Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOyster Pt Interchange & Grade Separation Final EIR 08-1990The Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation South San Francisco ,: ;W-.. ~k.~,.•~t~~lV t~'t~ q, .. ~. FINAL Environmental Impact Report Volume il. Response to Comments .Prepared For: City of South San Francisco Prepared sy: //!~ Pio 'prchno~o~[is In Cooperation with FEHR ~ PB~CRS Associates Inc. August 1990 OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE AND GRADE SEPARATION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS) Prepared For: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Prepared By: PdcD TECHNOLOGIES 1100 Town do Country Road Suite 300 Orange, CA 92668 (714)835-4447 In Cooperation With: FEHR do PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3685 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 301 Lafayette, CA 94549 AUGUST, 1990 OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE AND GRADE SEPARATION FEIR VOLUME II. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATE AGENCIES A. Office of Planning and Research B. Department of Transportation C. California Highway Patrol II. REGIONAL AGENCIES A. Metropolitan Transportation Commission III. CITY AGENCIES A. South San Francisco - City Attorney - Police Department B. City of Brisbane C. City of Daly City IV. PRIVATE DEVELOPERES A. Koll Center B. Homart Development Company I. STATE AGENCIES A. Office of Planning and Research B. Department of Transportation C. California Highway Patrol STATE C~ CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH .;•~~: 1400 TENTH STREET ENGINEERING DIY. !!~,:.. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 ~~ May 24, 1990 Arthur Wong City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Oyster Pint Interchange and Grade separation SCH# 90030269 Dear Mr. Wong: ~~1AY ~ ~ i99~ REGENED 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 Nancq *~Iitchell 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, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance A• RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF PLANMNG AND RESEARCH, LETTER DATED MAY 24, 1990. 1 • Comment acknowledged. STATE Of CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GoHemo~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOX 7310 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 e i (415) 923-4444 May 21, 1990 Mr. Arthur Wong City Engineer City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Wong: Caltrans has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April, 1990 for the Route 101/Oyster Point Boulevard Interchange Modification Project in San Mateo County. General comments and specific comments are as follows: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Figures listed are largely inconsistent with page numbers, i.e., III-4 through III-13. The figure "Contaminated Sites" 1 labeled V-1 is not listed. Figures IV-9 through V-13 are incorrect. 2. Results of a survey of the project area should be presented in the Historic and Cultural Resources section. The interchange is within Caltrans right of way, therefore Caltrans is responsible for cultural resources in the project z area. We want to be assured that there are no archaeological sites in the area of effect. The only way to acquire this information is to conduct a field survey of the interchange area, or explain why one was not undertaken. If no survey was undertaken, there should be an explanation of why a field survey was not done, (such as total disturbance, no visible ground, etc.) within the project's area of effect. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page Comment Table I-1 No indication of significance. Where is landscape as indicated by statement of significance on~pages 3 V-29 and VII-1? II-7 Last bullet needs new reference point as truck y scales have been removed. t Arthur Wong May 21, 1990 Page 2 III-3 Suggest eliminating or explaining the fifth bullet d " 5 un er Major Design Features". ~ Fig. III-3 Show Terrabay Ramps for reference. ~ 6 III-5 Add "bullet 4": Oyster Point/Gateway (requires signal modification as part of this project) 7 Last sentence of the page seems wrong or misleading. III-6 Confirm that there are no other exceptions required. Will all freeway shoulders be ten foot wide? ~ 8 Fig. III-7 Whose right of way line is shown? Will the freeway have ten foot shoulders? If not, exception is needed. Due to the heavy project volumes using the new on- R ramps during peak hours,kthe ramps should have four foot left shoulder, eight foot right shoulder and two twelve foot lanes, one of which is for HOV bypass. Fig. III-8 Where are the sidewalks and paved shoulders? There is a concern about mixed use of pedestrian and ~~ bicycle facilities. III-9 The CHP and Caltrans have decided not to replace the ~ ~ scales. ~ III-13 Last paragraph: construction of the Hillside 1z Boulevard extension is underway. ~ III-14 Other Caltrans Proiects• 1) STIP Project No. 709 is completed; 2) the drainage project is mitigation for the Terrabay Project; 3) the railroad undercrossing ;Sierra Point O•~ercrossing) will not 13 be widened at this time. Verify that the Terrabay Hook Ramps are scheduled for implementation in the year 1995. It is our understanding that the ramps are scheduled for construction in the year 1991. (see p. V-9) III-20 These figures are not consistent with the Oyster Point Interchange Project Report. ~ ~y IV-4 The 10-17-89 earthquake is known as the "Loma Prieta 15 Earthquake". ~ IV-22 The existing visual quality of the project area is not addressed. This needs to be established as a 16 baseline for discussing impacts. Arthur Wong May 21, 1990 Page 3 Fig. IV-7 Is the project area visible from the north side of San Bruno Mountain in Brisbane and from the marina ~~ areas of Oyster Point and Sierra Point as the figure indicates? Fig. IV-8 Exhibits should show residential areas of South San Francisco which would be potentially affected by the (a project. IV-31 A 24 hour noise measurement should be performed to obtain peak noise level. Traffic count should be conducted during 15 minute noise measurement in 19 order to calibrate computer model. Peak noise levels should be higher between the hours of 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. IV-32, 33 Energy: Suggest a brief and general statement about transportation energy sources (gasoline and diesel fuel) in addition to the existing paragraph about ,~4 electricity and natural has. The energy use should be estimated for the No-Build alternative as well as the Build alternative. IV-35 para. 2: Existing median is narrow -- may require traffic shift on freeway. ~ 21 V-1 Define the area where Fish and Game 1601 permit would be required. The Wet Extraction Test should not be named since a new federal test will probably be required by the time the project is underway. Excavations in this area may impact acidic soils and ~ ~ groundwater. Soil and groundwater tests during the design phase will identify any problems for mitigation before or during the interchange construction. V-2 Same comment as V-1 relative to the Waste Extraction Test. Clarification of sentence 2 might read: "If 23 the soil[s] were determined to be hazardous [due to a low pH factor,] it ...." V-7 "Mitigation Measure": There is no grading permit approval process on Caltrans projects. The tens ~y used in Caltrans projects is: Water Quality Control Plan (in lieu of an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan). V-9 Second paragraph indicates no connection between Oyster Point and Sierra Point. Figure V-2 and 2,5 Figure V-3 show this connection in place. Arthur Wong May 21, 1990 Page 4 Fig. V-4 Two errors: 1) the northbound auxiliary lane ends south of the Oyster Point on-ramp and a new one begins with the on-ramp. 2) the existing 2 (, northbound off-ramp to Sierra Point begins just north of the point where the freeway passes under the Sierra Point overcrossing. V-17 Measure A calls for auxiliary lanes along Route 101 throughout the County, not a fifth lane. ~ Z7 V-18 Top sentence: portions of the Route 101 Auxiliary lanes will be part of this project. ~ Z6 V-26 Para. 4: Second sentence is sufficient statement to replace entire paragraph. ~ 29 _ V-29 "...obstruction of scenic views,..." sounds like a significant impact. Para. 2: Appendix C is Resolution 88-34. Para. 3: How many homes would 30 be affected? Explain whether or not obstruction of the views is a significant impact. V-33 Receptor locations should be selected at adjacent residential yards, parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, child care centers, retirement and 31 convalescent homes, if any. Residences along the new Hillside extension should also be addressed. Table V-10 In the first four intersections described, why are the projected numbers higher for project mitigation 3Z than for no project? Locations selected for analysis are incorrect. V-35 Bullets can be deleted. The first sentence under ~ 33 "Mitigation Measures" p. V-44 is sufficient. V-36 The noise study should address the residents along ~ 3y the new Hillside extension. V-39, 41 Request that the calculations for the construction energy estimate be provided as a part of footnote 2. Request an energy estimate for the maintenance of the roadway. Attached is a table from which such an estimate may be derived. The URBEMIS#1 computer model is not yet on our list of approved methodologies for estimating energy usage. We would like to see assumptions and data inputs in the Appendix. Request an estimate of the construction energy payback period (construction energy divided by the annual energy savings, if any, of the Build alternative in comparison to~ the No-Build alternative). 35 Arthur Wong May 21, 1990 Page 5 a V-43 Paragraph 4: All eight lanes of the freeway will ~ 36 be open to traffic from 6 AM to 10 PM. VI-1 Paragraph 3: "Clean-up of hazardous material [may] ~ 3 7 be required...." VI-5 First paragraph needs new reference point as truck ~ 38 scales have been removed. VI-5,6 Request the revision or deletion from the energy section of the sentence, "This growth...could be 39 induced by the proposed interchange." That sentence would be more appropriate in the growth inducing effects section. VII-1 Last bullet should be divided into two. ] y0 VIII-1 Last bullet: Is the removal of landscaping in the Levitz parking lot considered significant? `~~ f We look forward to reviewing the Final Draft of the Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions regarding the comments contained in this letter, please contact Jim Regan, Senior Engineer at (415) 923-4201 or Ron Tsung, Acting Project Engineer at (415) 923-4260. Sincerely yours, BURCH BACHTOLD District Director By ~-- RYU NOUE, Chief Pro ct Development-Peninsula Attachment cc: P & D Technologies STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Box ~31o ENGINEERING DIV. = ~^ SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 (41 S) 923-4444 ,)l)~~J i~~ ,,a,~~ RECEIVED May 30, 1990 Mr. Arthur Wong City Engineer City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Wong: Caltrans has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April, 1990 for the Route 101/Oyster Point Boulevard Interchange Modification Project in San Mateo County. The following comments are to be added to the previous list of comments dated May 21, 1990: Paae Comment Table I-1 Right-of-Way acquisition estimate of $2 million conflicts with Project Report estimates of $3.5 million and $3.8 million. This table states that ~Z Levitz loading dock will be inoperable. This matter was discussed between the State and the City at the May 18th meeting. Our understanding is that loading dock will still be operable after taking. III-17 If "demolition of a portion of the Levitz Furniture store to accommodate the relocated Dubuque Avenue" is considered as an alternative, then this should N3 be addressed in the Draft Relocation Impact Study. Comment should be that it was previously considered as part of alternative that is no longer under consideration. IV-33 Please verify the year that the land grant was ~ yy deeded to Sanchez. V-4 No degree of liability should be assumed with the purchase of presently contaminated properties in the southern portion of the interchange. Heavy metal contamination would appear to be entirely the ys. responsibility of the property owner. Contaminated property should be acquired only if the cost of the hazardous waste cleanup has been reflected in the acquisition offer. 