure environment as they move between the station and their homes. 4) Building Heights & Parking (pages 102-3). Your osed buildin height is too restrictive. It I ~~ prop g will reduce a developers ability to construct projects of densities greater than 50 du/ac and reduce a developer's ability to achieve sufficient financial return. In addition, it forces project parking below grade, an expensive solution. Podium parking should be considered, along with relaxation of the proposed height limitation. 5) Recommendations for Refinement of the BART Station Plan (page 108). The document proposes a number of mitigation measures to reduce visual and design impacts, given the "constraints of the proposed BART development program." What specific BART /~ development program constraints have been identified? If these constraints were removed, what advantages/disadvantages to BART and the proposed development area would result? 6) Numerous references are made to reduced auto trip generation rates from land uses adjacent to the BART station due specifically to the presence of the BART station (pages 164, 166, 167, 168). Increased development density next to fixed rail transit stations clearly reduces auto trips, both regionally and locally. Recognizing that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, as part of the San Francisco Airport BART extension, will be estimating transit ridership and commuter parking demand, what impact will the proposed development near the South San Francisco BART Station have onl~~ transit ridership and access to transit? Will the • projected BART ridership figure be increased, the projected BART parking estimates be decreased, or both? (~U 7) Expansion of proposed BART garage (page 180). It is BART's policy to construct parking garages such that they can be expanded at least two levels, either to provide additional parking or private development. Your suggestion that BART's proposed garage should be designed to accommodate three additional levels of parking, however, raises a number of questions. What impact will three/~ additional levels of commuter parking have on the LOS of the surrounding street system? If high density residential development is constructed next to the station, will the additional parking capacity be necessary? Why not suggest improvements to other modes of access to the station, such as bus and carpool, to provide flexibility in managing access movements rather than incurring the expense of constructing the improvements? One way of mitigating the visual and design impact of any garage, would be to have the private sector construct housing and retail above and around the garage. This should be considered when suggesting that a larger parking structure is advocated. 8) Mitigation of long-term impacts for road maintenance (page 245). If the Redevelopment Area is formed, what impact will that have on the ,I'~ ability of the City to generate general fund/~ property tax increases to pay for road maintenance? • Won't increases in property tax predominantly go to the Redevelopment Agency? 9) Alternatives to the Proposed Project (pages 295- 303). Each alternative discusses transportation impacts only with respect to the local street system. Given previous references to reduced auto trip generation rates from land uses adjacent to the BART station due specifically to the presence of the BART station, what impact will each e alternative have on transit ridership and access to~ transit? Will the projected BART ridership figure be increased, the projected BART parking estimates be decreased, or both? Finally, some mention should be made in the document about the existing and proposed manner in which BART is involved in constructing and operating the South San Francisco Station and SFO Extension. Specifically, reference should be made to the Comprehensive Agreement/~/~ Pertaining to BART System Extension executed between BART and the San Mateo County Transit District in March, 1990 and the impact that agreement may have on development proposed on the BART station property. In addition, some mention should be made of the County formally joining the ~~ BART District and what impact that would have on development proposed on the BART station property. As I noted in my December, 1992 letter to you, BART remains very interested in working with the City of South San Francisco and SamTrans in implementing this program. Since ely, e f Ordway n ger of Prope evelopment cc: D. Hill J. Kugler EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 62 14. Jeffrey P. Ordway. Manacter of Property Development, Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 3-23-93 14.1 This comment does not address EIR adequacy. No response by the Lead Agency is required. 14.2 This comment does not address EIR adequacy. No response by the Lead Agency is required. 14.3 This comment does not address EIR adequacy. No response by the Lead Agency is required. 14.4 Comment noted. The referenced building height restrictions have been included in the DEIR mitigation recommendations in response to related concerns raised by the community. This compelling comment by BART should be considered by the City prior to adopting any final height restrictions. 14.5 The constraints of the proposed BART development project referred to on DEIR page 109 include such basic limitations as site size, BART track alignment, station parking needs, station operational needs, and surrounding roadway configuration. 14.6 As described in the DEIR, the proposed "transit-oriented" density designation near the planned Hickey Boulevard BART station will be expected to increase transit ridership. Related transit access needs are addressed in the DEIR. The increased density provisions for the land adjacent to the BART station can be expected to increase BART ridership. However, impacts on BART parking estimates would not be significantly affected by the location of this higher density development near the station. 14.7 The traffic generation figures assumed in the DEIR are based on the same BART ridership projections that are the basis for assessment of parking needs. The recommended mitigation (i.e., additional levels of parking) would not result in LOS impacts beyond those described in the EIR. Mitigation recommendations related to additional parking capacity are based on projected cumulative ridership rather than to project-facilitated high density residential development. The EIR suggests a design contingency for three rather than two levels of additional parking based on parking shortage experience at other BART stations. The improvements related to alternative transportation modes suggested in this comment are also important additional mitigation considerations. Comments regarding visual and urban design impacts of the parking garage are acknowledged. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 63 14.8 In response to this comment, the reference to property taxes has been removed from DEIR page 245. 14.9 DEIR Alternatives A and B would produce ridership levels from the Hickey Boulevard station similar to those currently projected by BART. DEIR Alternative C would produce increased ridership but not to the degree of the proposed project. DEIR Alternative D would increase ridership slightly greater than the project. DEIR Alternative E would have similar ridership impacts to the proposed project but these impacts would occur at an accelerated rate. 14.10 It is the understanding of the EIR authors and City staff that the agreement referred to in this comment relates to the economic and financial relationship between the San Mateo Count Transit District and BART. This agreement would not have any impact on the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project. 5221FEIRlF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 64 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 65 D. MARCH 4, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 522lFElRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 66 5221FEIRIF-11.522 G! DEIR COMMENTS FROM MARCH 4, 1993 PLAI~'NING COMMISSION MEETING Il'An ela /~ Public - Mr. Lou De g 1. Is the subway configuration worth the trade-off of increased density, school and traffic impacts, etc.? 2. EIR should better address the fiscal impacts to the schools? 3. McLellan's Nursery is a South San Francisco landmark; it is a focal point and it provides open space. The EIR should focus on retaining it, rather than "forcing it out". 4. EIR should better address the park impacts of the project's density. 5. EIR should better address views -what are the visual impacts of high rises lining EI Camino Real; huge concrete walls along the frontage? 6. High density residential on Oak Street is out of character with the area. 7. High density on Mission Road will contribute to traffic impacts. 8. Higher density residential designations will contribute to sewer system deficiencies; improving the lines will take away money from the undergrounding project. 9. How will the rezonings which result in increased densities be timed in relation to the construction of BART? Planning Commission 1. Page 62 -are we proposing transit-oriented density only in the Redevelopment Project Area? 2. Do we have any say in the design of the BART station? We should support the recommendations which are in the EIR. 3. Page 82 -Foothill Estates has 30 units, Sunshine Villas has 17 units, Sunrise has 46 units and St. Francis Hts. has 35 units. 4. Page 103 -why is textured stucco (does this mean texcote?) specifically identified as not to be used? It and horizontal sliding aluminum windows should probably be discouraged, rather than prohibited. Why is clapboard style of wood board siding specified? Maybe vertical and horizontal board (including clapboard, which is horizontal lapped boards) would be more appropriate. Plywood siding should be discouraged. b0 5. Page 118 -What are the units mentioned at 915 - 919 Grand Avenue? Are they in ~~' the project area? 6. Page 147, Chestnut Avenue -how can Chestnut Avenue be widened to four lanes within the existing right-of-way? 7. Page 178 - Is the Oak Avenue extension feasible? Can it actually be built and at a reasonable cost? Would construction of this street be a mitigation measure for the BART station? 8. Page 199 -Although average 24 hour noise levels beyond 100 feet with the retained cut option aren't "significant", single event levels beyond 100 feet could be very significant and annoying. 9. It would be helpful to include models/examples of each density target. 10. Are the specific densities achievable with the building story counts which are mentioned in the text (projects with lower densities with which we are familiar such as the Gateway Commons in San Mateo are 4 - 4'/i stories over parking). 11. Were specific building heights intentionally omitted from the performance standards to allow for design flexibility? When building heights are considered, it should be clarified if heights are from existing grade or finish project grades. 12. Which would have more. visual impact: uniform heights of buildings with less space between buildings or occasional greater heights to allow more opportunity for spaces between buildings (for views, etc.)? 13. Figure 12 - Is the proposed El Camino Real Parkway concept achievable within the existing right-of-way or would it require acquisition? Is it intended that this treatment would continue up El Camino Real, past Treasure Island Trailer Court, to the Wye Motel site? 14. Page 102 - a.l) Density transitions are critical, especially at Oak St./Grand Ave., McLellan Nursery and the two trailer courts. Perhaps some specifics on these areas can be included. a.2) Buildings heights should be more clearly defined for each subarea. a.4) Modules of 40 feet seem too wide (typical residential lot width is 50 feet). This is not what is reflected in Figures 10 and 11; a 25 foot module should be considered. 15. Page 103 - a.5) states parking should not be more than S feet above finish grade. Do we have some approximate idea where that is in relation to existing grades? 16. Some additional items which should be included in the Residential Performance standards: V/ and rivate useable open space /~. a. Common p b. Community center/gathering place for project residents (focal point) c. Suggested height: width ratios for spaces between buildings, especially if it is intended for outdoor use, to avoid "dark canyons" between buildings. 17. Page 218(c) -What are the implications of much of the project area being in a flood plain? Is fill in excess of one foot not permitted? Will finish floor heights of dwellings have to occur above a particular elevation? Will that have any impact on the expected building heights? May below-grade garages occur within the flood zone? 18. Chapter IV.D - We have some concerns about the number of intersections/driveways on Mission Road within approximately 1,000 feet ("New Street", proposed entry to parking/housing, bus and kiss & ride area and Hickey Blvd. Extension). Also, how do these relate to existing openings on the east side of Mission Road? 19. Page 183(12) -The fencing option should be discouraged; there are social and aesthetic reasons why this solution should be avoided. Is a pedestrian bridge or tunnel a possibility? This issue should be reviewed by the design consultant. 20. Is there the possibility of culturaUarcheological resource impacts with the project? EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 15. Lou Dell'Anctela Final E-R Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 70 See response to similar written comments 7.1 through 7.16. 16. Planning Commissioners 16.1 As explained on DEIR page 62, the proposed "transit-oriented" density residential classification is intended to be BART station and thus transit realted. This designation could be applied to other appropriate areas subject to future general plan amendment review and deliberation. 16.2 Although the City has no official say in the design of the BART station, the EIR design analysis recommendations have been developed for City and Redevelopment Agency use in advocating these revisions to BART station design during the public review process which will be required prior to finalization of BART plans. 16.3 Comment acknowledged. These unit number corrections have been made on FEIR errata page 82. 16.4 Highly textured stucco and plywood siding are described as undesirable because they can be comparatively unattractive. In particular, highly textured stucco tends to collect dust and become visibly dirty. Horizontal sliding aluminum windows are recommended for prohibition simply because they do not look as attractive as other options, and could result in an undesirable design quality. Use of these materials could certainly be discouraged rather than prohibited, if more regulatory discretion is desired by the City. Clapboard and regular stucco wall materials are recommended to match existing development in the area. Other wooden siding would also be acceptable, although they may not match existing development as well. 16.5 As indicated in DEIR Appendix D-3, 915 through 919 Grand Avenue and 150 Oak Farm Road are all residential addresses on parcel 011-312-010 (owned by Oak Farm Ltd.), a 1.0 acre parcel within the project area. (See site #22 on Figure D-1 in Appendix D, page D-7.) 16.6 The identified widening of Chestnut Avenue to four lanes is programmed in the City's adopted General Plan and Capital Improvement Program. This widening is considered feasible with minor right-of-way adjustments. 16.7 The intent to construct the Oak Avenue extension is a measure which has been adopted as official city policy in the South San Francisco General Plan. The feasibility of this existing policy has not been re-evaluated in the DEIR. As explained on DEIR page 178, the extension would be necessary to mitigate anticipated year 2010 impacts at the EI Camino Real/Westborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue intersection 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 71 without the BART extension. (This measure is listed on DEIR page 107 as a year 2010 need without the project.) 16.8 This comment is consistent with the DEIR discussion on page 199. BART noise generated by the "retained cut" alternative is not expected to generate "average 24- hour noise levels" above acceptable standards. However, as described on DEIR page 199, "single-event" standards could be exceeded and significant noise impacts could occur at South San Francisco High School, Los Cerritos Elementary School, Orange Memorial Park, the Francisco Terrace tot lot, and the proposed linear park along the SPTCo right-of-way, when BART trains pass by. 16.9 Comment acknowledged. In response to this and similar comments, Appendix M has been added to the FEIR to describe and illustrate typical examples of the various residential density types discussed in the DEIR. 16.10 Yes. Please see Appendix M and response to similar comments 7.5 and 7.7. 