Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarbella Final EIR 11-29-2001FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARBELLA CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO November 29, 2001 SCH #: 2001062018 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARBELLA CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO November 29, 2001 SCH #: 2001062018 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Marbella project (SCH# 2001062018) was prepared by the City of South San Francisco, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to inform decision-makers and the general public of the potential impacts related to the proposed Marbella project. The DEIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant impacts and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The DEIR was circulated for public and agency review from October 5, 2001 through November 19, 2001, which is in compliance with the 45 days required. The comment period provided an opportunity for the public to review the issues addressed in the impact analysis and to offer comments on any aspect of the process. The notice of availability of the DEIR and the public review period was noticed in the San Mateo Times on Wednesday, October 10, 2001, mailed first-class to addresses within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed by mail to local agencies and cities, and the DEIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse. Written comments received in response to the DEIR in this Response to Comments Document, together with the DEIR, issued on October 5, 2001 constitutes the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be considered by decision-makers before approving the proposed Marbella project. Section 15132 of the 2001 CEQA Guidelines state that a Final EIR shall consist of the following: • The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft; • Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and • Any other information added by the Lead Agency. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 1-1 METHOD OF ORGANIZATION In compliance with CEQA, this Response to Comments Document responds to all written comments received during the public review period for the Focused DEIR. Chapter 2 contains copies of all written comments received. Immediately following each comment letter are responses to the written comments. This Response to Comments Document, together with the DEIR, constitutes the Final EIR. The DEIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this document. The DEIR is available for review at the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. CONCLUSION The DEIR identifies one impact of the project that would be Traffic Impact -2: The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operas at LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing background conditions and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of the project would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle, which constitutes a significant,mpact.~ Signalization of the Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway is not recommended due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/ Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McD ~tc?'s T~riveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows :art Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a stgntficant and unavoidable impact. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 1-2 CHAPTER 2 WRITTEN RESPONSES AND COMMENTS This chapter includes written responses and comments from the following organizations and state, local, and regional agencies. A. Department of Toxic Substance Control, California Environmental Protection Agency B. California Department of Transportation C. Wayne L. Toring D. California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (received after the 45 day review period) ,, of South San Francisco Planning Commission comments at public ,gig held on the Draft EIR, November 15, 2001 City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-1 LETTER A Department of Toxic Substances Control 'inston H. Hickox 4gency Secretary "alifornia Environmental Protection Agency November 6, 2001 Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94080 Dear Ms. Kalkin: RE~E~vEp ~ G Y i 3 2~G1 PLANNIfUG , f f; >. ,~o.... Gray Davis Governor Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the final Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated October 5, 2001 for the Marbella Housing Subdivision Project ~, (SCH#2001062018) Site (Site) located to the northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco. As you know, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) has provided comments on an earlier version of the draft EIR in a letter to Tom Sparks of your agency dated July 13, 2001. As indicated in the letter, the draft EIR stated that the 2.6 ppm arsenic level in soil samples collected at the Site was "typical of normal background arsenic levels in the San Francisco B Q,rea." However, no specific reference and value that would indicate the natural y oc~ g background levels of arsenic at the Site was found in the draft EIR or the earlier Phase 1 report. DTSC also recommended that additional discrete soil sampling be conducted to determine whether arsenic is a chemical of potential concern. Please note that the Preliminary Remediation Goal levels (PRGs) are used only as a screening tool. Site-specific cleanup numbers can only be established by conducting a health-based risk assessment or by sampling to establish soil background levels for the Site. Since the Site will be a residential development,~DTSC strongly recommends that additional discrete soil sampling for arsenic be conducted to ensure protection of~future ri~idents. As discussed in our earlier letter, DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing additional site characterization and, if necessary, cleanup activities through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. We have enclosed another copy of a fact sheet describing this program. We also request that DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are discussed. The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. Edwin F. Lowry, Director 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, California 94710-2721 A-1 A-2 A-3 ® Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Kalkin November 6, 2001 Page Two In addition, DISC is administering the $85 million Urban Cleanup Loan Program which will provide low-interest loans to investigate and cleanup hazardous materials at properties where redevelopment is likely to have a beneficial impact to a community. The program is composed of two main components: low interest loans of up to $100,000 to conduct preliminary endangerment assessments of underutilized properties; and loans of up to $2.5 million for the cleanup or removal of hazardous materials also at underutilized urban properties. These loans are available to developers, businesses, schools, and local governments. A fact sheet regarding this program is attached for your information. Please contact Annina Antonio of my staff at (510) 540-3844 if you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, ~i:= ~ __ ~ - ,~~ ~, Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief Northern California Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch Enclosures cc without enclosures Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 A. DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A-1. With respect to background concentrations of arsenic in shallow soil in the San Francisco Bay Area, the most widely-recognized regional evaluation was performed by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Protocol for Determining Background Concentration of Metals in Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), August 1995). That study, which examined background metal concentrations in soils derived from different regional geologic units ranging in age from Jurassic to Holocene, found general background concentrations of arsenic of 9.3 to 31 parts per million (ppm), depending on the specific geologic unit. For their geologic units of mid-Tertiary age (their Orinda and Moraga Formations), they reported an average background arsenic concentration of about 13.5 ppm. The Marbella Housing Subdivision site is underlain by rocks of the Merced Formation of upper-Tertiary to lower-Quaternary age. Whereas these rocks are not directly correlative to the mid-Tertiary units of the LBNL study, the concentration of arsenic measured at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site (2.9 ppm) is certainly below the average concentrations measured during the LBNL study, which covers a much broader and diverse age grouping of geologic formations. In our opinion, the LBNL results can be used for comparative purposes to evaluate expected background concentrations of arsenic at the subject site. In our opinion, the concentrations of arsenic measured in shallow soil at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site are representative of naturally occurring background levels in the San Francisco Bay area. In addition to the LBNL study, review of our project files at Henshaw shows that we have previously performed a general investigation of soil quality at another site along Westborough Boulevard, approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the subject site. Test results for eight soil samples analyzed for arsenic during that investigation ranged from less than the method reporting limit of 1.0 ppm to a maximum of 2.9 ppm. (Laboratory data for that investigation can be made available for review upon request.) These results are virtually identical to those reported for the Marbella Housing Subdivision site. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the concentrations of arsenic measured in soil at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site are representative of naturally occurring background levels in the general area. In our professional opinion, no additional evaluation is warranted. A-2. Additional soil sampling has already been preformed. In February 2001, Henshaw Associates, Inc., collected additional soil samples at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site to provide confirmation of the test results for arsenic reported in Henshaw's initial Phase I Assessment report dated June 9, 2000, and to assess the possible presence of hexavalent chromium in shallow soil. The test results for these additional samples (collected in the same general area as the samples described in Henshaw's June 9, 2000 report) did not indicate the presence of arsenic above the laboratory method reporting City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-4 limit of 1.0 ppm, or hexavalent chromium above the laboratory method reporting limit of 0.2 ppm. A copy of these test results has been provided to the DTSC under separate cover. Based on the chemical test results for all soil samples collected at the site, it is our professional opinion that arsenic is not a potential chemical of concern at this site. A-3. Based on the site history evaluation and soil sampling results presented in Henshaw's previous reports, it is our opinion that soil contamination by arsenic, or other constituents, is not present at the Marbella Housing Subdivision site. As such, there is no need for site cleanup activities prior to development of the site for residential land use. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-5 ] ] i ] 9/O] ] 7:42 FAX 5l 028655] 3 TRANS Pl_.ANNING B C~ 00] LETTER B DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P O BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623.0660 (610)28b-4444 TDD (510) 286-4454 November l9, 2001 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco Planiung Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION ~ECEIVEG~ hGV i 9 X001 SM-280-22.b2 SM280107 SCH# 20010b2018 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental ]inpact Report (DEIR) dated October 5, 2001, and offer the following comments: Traffic ,~ 1. Project trip distribution shown on Figuse 8 of Page 20, Appendix B should be clarified. Project trip percentages at the site do not total 100, and Figure 8 shows 58 percent of project trips inbound to the project site during the A.M. peak. A figure showing project trips during the A.M. peak should also be included. The number of trips assigned to the Interstate 280 (I-280) interchange intersections should be clarified, and level of service at these intersections analyzed if warranted. For example, while only 25 trips are assigned to I-280 in the analysis (see page 27 of the Appendix), project trip assignment indicates that 53 percent, or 55 trips travel toward 1-280 intersections during the A.M. peak, and 41 percent, or 42 trips travel from the intersections during the P.M. peak. Further, since I-280 is the likely route to Bay Area work, shopping and entertainment destinations due to its close proximity to the project site, the study should analyze the interchange intersections. etween State Route 1 and Interstate 380 interchanges is F in both the 3. The level of service g~-I-280 b ,, ~ ~~_ ~~~.~, AI. `an$ P,`~ pe,~k pe~Iods ra43ier than level of service E and D as stated on Page 9, Chapter 4.2 0~ the llEIR. 4. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' land use code for the project trip generation should be cited in Table 8 of Page 19, Appendix B. Project trip generation should alendix B should be tot lied, for example, the inbound and outbound columns in Table 8 of Page 19, App B-1 B-2 B-3 g-4 Parking l~ Project design should acco-mnodate total project-related parking demand. The traffic study calcu ales B_5 a total project parking demand of 632 spaces (Table 1 of Page 4, Appendix B) while the DEIR i indicates that only 630 spaces will be provided (151 Paragraph on Page 12, Chapter 4.2). Transit T. Transit demand should be evaluated, the project vicinity should be reviewed for existing and potentia I B_6 bus stops, and any new stops should include: • Full bus turnout, • Shelter, ]]/l9/Ol ]7:42 FAX 5702865513 TRANS PI.,ANNING R 0 002 -- - LETTER B Bench, and • Trash receptacle. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Patricia Maurice of my staff at (Sl0) 622-1644. Sincerely, RANDELL H. IWASAKI Acting District Director By JEAN C. K. FINNEY District Branch Chief 1GR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte Joung {State Clearinghouse) B CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION B-1 Figure 8 of the traffic study illustrates a total of 100% of the inbound and outbound trips. The table below also provides a summary of trip distribution. TABLE 1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION A.M. Peak Intersection - Inbound Outbound Gellert Blvd/Proposed Project Access 28% (SBR) 19% (EBR/SB) 14%(SBR) 19o°(EBUNB) Gellert Blvd/Pac'N Save/Orchard Supply Driveway 58% (NBL) 62 /° (EBR/SB) TOTALI 100% 100% Notes: SBR: Southbound-Right NBL: Northbound-Left EBR: Eastbound-Right EBL: Eastbound-Left EBR/SB: Eastbound-Right heading Southbound EBUNB: Eastbound-Left heading Northbound WBT: Westbound-Thru P.M. Peak Inbound Outbound 31%(SBR) 15% (EBR) 8% (SBR) 37% (EBUNB) 59% (NBL) 4% (EBT) 2% (WBT) 44% (EBR/SB) 100% 100% Figure 10 of the traffic study illustrates the project trips during the a.m. peak hour. Figure 11 illustrates the project trips during the p.m. peak hour. B-2. The number of trips accessing I-280 is noted in the traffic study. Not all of the trips traveling towards the intersections at I-280 would access the freeway; some would continue to points further east (or come from points further east) along Westborough Boulevard. The intersections analyzed were selected in cooperation with City of South San Francisco staff, and are the ones most likely impacted by the proposed project. B-3. The level of service noted in the Draft EIR on I-280 between State Route 1 and Interstate 380 is based on the San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Program for 1999, published by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. B-4. Table 8 has been modified as shown below to reflect the comments in the letter. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-8 TABLE 8 TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED PROJECT Dail AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Size Units Percentage Trips jage Perc e~ Trips Rate Trips Rate (% Rate ( ° In Out In Out In Out In Out Marbella Project Residential 281 d.u. 5.86 1647 .44 17 83 21 103 .54 67 33 102 50 Condominiums TOTA 124 152 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 230, 6"' Ed. 1997 B-5. Comment noted. B-6. Potential transit impacts are noted in the traffic study. The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant number of transit riders or cause increase in load factors on SamTrans buses. There is an on-site shuttle program proposed as part of the project, which would service local transit centers and work sites. There are existing bus stops in the site vicinity along Westborough and Gellert (Sam Trans Route 122) that serve the Westborough Shopping Center and the residential areas near the project site. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-9 LETTER C City of South San Franciscc Planning Division 400 Cnw~d Avenue South San Francisco, California; 94080 Attention: Ms S. Kalkin, Principal Plannet Wayne L.Toring 3829 Radburn Drive South San Francisco, CA #~ECElVED N O Y i 9 20G1 Subject: Marbella }lousing Subdivision PLANN1Nt'a Public Comment on the Draft EIR and the Planning Commission Staff Report. Dear Ms Kalkin: 1 attended the ~ea1~•-~OO~I public hearing on the Marbella Housing Subdivision. I was very concerned by the description of the project and by the information in the "Planning Commission Stan Report." Therefore, i secured a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated October s, 200] including appendixes. This letter is rr,v comment upor, those documcrts and the prc;cct generally. 1 compliment the City of South San Francisco on the professional conduct of the public hearing meeting, and the high quality of the documents prepared. 1 have been able to readily achieve an understanding of the project and an appreciation of the extent of study already performed. Unfortunately, 1 conclude that the project as presented is a serious mistake. for.our.~~ommun,~~~. A summary of my objections i~ "°'~ ...e.. _: l . This~ro~'ect represents a major change in the overall nature of the neighborhood. A zoning change to accommodate a project of this magnitude should only be made in conjunction with an overall review of the evolution of the master planning. No compelling reason has been provided for acting on the zoning change without this review. 2. Even allowing for a zoning change, tl~,pfoject is not in compliance with various established requirements o` the code (particularly building heig}lt,~ No compel]irig reason has been presented waiving these requiremems 3. The„EIIZ doeN nnclude all the relevant impact. it errors in assessment of the significance of impact, and it ~~, does not fully consider a range of alternatives to the project as presented. 4. The proposed agreement with DUC appears to forever and unnecessarily surrender the City's right to enforce subsequent amendments of codes and plans for the propem~ except as required by State/Federal law. It also surrenders necessary reviews of plans beyond those preliminary figures in the draft EIR. No reason has been presented as to why the citizens should be left without protection afforded b}~ reviews and approvals as the project progressively becomes better defined. I attach as an enclosure a full description of my comments and specific requests for modification of the EIR In conclusion, 1 strongly ~pp~se the Marbella project as described in the Planning Commission StaffRep~rt. No justification has been presented to demonstrate that it advances the community interest to change zoning, grant major waivers of code requirements, and enter into agreements with the developer to fast track the project greatly restricting the community's right to review and approve the final project design. No beneficial impact has been identified other than the target that '/4 of the units be "affordable" (and 3/4 therefore unaffordable). Conversely, major detrimental impacts have been identified. To the extent mitigation of the negative impact is identified, these mitigation actions are not modification to the project, but rather are changes beyond the project boundary. These changes degrade the quaLty of citizen's life with ro idcntiftablc bcrcfit to the citizens affected ror tc the community at large. Since~re]~~ou/rs ~.~ --~.~- Wayne Tori~ C- G: (C-: C-~ C-' Encl.: Marbella project comments LETTER C Marbella Housing Subdivision Comments and Requests by W. Toring 1. ChanEe To The Nature Of The. Neighborhood: It seemed in the meeting that the proposed zoning change from C-1 to R-3-L was out in front of and leading an inevitable evolutionary change to Westborough rather than conforming to an approved plan appropriate to an agreed upon future vision of the area. This is an especially risky action given the provision of the proposed agreement that forever shields the Marbella project from code changes. It was also noted in the meeting that there is a lack of large spaces available for residential development in South San Francisco. If Marbella style high density housing proposed west of Gellert is allowable, then the whole block of land north of OSH to the homes on King~Street could be very profitably converted to similar housing on an even larger scale. Similarly, blocks of land between Pac&Save and the Shopping Center could readily be carved out for housing. Surely some developer is already considering the conversion of the entire expanse from Westborough Blvd. to King Street for shigh-density combination of office/housinglupscale retail space. In Foster City, the city actually used its eminent domain power to force this type conversion of a Foster City Bivd. community oriented retail small shops area into a facility targeted to affluent high tech employees. We could be drifting into the same SituatiGn. ThVII.fGrh, i rcqu~St il'iai: a) Project approval be. deferred until the overall master planning for Westborough either be confirmed as valid and not subject to uncontrolled evolutionary "creep" or that the plan be revised in accord with normal procedures; or that Marbella be denied on the basis that it is out of character for the neighborhood. b) That the areas east of Gellert as described above be assessed regarding capacity as high-density housing. c) That the draft E1R be revised to include a consideration of the potential "east of Gellert" ultimate housing load in an alternate assessment ~f nmiect impact upGn traffic. 