'A better way of handling is to get the property owner to cleanup prior to acquisition. Arthur Wong May 30, 1990 Page 2 V-7 Last paragraph, "no structure or parking on the Levitz property will be displaced" conflicts with "a truck docking platform will be inoperable at y6 Levitz Furniture" from Table 1-1. There either is or is not an impact on the property. In this case, there is an impact. Levitz will have one less loading dock from which to operate its business. V-8 The only way to prove that adequate replacement sites exist for those displaced by the project is to do a Draft Relocation Impact Study, which we understand is now being completed. From preliminary reviews of this Draft Relocation Impact Study, there does not appear to be adequate replacement sites to relocate the business operation of the EB Motel. Whether or not there are any residential occupants of the motel will be determined at the time of the Final Relocation Impact Study. At that time, the motel owner should be interviewed as should any residents who might be eligible for the relocation y 7 benefits. The fact that there are 19,017 housing units in South San Francisco or that 1.78$ are vacant is not relevant to this project. Fourth paragraph, "Buildings that would [have to be altered]" -- what buildings? Fifth paragraph, "(See Section H for the City's Relocation Assistance Program)". If this refers to page V-25, there should be mentioning of the Uniform Relocation Act, since the City has indicated that they intend to follow both State and Federal laws and guideline on this subject. The City's Redevelopment Plan does not necessarily offer the assurances. V-23 Fourth paragraph, "require displacement of a residential motel". Is this motel currently used as a residence? Please see the comments for V-8. ~ 8 Recommend that the word "residential" be deleted. Whether or not this is a residential motel will be determined at the time of the Final Relocation Impact Study. V-23,24 "Relocation of the motel use east of US 101 will not pose any difficulty." -- use? Does the City have W9 a replacement site already picked out for the motel? V-24 Fifth paragraph. Fiscal effects as far as right- of-way goes will include more than just the "purchase cost of the EB motel". What about Levitz 50 and the two other properties identified in the project report? Arthur Wong May 30, 1990 Page 3 V-25 Does the City intend to find a replacement site for the EB Motel? If this is so, then this section should include references to the Uniform Relocation 51 Act and be integrated into the Draft Relocation Impact Study. V-39 "Interior noise mitigation" Has the FHWA recommended noise insulation of any existing public- use buildings in this project area? This is an 5 Z extremely sensitive issue. What degree of increase in impact to indoor living areas is significant enough to warrant noise mitigation? V-42 Second paragraph, "almost exclusively". Isn't there additional right-of-way required? What does almost 53 exclusively mean? VI-2 First paragraph, "Redevelopment Plan". Those displaced are also cove~'ed by Uniform Relocation 5N Act and this should be mentioned. VII-1 Last bullet. From Table I-1, "[inoperable] truck docking platform" should be added. SS We look forward to reviewing the Final Draft of the Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions regarding the comments contained in this letter, please contact Jim Regan, Senior Engineer at (415) 923-4201 or Ron Tsung, Acting Project Engineer at (415) 923-4260. Sincerely yours, BURGH C. BACHTOLD District Director By C.J Vw~ RYU NOUE, Chief Pr j ct Development-Peninsula Branch cc: P & D Technologies B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LETTERS DATED MAY 21, 1990 AND MAY 30, 1990. 1. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 2. No further field surveys were done because the project area was previously surveyed during investigations for four immediately contiguous projects: the Gateway project, the Shearwater project, the Terrabay project and the City's redevelopment project. No historic sites and only one archaeological site was identified, and this site is outside of the construction area for the Oyster Point interchange, although it will be affected by the Terrabay Hookramps. A mitigation program has been prepared and coordinated with Caltrans to address this site. In addition, most of the site is located on landfill or has been heavily disturbed by prior construction. As a result of these factors another walkover survey was not deemed necessary. 3. The interchange landscaping will obstruct views only in areas where elevation is high. However, these effects are not expected to be significant. 4. Comment acknowledged. See Response to Comment 438. 5. Fifth bullet paragraph under Major Design Features is hereby eliminated. 6. Terrabay Ramps have been added to Figure III-3. 7. A fourth bullet is now added to read: o Modification of existing signal at Oyster Point/Gateway 8. All freeway shoulders will be ten feet wide. Exceptions are not expected but will be determined during the final design of the project. 9. The "right-of-way" line shown in Figure III-7 is private property line, clarification has been made in Figure III-7. 3 W O O O O O .. 'L ':J (^] /~ ~/ D '~ ~ z v m mz cn ° -i ~o~~ ~~__ D ~~CZ D~cm z ~~ cnZm~ c~=° _ ~ =z~~ cnmoo Z~mm VJ - ~~xm~, D~mDc z ~~ nmZ~m ~~0~= (~ Z O ~ QpzZw I ` y ,,{ m m C? X I ` 77 W N -~ i ~4 bin2' I ' t ~D~ f 1 ~ "~ z ^n pm~ A I ~ m~D . ~~ , ~~ z ~ ~~~ ~ ` .Q ~~ :~ ~ ~ ~ m ~a s ~'~~ t ~~ ~ OAS-~ °- ~~ r J ~~d ¢''a1~ ~K,,~ 3N1~ A1!l~dOMd 3~evitivn ----~ W J~< ~~ ~~~ N 1l'f W O p W ~ ? J _ t ~ ~ M 1~ ~ ~ N s ~ !V ~ Z ~ o W W< ~ eW $< ~ N ~Z ~ ~J N r OI ~ ZII ~ a'~ ~W x O ~ W ~_ =t O N r N r N r ~~~~-zt~ ~~J~~y ~W~ZWV °O-~~C3Z ~~Oza~ =aU= p°~~~a OW WN Z ~ ~ Q~ Z ~ >-~ ~ ~ ~O ~~ w= az L~1. ~ ~ O W ~ Q ~ ~' Q V1 ~ W O Oa W H ~ W W Cn ~ 0 U W J 1 WV >H ~~ WO F- Z The new ramps will have four-foot left shoulders, eight-foot right shoulders, and two twelve-foot lanes at the intersection approaches. Narrowed cross-sections will prevail at the gore points. Caltrans and FHWA design specification will be followed and detailed during the final design phase. 10. A ten-foot sidewalk will be provided on the south side of Dubuque Avenue as shown in Figure III-8. No shoulders will be provided on City streets. 11. This comment is correct as stated. 12. Comment is hereby acknowledge and included in the Final FEIR. 13. Comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the FEIR. The Terrabay Hookramp project is scheduled for construction in 1991 and completion by 1995. 14. The construction cost of the project have been provided by the City Engineers off ice. 15. This comment is acknowledged and included in the FEIR. 16. The existing visual quality of the project is addressed in the Chapter IV-K of the DEIR. Two visually distinct zones have been identified and photographs of these zones have been included in the document. 17. Yes. The project area is visible from the north side of San Bruno Mountain in Brisbane and from high elevation in the marina areas of Oyster point and Sierra Point. 18. The project will not directly affect any residential area. Retail/commercial use runs along Airport Boulevard. 19. Noise Measurements. Traffic counts, speed and level of service were observed during the measurement survey. It was determined that the monitored noise levels represented Level of Service "C". The following paragraph clarifies peak traffic versus peak noise hour, and is taken directly from the noise assessment for this project. 4 i N W WJ o N _ ~ = N '" F ~ ~ J ~ ~ 1• r r J W O m J ~ ~ F W ~ ~ J N T N ~ '=~O '_j~-ZC~ WQ~<V~ ~WZWC~ nC~C'3Z~ i`~Z~~ ?V~u. OuQ..EtQ ,W~ 00 p F- Z JZ~ ~~H~ U~ZN w ZO cnO~z ~a~0 Cn ~ W F- ~ HNC U~~a ~ ~ Q W Q W J 1 ~ WV >W F-0 ~~ 2~ W O F~ Z The peak noise hour may not coincide with the peak traffic hour. While it is true that for constant speed, traffic noise increases with increasing traffic volume, this does not hold true unless the speed does not change. Along the freeway, the vehicle speeds decrease dramatically from design speeds during peak traffic speed and traffic volume, i.e., when traffic is at its highest level without too severe a degradation of speed. This condition occurs whenever each travel lane is carrying its highest level of traffic. Therefore, for all Leq levels shown in this report, the Leq represents the peak traffic at SS miles per hour, and can be considered as the worst case condition. t 20. Transportation energy sources such as gasoline and diesel will be provided by the existing gasoline companies located in the bay area. [n the long-term, the past-construction, operational energy requirements should be less with the full interchange alternative as compared to the No Project alternative. Generally the more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) the higher the energy consumption. VMT is a measure of magnitude of travel within a given area as indicated in terms of the product of total acreage daily trip volumes and distance traveled by those trips. It is indicated in the EIR that the build alternative will result in savings in long- term operational energy requirements due to a slight improvement in VMT, decreased congestion and substantially improved travel times. 21. This comment is hereby acknowledged and is included in the Final EIR. 22. No Fish and Game 1601 permit would be required. 23. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 24. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. S 25. The connection between Oyster Point and Sierra Point is not part of the (mitigated) project. Figure V-2 contains the connection for analysis purposes while Figure V-5, the mitigated project, excludes the connection. 26. These items are hereby corrected as stated. 27. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 28. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 29. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 30. The precise number of homes whose scenic views will be affected cannot be determined until final design is complete. The obstruction of the views is not considered to be significant since there will only be a partial obstruction of bay view from the residential areas. 31. Receptor locations used for the CAL[NE4 air quality model were selected at given distances from the center of the intersection (or from the edge of the travel lane if two-directional traffic was modeled rather than intersections) and worst-case conditions in terms of wind direction. These distances were maintained at all modeled intersections and roadways for consistency, so that trends in pollutant concentrations at various distances from the pollutant source could be observed. Receptor locations were selected at distances 15, 30, 45 and 60 meters (approximately 50, 100, 150 and 200 feet, respectively) from the source. (See attachment for detailed Air Quality Model Input/Output.) As stated in this comment, sensitive air quality receptors include residences, residential yards, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, schools, and adult and child care centers. In the Oyster Point project area, sensitive receptors such as these occur only along Airport Boulevard. These uses consist of fewer than ten residences, commercial retail shops and a hotel. The residences are are located amidst various commercial buildings and have no private outdoor use areas. The single-story hotel, which also has no outdoor private use areas, is located at the northeast corner of the mixed use parcel and will be adjacent to the new alignment for the Oyster Point/Hillside Extension. 6 Modeled intersection No. 3 represents the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard and link No. 3 represents the portion of Airport Boulevard that stretches from Oyster Point Boulevard to Linden Avenue. The results of the air quality analysis at these two locations adequately represent the pollutant levels where the few sensitive receptors are located. In the existing conditions, the California standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm) is exceeded or approached at distances of up to 150 feet from the intersection. CO levels are well below the standard at all modeled distances along the travel Link of Airport Boulevard. Only the nearest receptor, at 50 feet, exceeds the State standard under the two build alternatives. Residences along the new Hillside Extension were not specifically addressed s because the Hillside Extension was not suitably defined. The alignment location was not specified, the number of lanes was undefined, and the Hillside Extension was not included as part of the traffic analysis. 