16.11 The proposed performance standards do include height limitations. Please see DEIR page 102 (Building Heights) and DEIR page 108 (item 3). 16.12 Lower heights would generally have less of a visual impact unless the spaces between the structures were especially large. 16.13 The EI Camino Parkway street design standards described on DEIR page 104 and shown on DEIR Figure 12 may require some right-of-way adjustment or some acquisition of easements over adjacent property to implement the recommended street design standards. The parkway treatment as recommended would be expected to occur continuously from the Wye Motel site to Westborough Boulevard. 16.14 The EIR authors acknowledge the critical importance of density transitions as necessary land use compatibility and visual impact mitigation. These needs are specified on DEIR page 102, as well as page 59 (Policy 11-5, Policy 11-7, and 11- 11). The mitigations recommended in DEIR section IV.G, Urban Design Factors, are intended to provide "conceptual framework" for more specific design solutions. The level of specificity provided in the DEIR related to urban design issues exceeds common EIR practice. Additional urban design options could be explored outside the EIR process. The DEIR does provide specific height limitation recommendations for various sub- areas. Generally, the DEIR indicates that project area building heights should not 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 72 exceed three stories, or 30 feet (see DEIR page 107), and that structures on Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue should have two to three stories, or a maximum height of 20 to 30 feet (see page 108). If a third floor exists along Oak Avenue, the DEIR indicates that it should be contained within the roof (see page 108). Structures on Mission Road should not exceed three to four stories (see page 108). The comment regarding the width of building modules is acknowledged. The DEIR text has been revised to reflect a 25 to 40 foot wide architectural module (please see the errata herein for EIR page 102). 16.15 The parking platform grade would be a maximum of five (5) feet above finished grade. It is not known exactly where that finished grade would be for the various proposed development sites, although with the possible exception of the McLellan site, major grading within the project area is not anticipated. 16.16 The comment with respect to height-width ratios is acknowledged. In response, a recommended minimum height-to-width between buildings standard has been added to the EIR (see errata for page 102). Private open space and a community center components of individual projects are most likely to be accommodated within the off-street interior of these individual projects, outside the view of the public and therefore outside the scope of public urban design factors considered in this EIR. 16.17 As described on DEIR pages 212, 216, and 218, portions of the project area are within the 100-year flood plain--i.e., those areas estimated to be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm. As stated on DEIR page 219, all new development in these designated areas would have to be constructed in accordance with FEMA regulations. Fill in the floodplain would be allowable, provided that equal capacity was created nearby within the floodplain. There is no "one-foot" limitation. Buildings would need to be raised above the designated flood elevation. This requirement could impact building heights. Garages could be constructed below flood elevations. 16.18 Recommendations on DEIR page 183 (Mission Road driveway, and EI Camino and Hickey Boulevard Driveways) address the safety issues associated with excessive numbers of driveways or driveways too near each other within. the project area. 16.19 An alternative to a fence would be solid vegetative hedge. A tunnel or pedestrian bridge would also be possible, although such solutions would be extremely expensive and may compare poorly with other workable alternatives. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 73 16.20 Comment acknowledged. In response to this comment, section IV.K has been added to the errata of this FEIR Attachment. 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR April 13, 1993 Page 74 5221FEIRIF-11.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment III. Revisions to the Draft EIR (Errata) Page 75 III. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR (FINAL EIR ERRATA) The following section includes all revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to public and Lead Agency comments received during the Draft EIR public review period. All text revisions are indicated by an "r" in the left margin next to the revised line. All of the revised pages supersede the corresponding pages in the Draft EIR. Various minor changes in EIR text have also been made in response to corrections suggested by City staff (Appendix L). None of these changes represent a significant increase in impact or a significant new impact or mitigation need not already discussed in the Draft EIR. 5221FEIRIF-111.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR Attachment III. Revisions to the Draft EIR (Errata) Page 76 5221FEIRIF-111.522 ' \. _ ` 0 ~ j ~/ ~\. .. LLL.t r~..Y' \ \. i1~ ,yl ~ f'lt"~,.t \~1--;y' \(`~\.(`~~~'".-'1~ ~ t l <~~} LQO i, /. ~ ~ \_.. ~t ~~~'''''*rrT77~~S 1 t`•~ \L ~\ ;~' t `CO~r-vy V' <_% 4+ t C7 {~ 1.,. u~J Y ~ ~I ti;t.. ~ `. ~ 1'`' x n '<<.` \ ~\ \.r. I .i ttt \r~. x1. 500 p ~; ='~ ~(~::,>y ~~`~,(!~ \ ~~ i ~c~.~( ~'~'~i~ti ~'G ti it ~~,r t Z /.-r~~-j5 / ~.C"~,~. j .{i+:a~ . t'~'+ ,/~w~'~~y `~t L , ~/~1~~.~ , ~~ ~ ~' ,.-~ ~1~~^ is i ' ~.~...i . ~~~.~_ ` .. ,-h ill " >. ' ~~ ~ \ \ ~~g~~ ,,. Cam) ~ ,, / "~•~ '\\ ~~ ~/ ~ ~'I' •s 1000 ~ ~~ \,; : -,~. ,\• ~C:7 ,,. • O D m n m O z 1 ,~ iy. ~ y~~`ti* ~ ~~-- ~ ~ ~, FEET n C; ` '} ~-(`•.\(~ •.~ ~r n ~ ~ m ° = x ~• ,rt 't.`}_ ~ ~ D^ ~ v `~ ~; ~~~~ .~•, -rr ~ ~ ~~ ' ~\ ~, \~ ` ~ .~ r Y\`. ~~`,° 's `..~ ; (min ~Z11 cNii D m y~~ t) ~ fpTlDZVn~ ~ ~o~~~y ~" OZ ~Om~ .~~~~ ~Z~°Dc~i~ ,,kt.. ~~i;, =OrcnmO t. P r/`. Sr . ,J' ~~, O r O ~ > ~ ~7 cn ~o ` p ~ O = rD~D ,. ~DDm 'Y~~ < z , , mom ~ ~ -~ 70 l.. . ', _~ ,,, ~ m ~ ~ ~. ~.~ti .. N m -zi f'i' ~...' - f r ~ z m z o `. --- ~ r-___' ~ A ~ ~ v z .I L~ r --~ ~ m ~f l J ~ ~..., m v I ~ o z ~ ? /! {DDS / ~ ~ ~C,~ y ~ ~ _ D O mzl .~~ , /~`~ R'm<~~i ~~ ~O v~v 0 =~ ~ 2m ~o'•m- ~ ~p Z 'rU~ ~D Oa ~_~ rmmm z ' L ~ v , m --. ~ Dvv ~ _ -- ~ ~cmmv Z ~` cnv=~ `-'~= O~ ~O Dm~vO '~\\ ` O~ -~~-~Z~ ` z~ ~=~ m -~ r D 7 7 ~ r 0 D ~ D~ D ~ {Wm ,m~ ~zz co 0o z D Z n~ zm O Z cz ~~ 0 z~ a m ~ ~ ---- cvn m v vmi `~ti% F l~ ?~ `O ~\j i`., ~~Fti '`~ .. °' m m m .~ \\\~ ~; a p ti n p ,O ~ z ~ ~ , `,~'F.~ .~ Z m ._.i z ,~~y4 r Z '., ~ ~ h Z •~ i _ Z D Imo ~, .~~ o~ ? rn ~~~ ~ ~`,<;- v D ~ ~ ~ ~;~ m a ~';~ .~ ~Z ~1 v cn ~ ;a ~~ n \.: ~'~ ~, cr-imam '~ mO O '-~ r. O ~~ ~ • '~ m ~~~~}t v ~ ~,1. m d ~ o m m , ~~(. ,. Z + -i O 1~~T'7ri77~'~Y' ~,ra i ~ Z to >J V T+ \ r - ,:.~r. a -~ ~ v_ e~: vOO~ ~ zm~ "•' (,}'•~.~ v=~ ,~ mod :/ ~r_%~' ~ .. D z m ~' m o m E mn~ '~ a T~ -*-7-~~ z m n "t ~ r /t~~~ ~mD , ~, s~ i_.. r~ ~`'~1 m z m + ~. s ~. m -< z~ ~•~ o ~ z v m ~~ r v~ -C m __ ; ~ Z 1' ~ ~ m ~ ~ z z cn D - O ~ V~ iJ , r =c ~ ~m c~~r--~ c, -~:A -'•+~ - fir'-mC i- ' - Z ~ ~`T r'i_ - Z (irr.~..~ (n ~-~ - .. y, t i ~ .1.;~ N ~.t,,. ~~! 3 7 0 m a m m 0 v 3 m 7 a m n 0 (~ s ¢1 7 Z PI'I C ' s ` Z ~ ~,~. 1 ~1 ~+ A ~~ ' ~t`+ ~ ~ \ \'~ 1N. \. / \ '~ y~ r.~. fi ~ t Y <~ 11 .. ;Y~f\ t~. x .c ~/ ~ r: .y~r 1 . ~ ~ ~. C~ ' ±~ ~, "~°~i )/ ~~:~~ - t~ +~~., °~ ~~;~.; r '~ ~. '~~ # D; e_ ~' ~ \~ ~ \ \ ~n ., r ~v-- r-z r+ t)• EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco III. Project Description April 13, 1993 Page 56 ^ Revisions to the residential land use section of the General Plan to create a new residential designation, Transit Oriented Density, for use on the BART station site and core area north and south of the station; and ^ Related miscellaneous text and map revisions throughout the plan to reflect these changes and maintain internal consistency. The various proposed general plan changes are illustrated on Figure 4 and described below: ~) BART-Related Policies. The new Transit Oriented Density designation and the other proposed policies for the new Planning Area 11 are predicated on the assumption that the underground alternative for the BART extension will be implemented. If this does not occur, the general plan amendment including the residential density changes, would have to e_ ~~ d (or rejected) in response to the land use, visual, noise, and vibration impacts of an at-grade or retained cut BART line alternative. The proposed general plan amendment would include the following policies advocating the undergrounding of BART and addressing BART station design compatibility with adjacent uses and with the corridor as a whole: Policy 11-1 To reduce potential impacts and to provide additional developable land, fhe BART station and BART line within the planning area shall be in a subway configuration. A different vertical alignment will require reconsideration of the policies and densities specified herein. Policy 11-2 The BART station should be designed to minimize negative impacts r (including traffic, parking, lighting, noise, safety, aesthetics, etc.) to the community. Residential and convenience retail uses should be included in the station design. (b) Colma Creek Channel. The general plan amendment would include the following policy pertaining to the undergrounding of appropriate sections of Colma Creek: Policy 11-3 Where possible, the Colma Creek Channel should be covered to enhance the development potential of the adjacent properties. All construction in the f/oodplain should be in accordance with the Federal Insurance Flood Hazard Map. (c) McLellan Nursery. The general plan amendment would also include the following policy pertaining to the annexation and development of the McLellan Nursery property. The policy is intended to take advantage of the site's proximity to the new BART station while minimizing grading to retain the site's natural plateau and protecting the adjacent single family neighborhood from through traffic and visual incompatibility. 5221FElRllll-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR III. Project Description Page 62 Transit Oriented Density: Includes townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and planned r unit developments. Within this designation the minimum benchmark density is thirty (30) units per net acre of land and the maximum benchmark density is 50 units per net acre of land. Mixed use retail/residential projects are also appropriate within this designation. gym) Miscellaneous Text and Map Revisions. To maintain internal consistency between these new Planning Area 11 policies and existing general plan language, numerous miscellaneous text changes to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element and Housing Element are also suggested as part of the general plan amendment action. A new Planning Area Map is also proposed to convey the new Planning Area 11 and the corresponding changes to existing Planning Areas 5 and 9. E. ANTICIPATED PROJECT TIMING AND EIR TIME FRAME The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the likely consequences of the redevelopment plan, general plan amendment, McLellan annexation, and associated subsequent implementation measures (zoning amendments, etc.), assuming that they achieve their intent to stimulate real estate, public facilities, and economic development in the project area. Although the anticipated life of the redevelopment plan is 40 years,' it has been assumed for purposes of this EIR that the major portion of the redevelopment activities and associated project- facilitated land absorption described herein, including development of the McLellan property, would take place over a period of 15 years starting in 1995, stimulating accelerated buildout of the project area by the year 2010.2 For conservative impact assessment purposes, this EIR describes the implications of project-facilitated full buildout of the project area over this 15-year period under the provisions of the current South San Francisco General Plan as modified by the proposed general plan amendment, although such buildout may actually occur over a longer time period.3 'Preliminary Report, page 44. 2The projected absorption period for residential units is assumed in the Preliminary Report to take place over 19 years, starting in fiscal year 1996/96. This EIR assumes a more conservative 15- year absorption period. 3Please note that the buildout development scenario used in this EIR for "worst case" environmental impact purposes (2010) is different from the development estimates on which the fiscal analysis in the Preliminary Report are based. The fiscal analysis assumes a longer 19-year buildout scenario (1996/96 to 2015), so that revenues are not overstated (i.e., a "worst-case" economic scenario with longer buildout and slower growth of tax increment). 5221FEIR11/l-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco III. Project Description April 13, 1993 Page 65 process will be considered by the City in determining the final content of the general plan amendment, and will be considered by the City and LAFCO in taking action on the annexation. A oval o he eneral Ian amendment and annexation will re uire the following sgecifi~r~ublic review and approval proce ures. ^ distribution of the Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft EIR to all responsible and interested agencies and to concerned individuals and organizations for review; ^ presentation of the Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft EIR to a San Francisco Planning Commission Public Hearing; r ^ certification of the Final EIR an adoption of the Final General Plan Amendment by the City Council, based on consideration of the information contained in the certified EIR, Planning Commission recommendations, written and oral comments received from the public, and other evidence for and against the proposed general plan amendment and annexation; and ^ approval of the annexation aspect by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), based on state-legislated annexation criteria (see section V.C of this EIR), consideration of the certified EIR, public comment received, and other evidence for and against the proposed annexation. G. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This EIR is an informational document designed to inform the South San Francisco City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Planning Commission, the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and general public of the environmental consequences of the proposed redevelopment plan, general plan amendment, and annexation. The City of South San Francisco is acting as the Lead Agency for all environmental documentation and procedural requirements with respect to the proposed project. This EIR has been prepared to serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for use by the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and LAFCO in their consideration of the project and the various City, Agency, and LAFCO actions that will be necessary to implement the redevelopment plan, general plan amendment, and annexation. These implementation actions are expected to include the rezonings and other zoning ordinance changes which will be necessary subsequent to approval of the general plan amendment and annexation. As Lead Agency, the City also intends that this EIR will serve as the CEQA-required documentation for approvals related to this project which may be made by any other responsible agencies. 5221FE1R1111-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 12, 1993 A. LAND USE FACTORS Final EIR IV.A. Land Use Factors Page 69 This EIR section includes a discussion of existing and anticipated land uses in and adjacent to the project area, the potential impacts of project-facilitated changes on these conditions, and mitigation measures warranted to address identified significant adverse impacts. 