2 The Protect lc Not In Compliance V1'ith The Code For Tlie Proposed Ne~~ [.oninQ R-3-L: The new zone would evidently allow a 50-foot high building. At 50' the buildings would appear to be very high. The Marbella project requires an additional 40% increase in height. Compounding the increase, the EIIZ measures height from ground level at the buiiding wall. Per figure 2i, these buildings will sit on a raised pad above an 8' high retaining wall at the edge of the sidewalk. In all fairness. height should be measured from the sidewalk and that would make the building almost E~' tall. (Of coarse, you y.°culd ]:aye tc step cut into Uaffic to see beyond the 8' retaining wall.) To put this in context, at the November l f`~' meeting; a 30' high tower was disapproved. Visualize that 30' tower on top of a normal 40' high building and then add half again of an additional tower. This height, in conjunction with the minimal building setback from the sidewalk, is extremely detrimental to the character of the area from the perspective of Gellert and from the overlook vistas to the west of the property. There is no reason for the height other than the desire to squeeze an addition laver of units into the buildings. if the project economics wilt not allow a buiiding that fully compiie~ with the spirit of the zoning requirements, then don't do the project. 3. The EIR needs revisions: AESTHETICS. "Substantial adverse impact upon scenic vista" and "Degrade existing visual quality of surroundings". These are shown as "No lmpact" and "Less than Significant". This is simply wrong. The impact is major. A key characteristic of the area west of the site. is its interconnecting web of pleasantly landscaped open space green-belt areas. At Rowntree, the greenbelt is the northern boundary of the proposed Marbella subdivision. From Rowntree to Westborough there are seven green belts between each coup. These attractive, welt-landscaped spaces all lead to and connect with a walkway at the bluff on the west boundary of the proposed subdivision. The vista from this bluff flows from green plants at the top of bluff, down tc the first v,~ide bench, dcwr, tc the activity o.^, Gellert, Cher. the landscaped parking areas cf Pac&Save and then beyond to South San Francisco and the bay. C-6 C-7 C-8 l]/l8/O] ~ Page ] of4 LETTER C Marbella Housing Subdivision Comments and Requests by VV. Toring The. immediate foreground and the intermediate view of Gellert are important elements of the existing overall vista. The proposed Marbella project suggests that it will "frame" the 1~sta. Rather, it destroys the vista by creating an unbroken plane of roofrops all the way out past Pac&Save. C_g con't) I urge the commission to park in Westborough Park walk down a green belt to the sidewalk; walk north enjoying the vista and the ~. eenbehs laterals along the way. P.rvisicr, everti•thing block out such that the cnly thing ycu car. see is Marbella rooftop (cluttered with mechanical equipment) out to the Pac~Save Roof. On arriving at Gellert, walk south envisioning the 8' high retaining wall immediately adjacent tc the sidewalk. 1 recommend that the Aesthetics impact be, revised to "Potentially Significant Impact". GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Landslides and potential for causing off-site subsidence are classed as "less than significam." This is wrong. The report does not acknowledge the housing constructed within approximately 2' feet of the top of the slope that will have its base cut awav and replaced by massive cascading retaining walls. The report notes that existing engineered fill in the area has moved. For these homes, any risk of subsidence is significant. Typically, you cannot even secure insurance protection against gradual subsidence. The area is less Than a mile from the notorious San Andreas Fault. Certainly undercutting this slope increases the danger of failure in an earthquake. Califcrria and the ba ~ area have numerous examples cf carst; action failures due tc subsidence. slip, or earthquake failure. All those projects were constructed based upon design by certified professional engineers supponed by gectechnical analysis. They simple were wrcng and the results were catastrcphic. Cutting deeply into the slope clearly is an impact. Mitigation alternatives are: 1. Best -Don't do stupid things. Revise the design to hug the existing slope rather than cut it awav. 2. if they do cut the slope, they must agree to continually bring the wall into conformance with evolving desigr. standards. They must agree to assume liability for subsidence or failure west of the project that can reasonably be shown results from project :instruction. 4. As the developer will have taken the money and run, a perpetual bond must be established to fund the above. NOISE: Substantial temporary noise is shown as "no impact.'' The project construction will span well over one year. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of earthwork are involved. .x0,000 yards of material will be hauled off-site to disposal elsewhere. Iviassive quantities of concrete U~ill be require to gunite the raw cut-slope, construct the actual retaining walls, plus the amount necessary for the buildings. The slopes will be stabilized by soil nails driver, deep into the ;,.inside. This project will probably require 25,000 trips by hea~ry earthwork or transport truck into or out of the site. How can this be characterized as "nn impact."? It is impossible to tell from the drawings where Marbella will locate the large diesel generators necessary to provide blackout power for elevators, heating & ventilating system operation, emergency lighting, and any other load the Marbella decides to connect. Given that you propose to waive all further rights to review the project, they could elect to provide foil power generation for tenant use in blackout. They could place the generators on a bench of the retaining wall for lack of space anywhere else. You will be unable to stop this having waived all future review. The noise of construction and the noise of power generators are a significant temporary noise impact. While reasonable mitigation measures can be established, it should be addressed as part of the E1R. C-9 10 11/18/01 Page 2 of 4 LETTER C Marbella Housing Subdivision Comments and Requests by W. Turing POPULATION: "Will the project induce substantial population growth by proposing new homes" is shown as "no impact." While the essence of the project is construction of high-density housing, the larger impact is a decision to rezone C_11 from commercial to high-density housing. if rezoning of Marbeiia is used as a precedent for rezoning the east of Gellert, then the impact is major. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Tl~; impact on traffic and parking is major. No clear overall public benefit has been shown. The mitigation proposed is totally restrictions on the public and degradation of the quality of public life. None of the mitigation is C-12 changes to the Marbella project itself. North Entrance Road near Rowntree: I believe that the engineer incc„e~ ly concludes that the site distance betv~~eer, P.cwr,tree and the exit is acceptable. The distance should be measured from the front the Rowntree vehicle entering at the right curb and after that vehicle has »ulled ontc; and is traveling straight dcwn, Gellert Blvd. In that scenaric; the distance m centerline ~f C-13 the new road is less than 250'. ]t is important that the Rowntree vehicle is fully into the road because attention is directed uphill to the rapidly accelerating traffic clearing Kine. Probably there is also a requirement or recommendation in CALTRAN'S concerning the quantity of allowable access roads vt~ithin a given distance. Therefore the north access road to Marbella is likely not allowable Parking on Gellert: The recommendation that parking on Geiien be banned as a means to make the north access road technically C_14 Feasible is completely unacceptable. This area is used by local residents for their overflow parking. This is a classic illustraticn cf rtitigatirg cn the backs of arycne except t he developer. Overflow Marbella Parking. The report notes the inadequacy of Marbella on-plot parking for guests etc. The mitigation is a recommendation that they simple park on private propem- across the street. Of course, that will quickly result in sign being C_15 posted that non-customer cars wiii be towed. The Eix must offer a reasonable solution to overflow parking. If it is not to be on the street, then it must be on the Marbella property. Traffic The report notes that a substantial increase in traffic delay will occur as a result cf Marbella. Since nn benefit to the public has been shown for this project, this is not an acceptable impact. On "Traffic-3" impact --- DOI~T'T PLT'I 1N A STOP LIGHT . On "Traffic -4" impact, see Parking on Gellert above. On "Traffic-5" impact, your proposed mitigation requires an illegal lane change and will result in many a traffic ticket (and probably some accidents.) GENERAL ITEMS: On the west and north, the existing housing developments include very large amount of extended landscaped greenbelt areas open to the general public. The Ivlarbeila project is likely to be i00°io owners/tenants only. Still they make extensive demands upon their neighbors. We. need to turn this around. They should make space available tc run-occupants and rct require any degradation cf neighbors' lives. The. real problem with this project is that through greed then have planned way too much in a limited space. C-lE C-1" 11/18/01 Page 3 of 4 LETTER C Marbella Housing Subdivision Comments and Requests by V4'. Toring d Proposed Development Agreement. The driving force behind the city desire to go with this agreement may be the 70 "Affordable Units." The breakout is grand total of only 28 Apartments for people earning less than the median income. One of the floor plans condo fees necessary to support this h the monthl Vdi i y t n. will sell for damn near as much as the condo live the monthly bill will be more than I pay. All the rest are. "moderate" and will cost up to $402,000. lex com th i l C-18a , p e n e >~'hv don't you ~ust o into the existin housin and bu ~ some. I wouid guess the majority of peop a massive project that that many would not tin i i g ga t neighborhood are working class. On their backs you are m ever. be able to afford the "affordable" units. This is simply ;~~rong. The city seems to see the. park fee carrot. The fee will do nothing for the daily life of those impacted by the project. C-18b Marbella would have to provide land on their plot for that. The plans for this project are very preliminary. It is by definition proposed to be very dense. There is not sufficient st not waive your responsibility to Y l ou mu . information available upon which to base a Design Approva continually review the project plan as it develops. No justification has been identified for afast-track agreement. C-18c I believe that you need to explicitly define the financial responsibility for implementing all of the mitigation lcar that the Ov.