The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEl Camino Real Redevelopment Plan DSEIR 2000 . ..1 .." II · I EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR SCH #1999 032051 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO March 24,2000 PREPARED BY IMPACT SCIENCES EI CaDlino Corridor Redevelopltlent Plan Am.endm.ent Draft Supplentental EIR SCH # 1999 032051 Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Impact Sciencesl Inc. One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1520 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 267-0494 March 24, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 In. trod u cti on ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . · .. 1. 0-1 2. 0 . Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. · · . .. . . · . · . · · · · .. 2.0-1 3 .0 Proj ec t Oescri p tio n ................ . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3. 0-1 .4.0 Lan.d Use, Plans and Policies................................................................................................4.0-1 5.0 Existing Conditions, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 5.0-1 5.1 Transportation and Circulation................................................................................ 5.1-1 5 .. 2 Air Qu a Ii ty ................................................. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 5. 2 -1 5. 3 No is e. . . . . I . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . I . . . .. I .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. 5.3-1 5.4 Loss of Open Space.... . ..... . . I.... . . .... . . . . . ....... .... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... ..... ...... I . . . ........... . ...... .... ... 5.4-1 5 .5 Cultural Resources....... ...... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ...... . ..... . ... . . .. . . . . . . . .... ... ... ..... . . . . . . . . .. ..... ... . .... . ... .. 5.5-1 6.0 Unavoidable Significant Impacts..........u... ..... ......... ............ ..... ....................... .................... 6.0-1 7.0 Al te rn at i v e S I .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . I . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7.0-1 8.0 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ... ...... ..... .............. ..... ........... .................... 8.0-1 9 . 0 Growth-Inducement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 9. 0 -1 10.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant or to be Within Impacts Previously Identified..............l0.0-1 11 ~ 0 List of EIR Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted.......................................... .11.0-1 12 . 0 Reference s. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. '. . '.' . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. 0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES Appendix 1.0 Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Responses Appendix 3..0 Mitigation Measures from the Previous Redevelopment Plan EIR Appendix 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Crane Transportation Group Draft Traffic Report Appendix 5.2 Air Quality Calculations Appendix 5..3 Noise Calculations Appendix 5.5 Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Report ii EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 LIST OF FIGURES 3.0-1 "Amended Redevelopment Project Area Location............................................".......................... 3.0-4 3 .0- 2 Existing Project Area.........................................................."....................."........................ 3,,0-12 3 .0-3 El Camino and Willow Gardens Additions................................................................... .". ....3.0-13 3..0-4 Willow Gardens Rehabilitation Plan...................".......................................................... .3.0-16 4.0-1 Project Area and 5WTOunding Land Uses............................................................................. 4.0-5 4.0-2 Planned Hickey BART Station. .......... ........ ........ ...... ........ ................... ................. ... ............. 4.0-6 4.0-3 General Plan Land Use Diagram............ ................. .......... ......... ........ ............:.... ..... .......... .4.0-10 4.0-4 Existing Zoning Designations.. ......... ................ ........... ............. ........ ..................... ..... ........ ..4.0-11 5.1-1 Area Roadway Network. ...... ......... ...... ............ .... ..... .... .... ......................... .... ................ ... 5.1-4 5.1~2A Existing Intersection Geometries and Controls...... ....... ......... ............................ .......... .......... 5.1-8 5 .1- 2 B Existing Intersection Geometries and Con troIs · · · · · . · . . . · · · · . · . . . .. . · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.1-9 5.1-3A Existing A.M. Peak Hour Volumes.......... . . . . . " " . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.1-10 5.1- 3 B Existing A.M. Peak Hour Volumes.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · . · . .. · · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .5.1-11 5" 1-4A Existing P.M. Peak Hour Volumes................. ~....................."............................................... ..5" 1-12 5 .1-4B Existing P.M. Peak Hour Volumes......... ............. · ................. ... . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . ..... . . .......... . . .. .... .5.1-13 5.1-5 Existing On-Street Parking Usage.................................................................................... .5.1-19 5.1-6 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes......................................................................."..... 5 .1- 23 5.1-7 Year 2010 Intersection Geometries and Controls. ""...... ."....................................................... ..5" 1-27 5.1-8A Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 2010 A"M. Peak Hour Volumes ..............................5.1-35 S.1-8B Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 2010 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes .............................5.1-36 5.1-9A Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 2010 P"M. Peak Hour Volumes """".............................5.1-37 5.1-9B Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) 2010 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes.........................................5,,1-38 5.1-10AAmended Plan Year 2010 A..M. Peak Hour Volumes.........................."...... ""......................... .5.1-52 5.1 ~ lOB Amended Plan Year 2010 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes............................................."............ .5..1-53 5.1-11AAmended Plan Year 2010 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ...... ....................... ............... :.... ........ ..5.1-54 5.1-11B Amended Plan Year 2010 P.M.. Peak Hour Volumes .............'.....................................................5.1-55 5.1-12 Amended Plan Year 2010 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Oak Avenue Extension.................5,,1-62 5.1-13 Amended Plan Year 201 0 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with both Oak Avenue and Antoinette Lane Extensions......."".".. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . .. 5 .1-64 5.3-1 Noise Attenuation by Barriers.. "".......... ...... ................... .................. ................ ....... .~.......... 5.3-3 5.3-2 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment....... ......"....."... ..................... ......... .... ........ ..5.3-15 iii EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 2~O..1 3.0w-l 4.0-1 5.1--1 5.1-2 5.1-3 5.1 ~4 5.1-5 5 .1 ~6 5.1~7 5.1-8 5.1..9 5.1-10 5.1~11 5.1-12 5.2-1 5.2-2 5.2-3 5.2..4 5.3--1 5.3-2 5~3~3 5.3-4 5~3-5 5.3..6 5.4-1 LIST OF TABLES Summary of Proj eet Impacts .............................................................................................. 2.0-4 Comparison of Approved Redevelopment Plan with Proposed, Amended Redevelopment Plan......................................................................................... 3.0-7 Project Consistency with South San Francisco General Plan........... .................... ........ ....... .4.0-17 Existing Intersection Levels of Service- A.M. and P III M . Peak Hours................. ~ .. .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. .. .. .. .. III . .. . . . . . .. .. .. l1li .. . . . ... . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . -41 l1li . . .. . .. . . ... .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. 't .. . ... .. . ... l1li l1li .. . .. . . .. ... .. .. . .. . l1li . .. 5 ...1..... 15 Existing Signalization Needs.......................................................................................... 5 .1-17 Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour .... .... .......... ............ .... .,,"........ "". .5.1-20 Existing SamTrans Bus Routes Serving the Project Area........................ ............ ..... ....... ..... .5.1-21 Trip Generation - Existing Plan Updated Analysis........................................................... .5.1-40 Reduction in Peak Hour Trip Generation by Development Within One-Quarter ,Mile of BART Station.................... p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .5.1-41 Intersection Level of Service-Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) ..................."...."......."""... ,,5.1-43 Signalization Needs-Existing Plan (Updated Analysis)."...."...."...................................... .5.1-45 P..M. Peak Hour freeway Volumes-Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) ..........."............u...."S.1-46 Trip Generation-Amended Redevelopment Plan ................................................... ......... ..5.1-51 Intersection Level of Service... Amended Redevelopment" Plan......" P................."...."............. .5.1-57 Amended Plan Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour ..........................p5.1-60 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at San Francisco M 0 ni t 0 rin g 5 t a ti 0 n . " " . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . " " " " . . . " . . . . " . " . . . . . . .. 5.. 2 - 6 Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations............ ."............................"............. pO, II................ 5,,2-9 Comparison of Existing and Amended Redevelopment Plans ................................................,,5.2-15 Predicted Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations..............."....."...................................... ...5.2-17 Typical Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation for Structures in Calif 0 m ia. . . . . . . ... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. It . . . l1li l1li . l1li .. 't . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . III III III .. . ... .. . . . . . . .. l1li ~ l1li l1li- . .. l1li . l1li . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. to . . III .. . . ... . .. .. .. .. l1li .. . . . . .. .. . . l1li 5. 3-4 Existing On-Si te Noise Levels..............................."""......... II . . ." . . ... . . . ... . ." ~.. . . . . . . .... . ... . . . ". . .." ... 5.3-6 Existing Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Locations..... ....................................................... 5.3-9 South San Francisco Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Noise................................"..... ..5.3-10 Predicted Future Exterior On-Site Noise Levels............................................................... .5.3-18 Predicted Future Exterior Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels......... ..................... .................. .5.3-20 Park 5 ize sand Se rv ice A re as. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ~ l1li . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . It . .. It III . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. 5" 4 MIlo 2 iv El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 1.,0 INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This introduction provides information on the environmental review process being conducted by the City of South San Francisco for the proposed project in conformance with the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA). This information is provided to assist the reader in understanding the planning and regulatory context in which the proposed project is being reviewed. B. PROJECT APPROVALS REQUESTED The City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is proposing an amendment to the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, which covers a part of central South San Francisco. The existing Redevelopment Plan for the site would be amended to make the Plan consistent with current General Plan policies for development of the Corridor.. The existing 175-acre Project Area would be expanded to include the non-contiguous 9.3-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood, and the 70-acre contiguous El Camino Real Addition. Anticipated development within the Amended Plan Project Area includes new retait office, and residential uses within the existing Project Area, rehabilitation of the Willow. Gardens neighborhood, and intensification of commercial uses alon.g El Camino Real within the El Camino Addition.. Compared with the buildout potential of the approved Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the Amended Plan would result in the development of 483 fewer multi-family residential units, 176,900 additional square feet of office space, 355,300 additional square feet of commercial/ retail/ shopping space and a fire station. C. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE OF THE SEIR This document, as a program-level, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), evaluates the potential impacts of the adoption and implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Use of a program EIR allows the Agency to evaluate the impacts of the Plan at a general level of detail, focusing on area-wide and cumulative impacts and programmatic mitigation measures. According to Section 15180(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, " All public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project, which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment plan by the legislative body. II Section 15180(b) states, "An EIR en a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a program EIR with ro 1 ~O-l EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendnlent Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 1~O Introduction subsequent EIRs "required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required" . .11 This document serves as the primary dOClUl1.ent for subsequent approvals pursuant to implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Additional environmental review for those approvals could be required if 1) the subsequent actions would have effects not evaluated in this SEIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to conditions in the area or other circumstancesj or 3) new information becomes available that indicates additional or more severe significant impacts. D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City of South San Francisco conducted a preliminary review of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment and determined that' an SEIR should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts associated with the project. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an SEIR is required when the lead agency makes one or more determinations based on "substantial evidence in the light of the whole record."'" These determinations include one or more of the following: . that there are substantial changes to the project which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously. identified significant effects; or · that there are substantial changes with respect to the circumstances nnder which the project is undertaken (which will require major revisionsl for the reasons noted previously); or . that new information of substantial importance (which was not known when the previous EIR was prepared) shows that there will be a new or substantially increased significant effect, or that there is a mitigation measure or alternative that is feasible and would substantially reduce a significant effect, but the applicant declines to adopt it. On March 9, 1999, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study describing the proposed project and stating that the City would prepare an SEIR. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and various other local agencies and organizations" In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City provided a 3D-day period for responses to the NOP" The City requested that each commenter identify in a written response any specific topics of environmental concern tha t should be studied in the SEIR. Responses to the NOP were received from the following public agencies and other commenters: 1.0~2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pian Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 2412000 1.0 Introduction . County of San Mateo Health Services Agency . South San Francisco Uoified School District lbe Initial Study, NOP and comment letters received by the City are contained in Appendix 1.0 to this SEIR~ The Initial Study attached to the NOP determined whether the Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in new impacts (significant impacts not identified in the previous EIR) or substantial increases in the impacts identified in the previous EIR. The Initial Study indicates that some potential impacts require further study in the SEIR to determine the significance of the impact. and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the Initial Study and responses to the ~OP, the following (general) topics are analyzed in this SEIR: . Transportation and Circulation . Air Quality . Noise · Loss of Open Space · Cultural Resources These topics are discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.5 of the SEIR. This Draft SEIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period as required by CEQA. During this review period, written conunents concerning the adequacy of the docmnent may be submitted by a 11 interested public agencies and private parties to the City of South San Francisco, Redevelopment Agency, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083, Attention: Allison Knapp Wollam. After the 45-day public review period has ended, the Lead Agency will prepare written responses to all comments received m the Draft SEIR. These responses will be incorporated into the Final SEIR. That Final SEIR will be reviewed and considered and must be certified prior to any actions en th e proposed project application. E. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF SEIR This section provides a description of the organization of this SEIR and the contents of each. section, to assist the reader in using this SEIR as a source of information about the proposed project and its potential effects on the environment. lhe sections following this introduction are organized as follows: 1 ~ 0-3 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0, Executive Summary, includes a description of the proposed project, the conclusions of the impacts analysis, a description of project alternatives, and a summary of the mitigation "measures identified in the SEIR. Section 3.0, Project DescriptioDI" presents a detailed description of the proposed amendments to Redevelopment Plan. 1he topics addressed in this section include the project objectives, a description of the discretionary approvals sought for the project#' as well as the planned uses proposed wit~in the Amended Project Area. lhe amended Redevelopment Plan is compared to the existing approved Redevelopment Plan. Section 4.01" Environmental Setting, includes a general description of the existing environmental characteristics of the region and the local area to help orient the reader. Additionally, this section provides a summary of relevant regional and local planning programs and policies, and an analysis of project consistency with the South San Francisco General Plan. Section 5.0, Existing Conditions, Project Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, contains the analysis of each of the environmental topics addressed in this SEIR. Each topic is addressed in a separate sub-section organized as follows: introduction; environmental setting; project impacts; mitigation measures; cumulative impacts; and level of significance after mitigation. For each topic, exist41g condition~ and project and cumulative impacts are compared to those identified in the previous ErR. Section 6.0, Unavoidable Significant Impacts, summarizes the conclusions of Section 5.0 regarding those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Section 7.0, Alternatives, provides an analysis of the alternatives to the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, a discussion of the reasons for selecting the alternatives analyzed in this section is provided, along with a comparative analysis of each alternative with the project and identification of the "environmentally superior" alternative. Section 8.0, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, addresses the potential use of nonrenewable resources during the project, and project features that would commit future generations to significant changes. Section 9.0, Grow~ Inducing Impacts, discusses the ways in w.hich the Amended Plan could remove an impediment to growth, foster economic expansion or growth in the area, establish a precedent-setting actionJ' or represent isolated development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space. Section 10.0, Impacts Found N ot to be Significant, includes a discussion of impacts found not to be significant (or fonnd to be equal to or less than those of the original project) during the City's Initial 1 .0-4 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 1.0 Introduction Study, along with substantiation for this conclusion from project information, technical reports, and agency consultations. Section 11.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted, provides a list of all persons contacted during preparation of this SEIR. Section 12.0, References, lists all documents used as a basis of information for this SEIR. Appendices to this SEIR include the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and comment letters, the mitigation measures adopted as part of the approved Redevelopment Plan (some of which are being carried forward for this project), and information from the transportation, air quality, noise, and cultural resources studies used in the analysis contained in this SEIR. 1 ~O~5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. PURPOSE It is the intent of the Executive Summary to provide the reader with a clear and simple description of the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts. Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the summary identify each significant effect, and recommended mitigation measures and alternatives that would minimize or avoid potential significant impacts. The summary is also required to identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the publiCI and issues to be resolved, .including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. This section focuses on'the major areas of the proposed project that are important to decision-makers and utilizes non-technical language to promote understanding.' B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION B1. Project Area Location The EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Project Area (Amended Project Area) is located in the central portion .of the city of South San Francisco, in northern San Mateo County. The Amended Plan Area includes the 175-acre Existing EI Camino Redevelopment Project Area (Existing Project Area) and two added areas: 1) the non-contiguous 9.3-acre Willow Gardens Addition and 2) the 70-acre contiguous EI Camino Real Addition. 82. Description of the Proposed Plan Area The Existing Project Area encompasses about 175 acres and is generally bounded by Hickey Boulevard to the north, El Camino Real and the site of the fanner McLellan Nursery to the west, Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Mission Road and Grand Avenue to the east. The area currently contains a mix of commercial, office, residential, institutional, and agricultural uses, plus several vacant and underutilized properties. Major sites within the Existing Project Area include the former Macy's warehouse site (currently proposed for development of a Costco), the Cuneo property, the fonner McLellan Nursery (currently developed/under construction with the "Greenridge" and "Promenade" residential projects), the future Hickey BART station, the Harmonious Holdings property, the San Francisco Water Department site, a portion of the San Mateo County Government Center, and the Oak Farms site~ The El Camino Addition consists of five primary areas: 1) a 7.0-a.cre parcel owned by the California Water Service Company, located on Chestnut A venue south of Old Mission Road; 2) a 3.9-acre Safeway and 2.0-1 El Camino. Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment " Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 2.0 Executive Summary shopping center, located. at the southeast comer of the intersection of Antionette Lane and Chestnut Street; 3) an 8.7-acre area containing several greenhouse buildings,. several apartment buildingsl and a community garden, located south and east of the Safeway and California Water Service Company sites; 4) a 7..8-acre area containing approximately 33 parcels fronting the east side of El Camino Real, bounded by Chestnut Avenue on the north and South San FranciscoHigh School on the south; and 5) the 29.3-acre South San Francisco High School The Willow Gardens Addition consists of the existing 9.3-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood, which includes 53 four-plex residential structures on Nora Way, Sandra Court, Brusco Way, and Susie Way. B3. Description of the Proposed Project The existing Redevelopment Plan would be amended to change land uses within the Existing Project Area from primarily high-density, transit-oriented residential (ie., 50 units per acre) to a "mix of commercial and high- and medium-density residential uses, ranging from 30 to 50 units per acre. Anticipated development under the Amended Plan includes new retail, office, and residential uses within the existing Project Area, rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, and intensification of commercial uses along EI Camino Real within the EI Camino Addition. Compared with the buildout potential of the approved Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the Amended Plan wouki result in the development of 483 fewer multi-family residential units, 176,900 additional square feet of offi:e space, 355,800 additional square feet of commercial/retail/shopping space, and a fire station. C. TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN The environmental factors addressed in this SEIR are listed below by general category: · Transportation and Circulation . Air Quality . Noise · Loss of Open Space e Cultural Resources D. IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This EIR assesses each potentially significant impact that could result from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, a summary of the project's significant impacts is provided 2.0- 2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 2.0 Executive Summary in the Summary Table at the end of this chapter (see Table 2.0-1, Summary of Significant Project Impacts). Also provided in the Summary Table is a list of the mitigation measures that are identified to address each significant impact, as well as a determination of the level of significance of the impact after implementation of the mitigation measures. Impacts that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the features proposed as part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan are not shown in the Summary Table. E. ALTERNATIVES lbree alternatives to the proposed project were evaluated, based on the potential to reduce identified significant impacts of the proposed . project or at the request of City of. South San Francisco staff. Specific altemative.s include a No Project alternative, a Removed EI Camino Addition alternative, and a Removed Willow Gardens Addition alternative. Based on a comparison of the impacts of each alternative, the No Project alternative was identified as the uenvironmentally superior" alternative. Of the development alternatives, the Elimination of the EI Camino Addition alternative was identified as the enviroronentally superior alternative. F. ISSUES AND AREAS OF KNOWN CONlROVERSY Issues or areas of known controversy include traffic congestion on local roadways. 2.0-3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 ~ ~ E E ;:t tn 'CUi ~ :c := tJ ~ hL.l Q N rJ) E-4 U < ~ ~ ~ tJ ~ c ~ ~ f-4 :z ..... . ... ":: :. .. . :; .:: .::: ... .:~ )~~ . <.:> .:.. :.: .: >:::.~~ ~~..:.. ::: : ::!i:;::!!ij\lj,:iu, ~ '::J';:[:[ ~ ;:. '. .:: :'. .?:~:!>.!. ~ z ~ ::: ~ t/) ..en ~ s:: ....l .9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ] .fi .S stf! u "'0 ~ fjS~ ~~~ .0] 0 :g:.a ~ ...o~CS 't: 8 ~ ~~~ u~o ~!~ ~~S ~~$ :ffi6i~ -,....~ \.w ~ ~~ ~ '3~~ ~~;a I-t >. C -:tS ~ 8 ~~~ .....Q)s::: ~'8 ~ ~ta ~~E: ie~l1 2~~ .=:= ~ M~S ~i< ~5 ~ ~ ~ f:U ~ tI} ~ ::s tn t1 :~ ctS .9 11 ~ ] ~ ~. ~QJ ;g> o,.s! ~..... t~ ctS.~ ~~ ,~ So ~ 'cr .~ c:: e~ Q..~ aJ~ E5J '...0 o ~ !"""'l .- N 11 ta II ~ 0]3 OiQ .....-4 ~ QJ ,g~o &b 5'~ ~ e tJO~ OJ c::UQJ < ,~~< ~ ttJ"'O.l ~~ rJJ "'o~J9 o tn UQ t:: ~ ~ cg~ e ,2 0 ~ t:: QJ 1ii .::: ...... · 52 ~ ~ sii ~ E OJ u..... QJ O~ ~] t:L.11 0=,0= ~ tio~o . ~ ""--- ..0 ::s ~ c: 0 tti' +-* 0 l-I ~ :I:: ~ ~::r: 8 u~ ~ ~~ c ~ m ::; + m.~ t ~ .... u~ CIJ "E:E *.c.. 1--1. QJ cc::E.9 ~< ~.b<~ =1: ~~......B tatCfJ)~:jCCl.) t:: .,i; "'0 Q) 0 m "t:'J .~ 6'=:..Q '3 s:: c./} ID ~ < ti CI) 0 ~~USN~~~ t $: "'00 ~~ 0= ~6 19~ u...... fa ::: ~ ,50 QJoc. uN 'E ~a:; ~,~ :;j ~ t: ~ oC~ ,......c ~ .Q)=m ~~~ ~p~ I:~~ ra......~ u m~ i8~ Vi g~ tI) :g ~ m ~ QJ ........ t:: m .... 1...1 ~ ~ ~;!a ~ .9 ~ rd .~ fa ~ .;n ~... t:: o 0 :E:e '1:JQJ alt ~,5 ns .e ~ OJ ~ ~ f:: OJ ..c~ ~Qj ;i~ 0........... ~... t); (Iii: ~~ .- ~ tj .~ .~C ens ~.;; ~rb ~] "Ees8 ~L.l.JO "'t::f;_N ~.s~ Etif'l <e(~~ ]l~ ~U) E~ E t: f}C 1 ~ ;-... ~ "E a c .=: E a ~ ~ 0 ~ c:: (tS Q) ..... "-' s:: ftS """'" c: E ~ E t'a 0 ,- .: ~ 3 ':::s tfJ >'U; ""0 ' (1) aj .9~~ ~--- ~-3~~ eE~~:g~ " Cf) 5 .... 'C ct:: ~,~ 0 x ; ;j 'C .E= .!a 3 OJ .... Q):E..c: .!::t 0..94 Q) ~ ~ U1 > ~... 0 ~:= 0 "'0 fa ~ ~ U) ~ s:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) ,~i c ~ :c a'J Ja t: .o~ c= 23 f:: ~ ~:E e' '- ~:10 Qj.- ~ ai o~ ~ cc ;g :.c tb.-&c ~ > 2 ~ be OJ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ $ ~ ~ t E ~ ~ S ~ ~ res] Ii) ~.~ .s .... Q) !:: QJ ;> > ~ ., """"" ::S." ....r::::: ~ Q) ::r: g ~ tn ~ .... tlJ .8 0 ""-' C ~.~ . tJ .~ &i > g e Q) . en (tS .... ~ ttS 0 I-lo-l - rcs...... ~ ~ Q) :2 IDu ot: ~ E ~~ E e'W~ E ::i ~ :E .... 'C c =s 1:: i1.I~ c:: ~ 0 > rd Q,l 0''::1 Q) U ~ s'-'.8 "'0 0 ~ 0 Cd.... J= e m Q) > ~ ij > Qj' ca ID ~ ~ s::'~.... "'0] ~ ~ J:: s:: 0 QJ~~~ ~~~88~:r:'E:; t::~B~E .~~-s l! ]::$ ~~ ~~E ~] 2.a ~~ e Q >.'~ ~ ~..c: ~ "'0 ; b lU ~ ::s ra l: .t:: "C ~ E C "2 ~ ~ . QJ ,~b ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ,.S<...... be (U "C;; tj 4:: OJ 0 ~ en ""'0 ~ "'0 '..... lo-oI ...... '-i E ~ ~ .,......... OJ ra Q) cu ::J d 1: · - "'C ~ ::s. 9 bO Q) OJ ~ :: Q) ""0 0.......... ..... _ . 0 .$ t:: ttl 0"'...... ~..I: c: "'C1 .n ""'d ~ ao = ..c:: o~ eQ) _ <<s > Q) U,::::l'" i:j ,-... ta ::s Q)" cu Q.I 0 ,- Q) 1-.1 Q) J-t r./) C/) <<S - (j > -u - > :;:: ~ N OJ ::t ,5 ~ QJ ~.~ ID.a S -:5 Qj Qj'c C1J '0 ~ ~ OJ,S ~ bO E 0..0 ~ ~ u ~ ::r: QJ ~ ~o '3 b e ~ ~ ~.... C::.a!:C:E.5 Q.I ~ ~ b.O.~ rJJ C t::r ~ ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ g S'~..8 ~ S 0 ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ CI) ,~ <( ~'be r:: ~ ~ 'Ui 0 '1j = fa t::.::: 0 ao QJ ta ~Q) I~ OJ t:t1 5 .!9'c:= Q) ~ t:: ~ e ~ ~.J:l:2 Q) ~ 5, ,.....r::: Q.I' "'0 ~ > - (IJ' ............ ttC -- L..J ::i > v'''''' ~..... ~ ~ QJ.s ~ · 1:: ~ ClJ ::s c= ;a So s:: 0 P-1 =s fIJ o~ 5~~ E~]O~ thi8 eaJ aJ ~ ~ bO~ ~ > C='5-l " Ja Cd 5j ::i C ~ ~ ~ (; > tb ij 5 i> ~ ' E 0 :J O-t QJ Q) ~ 0 ~ lU > ~ c: Cd ~ y..,.._...-4 '"0 ,.. ~ 3 := "tj OJ..c:: '1j QJ ~ '''''L >- ~......., CO QJ +- QJ "'0 m ~ 5 5-t ...... to E =.... '>"> '€ ~~ ~ 'c;,: :s tU ~ eO) ~ ~.- ~ 4:: .~ 00.8 0 0 0 OJ :i ~ ::s (U > ~ QJ Q) sa QJ ~ ~ .; '8 ~ 0: E Z ~ ~ ~ ~] e ~ ~ ~ .~ ] 2;; . bO-.E ::s :> ~...o 0 (-4 0 co ~ ~ M .Uj ~ \j 'So . ~ . o N . ~ '--- t:t ~ "1j~ .......;:: ::s c OQ:) ~l'.U ::~ utrJ ~::: ~ 6-......:. . ,.... ~ QJ;:::~ .~ ;: ~ t: ~ ~ ~"'(i '4-4~~ Otu~ ~::OJ Q)~Q... ~ ~:E ......t::.O-t t::~"t:l fa...... r:: ~<<S~ oil ...... ..... ~e:E ..... u < rJ)O~ ~ t:S E E ;::t tI) QJ ~ l1li lflii ~ == ~ ~ ~ Q f'i . .:\:::i..)Lt) ,;.~: ~.~/ ~.,: ):.~ U:.:..: :; ~ ~ .: ~; ~.~ ~: ~. ~ ~ ~;.~".;:. ~ :::: i.[l;~lW'[jf:!:l;:~i::tj ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ f1 :..: i ~-r:i ~ ? ~ ~.; ~ ~ ~;: ./~/\;>:;:}~ :. .~ua.l:~ (:::: ~+:Y :I,!i:')![~i'~!'i ;:::!i~~~),~:':;':~::>:!' ::::, ""11 il !: :~~.~~\,:I..,:- ttI .9 "1j OJ u ;:s ~ OJ I-.. OJ ..c ~ ~'Qj ""3> o..9:! ~"E tie rtSu::: ~...... .5 So ~ "~ -(Sa i-.~ ~~ QJrJ) E5] ~ Q) II Q) s::: · e: ... >. e rt$ ~ ~ C'!~ ~ ~u ;s 'r/l NO e ":; ~ .E ~ II OJ ~ e c ~ u ~& .5 ~ u J3~ - QJ be .9 s::: "'d - ~:> 5 ...c:, ~ = tii OJ :> ~C~ OJ _Q -< .- OJ .. ~ - ;i~ C "";bO~O c:: E U -!S ~.~:= :; ] ~ ~ E .~ ~ e ~ ~ 0 ~ i ~~~~ ~ .~ ] ~ ~ ~ .~ ~o ~ u ......... 0"- > - en :;E ~ ~ oS E .~ ~ ] ~ :r: (tj ~ ~.aa.i -~ ~~~ i Q.I Q).:t:: c: ~ e ~ tI) ~ 1:: ~ E QJ Q) (Q QJ 0.. o~~ l'C ~ ~ .J::-- e 0... ~ (tS .~ -. OJ ~ Q) e ns tU ~~::3 ta ~ ~.==::s OJ OJ Q) OJ <( ID.tj rv ~ 'C C/! ~ :g g :2 e ~ ~ '"d ~ ~..e;E > IV > Q) c: .'" 0 > co 00 U kt\ 0 > 0 > __ CJ) U · - · ~ ,.& )(. -.......J .....A'4 '""'.A4 ~ ""'d QJ e t/) I-'-t ~ C P-4 ~ c............ ~ c: U) P-t ID8~ -qi .. .. .c::::~~ ~ E ~ '1j~ "'3~ 0..... ~.~ UJ;"" tJ~ ai ...c: J-i 1:; ~ bO ~ OJ m s=:g ~ Q) ~ rl:S ~ ~ 1'"""l ~ ~ ~ :2 € '{ii ~ ~ 8..;j ~~ { II e C-t <<s :=: = "'CS ~ .. .... 0 "1j ........ .U QJ bt"'c o~ U ~. ~ ..c: tU ..... ns QJ """"" .~ u OJ ..c .J: ., QJ: ~ (Go s:: U r.n 0 b.O o ~ ('d; ~ bO $-! <<S =s ~ ~.5 ~ :n ~ ('d; be> ~.~ ~ ~I ~~5 ~~ 0.. ,; .~> ~ ~ Q) tn 0 ~ QJ..... ~ .fi E en ~ ....... OJ ~ QJ 0 0 ~ 5 o~ ::s 0.. 0 J:: t-l .9 ~ ~ ~] ~ be .~ 6 ~t) ~ ID ~.~ +-' := ~~ ~~...c: ~ e ~ .- t: u] gp ~ QJ ~E:r:rtS .~mO..- ~ ~ ,QJ~ ~ cu 0 c: t: Q.J fa ~ QJ ':S 6b J-4 R ~ fa - c:: ~ fU._ ::So 'wi 0"""- c:: :s ~ ~ tI) ~ *' > ra aJ E~ Q) .~.rn co C::' fii tn bO ~ ''"t:S M :J:::S Q) ':J ctS s::.E-+- ~ ..... ..... IIII'II"t 0 --0.-.. OJ <a C > ID U }: .~ u c ..c.t:: ~ ~ e~~~~~~u~3C: ~ ID8 . P:::~ ~ .s ~ ~ '1:1 OJ a... C1J ..o~ '1:1CU ""3~ o~ ~"E tie tau:: ~~ o~ So ~ .~ .~ c:: oca ~...c ~....... . QJrJ) ,.J:: ID !~ ........ u1 . rJJ :E ...... ......, :Ee fa ~ ::s~ OJ o~ C ~V) res tIJ~ ~ ti$t J-; (13 ra........ ~ ~s .~ .~ ~l:' t:: u)....::J .9 ~ ..... t::t 0 ~ c:~..c: ~~~ .~ = ro (Q .......cQJ o ~ Q... .~ ~~ rJj ~~c.: '~ c 0 1: ::r: :; .g :c .t:: u rc...... ~ "tjQ) ~ra~ --tj~ .~ ~ ~ ::s..... tUQJ u;.: ~C: U)~ci5 t---III · ...... i===8 E~c ~'ti~ 5~~ EtiN ~~~ ~ 1St l::t ..s ;:t:< ~V) 1.;~ ~ 1: ~Q ] ~ ~ .... ~ .E ' a 0: =: 'e a m LO . o N . ~ ~ E E ;s: f.I) ~ N ~ ::t tJ 'QJ ~ Q N ; ~:H ~ ~ < <" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ ~ J: :.::.:~~;:~..: .:.~:~~ :.~..~;~ :~: :>\~:"> nL~?" ~( "~~fW3~~r:~~"/f ": :~ ~~: :~~:~~:.:~~~:~~ :;~;:: ~. ".: )~~ ~i~ :~: :.:::.. :~~~~: i;~i~:; :::~ ~"~::~ ::: "~;((.": ::; ~~?Gi ::;':;; ~r :1:fi:~).1)}::!r?: ~~;'i:,~{" ~:: ~!:n~~: i]1r:~:. =:0;~;ii)m, 1);fC~.,,<i'!j. .1!,:~!:~]1 :I!~i;:- Ii[,i,~; ~r~lj' tC .9 11 u ::s '1:1 ~ OJ ..0 ~ ~(J ~[; 0....... ~c ~ .~ ~~ -_ So "E "tp 'O'a ~~ aJr.tJ ~Jl Q.t s::: ~ .0 QJ ~ 00. .- QJ :d >:5 c g '( Q) ~ 6 ~E5 ~ >'.9 += ~ 0 .~ .... ~ '_ 0 1-4 ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~0~ ~ ~ 1-04.~ ...c: ~ m ~ ~ " 0 QJ C ~ Q) C/'J QJ '""' Q) U OJ ,::: ~.... E. _ <<l e ~ ~.~ ~ e ~(; ~ 0 ~ a 6 ~ 6 ~ ~"s ~ & e ~ ~ .!g .~ .5 ~:e > ~ 6 ~ 0 OJ 0.. ~..... OJ QJ OJ Q) t:: OJ. .... be ;:s.....t: ... (ti s:; 0 0 ~;:::s..c: r.n (fj "'t:S U'J c: 0 v 1-0. "1j = Q) c:: A. U ~.... ~ ~ ""tj .~ · ~ ............... QJ......... 0 ~ " ~ '6' ......... QJ c: ... ....... ta ~ ~=~~g :o&t= ~ W>~~"lj{/J~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~~U ~ QI<~:;~ ~~ ]g~:9QJ ~~G1 < ~~~~ai~E ~~~~~ ~o~ ~ ~O~>ES~ -0 = ~ ~ ~ .S ~ 0 0 ~ "" ~ -a -< ::i < c~~~ m~~ m ~~uo ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ 0 ..o~~~~~:~ QJ o....s:: c p::; r--. fJ) ~ e::: ia..c: ~. ~ 0 e..e ~ +- ~ o. ti · · 6 c:: J:: 0.0 ~ ~ ~ : ~ '0 .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ fo e ~ :9 ~ E ~:g ~ 6 <<1 ~E ~ e ~.~ g..8 e ~ '0 ~~>~~ u ~ ~ ~~~~~~G ~eeeg ~.a~ t 41~~~~~~ f.;.t P-.Q.I b ~.:c 0 MEoW 41;>- ~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 .bOia :s OJ ~ .e: ~ 0 0 ~ ~~8E8g2~~ ~ <~~~~~~ ...c >< ~ OJ ~o:r;:.;:i. - ...c: ~ ~ > '"3 > QJ..o.- "rii Q) u ~ lU:s:9 ~ m ta · t:: 0 -< 0.....0 fJ:l m~~m~~~u~ ~ OO~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0.9 ~ x ~ ~ QJ ::s ~ ::s c:: g.S ~ ~~ ~.s ~ ~ g ~ -: ~ a .e ~ ~ ID g Q) -:5...c: .... :s..;:: r;: <<s ==..... ~ "'Ij I-.,. ~ Kl - s::,.c;" .... "... ...... u OJ v ~ Qj OJ · ,...., ..... rn. ... 1-. .Q)..c...o 0 u ~ m ~ tao >QJ ~ S ""C ~ '(5 ~ .e '1j >0 <( e U .a.~ lUO Q) GJ ~ \,.... ~..... · rJ'J...... c " ,,~ c:; rn tc~~~~~~~~~o~~.~m~~~t ...r:: '.-4 0...::::; U 1-1 be..... Q) ~ OJ ~ Q) U X ~ "E f-l U ~ ~ ~ (fj...c Q./ t: · 5 ~ tJ5 t--.: cr: f-t ~ tl3 C1J (lj..... ~ :1 o :g ,.s:: ::s ~ o~ ca ~ CXJ dJ " r/l:::t0- ::\j.:;/i~/; ~ ~ ~ :""~<..>:. :.=-.":;: Z s:: t: ~ t::::. ~. c:~ ra c:: QJ' ~ Q)aJso rJ) ~..... c: · ~ So ..... rJ) o OJ U}"..... .....SCf):E"'O s:: VJ ~... C crJtjm...ra .~ m ~ co (1) ~~~~ 6h....oo......... ";; 6 ~ ~ 8 s:: . _ Q).... QJ :f-gcg~ ::I ~ OJ OJ ID ~ .:; .~ ..0 ~ ~ bO >-''1:1 .... 0 c: ~-; 1~~o ~ ;. ~] ~ . ~ ;... ~ 0 a'.l · ...... o. ,... J-. U :g ~E g~ [ ::s u ~ s:: o 2~~ ~ Ucn~O'. s::~f1::e:: o ...c ~ f1J =' .cn . u ~ ~..... c::=ss:; ~ QJtn(U X ctl~".... ~ · Q) tJ c: "; ..... < .~ a 6 t) ~ -:6eC~tll ~ · ""'" ""'t:1 Q.I '+-4 U 0- (1) Q) 0 t c:: .a :!:..c; t:: "'0 o C \~.. 0 c:= · ""'" Qj (1) ....... · ~ ::l 1:) Ei t..2 ~ ""CS .E E:.S.... ~ ell 1;11 e ^ !: :;:: .!= ~ · ..-.1 ..., QJ :r:: ;:s o ~ :g.~ ~ i u QJ --0 lJ..... ~ 0'\ cO M II >a fa ~ OJ b.O m ~ QJ > < o rfJ o ....J .~ ....... ca ~ QJ 0.. o I-t ;J o :I: ...::.( ca Q) ~ ~ ~ 1:0 .B-,j :is ~J1 fa ns .e .e ] 1 ::s ~ '1:1 ~ ~ OJ ~ ..o~ ..o~ '1jQJ -,j~ ~> g~ o~ ~c ~1: uta tJG f':S.~ <<1.".... ~~ o...~ .5 ~ .5 ~ ll'~ ~'cr '0'; '0; I-t..s:: ~..t:: ~... ~....... . , aJrJJ Q)trJ ..c::VJ .Gtn ~~ ~~ QJ QJ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ....... --a QJ1i QJQJ ..... r:: $-i C cu...... ~.~ .:6 tnl--l ....QJ ~ QJ .; ~ · fa "ti) ~"\J ~~ ~~ (U~ QJ , QJ -.. '-o~ ~r:: · .... 0 .. ...... 0 >..... >.,... o~ 0....... I-tU ~~ ~~ ~~ "1;j~ ;] r;::$ cu.5 Cr./'J t::oo O.~ 0...... ...... ...c ..... ~ ..... ........ ..., ..... U'-t-t u~ ~o ~o ..c ~s:: ~o ~o c:c s=:o · ..... tC · ...... (U fI) N 41 rJJ N . .. ~ ........ I--t ....,.... · ~ I-t -=(U~ ~n;~ o.~~ o "~fc ~cnJj ~ rn c:: O~ .g~~ . ....... :;... ~ me ~(tS~ ~ ~..-t 1-.1 ~".... aJoU CVoU Q... ...... OJ c... ~ QJ OG~ os:::~ 5-.0"" ~o"'" B:= ~ 0:0 > * .... ::i..c .~ ;:S ~ ~ ..c -0 6~~ 0....... OJ :;:Eb"'O ::Ebooo · 6 ~ s::~ oouC 0\ 8e r:: t:: ..2 153 ....... ......., u u OJh OJ ~~ 00 .... ~~ OJ ........ .S~ .5 QJ~ OJ ..c:: · f: ,.C ~ ....... ~ ....... ~Q .....= ~z: ~;:: ~~ Q)~ ~~ ~~ J:~ ~~ n:s~ ~;:: .....~ ~N ~~ cUt.LJ to;"" ~=tt ~~ .~ g tf.)~ .... .... ~ 5~ s::O 01:( :=;:. :t=;:: cU"O ~.9 N...... . ,.... (Tj . =~ ~'J)frJ m...... U) (0......... ~~ fo< .- ~ ..~ ~ r.J)O rfJO ~~g \)~C) .5......"1 ~ t:t .... f5~~ EEN ~li~ ~~~ ..s ~ ::s ~;t ....V) t~ i:: e ~c l ~ ~ ~ 'E a o .t: E a ~ \.0 t o N ~ r.:t E E ;: tn ~ ~ -.. .... ;.1 t;.J ~ ~ Q N 'f.:~i~[.i;~~:;;~~;;~', · ':i;li~:t:j;}:~~~~~j~r. ~.'~ ~ ~>~W:/::: :~>. ~: :<t>~:: .:~ n: :;.~.: >:r: ~ ::~ ~~~>;~ ~ ~ ~..:~~:: Il,~1 ::". ~:.:;::::: -.::: ..:.: ::::- >r~ .:/ :~)~ : <:<: . ".-:".". ..:..~: :"..".:~." :..::<~:<:/ ..~. ~:~: .:: ~>>::) ~ :<>.. ::;/ .: ~~::.~~:.. <-.; :::":: ::. .)::. :: :\';::: ):: ::':.:::: ~:.:-: :~..:::::~ .::.~:~~: :~:.: ::~ ; :".. : :-=. ": : : ...~: ::( : :":. :-:.: . , . ... Q :..;):t[:-:!:f:!:.....!.\; z 1 ::.::::<::.:::< "':?iii i .1 :::::~z :.:. J: ;<::::- :::. ::. ; l:':: (-t sa :'h:ji::/~F E-- U V) "O~ .......Q) :J > OQl ::::~ {/JS::~ tJB:;:j fa tt::: c Q.(~ .. OJ E 6b.1! .~"Ui Ji ~~~ ca.J:: 0 {/}...... c ]~:8~ ra....... (U. ;:I n;nsc~ 6.8ee :=]~ c [': u ~o QJ;Se:o o..~.- Sb O~,.c::t:l ~ ~ ~ "s ~ ~ "J 0\ 0) t--4 ~ ~ QJ"-4 ~= 0 ~ gp~ -Eo:9 QJ (U U) EQJ...c: c..s::..... 3~] CUEbO [; !:loS '"CS .p oS ~~~ (1,) ~ ~ ~ >.fU ==m~ :o~~ 5 6.,... oi: ! ~ OJ 1-1 f/J ~.a, rlJO(tS >'::sE ~:E= QJ e.~ .~ 8 ~ "'0 tU ~ ~o~:8 GJ 5-........ m uQJ::>v U~~ 0 0 < I-I~ o..c ~ c ..9I.~ .. ~ aJ..o (t$ e ~.~ ~ ~ QI cg--o .....~ ~ ~ fU e ....., J-. ~ :s o~ 0 +' OJ :s o~ c ai (1) ~ ~ l;a u b .- ~ m U1 ]d;2;oC1J ~~.....t'tC';; E e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '.t: a..... a ~ ;::: ~ ~ :E r;; ~ o ~ Os ctS u Ei3 ~ S fJ) . ro en. ~~ (ttn$ c~ ~~ > ...- · t: lS~ ~rs ~ .nr '-oS e~ .2s::: ~ ,........ .J::....... bOlU ~ ....... 0 1-4.... QJrn '-oaJ ...... ..c: ~u ~-cU ~e ~O-c ~c.. ~tU '0 ~~ ~ em ." QJQJbO (1)~!:p > '- ~ E fa..... ~ QJ.~ C/)o~.........~ti ~ (/) fa 0 ~ UJ .x ttSrJjcm.....,~ .5 == "'0 0 0 ~ Q) ..... QJ cu" a; ... p.....,c:= ~ ~ ~"> ~ E ~ ID U'J en 0 0'- 8 t..ItaQJ~c=::Q)~ "1j 2 o~ ~ s:: [j ~ ,..... u r,J'J OJ 0 ~ ~ ::So ~ ID...c:..... r....... ~ ~u...rnr-- ~ e >< ~ .~ ......; ~ c a..... ~ ~ ~ m ~ 29 ~ c...... aJ ~ Q) ~ P-.i Q) "'0 :> c ,- ..... ~ ~ CU"C 0 0 ~ [i Q) rJ) t; Q (U .,5 s:: ~ "'0 I:: - rh E..... ~ W (rj ~ ~ >. (t3 "'d ~ e:E ell ~ ~~~~ < tI1 ti bO a;. t.Q:= :> (1)(1::$....> c(U ~] ~~'c~~] f-t Q..~ ~ ~ (Q.~ ~ u r..;::::: ~lo.IbO b~o~ bOe0..8 · S Q) t'l:i \j....u cv........ u ~~$ 00 c: cO ~..gb QJ ns bl.) > ...... 5 .C:: tn ~ Q ~ 41.... ~~ ~ ~~ 0.. tb ~ tiJ t..-~ ui &3 '0 .~ ] be) ~b.O 0 0... t:: · U I;f} c::: ~ (:;... 41 1-1 ('j o....,g ~ ~ "E 0 ~ 11 IJ'J EQ)~OM :E ..... c:: 0 .. ~.8~: t5 Q) 0 ~ .E C! ;1 c:: J:: "0 00 QJ '"d.~ fI) .~ d~e~Q) ~ :; ~~ ~~ .oC QJ is.J.8 6 ~ e ~:; ~~.9 :s U)~mOro ~bID]~ :EJ:i8]~ >~] ~E 5e;;8 EJ.LJC ~1i~ E~~ eEN ~~~ & ~~ E:t.B "Eb. 16 ~ ~ I-.. ~ "E a o ;:: 'E a i.Li fI} QJ ... ::s lIJ tU QJ ~ OJ I . ~..c: 0:9 ~~ \:s+-'s .~ 0.... Ci 23 +' ~QJ ~cw ~ o~ ~ ~ b ".-I 0 0 ..a. 00 ~~ ~fJ'}~ ~ ~ sai ~ .!l to 0;1 S s:: "0 ~ "~ ~ 'ti) g~ ::Eo~ >~ ~; tj i> 1..1 0 b.O E ~ c: >'<<1 0 ::s (U tU 1: ~ rn"'O ~o~ m ~ -LJ::2 e~ fo ~ ~ ~ 0'1:1 ~ 0 ~ bO..C:.a .~'~ 8 .J:: ~ rn o .~..e ~ Q.l go ::= ~ ~ .....:6 l'IJ ~ -=..s:: s:= bO ~ (U o.~::S 6 8 -s ~::r: "..-l ~ rn o t 0 ~~:a >-. rill U ~ bO > '1j ... ~ f.:. c.c ~ Q.l.O 0 ='*" m ~:.t:: u cu ..... ~ ~ .19 cU e c:: ~ e= ~~P3 t'a ~~ nl 6 <<S~ == tb~~ ..-4 QJ tI) 0 ~ ~ ~ u ~~E ~.e-- ~ ~ 8~ ~ := '2 ~ ~ u ~ "tS...... rJl. 0 ~ ~ o~'> . ~ o N ~ ~ E E ;:: f./) ~ w :c ;: ~ ~ Q N ~~::~:-~~ .;:: :.~I:"~ ~ ~ ..::~~.~:_. : .::" ~ ~ ~:" :~ ~ : ~ ~:". ~ ~.: ~. :: ~ ~ ~ ~): :.:.;~:~. ~::::: ...~::": . :~>;: .":~ ~;..::~ I:".:;:: .". ;.~~<~ .~ i ~ ::.::::<.": .".-::: "-::-" . ~::) >: < ._<~::: >?: :<~~: ~~ ~ :.:.~: ~~ ;~~. 1;1~ ~m)[: :~ij: ~ """.:':;:;.;':; I,~l[~~lit], . . ;)tJy:~~:~~~~.~ ~ ~~. .:~=~~; :~: :~~1 ~~~ t\ ~~~.: ~~ ::..:~ ~~ ){: ~::.-r: :...:.: . ."": .... :.:. I~(i':ii"ij i!i :~'::.:;;~:;, Q.J ~ ~.....~ oa 5 f:: So Q) GJ '"tj e ~ ~ 0... ~:c=~ ;i ~ QJ OQJ~ ~:g~ ~~~ ~ ..;- bO ~t::l::: EtU:t:: -- ~ -~ OJ,..... >< 'S So~ s:= '(ii ~ S~~ .~ ..c ~ iJta~ ::s :s! ~ l::o~ ~ >M d otao\~ u3~S:: ~ '-L.J ~ ..s ~ ~ ~ E g.. ] ~ 4:( tv) 0\ 0) t--I . ::: Q) tt:..c: <<S~ .t: -5 0 ~rtj~ 2 ~'o ... ~ t:: bl);:JCQ .5.~ '\:1 en C ~ ;:::::S~lU'-" u:3CJ)~ ~o~o ,.,... ..J:: ..... N viQ)g~ ,.~ ~ U) C() ~~.... Q) G ~.E-:S~ u QJ....~ U ~~~~ o ~ -. . ..... ~ " : Cf.l U :s C() J::; 2 ~&i..g .... ~....., ~ sg ~ ~ o ......c: bO UOUOJ "'0 ~ ......... ~ ~~~QJ eoUj c-S QJ<<stUz ~ E.5 , bOO ~ C1J dJ J::: 0 "'0 rFJ 0 '0"'0 ~ U ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ .9 Z .g- .S bO-. cI) oS ~ -S c::s ~w~ E ~ 1! ~ '-- o kL.. ~ ~ ~t: ;.... a tI) ~ ;: trJ ~ '::E ~ ~ o z .z .0 !~ ~ I~ :h 'fJ.) a u en j ~ .S "E ~ Q... Q..'" Q) U .......saJEre s:: u= c.. 0... tV .-:= 0 E - e E ~ Q1'- ~ ~Q)"'O >]Q; ....... ..... · ...... OJ CI) ~ ~ ~J ~~ ]~ ~ bO~ C ,-.J ..... ...... c:::...... ~QJ ~ c= 0........ ~ '1J (tS r= ti 0 ~.~ c'x ~ OJ c~ o~ Q).J:: dJ So::: Q) s: +-a E._ ~ = 0 t -< ~ b M s::...~ Q).- ~'~ t 3 o:6.=:o~>~ ...... ::s u ~ C1.I (j OKlo~~v ;;....+'('f)OO o~\:IO\..c'1j ", :; ~ ~ i::" ~ ~ o..!S Q) ~ 0 i:C ~ ~~P: ~ ~t1J ~..s:: R3-t--' .b.S 0 ~ P1;j ~ 2 ~.o ~~ s:= b.O~m .5~ '1J 00 r:: · ::]r.nraS t19{J)lI) ~o..t::O .~..~ ~ ~ ~~~cx) ~ ,... ....... QJ c::: ~.s-=~ U aJ '-I-t U ~~~~ .S ~ u; ~ ::s co r:; .2 ~~~ ..., ~~ cC ~a~ o ~..c:: bO u au OJ ." "': '-'~ ~~~tV ~ l\1";j I::'~ ttS a:itatUz ~ 63 E.5.. ~ bOO~ OJ Q) ~J::O] 00] ~ u ~ t: m"o ra :.s .~ .8 Z o~ :2 -_ b.O.. th '8 e ~ .5 0 :s ~ N w::E tri QJ .5 be ~ QJ C :8 ~ ;j ~ o u 7U e ~ oS rn tU"t:J ,.J:::;c Ucc ::Jen CfJQ) ....u ~a; E:-g ~f.Ij . ....... OJ ::s .... ~b.O QJc: C:C o rJJ . ~ .. ...... ........)( ~Q) ~~ 1ii~ t::rc OQ) Ui: bOe .5 0 eJ= Q)""'" cr3 aJ:.c · bOut/} <LtaQ) .~ ~;g otl)~ crat: ~:;~ fa....... OJ .c tfJ > ~ ca..;E ~i2~ cnOQJ ~cnU"J (; ffi dJ Q) ~.~ 1Ueg g01oo4 ~UQJ I-t,..c: . . ..... ....... ~fCO ~ o be .5 :2 M 1 ~.s Ocn Ul..... [1~ Il= 8= ut . = Q... me ~~ ~~ e'~ :e1: ~e ~'~ C::.S e~ .~ :sQJ tr.~ Q)~ c...... 00 :cE u...... 2-- ........~ rJ} .. s:: OJ 0:6 u ....... .. .....,rn~ QJU)QJ -3 & '"E ~I-tO ~QJ~ ~ ~.5 ~Q)~ ~o lri~~ "'~8 ~~c ~li~ 5~~ EE~ ~]~ ~ ft~ ..s ;:t.c:::; ~tr.) 5~ ~a ] ~ ~ ~ ~ 'E a o ~ +e a LLJ QJ .fi ~ o rJ) m QJ .... (Ii t:: :8 u ::J ..... ....... trJ c: o u ..... u QJ .0 .... c.. ~ o l 8bh 0..] ......-t · t: .s ~ -:5c= .~ "~ tfJ~ s~ ~-€ 0000 · Qj r:: ~ 0 ~~ :gE z~ \t58 OJ .~...... ti ....... ~ QJaJ ..0 ~ ~ 0 :E .0' · ~ OJ 0...0 ~ ...... ~ sE5g@ ~ ~~ ~ · u C/) ~ ~ C-.;:s"'O OJ ~ C1J rU 8 0 CI}~ c ~ 'O.~ ~ u...o e!;~ l'U ~ ~ g oW _ OJ fo ~ -=: .... "0 c: OJ ~ '1:1 ~'Oj ] is ,...... O,.c: ':W ~ ta r:; ~ ...-4 6 :J:C"- ~ C:..o o~ C;i ~ ~ 0 '3 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .b OJ ~ Q) t:i s:: tf..I'" QJ ..8 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i7; 6 ~ 8 e:g.5 ~ ~ 5i C) ~ ~ "S ~ g.E -=:g blJ~ QJ ~ o.w ~ e 0 ~ -< .s -= c::,.Q OJ ~ QJ GJ '-c:s ~ .. .-..L ro ~ '\:i QJ ~,.s:::..c: J-. s:: r.ti ~ tIl - c:: :0 ~ ..... e. 8:0 <1J o t; m 0 ~ C U trJ.~ o ,;;l; Q) "i:'" .... - .-l aj Q) 0.'0 u (t1....... OJ ~ OJ "':j u 0.. s:: Q.I~~ Q) ~"t1 ;:J ~ ~ ~E~'"S~Q)~11rcs~~ 1: 8:;0 E ~ ] .5 ] ~ :E ] '-t -. '"d t:: 0.."'0 .. · - ..e .2 G ~ tCS 0 Q) C s::.~ ~ U tI1 0 ......c u QJ tC 0 9 "'C 0 (/) ;.a ~ ..8 :>:. 0 ...., Q.I U Q) 0.. s:: OJ 2 as i:: oW ta:~ 2'~ gj.9 ,~ <<s.S m] ti ~ ~ g M 't 00'1:1 .....,oot::::; qJ2 C ....... J-. 8 a 0... .::: 0 fa..c ~ <<S b.O 8...... ~ ~ u u bP'"O {/) Q).S U be tts] e ~ :E ~ 6 18 ~~ ~ a~~~~ ~ ..-1 ~~~ ~._ 8.6.- ~o.5 rJ) rn 1; rJ'J ;::::i 0.. --0 en '-c ~ ~ E bb ~ ~ ~ :; ~ ~ o~ · ~.~ · ClIe 0::: RP ~ ~.... ~ ~ '1j ~ U ra J-. ~ tI.) Q... (X) I q N ~ t: E E .;!: U) ~ ~ " .... .... := u ~ Q N . ~.;~...: :.:":.:: :....~:: .~. :"; .:~<~:~.. ..;..~ ... i" >:.:::. ~ ~~. ~ ~I:.: ~ ~~ ~~: ~~". :~:~~.. ~~:~~~r}. ~~~: :~~ ~~:. i.~:':~~r'.m ~:;,,:::~.: :,',:' ~;:AI::;.:: ..;::~; ::;;: . :(:.U:: :: :(:::... :~:. :1'8,: :i] i:!,l; i,'.~. .;;.~;; :;::~:: :.::~ .....::: :~< ~: ~~.....:.: .. ;.,.,.: ~;~:...~:. ::.,.. 'I:'i'~iil I!;~l~t 1[:1:1 I~'::~:;, ..... I . . , .., . .. ". .. ~:.... 11....-... .. , ... ..... ., . ~ a z :>:::.:<:~ ~ :::::Y"<: e .tt ... .. 'i(;:g '~ ?~.)<:::::'..> ,'.,:, 0 ~ :-\.:::":::(:"(/):: v t.I.J ....... ~:'.,.~.. ~ t:: ':'.;~I:{.:;::.;;1 ~ ~ fa .9 '1j P3 ::s ~ OJ ~ OJ ..c~ ~~ ~> o~ ~c tjro m~ ~,... .s So "9 .~ '0';; Ii-t..-C: ~...... . QJtfj ..c:cn f-t~ e:i tLJ ;:: ..s .c-. 1:: t:U E ~ 1] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ra 5 rJ:J... OJ OJ tfj Lr) · -< m U ..0 QJ ~ ..... Q) :::s U'l t-J M 0 ~ .; cu~ ~ .au:!::i.... e ~ tJ · s ~ .' ~ ~-~ ~..5!a 0.;.... OJ I:: "'0 ~ - s.v Q) OJ o ~.O' Q.I c:: t= ~ .S .5 ? E ~ Qj:........ufao...... "'O""""L.t-- > +' ~::S....J 0 ID 2~CQ G ~ QJ U OJ '1j tzJ ~ 4I~ r-I ~ :;= .~ "'O.~ OJ Z OJ OJ ..0 v rn 0 a... 0........ - ""tS ~ 0 :J s:: Q) 1-1 r:: 0 u..c '0 - ~'\O 0 ~ ~ ~.........~.5 U .~~::' en u 0 ............ tn "0 -< ....... Q)'" t:.,., ~ ~ c o ~ n; ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ <U.c.2:! ~ "'0 > t:: .J:: +oJ ""Cj · I ~. ..... 5 s:: ..... 0 (I;S "'0 ~ ~. u:i.:e X 1: · ~ · =::; ~ t:: Uj · - ... QJ ::s Q) Q,.l E <a "'tS ....... ('Q: \0 ~ · ~ ,... e ~ ~ 3 :E:l C ~ ~ ~ ~ >. Q) ~,... S::'I""I ra ;> i> ~ '::1 -' - > 0 e cu be...... fI).sa Z t:. ~ ta ~ ..., ...-1 ~J:;~tU<1Iu'"tj=....Q),"o~ · ~ · t:: · ~~ ..0 .....,.4 ~ ra U'J Q) E ID ::s e Q) 0 <~ .~ .fi'o ~ ~ ~ ~.....3 ~ "-' .. ~;!:: QJ c:: ot::..., · OJ ....-.f ....... tI1 ~ E ::s 5-.1 ... f'W....L:. ;::::2 e ;; v tU c-- ttS '"t:S c:: · - ......... -.::; .5 ... ~:c ~ ~ U") ~ ~ ~.E OJ - 8 ~ tI) C C11 t'U ~;.::: ~ OJ CIl 0...9 J-l ~ ~ ~..o ~ ~ lU III J-l'x ~ ~ ~ o ~.- "0 ::s 0 U r::: I'/J G)]. Q)..c ~ Ql ID ""::l """ - C1.I = ~ Q)... ~ (tS ~'..o .... ;:Jo 0 ~ ~ tTJ ctS..c:: r.tJ 0 ~ ...... ........ O~......o"1j......~ ~ :E:9 ~ ~ '1j 0 '+40 .... c: C1J e.5 ~ ..... :S,-6 ~ ....... ~ m ~..c ~ ...... i.g~ ~ g~~-atn~ ~ ~ 2 c: CIJ'- ::s >.. > OJ 0.. 5{ ~ 0'3 <<S ~ ~ rJJ I...-QJ':Q fC QJ rJJ U ~~ o ~ C res ca - .- .......t: <<s t'tS Q)'~ U M'- Q) E OJ ~ ~ ~ Q) C .... t-l ~ ~ 'C) E.;::;.~...ofi ~ (U Q) ~ .... u c:: Cot 0 6 (f) ni Q1 ..0 Z o Q) c:: 0 s:: ._ ~ .-.5 > >..,.~ c .~ 0 I..... ~ ~......, 5-1 E ra (u V Q.I O:Jj ~ ..... 0 ~ cu '1j.J:: e ~ It:a ~ 'C'1:J~~ ~.. <' ~ Q.) c::= ~ ~ t.'U 1::= e ~ 1t$'-' ...c: 0 ~ Q) c: C ..E3uta 0 E~j:Q CO ~ v t:............. ~ tr:t ~ t4-II ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "f: a tn ~ :::: fI.) ~ :~ ca .e ] =' ] ~. ~Qj ~~ 0....... ~'E tiG ~~ .5 ~ &1'tp '0'; tt~ aJr./J ~] ~ ~ ;:: .!! .~ ~ 7d 0 ~ QJ QJu-' ~ &1i=5 o j9...c: ;Q):C Q'l~ ti..o g Q)~ ~ .(j) :E ~.~ tV ~ ~ s ~ g [~E 't~ ~ ~ 0 u M~k~C1.I2 ~ res ~.S "'0 ~ 5 ti .;:: ...Ull:: <<1 ........ . ~~ .e-. oW ~ ~ 0 s::....~. QJ ; ~'6 u U) ~ 00::: Q) ~ ].~ t:: >..c: .... oW "'1::1 rJ'J o "5 .8 ~.E ~ s,: Q) ~ rJl..., ~l9 1( : ~ ~ m ~ cu ~ "0 -= ....., · ~ >.. t= QJ ai e ~-~ ~ ~ e 0... ~ s:: ~;:= ~...... Q) 0 ~ -a o <<S u.-...... 0 _:cQ.l~=s QJais::~~B ~'\j Q) s ~~ ~ · Ui -:6 .... "0 ~ rn o ~ QJ ~ "3 "6""'E s::Pfj.~~~4 ~ ~:.E dJ tn "; s:: '_ .f! u - ...... :::t ctI ~.- ftS ~ "'0 tl ~ = 0 s ~ ~~ o U +-t .U) > OJ tJJS~QJ.,j;.a:n m..!. ~...c: ~ S <<S (/j ~ bO:: "'d' ] <t>5"~ :H ~ ~ ~ 0' ~~ e t; m ~ ........ ;:: tU E ~ ] ~ ~ :~ .n--) C') 0") ~ E ~ ~ a ~ ~ '1:! (U ~t: ~ U ~ ;: VJ a ~ ~ ~ M rf) ~"3 0\ ~r./)Q)O\ 0\--0 ~S ..... ~..o ~ :9 · .... 0 r-'I ...... ta U. Q.I 6 .:!::QJ ;:: ::i:g Q) 6 ~ ID m~= ~ ~'1i1 ~] 5-= ~ o ~~"'Cj.s$ ~~ '-S=~$~ .~(;~]~ ~ .......0 :9~tJ~~ :c '3 OJ c... g~ ;:i ..... RS (1J 0.. <<s~o~~E ~rJJ o ID o..m e u ~ ~ ti ~.- .....QJ U I-t 5 Q).~ ........ ....... rJ':J ra -0 '1::J ::Scn r.J'J ~. 