1. SETTING a. Existinq Land Use Pattern The existing land use pattern in the project area is generally illustrated on Figures 2 and 3 (the aerial photograph and vicinity map) in section III of this EIR. The 174.8-acre project area contains a mix of residential, commercial, office, warehousing, institutional, nursery, and agricultural uses, plus numerous vacant and underutilized properties. As shown on Figures 2 and 4, predominant land uses include the Macy's Service Center warehouse, the r Rod McLellan Company Nursery, the Kaiser Medical Center, and the San Mateo County Government Center (courthouse and health center). The area also includes three motels, two gas stations, the Broadmore Lumber and Plywood Company yard, the Ron Price Motors auto dealership, the Courtyard Lounge Restaurant and driving range, the Santa Cristo Society social hall, agricultural uses on Oak Avenue, and nine multifamily residences. Also scattered throughout the area are several small parcels that, while zoned for commercial or residential use, are used for agricultural purposes or remain vacant or partially used (materials storage, etc.). The existing land use breakdown in the project area by type and relative percentage is shown in Table 2. The existing parcelization pattern in the project area and aparcel-by- parcel description of the current land use status is described in Appendix D (see Figure D-1 and Table D-1 ). As shown on Figure 2 and reflected in Table 2, the project area is already predominantly urbanized. Over 80 percent of the area has been developed in urban uses, including residential, office, commercial, institutional, and warehouse development. b Existinq Land Use Problems and Deficiencies Numerous existing land use related problems and deficiencies have been identified in the project area that are considered to detract from its quality and economic vitality. These conditions are described below, based on information in the Preliminary Report. 5221FEIRIIV-A-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 12, 1993 Final EIR IV.A. Land Use Factors Page 73 Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart Site. The 3.23-acre Camino Court portion of the Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart site would be developed in the near future with the r proposed 96-unit condominium project which has received preliminary City approval. No other portion of this area would be developed. Based on this assumption, Table 3 indicates that up to 160 additional residential units would be developed in the project area between now and 2010 under the no-project scenario. In addition, a total of up to approximately 34,000 square feet of additional commercial development would be anticipated, as shown on Figure 5. ~2) Associated Land Use Conditions. The future development scenario without the project would be expected to result in the following adverse land use impacts: ^ the potential of the Macy's site north of the BART station for development of transit oriented housing would not be realized; ^ other potentials for transit-oriented or any other residential development in the project area would also not be realized; ^ the recently approved 96-unit Camino Court condominium project at 1400 EI Camino Real would be subject to the added noise and visual impacts of the retained cut or at- grade BART extension alternative; ^ commercial development on the "wye" site may not reflect the standard of design appropriate for this "entranceway" location; ^ the potential of the BART station site for mixed use joint development would be severely limited by the retained cut or at-grade configuration; only the corner portion at the intersection of EI Camino Real and the Hickey Boulevard extension would be developed, and the limited development there would take the form of more conventional, boulevard-related commercial development; ^ the residential development potential of other sites in the project area (Harmonious Holdings, County Center, S.F. Water Department, Oak Avenue, etc.) would not be realized; and ^ existing blight conditions would remain (building dilapidation, substandard streets, lack of street landscaping, etc.). 2. PROJECT IMPACTS a. Impact Assessment Assumptions ~1) General Methodology and Approach. The impact analyses in this EIR are based on the conservative ("worst case") assumption that the proposed combination of redevelopment, general plan amendment, and annexation actions will be successful in stimulating private 5221FEIRIIV-A-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.A. Land Use Factors April 12, 1993 Page 79 ~3) The Wye. The property assembly at the corner of Hickey Boulevard and EI Camino Real would be extensively redeveloped. The existing motel, gas station, and snack market uses would be replaced with approximately 25,000 square feet of higher quality neighborhood and community serving retail uses, which would reflect the high design standards warranted by this important "entranceway" site. ~4) The Macy's Site. Due to the project-related development incentives, including the undergrounding of BART, the increase in allowable density from 30 to 50 units per acre, the covering of Colma Creek, and other infrastructure improvements, the existing warehouse facility would be replaced with a transit oriented apartment development. The approximately 21.5-acre portion of this site remaining after construction of the BART station and Hickey Boulevard extension, plus an additional approximately one half acre of development capacity due to the covering of Colma Creek, would provide for development of approximately 1,100 residential apartments. ~5) BART Station Site. The undergrounding of the BART line and other project related incentives would make feasible transit oriented mixed use development (residential- commercial) on the 2.89-acre "possible commercial development area" portion of the station site (see Figure 7). The development would probably take the form of two-to-three stories of residential apartments over ground floor commercial and subgrade parking. With this configuration, the 2.89 acre area would accommodate approximately 150 apartment units and 50,000 square feet of commercial development. The ground-floor commercial component would probably include a major emphasis on BART and apartment oriented convenience retail and personal services (quick stop groceries, drugs/variety, flowers, gifts, take-out and sit-down food services, hair and nail salons, books and newspapers, travel services, video rentals, recorded music sales, shoe repair, cleaners, etc.). ~6) Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart Site. The development potential of this 7.96-acre parcel assembly would be significantly increased by the undergrounding of BART and Colma Creek (measures which would eliminate BART noise and visual impacts and add approximately two more acres of land for use as offstreet parking, onsite circulation, and open space purposes), and by the change in general plan density allowance from 30 to 50 units per acre. As a result of these project actions, it is assumed that the existing six r residential units and lumber yard would eventually be removed and the area would be r developed with approximately 400 apartment units (including the approved 96-unit Camino Court project). ~) S.F. Water Department Site. The development capacity of the S.F. Water Department site would be increased by three project actions--the undergrounding of BART, the increase in general plan density allowance from 30 to 40 units per acre, and the increase in site area from 8.39 to approximately 8.75 acres due to the undergrounding of Colma Creek. As a result, the existing Courtyard Lounge and driving range would be removed and the site would be developed with approximately 350 condominium units. 5221FEIRIIV-A-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 12, 1993 Final EIR IV.A. Land Use Factors Page 81 the impacts of high density, multi-story apartment development on the Macy's site on the adjacent Treasure Island Trailer Park to the north, and the impacts of multi-story condominium development on the Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart and Oak Farms properties on the adjacent Red Arrow Mobile Home Park on EI Camino Real and on adjacent single family residential development along Chestnut Avenue would be reduced to insignificant levels through implementation of the buffering policies and design standards advocated for these properties by the proposed general plan amendment (Policies 11-7 and 11-11). The visual and urban design relationships between project-facilitated multi-story residential development and existing neighborhood conditions, and related impacts, are addressed in more detail in the Visual and Urban Design Factors chapter of this EIR (section IV.B). c Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Displacement Impacts The proposed redevelopment plan would authorize power of eminent domain for 12 years from the date of adoption of the redevelopment plan, enabling the Agency to employ this power to acquire private property, if necessary, in order to implement land assembly and disposition measures to eliminate blighting conditions. Project-related activities may also include Agency assistance to private developers who may in turn acquire property for future individual projects involving displacement of existing residences or businesses. Also, existing commercial and light industrial properties could be redeveloped in the future for blight elimination purposes, thereby displacing businesses and jobs. r As indicated in Table 3, there are nine existing residential units and several sites with commercial and light industrial activities that may be redeveloped. Current California Redevelopment Law (CRL) provisions would limit the adverse displacement impacts of such private property acquisition, if it were to occur. Provision of relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced persons would be required.' If housing is lost through future direct or indirect Agency action, the Agency is obliged to relocate those households displaced and replace that housing, as specified in the CRL. Assistance must include payment for moving expenses and losses of personal property, and may include an additional amount to compensate for the difference between the fair market value paid to a residential property owner for the property and the cost of a comparable replacement property. Also, Section 6032 of Title 25 would require the Agency to develop and implement a relocation assistance advisory program to ensure that any persons displaced from their 'Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines in Chapter 6, Subchapter 1, Department of Housing and Community Development Programs of Title 25, Housing and Community Development Law. 5221FElRIIV-A-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.A. Land Use Factors April 12, 1993 Page 82 place of business would be assisted in reestablishing similar activity "with a minimum of delay." Businesses and property owner preference rules in the redevelopment area are required by CRL to reduce the employment displacement impacts of the project. As mandated by CRL, the rules would require that the Agency extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the project area which are dislocated by Agency actions to re-enter in business within the area if they otherwise meet the requirements of the redevelopment plan. CRL and associated redevelopment plan rules would further provide that the owners of an acquired property be given the reasonable opportunity to participate in the project, provided that such participation is consistent with the requirements and goals and objectives of the plan.' Compliance with these rules is expected to reduce potential adverse displacement impacts to less than significant levels. d. Cumulative Impacts In addition to the land use changes that are anticipated within the project area as a result of the project, other land development will also continue to occur in areas of South San Francisco outside the project area and in surrounding north San Mateo County communities. The character of this outlying development would be controlled primarily by the general plan policies of the respective communities. Development projects anticipated (i.e., recently approved) in the project vicinity include the final phases of the Brosnan condominium project (i.e., the last approximately 40 units of this 232 unit development) at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and Willow Avenue opposite the project area, and the proposed First National Bank three-story office building (approximately 14,600 square feet) recently approved for construction at 975 EI Camino Real also opposite the project area. The largest concentration of new development activity under construction or recently approved is located in the business park/industrial area (Planning Area 1 in the City's general plan) east of the Bayshore Freeway between SFO and Brisbane, including the Gateway Business Park and Shearwater projects. Other projects recently approved or currently under construction in the City include the Terrabay project on the west side of the Bayshore Freeway north of Hillside Boulevard (193 of the 719 total residential units planned are currently under construction; ahotel/trade center/office/restaurant complex has also been approved), two smaller residential projects along or near Hillside Boulevard (Foothill Estates r and Sunshine Villas at 17 and 30 units respectively), three residential projects near r Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard (the Sunrise and St. Francis Heights 'Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Subchapter 1, in Chapter 6, Department of Housing and Community Development Programs of Title 25, Housing and Community Development Law. 5221FElRIIV-A-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.A. Land Use Factors April 13, 1993 Page 83 r subdivisions on Carter Drive below Skyline Boulevard, and the Carter Park 2 project--46, 35, r and 85 units respectively). With the exception of the 40 Brosnan condominiums and the First National Bank office building, all of this current and anticipated development is a mile or more away from the project area, and most is located either east of Highway 101 or west of I-280. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has made projections of the year 2010 buildout capacity of South San Francisco and surrounding north San Mateo County communities in terms of housing, population, and employment growth, based primarily on development figures provided by the various cities and on adopted general plan policy (ABAG Prot ctions '92). The ABAG estimates for South San Francisco and the remainder of north San Mateo County (i.e., the nearby communities of Brisbane, Daly City, Colma, San Bruno, Pacifica, Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough) are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 indicates that, in addition to the changes in project area home and job totals anticipated between 1995 and 2010 as a result of the project (see section IV.C of this EIR for job impacts), approximately 900 more homes and 3,340 more jobs are projected elsewhere in the City. Similarly, Table 4 indicates that in addition to this cumulative South San Francisco growth, another approximately 4,450 households and 15,750 jobs are projected elsewhere in north San Mateo County between 1995 and 2010 (i.e., in the nearby communities of Brisbane, Daly City, San Bruno, Pacifica, Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough). These anticipated local and subregional cumulative buildout increments are consistent with the land use parameters set forth in the general plans of City of South San Francisco and the other respective communities and would not be expected to result in significant cumulative adverse land use impacts. However, the subregional growth increment would contribute to cumulative subregional traffic and air quality impacts, and the citywide growth would contribute to cumulative local sewer, water, storm drainage and other public service impacts. These cumulative impacts are addressed in corresponding subsequent sections of this EIR. e. Growth-Inducing Impacts Growth inducement would be an inherent, beneficial impact (i.e., a goal) of the proposed redevelopment plan, general plan amendment, and annexation. Most of the direct growth- inducing impacts of the project would be expected to be confined to the project area. However, in addition to the cumulative development described above which is anticipated in the City and subregion regardless of the project outcome, the project-facilitated development in the project area could have additional, secondary growth including impacts on the surrounding area. 5221FEJRIIV-A-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.B. Urban Design Factors April 8, 1993 Page 102 a. General Performance Standards for Pro(ect Area Residential Development Design performance standards should be implemented throughout the project area. The performance standards should be adopted as guidelines for use by the City and individual applicants in the design review process for the project area. Suggested design criteria are described below for possible incorporation into these Ciry design guidelines. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate how various listed design standards can be applied to promote accessible, neighborhood-scale residential development. The figures depict two densities of development anticipated with the proposed project--25 unit per acre townhouses and 50 unit per acre apartments or condominiums. ~) Density Transition. Changes in density between adjacent developments should be gradual and mediated in one of the following ways: (a) density transition down towards the rear property line; (b) separation of distinct density changes by a green or square; or (c) lateral reductions in density (side-to-side) along the street frontage. In addition, buildings facing each other on opposite sides of the street should be the same or similar in form and density. (2) Building Heights. To the extent possible, building heights within the project area should be no greater than three stories as measured from the grade of the nearest adjacent sidewalk to the building eave or cornice line. A fourth floor may be permitted if enclosed by a pitched roof. (Densities of up to 50 units per acre are typically achieved within these height limitations. For example, the Park Place apartment project in Mountain View, which is noted for its high design quality, is three stories to the building eave (over sub-grade parking), with a partial fourth floor enclosed by a pitched roof.) Multi-unit buildings should also step down to a maximum of one story higher (i.e., 12 feet higher) than the height permitted on an adjacent or opposite parcel (i.e., on the opposite side of the street). ~3) Street Orientation. New residential buildings should face publicly-accessible streets or ways, as shown on Figures 10 and 11, unless otherwise indicated. Main building and/or unit entrances should be clearly visible from street frontages. Taller buildings should generally be set back further than shorter buildings. (Recommended residential setbacks are contained in sections b and c on pages 103 and 107.) Garages and garage doors should not front directly onto public streets. ~(4) Building Scale. Multi-unit residential buildings should have forms characteristic of single family houses. Single family forms should be enlarged and/or adapted as appropriate r for multi-unit development. Facades should be divided into architectural modules twenty-five r (25) to forty (40) feet in width. As shown on Figures 10 and 11, modules may be created by changes in roof line, projecting or recessing wall surfaces, window groupings, and/or entrance porches, balconies, and bay windows. Architectural elements that create space or 5221FE1RIlV-B-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Housing, Population, and Employment April 13, 1993 Page 113 C. HOUSING, POPULATION, AND EMPLOYMENT This EIR section describes the existing housing, population, employment, and jobs/housing ratio characteristics in the City, the impacts of the project on these factors, and measures warranted to mitigate any identified significant adverse impacts. The primary data source for these discussions was the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and its recent Pro~ctions '92 report. Current ABAG demographic data is generally consistent with 1990 Census figures for the City. Any significant differences between ABAG and U.S. Census data are identified in the discussion. 1. HOUSING a. Settincl ~1) Existing and Proiected Housing Units in South San Francisco. As shown in Table 5, ABAG data indicates that there were an estimated 18,562 households and a similar number of housing units in the City of South San Francisco in 1990.' By the year 2010, ABAG estimates that under current general plan policies, 1,428 households will be added to the City for a total of 19,990 housing units. As shown in Table 5, this increment would represent a household increase of 7.7 percent for the City between 1990 and 2010, a slightly larger percentage than the combined 7.4 percent average increase anticipated for all of the cities in northern San Mateo County. (2) Existina and Anticipated Housing Units in the Redevelopment Area. There are approximately nine existing residential units within the project area. One new housing r development, a 96-unit Camino Court condominium project, has received land use approval. As explained in the Land Use section of this EIR (IV.A.1.c), the rate of development in the project area with no redevelopment assistance, no general plan changes, and no McLellan property annexation, could be expected to remain very low. Assumed housing growth in the project area between now and 2010 without the project is summarized in Table 3 and diagrammed on Figure 5 of the Land Use section. Including the 96 units recently approved, a total of i51 net additional residential units are projected 'The 1990 U.S. Census estimated that there were 19,081 housing units in the City, a difference of 1,239 units, or 6.7 percent. 5221FEIRIIV-C-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April- 13, 1993 Final EIR IV.C. Housing, Population, and Employment Page 118 In meeting these housing affordability requirements, project housing assistance activities would be expected to result in beneficial housing impacts by providing a substantial number of additional affordable units in South San Francisco which would not be available without the project. ~3) Housing Displacement Impacts. The boundaries of the plan area were specifically r designed to avoid displacement of existing homes. However, it is anticipated that the six r units which currently exist on the Harmonious Holdings property (1410 EI Camino Real) and r the three units which currently exist on the Oak Farms Ltd. property (150 Oak Farm Road and 915-919 Grand Avenue) would be displaced by the anticipated project facilitated development. If necessary, the proposed redevelopment plan would allow the Agency to employ the power of eminent domain over existing project area housing and other property. The power of eminent domain would be in effect for 12 years from the plan amendment adoption date (i.e., to 2005, assuming a 1993 adoption date). As explained earlier in section IV.A (Land Use), current California Redevelopment Law (CRL) provisions would limit the adverse displacement impacts of such private property acquisition by eminent domain, if it were to occur. Provision of relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced persons would be required.' Assistance must include payment for moving expenses and losses of personal property, and may include an additional amount to compensate for the difference between the fair market value paid to a residential property owner for the property and the cost of a comparable replacement property. If housing is lost through future Agency action, the Agency is obliged replace that housing within four years of its elimination as specified in CRL and in the Agency's relocation and replacement rules. Compliance with these rules would be expected to reduce potential adverse household displacement and housing elimination impacts of the project to less than significant levels. c. Cumulative Housing Impacts New residential development projects currently anticipated (i.e., recently approved) in the project vicinity are limited to the final phases of the Brosnan condominium project at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and Willow Avenue, opposite the project site. Other residential projects approved or currently approved citywide include the Terrabay project on the west side of the Bayshore Freeway (719 total residential units planned; 193 currently 'Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines in Chapter 6, Subchapter 1, Department of Housing and Community Development Programs of Title 25, Housing and Community Development Law. 5221FElRIIV-C-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR IV.C. Housing, Population, and Employment Page 119 r under construction), two smaller subdivisions along or near Hillside Boulevard (47 total r units), and three subdivisions near Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard (166 units). The ABAG projections in Table 5 indicate that approximately 1,277 additional housing units are anticipated elsewhere in the City (i.e., outside the project area) between now and the year 2010.' In addition, the Table 5 figures indicate that another approximately 6,215 added housing units are expected to develop in other north San Mateo County communities between now and 2010. These total project plus cumulative housing unit increments would not in and of themselves constitute a significant direct adverse environmental impact. The indirect environmental effects of these cumulative housing increases are described in the Traffic, Noise, Public Services, and Air Quality sections of this EIR. d. Mitigation Measures ~1) Housing Stock Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. ~2) Impacts on Meeting Special Housing Needs. No significant adverse impact have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. ~(3) Housing Displacement Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. (4) Cumulative Housing Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 2. POPULATION a. Setting ~1) Estimated 1990 Population in South San Francisco. As shown in Table 5, there were an estimated 54,337 people residing in the City of South San Francisco in 1990.2 f2) Projected Buildout Population in South San Francisco. As shown in Table 5, the population residing in South San Francisco is projected to reach approximately 58,900 by '1,428 from Table 3, minus 151 net "no project" units in the project area, = 1,272. ZAssociation of Bay Area Governments, Projections '92, July 1992, page 216. The 1990 Census included a similar population figure of 54,312. 5221FEIRIIV-C-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR IV.D. Transportation Page 125 D. TRANSPORTATION This EIR chapter describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco and the project area, the potential impacts of the project on this network, and associated mitigation needs. Local transportation system conditions are described in this chapter for the following scenarios: ^ Existing; ^ Year 2010 "Base Case" (i.e., anticipated future traffic conditions without the project); and ^ Year 2010 "Base Case plus Project" (i.e., anticipated future traffic conditions with adoption and implementation of the proposed EI Camino Corridor redevelopment plan, general plan amendment, and annexation). For the two future, year 2010 scenarios, the following conditions have also been assumed: ^ Wherever a new signal is warranted at a "study intersection" by projected traffic conditions, the signal has been assumed to be in place. ^ The new Hickey Boulevard BART station (see Figures 3 and 7) will be completed and operational by the year 2010 (and will be generating increased traffic). ^ The proposed Hickey Boulevard extension at the north side of the BART station site (see Figure 3), including the City-constructed section to the city limits, and the county- r constructed section from the city limits to Hillside Boulevard (in Colma) will be complete and operational by the year 2010.' ^ The proposed "New Street" at the south side of the Hickey Boulevard BART station (see Figures 3 and 7) will be completed by BART, and will be operational by the year 2010. 'The section of the Hickey Boulevard extension between EI Camino Real and Mission Road is included in the City's current program of capital improvements and is expected to be completed in the near future. Construction of a new US 101/Hillside Boulevard interchange is also proceeding. This EIR traffic analysis assumes that these two improvements will provide the impetus for county- completion of the planned Mission Road-to-Hillside Boulevard segment of the Hickey extension within the next 18 years (by 2010) in order to meet increased demands for an east-west arterial connection to the new US 101/Hiltsdale interchange. 5221FEIR1IV-D-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR IV.D. Transportation Page 135 calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop-sign controlled are also evaluated using the LOS scale. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS designations pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop-sign control analysis LOS designations are computed for individual turn and through movements rather than for the entire intersection. Tables 9 and 10 summarize level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections. In the unsignalized methodology, the capacity of the major street is not tested. Instead, the hourly volumes for each minor movement are compared to the capacity of that movement. The difference between the capacity and the volume is called the "reserve capacity" for the movement. A level of service letter designation is then given to the reserve capacity of the tested minor movement to describe the level of operation. r'2) Typical LOS Standards. Level of Service (LOS) D is generally considered by most Bay Area municipal transportation planners to be the poorest acceptable level of operation for signalized and all-way stop intersections; LOS E is generally considered to be the poorest acceptable level for unsignalized intersection turn movements. (3) Existing Level of Service Ratings. Table 11 presents existing level of service ratings for all study intersections. Currently, the majority of study intersections are operating at acceptable LOS levels during the weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours. However, six of the study intersections are operating at unacceptable LOS levels, and thus are identified in this EIR as significant existing impact locations. Ally Peak Hour. During the AM peak hour, one intersection, EI Camino Real/Mission Road, currently operates at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F). PM Peak Hour. The following six intersections currently operate at unacceptable service levels during the PM peak hour: ^ EI Camino Real/Westborough LOS F Drive/Chestnut Avenue' ^ Westborough Drive/Junipero LOS E Serra Boulevard' ^ Hickey Boulevard/S.R. 280 LOS E Northbound RampsZ (Daly City) r 'Signalized. ZAII-way stop 5221FEIRlIV-D-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.D. Transportation April 13, 1993 Page 149 ~6) BART Extension Plans. Plans are being formulated by SamTrans and BART to extend BART from Daly City to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) via an alignment that would pass though the EI Camino Corridor via the SPTCO railroad right-of-way. The extension plans also call for construction of a South San Francisco BART Station within the project area at Hickey Boulevard just south of the planned Hickey Boulevard Extension (see Figure 3). EI Camino Real would border the BART site to the west, Mission Road to the east, and a "New Street" to the south. Figure 7 in section IV.A of this EIR (Land Use) shows a proposed preliminary layout of the r new station. The layout indicates that BART would construct a "New Street" along the south side of the station, connecting EI Camino Real and Mission Road. Figure 14 diagrams the BART station roadway configuration. The New Street would have two lanes with separate left and right turn lanes at its "T" intersections with EI Camino Real and Mission Road. Figure 7 also indicates that the BART station would have driveway intersections with EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard Extension, New Street, and Mission Road. The driveway connecting to EI Camino Real (allowing right turns in and out only due to the raised median along EI Camino) would provide auto access to the BART parking structure and akiss-and- ride drop-off area. It would connect to the driveway accessing the Hickey Boulevard Extension (where right turns in and out only would be allowed). Two driveways would be provided along New Street, one serving a loop drive to the BART station, primarily for bus access, and one providing auto access to the parking structure. All turn movements would be allowed at both driveway connections. No parking would be allowed along New Street. Three driveways are planned along Mission Road: two would serve each end of a U-shaped bus stop/kiss-and-ride drop-off area, and one would serve a small parking lot. All turn movements would be allowed at these driveways. 2. IMPACTS a. Significance Criteria For purposes of this EIR, the following criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of circulation impacts identified in this study: ^ if an existing signalized or all-way stop intersection currently operating at Level of Service A, B, C, or D deteriorates to LOS E operation (or worse) with the addition of projected future traffic (2010 Base Case conditions or 2010 Base Case-plus-Project conditions), the impact is to be considered significant and will require mitigation. If an existing stop sign-controlled turn movement deteriorates to LOS F operation with the addition of future traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and will require mitigation. 