~ncr will pay for iraffc h i e c t must rncasures upon. vrhich the EIR was approvcd. As one cxamplc, modifications stated in mitigation. The owner must pay to secure the alternative parking.. C-18d No benefit to the public has been identified for this project. I object to the provision that you agree to assist the -18e Project through acquisition of Other Property by utilizing Eminent Domain. If seventy affordable units are inherently a public benefit, there is no reason to believe that Marbella is a good way i cannot believe that i0 affordable (up l C-181 ue. to achieve the result. Given the current zoning, the land is of limited va do clusters could not be developed and still allow for plenty of open space. This would to 5402,000) two story con truly mitigate all the traffic problems and proti:de the benefit. I request that an analysis be made of the current market value of the property zoned C-1 and the value as R-3-L it should be on the C-1 value ed u B i C-18g , p as ng. with height restrictions waived and EIR approved for high density hous ible negative community impact. li ith ne i g g st w clear that viable alternatives to Marbella ex Page 4 of 4 11/18/O1 C. WAYNE L. TORING C-1. This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. The Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation specifies a density range from 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The High Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation specifies a density range from 18.1 to 30 dwelling units per acre. This distinction is important to note, as the project proposes 18.8 dwelling units per acre; 8/lOths of a unit more per acre than the medium density designation or 12 units more than the maximum permitted under the current medium Density Land Use Designation. The compelling reason for the density increase is discussed on pages 5 through 8 of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 15, 2001. In particular it is the provision of 70 units of "affordable" housing as defined by state and federal law that is the compelling reason for the project. Additionally, the project would provide an overall 280 units of housing that would assist the City in meeting the Association of Bay Area Government's housing projection needs for the City of South San Francisco (page 6 of the staff report). C-2 This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However,. this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. The project exceeds the open space, landscaping and setback requirements of the code, meets the parking requirements of the code and proposes 17% lot coverage where 65% is permitted. The proposed height, at 70 feet, is the one development standard that requires a Planned Unit Development overlay. Page 5 of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 15, 2001, discusses the project's compliance with the City's ordinances. C-3 The DEIR identifies the significance criteria in each chapter pursuant to the particular environmental issue. The DEIR analyzes the required alternatives to the project and the alternatives are evaluated in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. The DEIR analyzes the "No Project" alternative as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as a reduced-density project, the "74-Unit" alternative. The DEIR (Chapter 5, Page 4) discloses that both the 74-unit and 280-unit project would result in a significant unavoidable impact the Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center intersection. The No Project alternative would not increase the impact at this intersection from the existing LOS F; however the LOS would remain at F. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-15 C-4 This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. A Development Agreement does vest a developer with certain rights that are in place and established at the time of execution of the document between the developer and the City. In the case of the Marbella project, the development agreement establishes that 70 units are to be provided for low to moderate income households, art and landscaping provisions and certain in-lieu fees. Property maintenance responsibilities and building and improvement processes are still in place and are not "waived". Pursuant to Government Code § 65864 et. seq., cities are expressly authorized to enter into development agreements. The primary purpose of a development agreement is to allow a developer who needs additional discretionary approvals to complete development projects as approved, regardless of any intervening changes in local regulations, rules, or policies. City of W. Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc., 52 Ca1.3d 1184, 1194 (1991). C-5 This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. The comment is the personal opinion of the author of the letter and is duly noted. Design changes to the project are required as both conditions of project approval and mitigations identified in the DEIR. As two examples, the retaining walls are required to be stepped, rather than being constructed as one continuous wall, and the landscape plan is required to be revised to cluster the taller specimen trees at a lower elevation to soften the building and protect views. The conditions of project approval attached to the November 15, 2001 staff report contain 13 pages of conditions that affect the design and function of the project. C-6 This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. There area a few important facts to consider with respect to the feasibility of the lands east of Gellert and the area around King Drive befalling high density development "creep". First, the lands mentioned are built-out. Second the King Drive area is designated Medium Density residential and the lands east of Gellert are designated Commercial. The project site is designated commercial with a residential overlay that allows for a combination of residential and commercial development. The site is also vacant. A vacant site that is transitional in nature with aresidential/commercial City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-16 designation is more likely to be developed with or without a zone and general plan modification, than property that is developed and well maintained. Secondly, as with the proposed Marbella project any proposed changes to the commercial development on the east side of Gellert Boulevard would require environmental review and public hearings would be required to be conducted. Thirdly, the probability that a developer would purchase commercially zoned land that is developed with successful enterprise and convert the land use from commercial to residential is speculative at best. The probability that a developer would purchase and assemble an adequate quantity of developed and occupied single-family residential lots, demolish the improvements and reconstruct ahigh-density residential development is also speculative. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15144 & 45 addresses impact forecasting and speculation. Section 15145 states that if a lead agency conducted a thorough investigation and finds that an impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion. The traffic Section of the DEIR thoroughly evaluated traffic impacts associated with existing and foreseeable future development. The impacts of the proposed project have been thoroughly analyzed based upon foreseeable development and not land use speculation. C-7 This comment is a project related comment and is not related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, this document will contain a brief response for purposes of disclosure and convenience to the reviewer and decisionmakers. See response to C-2, above. Additionally, the DEIR measures height according to the definition of height provided in the City's zoning ordinance (Section 20.06.120). The method of height measurement is equally and fairly applied to all structures throughout the City. C-8 The personal opinion of the author of the comment is noted. The DEIR and the staff report page 14-15 of the staff report (November 15, 2001) discusses the visual aspects of the project. In particular, page 15 of the staff report does state that with respect to visual issues "Reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions about the significance of visual impacts." C-9 Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants performed a preliminary investigation of the site and summarized the results in a report dated June 1, 2000. The investigation included excavation and logging of thirteen test pits to depths ranging between 4 and 15 feet. BGC prepared a geotechnical addendum, dated October 1, 2001, addressing foundations and retaining walls for the currently proposed four-story condominium project. BGC also performed a supplemental study of aerial photographs from 1957 to 1998 and made a recent site reconnaissance to observe site conditions. City of South San Francisco Final EII2 Marbella 2-17 BGC's opinions regarding various phases of the proposed Marbella project are summarized below. Drainage. The construction of retaining walls and the recommended dewatering measures will introduce subsurface drainage into the hillside. Shallow groundwater has been a factor in the erosion and slumping seen in the hillside in its present and past unmaintained condition. The relatively deep lowering of the hillside groundwater, provided by the recommended subdrainage, will improve the stability of the slope. Erosion Control. The residential construction on the Marbella site will include installation of appropriate landscaping and other engineered erosion control measures on the slope. These provisions should constitute an improvement of the slope from its present condition. Maintenance. The residential development of the Marbella site will include a homeowners association, which will be responsible for performing periodic inspections and maintenance of the section of slope that will remain above the proposed retaining walls. The change from 20 years of neglected maintenance to being fully maintained by the homeowners association will serve to further improve slope stability. Tiered Retaining Walls. As recommend in the BGC October 1 addendum letter, the proposed retaining walls are planned to be designed and constructed as soil nail and shotcrete walls. An advantage of this type of wall is that it does not require