1-1 ~ ~ tn....... e-.i5 QJ Om ~QJ~~Cl1 oo~=5tU~ ~~ ~C:f:-I~~ C'\j .,~ J:: cu UU >-~ ~ C ~ u:::~ ~ ~~ ~ <u b ~ . ....... C=~gJ~~ : 0 ~ E-t ~ .S cUll) b ~~ en ~ \t: QJ ~ ~ ....-4 QjOOti~S ~ 0 J...& . ~ t~ t ~ ~ ii; ~ <<s..c: ~ QJkO 0 .!:= QJ.~..c: ~ ......... ~ ~..... QJ ~"E~ Z tUr:fJO'SQJ aJo~E::Sc t~fj ~'S ~ c: .~ ~ ~ ._..c 0 6j '-= ~ ~ ~S::QJ.wg o ......... ~ C · E lr} s:: c:: I:: bJ;)'~ OJ ~ ~ .~ ~ B 'Tj OJ .- \0 G r3 "'t:l I > ... u ~ tt:: u:: s:: ~ t ..... := OJ rJ'j C u::: ~ ~ .tji'S: ~ .~.~ ::J C1J fIJ..,....,. u bb ID :E .~ :i C GJ U u '0' >. ~ ;~ cu:= u o -S ~'OO'Cii ~ ~ 5-t~QJ I~ Vi ~ ~'Uj ~ u ~((3rn ~ 0 B 11 ~ '1:j ~ QJ ..c ~~ :;rv oai ~~ tJ~ ca u o.;z:: e.~ .- Sn g!"r:;; :pc ~] E~ ;::1gs u~ "5e::8 E~~ "1:1t:~ 5E~ ;;;:::~ ~&J~ el:~ ~~ 5~ ~~ ) ;-. ~ 'E a o J;:: -f] a ~ ....., I:: OJ OJ Eii ~m ~3 ~ E QJ ;:s -"u ~$ Mm O'\b.o 0\:0 ~ '6 -:5:s e :::1 00 ..t~ a...J!} QJ u ~a ~e Q)....... · 1:: Q) .... Cf} fO........ ~g 5'~ ,.o~ <<SJ-. ID..... 1l-c~ ;:s~..... oocr rac OJ 0 e ~ c:~ IS~ · .............~ m~u ~ca ~ ...... m t:: :E s: .::l 0\ . o N ~ V) ~ o z ~ h ~ 5 ~ u ,...,..... OJ ~~rJjGJ E~:2~~ ~ C) eai.e.....;1::8:J~ ~ E CIl m e..D QJ . u 0.. tj ~ Q:: rJ) c: := 0 ~ ";:::! 2 0 m 'Q) Q..e 8 So~ c: ;.; b > '::1 ....-1 ::s "d .... ~ · - c:: rJJ..o c: .-J 5~ d) ~ ns \VoW t'O e · ~"- u,.c c: ~ 0 '\j 0 -ord......"1j ~1lcm~~~- u ~ <1J bO 0 .- C1') ::1 :.5.c::;; c ~ ~ 0 Qj I 0 .- ~ ~ ..g e g(;~ ~ QJl1 ~ <( s:: rn 0....0 ~ ~ l:: Q):: ~ 5"'0 ~~ OJ -:6 ~ :3...... ~ roC E .=:: 15 ~ fa ~ 0 ~ .- tU~~:;::c~~a1 ;1 5"0 ~~ tj rfi ~ E; :E ~:g E ~{j ~ 3'3 0 ~ ::3 E ~ t,; U..o ?; ~ u._ m.6 ~ ~ is E == f.I) tw ~ .... ~ == ~ Q N ::: .-:. .~. ~ .:" ::".; .::: :.:.::::. ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~;~ ~}: ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~.: ~ 1- U ~;: : ".:-=. ":.: .:: :": :>:~..:~: :~~~:~. .>~~\:- >>>./::>~":": ".::... :.;( .:-;~-::: :~.-.: ~:" .:~.. :>)~(~~:. >>;r: :.~~~:. '!~~ii;i.;JI;~i'~,l >~:..: :~~ }W~>~>~ Ili~'!8,~i;~!: ;,I!l~li c co ~ th ...t..ittJ tIlQJ ::s~ '1jta 6.8 ~,.... ~ UQ) E~ ~] oJ-. u~ .9 f1j 0 113d1 .......0> ('lj~~ 1!~1:: 20G U .U; to (U Cf.l o~ ~e.~ ~Q.lrn ~e= 6 e~~ 8-~~ '11 ~ .s ~::3" ....... Jc] ~ ~ (Ora E ~-t"'O ~ c...c ;: ]~~ ~ ~U) E QJ ~ t::QJ Q)~ ;:: (j~ t! Q) E: .s.5~ 1:; ~ o t:^ ~ ~ .... ra E (/Js::QJ f} ~o~ ::S:;::< ~ -:u ~ ... ;:.. ~ ~:c~ ~ QJ's'o :~ .... J-. ~ nstl)~ ra ~ Kl "'tj <LI ~ ~ (U~ . ci: ~ ~ f".n m :e .s '.-4 t:t e c: U OJ ~QJ ~ bt:2 0.= ~ ~ s:: c:: Q..~ e- .~ ~ tU 0 o ,D '1j j9 ~ == OJ........ ~ ~ o>::IC1J ........ m 0 e ;:t ~..c:~~ U'J ~ S::''1j.3 ~ rcs=~ ~ ,....;p:~~ tJj ~ ~ Uj ~ .~ I~ ~ ~ .U !~ ~ ~ :u , ~ """QJ 0...... ~ l:: <<J SQJ6.9 u ~ U ..w ~.......""U J:j::s~(U ~ ..c, ~ S- 0.... Q)"~ u s::~ U) ~B~.:.2 ...0 :.= . ~ ... '1j . ~......,. QJ 2 ~~~~ !'tS · f""I ~...... Q) 5-100 '-'> ~~o ~~ ~ ~~"E ~~ .g~o m r.n~~ U ::1o.e~u:: ~ U r:: .E cuf!lG1816b .::: +: e 3';j ....... ...... QJ tn I .6O.=: ~ t:U c ;;1t)eQJ,2 ~ res....... e ... ~~8 E~~ "t::t a ..... ~~"=:ti etit:'.! ~5~ ;:l:~ ..!!;::t< ~V) E~ E ~ g..C ] ~ J-. ~ 'E a e =: 'E a ~ =c raO ..t:::= rnU ~~ '85 Q.U J-. CI) o ~ ~ ~ en 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) .$~ :e ~ C 7ji ttS -: l\1 1.04 QJ == ~ Ji 0 l1J ~ fIIMIIII ,..Q..... tU..c: 0 c '1:S > ca ~ ~ .0 'C;; t] +I en ~ rU ..- ~ Q.I io-( ~ _ OJ en C/) ~ C1J ~ u.. 0 'S c:: c I:t Q):S .= tJ .. u ~ e Q) 0 Ox rJ ~ cti rJl n'J 0 ~ 1:) "'" rc OJ · ><1""'1 ~ ~ r"' oj 0 Q) ~ . ~ Q) rn:;1.s ~,.., :s "'d I:: :> ~ ~ '+-l ...... ~ ~ J... ..... -:n ""0 u, '--"...q... B .; :e ! >. 8 ~ ~.~ g ~ ~'~.(ii e E ~ .2 t) ] ~ .s g ~ ~ ~ J;; 5 -5;j ~ ~ ~ j!j 11 @ ~ ~ .8 t; .~ m ~~ & Ji ~ ~ .~> ~ [ ~ e i ~ ~ ~ e ~ ] n:s - 50.1 ~ f/} o.c; u m ~~ C1) CIl c:: ~ 0 ra ~ :s ~ ~ r= ~ ~...... :J ~ I-.t vl ~ ~ ~ ::s'c"O c= ~ 1U .a ~ ra IU (f} r:: ~ 1:: - 0 '"tS - 0 .... ~ ::S.b bO ~ ~ .... M r/) <<t n:s OJ CO ~ ... l\1 (Q U OJ ..0 S "'0 c:: ~ == rn :;:;4~ 0... ~ ..- ~~~e .,?~~;::S ;:; 0 ;e.~ ~ ~ tb ~:E ~ 1 ~ :s e .; en ~l Q) tf} ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ('d u ~ · a "C --0 <<s ~ >< ~ ~ ~.-=: Cot (tt QJ ~ ~ ..c: 0 · ..... \.Q s:: 'x - f'tj ';' ~ ~.(tj ~ os ID ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ · U'J-o ; ~ '\j o 0 q} tU Q) M ~ ~ - Q"4 E (U o~ ;;. ~~ ~\.I"'" 0... "-" 00 :0. ~ ~ g u:=.a o.~ ~ QJ ........-4 CI) b.O =u Q) ~ ~ 0 ~ v - ~. __ · ~ 0.. tf.) r./} fC $.-c '"'tj :;:: \J ....... c::..c: (tC 1:l CfJ ~ - ~ e ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ :a ~ e J2 c: ~ ~ ~ [).~:::: ;z ~ t v ~ ~ ~ ~ C 1-1 $.-c g ~ .- 0 f/} lU ~ nj.b ~ ~ ~.8 QJ l~ -5 ~ QJ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ti .- ~..... :v ~ = ~ ~ ~ ti -- 6 .:: 0 0 ~ .9 ~ o ~ 0.. t1l t:U '"0 C Si] ,.e u ~:S 0 ..c: --0 P "'d .::l 't"""'4 J-t ~ CI} s:: u ~ 0.. lU ~ 91 .g ~~ 2u 2J 2 ~ ~ ~ ..... c ;: OJ t:: 0 O.n Q).~ Q.I Q) i> ..... _ ,~- ~ _ · ;;: ca "1j...... ;.:::...., CI)::S 0.. t:: :> ..: fU ~ ...... & (t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ n:I .c- en U) t= --::,.$ ~ 0.. e...... := ~ ~,- s:: ttJ ... <<S ~ 'f""Io '" 0 ~ 0 ~ "' '\j 0 > OJ 00 t::= ~~ >-0 n3 ~m Q) U ':t: U) :0..... rn C ~ Q)'- 8 0 ~ ;: ~,..c: 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ ; ~.~ ~ ~ ~:=: ra 0 =; ~Q) ~ u2 cJ' ~ ..... (U S ~] 0.. Q) <<S "'d ot> ell c; bb ~ m 9 ~.~ . $-I _ 0 . CIl s... C ~ 0 $-I ~ U (U 0 ~ be ~ C 0.... ~ ...... 't::: .....-1 i--c ns u (/) ~ u ~..... ~ .9 ~ ~ OJ o~ t; t'C cJ'=.5 OJ ~ Q) ~ ~ ::s (C 2 u:..::= ~ ('j ~ >.. ~ 0 u k 0.. > ~ ti b >..c b.O ~ "-4 ~ ~ rn t:.i t:i..... Q) 0.. s:; ~~ :cBe~:E ~ 8~ ~~ &:~~ &lathE ~~,s~:J~ ..c: ~ I Qj....... ~<<S 'o.c .~ .~ ~~ ~ G~ rJ"J daJ ~E Uo Ob ~g au <~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ .~] QJo; ~.fj ~ ~ .. J.-c&;ID o ~.,... ~ 5):~ - fao.:E ~.5 ~ o ~ I o N . . . . . . . . . . . ~ tt E E ;: U) tw ~ .... .... ;! ~ ~ ~ ~ N >(< :::::>> >~f> :: .;~.~~..~:::~ .:.:~ ~~::~:.:::;~;:. ~<.::~>>\: :< .).( ;~.: :.~~~~:.....: ~..~:....: :.~: ;:": ;~.; ;~~~..;~.~~:~.~:<: ~:::.~;:. ~n~~~f:~}~~~~~:i; .:;W~! ~~ :-:.}i,"~:. .:.: .~~'. ..: ::< ... .. i~f.itt~',1:::i;:;~::t::', ~::~:w~::n.:: :.'-M. <.:.~)>~~) ~: ~~!:j:,i::;.ri :111~i'l I~B :BI!;'!r~:I: ,~(!I;:: ,....... <: ..... ~ . "tj ~~ QJ~~Ba ~.~ >.. "E'i."E ~ JJ ..... ~ i-. - Q).~ i> U ue QJ C1) ttS 0.. c:: "'t:S Q) o......c ~ 0 QJ cD..c: ~ (\1 C1J ~ "'0 ~ 3 u s::" . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~:B ~ ~ 8 ~ .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,... .... ca OJ t> QJ b u gj..:: ~ .5 QJ ~5 ~ OJ '\J 0 ~~ <U" QJ e 0 c: o~a; e ~ uC:: ....... 0 ..... · OJ 00 QJ .... ...... l'tS 0 ,.... "d ~ ~ .9 ~ ~ oW. :::: C:'C ~ u1:: Q.I ~ t; ~;1 >. .b Q) rn 0 O,.c ~Q"2 ~ e m tj -; ~.9 . 0 O~O ~(t$Q)U~o.o u ~c ~ c C OJ 0 ; ~ e ,- ~ 00 'So Q........ · .0._ 0 8 1: i:: ~ ~ :.0 (1J .... QJ aJ ~ == .;::1 u ..c: '1j t:: ~ ~ u t:: ~ :2 ...., s:: 0 s:t ..... - Q.I ..., ~ lU 13.~ ~ tn ~ ~ ~ e 2 ~!l 'C ;j = 8 ~ E 04-1 Q)~~..2 Q) 0 ~ sg c:: 6.0->< fJJ -= 0 M 8.s 8 c ~ c: QJ.... 0... Q) tj _ ltI ~ OJ .... en....... a-.!:] (Q .... ~ e .- t:i 0 .- t:. c: as ~ ~~.b &~ ~1:6.- ~~~~8.5~E~ . . "'0 ~ :; .." ~ (JJ .D '-rj. ~Qj 0> ~~ ~1:: .~ ttI >. 0 !: tn ~ a1 .~:;::J rtS ~ OJ 0] =:;:1 tU.C ~~~~~ ~~~ -< f-4:= 0 O........~ e ....... · ~ CfJ flI aJ t= 0... a1 ~ ~rJ 6-:5 ~ ft · 0' ;:1 ~ ...... ~ 0 ..... ~ ~ ~ tTJ"O 0 ~ lU.Ei Q} Qj c: o. s= aJ :o;.c: u ~ QJ... OJ ,.J:: e u c.= ~ ~ ~ ... QJ (13 f:C --0 ttI...... ro s::: ~ 0 Cfj .. ...., ~ I~ ~~ tJ.9 ~ QJ "C U1 ~~~~fU...c<D~ · .... .... OJ ~ co..... s:: ~s= QJ.8: Q..~ 8 cu ID S\! -:6 co e ~ Q.I:g en "-' . (1J ~ o..c 00 ::s .~~ ~ 0.:+:= ~ -~..c: Q) ca u:E Q) .~ ~~ ~ ~ m::s ,J:; u E ...... ~ OJ 0 .... .... 0 Q) ~ -:+::J M..c: ' E J:: ~ ~ beE U),~ e OJ ~ "is .5 ..2 ~ ~ O C aJ OJ..c: 11-1 ~ ~ o U(/)QJ,,-......O U N M to~.... '1j tn ~ "'0 ~ ~:.o:c'~ t ffr- ~QJe~~rg;::~ m ~ <:u Q) r/} 0 \,Q a... ~;ss::Cf.)Q){J Q) ~...c 0 0 E:::: ~..c: ~~ N e- ~ ::::: v~~Q)critfjtifU ~ cr~o g~~~ ~ GJ ;:s s::. ~ · fIIIIt ~ ..... ;:t "0..0 I;fj ~ U ..... Q) ~ ~ IV ~"E Q) ~ efl N~.z:~Q)~O~ ~5 ~ ~ ;: ~ ~ tn ~ ::: t/J t:t ~ ~ Vl ,u .~ >< o h ~ Z ~ o ~ .....J VJ~c:.t) ~u~ u'c~ ~ ':2: V) ::J~d O~u t/) ;~ ~ ~;~u ~ 'tJ s: ~~~ <~t.LJ =I....JV) :J:;2;~ f-l t;; k1 ...J ~~ ~ ;J:I:~ UU~ QJ~ UQJ ~w ;...QJ ::s:-s! ]~ ::JO rJJU ~~ QJ ~~ ra:~ ...:; OJo ~~"E C':S 19 e ~(QU:::::: o Q...~ e~ aJ.........~ ~ .. rT.l QJ 6~ ~~..g ~ S'c~ C1l :0 "0 ~ ~ > > (t$ S.S 3 ::: tJ.J rJ) trJ :..E m~ C ~~rn OJ ..00 ~ "1;j fr u .....-.II! Q). · ~..::: ..rn ::s~ <<S~ "'t1 u ~ ~ C'~ ~ ta ~ o g::ID~~ C uo~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~.. 51 e ={5 ~~~. ~ ~ ~U'';::.e ~ rJ'j~"$ ~ [1 ~ gr:.s:9] ~ :c I:: en OJ ::s ~ !~6~~ ~ QJ Cf} ....... 0 ~ QJ '"d CJ 7ti - -t~ ; ~--5i ]. ~~~51-e~~ ~'s E ~ ~ &:g (/) :n t: - E Q) ::J - ~ <<s e ,_ "'0 0 (tj QJ c..-.... ~ OJ ~ · ~ "'CS OJ 0( rU ...c: a 0 0 ..E,~ oW c: .c::::63~~O ~7J a1'6i: ~ .c"O ~ irl'C E 0 >- ~ Q) .9 :::::= ~ ....... I>- (tt tC fa 0 (U '0 ~.!S ..... -€ > u E ~ (tI E ~..... ta \'U "t1 ..e B t'tS ~ ~ (l) u ~ . _ f-t Q) ""(j I-t ~,. :; ;.:::: ~ ~ "'0- Q) 8~u SeE c= :g ~ o..~ OJ'fii ~ ~ .~ ~ < ;.:::: ..c... to..... ~ ~ ra ....... ~ 0 ~ ;:S c: . ~ r-t CTON Q... . ,~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u; ~ ~ .~ "E :9 c: aJ::s · ~oeo~ ~\4-t8-~~ 8~Ql m g C/lU~~ID ~ --0 '1j <( 1-4 g;]ti~ rJ'J ~ co. 9L...c:: ~a1rne~ 1-4$~.e c; U 'CiJ QJ .E 'Sc"E 2= ~ ~.E a~ 0 o[jeo.... OJ .J:: en ......... ]u8s~ ~ Q) 0)'- ~ rtJ~ ut:~ ...., ~ 'S: 0 0 c::o~Q.o.. e~~~~ \.C c:: $i-$ OJ:W .~ OJ QJ..c: CJ &:ID'ta+-' > tn t1~.S ~ ie::g EJ.lJO ~1i~ i5~~ E;t;N ~j-E G ~~ E:~ I! I ,c:.::: ~ ~ 'E a o :.: 'E a ~ ~ o ] ! '1j ~ "tj = o ~ rn .cn ~ (0 ~ ns en .Ui ~ ~ ~ ctS --0 C td i:: :2 u ~ -0 u (tj ~ . rd"""'" ~t5 QJ~ ..c:QJ .... I.-t ~ ....... Ore u !'e ;:1..s:: rJJU ~~ QJ ra ..c:~ f--4 · ~ ~ ~ q N . 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of the Project Description is to describe the project in a way that will be meaningful to the public, reviewing agencies, and decisionmakers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires that a project description contain the following information: 1) a statement of objectives sought by. the proposed project (the underlying purpose should be included); 2) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shown on a detailed map; 3) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and 4) a statement briefly describing' the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the agencies that are expected Jo use the EIR in their decisionmaking, a list of the permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements from federal, statel or local laws, regulations, or policies. According to the CEQA Guidelines, an adequate project description need not be exhaustive, but should supply the details necessary for project evaluation. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES As set forth in the Existing Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor, adopted in 1993, the original goals and objectives included: 1.. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight, non-comonning uses and deterioration and the conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, future specific plans, the Plan and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or may hereafter be amended. 2. lhe achievement of an environment reflecting higher level of concern for architecturat landscape, urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of this Plan and the General Plan, as they may now exist or may hereafter be amended. 3. lhe control of unplanned growth by guiding revitalization, rehabilitation and new development in such fashion as to meet the needs of the Project, the City and its citizens" 4. lhe reduction of the City's annual costs for the provision of local services to and within the Project Area. 5. Increased sales, business licenses and other fees, taxes and revenues for the City. 3~O-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 3..0 Project Descrip~on 6. The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area to prevent the loss of and to facilitate the increase of commercial s.ales activity. 7. The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. 8" The development of a spectrum of housing types affordable to various segments of the community in a manner consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the provisions of Redevelopment Law 1 as they now exist or may hereafter be amended. 9. The elimination or amelioration of existing substandard conditions, including substandard vehicle circulation and parking systems; inadequate infrastructure; insufficient off-street parking; and other similar public deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. 10.. The assistance in undergrounding of BART through the Project Area to ensure that the Project Area meets its full development potential upon the removal of existing blighting conditions. For the Amended. Redevelopment Plan, three new goals and objectives have been added and one deleted. The new goals are as follows: . The presentation and creation of civic, cultural, and educational facilities and amenities as catalysts for area revitalization. . The upgrading and expansion of recreational areas and open space. . Assist in the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Reference to assistance in undergrouncling of BART through the Existing Project Area has been eliminated as a goal and objective of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, two areas would be added to the Existing Project Area: the E I Camino Addition and the Willow Gardens Addition. The City is proposing to add the EI Camino Addition to the Project Area in order to: 1) strengthen the position of EI Camino Real as the City's main commercial corridor; and 2) facilitate the development of certain vacant and/or underutilized parcels within the area. The City is proposing to add the Willow Gardens Addition to the Project Area in order to revitalize the Willow Gardens neighborhood. 3~O-2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 3.0 Project Description c. PROJECT LOCATION The Project Area is located in the central portion of the city of South San Francisco. South San Francisco is in northern San Mateo COWlty, bounded on the north by the city of Colma, en the west by the cities of Daly City and Pacifica, on the south by the city of San Bruno, and on the east by the San Francisco Bay. The proposed Amended Redevelopment Project Area is shown in Figure 3.0-1, Amended Redevelopment Project Area Location, and consists of the Existing Project Area and two added areas. The Existing Project Area encompasses about 175 acres (including roads and right of ways) and is generally bounded by Hickey Boulevard to the north, EI Camino Real and the site of the former McLellan Nursery to the west, Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Mission Road and Grand Avenue to the east. The area currently contains a mix of commercial, office, residentiat institutionat and agricultural uses, plus several vacant and underutilized properties. lbe proposed project would involve the addition of two areas to the Project Area: 1) the El Camino Addition and 2) the Willow Gardens Addition. The El Camino Addition is a contiguous land addition of about 70 acres (including roads and right-of-ways)1 beginning at the southern boundary of the Existing Project Area at Chestnut Avenue and extending south, bounded by EI Camino Real m the west, Commercial Avenue and the San Francisco Water Department Hetch Hetchy line m the east, and the southern bonndary of South San Francisco High School m the south. Existing land uses within the El Camino Addition include specialty retail fronting EI Camino Real, open space, and a Safeway shopping center. The Willow Gardens Addition is a non-contiguous land addition of about 9.3 acres, located about 0.25" mile east of the Existing Project Area off Willow Avenue, and consisting of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, which includes Susie Way, Nora Way, Brusco Court, and Sandra Court. D. PROJECT BACKGROUND Between 1990 and 1996, plans were formulated by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)1 San Mateo County Transportation Conunission (SamTrans), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to extend BART from Daly City to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) via an alignment that would pass through the El Camino Corridor area of South San Francisco. Early in this process, the Ci ty of South San Francisco advocated an undergrolllld IIsubway" configuration through the El Camino Corridor from the northern city limits to South Spruce Avenue (south of the Amended Project Area), to avoid the detrimental effects of the retained cut and at-grade options en future development. In response, BART, SamTrans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the spring of 3.0..3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 EXISTING EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA _ PROPOSED WILLOW GARDENS ADDITION SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN CaUNTI' PARK - --II {J/ I ~ 11:1 I I- I I: I I II II I~ I DALY em .~'~t..: ~.".'.. ",' .,:':.>' :', ,,' :.i.::,~:':':,~'~::,:, ~::,:. :": '~~':!':~:. ~':~,~:'i;;';~~ (~;':;,'~':: ,:~,~ ~:: ,~'~,., "', .~::?~~ ~::., \':i~~~,:,~' ,', .,,1 :;,~',',' .:',,'~. , , " , -' , '." ,,'.., '" " ' ' ....., ' ~ '. ~ " . ~~ffi{;fif~~ -- ' ",":i .... !.! ' ~~~f=1~wY~/ ~t.\.'-Jt) · ~I ~ ~~ ~"" ',( ~ \\~~ ~r;j. ~ ~ ~/~~~~~~~T('Z # ~~ ~~ ~<~.\\\J::1~~ ~ ~7h ~ ~>. ~ , ~~~~~~~~ )C<: .9'>..~ ) )'...<:' N Iii ~~~' ~~~ ~ r~ , .~~~ ~~a~ ~ _ ~~ ~~~~ ,''')ROPOSED -< ~E3 ~ r- /Tn ~'E...-/ EL CAMINO ~ N-. .&.UJ , ~ ~ ADDITION d ~:;- ~~~ CAliFORNIA GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB ~ I I I "I ~ :. / ':I ~I / I.. II I I I I I _ II I I I II I ~ 1'-1 I r I I ~ ~<t, ~.,. " ~~ ~~ ~-1--~ ~~ ~~Wj~ VI ,'-~ "Wi fIli V D ~~~~r~ "{ ~ 09'&1 f L SvU1H ~ "&- N Fiwr:;ISCG ~~ tflGf' SC.l0CL II~~ ...-.~ ~ V'" ~~' ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ \'~~ ~ ~~\ ~, . 4 ~ '\. ~ ..-n.Y ~~ ;/\~~:~~"\\)YY 101 .~.. :-:~.. ~...::~ . .: .:.::"-11.. ....:~ 80 SAN r\:' I::i>\;:::;<:::,:':::d?::;/iil P ROJ Eel AREA ." ..... .... .'. ....... .... ..... ....... . .: :~:.:.:~ ":: ::"...~ .~:.:.: :~: :~?~~~ :~~:.::~: .. .....". .... ..... .... .... 24 . : :.-.!IIt . . :.: j-If. . .::...0:. ~ ::::'.::.~::. : . ":. .:...::'Q.. . 1/4 112 o Scale in Miles FIGURE3 _ 0-1 ~ Amended Redevelopment Project Area Location 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 3.0 Project Description 1992 adopted the covered subway option for the South San Francisco segment of the extension as the "'locally preferred alternative/' subject to the contribution of funds by the City of South San Francisco. To secure funding for the subway BART alternative and to achieve other transit-oriented planning and economic development goals for the EI Camino Corridor, the City of South San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agency of South San Francisco proposed to establish the El Cam;ino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (Existing Project Area), to adopt and implement an associated redevelopment plan and General Plan amendment for the corridor area, and to annex the 31.1-acre McLellan Nursery property which at that time existed as an unincorporated ""island" within the corridor. lhe overall intent of the combined redevelopment plan, General Plan amendment, and annexation proposal was to foster economic and physical rehabilitation in the El Camino Corridor area and, in particular, to facilitate the development of transit-oriented housing near the new Hickey Boulevard BART station.. At that time, existing General Plan land use designations for the El Camino Corridor were Planned Commercial. The El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan) and General Plan Amendment were adopted by the South San Francisco City Council on July 14, 1993. The General Plan amendment added Planning Area 11 to the Land Use, Circulation, and Transportation Element of the General Plan.. The new text of the General Plan (Section "B") noted that existing commercial land use and zoning designations were to remain in effect until the City had an irrevocable agreement with BART and all funding commitments and approvals to construct the extension in a subway configuration were in place. Once such an agreement was in place, land use designations and policies related to transit oriented development were to take effect. An agreement between BART and the City of South San Francisco for the SFO extension was adopted by the City Council en October 22, 1997. Subsequently, the BART board authorized award of contract for station construction on November 18, 1999. In accordance with the General Plan, Section IIBlI of Planning Area 11 - which contained detailed policies for the development of transit-oriented uses along the EI Camino Corridor - would have gone into effect at that time. However, a comprehensive update to the Genera 1 Plan, which replaced the 1993 land use policies, was adopted on October 14, 1999. Subsequent to approval of the Redevelopment Plan, a project application was submitted to construct 179 single-family units on 28..5 acres of the McLellan Nursery site, and to dedicate the remaining 2.6 acres of the site to the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. for the construction of 34 below-market-rate townhomes. This project application was approved through a Negative Declaration, approved by the South San Francisco City Council on August 27, 1997, and the project is currently under construction.. The McLellan site is zoned R-2-H (Medium Density Residential), and R-I-E (Single Family Residential). 3.0-5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 3.0 Project Description Annexation of the McLellan Nursery site was approved by the San Mateo County LAFCO m February 17, 1998. As part of the General Plan update process that occurred in 1998...1999, the City Council determined tha t a mix of land uses was more appropriate for the El Camino Corridor, and that policies for the corridor should be reverted back to more closely reflect the commercial land use designation still in effect. The City adopted an updated General Plan en October 14, 1999 which contains a number of policies for the Project Area to encourage and provide for development of higher density, transit-oriented residential development. The updated General Plan has four guiding policies for the EI Camino Real subarea: 1) Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street; 2) Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide foci and identity to the different parts of EI Camino Real; 3) Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional centerj and 4) Develop more east-west crossings of EI Camino Real that connect the City's neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the east side to provide alternative travel routes. In addition to various text and policy changes, the General Plan Land Use Diagram was revised as part of the update process. Under the updated Land Use Diagram, the Project Area is designated for a mix of commercial, residential, office, and public uses. The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would make land uses within the Project Area consistent with the new General Plan land use designations. Prior to the October 1999 General Plan update, land use designations for affected portions of the Project Area were Planned Commercial, which allowed a range of land uses including residential development of up to 30 units per acre. In 1998, the former Macy's warehouse site in the Existing Project Area was acquired by Costco, and plans were submitted to the City to develop a 147,OOO-square-foot retail warehouse and 16-pump gas station. An EIR for the Costco project was prepared and certified by the City Council on November 17, 1999. The City Council conditionally approved the Cost eo project in December 1999; approval of Costco became final on March 7, 2000 following a voter referendum. D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment includes changes to the existing and planned land uses within the Existing Project Area and the addition of sites to the Project Area. Table 3.0-1, Comparison of Approved Redevelopment Plan with Proposed Amended Redevelopment Plan, presents a summary of 310-6 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR Mlzrch 24; 2000 ;: Q :t: ~ ~t u fJ) ~ ~ +- t:a Q.\ "0' h ~ Q ~ = ns E: ... I: QJ S ~ Q .-..I Q.I ~ '1:i QI ~ ~ CJ ." = GJ e < ~ tV (IJ o C-t o Q: '7.s Q ..... tti ~ G..l = ..... tU ~~ E-~ ~ e C-t o ~ QI t ." QJ c== '1:1 aJ > Q J-.I g.. c... < '+-( o = Q (IJ ~~ fU CL. e Q U .. ~. ~~ . .,... .. ' ; ..ii:, , ,,:f :.,~ . ..;; ; , ... ,.,~ ,,'."I; . ,.= .< . : . ~ ' . '.' , ~.. ,~rg . Jj "S:: . .' ~ .,. . '. .. fU .'fa ., ,'-a, is:; , ,"",.S . . ':-'":; < :, ' ...;l . .g . ~,,',,;:: b .~ ., ".0"'-::: ~.-a" ; ~ 'tS .c:i ~ :-: c: ' ..... ,'~ '-G':;) ,~ ..= 0' . ~ =.0.",' ,~ : ,e 'c.. ~ .1-1 = ~.! ~= A., , ,:> '0 '., Sf,~ "~ e '1:1 At ; ~S"Q.( ...~ "~ -< .~. 0 = "1t" ~ 'tU . 6, ':~~ , ~::; 1 J5'l5 ~ ..~ I-f r:.. Q.a '< '~' OD ,QI ~ C U) ... -= ::J .WJ 'a j.! a....: GI is = ra zz .3'.~ Ui ; rIJ ~ u -< ]~ .!S be :E en "~ o ..... OJ be. C ~ u o Z ~ .... N 8 c r4.-t 0 ~:;:: u~ ~ ~ ~ bO [~ 8 E q[ ~-..b ~ ~ CaJ .... en QJ :1 ~ m C ..c...!S Ue.c Os:: Z:c CJ':J IX OJ fa OE E E 8 · ...... tC !: .0 ~~ d=:e &0 CIlU .....: C ~ N ~ '+: J: be ~ "2 t:r' tn 0....::: ::s CIJ 0 E .., gU :s ~ q : ~ r-t ~ 8 o Uj' N bC:= "5 :: C; aJ OJ 5-1 r.r:, ..0 8 -E o ..c ..c be ~ ON Ll) QJ @ t ~ ]....... ~ ~ 02 -0 ::I · to OJ ~ VJ c ~09 -o~ ~'ti Qj ~ o ::E t: ra u ra > rt';, M q In ,....-4 '2 ~ ~o 'C"""4 aJ ('.I ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~~ en ~ en ~U >.tn ......... ..... "s "S ra:J '-I-c ......... . ..!.. fa ~ I...... :;~ e~ 8 oti) N~ ~' ~Cd 0- "9 3 OJ ~E c ~ Uu ~ 0-- UJ 8 Lr.. ~' ~ ....