5221FEIRIIV-D-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR IV.E. Noise Page 206 responsible for implementing the mitigation measures identified below. As part of their individual project-approval and project-assistance activities, the City and Agency should strongly advocate the implementation of these measures. a. Noise Impacts of BART-Facilitated Subway Option The project-facilitated subway option would eliminate BART train noise impacts through the project area. No additional noise mitigation would be necessary. b. Traffic Noise Increases within the Proiect Area The noise compatibility of future residential and other development in the project area should be assessed during individual project environmental review. As a condition of individual residential project approvals in the project area, mitigation measures should be required as warranted to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor use areas to below CNEL- 65 and additionally reduce interior noise levels to below CNEL-45 in habitable rooms. In addition, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes standards that apply to all new multi-family residential units in California. These standards require that all multi- family buildings to be located in areas where the existing Ldp exceeds 60 dBA must have an acoustical study performed to identify acoustical measures which may be required in order to limit maximum interior Ldp noise levels to 45 dBA in any habitable room. c. Citywide Traffic -Noise Increases No significant project-related impacts have been identified; no mitigations are necessary. d. Aircraft Noise Impacts The majority of the site would be exposed to single-event noise levels that would be considered excessive and potentially interfere with indoor activities, particularly for residential areas. As a condition of development approval and/or project assistance, all project- facilitated residential projects in the project area should be designed to achieve the r necessary exterior to interior noise reduction to meet the single-event criterion limits (i.e., 50 r dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other inhabitable rooms) and the City's Interior Noise r Standard (i.e., CNEL-45). This would require specific studies at the development stage for each individual project to outline the steps necessary to comply with the applicable standards. e. Construction Noise Impacts Construction period noise impacts associated with project facilitated residential and commercial development can be substantially reduced by the implementation of the following measures. These mitigations should be required as a condition of any 5221FEIRUV-E-R.522 ~'f~\Z / V •i~' ws ti ss: z..s ::: z ~: :1. ~'••zz ,~ ~ _ S (f~~ y~ .,. ~. ..:. ~~~ ~t ,~ ,t > ..., aA ~. ,ate rr 4` y.. .•~~~. ,~ w _ ~ D~_%tiJ' ~~~ i;_~j~3 /.' / '~ _" ter,-'~''~ ': ~~ ~' W d ~ 7 LL J/ ~a O O ,a /L7/~ W / % ~~ O n i O ~. ~:~~~~ .t:M1• r ~~~~;' C 3%'. ~ 4 , \ ,~~. 'F_ ' ~ U ~ ~ ` ~ O °~~' ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -.. ~ C ~~ Q 0 O ~ ~ C ~ t 4 Q~ U U C ,,,. C C ~ `~ t~ RS C ~~ S~ ! C ~ L 0 ~ Q ,~. 'rte ' 0 LL LL ~ °' Q U a c ~ ~ Z Z Q O O J N N °~ ~ s ~i Q W ` ~' `' ~ O ~ N v' .tv_ :..~ ~ ~~!~~ .~' a ~' ;~l,~G::._ 1 ~a ~~i; ~i.~.';4~=!'~v~~•fii^''-= ~s{ '• a '•.•~ „{/ _.r•: i~ .,.,s= :~ o _ ~ .cam, .\~ 'i ' i.~ /. 1 ~~'. .:. rn d to m N V N c v 0 0 Q w W U 0 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Page 219 ~1) Colma Creek. Within the project area, increased runoff into Colma Creek should be mitigated through construction of an improved, higher capacity channel section or through provision of onsite stormwater detention facilities. Any new channel section design would have to accommodate runoff from a 50 year storm within a fully developed watershed, in accordance with Flood Control District standards. Alternatively, design capacity could be provided fora 100 year storm, according to FEMA standards, so that properties in the vicinity of the improved section could be removed from the designated floodplain. r It appears that the higher capacity section could be constructed within the existing 40 foot r wide drainage easement, although this cannot be determined until the channel is designed. r New easements should be obtained from any parcel owners as necessary to accommodate r such improvements. If mitigation is provided through the control of runoff from developed areas, detention facilities should be designed to prevent any increase in existing flooding along both upstream and downstream reaches of Colma Creek. (At this time, the City has no formal detention standards for the Colma Creek watershed. It is recommended that a flood control engineering analysis be prepared to determine the amount of detention needed throughout the project area to adequately protect adjoining properties.) ~2) stormwater Collection. Onsite stormwater collection facilities for new development within the project area would have to be designed to handle the runoff from a 10 year recurrence interval storm, in accordance with City of South San Francisco engineering standards. This design criteria would also apply to the replacement or relocation of existing storm drain lines and channels that now serve properties located upstream of EI Camino Real and Mission Road. Sufficient capacity would have to be provided within new facilities to accommodate peak rates of runoff expected to result from build-out of each upstream watershed. It is recommended that the design of individual development sites also include overland release routes to carry excess runoff during extreme (greater than 10 year recurrence interval) storm events. Overland release is normally provided within slightly lower parking lots and landscaped areas that are graded to drain to the stormwater outlet. This grading approach concentrates floodwaters into designated open areas and away from buildings and other site improvements. Before the County Center site is redeveloped with housing, the City should investigate the cause and determine the extent of flooding that occurs along Mission Road between Evergreen Avenue and Oak Avenue. If it is found that this flooding could occasionally cut off future access into this site and other properties along Mission Road, cause localized damage, or create a hazardous condition on Mission Road, then common drainage improvements should be constructed to upgrade the system's capacity and prevent future debris blockages. 5221FEIRIIV-F-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer April 8, 1993 Page 219-A ~3) Floodinq. New development within designated 100 year flood zones would have to be constructed in accordance with FEMA regulations, with all residential floor elevations raised above maximum expected flood levels. 5221FE1RIIV-F-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Page 220 ~4) Water Quality. As a condition of future individual development approvals or project assistance, the development sponsors should be required to prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan for implementation throughout the construction period. This plan should be prepared in conformance with City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and Association of Bay Area Governments design standards. r An NPDES construction permit would have to be obtained from the RWQCB for all project- facilitated development projects that would result in the disturbance of more than five acres. The terms of this permit would require that project development not cause any increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters. It is expected that implementation of the erosion control plan outlined above would satisfy all NPDES erosion sedimentation requirements, but additional provisions would be needed for the proper handling and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials. Post-Construction Measures. Post-construction non-point source pollution control measures specified in the NPDES permits for individual developments in the project area should include techniques and maintenance practices designed to permit the effective, on-going removal of non-point source pollutants from the site's surface water runoff. These measures should be based on the latest Best Construction Techniques and Best Management Practices, as identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the RWQCB. All recommended techniques and maintenance practices should also include provisions for funding of these measures. It is recommended that they include, at a minimum, the following provisions for each individual development project: r r ^ To the extent possible, stormwater runoff should be directed through grassy swales before it is discharged from the site, to permit some removal of sediments and heavy metal contaminants. ^ In addition, skimmers and grease traps should be built into selected storm drain manholes and catch basins to trap debris and remove oil and grease. 5221FEIRIIV-F-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Page 222 ~2) Project Area Water Distribution System. The existing water distribution system in the project area vicinity is well developed, and there appears to be sufficient excess capacity to accommodate higher density development.' On the east side of Colma Creek, a water main that varies between 10 and 12 inches in diameter extends the length of Mission Road (except fora 450 foot section of 8 inch main located north of Oak Avenue), and continues north into the City of Colma. This main serves all areas to the east of Colma Creek, and also supplies water storage tanks located above Hillside Boulevard. On the west side of Colma Creek, an existing 12 inch main runs along EI Camino Real from Del Paso Drive to the south end of Macy's warehouse. This line is supplied by a 12 inch main in Del Paso Drive that is connected through the neighborhood distribution system to CWSC's primary SFWD feed on San Felipe Avenue. Two 12 inch cross connections in the vicinity of Kaiser Medical Center connect EI Camino Real to Mission Road, and an 8 inch looped system provides water to all parts of the hospital site. The Macy's Service Center site at the north end of the project area is supplied by a 12 inch main that crosses EI Camino Real from the shopping center on the southwest corner of the Hickey Boulevard/EI Camino Real wye. There are currently no plans to connect this main to the 12 inch EI Camino Real line that ends at the south end of the warehouse site. These systems are already interconnected through a cross connection at the EI Camino Real/Mission Road intersection in the City of Colma. The motel site on the north side of the wye is supplied by an existing 4 inch water line, which is connected to an 8 inch line that crosses Hickey Boulevard in the vicinity of Camaritas Avenue. Future development on the 30.9-acre McLellan site would be served by the 12 inch EI Camino Real main that now ends at the south end of the Macy's site. This line could be made into a looped distribution system by providing new connections through the McLellan property at either Alta Loma Drive or Camaritas Avenue. This interconnection would give the site better water supply, and would also improve offsite water circulation and flow capacity along EI Camino Real between the Hickey Boulevard extension and Del Paso Drive. (3) SFWD Main. A 60-inch diameter SFWD water main runs through the project area, r generally following the west side of Colma Creek. The main is located within a 50-foot wide easement that veers away from the creek to avoid an existing PG&E substation located at the south end of the proposed BART station site. The easement continues across the middle of the BART station site and through the rear third of the Macy's Service Center property. This existing main will represent a significant constraint to development on these three parcels, since only limited amounts of fill may be placed over the water line and no permanent structures are allowed within the easement. The impact of this constraint could be reduced by moving the water line and easement back to the creek, away from the 'Eugene Gravelle, Ibid., October 5, 1992. 5221FEIRIIV-F-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Page 226 decline in demand since 1984.' This figure includes wastewater produced within the City, r as well as within San Bruno and parts of Daly City and Colma. (Approximately 450,000 r gpd of this capacity is reserved for Colma.) A sewer master plan prepared in 1980 determined that the treatment plant has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate build-out of the remaining undeveloped areas of South San Francisco, in accordance with the land uses and residential densities set forth in the current general plan? The master plan also concluded that the treatment plant experiences significantly higher rates of flow during wet weather, when infiltration and inflow (I&I) surcharge the collection system with groundwater and stormwater runoff. The treatment plant has a rated wet weather capacity of 30 mgd, and there are no reports that high I&I flows have resulted in the discharge of raw or partially treated wastewater directly into the Bay.' However, the master plan recommended that major sources of I&I, such as drainage cross connections and trunk sewers with high leakage rates, be repaired to reduce peak wet weather flow rates and prevent future direct discharges.` (2) Wastewater Collection--Trunk Sewers. The Colma Creek trunk sewer runs from northwest to southeast along the east side of the creek. This truck line serves the western portion of the City, including the project area, and terminates at a pumping station located at San Mateo Avenue. Wastewater flows by gravity to this station, and is then pumped through a force main to the treatment plant. The design capacity of this station could not be determined, but there are no reports that the pumps have failed to keep up with gravity inflow, even during the rainy seasons In the vicinity of the project area, the Colma Creek trunk sewer is composed of two parallel lines that follow Mission Road. Both lines are 15 inches in diameter at the Colma boundary, and increase in size to 18 inches by the time they reach Sequoia Avenue. Just north of Oak Avenue, these lines join into a single 18-inch line that increases to 24 inches r in diameter at Chestnut Avenue.6 The reserve capacity committed to the City of Colma is r approximately 780 gpm or 20 percent of the capacity available in this trunk sewer. '"Land Use, Circulation, and Transportation Elements of the General Plan," City of South San Francisco, amended June, 1986. 2"Land Use, Circulation, and Transportation Elements of the General Plan," City of South San Francisco, amended June, 1986. 3Gene Garza, Op.Cit., October 7, 1992. `City of South San Francisco, Ibid., June, 1986. SGene Garza, Op.Cit., October 7, 1992. 6Existing sewer line sizes and slopes are taken from City of South San Francisco Sewer and Drainage Base Maps. 5221FEIRIIV-F-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR IV.F. Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Page 230 current zoning would produce an average of roughly 383,700 gallons of wastewater per day.' The average flow calculated above for the proposed project would exceed this by approximately 900,000 gpd. The estimated increase in wastewater production within the project area with the proposed project would equal approximately 14 percent of the treatment plant's current, 6.5 million gpd average daily flow, and would be well within the plant's rated dry weather capacity of 13 mgd, so it is not expected that the proposed project alone would have a significant impact on the City's wastewater treatment capability. j3) Wastewater Collection--Trunk Sewers. Redevelopment of the project area as anticipated would increase peak rates of wastewater flow within the existing Mission Road trunk sewer.2 Comparative estimates of project area peak flow in gallons per minute (gpm) and as a percentage of existing trunk sewer capacity, with or without the project, are provided below: 2010 Base Case w/o Project 2010 Base Case Location on (Current with Project Mission Road Existing General Plan) (Proposed GPA) r Grand Avenue 253/4% 511/8% 1264/24% r Oak Avenue 359/9% 770/19% 1630/49% r Chestnut Avenue 359/5% 799/12% 1673/26% Note: These fable figures represent peak flow from the project area, expressed as gallons r per minute and as a percentage of total sewer capacity at each location. Available capacity r is 780 gpm less than the total sewer capacity to allow for the commitment to the Town of r Colma. The existing Colma Creek trunk sewer in Mission Road provides the only gravity sewer outlet for the project area, except for a portion of the McLellan site, which could drain to Alta Loma Drive. As can be seen in the table, the anticipated project facilitated development increase would require a significant portion of the~Mission Road trunk sewer capacity at build-out, particularly within the lowest capacity section at Oak Avenue. It is not known if the existing Mission Road lines have sufficient capacity to accommodate higher rates of wastewater production within the project area. The City Street Department reports no significant 'A wastewater production rate of 3500 gpd/gross acre is used for undeveloped commercial areas. 