the use of tall, temporary, oversteepened backcuts necessary for most other types of walls. The tiered walls can be built in stages, starting at the top with each stage fully supported before the next stage is excavated. This incremental approach is very successful in reducing the potential of construction phase instability. The proposed retaining walls will be engineered to retain the slope with generally accepted engineered factors of safety. As part of such designs, global stability of the overall slope is also checked. The presence of the San Andreas fault, located 1 mile to the southwest, will be taken into account in the project design. Improved Fill Conditions. The southern end of the slope is underlain by engineered fill, which shows evidence of more slumping and erosion than the rest of the slope. Removal and replacement of a portion of the engineered fill on the south end of the project as part of the site grading will improve stability of the fill portion of the slope. The addition of subdrainage and maintenance by the homeowners association, for reasons similar to those presented above, will lead to increased stability remaining after construction of the Marbella project. C-10 The 30,000 c.y. of off-haul is the estimated amount based on the current grading plan. At City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-18 20 c.y. per truck this would equal about 1,500 trips, a small percentage of the average daily trips on Gellert Blvd. Approximately 1,000 trucks would be required to deliver the concrete for the retaining wall construction. We were not able to verify the writer's estimate of 25,000 trips for earthwork or transport truck for materials. If this were the actual number it would equal 80 trips per day or 10 per hour based on an 18 month, 300 working day construction time. These are small percentages of the existing daily and peak hourly trips in the area. There are no generators proposed for the, project. Battery packs for emergency lighting will be provided pursuant to Code. The battery packs will be located within the light fixture itself. The City's noise ordinance controls the level of allowable noise that is permitted from construction related activities. The ordinance will be enforced for the project. C-11 The Initial Study (page 12) Appendix A identifies the project as having a beneficial impact on housing. The Initial Study also quantifies the housing population as a one percent increase, which is not a significant impact. C-12. It is true that the proposed transportation mitigation measures are off-site. They would relieve the existing traffic congestion as well as that generated by the proposed project and cumulative growth. C-13. The site distance has been checked and verified as acceptable under the standard guidelines published by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Caltrans did not express any concern regarding the north access road in their written correspondence on the proposed project. C-14 The project civil engineering firm, WilseyHam, has indicated that adequate sight distance can be maintained for the north access driveway without the removal of the five on-street parking spaces. However, sight distance would be improved with the removal of these on-street parking spaces C-15. The potential for overflow parking noted in the traffic study would occur when the number of guest vehicles exceeds the number of available guest parking spaces. As with the existing housing in the study area, overflow parking would seek spaces either on- street (if allowed) or in the shopping center. However, based upon other high density projects it is expected that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the project demands. C-16. For points 1, 2 and 3, the comments are noted. For point 4, the movement would not be an illegal lane change assuming that the roadway striping was marked correctly. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-19 C-17. The opinion of the author of the letter is noted. No additional response is necessary. C-18a The opinion of the author of the letter is noted. No additional response is necessary. C-18b The opinion of the author of the letter is noted. However, it is important to note that the park in-lieu fees would be used in the project area to improve and expand existing recreational uses. Improvements to the Westborough Park picnic area or additions of a skate board and dog park area are identified as potential uses of the funds. C-18c The project plans fully disclose the elevations, materials and colors both in the DEIR and attachments to the November 15, 2001 staff report. C-18d The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is attached to the November 15, 2001 staff report. The MMRP identifies the party that is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures. C-18e No eminent domain is being implemented on the project. The benefit is the provision of housing and affordable housing. C-18f The opinion of the author of the letter is noted. No additional response is necessary. C'-l 8g The DEIR fully addressed project and project alternative impacts. Any development of the vould result in an impact to the Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center intersection . See response C-3 above. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-20 LETTER D TATS OF CALIFORI~'IA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '~NISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40 120 N STREET ,'. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 'HONE (916) 654-4959 'AX (916) 653-9531 November 16, 2001 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Kalkin: ~~~~G Re: City of South San Francisco's DEIR for the Marbella Housing Subdivision; SCH# 2001062018 The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts pursuant to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for a high-density, multi-family residential development comprised of 280 housing units on a 14.9-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard. The project is to include one, two and three-bedroom apartments in six 4-story buildings. According to the DEIR, the project site is located outside of the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour for San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). According to the DEIR, the site is within the "boundaries of the retrofit area" as designated by the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Comprehensive Land Use Plan. As indicated in the criciosed iludrterly Noise Report for SFIA (quarter ending P~;arch 31, 2001), at least a portion of the project site does appear to be within the 65 dB CN`~L .:..- ,. contour for SFIA; immediately adjacent to the extended runway centerlines of Runways 28L and 28R. The DEIR states that the entire City of South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts due to the presence of SFIA and that the city lies directly in the flight path of a large percentage of departing aircraft. While recognizing the probable increase in operations at SFIA, the EIR states that the increase is "counterbalanced by the ongoing phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft in favor of quieter Stage 3." In fact, the noise reduction benefit of the shift from Stage 2 to Stage 3 has already been achieved. It is not known whether i additional modifications to aircraft in the future will significantly affect SFIA's i noise contours. D-1 D-2 LETTER D Ms. Sissy Kalkin November 16, 2001 Page 2 According to Mitigation Measure NOISE-2 (pg. 4 of Chapter 4.6), the project "should be designed to comply with the retrofit guidelines for ALUC retrofit area" which may include use of "double-paned glass, insulation requirements or other noise-reduction measures." The-~aroject site is beneath ,the flight path for the airport and future tenan.~.~_,will..hi~,,,~ubject to frequent aircraft overflight and tF`ie subsequent noise and safety__impacts. The cumulative effect of the roadway and aircraft noise will magnify the effect. The Final EIR should specify the "retrofit guidelines" for residential development within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Additionally, should this project be approved, we strongly encourage the applicant provide an avigation easement to SFIA that includes aircraft noise. Such an easement is necessary because the County of San Mateo has designated SFIA as having a "noise problem." The need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a state issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the Division of Aeronautics views SFIA as part of the statewide transportation system, which is vital to the state's continued prosperity. This role will no doubt increase as California's population continues to grow and the need for efficient mobility becomes more crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-5314. Sincerely, __,~ <-l " ' ^?l~~'JHESNARD . ~ Environmental Planner c: State Clearinghouse, SFIA, San Mateo ALUC D-3 Enclosure D. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS D-1 The City's General Plan Noise Element Figure 9-1, "Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Areas" page 279, adopted October 1999 clearly shows the project site outside the 65 dBA, CNEL. The Figure uses the 1995 FAA Approved Noise Contours and the projected 2000 FAA Approved noise contours. The noise contours are from the County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Plan and the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan EIR. Noise Exposure Map (NEM) update 2001 (dated September 2001) currently under review by the FAA for acceptance as part of the San Francisco International Airport's FAAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program shows the project outside the 65 dBA, CNEL contour. Similarly, the project area is not shown within the 65dBA, CNEL on the 2006 Projections Map also being reviewed by FAA. D-2 Comment noted. Again, the 1995 and the projected 2000 FAA Approved Noise Contours (City of South San Francisco General Plan) show the project area well outside the 65 dBA airport impact zone. D-3 Impact and Mitigation Measure Noise-3 (Chapter 4.6 Page 4) identifies noise retrofit measures that would be employed. The Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include noise disclosure. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-23 E. SUMMARY OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS-NOVEMBER 15, 2001 E-l. Traffic Congestion in General. Comment: Several commentors noted that traffic is currently congested near the Westborough Shopping Center. Response: Any project proposed for the site would add traffic to the area, regardless of its size and land use. The proposed project would not result in any service level changes at study intersections, but it would increase delays, particularly at unsignalized intersections, to the extent noted in the traffic study. E-2. I-280 off-ramps at Westborough Boulevard. Comment: One Commissioner asked if changes to the traffic control at freeway off-ramps would improve traffic conditions and potentially mitigate project impacts. Response: Typically, Caltrans determines the traffic control at freeway access points so that safety is maintained for the highest speed vehicles (on-ramp, off-ramp and freeway mainline traffic). The traffic control at ramp intersections also depends on local street conditions, including the volume and travel speeds of local traffic. It isn't certain that changes to the freeway ramp junctions along Westborough Boulevard would improve traffic flows along Westborough, and it may be at the expense of traffic flows on the freeway ramps or on parallel arterial roadways. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-24 E. SUMMARY OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS-NOVEMBER 15, 2001 E-1. Traffic Congestion in General. Comment: Several commentors noted that traffic is currently congested near the Westborough Shopping Center. Response: Any project proposed for the site would add traffic to the area, regardless of its size and land use. The proposed project would not result in any service level r.... . . changes at study intersecrions,..buX it would increase delays, particularly at unsignalized intersections, to the extent noted in the traffic study. E-2. I-280 off-ramps at Westborough Boulevard. Comment: One Commissioner asked if changes to the traffic control at freeway off-ramps would improve traffic conditions and potentially mitigate project impacts. Response: Typically, Caltrans determines the traffic control at freeway access points so that safety is maintained for the highest speed vehicles (on-ramp, off-ramp and freeway mainline traffic). The traffic control at ramp intersections also depends on local street conditions, including the volume and travel speeds of local traffic. It isn't certain that changes to the freeway ramp junctions along Westborough Boulevard would improve traffic flows along Westborough, and it may be at the expense of traffic flows on the freeway ramps or on parallel arterial roadways. City of South San Francisco Final EIR Marbella 2-24 APPENDIX A Notice of Availability- October 5, 2001 San Mateo Times Notice of Availability- October 10, 2001 State Clearinghouse Letter-October 15, 2001 Henshaw Letter-November 19, 2001 ~ • . ~O~ _~ U ~G N S A A; October 5, 2001 ~Ll~~% DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX 1650) 829-6639 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY State Clearinghouse Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Suite 222/ P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814-3044 ~~~~on~~ OCT - 5 SDI STATE CLEARING HOUSE Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Repurt SCH # 200]062018 Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue/P.O. Bor 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Stisy Kalkin„ Principal Planner (650) 877-8535 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project described below, and is available for public review and comment for 45 days. The DEIR and reference materials are available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. Copies of the DEIR are also available at the West Orange Library, 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library, 306 Walnut Avenue, and the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue.: Project Title: Marbella Housing Subdivision Project Location: Approximately 14.9 acres located on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, north of Westborough Boulevard (APNs 091-661- 240/250/260/270/280/290/310/320/330). Project Description: A 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 vacant site. The project would be configured in six four-story buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: General Plan Amendment: 1) to change the current land use designation of the site from Mixed Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 2) to modify Policy 3.11-I-2 requiring adherence to the Westborough Gellert Urban Design Plan. dnn ~anNn evFnn iG en anv ~„ cni iTN cnN FaeNr.icrn r.n oenaa ~ . • • Rezoning to change the zone designation from C-1 Retail Commercial to R- 3-L Multiple Family Residential ^ Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map ^ Planned Unit Development Permit with exceptions to: 1) allow private streets; and 2) permit an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone from 50 feet to 70 feet. ^ Development Agreement Potential Significant Environmental Effects: • Traffic ^ Visual Resources ^ Noise ^ Geology COMMENT PERIOD: The comment period for this document commences on Friday, October 5, 2001, and will close on Monday, November 19, 2001. Written comments regarding the Draft EIR must be received by the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, by no later than 5:00 PM on November 19, 2001. Please send all comments to: Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083. ~. Signature: ~--~ Title: Princi al anner Telephone: (650) 877-8535 LOCATION MAP: .~ ~ \ ~\ `i ~~ 4- ~~ \s .o ~ f ~ ~ Fj" j !~ . C[ii ~ ~ S.FVn" ; r r; ~~ ~ ~ ,~ Y a• pd ~•~4~s`\;~'~ ~~~ ` `.~~ ~~ `\<~ i; , ``rye F r ~~a ~ ~ W • \ `\ ~} `~ ~: ~ '~ ..a s,~ ~~ , ,, roc L ~ ~ ...,. _ ~,~ a:ue a c d~ ~ 28 e ~ 4. oro~ ~ : ~ rrti¢. ~ 4@ °b~'v / ~ • V~ o% '`F•~ • • ~~ ~'Ya q ~~ ! s I p~' _ u-rte.. =r y~i ,~ sj ~c`-i i ~r ;` ~~ ~l ~ Y \`~C\ `'~ y ~ ~ : ~«.e i , ~~' ~~ +a~ r ~ c~ `~ ~ ~ ~ F=er ,~ \ ~ \~'J '~-~`r CAUiGAV~~ ~"".~ ,~6q .. y, \; ,'i' c ?~.. .. c ~~ ' , rid.. `s .-~c ; y,i~pS ~~ +.n o ~ co:r ccue rN _' ~ ~ ~ , ~~_ ' ' ~ ~ , SITE ~ '~ a ~ ~ ~'~';;~~~'" s 4` + ` ~ ~t r, .- ~ 4 t rd.`FfI ` ~ jib c ~ j e~~ie c :~~ 4r~~iyaui;, :~£ ~Ko t'~~..~r 1 ~ ~~~ ~ a4 0. ~ o~iaj~ /1~~ ! aa~ ~ tai ~.4~~ ~/~~ fh~~ ~ ~ 1`i~h ~ fN ~ ~ - i • ~O~~N ~ SAN ~' - ~~ o~ : ' = 2 ~ ~' ~ •~- U - ~ ELI` F~N% DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX 1650) 829-6639 October 5, 2001 Ms. Katie Shulty-Joung Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Suite 222 Sacramento, CA 95814 C~ OCT - 5X001 STATE CLEARING HOUSE RE Draft Environmental Impact Report - Marbella Housing Subdivision State Clearinghouse No: 2001062018 Dear Ms. Shulty-Joung: The City of South San Francisco is submitting a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marbella Housing Subdivision. The City previously submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Report, titled Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, for this project on May 24, 2001. The prior draft was issued State Clearinghouse No: 2001062018. During the public review period which began May 24`h, City staff identified procedural and technical issues that necessitated re-circulating the May 24`h DEIR. Staff prepared substantial revisions to the May 24`h Draft, and in an abundance of caution, has chosen to re-submit the document, in its entirety, for re-circulation. Because the project has not changed, the City is requesting that a new State Clearinghouse number not be assigned to the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report dated October 5, 2001. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner, at 650.877.8535. Sincerely, ,; T - Susy Kal n, Principal Planner City of outh San Francisco i • Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal Form Mail to: State Clearinghouse, ]400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-0613 1. Project Title Marbella Housing Subdivision 2. Lead Agency City of South San Francisco Planning Division 3. Contact Person Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner 3a. Street Address 315 Maple Avenue 3b City: South San Francisco 3d. Zip: 94080 3e. Phone: (650) 877-8535 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J Project Location -Specific 4. County San Mateo 4a City/Community South San Francisco 4b. Assessor's Parcel No. 09]-661-240/250/260/270/280/290/310/320/330 4c. Section Twp. Range Sa Cross Streets• Westborou h/Gellert Blvds SCH# 20010620] 8 3c. County: San Mateo D ---~---~--~---~---~--~-- -- OC1 - 5 X01 g ~ Sb. For Rural, Nearest Community I STATE CLEARING HOUS J 6. Within 2 miles: a. St ate Hwy#:1-280, SR35, SR82 b. Airports Sanrrtt-rn c. Railways ------------------------------------------------------------------ d. Waterways S.F. BaLColma Creek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Document Type CEQA Ol.( ] NOP O5. [ ]Supplement/ NEPA: 09. [ ] NOl OTHER: 13. [ ]Joint Document Subsequent EIR (Rior SCH No.: 1 02.[ ]Early Cons 06. [ ] NOE ]0. [ ] FONSI ]4. [ ]Final Document 03.[ ] Neg Dec 07. [ ] NOC 11. ( ]Draft E1S 15. [ ]Other 04.[X] Draft EIR 08. [ ]NOD 12. [ ] EA -------------------------------------- 8. Local Action Type ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01.[ ]General Plan Update O5. [ ]Annexation 09. [X]Rezone 12.[ ]Waste Mgmt Plan 02.[ ]New Element 06. [ ]Specific Plan 10. [X] Land Division 13.[ ]Cancel Ag Preserve (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) 03.X] General Plan 07. [ ]Community Plan 11. (]Use Permit 14.[XJ Other -Planned Unit Amendment Development & Development Agreement U4.[ ]Master Plan 08. [ ]Redevelopment 9. Development Type 01.[X] Residential: Uniu ~ Acres 14.9 07.[ ]Mining: Mineral 02.[ ]Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees O8.[ ]Power: Type Watts 03.[ ] Shopping/Commercial Sq.ft Acres Employees 09.[ ]Waste Type Treatment 04.[ ]Industrial: Sq.ft Acres Employees l0.[ ] OCS Related O5.[ ]Water Facilities: MGD 11.[ ]Other 06.[ ]Transportation: ------------------------------- Type: ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- l0. Total Acres ]4.9 ------------------------------------------ 11. Total Jobs Created NA ti \_ ~ 12. Project Issues Discussed in Document 01.[X] Aesthetic/Visual 02.[ ]Agricultural Land 03.[ ]Air Quality 04.[ ] ArchaeologicaUHistorical O5.[ ]Coastal Zone O6.[ ]Economic 07.[ ]Fire Hazard 08.[ ] Flooding/Drainage 09. [X] Geologic/Seismic 10. [ ]Jobs/Housing Balance l 1. [ ]Minerals t2. [X] Noise 13. [ ]Public Services 14. [ ]Schools 15. [ ]Septic Systems 16. [ ]Sewer Capacity ] 7. [ ]Social 18. [ ]Soil Erosion 19. [ ]Soil Waste 20. [X] Toxic/Hazardous 21. [X] Traffic/Circulation 22. [ ]Vegetation 23. [ ]Water Quality 24. [ ]Water Supply 25.[X] Wetland/Riparian 26.[X] Wildlife 27.[ ]Growth Inducing 28.[X] Land Use 29.[ ]Cumulative Effects 30.[ J Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I3. Funding (approx.) Federal $ 0 State $ 0 Total $ 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I4. Present Land Use and Zoning: Mixed Retail Commercial/Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation; C-] Retail Commercial Zone District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l5. Project Description: A 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 acre vacant site. The project would be configured in six four-story buildings with both underground and surface parking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ lti. Signature of Lead Agency Representative. ~ , _ '~"~ f`-=--- _ _ __ _ Date ~ %~ _~~ ~.~ ~.. c c . NOTE.• Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number aUeady exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please also fill it in. APPENDIX VI - CEQA GUIDELINES AND DISCUSSIONS RevieH-inQ Agencies Checklist [ ]Resources Agency [ ] Boating/Waterways [ ]Conservation [ ]Fish and Game [ ]Forestry ( ]Colorado River Board [ ]Dept. Water Resources ( ]Reclamation [ ]Parks and Recreation [ ]Office of Historic Preservation [ ]Native American Heritage Commission [ ] S. F. Bay Cons. and DevY. Commission [ ]Coastal Commission [ ]Energy Commission [ ]State Lands Commission [ ]Air Resources Board [ ]Solid Waste Management Board [ ] SWRCB: Sacramento [ ] RWQCB: Region # San Francisco [ ] Water Rights [ ] Caltrans District [ ]Dept. of Transportation [ ]Aeronautics ( ]California Highway Patrol ( ]Housing and Community Dev't [ ]Statewide Health Planning [ ]Health [ ]Food and Agriculture [ ]Public Utilities Commission [ ]Public Works [ ]Corrections [ ]General Services [ ] OLA [ ]Santa Monica Mountains [ ) TRPA [ ] OPR - OLGA ( ] OPR -Coastal [ ]Bureau of Land Management [ ]Forest Service [ ]Other: Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. District [ ]Other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch For SCH Use Only: Date Received at S~ Catalog Number Date Review Star Applicant: Duc Housing Partners, lnc 14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 866-5511 Date to P encies Consultant Dr SCH Con[act: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650 877-8535) ~earance Date Address: 3]5 Maple Avenue/P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 Notes: ~~~~, ] ~c +_ sy ~ `k, \ ' ~~m' ~ Go~-ernor'~ Office of Plallnin~ and Ke~ea rcl~ a c ~~ K ~, ~ s `'`e >Fr `~G ~~ ,._l_~~~jll ~~IO USI_ L f Of CFI\FO l~~%Aih\i, '.jE ICI IU <-11~R ACKI~'OV1'LEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: October 15, 2001 R~ ~~ ~ TO: Susy Kalkin ~ E p City of South San Francisco ~C j 2 2 ?O~l 315 Maple Avenue p~ South San Francisco, CA 94080 ANfWNG RE: Marbella Housing Subdivision SCH#: 2001062018 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: October 5, 2001 Review End Date: November 19, 2001 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 4 Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 3 Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. Ig00 7~L'~111 ti"TI~CL-1 P. (7. BITS 3Uq-I S:ACR:1\11:N~fO. C:111P<IP.AI.A yjSl^_-;O~-I 916--{.~5-Obl; I~A\ qlb-i'_i-i01~ \1~\ClV.O1'R.C:~.GOV~j(:L1 A1~I~~G11(1l~tiL.H'1 ~Il_ NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF Draft Environmental Impact Report Marbella Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised) . SCH ;ff 2001062018 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project described below, and is available for public review and comment for 45 days. The DEIR and reference materials are available for review at the Planning Division, City Hal] Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. Copies of the DEIR are also. available at the West Orange Library, 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library, 306 Walnut Avenue, and the City Clerk's Office; City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. Project Title: Marbella Housing Subdivision Project Location: Approximately 14.9 acres located on the west side of Gellert Boulevard. north of Westborough Boulevard (APNs 091-661-240/250/260/270/280/290/310/320/330). Project Description: A 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 acre vacant site. The project would be configured in six four-story buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: • General Plan Amendment: 1) to change the current land use designation of the site from Mixed Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 2) modify General Plan Policy 3.11-]-2 regarding the Westborough/Gellert Urban Design Plan. Rezoning to change the zone designation from C-1 Retail Commercial to R-3-L Multiple Family Residential • Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map • Planned Unit Development Permit with exceptions to: 1) allow private streets; and 2) permit an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone from 50 feet to 70 feet. • Development Agreement Potentially Significant Environmental Effects: • Traffic • Visual Resources • Noise ,,,`.' Geology COMMENT PERIOD: The comment period for this document commences on Friday, October 5, 200], and will close on Monday, November 19, 2001. Written comments regarding the Draft EIR must be received by the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco,:by no later than 5:00 PM on November 19, 2001.-Please send all comments to: Susy Kalkin, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 7] I, South San Francisco, CA 94083. LOCATION MAP: . 1 ~~./e ~yi ~'; ~;\~`•*r~~F. \~~~~~.5~.\~.~r~'~~~5~'• / F j~t ~ ~~~ say,-~'`•'.~~. ~~. t ~a• a e a~ .~, „am e ° ~ ~,4 .~\ ~'+~k '~~ fir` /3,s~ ~ ,, rer•.r ` ~ ~ `~'`~yt3 c^• ~~''. t~ - ~`~",. ~~{+~` ~ '~`G,°.~.%, is ~; vc_. ..-.>?~.y;~ •t ~ ~~r.3 ~E~ • °.~ .~ g' -tea k~.`~/ c " ~/%'~ ~:...,'w~ ; . ,,, ,'+S~ a ,. ~ JI~~ ~ sn ~ L :~ • ~ P„\t ~ ~ J . t ~ ,~ -K~ ` may. ~.` ~i"moo 1~~ t~vr_i-`r . ~di. ~. 6~7,r 'X {t. ~,;,~,x ~ _ ~,~- , SITE ~R J.1 ~ ~~~~ • .~ ~~~F , `, 'I -'*~ 'ate = ~ ~ ~yES ~ _..-¢,l¢ . 4 q \--• M/'~ ~ a1~w+.,,a~~"• ~ ~. __. '-aa-"a~.~~ ~~: `_ ,` `~•• ~: Y ~. `."`yam ;j,'ee~~a~ / ~ r~e/i~(~,~~i~,t~-+,~,`;~Yµ~.."~'sf..'~+,+,r !k. l~ ~~~ ~~yC% - ~y •WV ~i ~ ~ 1. 'S t~l~'` . ~.~A~y~v~ ~j,!/ ~j~~$t.y i ` \ \~\j.! ~"'i ~`P+~• '~`+-^1.Y`C .`.j `'! ~' ~rY''~,) ~k~i i'I. 4'~)ye /%~~ \ .q~~ ..~ \ % fl. ",/,.~~ 4:• ~ `"~,S.rf~~`.k .:~?.ins' 4 / /s/Thomas C. Sparks Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Planning Division, City of South San Francisco Date: October 5, 2001 Published once in the San Mateo County Times, Wednesday, 10; 2001 Ssn Mateo CountyTimes !'T/83 October 10.2001 - I f l i 1 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 02/18 i~ Renshaw Associates, Inc. Environmental Engineering Services November X 9, 2001 Ms. Annina Antonio California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Marbella Housing Subdivision Project Westborough and Gellert Boulevards; South San Francisco, California Project No.: 258. B. 01 Dear Ms. Antonio: In response to your Novembex 6, 2001 letter to APIs. Susy Kalkizt of the City of South San Francisco, Renshaw Associates, Inc. (Henshavv) has prepaxed this letter addressing the issue of background concentrations of arsenic in shallow soil at the Marbella Housing Subdivision pzoject in South San Francisco, California (the site). As discussed with you in our telephone conversation of November 15, 2001, it is our professional opinion that the level of arsenic found in shallow soil at the site, as reported in Henhsaw's June 9, 2000 report titled Phase 1 Preliminary Sire Assessment and Limited Soil Quulity Investigation, Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco, California,. and sumnr-arized in the Draft ,Environmental hnpact 1Zeport (EII~) dated October 5, 2001, is representative of naturally-occurring background levels throughout the San Francisco Bay.erea. The level of arsenic reported in Henshaw's previous report was 2.6 parts per million (ppm). At your request, we are providing additional information on regional background concentrations of arsenic. Based on our recent telephone conversation, you are apparently unaware that additional soil samples were collected at the site in February 2001. As indicated in the attached letter dated. February 9, 2001; Renshaw collected additional soil samples at the site to provide conftrmation of the test results for arsenic reported in Henshaw's previous report, and to assess the possible presence of hexavalent chromium in shallow soil. The test results for these additional samples (collected in the same general area as the samples described in Henahsaw's June 9, 2000 report) did not indicate the presence of arsenic above the laboratory method reporting limit of 1.0 ppm; or hexava]ent chromium above the ]aboxatory method reporting limit of 0.2 ppm. Based on the site history evaluation and soil sampling results presented in HenshaK~'s previous reports. it is our opinion that soil contamination by arsenic, or other constituents, is not present at the site. 11875 Dublin Boulevard, Suite A-200 • Dublin, CA 94568 • Tel: 925/551-7272 Fax: 925/551-7464 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 02/18 Renshaw Associates, Inc. With repect to background concentrations of arsenic in shallow soil in the San Francisco Bay Area, the zxzost.widely-recognized regional evaluation was performed by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Protocol for Determining Bac,'cgraurd Concentration of 1l~etals in Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (L,BNL), August 1995). That study, which examined background metal concentrations in soils derived from diffe.xent regional geologic units xangirzg in age from Jurassic to Holocene, found general background concentrations of arsenic of 9.3 to 3 ]ppm, depending on the specific geologic urzit_ For their geologic units of mid-Tertiary age (their Orinda and Moraga Formations), they reported an average background arsenic concentration of about i 3.5 ppzza. The lvlarbella dousing Subdivision site is underlain rocks by the Merced Formation ofupper-Tertiary to lower-Quaternary age,. Whereas these rocks are not directly correlative to the mid_Tertiary units of the LBNL study; the concentration of arsenic measured at the site is certainly at or below the average concentrations measured during the LBNL study which covers a much broader and diverse age gxouping of geologic formations. In our opinion, the L$NL results can be used to evaluate expected background concentrations o.f aresenie at the subject site. Finally, review of our project files at Renshaw shows that we have previously performed a general investigation of soil quality at another site along Westborough Boulevard, approximately 2;500 feet southwest of the subject site. Test results fox eight soil sazrzples analyzed for arsenic during that investigation ranged from less thax: the method reporting lirz~it of 1.0 ppm to a maximum of 2.9 ppm. These results are identical to those reported for the l~-~arbella Housing Subdivision site. As such, it is our opinion, that the concentrations of arsenic measured in soil at the Marbella Hottsing Subdivision site axe representative of naturally-occurring background levels. In our opinon, no additional evaluation is warranted. ' Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Henslaaw Associates, Incorporated Dennis Laduzirzsky, C.E.G. Senior Project Manager Attachments: February 9.2001 Additional Soil (?uality Evaluation cc: Joe Fanelli Susy Kalkin G:~F iles~268~ 1 I t 80.Ol.wpd 11%191Ot 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 04/18 ,~i~ Renshaw Associates, inc: Environmental Engineering Services Irebruary 9; 2001 Ms. Carol Anne Painter Duc 1-Iousinc Panners, Incorporated 14107 Winchester Boulevard, Suite I-I Los Gatos, CA 95032-5960 Re: Additional Soil Quality Evaluation Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Project No.:.268.A.01 Dear Ms. Painter: As requested, Henshaw Associates, lncot•porated, has performed an additional e~'aluation