-I o ~ tn --0 U1 r::r: ('t) en::s C1I ~ <( @N S e@~ ,,;+,0 ~n; :c ~ ~ c... Ou c: u 0- t ~~~ E .;; 2 ~ E Q)....... ,.... C='c ....., :s U ~ ra M \0 N OQJ In- @?J ........' tC tI':J :c~ c: c:: OJ ::s '-0 -u:; OJ ~ C m u rc > o r' CJ ...... 1:1} w ca....... if :;:: 02 c ~::J .." ~ "r;j & ~ en ~ ~ "E ~' ~ ~ :s e ~ N o ~ ::r~ C't"} fn ~ @NO ......+..0 "~ :v .c c t.tn QJ(13C:; "C"-QJ · Vi 13 --c1 QJ~"'" ~3 ..; (; QJ'" ~ ...... ...... u C OJ &~S O&c: r.n E 0 ~Q) '8 SN.E U Oo""~ \0' u eN N :::; ~ to 1-1 E ~ u ........ 1:: rt: U ta > u; I~ '0 .c $-. OJ ~ i- ~ ~ ~ OJ ,::: ....... ::s ti5u .b .~ i!F ~ ~ u tt:: 02 E ~ b.CO::S 0 ~ c .. ~..c .~ a:: ~ c:;> C 0... 0-- e .-.. 0 ] ~ ~ .E t/]8~~ ~ ~, be · co C ~ f"""4 0 fii 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ r--t Ln~ ~<C @~ ta .0 .... CJ ~ o U i3 j~ -,:j~ c..... <agJ I~ E>. ;:s..., ;a ";; QJ~ ~~ ~ en 0; "S""2 ~ ~ ~ 1-.1 :t -; .i =a:g & E~ ~ 80m 0 ~~~ C'J ~ OJ !,/) ::> '1:S OJ >< ~ ~cn ID ~ i!f ~ @ .-e 0"2 E 1."2 · "E ~:J C t"a ;:s ~ QJu ~ ~ 0... cL c o~8~ bh 3: u. .... fa 0...... t:: ..8 0 0 c... "en ~ l/") It') ~ rt) '~ ~ R: ~ ~ ~~ u @ra " .......tn ta..... := 02 ~::s -0 .U; OJ ~ ., .... C (;QJo ..... "0 ...... cs::tj ~::s= ~ L-. .;; ~ CJ t: '~ 8 ~ ',..-4 1(1j I:: .!:c oo::r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en ::E Z OJ r:n ::l --a OJ )( ~ c ~ U to: > If) ,N ~ .9 (;i tfi "Ll) f-4 :1J 0::: ....... <C CiSco .....f"IJO ~ffi8 E~~ ~.s...; ~~C"-.I Et~ ~........~ & ft~ a:~ ~~ [0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~E a c ~ 'g a Ej ~ I o M :: o :c .~ ~ fIj ~ ~ ~ U 'Q.\ ...~ ~ Q rt5 . ~ I" I , , ' .., ., ~:"': ---'....... .....-.f ~ · . ." , . ---........ v ~ . '." . . "G . S ~. ...~ '. .>. . n< _ ... .' .:.'. . .~::' '.t .:; .9 ~ .. :, ,"'tS ...-I. QJ ::s '.:,' .. ~ .~, ~ c ~ ~ . . ' · '.P.flCI a t: .,"':'.::',' ..:::....~ i'.~ ~ .." . QI Z... ..... .,:....:: ;o~' .~ . . .,' ...~s )( . . ': ~ .:.,',.,.. ;s OJ I .1 I :," :~:..I.I. I III- -.1.-..1 I ..11 , .' .:..~ " .,'. ':1'."1:' ... . .'III.;i";..~ '.~ ~ 0 QJ ,:::1 ~ra. ;., II ...., u-) '. .r:Q '::;p.. . . .~,.. ~ ":" ~.. . Q. Z := ,. ,.. ~ Ca.t · ~ .~ ~ <( " 1-4 'S= ~ ..GJ ru ~~ .. 111:1 ...-I , ~,. I: ~ . .' . . : . /~:.~.:: . :.i.~;! ..~ , ,. ''ts ~'o = Q) ..GI~'" cu ~ . :i! ..cu ~ fa ,,~~ _ ttJ ...J:: , ,,~.......: C -.,:c ..- u . ,::8 ,. lIS : '. .;.~ :'0 ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ .'Q.. ,< (;~ III .... ...... "E .2 QJ :1 !~ .tt) ~ ~ .e i ~ E R ~~~ u;- ~ ,":s u t;:It L.t. J c: ta\SfM 0 LnC;+..c M:;::~C c u.:- OJ fa .XI --c.........c · .... C/) OJ cn.....,--C QJ...... '--(: ::s ~ IS ::s ~ co C() co r-IIII '0 OJ 11.0 5-.1 @~ .................. ca21 :;:: · 2 ~ =' --cJ .U; aJ c.::: ~ ~ ,~ :.,.:.bI) cu ......',.......' tn tn ..cs rc ~ ..;= ~ ~.rg ~.~ Ioc.- .~ . ....' ~ .- s:: c:: ~ ~ 1: ;; .' :U) ~ "OQ) ~ · rn '1=: ~QJ . ........ ~ . .' 4ISC,c V::S OJ - ~ , -:~ 'fa ~ .0 ..0 fJ'J ..J E~ ::s 0 ....Ji; rtJ\.O ~o uN -< .~ ,Q.I , . ",.Q GI : :.~a S 0 !3 .ft! C .., Z · s..... tn ':.',c;.. \C ('Q 8 ~ '1:1 OJ U u:: .~ ; 53 Ui 0 o LO tn ~ :s........... ~ .9 Vtr C OJ:) Ii-t o ~ OJ ~ e:a..o ~ RSC E ,Vi ::t::c.3 ~~ 31 is ~ & U1 8 I/) ~.. ~ ::nLn~ 0 QJ e:: r--4 < ~ ~ ~@D-t ~ UJ ca ta s:: N · U ...G ..!2 I-. Ubl) QJ 0 c E z::: E .~ 8 OJ -g~ ~ b.O .5 t:i .~ c ....... OJ be C ~ ,.C u o Z o~ CaJ +' QJ .. tn ~ ~ OJ:J a ~ ~ -g ~ ......~ , ..s::: (U ,...... u ~ U be ~ ~ i.B :t:: rJl lfj .x IX ~ aJ OQJ Lr).... @~ ........... (;\n . ..... .... "E "2 QJ::S 'U .en OJ ~ C'J blJ ~ ..c:: U i ~ .2 ;3 o ~ I: C U \C 0\ o ('fj ~~ -!2 be ..5 rJJ .x OJ o ....... OJ be c: m ..c u c Z ]~ .s e.o ..2 (/) .x Q) .8 OJ eo c::: fa ..c u o Z >.tn ~:g (tI:1 ~ ...... ..:: .~ :ic: E~ M ~Ui a:>QJ ....... I.... OQJ ......, Ul OJ ::s ~ -r: (13 ..s= ~ UbC Oc 2:0 U') .x OJ co:/) M 0' ::s ms: @MO +..0 .~ :1J ~ ~ b.;) IIIIJIIIIf ra c: u............ OJ .00 !J \j OJ ...... - r::::C :3 fa .~ ~ ... OJ I..i C ~ ~ OJ OJ ] ~ ~.E IX) 0' tu ~ S:a ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ u.: ~ tiS 0 Vi ~ Vi ttiO .9~ 0.1:3 ~ ~] Ubt o c:: Z.Z trJ .x aJ -g~ ,.!S bO :E VJ .x OJ .s aJ 00 E:: <<S ...t: u o Z QJ be a lj ,;t ~i c~ eE 8- 1-1 N LrJ 00 M ~ .e ~ l! OJ::S .2 ~::3 ~J.: .. ...c .!9 c... ~ ~ ~ Zz ~ 'JJ ...... IX OJ '-cQJ ~~ .s bO :E :n .x QJ B QJ t.C C ra ...c u c Z OOJ ~1-6 @~ "- ~!J 1: .2 QJ::S :9 en QJ ~ Sb a -6 o IZ j .j J-.il-l Q)QJ .~ t: ta::J .~u (\i .~ ~ QJ ~ C rc u ra .> M C'f) ~ ~ ~Uj ~ ]~ .s ~ CI) .x OJ .8 OJ bO J:: ca ..c u o Z OQJ """'CI} aJ :3 ~ (tSS: ..t:..!3 Uec Cc z: U1 .x QJ lJ 12 :J ~ c: c U 0\ o N O~ rf)1.-t @~ ............ ......m ra... 'z · 2 @;:S ':E tn OJ ~ 01: 1rL. 5 ~QJ ~ ,..... s:: ..., QJ UQ,lU ~ lJ c-rJ 0\ c E ~ .cE:: ~ 3Q1~ ~ ~ ~ I:: 00 u(;u ....... rJ) m....... :g .~ <V ~ .;; QJ .... ~ ] ~ 3 e LO , .....-I g~ ~ @~ 6 r;+..c .~ QJ C 'E ......- Q)~~ :g~~ r.J'J ...... \J QJ.,.... .~ 3 rJJ 's ::s o -,;j c:: o u Uj r-I ~E:g .@ ~ 6 ........QJ'O f! fII(j "E~ aJQ "'tj~ .Uj + ~~ u m " rJj ....... ~2 =' f ~ ..... C ra u lU > ,M 1Lr) o ...... r.J'J m~ :c .~ fa 3 ~ .~ ~ ~ JS .,!.. ...... 3 e \D ;t'-- ~~~ @~6 .""; +..n .~ <1J ~ 1: ~..-4 QJ~~ :g~~ rJJ..... v QJ........ ~~ ::s tIJ ~ .2 :s o ~ a u ~ o .c f/) ('ij ~ ... ::J @ ~ s ....... Q) ~ .~ --0 1::~ QJIr) "-'N .ID + ~~ u <<S ........... ~ .~ f o .2 " .... ~ I-t 1:: 8J"~ ~ m ...t: s:: .~j! ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~~~ ~ ~ 'f'""'l 9 QJ!! ~ ~ 2 0 _~ 5 ~ ~ i.i5 U lJ U {j) 0 i~8 ~_N E .s ~.. E5~ oc(~ii ]l~ ~tr} i~ ~a ..s ~ c.::: 3Ir... 0, ] U Q :.: 'E a Uj CCJ 6 M ;:: Q :c ~ -t: ~ VJ QJ ~ .... u ~ .~ ~ Q n--5 :~. '. :.' ;"':~,>;~. ...:. . ~ .. - \C . . ., .', . . .' . nil . i <<S UJ '. . ;:.. . ..' ~~(.<;'~' :.~ ] .::.. :': ~:.: :;;~;; ~ . i~;.~ ::"~ . .~ 1 . ::. :i N '.~, ~~'..; '~., .' ~ . :~. ~' , ] r--... en ...... ....... c..... GJ s:: -0 ::s .;1 QJ I-t ~ Oe ~ ~ E 'CtJ IN , ,~~ ,~. , :~. ,:. ~:: '. . . . ,,". ... .' "... ~ ~ ~ en '~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .. .;.: ~ . ::. )~.;.::iir':i :.;J5: .:@ ~ E @ ~ a ~ gj . f . ~; .:'). '::J'..:s' - +..c c; +..c fg U .,... QJ C ..c ~ 1: b"~ U be QJtac; Ot: --0, Q} Z:= .&i ~ ~ rJJ QJ...... .x ~3 aJ . "S' .'...; .;t ~ ~ . . .. . ..0 '.'=. ~ ~ ~ E '.. ~ :"c::r ;'. = .,.... ::s ...~ ';.~ .~.~. ~~ ~.g . .'~ .tf:.... .QI c: .. .,' . .:- .~ 8 . . . . ..,". '. .~~ .~ < .~. .'. ...~ ; ~ ~ ~ .',. ,..' ~..... .u:} c . . .~ .~.' c::: ~ @ c: 0 . :.:...:;) ~ -; ~ ...c :~ . .'. ~ . ~ . ~ ~ .t.O . e..~ ~ ~ ..< .:.... :::':' ~:a!.. ..~"gj ~ , ,4 ',. "4~ , < cz::: J... · ' .', U tC " 2 c ::s ,~, . ....::., ~ ,,~:" :..: . , , . :.;: ..,~.:.:..:;~tl:,~.~ .f . . .':'J: ~ ftI GI ~ .'. . ..'.'~ ..~.~..: ... .:::.~.tj ;: l.Z .~ . ':~ ~ ~~ E E , " ... ~ 1-1 +' ra ......._: -.: ..... ::s c..o .= CI.) "U ... OJ -- .4~ ~ ~ ~ en :s 'r~ U 0;; :::: u .... .~ QJ C .;: ..J ec 1-4::S be < c <( ~ WLO "'Uj tiN < 1-1 , . Q.I 1 ~ ~ ..Z Z ~ ~ :!t .-0 ~ ~ Ui ; Vi 8 ~ 12 ::s o '1J C C u CO N o ~fIj ~ ~ ('lj"-::: ~ C::s @~o J9 ........ QJ..o be .! ~ .5 ~~ 1Il QJU") ~ "'0 N ~ oID + .9 r.=:: ~ OJ u be ca t: " ra 2 ..c 02 u :3 ~ QJ bJ) c: ~ --6 o z q .~ ...:.= ~ u ~ Ln c: : ~ .........c in U ]~ ~::s b.C :2 tn .)( tV o ........ aJ be ~ ra ~ u o Z ]~ ~ b.C :E rJJ "~ 2 OJ be ~ R5 I.J: u C :z OQJ ;~ ~ rat: ~~ o~ Z:c t/) .x OJ o GJ +-' rJ) ~ :::J ~ ra t: ...r:~ UbO c \:: Z:.= :n .)( ~ CaJ ....., rIJ cu ::J ~ (U c ...c,.g UbO o c: Z.Z en .x OJ ~~ !: oc :E :t] .x QJ .8 OJ be a ..c: u c :z OJ be a fj ~ aJ btC C <<J .u c Z en; OJ fU rJ) o 3 < OQ... "E:.2 '<C ~ OJ (ti :J -0 rtj ~J o 00 \D ~ <( OJ fj u \.0 CJ ~ .~ ~ .....-4 "5 ~ c.. :1J ~ ~ ~ 5~ Vi <( to cz::: Q.. ]~ ~ "f CI) .x Q) .9 i:: ... ~ :5 ~ ta tJj en ~ OJ QJ ..... ~ ti:: 0 tn ....., QJ '-'-4 ~ & ~ t/) c 8~ 0\ ~... ~ s:: m ,.c u o Z .e~ ~~ ~~ ::s Q.. ra ~ o~ ;s: ...c: ~ C u bO .:8 C c: ra Z ti U:i .x OJ OJ 1--1 ti: :; ea ::s <C ~ z .....: c.. ra ~ ~ o QJ < ~t, @~ z 'RSl!! ".= .2 ai ::s ~ .:;; OJ ~ c: g .:a ." '<C o ~ "...... "5:2 ~r: <( ~ ~.f ~ f./l ~ QJ c:"~ -0 ~bb ora \.0 ~ ~ c ~ '1J~ ..ffi:s eo :B VJ '5 ,... ~ OJ be s:: ra ..c u o Z OQJ ~tI) QJ::S ~ ..c,!9 UbC o~ Z .-.. , t; .x QJ < " z < " z "g ~ 'U < ...... ......... & :n o 8 Lr)' N C\ ~ ]~ .s~ eo :E ~ .x OJ o ........ OJ be I::: ~ ..c u c Z f"': ~ ~QJ .1J rn b.C:::1 C\j me: ..t:(t3 u ...... ObO '2 c: ....... fJ1 'x Q) <( ~ Z < " Z QJ b.C C fa ~ "'" Z tii ~ c' C ~ ~ >a 1':::.= QJ ....... QJ OJ bO ~ r: '\ lIJI ~ c~ c c:= ~ ~ti ~ :J I-t ~..... 'I _. V C Em'" "'0 rJ..... t/) 1-0 ~ E bO~1i"'tU r 8E ~ 8 ~...c ~..c r-4 CG L.. bC 0\'.0 lJ 0': 00 ~ 'Jl ~ lr) ~ ~ t/) QJ C C U QJ tIl 0) ~ .~ U 5{ E .- ~ >. >. OC ::3 t CC E U) ij 0'\ r= oS 0 i tt ~ ..2 @ O-t r-4 ~ ~ N ~< ~ U~~U8 ;~ ~! ~ r~~ in ;> v J rJ'j rJJ tfi \,J rc ~ ......IIIIIIIIIII ........ra ra'" .~ OJ u.... C1J 0... r./) & trJ 8 o 00'" 0\ I~ cO' oegb ~t:a-r--t cU'---" SS ,.... (/) d~ ] <( , Z < """ Z r: ~ :a --0 -< co ~ m OJ Q::;.-t ~ r:3 t:"e OJ ~ · S...... QJ be .N E t; ~E1: ~ u,...o U} Uj d ti: aeCX) ~ ~ ~~ c:f g 2 ~ 6~r dJ ~ [/) 6 & .~ ~ .8 o QJ C\ b.C r.:rJ .. c: + 2 u o Z OQJ ""-Ul QJ :s ~ ..c..!2 Woo c c:: z:;:: tn .x OJ < "- Z -< ........... Z c:: .9 ......, :.a "'U <C ~ (5 ...c: u Cf) C1j Q\ N ~ f c "..... J1~_ ~ ..c'u c ... '" ...... s:: c ~ ~ e.-o US en t.:. UJ ~fll'tJc ~ffi8 ~t;r: ~~~ EtiN ~5~ jl~ C-..V) E~ lc .s ~ ~ ~ ..g "E a c ;:: "E a ~ 0\ I q ("rj ;: Q :t: ~ ~t: ~ r.n tw Q ...... ~ fU .~ ~ Q ~ . .(.....tJ. ~l ~ . . ..:.:::. .'~:~:::: :'~. ~ '.: j ..':,- .'; :'.: .;: ..:.3! '"a ~ ; . .'. ~:. :.:.>,~.:-.;:J ,i. ~ . '. . .. . .. : , ~ 1 .S:.'~ . · . . . . .:. .. . id -< . . ..; :.. ~::;... ~:''', '>' :,~ . :' ..... .. '..;.." , " .'~-:,:: ~ ':, ,,~, .. I . ~.,~., . .~ .' :. '0 .' . 1-4 ~ ~ > ,. :.' ::. ".:.'/,-<\;:1 ..:e .. '.: .:, ~~: /..':~. ;::.:r;~):~. :;~ . , ' , ,..~.. ~ . .1. ; : I ~, ~ I I , ,:. or . , ~, , ..''C,:~ Q s:: c: :. !It..... .rd. 0 . . <'. ?o ,...:tb 5: .. ~ . :.. . ; c.f :c:: ~ ""t:l < .. '.: .';:~.'::::~~:~'. :C ~] .~ : .... ..:....::J ~ Ei c: ::s . .:.~ "rJ. E JS Q) .. .... . )( .S:; N ~ . .' ~ ~ N "~ (Ij('fj QI . to\ <, " ~~ ..s--i5 .' .. :B"'" Q) '::: ~ . . .. tiJ fa ci5 ~ (j ~ ~ C() ~~ ij ~ ..c ;j U ~ cu= z e ~ ta \6wI ..!.. ........ ~ e ~ ~ .8 :s t--... It) t--... ~ ~c ::s o ~ N ,.i CI' 'II ~ ~ c: ...... QJ 0 -a .; QJ ~ :S E ra (.I.. I .. :; ~ ....1 < f-- o i- .. cu iii ~ II. IMI fI; :; a-, ~. O. Q 0\ ~ cr) .,-4 ... ~ tr (I) Q o o ~ ,..-I 1i QJ ~ c:; II o ~ .'1 ~ ", .. .CtJ CI)' 'c .:f ~ .it Cl .l1li .,= :~ ~.~ 11): 8 ~ 0-.' ~ Q.l .. IftI ::s tr rn o Q QO ~ ~ . .: .... cr rIJ o Q Q r.D co tIJ C .... ~ CL. o .c rJ) :::; .- !! QJ =: ......... 3 u ... QJ e e o u ... II, .:=: ... o ~ 0 a] g ~ CON ~ ] .~ ~ .s ~~ ~ ~ 00') ~ ~ ;::~ ~ E ~~ ~ ~ _u ~ ] &.~ ~ '=U ~E: 8 ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "':i ~~ .E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e.o~ ~ E :::~ 0 ;.t;~ ~ ~ ; r:t.l ~ ~ vj ~. t1 0 ~ boE .~ ~ "l1) ;:: ;:! · Vl "- "1:1 "1::t ~ ;:: $::L.. ;: s::: · __ ~ ~:: c:t--:~ ~ ~~ ;: ~ ~ sF c~cu (j - "-E ~-:5 a ~ ~ ::t ~~ ..s ':Uc J:H - ~ p ~:=t)5 ~~ U) ,......., ,...., ~ ..... ~ ~ (I) ~ ~] ~ g )... 5 Q<J ;.:: t: ~ ~ ~ '5 ] c ~ ~ r-.... ~ ~ (,.} · ~ 0tJ :::: ~ ~ ~ ~ "i:; .s t:tu ~~C '=t~;: ~ *"'- '::: t:i ~ .... E E ~ ~ 9::;s ~~~ ~ ~~:::~-~t:i ?5 t:t ~ U ~ ~.5 Oo'e 8 o:S u .~ ~.5 ~ ~"9: · ~ ~ $:: 13 ~ ~ E _ ;::... t:t .~ 0 0 E ~ 1:) "E~ ~ ::~:r::a '=~ .~~~.~ 5- ~ ~ a-.. ....... ....... ~ a *-S $:)...~~~:S~~ ~ .{i:'9~E~~o ~ · - U'J t;:t Q,)''':::; $:I.. ~ t:i ~ ~~] ~~~~ l.~'E ;:~.sS~*"'-e-wua ;: ~ lU 1-.. ~.~ ~ 5 >.- t2 .~ ~ ~ a )..t QC; :s ..t:) tL.1 ~ ;:: I;U ~ ~ "- "1:S: ~ ~..tJ) '- o:S..Q ~ ~.s s-:: ~ ~~ .,] ~~ ~~ ~ 0, tS ~ ~ c t..)"- := - ~ ~~~"5..-: c t1 E:t; " ~ ~.~ 0 -s ~ ~.~ tt '0 E :3'5,: g ~ 8 -- ~~.... ::t ltt"':::: 0 '- ~ ~.- ~.- (I) C ;: f3 ~ .~ :s . V) ~ .5 - ;:: ~ 0 ~ 3 ~ ~.~ ;: E ~ S '0 l-. ;:: ~ J ~ ~..... ...:: ~.... e t..l..- a: = '0 C Vl.... ~ ti t:; S3:' ~ t:j 0'\ "~t.. ~ ;::: Eti C~.t: ~ ~..::~~ 8 a-...;:~..:::t::t~ :;:: EtI)tIlr:::....".....~~~u~ 8 ~~ ~ ~.-=:~~.E a '"t:t "l:1 ..... ~ f.I"j ~ r.n ~ $::t... r.n ;: ~.. ;:: ~. .. t>o t:; (U 0 ~,... :l ~ ~ -;t 1:U~ -- ~ ~tI) ;: U) (:) ;: ;:'-::: ~ s:.... ::: ~ ~ t..) ;:z c fJl.~ U e ~ 5 E :;: t)..@ u ~ $:L t::t" 1: "=8 ~~~..f! ~ ~ ~~a .S! ~ t ;; 5 ~ E t::"Vi ~ ~ ~~ ~z 0 E.~ 5~31 ....., ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ :-S'i.;::1l-a-g:::t~~.2: ~ ~ ;: ~::::: g l' ~. 9 ~ ~ ~ E oW; S ~ "1;:$; ~;::~.- i: ~~ tJ~~E ~ Vi_ ;:t ~ ;; 1:) ~~ ;::~~.;:.~ E tU s=:....~ ::: ~ c'" ~ '- t:) 0 0 ~ E c ~ (I) lU tu ~~~ s.:s ;:: U~t: ~ E~~.~ ;:: .E~V; S~ ~ ~~ 000 >( UJ t.J ~ c~~-w ~ ~~~_ ~ ;: (;) ~ lIo... ~ E.9 ~ :-;: .9-..~ t E~ "t~~tu E ...." ~ cu ~ ~ Co 0 - "'"' ~ ~ S '5 t:) C,) c ::: ~;= s:::: - I ~;....e 'tUc~~~~ ~ & ~~ ~ ~ E ~ 5 ~ ~ o;u~ ~Q~~UUO~ ~ C Z~~ .~ ~u..;\.Ci~oOa; ....~o ttJ8 ~7i~ Eew~ E~N ~~-E ~l:~ ~~ e~ les ..s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~E a c ~ l~ a ~ o ~ t a rr) 3.0 Project Description the proposed land use changes, land additions, and resulting development potential under the Amended Redevelopment Plan. The locations of the individual numbered sites listed in Table 3.0-1 are shown Figure 3.0-2, Existing Project Area and Figure 3.0...3, El Camino and Willow Gardens Additions. D1. Amendment to Redevelopment Plan Figure 3.0...2, Existing Redevelopment Project Area, illustrates the sites within the Existing Redevelopment Project Area. The General Plan land use policies for portions of the Existing Project Area along EI Camino Real reflect planned high-density residential development near the future BART corridor. As shown in Table 3.0-1, the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would change planned land uses within the Existing Project Area from primarily high-density, transit-oriented residential (i.e., 50 units per acre) to a mix of commercial and high- and medium-density (30 to 50 units per acre) residential uses. Parcels affected by the proposed amendment would include Macyls/Costco, the Cuneo property, a portion of the BART site, Harmonious Holdings, the San Francisco Water Department site, a portion of the County Government Center, the Oak Farms site, and a portion of the Ron Price site. The land use designations (l1 the McLellan Nursery site would be modified to medium- and low-density residential to reflect the 179 single-family homes and 34 below-market-rate townhouses that are currently under construction. 02. Expansion of Redevelopment Project Area Figure 3.0-3, EI Camino and Willow Gardens Additions, illustrates the locations of the two additions to the Existing Redevelopment Project Area. D2(a) El Camino Addition The EI Camino Addition consists of five primary sites: 1) a 7.0-acre parcel owned by the California Water Service Company, located on Chestnut Avenue south of Old Mission Road; 2) a 3.9-acre Safeway shopping center, located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Antionette Lane and Chestnut Street; 3) a 15.2-acre area containing several greenhouse buildings, several apartment buildings, and a community garden, located south and east of the Safeway and California Water Service Company sites; 4) a 7.8-acre area containing approximately 33 parcels fronting the east side of El Camino Real, bounded by Chestnut Avenue on the north and South San Francisco High School on the south; and 5) the 29.3-acre South San Francisco High School. 3 . 0-11 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 ~ NOT IN PROJECT AREA n FIGURE3 _ 0 - 2 ~ Existing Redevelopment Project Area 2100-367.01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR n ') 2/00-367 -01 " ~ ~ ~ _,~ /:Ii. ~WILLOW GARDENS ~. NEIGHBO~OOD SOU RCE: City of South San Francisco FIGURE3_0-3 Added Project Area EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SElA 3.0 Project Description The California Water Service. Company site consists of an open space parcel that contains three water wells and is currently used to grow lettuce crops. The site is bounded by Chestnut Avenue and the California Water Service Company administrative offices to the northwest, five apartment buildings and a community garden on the north, a row of single-family homes on the east, and Calma Creek and a series of greenhouses to the south. The site is generally a basin, with an access road running along the top of a concrete berm along the south and east boundaries of the site. The access road enters at Chestnut Avenue and 'provides access to the three wells, ending at the community garden. A fire station is proposed along Chestnut Avenue, west of the existing California Water Service Company administrative offices.. Current plans for the fire station indicate an approximately 7,900-square-foot building and a parking lot within a one acre area; the remaining 6.0 acres of the site would be kept as open space and the wells would continue operating. The Safeway shopping center currently contain~ a Safeway supermarket, a bank, a laundromat, a pizza restaurant, and a dry cleaner. Although it is proposed for inclusion in the Project Area, ro redevelopment activities are currently proposed for the Safeway parcel. A cluster of greenhouses and several apartments are located south and east of the Safeway shopping center and California Water Service Company site, adjacent to the San Francisco Water Department's Hetch Hetchy water line right-af-way. Another row of apartment buildings and a community garden are located east of the California Water Service Company site along Commercial Avenue. No redevelopment activities are proposed for these areas. The El Camino commercial frontage. area contains a number of retail and commercial establishments, including gas stations, full-service and fast-food restaurants, auto repair, motel, and car wash. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the rehabilitation of existing parcels and development of vacant parcels along EI Camino Real, resulting in an approximately 100/0 increase over existing commercial square footage. South San Francisco High School is one of three high schools in the City, with a current (1999-2000) enrollment of approximately 1,615 students. No redevelopment activities are proposed for South San Francisco High School at this time. . D2(b) Willow Gardens Addition The \tV ill ow Gardens Addition consists of the existing 9.3-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood. Willow Gardens is located off Willow Avenue, and includes Nora Way, Sandra Way, Brusco Way, and Susie Way. lhe neighborhood currently consists of 53 four-plex residential structures, totaling 212 multi- 3.0-14 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 3.0 Project Description family units. A rehabilitation project is proposed for the neighborhood, in which a private entryway would be constructed for each unit, trash enclosures would be built, and some of the units would receive an additional bedroom or family room. In addition, a new one-way street would be constructed along the eastern boundary of the neighborhood, in the current location of a narrow grassy area used as open space by the residents. The rehabilitation project would require the removal of two of the four-plex structures (a total of eight multi-family units) and the removal of some portions of the existing parking islands in order to provide access to the new street. The current parking/nnit ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit would be maintained, as parallel parking spaces would be provided along the east side of the new street and additional 90 degree parking spaces would be provided in the locations of the removed units. Figure 3.0..41 Willow Gardens Rehabilitation Plan, shows the proposed site plan for the Willow Gardens rehabilitation project. D3. Redevelopment Actions D3(a) General Redevelopment Actions Redevelopment projects, programs, and activities to be nndertaken under the Amended Redevelopment Plan include: 1) property owner, tenant, and business owner participation; 2) construction, reconstruction, and installation of public improvements and facilities; 3) demolition, clearance, and site preparation for the construction of buildings and other public improvements; 4) relocation assistance; 5) construction and enhancement of low and moderate income housing; 6) property acquisition; 7) property dispositioni 8) public and private cooperation; 9) establishment of restrictions and enforcement programs;. and 10) other actions as appropriate. D3(b) Specific Redevelopment Projects, Programs and Activities Eliminating the blighting conditions within the Amended Project Area would be accomplished primarily through implementation of the following programs and activities: . Business Retention and Development Assistance Program in the El Camino Addition; . Commercial Rehabilitation Program in the EI Camino Addition; 3.0..15 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 )~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ LJUu ~ t i € ! .f ~ @ ( '" if ~ - . r ~ @ .n ~ t.n <D (;i +(5 o en ~ ..::z:: o < W CJ Ul c: a: o o a: c: o o o z ~ < o :.c ct:S .J:: Q) a:: U) c: a.> -0 ~ ctS <.9 ~ o ~ ..J W o ~ (C Cf) (, ~ /' 3.0 Project Description . Public improvement projects for the EI Camino Addition, including circulation improvements (acquisition of Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Corridor right-oI-way, sidewalk improvements, creation of a greenbelt/park along the BART right-of way), Memorial Park improvements (removal of greenhouses and toxic remediation testing), public facilities (fire station), Cal-Water site improvements (removal of pipes). . Public improvement projects for the Willow Gardens Addition, including circulation improvements (elimination of parking islands), public facilities (Community Center), and other public improvements. . Housing Assistance Program, including residential rehabilitation loan or grant programs, residential acquisition and rehabilitation programs. . Utilization of the housing fund and other Redevelopment Agency revenues to implement the Willow Gardens Revitalization Plan. D3. Types of Developme~t Expected to Occur Adoption of the proposed project would enable implementation of certain programs and activities by the Redevelopment Agency, as noted above. As discussed above and shown in Table 3.0-1, the proposed redevelopment activities would involve the development of new retail, office, and residential uses within the Existing Project Area, rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, intensification of commercial uses along El Camino Real within the Amended Project Area, and the construction of a new fire station on Chestnut Avenue. Compared with the buildout potential of the approved Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the development 483 fewer multi-family .units,176,900 additional square feet of office space, 355,800 additional square feet of commercial/retail/shopping space, and a 7,900-square foot fire station. D4. Schedule For the purposes of this SEIR, it is assumed that the land uses within the amended Redevelopment Project Area would be developed by the General Plan horizon year of 2020. 3.0-17 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 3.0 Project Description E. PROJECT APPROVAlS The South San Francisco City Council will hold a public hearing en the Draft SEIR. The City Council would certify the EIR prior to project approvaL Specific redevelopment projects would be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission, and other appropriate bodies after input has been solicited from affected residents, property owners, and other interested parties. The proposed Redevelopment Plan amendments ffiU5t be approved .by both the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Public hearings must be held by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. At this time, there are no General Plan or zoning approvals requested as part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would generally make land uses within the Project Area consistent with the land use designations and policies of the recently amended General Plan. The "City is currently undergoing a separate zoning update process to make the Zoning Map consistent with the recently updated General Plan Land Use Diagram. Most of the proposed projects would be consistent with the existing zoning for their respective sites (e.g., affected parts of the Existing Project Area are zoned P-C-L (Planned Commercial), which allows residential uses at a maximum density of 30 units per acre). An exception is the California Water Service Company site within the EI Camino Addition, which is zoned OS (Open Space); development of a fire station would be inconsistent with this zoning and would require a rezoning prior to project development to reflect a public use. F. INTENDED USES OF THIS SEIR This SEIR addresses the potential impacts that may result from amendments to the Redevelopment Plan described in this chapter. The SEIR is intended to serve primarily as a source of information for the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. "As defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency is the public agency with the principal responsibility for reviewing a project This EIR is intended to be used as the environmental document for all responsible agency" approvals. 