2Peak flow rates used to determine pipe capacity are expressed in gallons per minute (gpm). They are calculated by dividing average daily flow by 1440 (minutes in a day) and then multiplying times a peak factor of 3.0. 5221FEIRIIV-F-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 . Final EIR IV.G. Other Public Services Page 238 services. Using the standard ratio of officers per 1,000 population of 1.35, the anticipated residential growth and corresponding increase in population of approximately 7,890, would require approximately ten additional officers over the next 18 or more years to maintain the existing ratio of officers to population. Business growth encouraged or facilitated by the project could also result in an increase in police calls and related enforcement services, although to a substantially lower degree than population growth. However, other considerations indicate that a direct per capita computation may overstate the project impact. Beat 3 already serves the project area (i.e., patrolling already occurs). The project related population and business growth would result in increased demands for typical poiice services such as routine patrolling and response to calls regarding domestic disputes, suspicious persons, burglaries, and disturbances of the peace. These project- related police needs would primarily impact field and investigative operations. Impacts on administrative activities would also be less. Based on these considerations, it is estimated that requirements for new police personnel would total five to seven additional officers due to project-facilitated buildout of the project area by the year 2010, or a need for one additional officer every two to three years between 1995 and 2010. This increase in police service demand would represent a significant adverse impact. No new station facilities r would be required to accommodate these new officers.' However, other associated r equipment and training costs would be incurred as a result of development in the project r area. The project-facilitated undergrounding of BART would not create any unique or significant impacts on the provision of local police services. c. Mitigation (1) The following measures should be implemented to reduce police protection impacts to a less than significant level: ^ The rate of additional police calls per year associated with the project area should be monitored by the Police Department. As warranted by the monitoring data, additional officers should be employed. ^ While no new station facilities would be required to accommodate the new officers, the r monitoring data may indicate that additional patrol units, other police equipment, and r officer training costs may be required as the project area builds out. (2) While not necessary to offset identified impacts, the police department has also indicated that the following conditions should be applied to individual developments facilitated by the project: r ^ gate controlled or otherwise restricted garage access should be required; 'Petrocchi; January 7, 1993. 5221FEIR1IV-G-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.G. Other Public Services April 8, 1993 Page 239 ^ residential units should be designed to create a sense of "territoriality" with primary living areas oriented to accommodate observation of the project area; ^ projects above four stories with common hallway access should be avoided; ^ adequate resident and street parking should be provided; ^ resident parking should be covered and should have restricted access; r ^ projects should contain adequate exterior and interior illumination; and ^ adequate onsite management and maintenance/security should be provided. 2. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES a. Bettina {1) General. Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided throughout the City by the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The City has an automatic aid agreement with the City of Daly City and also participates in the County Mutual Aid program. The City's Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating is two on a scale of one to ten, with ten representing the most hazardous condition. ~2) Fire Department Facilities and Personnel. The SSFFD's services are provided from five fire stations in the City. There is currently a total of 83 employees in the Fire Department, including six chief officers, four prevention personnel, one medical coordinator, three clerical staff, and 69 firefighters. The current level of staffing represents 1.5 firefighters per 1,000 population. The recognized standard per capita ratio is 1.7 firefighters per 1,000. Station 3, which is located at Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo Drive, is the primary station for the project area. This station is staffed by one captain, two firefighters, and two paramedics, and contains one fire engine and one ambulance. Central Station, located at 201 Baden Avenue, and Station 5, located at 1151 South San Francisco Drive, provide backup service to the project area. ~3) Fire Department Response Times. The Department can provide an average response to fire or medical emergency calls in the project area within four minutes. This performance is consistent within the Department's response time objectives. b. Project Impacts Development encouraged or facilitated by the project would create the need for increased SSFFD emergency medical and fire protection services. 5221FEIRUV-G-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.G. Other Public Services April 9, 1993 Page 240 ~1) Increased Call Volume. The SSFFD indicates that increases in emergency call volume could be expected at a rate of approximately 42 calls per year per 1,000 population, or approximately 330 additional calls per year from anticipated project residents by the year 2010. The annual rate of increase would be approximately 22 additional calls per year between 1995 and 2010.' These population-related additional calls for service would require additional resources for all areas of fire department support; i.e., maintenance, facilities, training, equipment, and apparatus. These added fire service needs would represent a significant impact. r L2) Special Equipment Needs. Since project-facilitated development would not exceed four stories under existing City standards, special additional training, equipment, and apparatus for vertical fires would not be required. j3) BART Undergrounding. The undergrounding of BART would not create any unique or significant additional impacts on the provision of fire protection services. The South San Francisco Fire Department has participated in the design of the proposed subway alternative to ensure that all necessary fire-related design features are included in the design of the system. c. Mitigation The following mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce project fire protection impacts to a less than significant level. ~1) Increased Service Demand Impacts. The rate of additional fire calls per year from the project area should be monitored by the Fire Department. As warranted by this data, r additional fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and related equipment should be added as needed to maintain current standards. ~2) Individual Project Requirements. The SSFFD also recommends that future individual r project-facilitated developments contain features to minimize fire impacts.2 The SSFFD should review individual, project-facilitated development proposals to assure compliance with City construction and planning requirements for access and other fire protection standards, r and to determine the specific fire protection features necessary for each development. 'Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal, letter to Wagstaff and Associates, January 11, 1993. 21bid. 5221FElRIIV-G-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.G. Other Public Services April 8, 1993 Page 244 and vibration impacts to park users, the negative impact of track fencing and trenches, loss of existing trees; etc.;' ^ similarly, the undergrounding of the BART line would eliminate the adverse visual, noise-related, and safety impacts on the Francisco Terrace Tot Lot located south of the project area along the alignment of the retained cut alternative? and ^ the undergrounding would also eliminate the adverse visual, noise, and safety impacts on outdoor recreational areas at Los Cerritos Elementary School and South San Francisco High School. 3. Miti aq tion Implementation of the following measures by the Redevelopment Agency or by individual project facilitated developments would offset identified adverse park and recreation impacts to less than significant levels: r ~a) Mini-Parks. Construct and maintain mini-parks as the need develops in the project area to comply with the 1/4 mile radius standard, and require dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees (as per City Ordinance 19.24) for the remaining fair share of the 25 acres of required municipal parkland not otherwise provided as described below. r (b) Neighborhood Park. Construct and maintain a neighborhood park in the project area or nearby; e.g., on the vacant and/or surplus school land at the Alta Loma or EI Rancho School sites. The Alta Loma School surplus site represents a particularly good opportunity for development of a neighborhood park to serve the project area due to (1) its proximity to the McLellan Nursery site, (2) its ability to function as a buffer between the potential new multifamily development on the McLellan site and the existing Sierra Vista neighborhood, and (3) its District-designated "surplus" status. ~c) Community Linear Park. The City and Redevelopment Agency should require future r individual, private development projects in the area to set aside, improve, and establish r procedures for maintenacne of the land area necessary to implement the linear park along the line of the former Colma Creek as delineated on the Master Plan Diagram, page 18, of the City's Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. r All new parkland established as a result of project mitigation should be maintained through r special districts. Private landscaping on individual projects should be maintained by the r project owner or a homeowners association. 'City of South San Francisco Final Comments--May 4, 1992, proposed BART-SFO Extension Draft AA/DEIS/DEIR, page 22. 21bid., page 21. 5221FE/R11V-G-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 4. ROAD MAINTENANCE Final EIR IV.G. Other Public Services Page 245 The following section describes project impacts on road maintenance and identifies associated mitigation needs. 1. Setting Roads in South San Francisco are maintained by the City's Department of Public Works, Maintenance Division. The total annual budget for this division is $1.3 million per year, which is funded by the City's general fund and state gas tax allocation. Approximately 70 percent of this road maintenance budget is used for patching or overlaying existing roads. Existing roads within the project area include EI Camino Real, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, and Antoinette Lane. The Hickey Boulevard extension will also be located within the project area. 2. Impacts ~1) Long-Term. The proposed project facilitated changes would not result in the creation of any additional new roads to be maintained by the City which would not otherwise be constructed. (The new BART station street would be constructed with or without the project. It is assumed that internal neighborhood streets within individual projects would be privately constructed and maintained.) However, as described in section IV.D of this EIR, Transportation, the project would result in the addition of 14,790 two-way vehicle trips per day on City streets, or approximately 1,000 additional trips per average year. This r increment would gradually and significantly increase road maintenance requirements and r associated costs. ~2) Construction Period. Construction of project residential and commercial development would require the temporary use of heavy equipment and trucks on project area roads during the project construction period, which could cause significant damage and/or increased maintenance requirements. 3. Mitigation (1) Long-Term Impacts. Project increases in long-term road maintenance requirements would be mitigated to insignificant levels by substantial project-facilitated increases in property tax, sales tax, and businesses tax contributions to the general fund, and in project- related increases in state gas tax subventions to the City. ~) Short-Term Construction Period Impacts. Project related heavy equipment and truck traffic which cause damage to local roadways should be required to repair all related damage to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 5221FE1RIIV-G-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco V. Project Consistency with Adopted Local and Regional Plans April 13, 1993 Page 284 The design of buildings on infill properties should be compatible with surrounding uses. (Policy 13, p. 15.) r The proposed general plan amendment (GPA) includes a number of additional policies in support of this objective, including policies 11-2, 11-5, 11-7, and 11-11 (see section III.D.2 of this EIR). Additional measures to help implement this policy are also recommended in section IV.B of this EIR (Visual and Urban Design Factors). r Nonresidential and multiple-family, condominium, and townhouse residential uses should not be allowed to encroach into established single family detached residential areas. (Policy 21, p. 19.) Areas that should be considered for mixed use development include the Downtown Business area, Shearwater, and properties along EI Camino Real. (Policy 27, p. 21.) Mid-rise commercial and/or residential structures not exceeding five (5) stories in height should be permitted along EI Camino Real. (Policy 44, p. 29.) r The City should make improvements to r drainageways, enforce floodproofing r regulations, and require the first floor of all r new buildings to be constructed above r identified flood levels. r r Major new developments should be required to pay the costs of providing additional City services commensurate with projected service demands. (Policy 68, p. 41.) Policies 11-5 and 11-7 of the proposed GPA would support this objective (see Section III.D.2 of this EIR). Additional measures to help implement this policy are also recommended in section IV.B of this EIR. The proposed GPA advocates mixed use development along EI Camino Real. Measures to help implement this policy are recommended in section IV.B of this EIR (Visual and Urban Design Factors). The proposed general plan amendment (GPA) includes a new policy in support of this objective; i.e., policy 11-3 (described in section III.D.2 of this EIR). Additional measures to help implement this policy are also recommended in section IV.F.1.c of this EIR. The Preliminary Report for the EI Camino Redevelopment Project calls for the implementation of this policy. Section IV.G of this EIR (Other Public Services) also suggests mitigation recommendations consistent with this policy. Planning Area 5 (Sunshine Gardens/Mission Road) Policies Polic Relationship r 5221FEIRIV-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco V. Project Consistency with Adopted Local and Regional Plans April 12, 1993 Page 291 The project is directly responsive to and consistent with San Mateo CMP policy' which calls for the creation of incentives for local jurisdictions to promote land use developments that are pedestrian and transit-oriented. r D. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED MCLELLAN SITE ANNEXATION TO THE KNOX r CORTESE ACT r The Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act is the state-mandated framework r within which proposed city annexations are considered. The following is an evaluation of r those factors set forth in the Act which Local Agency Formation Commissions must consider r in making annexation decisions? In summary, the factors include impacts on the efficient r provision of public services, impacts on adjacent areas, impacts on the orderly development r pattern of the community, impacts on agricultural preserves, clarity of ownership and r boundaries, consistency with adopted local plans, and the positions of affected servicing r agencies. r 1. Background r The McLellan property is a 30.9-acre site located in an unincorporated area within the City r of South San Francisco's Sphere of Influence. The property is an island of unincorporated r land among heavily urbanized commercial and residential areas in the city (see DEIR Figure r 2). The site is currently used as an orchid nursery and related sales outlet. No persons r reside on the property. As described on DEIR page 87, the site is located on a hill above r and to the west of EI Camino Real. The site slopes steeply to its frontage on EI Camino r Real, but is level at its frontage along Alta Loma Drive (see photographs on DEIR page 91). r The site drains into Colma Creek via stormwater inlets on EI Camino Real. r 2. Community Services r The extent of community services in the annexation area and the required steps to provide r complete community services are extensively described and evaluated in EIR sections IV.F, r Storm Drainage, Water, and Sewer Facilities, and IV.G., Other Public Services. r 3. Impacts on Adjacent Areas r The impacts of the proposed annexation on adjacent areas are extensively evaluated in EIR r sections IV.A., Land Use, and IV.B., Urban Design Factors. 'San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, November, 1992, Policy 1.5, page E-2. r 2LAFCOs, General Plans, and City Annexations, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, r January 1990. 5221FEIRIV-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 12, 1993 r 4. Development Pattern Final EIR V. Project Consistency with Adopted Local and Regional Plans Page 291-A r The development of the property would represent an orderly, efficient "infill" type of r development pattern. r 5. Inteq,rity of Agricultural Preserve r The property is not within an agricultural preserve. r 6. Clarity of Ownership and Boundaries r The property is under one ownership (i.e., L.R. McLellan). No property boundaries are r disputed. r 7. Consistency with Local Plans r The proposed annexation is consistent with the adopted general plans of the City of South r San Francisco and San Mateo County. r 8. Affected Agency r The comments of affected agencies have been incorporated into and fully addressed by this r EIR (see section IV.G). 5221FEIRIV-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 2. No Protect--Minor Growth Final EIR VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 296 ~a) Princieal Characteristics. Under the "no project--minor growth" alternative, the area would continue to change at current rates. There would be no general plan amendment increasing allowable densities in the project area, no annexation of the McLellan site, and no actions taken by the Redevelopment Agency to remove blighting conditions and stimulate investment in the project area. The proposed BART track would be constructed in a retained cut or at-grade rather than a subway design, and no funding would be provided for the covering of Colma Creek. The Agency would not have the power of eminent domain to acquire and assemble property for redevelopment purposes. Under this "no project alternative," it is assumed that the relatively stagnant economic conditions in the project area would remain. Any positive effects of the new Hickey Boulevard BART station would be offset by the blighting effects of the retained cut or at- grade configuration of the BART extension. The only other substantive change in local conditions would be completion of the Hickey Boulevard extension, which could stimulate increased interest in commercial development at the southeast corner of the EI Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard extension intersection. Development of the Harmonious Holdings property at 1410 EI Camino Boulevard with a residential project similar to the pending 96- unit condominium proposal would also be anticipated. Anticipated 1995-2010 development characteristics in the project area under this no-project scenario are further described in section IV.A.1.c of this EIR (see Figure 5). The future land use characteristics of this no- project scenario are listed in Table 31 in comparison with the other evaluated alternatives. r ~b)• Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects. The general environmental impacts of the "no project" alternative in comparison to the impacts of the project as proposed are described below: Land Use Factors. Substantially less new development of the project area would occur under this alternative. As a result, existing land use compatibility problems, under-utilization of property, parcelization problems, and other blighting land use conditions would be more likely to remain. The introduction of the BART line in a retained cut or at-grade design would create a significant noise and visual incompatibility impacts and would introduce a new physical barrier across the project area. The barrier would add to the existing parcelization problems of the area, would add new blighting conditions related to the visual appearance of the BART line and related adverse noise impacts. The mitigating effects of the no project alternative related to land use are that fewer existing businesses and residences would be displaced by new development, and the higher density residential forms and resulting land use incompatibility potentials would not be introduced. Visual and Urban Design Factors. This alternative would have little positive effect in reducing existing blighted visual conditions and lack of cohesive urban design themes in the 5221FE1RI VI-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted Page 323 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED A. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO r Jesus Armas, former City Manager r Elaine Costello, Director of Economic and Community Development Gene Garza, Acting Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) Operations Supervisor Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician Susan McCue, Economic Development Coordinator Maureen Morton, Senior Planner Michael O'Toole, City Attorney Dave Parenti, Deputy Fire Marshal Ron Petrocchi, Sergeant, Planning and Research Division, Police Department r Steve Solomon, Chief Planner Barry Nagle, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal Terry White, Superintendent, Public Works r Susy Kalkin, Associate Planner B. EL CAMINO CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE Councilmember Bob Yee Councilmember Joe Fernekes r Former Planning Commissioner Joy-Ann Wendler Planning Commissioner Michael DeZordo r Planning Commissioner Robert Mantegani C. CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Marilyn Chew, Keyser Marston Associates Cal Hollis, Keyser Marston Associates Linda Manhart, Goldfarb & Lipman Jack Nagle, Goldfarb & Lipman Paul Reimer, Reimer Associates Karen Tiedemann, Goldfarb & Lipman Robert Wetmore, Keyser Marston Associates 5221FEIR1IX-8.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.K. Cultural Resources April 13, 1993 Page IV.K-1 r K. CULTURAL RESOURCES r Possible project impacts on cultural resources are described in this EIR section. The r description is based on an archaeological records search and assessment completed by the r California Archaeological Inventory at Sonoma State University and on information contained r in various local individual project EIRs referenced in footnotes throughout this section. r 1. SETTING r a. Geographic Setting r The project area is within one mile of the San Francisco Bay shore in an area which has r been heavily urbanized with a variety of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. r Prior to the first development of the area in the 1890's, the corridor site was located near r the edge of an extensive tidal marshland habitat.' The earliest maps of the area were r made in the 1850's and are cur~ted at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California. r These maps delineate a complex system of sloughs that bordered the bay shore. The r edge of this marshland was marked by grasslands and mixed hardwood forest. r b. History r (1) Native American Period. The native peoples who occupied the project vicinity (i.e., the r San Francisco Peninsula) at the time of European contact are known as the Costanoan, a r term derived from the Spanish word "Costanos" meaning coast people. Native Americans r currently living in the Bay Area prefer the term "Ohlone" (meaning "abalone people"). r These people subsisted by hunting, fishing, and the gathering of mussels, other shellfish, r and native plants.Z The immediate ancestors of the local Costanoan people are believed to r have moved to the San Francisco region around A.D. 500 from the San Joaquin- r Sacramento River Delta area.3 r 'An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Corporation Yard for the City of South San r Francisco, California Archaeologist Consultants, Inc., November 1991. r 21bid. r 3Unnamed Archival Review of Cultural Resources on the San Francisco Peninsula, r 5221FE/RIIV-K-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR IV.K. Cultural Resources Page IV.K-2 r The project area contains one recorded cultural resource site, a Native American r archaeological village (i.e., CA-SMA-299). r (2) Spanish Period. The first Europeans to reach the San Francisco area were Spanish r explorers. The first expedition in 1769, led by Gaspar de Portola, traveled down the r peninsula as far south as present day Menlo Park. The second expedition was led by r Fernando Rivera and Fray Francisco Palou in 1774. This expedition followed an inland r route up the peninsula as far as the Golden Gate in search of a suitable mission site. A r third expedition was led by Juan Bautista de Anza in 1776. This expedition resulted in the r establishment of Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Delores). A few months later, r Mission Santa Clara de Asis was founded to the south. The EI Camino Real (the trail r established by de Anza in 1776) became a heavily traveled route between the two missions r and their outposts.' r (3) Mexican Period. During the Mexican rule of California (1822 through 1848), large r tracts of land were issued to private individuals, usually cattle ranchers and hide and tallow r traders. The project vicinity was part of Jose Antonio Sanchez's 14,639-acre Rancho Buri r Buri, one of the largest grants on the peninsula. The rancho owned 10,000 cattle and r 1,000 horses as well as several sheep herds. The rancho contained two adobe houses, a r grist mill, and boat landing on a slough from which hides and tallow produced at Buri Buri r were shipped.2 r (4) Early American Period. California became a part of the United States in 1848 as a r result of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The Gwin Act of 1851 established a commission r to settle disputes over the validity of Mexican land grants. The Sanchez Family ownership r of Buri Buri was upheld in 1852. In the following years through the 1870's, several wealthy r Americans including Charles Lux, Ansel L. Easton, and Darious O. Mills purchased r thousands of acres of the Buri Buri Rancho. By the 1850's the EI Camino Rea- had grown r into a highway traveled by wagons and stage coaches.3 The "12 Mile House," a stage r coach station constructed in 1860, is located adjacent to the project area. This station was r the origin of the community of Baden, amulti-ethnic community with an economy based on r fishing, agriculture, livestock, and meat packing. In 1908, the community was incorporated r and renamed South San Francisco. r 'Unnamed Archival Review of Cultural Resources on the San Francisco Peninsula, r r 21bid. r 31bid. 5221FEIRIIV-K-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR City of South San Francisco IV.K. Cultural Resources April 13, 1993 Page IV.K--3 r c. Undiscovered Cultural and Historical Resources r The project site is within a substantial area of potential cultural and historical resources. r The ecotone which existed between marshland and upland habitats described above was r attractive to prehistoric people who subsisted on the shellfish, marine mammals, waterfowl, r fish, grass seeds, acorns, deer, elk, antelope, and other local resources. The location of r Colma Creek through the project area increases the likelihood of past use of the area by r prehistoric peoples. The peninsula vicinity also has a rich history from the Spanish, r Mexican, and early American periods. Although the project area is heavily urbanized, it is r possible that additional undiscovered resources could still exist within the project boundary r which could be uncovered during construction related grading. r d. Rod McLellan Company Nurser r The approximately 30.9-acre Rod McLellan Co. Nursery property is currently the site of a r large greenhouse complex which has been producing orchids and other horticultural r products for wholesale and retail distribution for over 95 years. The nursery complex has r an established reputation throughout the region as a leading producer of quality orchids. r As illustrated on Figures 3 and 4 in section III of this EIR, the existing nursery complex r includes rows of greenhouses, sheds, and other ancillary structures. None of these nursery r buildings has been officially identified as architecturally significant in local, regional, r statewide, or national inventories. In addition, neither the nursery site nor any of its r individual buildings have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places, nor is the r complex included on the List of Potential Historic Resources which is maintained by the City r of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission.' r 2. IMPACTS r a. Native American Archaeological Village r Prehistoric resources (e.g., chert, obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, dark r friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials) r within the existing Native American archaeological village site in the project area could be r subject to disturbance during project-facilitated construction. Assuming that the City requires r afield inspection and evaluation of the identified cultural resource site by qualified r archaeologist prior to development of the site (i.e., an assessment of the nature and extent r of previous impacts to the resource, monitoring of subsurface construction activities such as r 'Maureen Morton, Senior Planner and staff assistant to the Commission; telephone conversation; r April 8, 1993. 5221FEIRUV-K-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 Final EIR IV.K. Cultural Resources Page IV.K--4 r grading and trenching, and proper documentation of resource finds), no significant impacts r would occur. r b. Undiscovered Cultural or Historical Resources r The proposed project would result in the construction of over 3,000 additional residential r units and 25 acres of additional commercial development and associated improvements in r an area with potentials for containing cultural and historical resources. The grading r associated with this project-facilitated construction could result in the disturbance of r undiscovered cultural or historical resources within the project area. In addition to those r prehistoric resources described above, these could include historic resources such as stone r or adobe foundations or walls, structures with square nails, and refuse deposits. Assuming r the City requires each development project to fund and carry out field investigations prior to r construction, monitoring during grading or trenching, and proper documentation of resource r finds, no significant impacts would occur. r The impact of the undergrounding of BART on cultural resources has been addressed in r the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension EIR, Volume 1, March 1992. r c. Rod McLellan Nursery Company r The proposed annexation and development of the Rod McLellan Nursery site would change r the use and character of the property from a wholesale and retail nursery complex to a r contemporary residential neighborhood of cluster housing. While such a change would not r represent a loss of a designated architecturally or historically significant structure or site, it r would nevertheless eliminate the nursery complex setting, which is an important element in r the local history of the area. r The property owner and proponent of its residential conversion has expressed the possibility r of incorporating a small retail nursery component in the proposed project as a means of r recognizing and conveying the historical background of the property. r 3. MITIGATION MEASURES r a. Native American Archaeoloclical Village r No additional mitigation would be required beyond the evaluation, monitoring, and r documentation procedures described above. r b. Undiscovered Cultural and Historical Resources r No additional mitigation would be required beyond the evaluation, monitoring, and r documentation procedures described above. 