32. Comment regarding projected CO concentrations for the Mitigated Project and No Project alternatives is acknowledged. Subsequent to submittal of the DEIR, the CO analysis was reviewed to ensure the incorporation of the most recent traffic volumes and levels of service and to ensure that the most appropriate assumptions were made in the course of the analysis. The model was then re- run, and the results for local 1-hour concentrations for CO (ppm) at the modeled intersections and traffic links are shown below. Input data and output files are presented as an attachment to this response. a. Intersection 1 -Oyster Point and Gateway Existing Mitigated No Conditions Project Project Project 0 Ft. ~ 30.9 30.0 25.0 30.6 100 Ft. 25.1 3.6 20.5 23.4 150 Ft. 21.6 19.7 17.5 19.5 200 Ft. 19.2 17.3 15.5 17.0 [*Distances in feet are approximations of actual distances of 15, 30, 45 and 60 meters.] 7 b. Intersection 2 -Oyster Point and Dubuque 50 Ft. 26.3 33.3 31.0 24.5 100 Ft. 21.9 25.0 24.3 20.5 150 Ft. 19.3 20.4 20.2 18.3 200 Ft. 17.7 17.6 17.7 16.4 c. Intersection 3 -Oyster Point and Airport 50 Ft. 31.2 22.1 21.5 33.1 100 Ft. 22.9 17.8 17.2 24.4 150 Ft. 18.8 15.5 14.8 19.4 200 Ft. 16.8 13.6 13.0 16.9 d. Intersection 4 -Airport and Linden 50 Ft. 19.2 15.9 15.6 13.6 100 Ft. 13.3 9.4 9.0 9.2 150 Ft. 11.9 8.1 7,7 g.2 200 Ft. 11.4 7.8 7.4 7.8 e. Traffic Links at 50 Feet 1 -Oyster Point, Gateway to Dubuque 2 -Oyster Point, Dubuque to Airport 3 -Airport, Oyster Point to Linden 4 - U.S. 101, Oyster Point to Grand Existing Mitigated No Conditions Project Project Project Link 1 11.4 8.8 8.7 8.7 Link 2 11.4 8.3 8.2 8.6 Link 3 11.6 8.4 8.3 8.6 Link 4 13.2 9.3 9.3 9.7 Projections at the four key intersections are not substantially different from the projections presented in the DEIR for receptor locations for the Mitigated Project and No Project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project alternative at Intersection 1. Results show that at three of the four modeled intersections, at receptor distances of 50, 100, 150 and 200 feet, CO levels are generally projected to be higher for the No Project alternative than for the Mitigated Project alternative. At Intersection 2, projected CO levels are noticeably lower for the No Project alternative than for both the• Project and No Project alternatives. PM peak hour levels of service at this intersection are LOS F for Existing Conditions, 8 Project and No Project, and LOS D for Mitigated Project, and in all cases the State standard of 20 ppm is exceeded at the two nearest receptor locations. Please refer to the Response to Comment 31 for discussion regarding the selection of receptor locations. 33. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 34. The Hillside Extension was not adequately defined at the time the noise assessment was completed. The alignment location was not specified and number of lanes undefined. 35. Energy estimate for maintenance of roadway and construction energy payback s period has not been quantitatively analyzed. 36. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 37. Clean-up of contaminated sites in the interchange area would be required before construction of the project. 38. The sentence is hereby corrected to read "....former truck scale site...." 39. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 40. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 41. The removal of landscaping in the Levitz parking lot is not considered to be a significant impact. 42. The right-of-way acquisition estimate of $2 million was provided by the City of South San Francisco. The design engineer (CH2M Hill) indicated that only one loading dock at the Levitz Furniture store would be inoperable due to its proximity to the interchange ramps. This portion is currently unused and is blocked by placement of trash dumpsters. A substantial portion of the dock would remain. 9 43. The demolition of a portion of the Levitz Furniture store to accommodate the relocated Dubuque Avenue is not considered as an alternative, and therefore should not be addressed in the Relocation Impact Study. It was previously considered as part of an alternative that is no longer under consideration. 44. The land grant was deeded to Sanchez in 1917. 45. Comments acknowledged. 46. This comment hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. Please refer to S Response No. 42 above. 47. The Relocation Study has been completed and there are no adequate replacement sites to relocate the EB Motel operation. The Uniform Relocation Act is addressed in the mitigation section of Chapter V, Section H. 48. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 49. No. The City has not indicated any replacement sites for the EB Motel east of U.S. 101. 50. Comments acknowledged. The city intends to purchase land that will be directly affected by the interchange project. 51. The City intends to fulfill the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act and is willing to work closely with the motel owner in finding a suitable replacement site for the EB Motel. The Draft Relocation Impact Study indicates that there are no available comparable replacement site in South San Francisco and its vicinity. Some segments of the interchange such as the fly-over and ramps will be on land currently occupied by existing structures such as the EB Motel. 10 52. To the best of our knowledge, the FHWA has not recommended noise insulation for any public use buildings in the project area. For public use buildings a 5 dBA increase usually warrants mitigation. However, no public use buildings presently exist adjacent to the project. 53. This sentence is hereby correct to read "....almost completely ...." Additional right-of-way required would include the EB Motel site. 54. The South San Francisco Downtown Redevelopment Plan has adequately addressed displacement and the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act. 55. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 11 State of California-Business, Transportation and Housing Agency GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor ~~P~~1~~~ C~r~~4LIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL „4 455 8th Street ET:vI'~c.rr:.~.:: ~,~~, f.~~ San Francisco, CA 94103-4469 ]~I( (415) 557-1094 April 27, 1990 i '~ ~ '~ Mr. Arthur Wong City Engineer P.0. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Wong: I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation Project and Y~ave only one comment of a minor nature. On page III-9, there is a sentence which states, "The California Highway Patrol has decided to close both the southbound and northbound truck weigh stations located within the project area." The truck scales, while operated by the Highway Patrol (CHP), are owned and maintained by Caltrans. Accordingly, it was the decision of Caltrans, not the CHP, that these scales be closed. If reasonably possible, I would appreciate if that correction could be made. Thank you for the opportunity to review the EIR. It was a very informative document. Sincerely, ~~ W. F. DWYER, Captain Commander San Francisco Area C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, LETTER DATED APRIL 27, 1990. 1. These comments are hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. The referenced statement should read, "The California State Department of Transportation has decided to close ...the weigh stations..." 12 II. REGIONAL AGENCIES A. Metropolitan Transportation Commission 13 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION C O M M I S S I O N May 30, 1990 Alameda County ALE% CiIULIANI EDWARD R. CAM/BELL City of South San Francisco P. 0. Box 711 `°nt.aCostaC°°"" South San Francisco, CA 94080 ROBERT ~. SCHRODER STEVE WEIR Vice-Chair Attention: Arthur Wong ENGINEERING DIVA ~~ AY 31 1999 Marin County Subject: Draft EIR. Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Senarati on ROBERT B. STOCKWEIL Napa County MTC has reviewed the DEIR for the above project. The proposed project FRED NEGRI entai 1 s the fol 1 owi ng improvements San Francisco- CiryandCounry 1) removal of the existing two lane Oyster Point overcrossing of DORISW.KAHN Route 101, and construction of a new, 115 foot wide HARRY G. BRITT overcrossi ngstructure with five through 1 apes plus turning San Mateo County 1 apes , a bi cyc 1 e path and sidewalk spanning both Route 101 and ~ANE BAKER the Southern Pacific Rai 1 road tracks ; TOM NOLAN Santa ClaraCounry 2) widening Oyster Point Blvd from 4 to 6 lanes; TAMES T. BEALLr IR. RoDDIRIOON 3) reconstruction and relocation of substandard on and off ramps Chairperson near the Oyster Point overcrossing to provide high capacity SolanoCounry ramps to and from the employment center east of Route 101; LAMES S-ERING Sonoma County 4) auxi 1 i ary 1 ane northbound from the East Grand onramp past the WILLIAM R. Lucius Dubuque offramp to the Brisbane offramp (approximately 1.5 mi 1 e) Associati°°°` Bay Area Governments 5) auxiliary lane southbound from redesigned southbound onramp near DIANNE MCKENNA Linden to Grand/Mi 11 er offramp (approximately 0.6 mi 1 e) ; S.F.BayConservation and Development 5) provisions for future ramp metering with HOV bypass lanes at one Commission northbound and one southbound onramp; ANGELO ~. SIRACUSA State Business, 7) signalization of the three new intersections, and Transportation and interconnection of those signals; Housing Agency BURCH BACHTOID 8) as a separate project, new southbound on and off "hookramps" will be constructed to serve the Terrabay project, which is located dust north of the new Oyster Point overcrossing. Provision of these ramps is assumed in the DEIR. This letter transmits MTC staff comments on the DEIR. Executive Director LAWRENCE D.DAHMS 1) Existing Air Quality Planning: The discussion on page IV-28 and DeputyE><ecutiveDirector IV-29 should be updated to reflect emission reduction requirements t WILLIAM F. REIN established by the California C1 can Air Act, and the regional planning process being pursued by MTC and BAAQMD to reach those )OSE/H P. SORT METROCENTER • 101 EIGHTH STREET • OAKLAND, CA 94607-4700 • 415/464-7700 • FAX 415/464-7848 Letter to Mr. Wong 5/30/90 Page 2 goals. The one paragraph discussion of federal air quality mandates resulting from the failure of the Bay Area to achieve 1987 CO and ozone 1 standards should be expanded to address transportation measures included ~Ceit~ in MTC's contingency plan, and should summarize MTC Resolution 2107 and TCM Plan and describe their implications for the proposed project. A copy of Resolution 2107 has been provided for your information. 2) Employment Growth: On page IV-19, as part of the discussion of the Socioeconomic/Fiscal Setting, the DEIR quotes ABAG as projecting an increase in employment of approximately 5,000 between 1988 and 2000, or about 1X/year. On page V-9, as part of the Traffic Impact section, the DEIR states that the traffic analysis assumes construction of approximately 2.5 million square feet of employment generating uses in the City of South San Francisco by 2010, and an additional 8 million square feet in Brisbane. This massive amount of development conflicts with ABAG's projections and, as the DEIR states on page V-10, "...the projections may be overly optimistic from the viewpoint of market demand and absorption." The EIR should use a single, consistent set of assumptions on future land uses in the land use, traffic, air quality and growth inducing impact sections. _ 2 3) Ramp Metering: On III-7, the DEIR states that the meters will not be 3 turned on as part of this project. That being the case, the project will not get credit for ramp metering as a TCM (Transportation Control Measure). 4) Transit Service: On page III-8, the DEIR refers to the demonstration transit route as having "18 daily peak hour trips." Does this mean 18 ~ daily trips, 18 trips in the peak hour each day, or 18 trips per day during peak commute periods? 