3.0-18 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 4.0 LAND USE, PLANS AND POLICIES A. PURPOSE CEQA requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environment that currently exists onJ and in the vicinity of the project site. The purpose of this section is to generally describe th~ physical enviro,nment in which the project would be located, with an emphasis on local and regional land uses and environmental conditions. This section also provides ,a consistency analysis of the proposed project in relation to applicable local and regional plans and policies. This approach allows the reader to formulate an understanding of the project site and the surrounding area, and to establish perspective on potential project impacts. B. REGIONAL LOCATION The city of South San Francisco is located m the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County, as illustrated in Figure 3.0-1 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. South San Francisco is bounded on the north by the city of Cohna, 00 the west by the cities of Daly City and Pacifica, m the south by the city of San Bnmo, and en the east by the San Francisco Bay. The city's Planning Area encompasses approximately 4,298 acres. Transportation facilities of regional significance within the city limits include U.S. Highway 101 (US-lOl), Interstate 280 (1-280), Interstate 380 (1-380), and EI Camino Real (State Route 82). C. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Ct. Project Location The Project Area consists of three primary areas: 1) the. Existing El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (Existing Project Area); 2) . the El Camino Addition; and 3) the Willow Gardens Addition~ The Existing Project Area comprises about 175 acres along El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue. The El Camino Addition is a contiguous land addition of about 70 acres, beginning at the southern boundary of the Existing Project Area at Chestnut Avenue and extending south, bormded by El Camino Real (Il the west, Commercial Avenue and the San Francisco Water Department Hetch Hetchy line on the east, and the southern boundary of South San Francisco High School en the south. The Willow Gardens Addition is a non-contiguous land addition of about 9.3 acres, located approximately 0.25 miles east of the Existing Project Area. 4.0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies C2. Topography The Project Area is located on the floor of a broad valley that runs from northwest to southeast, between San Bruno Mormtain on the east and Skyline Ridge 00. the west.. South of the Project Area, the valley turns east and opens to the" historic floodplain of the San Francisco Bay. The valley is drained by Colma Creek, which flows through" the Project Area.. Much of the area between El Camino Real and Mission Road is part of the creek's gently sloping alluvial floodplain. Elevations along the El Camino Real portion of the Project Area range from approximately 60 to 75 feet. West of EI Camino Real, the ground rises more steeply, reaching an elevation of about 120 feet near the western boundary of the McLellan property" The Willow Gardens Addition is located in an area of transition between the lowland alluvial floodplain and the upland areas around the base of Sign Hilt with elevations ranging from approximately 175 to 200 feet. C3. Drainage All of the parcels within the Project Area drain to Calma Creek, w~ich nms through portions of the Project Area. Colma Creek is a highly developed wban stream that begins in the foothills at the northwestern end of San Bnmo Mountain and nms in a southeasterly direction through South San Francisco. Within the Existing Project Area, Colma Creek nms through a concrete channel between E 1 Camino Real and Mission Road; the creek turns in a more easterly direction near Chestnut Avenue, bisects the California Water Service Company site, and leaves the Project Area" In the eastern portion of the City, the historical wetlands and mudflats at the edge of the San Francisco Bay have been extensively filled, leaving a man-made earthen channel through which Colma Creek flows to the Bay. Portions of the Project Area along Colma Creek are within the FEMA lOO-year flood zone" C4. Geology and Seismicity The Project Area is underlain primarily by Colma Formation soils, with alluvial soils in areas along Colma Creek.. In general, the Calma Formation is comprised of loose, friable, well-sorted sand wi th subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposited during the Pleistocene. Colma Formation soils are relatively non-expansive and well-drained, with low permeability and low erosion potential. However, in portions of the McLellan Nursery site, localized sand lenses that lack sufficient silt and clay binder result in low slope stability and high erosion potential. The Calma Creek substrate is made of fine-grained younger alluvial deposits.. The alluvium in the Project Area consists of unconsolidated moderately sorted fine sand, silt, and clayey silt debris deposited by Calma Creek during the Quaternary period. 410-2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 4..0 Land Use, Plans and Policies South San Francisco is located in the seismically active Bay Area, and can expect to experience major earthquakes in the future. The San Andreas Fault lies about 1.5 miles to the southwest of the Project Area, the Hayward Fault lies about 15 miles to the east, and the Rogers Creek fault lies about 34 miles to the northeast.. Because of its location near the western city limits (near Skyline Boulevard), the San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to t~e entire city.. Most of the Project Area would be subject to low groundshaking amplification during an earthquake, with the exception of a small area along El Camino Real near the McLellan Nursery site. Portions of the Project Area located on Colma Creek alluvial soils ar~ identified as having moderate liquefaction potential. D. LAND USE Dl. Proj eet Area Existing and proposed land uses within the Project Area are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. Major sites within the Existing Project Area include the former Macy's warehouse site (currently proposed for development of a Costco), the CWleo property, the former McLellan Nursery (currently under construction with the IIGreenwood" and II Promenade" residential projects), the future Hickey BART station, the Harmonious ~oldings property, the San Francisco Water Department site, a portion of the San Mateo County Government Center, and the Oak Farms site~ The EI Camino Addition consists of five primary areas: 1) a 7.0-acre parcel owned by the California Water Service Company, located on Chestnut Avenue south of Old Mission Road; 2) a 3.9-acre Safeway and shopping center, located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Antionette Lane and Chestnut Street; 3) an 15.2-acre area containing several greenhouse buildings, several apartment buildings, and a comm:unity garden, located south and east of the Safeway and California Water Service Company sites; 4) a 7..8-acre area containing approximately 33 parcels fronting the east side of El Camino Real, bounded by Chestnut Avenue on the north and South San Francisco High School on the south; and 5) the 29.3-acre South San Francisco High School. The Willow Gardens Addition consists of the existing 9.3-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood/, which includes 53 four-plex residential structures on Nora Way, Sandra Way, Brusco Way, and Susie Way. 4.0-3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies 02. Surrounding Land Uses Land uses adjacent to the Project Area are illustrated in Figure 4.0-1, Project Area and Surrounding Land Uses. As shown, areas adjacent to the Project Area are primarily residential neighborhoods, with scattered schools, churches, parks, and other institutional or recreational uses. Land uses fronting the major roadways, such as EI Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, include a mix of retail and service commercial, industrial/manufacturing, office, and business park. Several cemeteries are located in the vicinity of the Project Area, including the Holy Cross Cemetery and Cypress Lawn Cemetery to the north in the city of Colma and the Golden Gate National Cemetery to the south along EI Camino Real. The Tanforan shopping mall and San Bruno Town Center shopping plaza are located south of the Project Area along El Camino Real. Moving from north to south, the major residential neighborhoods to the west of El Camino Real include Winston-Serra, Southwood, and Conntry Club Park. To the east of. El Camino Real, the major neighborhoods include Sunshine Gardens, Orange Park, Mayfair, and Lindenville. The Willow Gardens site is within the larger Sunshine Gardens neighborhood area. D3. BART Extension The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system is currently being extended south from its existing terminus in Colma to San Francisco International Airport (SFO).. the future BART-SFO alignment will follow the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, which runs through the Project Area to the east of EI Camino Real. The BART extension will nul in a subway configuration through the El Camino Corridor.. Construction of the BART extension is currently lll1derway, with service to SFO expected to begin by 2002. As part of the extension, a new BART station will be constructed m a 7.1-acre site approximately 0.75 miles south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard.. The Hickey BART station will include a l,169-space elevated parking structure and 188 spaces of surface parking.. A 2.5-acre area in the northwest comer of the BART site is designated for mixed-use development in the General Plan; however, no specific projects have ~een proposed at this time. As part of its station improvements, BART will construct an extension of Hickey Boulevard from EI Camino Real to Mission Road; the Hickey Boulevard extension will form the northern bOlll1dary of the BART station. Figure 4.0-2, Planned Hickey BART Station, illustrates the site plan for the future Hickey BART station. 4.0-4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 ~ EXISTING EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CITY OF COLMA CEMETARY ..... PROPOSED WILLOW ~ GARDENS ADDITION ~ SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN CO UNTY PARK DALY CITY ,~~,~ ~'''. ':' ".' " ....:.... ...... .' ~~ .,': ..' " , '$ :',',~:..',~ :) jl /^ ~ ~ " ' '.' , ' · · ." " sIf. .', · ", ~ '.".,... ~ l //'-?'~ " ~ <::'?,:.><::' ,>F;:i ~,;'<,,' '. ,', ,'i..1 ::t:"j,;}{l i ~ q~~ ~ \ /" , : ", ,\ " ..' ," '..,', · ;;:a ...:i:'~' :~. .,:) rr, ~ t, Ji..lJ~rr-.--r-- '.. ' .; ",' ~,,' '.~,. ' , .::.:... ~ ':u F H~-...JJ:irr---.. ,/ ,\' '''. .' , ',' " ,= ".....1 ' ' , ,:, P: I.~J:[ v...u~ ,;': ;':~'.... ":~t~' "''',,~~,,: " ~~f'~~, !~~~ . " ' ',";", 8":"2'. .... '\ , \~--..........., ,~,~,: '''..''~.'' I {I!UJ!JJ fIIfff#II;;j !l1Triir;;, I I\.. , \ ....~ ....... III .. ~ 1'/ . I II~"';:;::: ,..:... , '\ '.... ":"": ',.. \\':=:. ~>. ,'......"..,. ',f!ff#I!jEli RESIDENTIAL ~ " .....' ' <' , ~ , '''.... \ .... \'. \. ' . '" ", ' " ~ ' , ,;:;:;!:!JJJj ~ ........ :';,';:..~:.':~ t~~.~,:: :;:: '~~: ::~~ :'\~.,' :' :~. ", ~;~~~ ~,..,:,~~." ":":'1P~~,,~...,' ' "'. ,.>: ~ :', ,: ',:~. ~. ~ ~ r IJIIr- ,~,:':,::'::':':~':,::,.":'~'<.:~~:'.::',~~:,.': ,;':",:.. '\~',(,~~~",; ".,.~:~,,~\ '. / ~~ ~'!!}!:: " '''''' .. , '. ' · /.. ',' '."'.'" ',~.... · "~ J.f!!f.!$:C~r;~ '~:::~~,:~'~~' ':":":"~:~':':":"'~~',',:.:~::",;'). , ""'~~'/~'; ~,~ - ~~ ' ,,',", : "'. ". '~,. '.. '...., '...." · :" W: ~ ~ Iy.,.uJJ;ir:...~~ ~ '[ ~' ~ --- ?;II PARK fy~ y~~/ ~O ~ ~ ~Q &~'6 ..,~~ ~ t~~ ~~ l"'~ ~~~~, ~ ~ ~~f~(/..h.:. wa~~ ~ ""' ~ S .,,"U!,~~, ~~ ~~W ~ -.t:i~~~~'f\~l=l\ ~~~ ~II ~1 ~F \ Y...:;: ." ~-~ ~ '0'" I ~Q GOY ~~,; l~ illi ~,~~i RESIDENTIAL ;<, COURSE ~~i!l,i~i~~Jd' ~ ~tlfJ~ ~ ~~I) ~lI~ti ~ ~ 0..WjJ#lfl/ ~~ 1 lJ ~\ vV ~ _,"~V~ ~ 'IJ":J PROPOSED ~' ~ ~~~ ~ ~', EL CAMINO ,.~ ~ - 'I SfJUIH ADDITION 0/&~ ~.&NF~NCJ'S{;l~ ~~ GOLF ~ ~~_ ~ COURSE ~tfI!I!!:P-. -1 ~'l~. . .~~" ~~~~ ,~"? ~'G-~)).). ~ \~ ~~~ \ ~~ ~ ~\~\ ~ r~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~\: ^V'~ ^~'Y ~ ~~SIDE.Nnii \~.~ ~~ ~ SOURCE: City of South San Francisco ~ 1/4 1/2 o Scale in Miles FIGURE4 _ O--j ') Project Area and Surrounding Land Uses 2100-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ~ ------ .- .,.. --- - - - .,,- -- ,.,."... ~ t o I \..... ~ I~, ~ (( ,--- I '\ ~----- I I , I ~~ I ~" i~ Ih; _~e -;;J.~ ~illi I ei al~ . ~ ~ ~ ! it-I:; a. ~ i "N ~ e..-) . . I . . ..,...~:rt i . . . . 3 ~.. i I .II ~ ~i ~ Ii .g ;i ..., 1111 ~ BW : en i~ i ~ gg ! '5 -<< fS ~~ Q. ~ ~~il2 m ~; 411 i tr 2. ci r f/ "Q ~ ~ :% I~~ % !~ e~ ;% ~ ;% {:I =--- ~ _/ -./ -/ =.::::: =~ =./ _/ -./ -/ -/ =-~ :::.:::; ...-.../ ....--./ _/ - / A .~ -.= ..... ~ ~ - ;;7 =- I. ~ ~ -.= . -.- ~ = - --.- - - -.- ~- - - ---.- - - --= 1U1=-= .-.. - - - " G.. 4 .= r ..0 ... J r- J. ~ ~ ~ ~i5i ~ BB~ ~f ~ !I! i:;- i 1;1 S!~ f a i~" : I~i~ ~al f ti % .:b ~ g; ~ ill . ~I!IJ! a.. ~ . ~ oC~ ~ ~ ~. , II;(!I Ii I : i tift i~ ... to: oN ., ,. , I J N I o I ~ UJ ~ ~ o u: r:::: o .p ct1 ........ en ~ a: <( m j .2 :r: ~ Q) c c: ct1 a... a: W (fJ z c( ...J 0.. I- Z UJ ~ o z w ~ <( I-- Z w :2 c.. o ...J W > W o w cr a: o o a: ([ o () o z ~ <( (j ..J W 0 2 0 0 an ~ 'CO (f) )t- o ~ ~ 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies D4. Changes in Land Use As a result of the BART-SFa extension and construction of the Hickey BART station, and development of projects under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, the land use character of northern part of the E 1 Camino Corridor is likely to undergo substantial change~ Such changes in land use were discussed in detail in the 1993 EIR for the existing Redevelopment Plan, and include the development of new commercial and mixed-use residential projects. The amended Plan would result in substantially fewer residential units than the existing Plan, but the general effect of developing mixed use (commercial m groUI\d floor, residential aparhnents on upper floors) would still occur. Within the El Camino Addition, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would not be expected to substantially change the land use character of the area. . The EI Camino Addition area is generally developed with retail commercial uses. The proposed commercial intensification might increase the number of businesses in the area, but the area would remain commercial in character. Within the Willow Gardens Addition, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would not be expected to substantially change the land use character of the area.. Existing multi-family residential units would be rehabilitated; the neighborhood would remain residential in character. Specific environmental impacts related to the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Pl~n are discussed in Chapter 5.0 of this EIR. These include traffic, air quality, noise, and the loss of open space. E. PLANS AND POLICIES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project could. have a significant effect en the environment if it would IJconflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project . . . adopted for. the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.1I CEQA (Guidelines, Section 15382) defines a significant impact as Ila substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conqitions within the area affected by the project. ...11 CEQA requires an analysis of consistency with plans and policies as part of the environmental setting (see Guidelines Section 15125). Based en this guidance, an EIR uses the analysis of policy consistency as an indicator of the resources that might be affected by a project, and considers the importance a policy gives a resource in determining the significance of the physical impact. Conversely, the EIR considers the potential significance of the related physical impacts when determining the consistency of a project with a 4.0-7 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 4,,0 Land Use, Plans a.nd Policies particular policy. Inconsistency with a policy may indicate a significant physical impact, but the ipconsistency is not itself the impact. Using this approach, this SEIR provides a detailed analysis of consistency with policies of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and analyses of consistency with other applicable plans and policies. The physical impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in other sections of the EIR. The General Plan Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research define consistency as follows: SIAn action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan. if, considering all its aspects, it will furth~r the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.1I Therefore, the standard for consistency used in the EIR is based CI1 general agreement with the policy language and furtherance of the policy intent (as determined by a review of the policy context). The project does not have to be in exact agreement with a policy for the project to be consistent with it. The determination that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent or inconsistent with the General Plan policies is ultimately the decision of the City of South San Francisco. In its review of the Final SEIR, the Planning Commission or City Council may choose to disagree with the SEIR's conclusions regarding project consistency. Such disagreement does not necessarily mean that the SEIR has not addressed all physical impacts of the project adequately. El. City of South San Francisco General Plan State law requires each California city and county to prepare and adopt II a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the plarming agency's judgement bears relation to its plarming." The South San Francisco planning area includes all land within city limits, and unincorporated "islandsu surrounded by the city. The purposes of the South San Francisco General Plan are to: . Outline a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects aspirations of the community; . Provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; · Establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; 4.0-8 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 4..0 Land Use, Plans and Policies · Allow City.deparbnents,.other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and · Provide the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. The South San Francisco General Plan was most recently updated en October 14, 1999. In addition to various text and policy changes, the General Plan Land Use Diagram was revised; the current diagram is illustrated in Figure 4.0-3, General Plan Land Use Diagram. As shown, the Project Area is designated for a mix of commercial, residential, office, and public uses. (Prior to the October 1999 General Plan update, land use designations for affected portions of the Project Area were Planned Commercial, which allowed a range of land uses including residential development up to 30 units per acre.) The land uses proposed under the Amended Redevelopment Plan are consistent with the updated General Plan Land Use Diagram; these land uses are described on a site-by-site basis in Table 3.0-1, Comparison of Approved Redevelopment Plan with Proposed Amended Redevelopment Plan in Chapter 3.0, Project Oescri ption. Project consistency with individual General Plan policies is evaluated in Table 4.0-1,. Project Consistency with South San Francisco General Plan, at the end of this chapter.. E2. South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Current zoning designations for the Project Area are shown in Figure 4.0-4, Existing Zoning Designations. Affected parts of the Existing Project Area are zoned P-C-L (Planned Commercial); residentiallartd uses at a maximum density of 30 units per acre are allowed within the P-C-L district, subject to a use permit. The mixed-use residential, commercial, and office. development proposed under the Amended Plan would be consistent with the P-C-L district. The McLellan Nursery site is zoned 0-5 (Open Space), R-2-H (Medium Density Residential), and R-l-E (Single-Family Residential). The portion of the EI Camino Addition fronting EI Camino Real and the Safeway shopping center are zoned C-l (Retail Commercial). lhe commercial intensification proposed within these areas would be consistent with the C-l district. The California Water Service Company site is zoned 0-5. Development of a fire station on this site would require rezoning to reflect a Public use. The Willow Gardens Addition is zoned R-3-L (Planned Unit Development, multiple family residential). lhe proposed rehabilitation project would not require any change in zoning. 4~O-9 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR Mnrch 24, 2000 ~ ~ ~ :Q ~ ~ i j ,~~ (~ '0 u ~) /' I ; / ..~4 ~ e ~ ~ :g .... "5 - ~ 3 ] ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~l · j ; ~ ~ f 1 i ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ o~i ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ S ?:- j :i ~ <3 ~ ~ ~ L. ~ .~ ~ 0:0 ""oli = Q '5 i ~ ~ ~ ; u 8 ]; ~ =- : , d.~ Q -= -= i '= E ~ ~ ~ -u ~ ~ v U') 0 -,j ~ :: 3: 3: :: E ~ ~ ~ .U; CAe - ~ .g .:!J 0 0 0 0 ,Q :J 0 = :S :I e:=, CL.. 0- ~ ~ ~ X Q Q Q 0 u = U 0 ~ = ~ ~ 0 ~ OJIDIIII~]BJ~IJ~D~ .Ir.iI ] 8 1 < ~ ~ Q u . ;a ::, ~ V) ~ tIC u .5 0 ~ a.. ~;c 2 tI.I ~ o ~vP'. / / f~r"')~ i}, re s r~ ~ ~ m od :t:: Q) ~ Q Q w u !~ Cf) I o I 't E as Ir.... 0) ro Cl Q) en :::> -0 c Cti -.J C ctS a.. ca "-- Q) c Q) (.9 a: w ffJ ~ Z W ~ o z w :;! <( z ~ Q. ~ Z W :: a.. o ...J W > W o w a: a: o 9 CL a: o u o z ~ <( U ....J W ~ CG ~ rll-l ;; ~ ... -< >.. ] o ~ = l ; ~ J! S en .! :i .5 CD 1ij u en c ~ CD (f) & ~ /~ ) SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN COUNTY PARK ~ " DALY CITY RESIDENTIAL R-E RURAL ESTATES DISTRICT R-1 SIN GlE ..FAM I L Y RESI D E NTIAL D I STR leT R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - R-3 RESTRICTED MULTIPLE FAMlLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT P-C PLANNED COMM ERCIAl DISTRICT OPEN SPACE o-S OPEN SPACE 1/4 1/2 R-1-E-P I DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY DESIGNATOR ZONING DISTRICT ta o Scale in Miles FIGURE4.0-4 ~ Existing Zoning Designations 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies. E3. EI Camino Corridor R.edevelopment Plan As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project is an amendment to the approved El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment were adopted by the South San Francisco City Council en July 14, 1993. An agreement between BART and the City of South San Francisco for the SFO extension was adopted by the Ci ty Council m October 22, 1997. Subsequently, the BART board authorized award of contract for station construction m November 18, 1999. In accordance with the General Plan, Section liB" of Planning Area 11 - which contained detailed policies for the development of transit-oriented uses along the El Camino Corridor - would have gone into effect at that time. However, a comprehensive update to the Genera 1 Plan! which replaced the 1993 land use policies, was adopted on October 14, 1999. The land uses proposed under the Amended Redevelopment Plan reflect both the policies and land use designations for the EI Camino Corridor contained in the updated General Plan. E4. ABAG Regional Population and Employment Forecasts The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the San Francisco Bay Area region, which consists of the nine counties in the Bay Area. Among ABAG's responsibilities are the preparati~n of regional population and employment forecasts for use .by other agencies in the Regional Air Quality Management Plan! the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Regional Water Quality Plan. Based 00 ABAG's Projections 2000, the. entire Bay Area region is expected to grow to a population of 8..03 million by 2020 (from 6.02 million people in 1990). Th~s represents an increase of 33.40/0 over 1990 Census figures. The City of South San Francisco (Sphere of Influence) is projected to grow to a population of 69,800 by 2020 according to ABAG, an increase of 27.80/0 over the 1990 population of 54,608. Total employment within South San Francisco is expected to grow to 54,310 total jobs in 2020, an increase of 23..00/0 over 1990 employment figures. It should be noted that the 2000 ABAG population forecasts are based 00. the land use designations of the General Plan prior to jts 1999 update, in which sites within the Existing Project Area were designated primarily for high-density residential uses. Since the updated General Plan has revised these land use designations to a mix of lower density residential and commercial uses, a decrease in the buildout population and increase in employment over the 2000 ABAG projections would be expected. The updated General Plan forecasts a total population of 67,400 and as many as 71,400 total jobs a t buildout; these approved population and employment projections are expected to be incorporated into 4 ~ 0-12 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies future ABAG forecasts for the city and region. The anticipated population and employment within the Amended Redevelopment Plan would be consistent with the General Plan forecasts. E5. Air Quality Management Plan The Project Area is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). For a discussion of the project's consistency with the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan, see Section 5.2, Air Quality, of this SEIR. E6. Regional Water Quality Plan The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) was developed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan is intended to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the San Francisco Bay Region should be managed to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible. Specifically, the Basin Plan lists the various water uses in the Region; describes the water quality that must be maintained to allow those uses; and describes the programs, projects and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this plan. The Basin Plan implements a nwnber of state and federal laws, the most important of which are the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the federal Clean Water Act. lhe U.S. EPA has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the Clean Water Act to the State and Regional Boards, including water quality planning and control board programs, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The proposed project site is part of the South Bay Basin Hydrologic Planning Area, and includes Calma Creek. Calma Creek is not identified as a significant surface water in the Basin Plan. As part of implementation of projects rmder the amended Redevelopment Plan, all necessary NPDES permits would be obtained for both the construction and ultimate development phases of the projects en individual sites. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into the development and final design of drainage facilities that would be reviewed as part of the building permit review process. Given the expected compliance with state and federal standards and regulations (which will _ be made conditions of project approval), the proposed project would be consistent with the San Francisco Bay Region Basin Plan. 4~O-13 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies E7. Congestion Management Program The requirements for the. Congestion Management Program (eMP) were enacted by the State Legislature in order to address traffic congestion in California's urbanized counties. The Legislature noted that the existing transportation system relied upon an overcrowded street and highway system that impacted the economic vitality of the state and diminished the quality of life in many communities. The CMP became effective with voter approval of Proposition 111 in June 1990. Proposition 111 provided for a nine-cent increase in the state gas tax over a five year period to generate revenues to fund transportation investment statewide. In order to receive those funds, wban counties are required to prepare, implement, and biennially update a eMP. The current eMP for San Mateo County was adopted in 1999~ By statute, the 0v1P has seven elements: 1) designation of a system of highways and roadways with minimum level of service performance standards; 2) development of a uniform transportation database for use in a countywide traffic model and for evaluatmg the transportation impacts of development proposals; 3) designation of a transit network with frequency, routing, and coordination measures; 4) a trip reduction and travel demand management element promoting alternative transportation methods; 5) a land use impact analysis program; 6) a seven-year capital improvement program; and 7) a biennial review of the jurisdiction's conformance with LOS standards, travel demand management requirements, and land use impact analyses. Local jurisdictions are responsible for assessing the impacts of new development en the ~ highway system when preparing project EIRs and for . selecting appropriate measures to mitigate such impacts from a Utoolbox" of strategies. To be classified as a CMP roadway, the roadway must fall into one or more of the following categories: . All existing state highways (both freeways and arterials); . Principal arterials, defined as routes that complete gaps in the state highway system routes providing connectivity with the eMP systems in adjacent counties; or . Routes along major inter...jurisdictional travel corridors, providing primary, high-volume, or multi- modal transportation~ According to the San Mateo County CMP, the designated 0v1P roadways in the vicinity of the Project Area include EI Camino Real (SR-82), 1-280, and 1-380~ There are no CMP intersections located near the Project Area. 1-280, 1-380, and EI Camino Real in the vicinity of the Project Area have established LOS thresholds in the eMP. According to the analysis presented in Section 5.1,. Traffic and Circulation, the project would not result in a deterioration of either freeway below its established threshold. 4 ~ 0-14 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies For a detailed discussion of the proposed project's impacts to the local and regional circulation systemJ including CMP roadwaysJ refer to Section 5.1 of this SEIR. E8. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan Airport L~d Use Commissions (ALVes) are established by California state law to coordinate new development in the vicinity of public use and military airports and to make recommendations, which, by promoting the compatibility of new development with existing and planned airport operations, will protect the welfare of nearby inhabitants and the general public. An ALUC does not have any authority over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning for areas aroimd airports. The ALUC must make a determination that general plans, zoning regulations, and any proposed new development ~ its planning area are in conformance with its Airport Land Use Plan. However, local governments can overturn decisions of the ALUC by a four-fifths vote. The San Mateo Connty ALUC was created to regulate larid uses in areas that could be affected by the operation of SFO and other airports in the County" Of primary importance to the San Mateo ALUC is the intensity of land uses under the flight paths, the compatibility of projects under consideration by public agencies with current and future airport operations, and the adequacy of construction mat~rial. The 1996 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan identifies land use policies related to noise compatibility, safety hazards, and height of structures for geographic areas in the vicinity of SFO, including the Project Area. With respect to noise policies contained in the Airport Land Use Plan, the ALUC has adopted a 65 dB(A) CNEL threshold for noise-sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, and churches.. In accordance with ALue and state requirements, the City requires noise-sensitive uses developed within the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour (shown in the Noise Element of the General Plan) to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL. New uses within the affected portion of the Project Area would be subject to these requirements. Certain types of land uses are recognized by the ALUC as hazardous to air navigation in areas in the vicinity of SFO.. The safety guidelines in the Airport Land Use Plan are not intended to be a specific development plan and do not set forth specific uses for any parcel of land, but instead define certain characteristics of uses that, within aircraft approach or take-off zones, would render the use incompatible with airport operations. Hazardous land uses include any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following take-off or an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing and any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach-climbout areas. 4.0-15 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 4.0 Land Use, Plans and Policies Another type of safety hazard is the height of struchIres arormd the airport. The San Mateo Airport Land Use Plan regulations for height restrictions are based primarily (l1 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The height limit in the southeastern corner of the project area is 161 feet, increasing in a northwesterly direction to 361 feet near Chestnut Street, then increasing at a slope of 40:1. City of South San Francisco height limits within the Project Area are well below those required by the ALUC. For a detailed discussion of the proposed project's impacts related to noise, including aircraft noise, refer to Section 5.3, Noise, of this SEIR. 4~O..16 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 VJ \) :g 'C ~ ~ :: r: ~ :: t: ~ tS ~ ~ ;:: ~ ~ Q ~ CI} Q.I .- u .- fIIIIIII4 Q ~ c:: ra iC ...-.I fU ~ QJ == QJ CJ Q u CIJ .- U = ra '-i ~ = fU en -= = ,.-.(0 It/) ~rC ~.~ .!~ ~~ ~= QI ..... CIl ....-4 rn = o U = ftS . ...-.I A.4 .. s:: Q.I e ~ o ...-.I Q.Ii > CU 'T.:J . Q.J g:: ." QJ .-a c:: cu a < ~M~i#t<~~>~~(;~~ ,i!;~;'~Jl~J!~~t:!!i ,t,1~!'j~!i~.l;I!!'i ia ' "'0 QJ> ~ '+ot '0 <a ~ fI'J C1J.....-j QJ QJ < o ~ C QJ P::: QJ -:5 "'0 ~ ~ Q) b.O r.15 l'tS 0 5 0 ~'a ~ o.s Vj bO~ '2 ~ ] ~ 5 .9 ~ ~ ~ ~ :c c.~:o 0 .~ .S ~ bO..E ~ .S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (; -u :g ~ ~ ~ .s ~~~~~>u ~ro~m~>~~~, ~V~V~~o v ~ '.-l 1-4 ... ra ~ '.0 :d ..... tU i... <a ta C/J '"0 I-( ti Q) ~ 0 ... Q,.I ~ 0 tiS ~ QJ ~ U 'CY c:: .U'J 5 ~ ~ t) ~ a ~ ~ +.8 Q) ~ 0 > "8 ~ ~ ~ ~ > &~ .;; ..8 s M ~ X u t: ~ ~ <<s s:: m 0 (tS ~..s .S ns Q) ~ E c:: ca u S ro bO P-t..~ ~ c:: ~ ~ 0 ...... ~ ~ ~~ Q) ~ ~ "'C Q)] 0 <: ~ 2 ~ +~ ~ 8. 5 ~ ~ 5: R ~ 21 .~ ~ ~ ~"~ 0 ~ s g ~ ~ ~ Q) E ~ e .~~ ta ~ ~ ~ c= ~ ~ ~ ~ m Q) C1J 2 ~ U ~ ~ ~.~ e . E9 ~ S 8 e ~ 6 3 ~] ~ 0.-1 .8 :a"t;; e gj t= .5 ;: ~] c= ~ "E ~ ~ ~ M ~ "-' ~ ",e..o ~ 0 M [j cu ~ ~ -< ~ & ra ~ tU (/). 0 .., QJ tJ 0 c:: ~ 0 Q) (1) ~ m ctS as,.c: ~ "C VJ ClJ OJ · ~ 0::: >. 0 ~ (/) 6 ~ ,..c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~] 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 OJ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ CI'J > QJ ""0 \.4-i.~ u; ;>...- > OJ <<$ Cd 0 Soot U U ~ S (/J M ~"~ 0 fI) ~ .~ Q) "tj t1J 0 X s= ca 0 ih Q) ~ "'d Q) ~ Q) l1J ~. 'S [j ~~ "'0 ~.> ~ O~ ~ Q) ><8 "C OJ ~ ,,; s .~ ~ .is S ta 0 "Os :s Clot - > ~Q) ..c:; ~ ~ Q) .~ Q) ..c:' C::,..e: 5 c= > 'OJ "" <1J ~ u.... ::::s Clot 0 ,,~~ Q) -' M ~ QJ U ~ ....., td .... (tS i> r:: ~ "'C U} C/} O-t Ul (tS u U m ~ ,.c . ~ ':4:J c:: ~~Q 5.....0 E~N ~ ~ ~'- ~EN ~ ~.~ Gl~ ~J1 t~ ~ 1: ~o o ~ l1 ~ ~ o ~ "E a o ;: l~ a iLj '1:S ~ . ctS~ "'- 0 tI) 0 "'O..c:: o M o 0 ..e~ o~ ~ .[1 .~~ Q)........ c:~ ~~ QJ C1J ..c:;'1j en .. ...... =00 ...DC]) ~ ar 1;;2 ~~ ~.s ..... ID- UbO r= ~ ra ('J .s~ ""Os ~ 0 Q)...t= ...... en ~.... U t: rJJ Q) QJ~ ~ 'Uj QJ ~ >..... fV a1 rn ...... OJ 0 ~ I--r P-t~ ~ ~ o ~ ,...... I l? I N QJ r.n :=> '1:S c: (0 ,....J trJ QJ :g ~ ~ ;: tt 11.) ;:: ~ is:: ~ :3 ~ ;: tt ~ Q. ~ ....~~ 5~~ E~N ~ ~~' 5~~ ~~~ fil:~ E::~ ~.:t;. ~ ~ ~a l ~ a-... o :s t: a 0, ;:: "E a ~ ]!~ffl1~1:1~1' fa ~ bO a ~ ~ o~ -:S ~ ~ ....f'\ ro ~ · -'0 U · QJ c::: lU ~ ~ C \ol-I ~ ~ "Jj "'0 &:: ...... · f'"'l :~i~~~('.',;,~',...,.,-4 OJ ,-.. 0 OJ. S ,....... QJ IJI.,I..-.. 0 ~,...... ~ ;> ~ :c t-LoI J.-+ .~ 0 Ul c:n e ~ .~ 0 "'C rnl~~J~ """ ~ e .~ ~ c ~ · ~ P-t 8 .8 ~ ~ O-t~ .-1 ~ ~ I:: QJ <( ....;- ~ co QJ ~ QJ.;::I e ~ OJ ]fg:,~ .:; "'C Pot;.a:t:1. R3 tJ . tU "'0 ~;.a.,p ~ ('f} P-t 0 0 ~ ~ ...... ~ u ..c: ..... ~ So-4 P-t (/) ~ cA j~~(\%1I QJ..9..2 s:; .5 u . <1J ~ QJ ..9.E ~ . s ] 0'\ ..... >6 >... +.... '+-I U QJ ~ ~ ~ 0 o..~ QJ C1) Q) "'0 ::lfL, " "'C QJ U Q) U 0........ s c:: ""0 Q) U OJ U (/J 0\ S:;. ~"en 0 .~ ~ ~ r"\ · c: ~ ctS ~ 0 1-1 0 '::~i.~~1 . .' c: > ~ "'0 ..... tJ rTl M Q) ~ > c: "'0.-, + 0 '1'"""'4 QJ -"" . ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ::::s ~ 1-1 ~ . $ ~ +J --0 ~ 0 W!1\ft~~ ;.' ..' <1J Q) 0 ~ · M > .......... 0.. "t:S Q) QJ 0;:; · .... > C-t Q) S v M .+,." $.oj ~ ~ "'C 0 v s:i ..:;::l :~11J.~.'~.") QJ ~..t: ~ '.0 g .8 ~ < Q) ~ ~ ~:t1 ~ 0,.9 0 ~ ~'u 1; ~ ~ ~ t:: 0 = c: "E ~ 0 ] ':~~ff;W ~. t Q)..s = ~ 5 .a "; :P U) Q) -:S ::3 -- ~ S Q) ...... Q) ~ ~ "'0 · > r-.. Q) ~:t1 8 ~ --Os ~ Q) C/) ~ ~ ;'::t~B.' .' ..'r ~ <<S. cI} ta c:: +..c= (tC.;;::; r;I).J:: ...... > c:: 0 QJ ""0 ctS:S C=. ctS u. ~ Q) be .i~~t:,;";/ ~ ~ "'CIa'o en (--. c: ~ Q) "'C E-t ~ ~a "0 ~ f-4 E-4 ~ ~ m +I .~ Q) ~ Q) tn ~ 0 l'U ~ Q) .a..~ ~ '[1 ,~,tH~~,. .. .' ....... ~ ......,...", 0 ~ --c: 0 ~ ~ "..., <lJ v....---t ~ ~ ~ ..... r.. Q) ~ ~"';J ..... ~ ~ ?l~i': :~::f . 0 QJ u...... ..-t..o 1--4 0 III 0 W UQJ ~. QJ ~ QJ ~ 0 1-4.... '\i. ~..... QJ "", ~ ~ ~ ::=:): :'.:~ :=;:r: ....... ......... OJ ...... ca .................... .. .... w ~ .:~\~~j. c ~ ~ e 's< e.! lj ~ c: ~ ~ s .o~ t: ~ CE:: ~ e b.Q.S ~ J2 ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~. 0 ~ ~ :l~~!fu~~*~k ~ .;:j 0 e ..... ro ~ Q) ~ ~ +:::1 0 S ~ ~ c: ~ Q) Coot S rJ) t) --0 cu ..... U Q) 23 OJ O'J:j ~:c :t8j[%~1&:J{t CI) -"'" ~ 0 Pot >,'.-l ~ ;:::,.0 tI) ~ ~ 0 0.. >- CIl Q) "'C "'0 0 ~ ...... QJ 0 0 "'C U tI) S:..!::!'~ r.n :83~ 8}.,.::=av ~:.: · ......t \J ~.. tI) .. ...... \wi ~.. l1li fIIIIII V ,....... ... III ~. :~Mlb)"~~t:4.~ CI)........ Q) U C1J Q) C (C 0 ~ fIJ..... OJ U QJ C1J tI) 6..... s:; ~ ::t ~ ~ ... ..... ............ ~ c: r:E::;:$ 'tj · X If~11~IJ 6 s .~ i tE ~ ~ ] s .~ S g o~ i $ ~ 5 ~ o::a .S cu ~ ~ u ~ > =:s 0 tE u a u < "'d .s o..a:a CIJ ~ ~ ii < u..c ~ ~ .,-1 ~ }~r/p~C<1h*~ .::..:;::-.'. ):..;(1 0 -pit c: b@iw. '. -+-' ta ...:\.:: :)k:r.:: ::~~~ : .~::: "I:~::::::; ..):-::- d'::: : : :::-<.:~ ;:: ):. :- \ \;. /(~ <~~/ :~:: :'..: :;:...,.::: :~:: :': ::.:~::.: :~.:. ?:: ::~ ~~~: :: ~~:::: :.: :.~. :.::;..~; :8~:..::-. :~: .:8:: :~::-U:; ~~]Wr~~LW~~~ ~i.WHrngt=:~ T~UL~~r_f J~~(~@li i~IIJlil< en en '\j Q).-c m ~ be .6 '0 ~Q) ~~ ~o OJ...... ~ s::: Q.J 0 ..c · c;j .~ ~ .~ QJ mt2 So<( ~~ -:SE ~ 0 o~ ..tj ,.-....t fa ::s ~~ .. ...... CI)~ Q).~ '1j l1li r.n Q).......r:; en rtS 0 ~:S:c ] >- ~ .!!~~ ~....... ~:9~ ..... ~ ~ > OJ cc o U III~ I--tU~ ~ca{TJ rt) o . N b.O ~ .5 ~ ~ ~+j:j 0 ~ fJ"J+Jj tJ+x ro .S Q) ~ ':-bO~ ~..E~ e ~'B ~C-tVJ .......s=::s QJ .= 'tj ~ :s .S ~o~ ...... .;; · -t ~.~ ~ e ~ f/) <lJ ,~ ~'E.~ ~ 'filii( Q) c;:: ~ Ei ~ ~ ~8 ..e.9 b.O tI)~:S ~QJ~ .~ ~ Q) Q) ~ I-t U ~~ a o ~ rJ) o..~ "'0 ~'-C 8 QJ .6 ..c: N 1--4 1II::1,..c: 0 .5 ~:@ ><obO ~ .$ .~ co ~ o ~ \0 . LJ M tn \ai l1li ..... t.) ...... ~ ~ ;: tS: U} == t:t 6: ~ ::s ~ ;:: f:t ~ Q ~ lll:~:' ~ . ~ ~ -I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~~J~I'~ '0 .)( ~ J; ~ ~ ~ ] '0 ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ :;~;~~I c:: -:= S c:: m OJ u..o > ~ S=.~...c > \+oc t:: ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ Q) tJ :~~~~~:}UitK~ff Irf t-I ~,..,..cd ~ ~ QJ m 5 0 QJ ~ ~ ~ 0 OJ .s ^ ~ ~ " ~ ~jjW~ml' ,.> ~ Q) \AJ.-.... 0 U) ~ ~ .~.. u . f'1j 1-t .;;::j "tS JlooIoot U .~ ~ u .~ ~~~%kmM, .'. ~~ ,.,... c: ........ ~ S QJ t.-. ..0 :..:= ~ ....... res cu. ~ ..... ~ tn ..-t ~ c.fJ.""'" f.!l.+:81 . .~ ~ J:i,ll (tS ~ · U (J);:S '\j ~ ~ en ~ ~ ~ 'tj...... rn U ..... v .. v ;;~l~~W. .~;""'O Clot ~ ".tj ~ (U ,.. :E ~ Vl 0.. "'C ~ CU QJ'S: ~ c: m ~ ~ OJ Q) '..-$ "'0 u:r: rtS "'0 u:E <<s T~l~i~~_ aJ 0 ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ OJ Q.. OJ ::s 'r:: ~ 0 CLJ Q) ::s.~ ~ > · Q) OJ ... --0 . OJ QJ , ~ . Jn~7i~rtl2. I'I""I! r;:;1.-1 ~. := bO ~ e 0 ~ ....... ttS ~ 0 ctS............ Q) (:; "1""l ~ ~ 0 ca........... QJ ~ --.! ~ t:: ,.. ~ ...-.t ~ ~ ,... ....... ~~~\~A:.ji;I~ V ....,. U ..... U ~ 0 ::s ~ Q) v!:> 1"""""1 ~ 0 ... \J!> ........ ~ 0 \J Q) 0 .... c:: \J Q) 0 ~ s:::: ~~pm~:rrl""^" .. ~ c::: > S '"0 · > :d U ~ "'0 ~ ~ ;> > rd +J.Jj (U 0 1=: ;> > l\S +J "J:! ~ ~:.c tC Q) ~ ~ :P (U QJ it~~lilQ~'~ : -} QJ Q) " ... .;;: ~ U'J ~ ~ ... ~ Q) . QJ c:: l'U'0 tU .~. QJ c:: ~ '0 <<S Q) ~ (U c=' OJ ~ <<S ~ ~r%~t~~~. .:.~ ~ "0 CI'J Q) <1J 0 ,,!'"'! ~ M U U ~..c: E res ~ t.$ .." ~ S S <<S '+-l ~..S ... ~ <<s ....... 0 S ~ ta ....... 0 S ~lrwh1i@1~ QJ Q) s-.....c:".+:: X........t QJ Q) <lJ 0 !> ....,.......-'lI 0 (/) en (/'J S .At...... 0 (lJ en en ....-1 rJ) Q.. ~ en Q.. l~l~~~~ ~ en........ ~ m ~ P-t ~ '0"0' ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ t ~ ~ tU ........ ~ oW ~ t) ~ ~ ~ 'th Ja ~ E-r ';! ..9 ?~M@_; QJ ~ ::s Cd . ~ .... Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ r.J; Q) ..... C; QJ p::: QJ U Q.) ...., ~ Q) 0:::: (lJ .... ~ c: QJ QJ oW ~ c: ClJ l}eH_l Q) "t:$...-t ~ en ~ ~ ~ "'0 c:: QJ .- ...... ~ c ClJ.~ s::= CJ > c:: CJJ > ~~J!U~ E5 > c: U (/) f-4 I5 Q). ~ ~ Fa ~ ~ Q) c:: 0 0 -< .s t1J P OJ c: 0 0 -< t:: QJ <( X OJ ~ QJ <<( >< QJ ~l~tYI:~':~"~ . ~ (d ~ tJ Q::; . e ;; J3 ~ s: ta . 6 a~ ~~ ~ bl: . is a~ ~~ .. 6 Q:) OJ':; . 6 ~ QJ "0 4t%M~~ . q .... ~..... ~ .~ <( .... ~ Q) OJ ~... ~ 0 Q) ~. (U t:: .... ~ 0 Q) >-...., o..c ~~ OJ ..... ~ >-.." QJ W~!~;:ill~l .,~ c:: ~ 0 0 11j CfJ ~ "C c:: 0...... rJ'J QJ Q) 0 0 s= 0...... tI'.l QJ Q) c:: 0 QJ .... en ~ 0 Q) J-t cfl 1J~~'~Mf~!#M QJ.S 0 ~ i:Q &1 ~ ""'tj ~ 0 Q) ; ~ ~ Q) ::s,~ ~ M....-.t ~ ~ Q) ~ .~ ~ JB ,...,.,-4 ~ <<s ::s Q) ~ ~ (U ::1 1W /!i~utM t) 0 Cl.t >- ti W Q) "C ti fI) CU > I ....... U QJ fU rJJ Q) > I "-H U tI) QJ U > I ti QJ U >- I ~J.~~ ~~q1~I:~$'" .~ "'C 0 r. " ~ QJ ..... >...-1 ~.S c= ......:>- Q) "C .......0 = 8...c: 'M > OJ '1j ~o ~ · P'I'4 >- ~ JI\' '1:S ....... > ;.::I jI[ \ P1j %!~K~~%"~ fI) ~ Q) ~ ...... ~ en Q) · ~ ...... S Q) Q) to Q) "'0 QJ ~ S ~ ell QJ "'0 ClJ ~ Ul (1)...... \01# Q) UJ OJ iJ,.l ..... QJ t.~~~~I~i S 5'5 ~ ~ ~ 6] ~ fa <<s e ID 6 ~ Q).~] Q) 0 g 5 ~ Q) .~ ~ Q) 5 ~ Q) g.~ s] QJ g .~ ]1!~~~mtl(U ~ > ::$ '0 t.Lt U ~ ~ ti u <.;; u ~.;; ~ n3';; U tI) U ~ ':S t:: (d -:6 u ~ ~ ~ c:= u ~ -5 to t:l 'i~I!!I:II~II~~!' oJ@~.&L .0''''' ~ (fJ U):a !O ~j~~~~li! ] .~ ~ ] .,d.....>... ,. ~ ~ ::s 0 l!i~lt~ll~ ~1!~~i~i~~1~i0 .~mf:~'l[jli~m~~i 2TJh#Tf~~~j) ~ n ~ r.~~ m ~ ~i ~ j ~ ~ m ~; .S en · ~~ ~;.= "....-I tal ~ ~ OJ o ~ to $~ · ..-4 .......... t/).... ~ c: ttS Q) .-oS ~t o > U QJ u--C r:3'lj ...... c: ta ~ ~Q) ,~ ~m J-t u rajg > Q) OJ QJ ~b o CI.1 ..o.s . to .. ..... .... C1) ~ ~ tU....J:j ~:sUJ OJ ~ <1J "~w:6 o --c 0 ~ . ..... ..... · t:: o~ trJ u..c u.........~ .-1~ClJ J;.tJo:E ~'So Q) OQ)"'C Q1 5-1...... > t'U ~ ~OOM ~m~ ........ <<S ......-:5 .5 tI) ....-1 Q) > r./) fa :J rJj~ ca 0 . )( . f'CS.~ fij ~=.... ttS c:; c:: m ~ o'n~ :t:C:~ m <<S = in ~.s f-i :::: bO ~~~ <~te ~.5 ~ 87j~ en ~.... 0 '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ c ~ fJ) (Cults r.n~QJ ...c::Q)M ............m :i t:: QJ ~ .~~ QJO""" ~~~ ~.~ e obQJ ~ tI)....... QJQ)~ > '1:J ~ QJ Q) 0 o 0... u ~ J2 ~ . ....-I ~ '-'-' QJ ~~ ....... 0 Q)... ~>. g.:a P-tt:: ,:; QJ · fIIIIII '1j ~:; ~r ~ tI).~ :s u '-1-.4 0 o~ x Q) . ~ "'0 1::"> ro 8 ~o.. o~ ~ ro · ~~(; S~~ 0.. 41 ,... 0 ~ ~.S > ~ E Q) ~ t'U 1"fjQ)U QJ........-I bOm~ rub4-1 ~ ~ 0 o e fJ) uet: t:: 0 fa ~u~ ~ I LJ . ~ rf5 N 1 tJ ~ rr5 M I l? I ~ ~ fJ:J ra. Q) .... < 1 ..0 ;:s- rJ) .r ~ P:: ~ ~ ~ CU m ~.Uj ~ ~.9 ~ D::: ~ ~ CLJ 1:1) rg -(Q)Q)..... 0 4-i CO~~~ ~ w:5 "0 .~ J: .t: ~ .~ ~:r:]9 Um~ ,QJc::C V~~ ~ t O.~ ,:e; ~ ~ ~ <<S:db "-H~ 0 QJ ~ ta tJ:J 0 ";i:J .......tQJ --o..t:....<lJ 'U; be fIj ." ~ k > CU ':;1 ~ <1J . ~ Q) QJ ~ ..... ~ ~ S:> "'C SJ .e--< m ~ ~ ] ....~~fJ) 00 ~taaJ<U ........1Tt~ rrJ'" 6 ~ g ~ ~ :s 5-f '*' ,...... 'J...I Q)" 0 (1)~om totj~~ ~ ~.;;~ t;:; r:: o 8:: ~::s \+-t c:: . 0 ~roOo So~ ~. ~ ~ ui. :t:2 <<S [jQ),-" Q)<<St'U't1 ",,~(C~~S.w<1J ~ <1J 0 ,.J QJ CI:J ~ o Cot J-4 .;; CU .... Q) ~ ....OCUfl}>..........\.o6...! O-tQj s= ~ :rJ :a.!S 0 ~ >.S t2l u CIJ "'C ~ ..... Q) tn ~ to = cu ':i:J ~ 'U ai c: >, "lO-4 S ~ ui Cot tri' ~ i:d,.o ~ S ~ <1J '!:!.~ >< ~ "'C C::.1"-4 ~ ~ ~U~m~MQ)~ to~]~sg-fi~~ .E ~~ OJ:: ~'O;a ~ ~ ~ ~.~ OJ~..c: 6 & 0.. -:S g ~ ,,[ S 'E E ~ ~ 0 &:Q U tIl <C c.~ (f} rt) I ~ ~ rr5 ~ 1 t---4 I ~ rr5 ....~c E~O E t.LJ 0 ~1i~ ~E~ ~~~ fii~ B::J3 "E~ les 1 ~ ~ o ::=s E a c ;: 'E a tL3 0\ ~ t o ~ tI) CUi :9 c ~ ~ ;-: ~ (IJ == t1 E: ~ :g ~ = t:i ~ Q ~ 1S ~ ...",..0....1 .-t >::e OJ "'0 ~I~iii! ~ ~ ~ l"~ ~ rs '-'-1 '+-4 r.n CI) ~ ~~ s:: ~t:: ..:g QJ u"'" ro OJ OJ -.---.~ .......~u t:4 u o$... ~ u ,~ 23 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ "'Ou;..J..4rc "tjuXca OJ ~ ~''1j ....: Q) ~ c'" "'0 ...; '"dQJoC:c'1jeuoC:;c:: C=~:pt'tSQJC:;I-I~c:aQJ Ej~~r[~]~g[ -< e:.... f-4"~ 0 ..( ~ E-t "rrJ 0 ~i~~l~i~!l "E ~ ~~ ~ "5 ~ ~~ ~ ~Qj~ cu ~ ...Qj~,m =? f./J > · ...-I > "'C en >" .-I >--tj .~ ~ :t ~ ~ .~ ~ :t ~ ~ 8 ~ Ji ~ .s 8 & .B c8 "s ~ ~ 0 1.-1 rJ:J ..........-.4 0 1-t m ~ .$ 0 ~ ..........-4 1-4 U ~ ~~51~~ l3 o~ 6 s'a ~~~Eio::S QJ c;::: ...- 0 MO. "'0 Q) c: tJ be (f'j U'J air-tQJ~QJ~~ 6.3 ~.~ ~ gj ~ ~o...~~o~~ ~"""QJO 0- t::~6).~~~~ ...;Q"'Ijt)~C::QJ C ~~~ll)~.f1 QJ........ :s ~ ,....-4 · .... t:; QJ I <( 0I0oI f.f.l c: Au:! ~ '"2 ~ ctS ~ 0 5 ] .~ QJ ~] ~ uez:::~~=,('C$rt5 Ee5~ E~C"-.l ~~~ ti~N E~~ ~~~ &i:~ E:~ ~b E e ~a 1 ~ ~ c :s t: a o $::: l~ a iLi .-. . 'T" ''''O~'' .=:; QJ ] c:: tfJ Q) S iil!~lil' c; ~ ~ be ~ ~.g ~ ~ %dNnh'~ ~ be ~ be ~ 3--0 0 3 ~.,H':%~'M' 0.. QJ c:: ta > 0 0 ~ s S :.Q'" 1:~liI10~ ~! ~l~ ~]f~ ~.~~ .::-d:wd~Sk "'0 ~ <<s c:: ij......o c:: c:: (1) ::s .E c:: Q) '~l~{ill.~ ! ~ ~ "~ ] ~ e 08 ~ ~ e 8 i :~;~;,~., I~Jk:.o tJ t'tS!= rn tI} 0 OJ t ;......:5 "'0 QJ l!11 ~ 2 ~ · ~ ~] ~ .~ ~ ~ i 0 ~ ~ ~ "';)""h>:Ai: :s fo...... ~ C1J C/) ~ J-4 ~ c: ~ 6b.... . ~::: ~:: ~ ~~. ~. ~: ~: . :: .._~;:: ~. ~~~ JFb)~U< .-:: ~:~~~:~:~ ::: : : :::-:..:;;: : iJ';~~!ill!~!III~ ~~ ;?~y ~~\~/J <Irllll~~ li!!llll e . \0 . ~ rt5 ~ be) [j 0 .:::: '"d 0 .~ u Q) m r.n .~ 0 ~ JS ~ ~ 8~ & 05 ~ ~ ..c= ~ _ ~"(ri oS'" ~ O-t .~ ~ ~ ~ ~QJ ~ ~ ~ f-4 ~ ~ .......... ~ ::s c.. u ~ ::s u ~ ~ t "'s Q) ~..... tf.) ~ "-'" . s ~ (t; " ~ ~<<S .5:E ~ ;Soo:gt 1tS Q) S ~ ....... ro 0f004 '2 Q) fo :S .. ~ :t:2 <<S co 'Eo ::::s :2 ;E OJ ID .9 a1 >..S ..... 0 UJ ~ "'C ~ ttS "0 J:: . ai Cf'.l f:: . S c: :-J::1~C:; ~= E Er::6~~ ~tj ~ Ou 11 ~ OJ ~ 0 ....s~ ~ ~ U :;;;;l ..- ,..c:: O-to ~ 1::. .....c <1J · ::::1 m c:: :.0 ...... ..... ....... +J ~ (tS o U'.) to' ... l'tS ~o. QJ CfJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] :E ta ~ "5 c= ~ > g) ~ ~ cu OJ QJ ~ fI}'S 0 Ei OJ .a ~ .-l LO 0 ~ .0 S ell OJ S...... ~ 5-1 U <1J 0 ~ > C-' c: Q) s:: '1j 1-04 C1J ~ 0,p;:1 ~ c:: ~ .e C1J Q) > 0 QJ OJ] QJ t:; b .......... '-I-t 0 QJ 1:: bO 0 41"'" ~..... ,. OJ r.J) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~MU"'~I~ Q)oc~>' ~~ [J p-. Q) d1 '+J 0 0 ...c: _~ 8:=: ~ ~ .~ ~ .5 E.!= 0 ~;. ~~ ~o m ~ ~ t ottJ8~~~-= -:E~~~cao..c ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ +J ~ ~ ~ ~ <<S ~ :; ~ ~ ~ :E ~ 0 1) :a e r5 ~ ~ u) oS ~ ~ :8 en,-1 c: 5 fn ~ ~ ~ s:: .~ ~ OJ ~ru~8~:Jj~ c~QJ.,g..:o~ ;;a ti C1J...c: be (\1 ca "'0 · 9 l'tS s:: cu lU u;.Q OJ ~~ liJ ~ Jj s:: ~ ~ ~ t) :P <1J .0 :E~~..c: >..a~ ~~o..a~ ~"~ ~ ~ t).M .~w 5 --( m a (1J ~ ~:-g ~ en ~ ~ is :r: '0 U ~ :a u ,z; 'S ~ ~ 8 ~ o ro ~ OJ ~ ~~ ~~. . . ~-5~ ft~ o N I o ~ ~ I ~ I ~ cr) co I ........ t ~ C1i CI} ~ l1li.... IIII~ Q ~ "= ;: ~ fJ) == ~ a:: ~ :g ~ ;: ~ ~ Q ~ ,.......; <J) (d.o 5J .~ s;O OJ e~s~ui SQ)o5~ 0';; tb e ::s u QJ ~C1J 005.s 0 ~ IIIIUj (C ~ <iJ U ~~l.'U>~ ~ ctS [l~E .~ .~ = ~ ~ ~ ':j QJ 0.... ~ ..9 .s ~ ~ a QJ(tjo~~ ~(l)........... .. ~~=oo~ ooJ9Q1b ~ ~ <lJ >. en ~ 41 ~ QJ Q) ~~QJ S u<<S .~ t1 ~ O-t ~ c..~ ~w.:-~; ~'Oa1~o ] ~ [~.s _<oP-l 0 cI:J S ~ tI) Qj. ::s ta c:ti>t;U tUSiQJ:dh1 ..... 1'1j1::~ ~~~~.s ~ s= :t.fn] .S 0 ~ ~ .., crID ><"0 W Q) (I).~ ~.c= ~::st=caO ~ ,......-4 ~ I ~ rr) .......~o 5~8 E~N ~~~ Et1~ fE~i'i ~ii).. ~l:c:t -s;::s::E ~U) 11~ l~ o '(U ti ~ ~ ~ c :s t:: a 0, $: .~ a Eij Q) > ~ u ctS fo = o ~d 1--1 0 Q):t:2 -5~ ....-1 ~ QJ .~ ~~ OJ .... 1-c m ~C-.t .s~ oS ~ c:: 0 o...t::i l1li'= bO ta ::s --00 ~.5 CI) ~ 5 0 u ~' ...... ~ Jae Q)~ bOo eQj ::s > o w U'1j t:: (JJ ,t.tJl-4 ~ N o ~ 00 ~ I II-( I ~ M UJ QJ .. .-.. .~ Q ~ ~ ;: -c tn ;: t:t is:: Q) ~ ~ == ~ --J Q ~ ll~ll~' :.~!:I f.W~~f~~~t~Ji.j~ "\ffi~:t:;~.; l:m:i~ll .![r~l! ~] .s ~ '1j ctS ~ ~x ~ n~ d~ 0 O~ o .. e "'0 w:S B 1--1 0 (1) Cd '"0 C/'J o4J :d ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ be ~ 0 QI ~ S ~ :;.::; Q) ~ ~ ~ -e a ~ ~~ 5 ~ cI} ~ p:: e;ij;:;; ~ ~ ",E :d ~ ~ ,,6 ~ E: ~ Q) .~ ~ E: ~.~ ~ "J:! ~ .6 ro 0 "'C ~:s ..0 '::1 ~ ~ J9 QJ c:: ~ I:i c: "'0 S ~ e ~ .-0 > "tj +J .5 ~ J9 ~ f.I} ~ ~ ~ t:i .0. ~ .~ c: ~ .6 g ~ ~ ~ ~..-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ QJ c; ~ ~ [; ~ ~ c::: :> 6 "'C ..... ~ C4o.tj en ... tJ M 0 ..... ~ m Q) I:: ~ ~ ~ ~ QJ tJ c:: n 1::.... QJ- m:s QJ ~ 0.. ~ cu ~ ~ Q) 0 ... .. ~ '"0 0 f:O ~ 6 'TJ ~ ~ OJ 0 > ~ ~ .~ ~ '-' 0 ..... Q) ~ ~ "S 6 ~ '"tj .5 (d' ~ ~ :> H <( ~ ~:S ~ ~ ~ J:{ ~ t:; ~ ~ i ai .~ 0 en..g e < ~ j :~ b Fa S e OQ; QJ ~ ;i ru 0 S t) r5 OJ r.J) ~::::=..s:: OJ Ei ~ ~ OJ u:: cu ~ U'J > CL) U) ".c ~.;i " ~ Q).-o.o f/'J L.. QJ ~ C/J C 0 bO --c n cu ..... '2 ..c:: ~ ~ QJ ~ en ;:s S 1-4 ij E-c > ;; J-l ~ ~ J..t 0 ~..~ ~ U ;s Q) 0 CIJ ~ 0 be ~ iJ,.r4 ..... -::S f-4 "~ ..0 ..... 0';""" ..: 0..-1 QJ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ...; ~ ::s "'d 0 ~ QJ 0 ~ ..... 0 Ui oW OJ 05 ...; ':t:J :E c:: ~ ~ a1 ~ 0 'o~'; ~ ~ 0 08 ~ -:E'~ > ~..g 5 '= ~ ~ ~.5 ~ '0 ~ ~ E 13 .... 0 ~ J.ot Q) <t; ..... ~ --.I (1J Q) u:t: Cd.... 0 rJ'j ...... 0 U -..t:: pp.i f./),.,....r bJ.... 0 ~ ~..... ..... 00 t:: 0 Cd <t.; ....., "'0 ;> Q) ~ 0 ~ ~ p... u ~.s ~ u 0 ~ ~s t: ~ U ~ ~.Q 't) u ~ ~ .6 ~ 5~~ E~N ~tS. E~N E~..s: ~fij1: si~ ~~ ~~ E ~ ~o 1 ~ ~ '-- ~ 'E a (::) ~ 'E t} tLi fo 5 bD !:i ~ .s ~~~~ ] ~ CJ) g te""'tS r.n = cn.o~QJ ~~ Ei t; :u ~ OJ ~;E · ..... ......" CI:J Q) uta~> ~ E O1-i C::~:x:1j9 o fIIIIIIII4 tU 0 :=<<$........ tU '"0 5 OJ 1:: OJ ~tfi O>U'JQ) ~O~U (I) ~ ttJ ::s ~ ~b "'0 (U s:: (/) QJ .b.~ ::s ~ VJ' 0 0 ~ QJ · i: ..... ~.d r.n trJ QJ U) :s :;> > .:;( ~ ~ "E OJ a 0 U) ~......... c= ' o~ 0 0 <1JO+::~ en ...... .ra. .... ;s s::: bb U ..... QJ OJ I:: ~e~~ .~ OJ.S ~ $ ~." ~ 0 C1Jef3oo] ~~~-5~ ~~]~;; to o , N ~ 6 :tj ra ....... a ~ ~ res I-t E--t " tI) aJbO b oS en ::s ....'\:3 .E~ ~::E ::au tJ QJ ~~ ~_s ra~ ......-1 tC }1.c '-i Q) ~~ ~ ra o~ ~o~ jj "e C3~ oS ll.lP(j u~ .,.J ,. .s ;g .5.,8 .6 u ra Q) u3 e ~ ~ o~s -;; · S ..c= >~~ B~m tntCo.. rn OJ :J-t ?o ~ ~ fIIMt 0::; ~c=< s::8~ (0 U aJ ~~~ ~ 8 m c; ~ ~ OJ ........-I (j . ca - Q) Q.l ~ "C ~ .:::::1 ~ 0 ]] .~ "zj Cd t::~u ~~Gj ~.... -Jj j!}~] 'ai:s ra S~"E ~ 6i ~ 8S~ t"'\ OJ ::s e>o ..... e &:Q dJ ~~ Q) E.P"4 b~~ r..I) _. ......., QJN:t ~~s:: a.W '1:1 Q) · ~~Q)6 ~ ctS ~ 0.0 ~7~J9 ~~..cr.n co c-' , N ~ N 1 ~ , N ~ Q) .... ~ll ~t: o Q) OJ 6 J-t QJ ttS > ~e~ 1--4 ^ QJ .~ ~:>- ~:=QJ ctS -~ :c (/) 0 U ~:c .,... ra ta > ~.... ~ .... (3 tIj ~ CLt c:: Q) (/) 0 S = tI) ~('3'" ..9b~ QJ "tS ~ [; ;0:= --c$u~ ~ a3 .:: (J) ca n:s Cjj'1J t;E1~ ~~ t <1J a t: .=~ ~ &~u OJ · ,.... I--I......~ o ~ ttS .....J:jb OJ CJ) c:: :1 \..t-4 0 :Eo~ ~~QJ o rJ) rJ) u8.E N N o ~ ~ I t---III ~ N ~ fIJ ~ .0 .. ...... ~ ~ ;:: ~ ~ ;= r:: a: ~ =:i ~ =: r:s: ~ Q ~ :~ITI~~ QJ " ~ ~ . C1J ~!I;L ;;:.;; fa c= 0 Q) ., -.. l.'ti';; 0 :~I~';' ~ ~ .5 ~ ~ E: ~ .t; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.; · ~w,,~~~ .: 0 ...... ~ "'tj fI] · --- X CO "'0 u ~ -<: '"0 Q) totj :Wirilr .: en S ~ ...... Q) Q) -1j ~ >. Q) 'J: Q) a:: r ~ ... 