5221FElRIIV-K-R.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 r c. Rod McLellan Nursery Propert Final EIR IV.K. Cultural Resources Page IV.K-5 r Although the proposed conversion of the McLellan Nursery property to residential use would r not result in a significant impact on a designated architectural or historic resource, the r following measures are recommended as possible conditions of project approval in order to r acknowledge the historical importance of the nursery complex: r ~1) Archival Measures. The project sponsor should meet with the city's Historical r Preservation Commission to obtain the Commission's input regarding meaningful and r reasonable archival preservation. Prior to development of the property, the complex should r be photographed by a professional photographer retained by the project sponsor, and the r Rod McLellan Company should also voluntarily provide archival information to the r Commission. To the degree that such materials exist, the Company should provide from its r files historical photographs, plans, magazine and newspaper articles, and other relevant r memorabilia. r ~) Monument and/or Displays. If and when the nursery property is redeveloped, an r appropriate onsite monument and/or permanent display should be incorporated into the r project, perhaps as part of the possible retail nursery component, to commemorate the r history of the site as the Rod McLellan Nursery Company. 5 221 F E I R I I V- K -- 8.5 2 2 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 ADDITIONAL APPENDICES Final EIR Attachment Additional Appendices 5221FEIRIAPP.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Additional Appendices 5221FE1R1APP.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 APPENDIX L Final EIR Attachment Appendix L 522tFElRIAPP.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 8, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Appendix L 5221FEIRIAPP.522 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STAFF C011sMENTS ON T8E DEIR EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REVISED 3/18/93 I. POLICE A. Transportation 1. The document makes no analysis of extending Oak Avenue to El Camino Real. Past documents written on the El Camino Real Corridor Alternative BART Site Traffic Study (Wilsey & Ham, August _ 1991, page 20) concludes that an "Oak Avenue extension would be beneficial in reducing congestion along Chestnut Avenue regardless of whether the BART Station is located near Chestnut Avenue or at the ~~ Hickey Boulevard extension. The draft ECR Corridor E.I.R. should analyze this traffic mitigation alternative. 2. Policy 11-12 should be amended to read "Oak Avenue should be improved to city standards and be extended to El Camino Real." B. Police Services -Pages 237-239 1. b. Project impacts first paragraph should read: Using the standard minimum acceptable per capita ratio of 1.35 officers per 1,000 population, the anticipated residential growth and corresponding increase in population of approximately 7,890 would require approximately 11 additional officers to maintain the existing ratio of officers to population without decreasing the level of service to existing residents and business people. 2. The first paragraph and mitigation sections should also have wording added to indicate -creation of restricted on-street parking zones in residential areas adjacent to the BART Station......would result in increased demands on police parking enforcement services. These added demands would require the hiring of one additional parking enforcement officer to patrol and enforce parking regulations in the area and would also increase administrative activities to develop and administer such a program. 3. Second paragraph final se~ence should read: No new station facilities would be required to accommodate these new officers; however, other associated equipment materials and training costs would be incurred as a result of development in the project area. 4. c. Mitigation -Section 1 The second paragraph in section 1 should read ".....additional patrol units, other police equipment, and officer training costs may be required as the project area builds out." 5. c. Mitigation -Section 2 should be amended as follows: a) Gate controlled restricted complex/project access should be required. b) Projects should contain adequate exterior and interior illumination. C. Public Services Mitigation -General Several of the service sections make reference to impacts caused by project area development and related suggested mitigation measures. However, no mitigation measures are listed in reference to hiring needed personnel and ongoing future funding of these positions. Mitigation monitoring measures appear to be in order to address the fiscal impacts of development on city services in order to provide acceptable levels of service to new development without decreasing service levels to the existing community. Some wording should be added to the document that indicates personnel should be hired according to a buildout schedule based on phased projected increases in population and that someone specifically is responsible to monitor that the hiring of personnel actually takes place one year prior to these project occupancy dates. II. PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES A. Information should be included for the maintenance of the proposed new parkland (neighborhoodpark, linear park, planting strips, landscape frontages, etc.), including estimated labor, materials and services. It is recommended that the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed parklands, including street trees and planting strips, be that of homeowner's associations and/or contract services, since it is doubtful that sifficient funds would be acquired to support City maintenance. III. ENGINEERING DIVISION A. Page 222, Subsection (3) "SFWD Main" -The SFWD main is located within a 50 foot easement not a 500 foot easement. B. Page 225, Section 3 "Sewer" - An agreement exists between the City of South San Francisco and the Town of Colma to reserve 450,000 GPD of capacity in the Cohna Creek trunk sewer and the City wastewater treatment facilities. This capacity reservation will limit the sewage flow that can be drained from the project area into the 18" sewer main located within Mission Road. The effect of this reservation should be analyzed and discussed within the appropriate subsections of the "sewer" section. Also, the "one or more new pump stations and force mains" that will have to be maintained by the City will require constant maintenance and repair services and the payment of energy costs. The City's pump stations are maintained by Water Quali8ty Control Plant personnel who will have to drive from the plant location at Belle Air Road and South Airport Boulevard to the site to service the stations -- approximately atwenty-minute trip each way. The magnitude of this expense on the City's budget and personnel should be discussed. C. Page 245, Section 4 "Road Maintenance" -the document recommends the construction of a 40' wide public parkway with bicycle path, sidewalk, landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and a soundwall. This parkway will require a considerable amount of City services and funds to maintain. the sidewalk and bike path must be swept and repaired, the lights and irrigation facilities will require constant repairs due to vandalism and the electrical charges must be paid. The proposed sound wall will have to be constantly cleaned and painted to remove graffiti. The recommended new traffic signals will require continuous expenditures of manpower and funds to service, maintain, repair, and energize the signal equipment. Also, new sanitary sewers and storm drains installed due to the project will have to be maintained by the City's Public Works Division. The cost to the City in manpower, equipment and funds to maintain, repair and service these facilities should be evaluated and sources of income identified. IV. FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Project impacts (page 239) should read - "Development encouraged or facilitated by the project would create a need for increased emergency medical services. Although all fire protection services would be insignificantly impacted, emergency medical services will require additional resources." B. Page 240 -Delete last sentence in (1) Increase Call Volume. C. Page 240 (c)(2) -Increased Service Demand Impacts, change word "facilities" to "equipment". D. Page 240 (c)(2) -Individual Project Requirements, change word "hazards" to "impacts" and the word "needed" to "necessary". V. PUBLIC WORKS A. Pages 217 & 220 -Water Quality/Post-Construction Measures -With respect to NPDES permits, a recommendation is made to follow best management practices by the EPA & RWQCB. This EIR goes beyond that and further recommends that five "minimum" provisions are included. Since BMP's are currently be developed for San Mateo County, it is recommended that these five provisions not be included. B. Some evaluation as to the increase in street maintenance costs/staff which will be required as a result of the project should be included. EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 APPENDIX M ILLUSTRATIVE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS Final EIR Attachment Appendix M 5221FEIRtAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco Appendix M April 13, 1993 Page M-2 APPENDIX M ILLUSTRATIVE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS The following summary information on example multifamily projects throughout the Bay Area which were reviewed by the EI Camino Corridor Sub-Committee has been prepared by the EIR consultant, Wagstaff and Associates, based on photographs and associated housing data compiled and provided to the Redevelopment Agency by Keyser Marston Associates. 1. The Beach, Richmond (see photos on opposite page) Density: 15 Units/acre Selling Prices: $170-180,000/unit Other Characteristics: Gated Community Parking on surface, but in parking courts behind units Sub-Committee Comments: ^ McLellan property similarities ^ Gated entry disliked ^ Fence instead of wall is preferable 2. Villaglo, San Jose Density: 23 units/acre Selling Prices: $160,000 to 250,000 Other Characteristics: Stacked units--two to three stories over parking Individual garages Guest parking onstreet Individual parking @ units Urban feel All units have exterior access Weakness: too much stair climbing Sub-Committee Comments: Concerned re: urban intensity next to existing residences, conflicting land use ^ "Awnings--a nice touch" ^ Landscaping where garages are is a nice touch ^ Don't see any open space ^ Needs better sidewalk treatment 5221FEIRIAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Villagio, San Jose near light rail (condominiums ~ 23 units/acre) Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-3 5221FEIRIAPP-M.522 The Beach, Richmond (townhouse ~« 15 units/acre) Villagio, San Jose near light rail (condominiums ~ 23 units/acre) EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR Attachment City of South San Francisco Appendix` M April 13, 1993 Page M-4 ^ Needs better relationship to street through improved sidewalk treatment 3. Del Norte Place. EI Cerrito Density: 33 units/acre Rents: $750-850/month for 1 BR, $950-1,100 for 2 BR Other Characteristics: All surface parking Commercial has not leased well Sub-Committee Comments: ^ Feels like 45 units/acre ^ „~glyl„ ^ "Really ugly" 4. Villas II, Walnut Creek Density: 42 units/acre Selling Prices/Rents: -- Other Characteristics: Long narrow site Sub-Committee Comments: Landscaping nice ^ Staircase bad 5. Bav Landing, Pleasant Hill (BART) Density: 45 units/acre Selling Prices/Rents: -- Other Characteristics: Successfully leased, few vacancies All resident parking below grade Walkup design Interior landscaping Residential in scale Pool Sublevel (1/2 level) parking Good landscaping 5221FEIRIAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-5 5221FE/RIAPP-M.522 Del Norte Place, EI Cerrito near BART (apartments ~ 33 units/acre above commercial) Bay Landing, Pleasant Hill near BART (apartments ~ 45 units/acre) ;~i~F verandas, Union City near BART (apartments C~ 45 units/acre) Et Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 6. The Verandas, Union Clty (BART) Density: 45 units/acre Selling Prices/Rents: -- Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-6 Sub-Committee Comments: ^ Generally well-received ^ Parking blends well ^ Garden aspect nice ^ Adjacent commercial center makes it nice ^ More attractive than other projects ^ How can we get something to look more like this than Del Norte? 7. Elan, San Jose (near light rail) Density: 47 units/acre Selling Prices/Rents: -- Other Characteristics: Oriented towards light rail 3 and 4 levels over 2 levels of parking Left half of site as open space, so very high building mass with lots of recreational open space Sub-Committee Comments: ^ Reminiscent of tenements ^ Not appealing ^ Very massive 8. Park Place, Mountain View Density: 50 units/acre Rents: $1,000 to 1,100 per month for 1 BR, $1,270 to 1,400 for 2 BR Other Characteristics: Good example Sub-Committee Comments: Nice factor that units look like individual townhouses ^ Strong relationship to street . ^ Lots of building articulation, details, balconies ^ Donut buildings with interior of donut landscaped ^ Heavy landscaping 5221FEIRIAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco Aril 9. 1993 The Verandas, Union City near BART (apartments ~ 45 units/acre) ,. a '# ~ °~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ T .~ ~ ,~_ ~_ ~ ,~a . ~ ~~~~.~ Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-7 Elan, San Jose near light rail (apartments ~ 47 units/acre) `~.:... ~_ _ j 4 =~ ~'~ Elan, San Jose near light rail (apartments C~ 47 units/acre) 5221FElRIAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-8 Park Place, Mountain View (apartments ~ 50 units/acre) 5221FEIRIAPP-M.522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 9. Delancv Street Protect, San Francisco s Density: 60 units/acre Selling Prices/Rents: -- Other Characteristics: Beautiful design, subterranean parking Tile roofs Highly detailed, Italian look Equity participation project 10. Bavside Village, San Francisco Density: Selling Prices/Rents: Other Characteristics: 11. South Beach, SF Density: Selling Prices/Rents: Other Characteristics: 109 units/acre Woodframe, mostly 4 stories 125 units acre High density Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-9 Sub-Committee Comments: ^ Not what we're looking for, but provides some ideas GENERAL COMMENTS/DISCUSSION: ^ Need for high density near BART ^ Higher quality project had enormous amount of landscaping around buildings, parking was hidden inside, also freeing up space outside for landscaping ^ Better quality buildings had detail; decks, balconies, etc. ^ Is there adequate market support in SSF for these densities Cad higher quality design? Keyser Marston Associates says yes; real issue is parking approach and related construction cost. Parking may have to be partially subsidized. ^ Need to be very conscious of cost; if too cheap, housing will deteriorate. ^ Front door openings to street were nice. ^ Local architecture preferred rather than post modern vernacular. 5221FEIRIAPP-M522 EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 9, 1993 Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-10 De/ancy Street, San Francisco (apartments ~ 60 units/acre) 522lFElRIAPP-M.522 Bayside Village, San Francisco (apartments C~ 110 units/acre) South Beach Marina, San Francisco (apartments ~ 125 units/acre) EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco April 13, 1993 The Beach, Richmond (townhouse ~ i5 unifs/acre) Villagio, San Jose near light rail (condominiums ~ 23 units/acre) De! Norte Place, E/ Cerrito near BART (apartments ~ 33 units/acre above commercial) Bay Landing, Pleasant Hill near BART (apartments ~ 45 units/acre) The Verandas, Union City near BART (apartments ~ 45 units/acre) Elan, San Jose near light rail (apartments ~ 47 units/acre) Villas ll, Walnut Creek (apartments ~ 42 unifs/acre) Park Place, Mountain View (apartments ~ 50 units/acre) South Beach Marina, San Francisco (apartments ~ 125 units/acre) De/ancy Street, San Francisco (apartments ~ 60 units/acre) Bayside Village, San Francisco (apartments ~ 110 units/acre) Final EIR Attachment Appendix M Page M-11 5221FElRIAPP-M.522