5) Trip Generation Rates: In Tables V-2 through V-5, the DEIR begins with nationally accepted ITE peak hour trip generation rates, such as 1.74 AM inbound trips per 1,000 square feet of office use, and applies "discounts" for mixed use development and TSM measures, resulting in the office rate decreasing to 0.97 trips per 1,000 square feet, or 55x of the original rate. Changes to the accepted ITE rates need to be substantiated by field measurement of several similar land use complexes. The reductions due to mixed use development might be appropriate for daily rates, but seem excessive for peak hour rates. The Fourth Edition of ITE's Trip Generation book discusses mixed use developments, and cites a 25X reduction. The magnitude of the reductions attributed to TSM programs is higher than the 12-15X MTC normally recommends for large, multi-tenant projects. Assumption of both the mixed use and TSM "discounts" may be redundant. Unless these generation rates can be substantiated, normal generation rates from ITE or Caltrans should be used. Also, a table should be provided showing the amount of each type of land use and the respective trip generation rate. 5 6) Trip Distribution: The DEIR does not document the basis for assigning trips to the local street system and freeway. Are the assignments based 6 on ABAG and MTC forecasts, previous DEIRs, or the MINUTP model? Where Letter to Mr. Wong 5/30/90 Page 3 will the workers employed in the area live? A figure or table summarizing 6 the origin/destination pattern for the project area should be provided. ~C0^'•~ 7) Ramp Volumes: The DEIR assumes a capacity of 1800 vph for freeway onramps and offramps. This assumption should be reviewed by Caltrans District 04, which typically uses a maximum capacity of 1500 vph for single lane ramps and a capacity of 1000 vph for an onramp feeding a ,r congested freeway. On Figure V-2, the DEIR shows that the ramp capacity will be exceeded at Grand onramp, Dubuque off ramp, Dubuque onramp, Oyster Point onramp, and the Sierra Point onramp and offramp. The projected volumes on these ramps would result in congestion on either Route 101 or local surface streets. This impact should be mitigated prior to project approval. 8) Impact on Route 101: On page V-16, the DEIR states that the project will improve mainline operation of the freeway. However, the additional onramps and higher design capacity of the onramps, combined with the auxiliary lanes, seems to increase the ability of the project area to g deliver more traffic to the downstream sections of the freeway than would exist without the project. Therefore, the project could add to downstream congestion and cause slower speeds on the freeway. The obvious mitigations for this impact are to either install and operate ramp metering or constrain the intensity of proposed land development to the available freeway capacity. 9) 00 Impact: The discussion of air quality impacts states that despite the significant improvements in freeway access and local circulation q associated with this project, the state one-hour and eight-hour standards for carbon monoxide would be exceeded at several intersections. At certain of those intersections, peak hour traffic will operate at LOS F. This adverse impact requires mitigation. 10> HC Impact: Despite the severe CO impacts, the DEIR states on page V-34 that the project will have a beneficial impact on hydrocarbon emissions. This conclusion appears to contradict the CO analysis, and should be substantiated with a full, quantitative hydrocarbon analysis. This analysis should look at the corridor between the Sierra Point and East ~~ Grand or South Airport Blvd interchanges, including the major parallel arterials (i.e., Airport and Gateway), and should be based on a traffic analysis revised per the above comments, including any revisions in the network or operational assumptions made in response to the CO violations. 11) Growth Induce~ent: On page IX-l, the DEIR states that the project would facilitate growth which has already been approved in the project area. This is consistent with the traffic analysis of the "no project alternative," where the DEIR states that it is questionable if the various committed and planned development improvements assumed for 2010 could ~l actually proceed under the no project scenario (see page V-21). The EIR needs to quantify the amount of growth dependent on the proposed project, and modify the no project forecasts for traffic and air quality so that they are based on the amount of growth that would occur under that scenario rather than the amount of growth that will occur if the project Letter to Mr. Wong 5/30/90 Page 4 is built. These revised no project forecasts will form the basis for » comparing HC and CO impacts under the project and no project alternatives, (~~~*•) consistent with MTC Resolution 2107. 12) Mitigation Measures: Extensive TCMs will probably have to be incorporated into the project in order to achieve acceptable traffic and air quality effects. The City and adjacent developments already have embarked on several measures, including the demonstration bus route and less specific measures such as encouraging use of alternative modes. Operation of ramp metering in the corridor defined above should be seriously considered. Other measures might include adoption of a level of service standard, so that when the LOS on local streets or freeway ramps declines below a specified point, approval of new development is postponed until traffic improvements are secured. Note that Resolution 2107 requires the project sponsor to quantify the effects of proposed mitigation measures, and to demonstrate a commitment to implement the measures prior to claiming an air quality` benefit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. MTC staff would be happy to meet with City staff and your consultants to discuss the revisions to the DEIR needed to comply with Resolution 2107. Please feel free to contact me or Christine Monsen at (415) 464-7824. Very Trul Yours, c Jeff Georgevich Senior Planner JG:Iw 7429p cc: Commissioner Baker Commissioner Nolan Stan Randolph, Caltrans District 04 Ron Olsen, Caltrans District 04 ~z A. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, LETTER DATED MAY 30, 1990. 1. Comment acknowledged. The following paragraphs are hereby included as an addition to "Air Quality Planning and Control in the Bay Area" on DEIR pages IV- 28 and IV-29. The California Clean Air Act was passed in 1988. In order to achieve the strict emission reduction targets contained in the Act, automotive hydrocarbon emissions in the Bay area must be cut by a third of the projected daily output by 1997. The MTC was required by State law to have a plan in place for such reductions by June 1990. Measures evaluated by the MTC to reduce automobile t traffic included increases in the gasoline tax, bridge tolls, limitations on automobile registrations, limitations on highway construction, and gasoline rationing. Resolution 2107 was adopted by the MTC in October 1989, which establishes criteria for review of the air quality impacts of highway projects and criteria for determining which projects with significant adverse impacts on air quality will be considered for delay. The establishment of these criteria is pursuant to the Contingency Plan of the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, which serves as the currently adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Francisco Bay Area. A revision to Resolution 2107 was adopted in December 1989, which added a guidance section regarding information needed by the MTC in environmental documents in order to make a determination of potential air quality impacts of projects. The projects that are affected are generally capacity-increasing highway projects in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A list of possible Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to control carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions was prepared by the MTC. These TCMs include the following: o HOV lanes, particularly those included in MTC's Hov lane master plan. 14 o Traffic Operations Systems, including ramp metering, incident management and message signs/traffic advisories. o Park and Ride lots. o Freeway bus turnouts. o Transit right-of-way reservation. o Traffic mitigation requirements for new development adjacent to freeways. Once a project is submitted for inclusion in the TIP, MTC will notify project sponsors that these or other mutually acceptable TCM measures should be considered as part of the project design. As stated in Resolution 2107, where projects are found to have a significant air quality impact within the context of Resolution 2107, the test used by the MTC to determine whether the project would proceed is the commitment by the project applicant to a strategy to mitigate adverse impacts. 2. The land use assumptions for traffic and air quality have been provided by both the City of Brisbane and South San Francisco. ABAG projections used in this study include population, employment and housing estimates. The projections have not included any land use forecasts. 3. Provisions for ramp metering will be installed. The initiation and operation of the ramp meters will be Caltrans' responsibility. Caltrans has indicated that they would consider initiating "on-demand-rate" operation of the ramp signals contingent upon a regional ramp metering study for the area to determine the best operating mode. 4. The demonstration transit route has been discontinued due to lack of ridership and funds. However, the business community under its umbrella organization, the Pacific International Business Center (PIBC), continues to operate its shuttle van service to the Caltrans Station, Samtrans bus stops, and other local destinations. 15 The amounts of each land use for all of the 41 cumulative projects assumed for the analysis are shown in Appendix B. 6. The peak hour traffic volumes generated by the 41 cumulative projects were assigned to the road network using the MINUTP model. This local area and MINUTP model was developed through a "windowing" process using MTC's regional MINUTP model. According to the regional model, travel to and from the South San Francisco area will have the following spatial distribution: Direction Percentage of External Trips k West and North of So. San Francisco via local streets 13% North via Route 101 South, I-380, and I-280 21% South via Route 101 and via I-380/I-280 45% North via Route 101 21% 7. As stated in the DEIR: "In most cases, the traffic flow on the ramp is limited not by the ramp itself, but by its terminus at either an intersection (off-ramp) or the merge point on the freeway (on-ramp)." The ramp analysis is supplemental to the intersection and freeway analysis. Caltrans was contacted at the onset of the project regarding ramp capacity and they provided a document which stated the following: '7he Rate-of-Flow that an on-ramp or off-ramp proper (turning roadway) can handle is about the same as a freeway lane or about 1,800 vph." Table V-8 shows that only two ramps, Sierra Point NB off and Oyster Point SB on, would operate above capacity without any mitigation measures. Page V-18 discusses mitigation measures for these potential problems. With the recommended elimination of the assumed local-connection roadway between Oyster Point and Sierra Point, the only ramp that would exceed the 1,800 vph capacity is the Sierra Point off-ramp during the a.m. peak hour as shown in Figure V-5. This impact is generated in part by development growth in Sierra Point and in part by new development on the Southern Pacific parcel in Brisbane 17 (see Appendix B of Draft EIR). In the event that these projects proceed at the intensity level assumed, additional mitigations would need to be implemented. One such possible mitigation is the construction of a new partial freeway interchange near the Southern Pacific parcel or the reconstruction of the Candlestick interchange. The assumed development intensities and the assumed year-2010 buildout for all cumulative projects result in worst-case traffic projections. As is stated in the Draft EIR on Page V-10, the volume projections reflect about 12.7 million square feet of office, research and development, and industrial space, 1.3 million square feet of commercial, 4,300 hotel rooms, and 2,200 residential units in the Route 101 corridor between San Francisco International Airport and Candlestick Park. These projections appear to be overly optimistic from the view point of market t demand and absorption ability, but were used to reflect an absolute "worst case" scenario for the purposes of the impact assessment. 8. Auxiliary lanes begin at a freeway on-ramp and terminate at the subsequent off- ramp. The function of these lanes is to facilitate merging and weaving in areas of congestion. While these improvements will improve mainline operations (fewer accidents and higher speeds), they will not necessarily result in increased traffic volumes within that section or in downstream sections. Please refer to Response No. 3 for a discussion of ramp metering. 