of shallow soil quality at the Gellert Boule~•ard project :ite in South San Francisco; California. The evaluation vas performed to provide confirmation of the test results for arsenic previousl}~ reported in the Phase 1 Prc~linu~rcrry.S'ite Assess»?e~ir! ~r~rd Limited Soil Orralin• L~i•estigrrtiorr, Gellert Botrlel•ar~' South ,San Frrrnciscv, CcrJrfornic~, submitted as a dl•aft on June 9, 2000. The evaluation was additionally performed to assess the possible presence of chromium VI its shallow SO11 at the site. The site is located on Gellert $oulevard in South San Francisco, northwest of the inter~ectian of Gellert and Westborough Boulevards. Tlae site consists of a steep, narxo~~ Marcel, sloping east to Gellert $oulevard. A limited soil quality investigation «~as previously Conducted in a le~-el area on the southeast portion of the site where concrete debris and other trash had been obsen•ed. )tiring the present evaluation, soil samples ~~ere collected at depths of appruxinlately one foot end four feet at three locations, in the vicinity of the soil samples previously' collected and inalyzed during the June ?000 Phase I investigation. Samples were collected ~~'ith a hand aucer, nanuahy placed in laboratory-supplied sample jars; labeled, and stored in a cooted container for ransport to the laboratory under chin-of-custody control. Two composite samples, one from me foot bgs (RS-1,2,31) and one from four feet bgs (RS-1,2,3-4), were analyzed for total ~rsenie using EPA Method 601 OB and hexavalent chromium (Chromium 1'I) using EPA Method ~ 196A. ~63U 0341-01.wpd I 11875 Dublin Boulevard, Suite A-200 • Dublin, CA 94568 • Tel: 925/551-7272 Faz: 925/551.7464 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 05/18 i~ Renshaw Associates, Inc. ~emical test results are summanzed in Table 1, and the laboratory analytical report is attached this letter. As shown en Table 1, the composite soil samples did not contain arsenic or :xavalent chrOtnicu77 abo~'e the laboratory method reporting limits. Based on the chemical test salts, shallow soils at the site do trot appear to be impacted by arsenic or chromiun7 VI. We apprecirtte the opportunity to prof ide service to }•ou nn this project. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any quzstions or require additional information. Sincerel~~, Hensh~-~i Associates, Inco~'porated r--- Dennis 1•raduzinsky, C.)r.G., R.E.A. Senior Project Mat7ager Dt,:l:d /encl: t Table Laboratory Reports G:11'iles`~6S\103 i-Ol,~~pd 01~09~01 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 0E~/18 NA TABLE x Soil Annlytica) Results Gellert Boule~'ard South San Francisco, California Analyte RS-1,2,3-1 Rp-1,2,3-4 TTLC PRG Arsenic -EPA 60108 ND ND 500 22 Chromium VI -EPA 7I96A ND ND 500 ~0 NOTES RS-X,2,3-1: composite of samples collected fzozn three locations at a depth of one foot. RS-1,2,3-4: composite of samples collected froze three locations at a depth of four feet. Results repot-ted in mg/ke (parts per miliiorz) ND. Not detected at or above the laboratoz'y method reporting limits PRG: Preliminary Remediation Goal for residential land use -EPA Region IX TTLC: Total Threshold Limit Concentration G:~ ilas~268~10336-Ol.xls oz~ v~o ~ 11 / Lb/ LF7t71 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma~ab ` Environmental Services (CA 9094) Renshaw Associates 11876 Dublin Blvd, Suite A-200 Dublin, CA 94568 Attn.: Ms. Katherine Davem Project: 268.A.01 Gellert Dear Katherine, HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 07/18 Submission #; 2001-02-006 Date: February 7, 2001 Attached is our report for your samples received on Monday February 5, 2001 This report has been reviewed and approved for release. Reproduction of this report is permitted only in its entirety, Please note that any unused portion of the samples will be discarded after March 22, 2001 "" - ~Y~~ se, We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. ,;I me at (925) 484-1919. You can also contact me via email. My email aggress is: [email protected] Sincerely, Vincent Vancil 1220 Quarry Lane " Pleasentpn, CA 94566-4756 Tsiep~one: (925) 484-1919 'Facsimile: (92S) 484-1096 CA DHS ELAPis1096 Printed on: 02/07/2001 10:39 Page 1 of 1 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 0E~/18 STL Chroma~ab Environmental Services {GA 1094) Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Hexavalent Chromium Renshaw Associates ~ 11$75 Dublin Bivd, Suite A-200 Dublin. CA 94568 Attn: Katherine Dayem Phone: (925) 551-7272 Fax: (925) 551-7464 Project #: 268_A_01 Project: Gellert Samples Reported Sample IQ Matrix Date Sampled La RS-1,2,3-1 Soil 02/05/200'1 1 R5-1,2.3-4 Soil 02/05/2001 2 1220 Quarry Lane 'Pleasanton, CA 9x596-x756 Telephone: (925) 484-1919' Facsimile: (925) 484-1096 Printed on: 02/0712001 10'23 Page 1 of 5 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma~.ab Environmental Services (CA 1094} To: Renshaw Associates Attn.: Katherine gayem HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 09/18 Submission #: 2001-02.OOfi3 Test Method: 7196A Prep Method: 7196A soil Hexavalent Chromium Sample ID: RS-1,2,3-1 Project: 268.A.01 Gellert Sampled: 02/05/2001 Matrix: Soli Lab Sample ib: 2001-02-0063-001 Received: 02/05/2001 17:50 Extracted: 02/06/2001 15:09 QC-Batch: 2001102/06-01.31 Compound Result Rep.Limit Units Dilution Analyzed Flag Chromium (Hexavalent) Nq 0.20 my/Kg 1.00 02/06/2001 15:30 1220 Quarry Lene 'Pleasanton, CA 94566-4756 Telephone' (926? 484-1919' Facsimile: (925) 484.1096 Printed on: 02!0712001 10:23 Page 2 0'~ 5 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma~.ab Env~rcnmentai Services (CA 1094) HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 10/18 Submission #: 200102-0063 To: Nenshaw Associates Attn.; Katherine Dayem Test Method: 7196A Prep Method: 7196A soil Hexavalent Chromium Sample ID: RS-1,2,3-4 Lab Sample ID: 2001-02-0063-002 Project: 268.A.01 Received: 02/05!2001 17:50 Gellert Sampled: 02/05/2001 Extracted: 02/06/2001 15:09 QC-Batch: 2001./02/06-01.31 Matrix: Soil Compound Result Rep.l.imit Units ' Dilution Analyzed Flag Chromium (Hexavalent) ND 0,20 m /K 1.00 02/06/2001 15:30 1220 Quarry Lane "Pleasanton, CA 94566-4756 Telephone: (925) d8d-1919 -Facsimile: (925) 484-1096 Printed on: 02/07/2001 10:23 Page 3 of 5 11!20/2001 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma~ab ' Environmental SBNiGes (CA 1094) To: Renshaw Associates Attn.: Katherine Dayem HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 11/18 Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Method: 7196A Prep Method: 7196A soil Batch QC Roport Hexavalent Chromium ethod Blank Soil QC Batch # 2001/02106-01.31 MB: 2001/02!06-01.31-001 pate Extracted: 02/0612001 15:30 Compound .. ... __ _...__. _.. _._.. __....._.....__...... .. _.. ..... _... , .. . Result ~ Rep.Limit Units Analyzed Flag Chromium (Hexavalent) ND 0.2 mg/Kg 02/06/2001 15:30 Printed On: 02!0712001 10:23 1220 Quarry Lane 'Pleasanton, CA 94566-4756 Telephone: (925) 484-1919 "Facsimile: (925) 484-1096 Page 4 of 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 12/18 i STL Chroma~ab Environmental Services (CA 1094) To: Renshaw Associates Attn: Kath®rine Dayem Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Method: 7196A Prep Method: 7196A soil Batch DC Report Hexavalent Chromium Laboratory Control Spike (LCSILCSp) Soll OC Batch # 2001102!06-01.31 ', LCS: 2001/02/06-01.31-002 Extracted: 02/061200115:30 Analyzed 02/D6/200115:30 LCSD: 2001/02/06-01.31-003 Extracted: 02/061200115:30 Analyzed 02/06/2.00115:30 Compound Conc. j mg/Kg J J Exp.COnc. j mglKg J .Recovery [%] RPD Ctrl. Limits [%i Flegs LCS LCSD LCS LCSD LCS LCSD [°/a] Reoovery RPD LCS LCSD Chromium (Hexavalent) .2,10 2.10 2.0 2.0 105.0 105.0 0.0 60.120 20 1220 Quarry Lane 'Pleasanton, CA 94566-x756 Telephones (925) 48a-1919' Facsimile: (925) a84-1096 Printed on: 02107/zool 10:23 Paoe 5 of 5 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES i PAGE 1/18 - STL Chroma~ab Environmental Services (CA 1094) Submission #: 2009.02.0063 Metals Renshaw Associates ~ 11875 Dublin Blvd, Suite A-200 Dublin, CA 9456$ Attn: Katherine Dayem Phone: (925) 551-7272 Fax' (925) 551-7464 Project #: 268.A.01 Project: Gellert Samples Reported Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Lab ~ RS-1,2,3-1 Soil 02105/2001 1 RS-1,2,3-4 Soil 02/05/2001 2 1220 Quarry Lane 'Pleasanton, CA 54566-4756 Telephone: (925) 494-1919 'Facsimile: (925) 494-1098 Printed on' 02107!2001 10:24 Page 1 Of 5 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 14/18 STL Chroma~ab Environmental Services (CA 1094) To; Renshaw Associates Attn.: Katherine Dayem Sample ID: RS-1,2,3-1 Project: 268.A.01 Gellert Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Method: 60108 Prep Method: 305013 Metals Lab Sample ID: 2001-02-0063-001 Received: 02/05/2001 17:50 Sampled: 02/05/2001 Extracted: 02/06/2001 06:18 QC-Batch: 2001 /02/06-02.15 Matrix: Soil _ _.... . Compound ~ -----.Re ..... ............ . Result .__....._.._ ........... _.. . p.Limit Units Dilution Analyzed Flag Arsenic ND 1.0 „-mg/Kg 1.00 02/06/2001 15:54 Printed on: 02/072001 10:24 1220 Quarry Lane 'Pleasanton, CA ga5B6-x758 Telephone; (925) a84.1919' Facsimile: (925) aea-1096 Page 2 of 5 11/20/2001 15:49 9255517464 S1'L Chroma`ab t_nvironmenta~ Services {CA 1094) To: Renshaw Associates Attn.: Katherine Dayem Sample ID: RS-1,2,3-4 Project: 268.A.01 Gellert HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 15/18 Submission #:2001-02-0063 Metals Test Method: 6010B Prep Method: 30508 Lab Sample ID: 2001-02.0063-002 Received: 02/05/2001 17:50 Sampled: 02/05/2001 Extracted: 02/06/2001 06:18 Matrix: QC-Batch: 2001 /02/06-02.15 Soil Compound _ ................___..... _ ._ _ ____ Result Rep,Limit Units !Dilution Analyzed Flag Arsenic ND 1,0 -......_ ..... .... ....... .._ .._.....mg/K9 ... _. 1.00 02/06/2001 15:57 11/20 /2001 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma,~ab Environmental Services (CA 109A) To: Renshaw Associates Attn.: Katherine Deyem Method Blank MB: 2001 /02!06-02,15-023 HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 16/18 Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Test Method; 601pB Prep Method: 3050B Batch QC Report Metals .. Soil QC Batch # 2001/02/D6-02.15 Date Extracted; 02/06/2001 06:18 .... .. -- Com ound • . _......-- -..._........ •--_ _ ..... esult Rep.Limit Units ~~~ -- Arsenic Analyzed 1=1ag _.....----•._._......_._.. _. ND 1,0 mg/Kg 02/06/2001 14:56 11/20 /2001 15:49 9255517464 STL Chroma~ab Environmental Services (CA lpgq) To: Renshaw Associates Attn: Katherine Dayem HENSHAW ASSOCIATES PAGE 17/18 Submission #: 2001-02-0063 Batch QC Report Metals Test Method: 60106 Prep Method: 30508 Laboratory Control Splke (LC5/LCSD) Soil LCS: 2001/02/06-02.15-024 Extracted: 02/06/200'1 0.6:18 AnalQy ed at 02 06/2001214.592.15 LCSD: 2001/02/06-02.15-025 Extracted: 02/06/200106:18 Analyzed 02/061200115:03 Compound -~ .. .. onc. (mg/K9 ] Exp.Conc. ° ~ ' _._... _._ .. ,_.,.__ . ,.. _ mg/Kg J :Recovery (/o] RPD Ctrl. Limits [%j Flags LCS LCSD LCS LCSD LCS LCSD [%~ ,Recovery RPD LC5 LCSD Arsenic 105 107 t00.D 900.0 105.0 107.D 1,9 80-120 20 a