9. Please refer to the response to Caltrans comment 32 for the results of the CO analysis as revised subsequent to submittal of the DEIR. In determining the significance of pro ject-related CO impacts, CO levels (ppm) are compared for the Project alternative and the No Project alternative, as follows: a. Intersection 1 -Oyster Point and Gateway No Project Project SO Ft. 30.0 30.6 100 Ft. 23.6 23.4 150 Ft. 19.7 19.5 200 Ft. 17.3 17.0 18 b. Intersection 2 -Oyster Point and Dubuque No Project Project 50 Ft. 33.3 24.5 100 Ft. 25.0 20.5 150 Ft. 20.4 18.3 200 Ft. 17.6 16.4 c. Intersection 3 -Oyster Point and Airport 50 Ft. 22.1 33.1 100 Ft. 17.8 24.4 150 Ft. 15.5 19.4 200 Ft. 13.6 16.9 d. Intersection 4 -Airport and Linden 50 Ft. 15.9 13.6s 100 Ft. 9.4 9.2 150 Ft. 8.1 8.2 200 Ft. 7.8 7.8 e. Traffic Links at SO Feet Link 1 8.8 8.7 Link 2 8.3 8.6 Link 3 8.4 8.6 Link 4 9.3 9.7 These results are consistent with the statement in the DEIR that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on local CO levels. No significant differences are observed for the modeled traffic links or for modeled intersections 1 and 4, and a noticeably beneficial impact is observed for all receptor locations at Intersection 3. Intersection 2 currently operates at LOS F, and would operate at LOS F under both the Project and No Project alternatives. The State 1-hour standard for CO would be exceeded at this intersection at 50 feet and 100 feet for both alternatives. As stated in the response to Caltrans comment 32, sensitive receptors in the project area are located only in the vicinity of Intersection 3, Airport and Linden. At this intersection, CO concentrations are significantly improved as a result of the proposed project. Although an improvement would occur over the future conditions without the project, the nearest receptor location at SO feet from the intersection would continue to exceed the State standard of 20 ppm. 19 interchange to the south and the existing unsafe conditions at the current Oyster Point overcrossing would be exacerbated. 12. Under Resolution No. 2107, the proposed project falls into Categories HA 21, Bridge Reconstruction, HA 22, Roadway Reconstruction and HB1, Safety Improvements. The primary purpose of the project is to improve unsafe transportation conditions that exist in the form of the at-grade railroad crossing across Oyster Point Boulevard and inadequate weaving and merging sections in the vicinity of the interchange, for example, the Linden on-ramp/Grand off-ramp weave. Ten accidents have occurred at the Oyster Point railroad crossing between 1983 and 1988 and a major fatal accident occurred in the last quarter of 1989. Over the coming years, Caltrans service frequencies are expected to increase by almost 50% from 52 to 76 trains per day. Without grade separation, this would increase the accident potential significantly. According to Resolution No. 2107, projects in the above-mentioned categories are considered to have "insignificant or no significant air quality impacts". Local street, ramp and freeway mainline capacity enhancements will occur as part of the project but only as a secondary consideration. The project itself will have air quality benefits by reducing delays at the railroad crossing and ameliorating existin traffic conditions. Mitigations for any capacity increases will consist of ramp metering and a Citywide TSM Ordinance requiring a goal of 25% commute travel by other than single-occupant auto. The City is scheduled to adopt a TSM Ordinance later this year. Caltrans will determine and implement the best operating mode for the ramp meters that will be incorporated into the Oyster Point northbound and Dubuque southbound on-ramps. 21 t III. CITY AGENCIES A. South San Francisco B. Brisbane C. Daly City 22 DATE: ~rc): CI"r>r" OH' tiOl'"I'H tiAti H'RA~'C'Iti('O INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDTJM ENGINEERING DIV. 7 ~ _ ~ '• ~cElv~y We have reviewed the DEIR and have two comments. 1. Air Quality The DEIR discusses federal and state regulations for air quality in the Bay Area. The DEIR does not discuss the current liltigation in U.S. District Court involving the Bay Area Air Quality Control District. It is rtpi understanding that Judge Henderson's ruling in this case puts limits on the expenditure of funds for freeway construction until a new Site Implementation Plan is approved. DEIR should address that case if it does in fact apply to our project. 2.Seismicity The DEIR notes that there are several active faults in the vicinity of South San Francisco. As a mitigation measure it is proposed to build the interchange to current building codes. In light of the problems caused by the Loma Prieta earthquake is there anything further which we have learned? In particular there were problems with the 92/101 Interchange which was of a different design than the Cypress structure. Does that have any implications for our design? ,~/ G ~ ~ 7 ROBERT B. EWING Deputy City Attorney RBE/mm Mav 22. 1990 City Engineer OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE DRAFT EIR City Attorney z SS/205/9/86 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 1990 City Manager; Dir. of P.R.&C.S.; Chief of Police; Fire TO: Chief; Planning Div., City Attor~zey, Dir. of Pub. Works FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE AND RAILROAD SEPARATION TENTATIVE E.I.R. SCHEDULE Attached is a copy of the Draft E . I . R. for the subject project . The document is being reviewed by outside agencies. Comment by the public and agencies are due by May 31, 1990. are any questions, please call this office. AW:oj X:OYST-EIR.AW ~~v~ 3 ~~1~ ~ ~ ~wc.~' Y ~i O V ` . r / jQo ~/ r2~~i ~~l~ ~10~Ov~~d ~e d'~~~ ~T~ ~ i /~~9, s~; ~~~ SS/205 (3/89) 20 rws City Engineer A. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, MEMORANDA DATED APRIL 26, 1990 AND MAY 22, 1990. 1. The current litigation in U.S. District court is not part of the scope of this EIR. However, the air quality impact analyses in this EIR is in accordance with MTC requirements which have been identified in Resolution 2107. The Oyster Point project is affected by this resolution as it is within MTC's jurisdiction. 2. Recent information gathered from the Loma Prieta earthquake is taken into consideration in the design of the interchange. No information on 92/ 101 interchange is available. 3. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 23 ENGINEERING DIV. CITY OF BRISBANE 44 Visitation Avenue MAY ~S 1 1~9J Brisbane, California 94005 (415) 467-1515 RECEIVED FAX (415) 468-4641 May 30, 1990 Mr.. Arthur Wong, City Engineer City of South San Francisco P.O. Box ?11. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation Draft Environmental Impact Report 4 Dear Mr. Wong: i have reviewed subject Draft EIR and found the following relatively minor errors acid omissions: 1. The copy of the report which I reviewed has two pages IV-13 which ~ I have overlapping information. 2. Figure IV-6 (Brisbane General Plan) is missing from the copy of ~ 2 the report I reviewed. 3. In ApFendix C, the ai.tachrr~ent (Attachment "A") to Resolution No. ~ ~ 88-34 should be included witt- the resolution. 4. 0~1 Figur.e III-3, the notation "EXISTING OFF RAMPS TO BRIS3ANE AND y SIERRA P1. TO REMAIN" has an arrow which points to the wrong ]ccation. 5. On Figure IV-3 the error noted above exists. Also, the following notes shown on the right-hand side of Figure IV-3 no .longer apply and should hsve been removed: 5 'WIDEN EX1S'rING BKIllGE" "ATEW OVERCROSSING OF SIERRA PT. OFF RAMP" "NEW NURT--- UN RAMP" 6. The paragraph on pa ;e IV-10 which describes development a.t Sierra Point is c^tsfusing atici appears to contain conflicting informat..lon. The last sentence of that paragraph, which describes developmF~n~: within the Brici~BnP. portion of Sierra Point, 6 accurately reflects the information on development which we provided, but should stHte that the facilities described are "existi_ng or proposer:" rather than just "proposed". Arthur 'aong, City Engineer May 3C, 1990 Fage 2 7. At the botLOm of page V-27, the statement is made that "The interchange s;~oul~i also enhance access to and utilization of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and the 122-acre Lagoon west 7 o.E LTS 101.". I question the validity of that statement. In addition to the above, I have comments on the following two subjects: TFRRASAY HOOK RAHPS Tl,e Draft EIR contains the statement (on page I-!~) that "The project does not include the c:;nstruction of the Terrabay Heok Ramps which have recei~~ed prior environmantaa clearance.". I was not aware that the er_vironmental review pro<:ess on the Terra~ay Hook Ramps had been cc,mpieted. P1ea5a provide me with information on how I can obtain a copj~~>f 'the Final EIR cn that project. ';i:e Draft EIR also contains the fo.i?owing statements about the Hook Ramp ProjPCt: ''The Terrabay Hook Ramp syste~:. presently being designed and is 1995." (p. V-9) a privately funded project, is scheduled for implementation by "Ultimetely, the Terrabay Hook Ramp redesign will be essential for the proper functioning of t:he new Oyster Point Interchange." (p. V-19) "According to *_he archaeological report for the Terrabay project, the prehistoric shellmonnd site (CA-SMa-40) will potentially be affected by proposed cor,stru:.tLon integral to the Terrabay development pro•ject." (p, I~~_g~~) 'I'bis would lead one to be13.e~~e that: a) The ';'errabay }took Rn:np project will probably not be completed until at least ttao years ~.f*_er completon of the Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation project (which, according to the Draft EIR, i9 scheduled for. comh}etion in 1993); and bJ Thera may be pr_obiems related to the private funding and/or the archaFO?.ogical fi.ndir,gs whic:l~ co,:ld delay (or cancal) the Hook Ramp project. I must also point: out t at the City of $risbane has expressed concerns about the Hook Ramp project, and iliose concerns must be satisfied before the project cats proceed. (Both the Hook Ramp project and the southbound elevatad flv-over r.aa~I,, which is a part of the Oyster Point 8 q Arthur Wong, Ctt-y Et~ginaer May 3C, 1990 Paga 3 project, involve the shifti.n.; of. a portion of Bayshore Boulevard across the city limit line from Brisbane into South San Francisco. As the 9 City of Brisbane has expressed i_n the past, jurisdictional and other iss~res relating to the realignment of Bayshore Boulevard must be ~Ccnt.~ satisfactorily resolved before approval is given to proceed with t:~e work.) Another factor relating to this issue, which is not addressed in the Draft EIR, is the impact of the project on traffic going to and from the Cow Palace in Daly City. Most motorists heading southbou.d from the Cow Palace travel along Bayshore Boulevard and enter the 101 freeway at the Linden Avenue on-ramp. Ater major events at the Cow Palace, significant 'pack-ups occur. slong the entire length of Bayshore Bu~ilevard within the city limits of Brisbane. E',lthcugh the Draft EIR identifies the fact that construction of the Terraba}' Hook Ramp project is critical to the success of the Oyster Point Interchange project, and briefly addresses (as "Staging Option ~~;") completi..~n of the Oysters Point Interchange project without the new hook ramps, the subject is inadequately covered. 'The Draft EIR should contain a detailed discussion abo~it the increase ir, travel time and congestior. that would occur if the southbound Linden Avenue on-ramp is .removed before the southbound Ter.rabay on-rcimp is in place. li1CAL CUNNSCTIUN ~EZ1i1FBN UYSTEK POINT AND SiL~RRA POINT 'I"nc, following statement _s mHde on p. V-4 of the report: "The Project scenario originally also assumed a local connection between Oyster Point Boulevard and Sierra Point Boulevard through the SheAx~water site. Based on the conc].usious of a detailed traffic study, this connection, however, was found not to be desirable and was eliminated from further consideration." Further, this local connection is not listed under the characteristics or major design features of the project nor is it shown or. any of the figures which show the futures of the project. Elsewhere in the report, however, elimination of this local connection is identified as a mitigation measure. It seems highly inappropriate to identify as mitigation measures the ~limir~atien of features of a project which are not seriously being corsiderod. ~~ ~z Ors the other hand, to spite of statements to the contrary in the report, i believe that such a connection would reduce rather than P.rthur Wong, Cit}~ Engi.tteer_ May 3U, i990 Pagp 4 increase congestion at critical locations. With such a conne~~tion, 1z motorists would have the opportunity to avoid heavily congested aress by taking an alternate route of travel (which the analysis in the ~~O^*~ report does not take into consideration). One last point that I would like to make is that the Draft EIR contains a summary of. the environmental impacts of the protect (Table I-1) but (3 does not contain a summary of the mitigation measures. Such a summary would be helpful. Thank you nor the opportunity to comment on the report. ' truly yours, ~ ~~ ~~ Phil Long Public Works Consultant cc: City Manager, City of Brisb~~ne Planning Direc~or, City of Brisbane Public Works Director, City of Brisbane B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF BRISBANE, LETTER DATED MAY 30, 1990. 1. This comment is hereby acknowledged. 2. City of Brisbane General Plan was not included in the DEIR. 3. Attachment A to Resolution No. 88-34 has been included in the resolution. 4. This exhibit was provided by CH2M Hill. 5. Comment acknowledged. The exhibit has been devised. 6. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. The phrase "existing or proposed" is substituted for the word "proposed." 7. The development of the interchange would reduce areawide congestion and thereby improve access in the project vicinity, including trips to San Bruno Mountain. 8. Information is being forwarded. The hookramps were included in the final EIR for the Terrabay Project. The only remaining issue for the hookramps, subsequent to the EIR was the status and extent of an archaeological site which should be affected by ramp construction. This site has been surveyed and test excavated and an acceptable mitigation program has been devised. 9. This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. Archaeo- logical issues have been resoled. No problems with funding have been identified. 10. Cow Palace traffic headed southbound on Bayshore Boulevard will find it easier to enter Freeway 101 because two southbound on-ramps (new Terrabay Hook ramp and new Dubuque on-ramp) will be available in the future as compared to only a single on-ramp today (Linden on-ramp). Therefore, the potential for back-ups along Bayshore Boulevard will be reduced. 24 . , ,a m 1 ~ ~ SoJ ~ m , N ? 1 O W ~ 4 W 1 1 ~~o ~ ~ ~ C ~ O ~' N a b K, ~~ a~ ~ o ,.~~ w Q Q a w W U ~ ii ii a~ ~ a ~ ~~~ U ~ U U r 0 0 0 ~ O ~ O (~') V V _ N ~ ~ 4J _a O O O ~ L -- = = ~~~~ m m m ~ 0 0 o a 0 ~ o o ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ r C N N M' N t7 C to N U LL LL ~ ~ C C i0 RS > > ~ U O ~ 0 0 o o jL r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O p ~ c - - ~ ~ ~ --- ~] ~] D 0 0 0 O ~ Z ~n ~n ~n a; W OJ ~ N Ll (f O r N O W o 0 o c r r r N >~~-~ Z V -OQtl~ ~~WZ _~ ~ MQM 1L Q ii. V~ ~,,AA V• Z= ZO O N Z O ,,rA Q V/ Oa ,,WA V/ W a O O O O O 0 w w This is especially true for mid-day, evening and weekend events at the Cow Palace when local traffic generated by the industrial/office parks in South San Francisco and Brisbane will be low or non-existent. The Oyster Point Interchange/Grade Separation Project and the Terrabay Hookramp Project will improve traffic operations along Bayshore Boulevard rather than worsen it by doubling the southbound freeway on-ramp capacity. 11. A special analysis in the EIR (Staging Option 4~1) concluded that "ultimately, the Terrabay Hookramp redesign will be essential for the proper functioning of the new Oyster Point Interchange" (page V-19). If the Terrabay Hookramp project were not completed until a few years after the Oyster Point project, traffic levels would be below the available street and s intersection capacities because not all of the assumed land uses will have been implemented. In that case, the closure of the Linden on-ramp could not occur prior to the completion of the new Dubuque southbound on-ramp. The construction detour and staging plans will have to take this situation into account. During the period when the Terrabay Hook on-ramp is not yet operational, former Linden on-ramp traffic would have to divert to the Produce on-ramp and the new Dubuque on-ramp. This would temporarily channel additional traffic along Airport Boulevard and the Oyster Point intersection overcrossing. Travel times would not be substantially affected as the distance for traffic originating in the Linden/Airport area to the freeway would actually be less via the Dubuque on- ramp than via the Terrabay Hookramp (about 3,000 feet vs. about 5,000 feet). 12. The reason why a connection between Oyster Point and Sierra Point was originally considered to be "part of the Project" was the fact that an earlier project design (retaining the northbound truck scales) eliminated the possibility to travel northbound from Oyster Point to Sierra Point via Route 101 as is currently feasible. When the truck scales were subsequently eliminated, the design of the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point was modified to again permit over-the-freeway travel between Oyster Point and Sierra Point. In fact, the northbound auxiliary lane provides an improved northbound connection between Oyster and Sierra Points. 25 The analysis found that the southbound travel via a direct connection between Oyster and Sierra Points would attract a substantial amount of Sierra Point traffic headed south to Route 101 (about 1,250 p.m. peak hour trips; from Figures V-2 and V-5). This would produce a level of service F at the Oyster Point/Gateway and Oyster Point/ Dubuque intersections and above-capacity volumes on the Dubuque on-ramp (2,530 vehicles for the p.m. peak hour versus 1,800-vehicle capacity). Without the direct connection, service levels would be E at Oyster Point/Gateway and D at Oyster Point/Dubuque (see Table V-9). It should be noted that neither the City of South San Francisco's General Plan (June 1984 and Amendment of June 1986) nor the approved Environmental Impact Report for the Shearwater Development Project (1985) contained a roadway connection between Oyster and Sierra Points. However, a connection for use only by emergency vehicles has been considered in the Shearwater EIR. 13. The summary of environmental impacts on Table I-1 is in accordance with Caltrans format. 26 '4~yY:'_Cj?~ ~' czM~; CITY OF DALY CITY 333-90TH STREET aHOrvE (415) 991-8000 Mr. Arthur Wong City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Oyster Point Interchange & Grade Separation Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Wong; May 9, 1990 j..\vi. i L, ~. As per your request, the Daly City Planning Division has reviewed the Oyster Point Interchange & Grade Separation Draft Environmental Impact Report. There are no comments to make at this time, Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the proposed project. Sincerely, ~ZlL~ic~ ~(~~~.~~, DALY CITY, CA 94015-1895 Lorraine Weiss Assistant Planner 1 C• RES~'ONSE TO COMMENT FROM DALY CITY, LETTER DATED I~qy 9, 1990. 1• This comment is hereby acknowledged and included in the Final EIR. 27 IV. PRIVATE DEVELOPERS A. Koll Center B. Homart Development Company 28 May 23, 1990 Jesus Arenas City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Oyster Point Interchange Draft EiR - Comments Dear Jesus, .; On behalf of The Koll Company and the Sierra Point TJKM, our traffic consultant, review the draft EIR and ect, I had list of comments. Attached is a letter from TJKM Prepare a 1990, that summarizes these comments, dated May 23, incorporated into the EIR review I would like them process. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, THE KOLL COMPANY Douglas A. Thomas Vice President DAT:kmb enc. 3 ~c~0 N ~ n t..) T D ~ D !*1 ~ 'TI O D D ~ J C Z~~i -~ Rt ~z+m _ ~ I F ~~ R ~ Map 23, 1990 Mr. Douglas A. Thomas The Koll Company 1000 Marina Blvd., Suite 150 Brisbane, CA 94005 Dear Mr. Thomas: TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS At your request, we have reviewed the document The Oyster Point Inteirhacnge and Grade Separation Draft Environmental Impact Report, (DEIR) dated April 1990 and prepared by P & D Technologies in cooperation with Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. With respect to the relationship between the DEIR and your properties at Sierra Point, there seems to be insufficient detail related to the access opportunities to Sierra Point offered by the proposed improvements at Oyster Point. For example, the need for improved southbound access from Sierra Point is not fully ezplored. The DEIR deals with the connection between Sierra Point and Oyster Point as an optional possibility, rather than as the only opportunity to connect the 27•acre South San Francisco Sierra Point parcel with the rest of South San Francisco. Given the nature and status of development at both Oyster Point and Sierra Point, it clearly appears that now is the time to address the potential connection between the two areas -- not sometime in the future when the Oyster Point access issues are fully resolved. The DEIR documents the plans to abandon the Truck Weigh Stations along Route 101. This results in a significantly enhanced design for the area, with improvements in circulation, capacity and safety in the area. We think it is very desirable for all traffic in the area for the Truck Weigh Stations to be removed. We have the following specific comments to the text of the DEIR: 1. The DEIR describes the connection with Sierra Point on page III-14 and subsequent pages. It admits to analyzing the traffic effects, but not the "engineering and environmental feasibility" of such a connection. Later, the connection is eliminated as a mitigation measure without analyzing its potential positive impacts including: 1) providing a second access point to Sierra Point and; 2) allowing South Saa Francisco emergency and service vehicles to reach the South San Francisco portion of Sierra Point without having to use both Caltrans and Brisbane facilities. 2. I am not sure the description of Sierra Point land uses on page N-10 reflects the current plans of your organization. 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214, Pleasarrton, CalBomia 94588 • (415) 463-0611 FN( (~15) X83.3690 z PLEASANTON • SACRAMENTO • FRESNO • CONCORD Mr. Douglas A. Thomas -2- May 23, 1990 3. In the description of Sierra Point net trip generation rates in Table V-5, it is noted that Sierra Point office trips rates are 226 trips per 1,000 square feet in the a.m. peak and 1.6? trips per 1,000 square feet is the p.m. peak. These are 100 percent and 5? percent greater, respectively, than comparable land uses in South San l~ancisco. I know of no reason why such a differential is appropriate; these elevated trip rates seem to be the cause of an overstatement of trips related to the Sierra Point development. 4. On page V-15 it is noted that the reason for the overload of traffic on the northbound Sierra Point off ramp is "...the 1.6 million square feet of new oiffce space approved by the City of Brisbane for the Sierra Point Peninsula and the assumed local connection between Oyster and Sierra Points." It is noted that the trip rates assumed for Sierra Point significantly overstate the peak hour traffic, particularly the a.m. peak. In addition, although not stated in the DE1R, it appears that a major portion of the off-ramp traffic is related to the Southern Pacific Brisbane site, which site is not likely to be developed extensively if it must rely on Sierra Point Parkway for its principal access. , 5. Also on page V-15, the DEIR states that "The primary reasons for the high traffic volumes at these two intersections [Oyster Point at Gateway and Dubuque] is the assumed local road connection between Oyster and Sierra Points." As noted above, this traffic is probably overstated due to the high trip rates assumed in Brisbane. In addition, the traffic distribution process has assigned high traffic volumes to a congested route, (the new southbound on-ramp) even though a les-congested southbound 101 access exists at the proposed Terra Bay hook ramp interchange. 6. The DEIR notes that the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point is overloaded in various scenarios, but fails to point out that the design of the proposed five-legged intersection is not only unusual aad not preferred, but is a major reason for the poor level of service at the intersection. Instead, the DEIR places most of the blame for poor traffic conditions on the local street connection with Sierra Point. It would seem that the Project designers and the preparers of the DEIR would search for a design which would incorporate more desirable four legged intersections. Please let me know if there are any questions about these observations. Very truly yours, ~~ Chris D. Rinzel 3 ~{ S 6 rhm 4?-009 A. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE KOLL COMPANY/TJKM LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1990. 1. The EIR statement that "the engineering and environmental feasibility of constructing [a connection between Oyster and Sierra Points] has not been studied" refers to the fact that wetlands are potentially affected, that right-of- way may not be available and that no engineering alignment design studies have been undertaken. Since the connection is not an integral part of the Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation Project, the analysis was limited to a traffic evaluation. Some form of roadway connection could be considered for the exclusive use by emergency vehicles. However, a connection that would be open to the public traffic was found to have significant negative traffic impacts along Oyster Point Boulevard. See also Response No. B 12 to the City of Brisbane letter above. 2. The future development assumptions for Sierra Point were provided by the City of Brisbane as is detailed in DEIR Appendix B, Table B-4. If these land uses are overstated, the future traffic projections are also correspondingly overstated. The EIR projections represent aworst-case scenario based upon the "best" then available and official land use projections. 3. The net trip generation rates shown in Table V-5 for Brisbane land uses were taken, upon recommendation by the City of Brisbane, directly from the "Brisbane Traffic Management and Capacity Study". The EIR authors concur with the comment that these rates are higher than similar rates used for South San Francisco land uses. The original studies conducted for the City of Brisbane were applied in the EIR for reasons of consistency. If the Brisbane rates are overly conservative, then the actual volumes on the Sierra Point on and off-ramps and on Bayshore Boulevard could be lower than predicted in the Draft EIR. 4. See Response to Comment No. 2 above. Access to the Southern Pacific Brisbane site was also assumed via the Candlestick Route 101 interchange. 29 5. See Response to Comment No. 3 above. Access to Route 101 southbound via the Dubuque on-ramp represents the most direct route from the Oyster Point/Gateway intersection and is 3,400 feet shorter than access via the Terrabay ramp. Travel time and distance were the primary criteria used in determining future travel paths. 6. Several alternatives to the five-leg Oyster Point/Gateway intersection were evaluated and are still being investigated by the Design Engineers, CH2M Hill, and Caltrans. So far, the five-leg intersection, while having certain capacity limitations, has been found to be superior to the other alternatives from the view point of traffic operations, safety and design aspects. 30 LJ Homart 651 Gateway Blvd.. Suite 630 ~~ Development Co So. San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 583-3850 ^ Fax: (415) 583-8160 ENGINEERING DIV. MAY :~ 1 i99~ RQCEIVED May 30, 1990 Mr. Arthur Wong City Engineer City of South San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Oyster Point Interchange and Railroad Separation Draft EIR Dear Mr. Wong: On behalf of Homart Development Co., we want to go on record that we object to 1) The Project, 2) Staging Option #1 and 3) No Project alternatives. We favor Staging Option #2. This letter will primarily focus on the problems that would be created by the fly-over option under Option # 1. We believe that the construction of the fly-over under Stage Option # 1 is inconsistent with the objectives of the proposed interchange construction which is to alleviate traffic congestion from Highway 101 to Oyster Point. The proposed fly-over design has the following negative elements: 1. The termination of the southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Blvd. 1 creates a less than optimal convergence of high-speed traffic into a five-point signalized interchange; 2. The operation of a five-point intersection at Oyster Point and 2 Gateway will create a severe delay over a normal four-point intersection; 3. Addition of the fl -over, according to the EIR will only nominally 3 improve the traffic flow over the intersections that it is meant to alleviate; 4. The view comdor from the Homart property will be extremely ~ y negatively impacted; May 30, 1990 Mr. Arthur Wong Page 2 5. The views from the western side of 101, looking east, will be ~ 5 negatively impacted; 6. As Table V-8 demonstrates, the performance of the freeway ramp at 6 peak performance operates at below capacity, thereby questioning the need for the ramp construction; 7. In the current design, it appears that there may be a taking of land from Homart, which will have a negative impact on our future .~ development as approved under our Specific Plan with the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and will negatively affect our economic viability; 8. If there is a taking of land, there may be a negative impact as regards to the deed restrictions that have been negotiated with the California S Department of Health Services and the interference with the currently encapsulated toxic soil conditions from the former Edwards Wire and Rope factory; 9. The freeway ramp construction may pose an unnecessary seismic risk to the area and to freeway users; 10. The construction of the freeway ramp appears to be serving a relatively few number of users relative to the negative elements listed above. Mr. Wong, we urge you to take the above items into serious consideration and urge you to adopt Staffing Option #2 as it has the least environmental impact. I also look forward to meeting with you, per your suggestion, and CH2M Hill to discuss the impact of the Oyster Point Interchange design. ~iac c Richardson L. Watkins Sr. Development Director RLW/ef ]' ~ ~o cc: Bill Mackey Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LETTER DATED MAY 30, 19990. 1-3. Alternative designs for merging the southbound fly-over off-ramp into Oyster Point Boulevard are currently being investigated by CH2M Hill, the Design Engineer, and Caltrans. See also response to Comment IV.A.6. With and without the southbound fly-over off-ramp, (Mitigated Stage Option 4~2, see Draft EIR, Table V-9) the intersection service levels would be as follows: Mitigated Project With SB , Without SB Fly-0ver Ramp Fly-Over Ramp Terrabay Hook Ramps/Bayshore AM Peak Hour A C PM Peak Hour D E Airport/Oyster Point AM Peak Hour B D PM Peak Hour A D Oyster Point/Dubuque AM Peak Hour A B PM Peak Hour D E Oyster Point/Gateway AM Peak Hour E D/E PM Peak Hour E E/F The service levels (LOS) with the fly-over ramp would be "D" or better except for the Oyster Point/Gateway intersection. Without the fly-over ramp, Airport/Oyster Point would deteriorate to LOS D, and the other three intersections would worsen to E and E/F during at least one peak hour of the day. 4 ac S. Comments acknowledged. View and aesthetic impacts of the fly-over ramp are discussed on Pages V-28/29 of the Draft EIR. The view corridors from and toward •the Gateway Project (Homart property) would be affected. However, the new freeway overcrossing and fly-over ramp 31 would be located about 600 feet farther north than the present overcrossing. This would tend to mitigate to some extent the impact on the Gateway view corridor and broaden the angle of visibility of the Gateway Project from Route 101. 6. The new Terrabay Hook Ramp (off-ramp) would be able to accommodate the future traffic without the fly-over ramp. The primary purpose of the fly-over ramp is to relieve the surface streets and to improve the service levels at the major intersections. 7. Alternative design schemes are currently being developed; some of which will reduce or eliminate the need for taking Homart property for the fly-over-ramp. 8. The City intends to resolve all legal issues regarding purchase of any private property before construction of the interchange. 9. Caltrans' state-of-the-art seismic standards will be applied to all structures of the interchange project. 10. Based on the EIR's traffic projections, between 500 and 600 vehicles would use the fly-over off-ramp. This is equivalent to a total daily volume of about 4,000 vehicles. The fly-over off-ramp would be the least-used ramp of all ramps in the project area. 32 CALINE4 INPUT VARIABLES Wind Speed - 1.0 m/sec Wind Bearing - 315.0 deg (intersections) - 360.0 deg (n/s traffic links) - 270.0 deg (e/w traffic links) Standard Deviation of Bearing - 25 deq Stability Class - F Mixing Height - 1000 m Surface Roughness - 108 Ambient CO Concentrations - 11.0 ppm (existing 1-hour) - 7.1 ppm (future at <10 mph) - 7.5 ppm (future at l0 mph) Ambient HC Concentrations - 0.1 ppm Average Temperature - 13.8 deg (C) Receptor Distances to Intersections - 15 m and Traffic Links 30 m 45 m 60 m CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS OUTPUT FILES ICI Sf/N~ CoKOi /!'ON! _ . C D MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:intier ~ f cnoNS * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F RECPT 1 * 30.9 * 7.1 0.0 2.1 O.1 7.6 3.1 RECPT 2 * 25.1 * 4.6 0.0 1.7 0.3 5.3 2.2 RECPT 3 * 21.6 * 3.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 4.0 1.8 RECPT 4 * 19.2 * 2.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 3.1 1.4 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:i_nt~er * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A 8 `tC D E F RECPT 1 * 26.3 * 1.3 1.4 3.6 0.2 2.2 6.5 RECPT 2 * 21.9 * 0.9 0.9 2.2 0.1 1.9 4.8 RECPT 3 * 19.3 * 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.2 1.6 3.6 RECPT 4 * 17.7 * 0.6 0.5 1.1 O.5 1.4 2.6 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FI LE b:int3er * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 31.2 * 6.3 6.0 0.4 7.5 RECPT 2 * 22.9 * 3.5 4.1 0.3 4.0 RECPT 3 * 18.8 * 2.2 3.0 0.2 2.5 RECPT 4 * 16.8 * 1.5 2.3 0.2 1.7 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FI LE b:i_ r * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A H C D RECPT 1 * 19.2 * 4.9 0.3 1.3 1.8 RECPT 2 * 13.3 * 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 RECPT 3 * 11.9 * 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 RECPT 4 * 11.4 * 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 N ~•+~w rs~ Atostcr _ c o I,c,~izsFCT.rns MODEL RESOLTS FOR FILE b:intimpr * FRED * COON/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A B C D E RECPT 1 * 25.0 * 4.0 3.7 1.2 2.7 6.0 RECPT 2 * 20.5 * 2.4 2.6 0.9 2.0 5.1 RECPT 3 * 17.5 * 1.7 2.0 0.7 1.6 4.1 RECPT 4 * 15.5 * 1.2 1.6 0.6 1.3 3.3 MODEL R ESOLTS FOR FILE b:int2mpr * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A , B ' C D RECPT 1 * 31.0 * 11.7 0.0 2.1 9.8 RECPT 2 * 24.3 * 6.9 0.0 1.5 8.4 RECPT 3 * 20.2 * 4.7 0.0 1.1 6.8 RECPT 4 * 17.7 * 3.5 0.0 0.9 5.7 MODEL R ESOLTS FOR FILE b:int3mpr * FRED * COON/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 21.5 * 5.7 4.2 0.5 3.9 RECPT 2 * 17.2 * 3.5 3.0 0.4 3.1 RECPT 3 * 14.8 * 2.5 2.3 0.3 2.6 RECPT 4 * 13.0 * 1.8 1.9 0.3 2.0 MODEL R ESIILTS FOR FILE b:int4mpr * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 15.6 * 6.2 0.2 2.1 0.0 RECPT 2 * 9.0 * 1.3 0.1 O.S 0.0 RECPT 3 * 7.7 * 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 RECPT 4 * 7.4 * 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 ~'RoJECrr ~LTEK/1JAnVE - CO C~;~irsEC7~a~s~ MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:intl~r * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E RECPT 1 * 30.0 * 3.8 7.3 2.8 4.6 4.5 RECPT 2 * 23.6 * 2.4 5.2 2.0 3.2 3.7 RECPT 3 * 19.7 * 1.6 3.9 1.5 2.4 3.1 RECPT 4 * 17.3 * 1.2 3.1 1.2 1.9 2.7 MODEL RE8OLT8 FOR FILE b:int2pr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * {, A H C D RECPT 1 * 33.3 * 14.4 0.0 2.2 9.6 RECPT 2 * 25.0 * 8.3 0.0 1.5 8.1 RECPT 3 * 20.4 * 5.4 0.0 1.2 6.7 RECPT 4 * 17.6 * 3.8 0.0 1.0 5.7 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:int_Pr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 22.1 * 5.7 3.S 0.5 4.9 RECPT 2 * 17.8 * 3.5 2.S 0.4 3.9 RECPT 3 * 15.5 * 2.4 2.0 0.3 3.2 RECPT 4 * 13.6 * 1.8 1.6 0.3 2.5 MODEL RESOLTS FOR FILE b: i_n_t~r * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A 8 C D RECPT 1 * 15.9 • 6.1 0.2 2.1 O.0 RECPT 2 * 9.4 * 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 RECPT 4 * 7.8 * 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 tJe pR0 ?~ ~T - C O ~ScJ,-~xj fcnrrvs~ MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:intlnpr * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F RECPT 1 * 30.6 * 3.6 4.6 3.5 3.3 3.8 4.4 RECPT 2 * 23.4 * 2.4 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.5 RECPT 3 * 19.5 * 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.8 RECPT 4 * 17.0 * 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:int2npr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B `' C D E F RECPT 1 * 24.5 * 2.3 3.1 2.4 1.0 3.5 4.8 RECPT 2 * 20.5 * 1.S 2.0 1.6 1.2 2.5 4.1 RECPT 3 * 18.3 * 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.0 3.7 RECPT 4 * 16.4 * 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.9 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:i_t3npr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A H C D E F RECPT 1 * 33.1 * 4.6 0.6 4.9 2.4 0.6 12.5 RECPT 2 * 24.4 * 2.7 0.6 3.5 1.9 0.4 7.8 RECPT 3 * 19.4 * 1.8 0.6 2.6 1.7 0.3 4.9 RECPT 4 * 16.9 * 1.3 0.5 2.1 1.6 0.3 3.5 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:int4npr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 13.6 * 4.7 0.4 1.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 9.2 * 1.1 0.2 0.3 O.0 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 RECPT 4 * 7.8 * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 ~J~~S~eLr CONOt 1~~v 1' - Lo ~~NK',~ MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:linkier * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 11.4 * 0.1 0.3 RECPT 2 * 11.2 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 3 * 11.1 * 0.0 O.1 RECPT 4 * 11.1 * 0.0 0.1 MOD EL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:link2or * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM RECEPT OR * (PPM) * , A H RECPT 1 * 11.4 * 0.2 0.2 RECPT 2 * 11.2 * 0.1 O.1 RECPT 3 * 11.1 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 11.1 * O.0 0.0 MOD EL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:link3or * FRED * COON/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 11.6 * 0.2 0.4 RECPT 2 * 11.3 * 0.1 0.2 RECPT 3 * 11.2 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 11.1 * 0.0 0.1 MOD EL RESDLTB FOR FILE b:link4or * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 13.2 * 1.4 0.8 RECPT 2 * 12.0 * 0.6 0.4 RECPT 3 * 11.6 * 0.3 0.2 RECPT 4 * 11.3 * 0.2 0.1 PRO rEcr - Go ~LctiK.-s) MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:linkipr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.8 * 0.4 0.6 RECPT 2 * 8.4 * 0.2 0.3 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * 0.1 0.2 RECPT 4 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 MODEL RESIILTS FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A Bs RECPT 1 * 8.3 * 0.1 0.3 RECPT 2 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 3 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.1 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.4 * 0.2 0.2 RECPT 2 * 8.2 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 3 * 8.0 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (Ppl~i) • A B RECPT 1 * 9.3 * 1.0 0.6 RECPT 2 * 8.5 * 0.5 0.3 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * 0.3 0.2 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.1 0.1 FILE b:link2pr FILE b:link3pr FILE bslink4pr -Uw n -~ri~ ~?OJ~c f - Co Lc NJCS) MODEL REBIILTS FOR FILE b:linkimpr * PRED * COCN/LINK * COON * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.7 * 0.4 0.4 RECPT 2 * 8.3 * 0.2 0.2 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 MODEL RESDLTS FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A Bs~ RECPT 1 * 8.2 * 0.1 0.2 RECPT 2 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 3 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESQLTS FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.3 * 0.2 0.2 RECPT 2 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 3 * 8.0 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR * PRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 9.3 * 1.0 0.6 RECPT 2 * 8.S * O.S 0.3 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 0.3 0.2 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.1 0.1 FILE b:link2mpr FILE b:link3mpr FILE b:link4mpr -Ado---~~~-~-- ~'o _ ~n~~~ - MODEL REBIILTB FOR FILE b:linkinpr * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.7 * 0.4 O.S RECPT 2 * 8.3 * 0.2 0.2 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * O.l 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 MODEL REBIILTB FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * ( pp~ RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.6 * 0.3 0.4 RECPT 2 * 8.3 * 0.1 0.2 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.1 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.1 MODEL REBIILTB FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 8.6 * 0.2 O.S RECPT 2 * 8.3 * 0.1 0.3 RECPT 3 * 8.1 * 0.1 0.2 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.0 0.1 MODEL REBIILTB FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COON * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A H RECPT 1 * 9.7 * 1.3 0.7 RECPT 2 * 8.6 * O.S 0.4 RECPT 3 * 8.2 * 0.3 0.2 RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 0.2 0.1 FILE b:link2npr FILE b:link3npr FILE b:link4npr HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OUTPUT FILES ~ rs-~~-- c:oNoiT~dnfS MODEL H~ TNTF-~~~ n ~,~ REBQLTg gOR FILE b:iileh * FRED * COON RECEPTOR * COON * /LINK ____ _ (PPM) * A (PPM) RECPT * 0.5 * ----8 C D 1 * --- E F RECPT 2 * 0.4 * 0.1 0. ----------------- RECPT 0 0.0 ------- 3 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 RECPT 0.0 O.0 0.1 0. 4 * 0.3 * O:1 0 0 0 0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MODEL 0.0 0.0 O.p 0. RE8ULT8 FOR FILE b:i~_~h 0.O * FRED * COCK RECEPTOR * COCK * /LINK _____ (PPM) * A (PBM) RECP ---*-------*--------- ~+ D T 1 * ------ 8 g RECPT 0.~ * ---------- RECPT 2 * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 --------- 3 * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR•FILEOb~iIIt3eh 0.0 0.1 * FRED * COON RECEPTOR * COON * /LINK - _____ (PPM) * (PPM) RECPT * -----*---~-----8 C D RECPT y ~ 0.5 * --------------- 0.3 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 * 0.2 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0. RECPT ~ * 0.2 * 0.0 0.1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MODEL RE8OLT8 FOR•gILEOb oiat4ah * FRED * COCN RECEPTOR--*- ~ PM) ~ A ( BSI ~ --_--- RECPT ---*-------- C D 2 * 0.3 • 0.1 -~------------- RECpT 0. .1 * 0.0 • RECPT 0 0 0.0 3 • 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 • 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -(R~'J~iL'T H7'_ ~TwP-E~ MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b: intlph * PRED * COCN/LINK * COON +- (pPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A H C D E RECPT 1 * 0.5 * 0.1 0.1---0.0 --0.1---0.1 RECPT 2 * 0.4 * 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 * 0.3 * O.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:i~ch +- PRED * COCK/LINK RECEPTOR * COON * (Pp~ (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 0.5 * ---------------- RECPT 2 * 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 ~ 0'4 * O.1 0.0 O.O 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.3 * 0.1 0'0 0.O 0.1 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 O.0 O.1 MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:int3~h * PRED * COCK/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0~1 RECPT 2 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR FILE b:i t4pb * PRED * COON/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 0.2 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESULTB FOR FILE :intimph * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A H C D E RECPT 1 * 0.4 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 2 * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MODEL RESIILTS FOR FZLE b:iat2mph * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCK * (PPM)t~ RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * O.S * 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 RECPT 2 * 0.4 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 3 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 MOD EL RE8ULT8 FOR FILE b:iat3mph * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 RECPT 2 * 0.3 * 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MODEL REBIILTB FOR FILE b:iat4mph * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (Ppl[) * A B C D RECPT 1 * 0.2 * 0.1 O.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 M NC ,f'/~c~1~Ec~ __f-fCG ~.I1'~iktZS~c•l~'~( (~-~ , ODEL RE8IILT8 FOR FILE b:int p * FRED * COCN +- COCN/LINK RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (PPM) _ __ A B C D E RECPT 1 RECPT 2 * 0.5 * * 0.1 0.1 0.1 --- ------- 0 1 F ------ RECPT 3 * 0.3 * 0.0 O.0 0.0 0 0 . 0.0 0.1 0 0 0.1 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * . 0.0 O.0 0.0 0 0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 O 0 . 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:int2npb . 0.0 * PRED * COON/LINK RECEPTOR * COON * (PPM) • (PPM) S _ -- - *-------*- A B --- c D E RECPT 1 RECPT 2 * 0.4 * * 0 3 * ----------- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- _ ------- - 0 0 F ----- RECPT 3 R . * 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 O . 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 1 ECPT 4 * 0.2 * .0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 . 0 1 . 0.0 O.p MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR FILE b:int3npb . 0.0 ~ PRED * COCN * COON/LINK RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (PPM) _______ ~-------*-- A B C - D E RECPT 1 RECPT 2 * 4 * 0 ---- -------- 0.1 0.0 0.1 ------- 0 0 -- F RECPT 3 * . 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 RECPT 4 * 0.2 * .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MODEL RESIILTS BOR~FiLEOb~iat4nph 0.1 * FRED * COON * COON LINK RECEPTOR * (PP~t) * (PPM) _ -- -*-------*-- A B C D RECPT 1 * RECPT 2 * ----- 0.2 * ------------- O'1 O.0 O.0 0 1 * ---- 0 0 RECPT 3 * . 0'O O.0 0.0 . 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0 0 . O.0 0.0 ~X'~ S7~ N~ C:EnI orTTbiY s ~-_ _ _ MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:linkia * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCN * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:link2ah * FRED * COCK/LINK * COCN * (PP1~~ RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A H RECPT 1 * 0.2 * 0.0 0.1 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 O.O RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MOD EL RE8IILT8 FOR FILE b:link3eh * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPT OR * (PPM) * A H RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MOD EL RESIILTB FOR FILE b:link4oh * FRED * COON/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 t ~ ~ Are n biz e~ e ~" - ttC, ~Ltxi_~S~ - MODEL RE8ULT8 FOR FILE b:linkimph * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN +- (PPM) RECEPTOR • (PpM) * A g RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * O.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESOLTS FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * (PPM) ,} RECEPTOR * (ppM) • !j B RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 • 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RE8QLT8 FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A g RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECpT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL REBOLTS FOR * FRED * COCK/LINK * COON * (PPM) RECEPTOR • (ppM) * A g RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 • 0.0 0.0 FILE b:link2mph FILE b:link3mph FILE b:link4mph MODEL RESIILTS FOR FILE b:linkiaph * FRED * COON/LINK * COCN * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT ~ * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESIILTB FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COCN * ( PPM) t RECEPTOR * (ppM) * A H RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * O.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * O.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RESIILTS FOR * FRED * COON/LINK * COCK * (ppM) RECEPTOR * (PpM) * A H RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT ~ * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 MODEL RE8IILT8 FOR * FRED * COCN/LINK * COON * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (ppM) • A B RECPT 1 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 * 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 FILE b:link2nph --__ FILE b:link3nph FILE b:link~nph