1:::. =: Q) ;I?~':'~~"" U" en] tIfj rn cu < 0::::1 ~ (1) .::1 ~ "a (1) '-' U:3::S -ru :: <.'!!!~' .:>~ <<S ] . r.n .0 =::J tI) :c .. ctS ~ ~ C1J t= ~ 6b ii = ,,9:L. 0'" in L OW!" '., ,..., ..... · ~ ctS (JJ ~ ~ · "'" 4J ~....r:: ... ~ .. ""'" tU ~ 0 "'C cu ffi/~?~1~2<" "~"i s~ ra ~ ....... eta...... c:: \W c: ~ v ":i:J ~ ~ tIl ~ .~. I-t Q) ..... tI) 1~~L,:; :=' ~ U) .0 {fJ 0 t: QJ c:i .oJ:: ~ Q) 0 I 0 ~ Q ~ Clot l1J t'tl !~tl~l'~ ~. ~ 0 (1J -< "-c ~:d 0 ........ .... OJ.,.o > ~ c: rl ~ cu 0,.0 be h'imd. '. _ u ctS c::: QJ 0 cu 0.... 0 QJ,........ Q) rd 0 ~ ru....c: - ] 1~;!RBW.' '-:': ~ \.tl > c: 0 ~ ~ ~ I;/) 0.. ~ u ~Q) > ~ -::6 ~ fJ) ~ ~ QJ>:E · tlk i{. -~! ~ OJ..g l"(j cti":iJ ~ U) fa,..; 0 ~ {/) b ~ ~ c ~ ~ 0 QJ ::s J-4 1[% \.' 1.b ~ u <1J "'C fU 0 0.. ~ b == U "t"'I ID:r: en UJ 0 fU 0 o4-l "tj 0 <<S Jj:m&~ cu ru ~ ~ :; ~ tJ o:;i QJ W ~~ ~ .. CI) ~ .,;0 1n ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.. ,&01_..c:: c:: "'C '"d -t ~ ~ rJ} OJ v '"0 ~.~ ~ tJ c:: t-I ~ U c:: QJ w.~~~~& E-t rd Co ~ c:: .E: c: ~ ~ +J . ~ '-:: g "2 t'tS ':t1 0 ~ (od <<S ~ . ~ td "U aWf · is: :t: u .i'9 ~ (d ~ ~ S ~ en U'J ;: p:: 5 ~ . rs:: b(l~' fa e is: G Ij~1I c= ~ .e ~~CIl 'E ~ Q) Z ;, ~ ~ ~ g "0 :0 ~ 'E Pfj. g] ~~;E jf.~'YBlW<<~,,' Q) d) l-I Joo'o4 Q) P.n !:s QJ 0 its ..... ClJ Q) <tS QJ Q) u... C1J Mulfl. iii ~ 0 s:: 't) ~ ~ '.-4 s:: U Jj QJ "'0 ..... ~ ti ~ 0 ~,.C 'l:S ~ ~k%)~jr&..... C O-t.=...J ..... QJ ~ <U ~ 0 ~ tIl ~ c:: ~ 6 ....... ~ N ~ ~ c: ~v pqir~!~ tI) Q) (/) ~ ~ CIl "'C ~ ~ c.,.... · ~ Q) Qj,.. ,...-4 CJ'J QJ " _ ~ ~ Qj :; ~~'~i~I:~~~~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ +J ..... C 01"'t 0 ":iJ QJ +t "'0 'ti; ~ Qj. Q) t:: c:: ;:: ~ (/) E 0 ~~i0 ~~ 0 ra ".;..... 0 fj > 0 "'C ~. QJ ~ f"(j = > 0 ~..s M (/J 1-1 .~il~_ Ubi> U U J-I ~ ...... .~ fIl {jj O-t~ ..~ C'CS ~ U < ~ 0 -< <( 0- b() ~ ~ QJ ,;. rJJ '1:S > v~ .x c .et Q)~ Q)~ ::::=-1' ~ Qj m ~ ~ <<S ..... m.~ ~ ~ :;:t/} b.O::S Q)a ~] ~b f-I ,Q 0 m ,........."" "'C ~ ~.$ a] ~ ~ ~ :... .~ S :s "'C ~ ~ 28 "Ow ~ ~ , fa~ ~~ "E ~ > :t:J gj~ 8~ ~ "Qj ~ ~ ~c a~~~ ...... ....... QJ ~ .. ~ ~ ~~~ .= ~ 0 E:...-1 "'0 '1j ~ JS m L1fWl (U QJ ] .~ .~ ~ .~ ~ ~" .>0 S .E ........ \;I1r,J M -J:j ~::s ~QJCI) ClJ 0 dJ .a .5 :g ~ .!:= :::s "- >~ ='~ ~ E ~ crt "'0 u:::! ~~ ~~'E ~t~II~~!~!~ i~~\~;m[M1~~ II[~ :I.~ -w.~~ E "-I e::; E~N ~ts~ ~iN ~~~ fil:~ o:~ ~~ [~ c ~ ~ Ii-. C :s t: {j 0: $: 'E a Ej ~ o ~ N I Cj I M ~ ~ I ~ I M ~ ~ (U :g ~ ~ ;:: t: fI} = ~ 0:: ~ =s ~ ;: ~ --.J Q ~ (%111"", . ~ ~ Q) :t: :c ~ Q).s E....... ~ II~~~ u~ ~ ] .~ ~ ~ ~ e:g E t' ~ 'ff ~WI: ;.~ Q.J 0 .... ,..,.. 0 QJ ClJ > ~ ~E=~~~t ..~ ..'-. ,.. i ~ \ow ~ U ........ ~ QJ ~ ....c:: wrkti "',' :~ -:5 ~ Ul O-.t s:: u Ci) ~ ~ ~ :iil,~ 81~ ~~"'~E~~~j Jh~/L.: t:: "'C Q) <( .;; U) QJ ~ i3 fa:5 (tS f:f~2'[~~ "...-I Q) --a OJ ~ 0:'= UJ l'U 61:c 5 h~':"::O)I^" E fa.:e ::s OEM W Q) Clot S be ::<~'@J@v~'~::;; ~ 0 -:S bO S u "'0 be ~ ~ . ~ <<s be :~.\:::~)P::Dm& (tS en] QJ .E OJ ~ ...... .. ..... ~ YH),ill~@f '.0 "'0 ....;;> · tIl ~ 1-1 0 ;::l 8.1,0;ii;;;~ QJ fa c= (:I' 0 ~ {/} 0 c:: ~ '"0 .. . ,.g.,. <:!=!i!'1 ~ ...... (U Q)'-' \ ... 0 ,....j 0 'IIIIIt :c r.J'J. ..-1 e . e e. :[~li~~1 :~~~::~8;:::~m imp:/1;~: n~4i,)1?U >. ~ b.O ~ en ...... Q1 0 .~ c:: ,,~ c: ....... :C ca OJ s::= C1J · .... ~ ~ Q) ~ Q) ":"'1 ~ OJ S I: c:: " e t>,.o Q.I *'0 Q) ~ ::s ~ rc Q) ~ 9>< QJ ~] ~ S Fa ~ o~ ~P: ~ E: e ~ ~ CU ~ '0 ~~ ~ Q) be~-. ~.S ~ Ei .~ (/) ~ <<j ~ [; :E ~ ~ P-t io> < c:; Q}:p QJ QJ "'0 crJ Q) tU ~ "'0 0 ~ en..c c: dJ 0)( ~ 5 ..c:: <<S o.fi ~ fr.)C! S ro Q::( ~ l'\S t:) aj bO ~ 0 o::s CL.l.J:J :: "'0 QJ QJ OJ > g ~] '0 c= ~~ ;.~ ~.;; ~,s] ~ (t).o 1::.~ OJ ~ ~ Q) ~ [J..c: S rtS <: th~ ~ .-c .fi "2 5 ~ e ~ ~.~ ~ o '0 .v V1 ~ ~ ~ ~:E < 9 tE ~ .~ ..... c:: rtI...... \4-1 r1l ~ ~ "'C ~ ~ 5i [j C/) "'lj 0 ~ --C "Tj::: ~ ~ c:. ~ QJ =' ..... l-ol ~ QJ ':j s:: .... U t> -.:J rd Q)....., U o~ ~ QJ ~ .... cu ~ OJ Q) ~ ~ ~ s :a s~] s ij=8 ~-:S fij~ a ~ 8 <1J U 0 l? ~ s:: ct ~ .5 t:: S E: -:5 ~ J5 li~8 E~N l~~ ~~~ ~l~ c:~ ~~ tc5 ~ ~ ~ t.- o ~ E a o ~ Os a ijJ QJ be m Q) M CI) U ra ta ~~ ru J-I tC .5 ~ ~'1:1 .......QJ ~ M ~ .S ::Sc-t ~~ M~ (ItS 0 O-cCl.l '--0 .e--~ .O~ ClJ c: ~ ta · ~....,rJ:J ~ rJJ Q) .~ 1U ~ -t:SQJO s::e~ ~ ~ ~Os:4 ~ ...... aJ !tS 00'" "'C ~~ ~ (fj ~ co c:: ~ trJ ou...... :c~ m .;.c; QJ "0 ~ rn..-.I fa.s ~ ~bO~ Q).S ~ >~ ~ Q) U t3 O..!2~ ]~ n:I:9 tn r.n ~m ~~ O-taJ ~~ O..c: ~~ o CJ) ~o~ QJ:.:::I t:~o ~J2 ~bC m,:a .2:! · ~ .s Q) '1:$0 c:=~~to rJ) en ~ ~ .....-4 U rn co c:: Q) ]> QJ 0 M l-4 ~Q... 8.S o ~.... U Q.J cts u m Q)Q.. '1jCTJ .> &i 80- ~o ~ N . o ~ r-l I c..J I ,...... Lri rtj o I ,...... u-) u"'C ;:I~ ..c =' ' Cl-&IDoo :cQJ i~ .~ l-4 U ? ta ttS m ~~CI) lI) Q.) :~ ~ ~ == ':t 'IJ :: '=:!t s:: ~ ::s ~ == ~ t-J Q ~ 11~1:%!ro . ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~tn QJ ~ 3~ 80 ~~RF~. ."( OJ QJ ~ C1J (; 13 U .:::1 ~ .;; Cd ~ >" ~ 11j gJ QJ '0:0 m ~ Q) :9 "c: 0iQ' : ~ c: .:::1 c:: 0;:: " U ,.c:: ttS (/) ..... 0,::: 0 ~ f.-4 0 > ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 -= :t >. .E b.O l~f~I'Iffi OJ ~ QJ Q) c.... =' f 00 Q) . Q) c: c:"'::S tE o.:e; "0 0 S 0 ~ · ~ ~ 0 - c:: en s:: %W~~. .~":t e; <<S ~..c: Cd ID Q) ::J > :E QJ (d gj (\J c:: o~ fJ'J .e-.'~ .0 o'.S ~ ~ Q) ~ ~~;~~< : i~..( ~ e ~ s:: .... ~ .fi 0 '0 en S E: ~ ~,;; ~ ~.tn . "'0 ~.~ ID.> u ctS u:m tJ '0 .: . rJ) I)i~[i .. t CU U ..... j"" "'0 Q) ~ > ai Cot jo,.l'\ "'t:S ~ .... CIJ,,= ~ Q) ::s '-t J-t ... U Q) :.c OJ ...., J-l X t;$1S?;1 .. .. 'f ~ Q) "'0 1:: '-"I1""""f 'E 0 ..-01 S""tj 0 '-MJ "'::l c: 0 t CU U <<S "1j 0 ra" Q) s= 0 ~ c:: · ~ c:: 0 IV Jlf;~~i'.. t '+3 ~ ~ QJ:E ::s Q):::: <. ~ ~:E ::1 (1) ::: ::s ~..-4 ~ ~ > fa ~ .. 0.-1 E: Q) e . Q) 1:: J-c :%~J,;~' :..r;:: l'U t'U S 0..,04 s:: "'"0 (U > 0 01""1 c:: 6i en U ~ <1J ra .~ :,tj ~ 0.. "'C O-t e ... l\S " i~r~~*fl ~ ~ .ID ~~ ~ j ,pj ~ g :g ~ ~ ~ j e ~ .f~] E ~ 0 ~.~ ~ ~ 6 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~j1t~~ ~ 0 :E QJ ~ "~ .~ ti ~ ~ Cd .!S "c;j .~~ Q) c:: ""0 <( ~ ...., S u f-t ~ :d ~ E-' Qj (U ~ ro :i~~lii;~~~wll";p > ~ [; ~ P-4 ~ ~ .~ a:: .~ .0 ~ ~ c::]~. ta fa Sj ~ c ~ s .9L, ~ (U .f! c= . > a1 ~ ~ ?\~%i-;B"""::l ~ ClJ ':W ('d · c= ca ClJ M +J rd en CIl ~ ~ Q) coo < ~.,... Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ ~~~~rrJ~tl;; '.J ~ .~ "'0 ~ 0 "'C b "E ~ O...-l '-t QJ 0 '1j J:j "E s::: Q) c:: S ~ u ~ ~ 0 t";:I "'0 0 P\j aJ Q) Q) :]~l~jj~~.../ ...; ~ ..-4 (d ... ~ ... Q).,g u P-4 5 S +' ~ ~ Q) 0,8 e.~ ~ 0.. o..c '-' ~ >..Jj...c ~ 0 Q) be -E b.C ~f~~r~~~fu~I' ~ c:: ~ 0 ta · 0 "'0 c= ~ S (tS >- ~. S "'C c: ~ S t'IJ 0 .b OJ r:: 0..9 ~ Q) t1J G.2 C-' i:.fi ~....-I ~ rw1h@$.f.1 ,d QJ 0 :p ~ Q) QJ ::s t"'\ ..... ::::t Q) OJ 0 QJ Qj ::s ,..., 04-1 r.I'J r./}.1"":: Q)........ QJ ::S" ~ ~ ~~ OJ 0 s:i rJ} s:i ~~\jtb78~~ ~ > c= aJ I-t ~ I ...... UJ cu ~ VJ '-i c:: . J-II-I (fj OJ +J ... QJ >- I \.1-.1 U ~ ~ > Q) 0 ~ 0 ~~~kr7~ff~':.: h.~ ~ QJ ~ l'tS '"0 0 ~ f!.t ~ ru U ta l:l "'tj 0 ~ cU "'t:j ~ .~ > QJ '1j ...... .,... "u; ;>...c >....-1 Q) "..-I !:\!1!~' ~ ~ CI) ,.. "'0 O-t Q) CO ^' Q) Q) ~ QJ O-t < Q) ClJ ~ Q) "'0 Q) o:r: c: fU ~ ~.......-.40 tTj~ r/) U)~ ~~ .~.:/illJ~ = 1-4. ~ e >< > 1-'-4 ~ ~ ,. II ~ c=: >< ~ ~ 0 ~ '1j. ~ "'0 >< ,.,...., Q) ....-.!....... 'tJU · ~ - ~J~18F' 0 ~ UJ C1J -8 ..-t4 OJ 'J 0 ~ Q).8 ."... ...-t4 ~ S 0 ~, Q).8 v OJ ...... \J....-I~....-I > ~ ~wJfJ~> ~ ......-4 Q) 0 0 ~ (JJ ~ r., OJ c:: 0 ~ QJ ~..o 0 ~ .J:: C=...r: ~ C >- OJ C ~ t~~~~M~ U Po.. ~ u u ~ "fj ~ 'W 1"Ij, I:; U ~ "0 co l'tS.... U ~ ..... m :j;J · ~ (d;> ~ 0 ~ QJ (U QJ .fi~ Q)'S .....~ o ::s Et:l 8.S ~cl ~:~ijr.~;m,] a ~ ~ .~ "..~n.JBI (U ,- U) J-( ;~~~I~ ~~ (5 .6b i $~ <<S (\3 tij-b ~ 6 o '-I-t · ".0 QJ b() ~~~ 1:: ~ 0 o e 0 ~ofr ~.....<<s res ::s u b<<S'tj "'dQ)~ ~~ ~, o.~ \IW ...... en :i Ki a '"0 ~E l: ~ me ~ ~ ,,0 ~ OJ ... (U ~ bJ:) :;~~ o 0 u UQJ>- c:: r./).~ w::s~ <)HrNWHtllii .;:~~:::~~: :s.:.:..:8=-:r:}::~~ ~1l~~I~f;~I~I~ N . LJ 1 rtJ ~ :;. i ~ 8 ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~: r ~ c= Ee=~ E~C'J ~~~ ti5N Et:~ ~~~ fil:~ ~~ ti~ E ~ Q...C ~ ~ ~ ~ 'E a 0, ;: "i~ a Ej ~ o .. ...... r.n "~ OJ ~ ~ m ~ ~ .9.z; CL.o ~~ ~ ra OJ QJ .E 6 ...-; 0 rn~ ~ S rJj OJ aiii Q)oo t; .S (l) U .0; 2~ u~ tE--o S>. u.c (/'j ~ ts - ..... ra ~ QJ be tn N I o ~ M . L? I rt) ~ (I) ~ :g Q ~ "S ;: tS: ~ ;:: '3 6: ~ ::s ~ == t: ~ Q ~ :iir[t~ Q) ~ ] ] ~ ~.f.f.l ~ ~ ~ I~JdtP~t -:5 a ~ > s ~ .~ :s a ~ ~ Q) ~ III.~ fU ID ..... 0 ~ ~ ~~s ~~ ~ -5 '"0 ~ . ~h1~~ll:~Y~1 b() OJ ...... c:: c:...::s ~ (fj ~ 13 rI) ro ~ S ~ ....... ell ~~~~:ll. ~ ~ ::s > .~ CD (d gj Q) c:: QJ c... QJ CIl. 0 QJ ~ > ~~.!.s~ 5 [s::~]~ ~] ~~] ~]~fi~ ~~ ~~1l: ';'.'r "':j 5 "0 0 ~:s ~ 0 :.= u :;> ,.-.4 '"CS. ~..o j;;i 0 0 s:: 1~.~18~f."..'.!' ~ ~ ~ co> :c o.~ :::: ~ .s ~ g ~ ~ lrt ~ 00 ~ c .s ,0l>;"h " ~ ~..~ 00!>:J...t t:: pJ (/) ~ ... 0..., \I J Q).~ td ~ ir.'&'iDl;'" ;J :tl OJ .. >< ~ 0 QJ crt ..... J!} j."> tI) :t:t:o fI:J ~ ...... u. ~ it~_l ~ 0 ai ~ ~ c:: .-* ~ .~ ~ ~ C:...rJj .. ~; ~ os: m ~ ~ .t+~l~I::"~ " '\ r.n :: "'0 <<S C1J..$ (/) .- m .s .~,!g 0 en :ct OJ .,tj -:S ~ .0 .Th~L'....~..... t; .;1 00 ~ ~ c:: ~ ~ P-t 0 p.. ~ ~ ~ ~ .5 u c: 0 ~ .ifr.]~~II;' .'.;: ~ ctS Q) ~ ':i:3 "'0 ~ ..... ~ <t; '"0 P:: ~ 5 ;J ,.?4 ~ "'0 (C rd ..... ~ 'fi~II:>~~~ 8 ~ .s s; ~ cU ~ .g ~ ~ .: ~ < m ~ ~ a ~~ ai ~ . ~f:m~~t~~I': ~& >. QJ (lJ S OJ J:: to S l'\1 ~ ~ a1 c <( S OJ ~ ~ Q,l S Q) U) lDt~i~r,,~ ::a ~ en 8 ~ ~ :r ~ ~ ti ~Q) t; ~Q) CO ~ "tn ca ~ .s ~ c.. C1J :3 ~;";ft,bf@l; ~ ~ tt'l ~ "'C 0 f-4 0...... · ...-I Q) 0 · ""'" .... ~ ...... c= 0 ..... M 18i~Yl~*~! Q) Q) Q) Q) Q... <( aJ Qj 0::: tIl ~ t/) b (f) .E ""' QJ Ci1 ....-1 <lJ Ill~jJ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J5.~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 a ~ i:~ ~ t~ 0>. .v,.,oX<~. "'w '::E ~ ~ <1J ",'-..,.)W!i~ u ~ 0 Q) Q.J .;i OJ · ......~ cacu...... ~~ bD:'= t:: .Jj m 0';::1 ::s ID ~ = I::r l-I ~ ~.!= ~ U c: cu l'tS fa c:: OJ Q) OJ 0 e ~~~... "tj ::s ~ ~ ~ra E S CJ"j~o..QJ ~ 0..9 -:; a5 u~ QJ..Q ta.5 ~5~ti1;j >:c>~:s ~ <<S tV "'0 ~ ..-4 ~ ~ c C-' > 60,.... 0 ~ cu QJ 0 :t2 ~) J-I J...4 U '-J. ~<1j~Btj c: ...... fIJ rJ'j t::t ~ \.I-r S=, 0...... woo 0;'= QJ u~ ~ttS>'1j~ ~::.1:tj~O ~~1~~ ... f/'J J9 e ; a:l ~~ ..... ~.....~ QJ a ~.5 u ~~"O <1J r:: Q) ~ e (t$~~ ........... 0 :s ~~e~u ~ ~ ~ < .5 ~ .0 QJ.S -5Ptj oS ~ ~~ ~ ~ ;:so.. ~~ !:e rtS~ .So~ o QJ --.~ 2'1j ~s M ra t\S M ~~ o ~ ]..~ vi ........aJQJ o J..t ~ c: rJ) o~ 5 ~= 0 r.n u u OJ QJ Q) M ..... ~ ~ e tU ~ c... bCJ 0 QJ .s ~ -:5 .~ ~ ~ &0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <1J ~.o~ ~ ~~ VJ cnt--4.....~ ~ ~ ~.fO"t ~ ~ ~ [ls SJi~aE s~~P:~ :t:J ~ ~ '\j '1j c:: (C --c .. OJ 0 ~~~]~ · ...-I :t2 +J QJ QJ ~~~6o ....~;1< ~ c: ..-.4 ~ QJ ~ ooQ)';;"* ui .~ .s "'0 ~ ::s ~ c]:s~ ~~ 8JS ~ s]2 '1j Q) i: rJJ ~ o ........ O-t ~ e~~ ~~~ <<S cr ~ ~~t:J aJraa....... ~ ~.s tn.,,~ ~....... OJ <1J>Q:l o o.~ ....... J..4 c: en ~ QJ ~"'O"'O u o~~ o 0 rJ'J $..t = ~ ~~Q) ~ ~ ~ .~ >- s ~o.-. MO$ .......,....c v C C1J ~ QJ -fi N eo~ 0........--0 Jato Q) QJ 0 5:i :5"'-= P"fj~S .... r.t:J ...... 0 o6i~ .. u8gC? QJ c..:o C(). ~..9~~ ~~o5b ::J ~ ~u: N rt) ~ N ~ ~ t-!.. ~ . I I I M M Lr) N ~ ~ ~ cO ~ ~ ~ ca en "'0 ~ ra .;; ~ m QJ :t iI:j.!Z.. .... ~LS~ L"", UJgTWtk;f~ Q).... +t -5 ~ <<l ~;o w:SQJ::s ~~ tI} OJ "'0 U) VJ OJ ~ E Q) ~ '1:$. ~ ...0 n; :1 rn ~ ... ~(j~Q)~ 0 n:s c:: ~ ~ 00 cu .~ .9 0 ~ Qj .~ ~ CI) Qj ~ ~ o~~aio~ ~ CJ') ::s '"0 ~ QJ Q) en CIj ~~ ~:ErtI~~O ~.... e~.s ~ It 5 QJ Q... OJ 1::. ~ "'0 ~ .:: OJ '1j 0...... tJ) en t; OJ..:;:j ID "'0 [j ..... --0 ~ ~ c: u ~rE:p~~Q)~ o U.= Q) u.5 = ~ .9 Q) ~ bO"t1 oS QJ N r.n .s m .~ b · oS CO ~ .,8 b.o~ :a> .~ [ oSE (ij"t1 ~c: ..cro QJ rJJ '" :a s ~QJ a1:c ~ 0 .-0 ~ aj ~ Q) *"-t ~ .~ .2 :pO::S .......~......... ca bO Q) ~..E{j .~ tn.S ~ ~)( ~Q)~ o..~ > ..... 0 aJ uoo........ OJ ..... Q) ....., U trJ o QJ..~ M:::: 0 ~QJC:; T-I . l:) I 0\ OJ rJ) ~ ....~~ ~~o E~~ ~-=:t~ tiiN E~~ ~~~ sl:~ ~l~ l: o J ~ ~ -E a o 1.: .~ a EJ '-0 N o ~ fJ) fU :9 ~ ~ ;: t:t ~ ;: tS: E:: ~ ::g ~ ;: '= ~ Q ~ 1i~'ll ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ g : a ~ g ~~~r.ll 0 a ~ U -< Q) 0 ~ ~ "lj oS 0 ~ s= ~ .5 f.~dm[I%%J ...... ~ 5'!"1 ~ C:O Q) ~ QJ ';:y:( ..c S ~ ;:: ~ \ ::i It) ~ en . · t= OJ :s I ^ ~ tJ) ;;~%~~lli?:~l1 Q) v '-""'- 0 ~ ..c: r.n · 0' QJ ...... ..... 0.0 .... \O.,J ...... bO \0 ;J- ~ :iWtlll. >;s 0....... :t: t= ~ CI} ... t; ~ ~ "tS 0 · rJ) 00 ~ Clot 0 "'0 0 QJ U1 00 ~ Clot 0 "'C 0 QJ :1~~OCwjr ~~iK1>>ii t/) 2: "0 Q) >< ~ m ~ ~ ;::s ~ c: "0 Q) ~ Q) 0 (U..... ~ ~ >,..-4] ::s OJ · ra.E ~.-..4 > ~ ::J OJ · iln~*_ Q) c:: to ro 1-1_ Q) 0 ~ · ~ ra 0 1"I"'f .,a.J 1=:...r::: o...-t --.J C u U <tS 0 <1J. 0, ~ ~ t; u U <<S 0 Q). o. ~ ..J !~p+~~ ~ td 00 OJ c: ~ "0 u v m ::s ~ QJ tIJ m c= .... > ...... 0 ~ m c: J-l > .... 0 UJ '~~1!~f11 ij ~ ~ ~ ~ {j .s .s] ~ ~ ~ OJ 1.~ ~ 8 ~ .s ~ ~ ~ ~ ID ~ ~.9 ~ os ~ ~ ~ ~ ID ~ ~ .g ~ U~$FiWLI~ -..4 "C Cil ~ c= "-t bO ~ u. 0 0.5 !3..9 :: .9 ~ < c:: en ;:s :I:1 u U rd .~ ~ < ~ rJ) ~ J:I u U t'U.~ ~ < rni':~!~_1 (U c:: +J 0 ~ ~ u . S :.d ':.d 0 tn Q) c:: .g '-" <1J en rn ~.. cu ~ -- 0 .. ........... Q) tI) CI:J C/) . OJ c:: ~ 0 ...... ............ t%;J;~.I>..i, is OJ ::s Q) u ... 0 (t$ · fI'o4 ...... ~ > co'"" CO ~::S <<:I pJ oe-.. cu ~ ,. ~ ~ ~.~ ctS ::s 0-' QJ P-t ~ ~ ~ \-i+)~~~~ ~ 0 C/} ~,......r.....-4 fJ':J 00.", ~ Q) Q) Cd u Q)......, Q) 0 ..-0......, t-I ~;:I IfIIP"If ~ Q) 0 P(1 ~ i-I . ~ ~ ;8f::~H~idf' ......c QJ ~ ca ~ 0.... ':d 0 ..... v c:: u J...; · ...... V,...J \J ... C U l-l · ""'" I,J t-J \..I :W~~!~~N:; OJ 0 Cf.l ~ en ~.-= ~ · ~ 0 ~ ~ Q) S Uj 0 5 M c.'tS ~ g} Q) ttl 0 LO ~ ~ l\'S ~ ID OJ JJ:.1 0 LO i~~~~I! ~ QJ..o ~ .0 ~ 0 ca = bO~:; gj res .~. ~"E. c:: ~ 7ti 1-1] :::: ~ 'E.::l c: fa ra ~] :: ~ $.ii'>J.iXv ~ ~ ~ GJ s:: · CI) ...... ,. en ~ ttS U Q) 0 .E '+-l OJ "'0 0 c= =s !> Q) Zu U ~ Q) "'0 0 s:: :::s ~ Q) Z u ~ );'~~m~~@jb: t; ':t:J = "e; 4:: U c::; Q)..~ .~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ti Q):tt 0 "0 ~ S .~ 0 tn Q):t:: 0 "0 ~ ~ u .~ 0 imm~if.~i~~ti ......c ~ ~ ell """.-. 0 ~ tLJ ""0 "'0 ~ 0 <JJ ,- - , V tfJ . _ "\:I ta ~ ..... ......,- ,-......... ..0 VJ ~.-I --c m 41 ,.-( . .,....,. ,...... ....Q en t:htt~~t~~~@: t/) W ,... (/) \ V < ;::::I ~ Q) ~ ~ tI'I""'II 1-4 ~ Q) t/) tI) I"'f bO.... > t-l ~....,..t :s (/) (/'j " bO ...... > t-4 .."...t:::s en ~#.i~%it, c: ~ QJ Q) M .B 00::S.-J ~ tt v ClJ 0 OJ s:; -.-= :c ;ij 01""t ..... .......... ~ rJ) OJ c: .-J ..0 ;a · ......... ~ t.I) QJ ~l~~~~llt o. 9 ~ ~ .~ a:r t Q) 's (j (j ~ ~.~ ~ ~ i ~ 0 5 Os ~ "0 .5 ~ ~ OJ ~ 0 u .s "0 ~ ~ ~ i:Q QJ ~ .:~~tI11' U be <1J <<S ~ U rJ) ~.5 · S (Ij 1-1 U ell OJ U · (t$ · S --tj..o Q) U .S <<s .5 "'C..o QJ ~ Q) u ra ~ 00 fIIIIIIII( OJ J9 ~ M · a .....::s U) m ~ ~ ~ bh~ $~,$;~ O~CUQ)~ O.,p 6:i ~Z .o~.-t(/)U en QJ QJ tC oo:9.S e < ~ ~ f~ t= itr ~ res \AJO~ tJE ~ 06 o~ ~ . m ~ oo~ ,orc~ \J tr.I I-l 0.::1 ~ OJ M 1-1 t:: u :gm~(L)~ OJ ~ ~1U.w > rJ)"'" ~ 0 :PtCrnOC · .-I a; J.4 Cl.. ~~.8~oO Q) t'C ~ u "0 ~ o~ ~ .s ~ U)tn~J> .S S Q) ~ ~ S:=o..EZ~ ~ ...c: .V; U o~ ~~ fD<,g 1;fatfJ'-'S ~ rJ) bI):@ 'w QJ:alO~ ~ ti ~ \0 .6 ~ !:i Q.. c: oW ~ .e .s ~ .s '-'--t .5 fij 0 ..... .... ~ m ~ .c;j S tbra QJ o...fJ)~"'C o...-t 0 '1j ~ ~.~ ~ QJ Q) CJ) <<S > t-f <1J en ~ ~ 0 .Ci) Q) 41 ..-.I M ~~ ~ g ~~ · ..... bO ~ td c=.S ~ ~ ~~~~u dJ '\j · ..-t rJJ 0 > . .... ..... ~ g~U')~ . (/) OJ res ~ .E ~ OJ c:es:E M Q).~ > J3~""'e en OJ..co ~ .....00 a~J.8u1 u .,... ~ 1-4 QJ ~8 z ~ ~ ~ 0 u o~ rd m. ..... ~ So QJ ~ti~aiS ~ o~r:c ___ (:: ~~'1jtCo ~ ~ tr) .,g :e "S tI'J \0 fr.J ~ ~~~g~ ~:ai:i~= .'W. ,h.. ~@ 1004 · .-1 m 1,:('" ~ <lJ:p ~ I ....... I 0\ In . ~ t 0\ j!~tll~1;1: ~~~ ti -. C5 E~~ l~~ ~~~ sl:~ E:~ l1b E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .E a Q ;: "E a Uj f'.... N o ~ tIJ tW ~c .. ...... '0 CLt ~ = r: fI) ;: f:t E:: ~ ::; ~ ;:: ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Sj QJ QJ ~ ~ ~~ ~. I ~~ ~~ t~r,f.l#' /~ tn U') ~ {/} ..., Q) (1) ~ > .s . >. l1j ,,~ .~ s p.. g ::s (U ~ ..S 0 ",-t ...J ~ 0 (tC........... OJ ~ U 0- c:: ~ ..,... .... s:: be ..... s:: bO > .... ~ ~ Q) ~ '~w.'IJ"~' ctS V'S .... 1-1 (1)~"E O~ u ~ >ta~ 0...... 0 Q) 0 ~ U Q) 5 U Q) S i> ~~ ~s:: ~ 1:~rr.iM. ~ .5 · .. ~ 8:"0 .~ 0 C4 Z ~ c:: (tC "0 S ~ ~ ~:o QJ; .~:g O[/J oC ,,~:g.r.n ~ o~ ~ u:::t ~ !~l'-l.S ~ [j e ca fJ) U ~ U Ei l'tS ~ [). ti b.O r:: ~ c: t) 8 ID bl)"S e ID oo.~ e ~~ (tS 8 ~.rMt.i@~.:...J..:. .j, ~ 10-004 ~.'f""'I ... ~ c: 9t.t::..-...AA ~ 0 ~ ~ C:o 0 .... 0 ~ 0... .....s U'J ~..... 5.-t ~ fIIIIIIIIt ~ S QJ .j; (liw<B ~;::s....... u ~ Cd. ~ ij} < -...... """""'.... - ~ __ 0.0 Z::s '-H ~ ~,.., ~ ttS " .:i]~iw!, '.1 OJ . rJ} ~ ~ .~ QJ E:: 0 ... '-"' cu ... ~ . a1 ~ <<S <<S ~ . tn oj C1J 0 --g 0 c:.J 0 --g ..8 QJ 8 ~ .19" ~ >m%l}'k. .,~ ~ .~ <lJ 0 0 "0 t: S ~ ~ c: QJ 0 O~........ c::.~ Q) ~ GJ.~ ~ x......,...c: ~ ><..::: ~ 0 ....".~ '+01 1~!;~Wr ::] E-4 'ZJ ~ u ~ "c;J "'0 .....J 0 "0 f-I Q} S u ~ ~ 0 = "'d 0.0 0 E-4.~ (,J >- ~ .~ tJ >. ~ u VAJ ~ ii dL",w,.' c: 1=i ta ~ OJ' Q} ~ 0 lO S ~.......... ~ .,p"O.... 0 "'0 ~ · ~ 5...... · ~ S:;j "0 ,8 ::s ~ !f1f.i~~:,;,T ,; ~.~ t: (d (d Io-t ~ Z :: -.::t1 ~ P-t 0 OJ OJ ~ tU Cd m..r:: ~ >- t: ~ · ... · ~ c: ta 0 ... = 1: .....5 Q). :: ~;br;*b;~j Q) -'d 0 c: ::s ~ fj U '-4-1 Q.J 0 "i ~ u ~ tJ..c: c.J ~ ~ J-4 QJ QJ ([3 a Q) Q) tn (tS en Q) "'0 ;j:c r~ljl!jtt~~t~\ tii Q) ~ .0 7d OJ ~ U .9L. ~ t) Q) > · $ o~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ .'E. ~ ~.d ~ $ "0 ~ ~ ~ :~ f:: i.Cii ~ Whi1ijfJf~~ .U1 "'0 00 :.c > ~ ? ~ en ..... > Q) ~ o:x: ~. t'U 0 ~ i> 0 rJ')'.-.4 "-t ".d rJ)...... "-t :d ::s fJ'J..... ~ en OJ ~~f~im"J~+ ~ ~ :tj ;a = ~ ~ CI} Q) Ia ~ ~ ~ ~ QJ ~ S ~~ ~:o c ~ ~ ~ t: ~ ~ ~ c: c: & > ~.o ~)l;N~<iNr 0 u. ~ "'C1 v <<t ~ Q:l QJ ~ 0 Q) QJ";::::i c: Q) ... c:: > OJ r.n !:! 0 ~ a.J 8 0 ~ Q) ~ 0 0 Q) ~ U 1-4 :b;@~]i[IT%~ U IS = m . S -5 ':t:J ~.c QJ U ,:z::: ~ = Cd ~ 0 S ~;:> c:: ::s tI'J U 0./''0 U c.. f'(j M..o U .... ~ ctC Q.. .~: ~ ~ ~ ~r:.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i?t;. 001-4 .S ..E ~rii ~ OJ ,.c... & .~~ QJ OJ ."... OJ ~ ui .~~ ~ ~Om be" ~ 5 ~ a; != ,00 ~6~ ~ ~.S \.( M ~ ~ Q) QJ o c.. ..0 ~ 0 0 (Q: '-Ir-III ...... aJO"'O C/) rJ) "0 ~ e t:: 0 QJ ~~QJ o ~.-c ,..-.l b.O CI) o~...... Jj.::I c= ~ p,.. Q) o e e u rJ':J ~ QJ '"d 0 o:S~~ ~ ......... ~ .S ~~ Q"1 · c;1 ~ &~ ~ ~ I ~ I 0\ ~ o ~ ~ OJ . ..... ~ t-a > ns be ~ "6iJ tc$ ... ~ o ~ U (Jj ~~ Q) 0 ~o ,.o~ tn 0 s:=f! .,g .~ e ~ ..9~ d~ OJ m: u~ . ..... ~ 0....... ..c........ . Q) u ~ ~ Q).S ......r..1'J ~~ 0.2 ~::s Q)bO ;s'~ en ~ rJ) 0 <,J:; u ~ be oS rJ) ::s o :r:: be "- c::~ ~ oS .> ::s 0'1:$ 1-& ~ Q...o ~a1 ..000 rn en ~ ..... 'E ~ ;::j · S 1--4 ~ O-t bO 8 ClJ.5 en tI) ~ ::s g == ~ ~ O<U'TJ ....-tXQJ '0 .s .a c: bfJ ~ o · S ........ .1"1 0.0 E ~rans e :; 6 ...0""0 c: u c: o ~ rd U trJ .... Q) "'C QJ ..c:~Cll ... ~ g OJ U) 0 ~g;;,.o ...... . ,..... ~ ::s 'E .~ S QJ U':J .~ U fij US .s ~ ~ N ....... ~ co .s rJ) ...... '8 ::s CJ :E .. ...-I rJ) en Q) u u ra ~ OJ C-t Q.. ca u ;a ~ ~ ,..c: ~ o c; .9 en ::s ~ u · c::z; ...... u OJ · 9:L. ~ 0 ....... J-I CLt ClJbO ~!= ~ ::J4I~ ~tf.l Q) ~ e:::.2 u C1J ~~8 5~o E ..... ~ ~~~ E~f'I E~.s:: ~iU~ s:......... t:t ~ ~~ Q...t/) ~~ [~ o ~ t1 ~ c< ~ o .'1:3 "E c u o ~ 'E a ~ ~ o ~ trJ \Ji l1li ....... ~~ ~ ~ ;:: '= Wl == ~ E:: ~ ::s ~ == c::s t-J ~ ~ .Iji~~ ~ ~ . 0 ~ ~ .5 ~. i0kbr.r,1 Q) o....c: ~ 0 ...... .-,.04 · .... -' :s 4f:~m1f~~r ~ .... O..-U to ~ ~. · v Q) i~'..E:; ~ ~ ~ ~ ] JS ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 5 ~ :'~l~1 ~ ~ <<S · '"2 :9 ~ ~ 6"0] ~ e ~ -;; ~ 'gj ~ 60 ,4k#,q$'tG:: QJ = "'0 "'0 ... I-t tJ"4 0 0 ..-1 (/l en ,... 0 ~ 0 ~ ~~Jll~"jtil ~ · u '1j ~ ai 0 ~ ~... "0 t;:1 ~ ~ . UJ ~ ~::s ~ ~ (~ill~.fl. :. . T I-t e Q) ca ~ ~ u bO Q) ~ 8 0 UJ .::1 0 Q) ~ ..... Q) · If.~'" " '.' : ~ f/) ~ ~ be ~ ctS ~ be 0 ~ ~ ^ V'J Q) U.......t en ::k~?~.~.:.; C1') o~. ;.t1 < QJ~" C1J ... 0 UJ""" ~.1"'4 ~ .S:!... \J Q) 'Fak~w:::=( 0\ Q) "= ti1 5 ...-4 ~ U "1j 0 )( 0 ~ 0 ~ lo-l .~1~~~*~f,~) 0\ en t: QJ m ..c ....-1 ...... J-I ... Q.l c:: ~ m =" f;~~!~~.l l'"""t 0 <1J .fj .s. ~ ttS 0 ~ ctS cv 0 ...., Q) c..'" en ~~'~il ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ] ] ~S ~ .~ .8'] -:zs ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ :l~1~& .. "'C --t ...... ':iJ ~ to P-t fIj .... t:i:t · Po4 ~ --.r: t:::e :~]ffi?~~~ ,,~ ::s ~ ~ ... 0 ' .$ · ':p :8r::~1~Vri1. ~..~: ....... OJ ~ 0 "'d""tl I-t 0 bO 5 ...... ~ (t) " I ~ ~ ~..-I 0 <~8~?'~~ .' n3 OJ U ~v en.'" > ~Jj 'fr~f;It.~J ~ '-t Woo U .a ~.S bb .s ~ ~ -.-4 In ,... 0 ~ ai ~ <<S Jri~7iil~ ...... ~ ~ ~ CJ) · u:O x ~ 8 d t; ...... .... ...... ~ > ~~~~~,.~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ ~ .~ ~ a:.~ Q).S ~ ~ tb .~ ~ t1 I~'J 6 ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~.~.]:g S ID ~ ~.~ :~ ~ 5 g ~ m>wgnq~ U .:= ..c:: ..c: ~ "0 ~ U)..-4 U) U ~ tn"= ra. tt w U (J U ~~l~~~lfL~~f{ L '".. .."..01~ "0 ::s e ~8~ t).o ~ ~~~ Q) ~ ~ .fic::rJ) ..c:ctSQJ ~U}.J: '~~ ~ ~..... · 'fIIIII ~M"'O S ~ OJ o rLJ.S u"., ('j .9:;~ U'J "'0 8 ..... ~ ~ t'U m S Cj) ~ ~ ~ (0 ~;E~c: ~:E<.,!g QJ=~P-4 '1:ImraQ) ..--I ~ ......-t rJ) .ca e Q.. ~ :.00""""0 ~ U ~ c :g OJ frj rJ) en..... ~::J<-:= ~ ~ ta & Q) c: s"~ ~ ~ 09'"4 < ~ ......... 1; ~ .S ~ e ~ ~ ~.... C1J :s ~z.s8 U LO .....D:::O 5-'8 E~N 1 ~ -.. ~~ EN <f(~~ ~l~ 0-..(1) 11~ E ~ ~O c I ~ ~ c :s t o u c ;: l1 a U ~ u) C1J 1-1 .E u :s .b en --; ~ ~ :g r.n Q) t.-t .5 >. b() ~ e Q) QJ > ~ QJ rn ~ o u o ....... CI) ~ Q) ~ 1l rJj ~ 0\ N o ~ ~ I.t) 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. PURPOSE The purpose -of this section is to inform readers of the type and magnitude of the project's environmental impacts. This section provides a detailed description of existing conditions on the project site and in the vicinity, an evaluation of the impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, lists of identified mitigation measures, and an analysis of cumulative impacts. The discussion of existing conditions defines the environmental conditions that currently exist on and near the Project Area. Project impacts are defined as the project' 5 effect on the existing environment; wherever relevant, the impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan are compared to those of the Approved Plan. If such impacts are grea fer than or different from the impact of the previously approved Plan, they are discussed in de t a i I. Otherwise, the reader is referred to the appropriate discussion in Chapter 11.0, Effects Found Not to B e Significant, or the appropriate section in the prior EIR. Mitigation measures are designed to reduce a projectl s impact potential.. Each mitigation measure is iden tified as one that was recommended by the prior EIR, one that is proposed as .part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, or one that is recommended by this SEIR. Technical topics addressed in the SEIR were defined by the Lead Agency after completion and circulation of an Initial Study, in compliance with CEQA. In some cases, the occurrence of an impact and/or its magnitude cannot be determined with the information known at this time. Where such information indicates that a significant impact could occur, this SEIR may identify the impact as Jlpotentially 5 ignificanto " Although the term is used to indicate the possibility that a significant impact might occur, potentially significant impacts should be considered in the same way as significant impacts when drawing conclusions about the content of the SEIR" In addition, potentially significant and significant impacts will be considered in the same way during the findings process on the Amended Redevelopment Plan. 5.0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 lliANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION A. SUMMARY Buildout of the Amended Plan would result in an increase in traffic along local roadways. Under the Amended Plan, significant level of service impa~ts would occur in the A.M. peak hour at Avalon. Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard intersection, Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue and in the P.M, peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/]unipero Serra Boulevard, El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. Four of the five unsignalized intersections warranting signalization under existing conditions would also warrant signalization with traffic from the Amended Redevelopment Plan: Avalon Drive/I-280 SB On-Ramp; Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access; Mission Road/Grand Avene; and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenueo (The intersection of Mission .Road/EI Camino Real is assumed to have been signalized by 2010.) Mitigation measures are identified to reduce all intersection LOS/signalization impacts to a less-than-significant level. No bicyclist impacts are anticipated, but the Amended Plan would result in some pedestrian safety impacts. Safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road, Oak Avenue" and El Camino Real were addressed in the 1993 EIR. Pedestrian safety impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with id en tified mitigation measures. No parking impacts would occur under the Amended Plan. B. INlRODUCTION This EIR section describes the existing transportation network and operating conditions in the City of South San Francisco and the Project Area region, future circulation system operating conditions with the existing Redevelopment Plan and future operating conditions with the Amended Redevelopment PIano The section is based on the "Draft Transportation Study for the South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan," prepared by Crane Transportation Group (CTG), January 2000, revised March 20000 The report and. supporting level of service calculations are in Appendix 5.1, and are incorporated by reference herein. B1. Methodology Bl(a) Study Intersections To evaluate the impacts of the project, the 27 local intersections most likely to be affected by implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan were studied. These consisted of 18 signalized 5.1-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation intersections and 9 stop-controlled intersections, listed below. All intersections are located in South San Francisco except where otherwise notedo (i) Signalized Intersections 1" Hickey Boulevard/Interstate 280 (1-280) Southbound Ramps (located in Daly City) 2. Hickey Boulevard/ 1-280 Northbound Ramps (located in Daly City) 3" Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard 4. El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard 5. El Camino Real/Kaiser Hospital entrance ' 6. El Camino Real/ Arroyo Drive 70 El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue 8. El Camino Real/Orange Avenue 90 El Camino Real/South Spruce Avenue 10. Westborough Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramps 11. Westborough BoulevardjI-280 Northbound.Ramps/Junipero Serra Boulevard 12. Chestnut Avenue/ Antoinette Lane 130 Chestnut Avenue/Mission Road 14. Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue 15. Chestnut Avenue/Hillside Boulevard 16. Avalon Drive/I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard 17. South Spruce Avenue/Huntington Avenue 18. Grand Avenue/Orange Avenue (ii) All-Way Stop-Controlled 19. Chestnut A venue/ Commercial Avenue 20. Mission Road/Evergreen Drive 210 Mission Road/Grand Avenue 22. Orange Avenue/Myrtle Avenue 23. Grand Avenue/Willow Avenue 5~ 1-2 EI Cnmino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24~ 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation (iii) Stop...Controlled 24.. Orange Avenue/Memorial Avenue 25. Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (located' in Colma) (iv) Yield..Controlled Left Turn: 26.. Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp 27" El Camino Real/Mission Road (located in Calma) Bl(b) Analysis Scenarios The traffic study evaluated the following three analysis scenarios: · Existing Conditions, based on traffic counts conducted in 1998 and 1999; · Year 2010 Existing Plan "Updated Analysisll Conditions (i.e., anticipated future conditions with the currently approved .EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan); and · Year 2010 Amended Plan or Project Conditions (i.e., anticipated future traffic conditions with adoption and implementation of the proposed Amended El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan)o Impacts were determined for 2010 Amended Plan (or Project) traffic conditions in comparison to impacts. identified in the 1993 EIRo This section notes where an impact of the Amended Plan is also an impact of the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), c. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ct. Existing Roadway N~twork Area roadways include freeways, arterials, collector roads, and local roadso Figure 5.1...1, Area Roadway Network" illustrates the roadway network in the vicinity of the Project Area. 541-3 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 sr 1$ ~ ~ (,j e .8- s ...., EI Camino High School . Everareen Dr. Qi Q) a: o c 'E rj [j :t ~ ~ tP ~ 0- Westborouqh Blvd '- A~YO~ ~ fn iP o .S E (J i!i C;j , . South San Francisco High School Q) > < CD t:: >. ~ SOURCE: Crane Transportatton Group n Not to Scale FIGURES _ "1 -1 ') Area Roadway Network 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Cl(a) Regional Access 1-280 is the principal freeway providing regional access to the EI Camino Corridor area" To the north, the eight-lane (four lanes in each direction) freeway provides access to the cities of Colma, Daly City, San Francisco and points beyond (San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, etc.); to the south, 1-280 provides access to the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Redwood City and points beyond to San Josep Local 1-280 interchanges serving the Project Area are located at Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard and Avalon Drive. Cl (b) Local Access Local roadways in the vicinity of the Project Area include El Camino Real, Mission Road, Hillside Boulevard, ]unipero Serra Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Evergreen Drive, Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, Westborough Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue, Avalon Drive, Orange Avenue, and South Spruce Avenueo lhese roadways are described below. EI Camino Real, designated as State Route 82 (SR-82), is.a major arterial roadway that extends north . to Market Street in ColIna and south to San Jose. It has six lanes in the Project Area vicinity south of Hickey Boulevard and north of Mission Road, and four lanes between these two intersections. Traffic flows in the Project Area vicinity are predominantly southbonnd in the morning and northbonnd in the evening. Mission Road extends between EI Camino Real just north of the City limits (in the City of Colma), south to Chestnut Avenue. The route has two lanes just south of El Camino Real and widens to four lanes in the Project Area vicinity" Two-way traffic flows are relatively balanced in each direction in the moming and evening; however, traffic volumes during the morning commute period are higher than those in the evening due to the added traffic from El Camino High School during the morning. Hillside Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway in the Project Area vicinity, bordering the City near its northeastern boundary along the base of San Bruno Mountain. Hillside Boulevard extends north through the City of Colma to Mission Street in Daly City (Le., to SR-82, the northbound extension of El Camino Real) and southeast to U.S. 101. Traffic flows are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening, Junipero Serra Boulevard is a Jour-lane arterial roadway that extends south from the SR-l/I-280 split in San Francisco to Avalon Drive in South San Franciscoo Traffic flows are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening. 5.1-5 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation Hickey Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway that extends westerly from El Camino Real into the neighborhood west of Skyline Drive" Traffic flows just west of EI Camino Real are P!edominantly eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Evergreen Drive is a two-lane residential roadway that extends between Mission Road CI1 the west and Hillside Boulevard en the easto The route nms along the southern border of EI Camino High School Gust.east of Mission Road)o Traffic flows adjacent to the high school are predominantly westbonnd in the morning and balanced each direction in the evening. Near Hillside Boulevard, traffic flows are , approximately balanced both during the morning and evening commute. Grand Avenue is a two-lane roadway that extends easterly from Mission Road to downtown South San Francisco and an interchange with the U.5" 101 freeway 0 Near Chestnut Avenue, traffic flows are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the eveningo Oak Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that. extends between Mission Road 00. the west and Grand Avenue on the east. The pavement is in average to poor condition. Westborough Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway that extends westerly from El Camino Real to Skyline Boulevard, where the roadway name changes to "Sharp Park Road." East of El Camino Real, its name changes to "Chestnut Avenue,," Traffic flows en Westborough Boulevard are predominantly eastbonnd in the morning and westbonnd in the evening. Chestnut Avenue is an arterial roadway extending easterly from El Camino Real to Hillside Boulevard. The route has four lanes near El Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard, but narrows to two lanes' where roadway widening has not yet occurred (Leo, east of Commercial Avenue)" Traffic flows are predominantly eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Avalon Drive extends east and west of its partial interchange with 1-280 into adjacent residential neighborhoods. A southbound on-ramp and a northbormd off-ramp only are provided at the interchange. The route has two lanes on either side of its interchange with 1-280 and four lanes through the interchange area. Traffic flows on Avalon Drive through the interchange ,area are predominantly . westbound during both the morning and evening commute periods" Orange Avenue is a two-lane street extending both east and west of EI Camino Real. To the west i t curves to the north and intersects Westborough Boulevard at the Camaritas Avenue intersectiono To the east it extends into the neighborhood east of Grand Avenueo Traffic flows. are more than double east of El Camino Real compared to west of EI Camino Real. Orange Avenue provides access to the local road serving the South San Francisco High School parking lots. 5 ~ 1-6 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation South Spruce Avenue is a four-lane roadway extending to the northeast of El Camino Real. It narrows to two lanes in the downtown area of South San Franciscoo It also extends west of EI Camino Real into a residential area. Traffic flows east of EI Camino Real are predominantly eastbound during the moming commute and westbound during the evening commute, C2. Intersection Turning Movements Intersections, rather than the middle of roadway blocks, are almost always the critical locations for the capa~ity of a local circulation system. To evaluate existing intersection operation in the Project Area vicinity, A.M. and PoM. peak hour turning movement traffic counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group at the 27 study intersections in October aIld early November 1998, just after the beginning of the SEIR Shldy. Additional counts were also conducted at select locations in the spring and fall of 19990 Schematic diagrams of the number of lanes and their type (through, left-turn or right-turn only, or a combination) at the approach.es to each intersection are presented in Figures 5.1-2A and 5.1-2B, Existing Intersection Geometries and' Controls. The existing turning movement volwnes are presented in Figures 5~1-3A and 5.1-38, Existing A.M. Peak Hour Volumes for A.M. peak hour conditions and Figures 5.1-4A and 5.1-4B, Existing P.M. Peak Hour Volumes for P"M.. peak hour conditions" The overal~ AoM. peak traffic hour was found to be 7:45 to 8:45, and the P"M. peak hour was fonnd to be 4:45 to 5:45, although a few intersections were found to have their individual peak hours offset by 15 minutes earlier or later.. The peak traffic hours at each location were, however, used for analysis purposes" C3.. Intersection Level of Service C3(a) Level of Service Methodology In order to understand the current condition of a local roadway network, a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) is commollly used by traffic engineers and plannerso An existing LOS analysis has been performed for each of the 27 study intersections, (i) Signalized Intersections The LOS grading system typically used for sigt1alized intersections involves a rating scale which ranges from LOS A, indicating Wlcongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to LOS F I indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches" For signalized intersections, the LOS scale is also conunonlyassociated with an average vehicle delay (in seconds) 0 The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular 5~1~7 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR Marc1124,2000 ~8_~ 5 WeStborouQh BlveI -~ ,-- ~ ........ Avalon Dr ~.- ....c. E ..~ o ~ m en q; l o .S E (j fij ~ ;;; Stop Sign 0- = Signalized Intersection ~ = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection IDJ = AII-Way..Stop Intersection tli N ot to Scale SOURCE~ Crane Transportat'on Group ') ~~ ~1I!l Orange Ave ~~-;. CD "i: ~ ~ + FIGURE5_., -2A. 2100-367 pO 1 Existing Intersection Geometries and Controls EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR -c [[ c o -0 en ~ ~ = Stop Sign [l] = AI J. W ay- 8to p Control I ed I nte rsecti 0 n @ ;:::: Signalized Intersection &. == Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection ~ Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ') FIGURES - '1 - 2 B 2100-367 -01 Existing Intersection Geometries and Controls EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR f c8 e .~ S ~ @9) 665 -l.- 11 0 55 85 I 275 ~310 -.J....J ~ L... +- 470 220 'ntqf11 ' ~ 5 Westborough Blvd 1 00 J ~ ~ ~ t ~ 1 01 0 -+ ~ 245 205 32 o 135 180 -. .~ C ::J ~ 5 Westborough Blvd -)~ ...- 165 t 930 Avalon Crt ~ 180 --+- ~ c:: 215.~ N CD U'J Cii CD cr o c E (J fij n Not to Scale SOU RC E: Crane T ransporta ti on G rou p ~ 2100-367 -01 ~15 +-310 ,35 275 -+ ? ~ran~ Ave 95 .. ~ 1 05 40 1:: >. ~ Q.l > < Q) > c:( -0 C e C!:J ve 12 FIGURES. "1 -3A Existing A.M. Peak Hour Volumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR -c a: c o .~ ~ t 410 n Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportat~on Group FIGURES _ '1 - 3 B ') Existing A.M. Peak HourVolumes 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ~8.q) 5 Westborough Blvd - ) ,..-- ~380 t 455 Avalon Dr ~ 1 50 ---.... ~ c 55 .~ (\J to U) CD fi! o c E ~ jjJ ~ Not to Scale s au RC E: C ran e Trans portat ion G rou p ') ......... 290 .--55 @ 300 ---lIt- ~ ~ran~ Ave 85 -. ~ 90 60 ~ >- :; ~30 va FIGURES.., -4A Existing ~M. Peak HourVolumes 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ~ N at to Scale so U RC E: Crane Transportation Group ~ 2/00-367 -01 '2' Kaiser ~ 1:] a: c o +0 en :i Evergreen Dr t 940 FIGURES_1 -4B Existing RM. Peak Hour Volumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.1 Transportation and Circulation projecto The relationship between LOS and delay at signalized intersections is described in more detail .~ Appendix 5.10 (ii) Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the LOS A through F scale. LOS ratings for the nine unsignalized study intersections were determined using a methodology' outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM). Under this methodology, intersections with stop signs for all approaches (all-way stop) receive one letter designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection as well as an average vehicle delay' valueo Intersections that have only side streets with stop signs or for which a particular movement must yield are also evaluated using the LOS scale. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and average delay designations pertain to the entire intersection, in the analysis of intersections with side-street stop signs, LOS and delay designations are computed for individual turn movements or approaches rather than for the entire intersection. The relationship between LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections is described in more detail in Appendix 501. . C3(b) Level of Service Standards LOS D is considered by the City of South San Francisco as the minimum acceptable operation for sig~alized intersections and those with all-way stop controls; LOS E is considered to be the poorest acceptable operation for the movements or approaches to intersections with side street stop signs or yield controls. The City/County Association of Govenunents of San Mateo County (CjCAG) Draft 1999 Congestion Management Plan (eMP) shows that El Camino Real through South San Francisco is a CMP monitored roadway segment. The CMP level of service standard for El Camino Real is LOS E. However, for this study, South San Francisco/s more conservative LOS D minimum acceptable operation standard has been used for intersections along the roadway.. C3(c) Existing Level of Service Ratings Existing levels of service for all study intersections for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions are presented ~ Table 5.1-1, Existing Intersection Levels of Service - A..M. and P.M. Peak Hours. Currently, the majority of study intersections are operating at acceptable levels dtuing the weekday A.Mo and P.M. peak traffic hours.. However, five of the study intersections are operating at unacceptable levels during either A.M. and PoM. peak conditions or both. 5.1-14 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment PInn Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1..1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service - A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours Intersection Hickey Blvd~/I-280 58 Ramps. Hickey Blvd./lmperial/I-280 NB Ramps Hickey Blvd. /Junipero Serra Blvd. EI Camino Real/Hickey Blvd. EI Camino Real/Kaiser EI Camino Reali Arroyo Dr. El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd./Chestnut Ave. El Camino Real/Orange Ave. El Camino Real/South Spruce Ave. Westborough Blvd.jI-280 58 Ramps Westborough Blvd./I-280 NB Ramps/Junipero Serra Blvd. Chestnut Ave. / Antoinette Ln. Chestnut Ave. jMission Rdo Chestnut Ave./Grand Ave. ChestnutAveo/Hillside Blvdo Avalon Dr./I-280 NB Off-Ramp/Junipero Serra Blvd. South Spruce A veo /Huntington A ve. GrandAve.jWest Orange Ave. Avalon Dro/I-280 SB On-Ramp El Camino Real/Mission Rd. Orange Ave./Memorial Ave~ ' Evergreen Or./Hillside Blvd, Chestnut A ve./Commercial Ave. Mission Rd.jEvergreen Dr. Mission Rd./GrandAve. Orange Ave./Myrtle Ave, GrandAve.jWillow Ave. Note: 1. Average vehicle delay is in seconds, 20 Boldface type indicates unacceptable level of service.. Source: Crane Transportation Group Existing' Control Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal WB Avalon left-turn yield SB El Camino left turn stop-controlled Memorial stop-controlled Evergreen stop-controlled All-way stop All-way stop All-way stop All-way stop All-way stop ~Existi~g L.OS!.Delay~ A.M. ... P.M. B/11.7 B/1406 C/18.9 C/21.S C/19.9 C/20.5 C/IB.O C/15p9 B/5.8 B/7.6 B/IO.5 B/6.2 0/26.5 D /30.5 C/18.7 C/18.8 C/18.3 C/22.4 B/5.3 B/8.9 C/24.6 Cj21.3 B/9.2 B/13.3 B/9.9 B/6.9 E/44.4 C/24.0 B/8.3 B/6.1 B/14.0 B/1401 B/704 B/8.9 C/16.7 B/8.0 F/125.5 A/406 F/136.-S F/10l.l B/7.7 B/7.8 F/162 F/61.3 Dj26.4 C /19.8 C/15.5 B/807 C/19.2 E/38.0 B / 8.6 B/7.7 B/7.8 e/lS.3 5.1-15 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation (i) A.M. Peak Hour During the AoM. peak hour, four intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service: . Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue (signal) LOS E . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp (westbound Avalon left turn onto on-ramp) LOS F . EI Camino Real/Mission Road (southbound El Camino Real left turn onto Mission Road) LOS F · Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (eastbound Evergreen Drive left turn onto Hillside Boulevard) LOS F (ii) P.M. Peak Hour During the P.M. peak hour, the following three intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service: · EI Camino Real/Mission Road (southbound EI Camino Real left turn onto Mission Road) LOS F .' Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (eastbound Evergreen Drive left turn onto Hillside Boulevard) LOS F · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all-way stop) LOS E C4. Signal Warrants A signal warrant analysis has been performed at the nine unsignalized study intersections for AoM. and P.M. peak traffic conditions. The analysis was completed based en the "Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant #11" standard from the Caltrans 1996 Traffic Manual. The Peak Hour Warrant standard is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that, for at least one hour of the day, the minor street suffers long delays in entering or crossing the major street. Signal warrants vary depending on whether the intersection is located in an urban or rural settingo For this EIR, the warrant analysis was conducted using "urban conditionsl1 criteria. lhe results of the existing signal warrant analysis are shown in Table 5.1-2, Existing Signalization Needs. The table shows that signal warrant criteria (Caltrans Warrant #11) are exceeded during the A.M. and/ or P"M. peak traffic hours with current volumes at the following five intersections: · Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp 5.1..16 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation . El Camino Real/Mission Road (located in Colma) . Mission Road/Evergreen Drive . Mission Road/ Grand Avenue . Chestnut A venue/ Commercial Avenue Table 5.1..2 Existing Signalization Needs UnsignaIized Intersection Avalon Dr./I-280 SB On-Ramp EI Camino Real/Mission Rd. Mission Rd.jEvergreen Dr. Mission Rd. / Grand Ave. Evergreen Dro/Hillside Blvd. Chestnut Ave. / Commercial A veo Orange Ave. /Memorial Ave. Orange Ave~/Myrtle Ave. Grand Ave./Willow Ave~ Existing Signal Need Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Source: Crane Transportation Group C5. Parking The Draft El Camino Corridor Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Site Alternative Study conducted in 1991 found that there are approximately 750 existing curbside parking spaces within convenient walking distance (approximately one quarter mile) of the South San Francisco BART station site. Approximately 250 of these spaces are located along El Camino Real, Evergreen Drive or Mission Road, The remaining 500 curbside spaces are located on side streets or in residential areas in close proximity to the planned station site. The 1991 study is still considered valid because parking conditions have not changed substantially along the above roadways since that time, Crane Transportation Group conducted weekday parking surveys along all major and select minor streets within the project study area in mid-January 2000. Survey periods were 6:00 to 7:00 A.M., 11:00 AoM. to 5.1-17 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation 12:00 PoM. and 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. A summary of findings, presented in Figure 5.1..5, Existing On-Street Parking Usage, indicates that there was a high concentration of existing on-street parking activity m El Camino Real adjacent to Kaiser Hospital (up to 100 percent occupancy), in the immediate vicinity of EI Camino High School (from 58 percent to 100 percent occupancy depending (J1 the location) and a t select locations along Arroyo Drive and Grand Avenue (68 percent to 95 percent occupancy) 0 In the vicinity of the Willow Gardens subdivision, on-street occupancy ranged from 61 percent to 100 percent. Otherwise, most on-street parking locations in the project study area had occupancies ranging from 6 percent to 65 percent during the hours surveyed 0 Midday occupancy of the EI Camino High School and South San Francisco High School student parking lots was 90 percent and 97 percent respectively.. Survey results indicate no on-street parking problem in the vicinity of South San Francisco High School. C6. Freeway Operation Recent P.M. peak hour traffic connts were obtained from Caltrans for 1-280 in South San Francisco and Interstate 380 (1-380) in San Bruno. The count results are presented in Table 5.1w3, Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour. Traffic flow is predominantly northbound en 1-280 and westbound m 1-380 during the P.M. commute, with observed reverse flow patterns during the A.M. commute. Currently, during the PoM. commute period 1-280 experiences stop-and-go (LOS F) operation northbound through all of South San Francisco, and southbound 1-280 traffic travels are at or close to the 65 mile per hour speed limit. On 1-380, westbonnd P.M. peak hour traffic experiences stop-and-go operation during the evening commute, particularly from EI Camino Real to 1-280. Congested northbound operation CIl 1- 280 backs up traffic onto 1-3800 In the eastbound direction 1-380 traffic travels at the speed limit during the evening commute. Existing freeway operation level of service can be determined based upon two methodologies; observed travel speeds or a theoretical relationship between freeway volumes compared to a capacity per lane per houro Based upon observed travel speeds, northbonnd 1-280 in South San Francisco and westbormd 1-380 in San Bruno are now operating at LOS F during' the evening commute peak hour, while southbormd 1-280 is operating at LOS C and eastbound 1-380 is operating at LOS Ao Based upon the theoretical relationship between volume and capacity! northbound 1-280 is operating at LOS E, westbound 1-380 a t LOS C, southbound 1-280 at LOS D and eastbound 1-280 at LOS C. The theoretically predicted levels of service in the peak travel directions do not, however, fully take into account the downstream congestion which is currently resulting in the stop-and-go conditions along northbound 1-280 .and westbound 1-380 during the evening commute. 5.1-18 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 ~ Not to Scale ~c~ &y S, VyC1 31]] [IDs ~ EI Camino c H ig h School 0 .~ ~ @l97 .......... @ C;; Q) cr 0 c "E cj .& m [g1]15 ~ 12 rn:l Kaiser [g]10 20~ Ent. .......... 6[g] @ -c a: c; o ~ii5 en ~ ~~0 ~{\~\ vv;..0f5 5[[] 2 QJ > <( [1J (ij & .~ 175 ~ @ ........ 4 CD .s: Q) :t: ~ ~ 2 = AM Peak Hour Pedestrians @ = AM Peak Hour Bicycles [g] ;:; PM Peak Hour Pedestrians &. :: PM Peak Hour Bicycles South San Francisco High School Surveyed October/November 1998 SOU R C E: Crane T ran s portation Group FIGURES - ., -5 Existing On-Street Parking Usage 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 501 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1-3 Existing Freeway Volumes and Levels of SelVice - P.M. Peak Hour . Freeway Segment 1-280 (North of Hickey Blvd.) 1-280 (Hickey Blvd. to Westborough Blvd.) 1-280 (South of Avalon Dr.) Northbound Volume LOSt 8,090 E (F) , SouthboUnd Volume LOSl 6,930 D (C) 9 ,750 E (F) E (F) 6,810 D (C) D (C) 81510 6,005 Freeway Segment 1-380 (1-280 to El Camino Real) , Eastbound Volunie LOSt 3,400 C (A) W~tbo~d ", . :' , .. , . V oiUnle . . . . t9:$:~ '~, . 5,800 C (F) Notes: 1. First LOS figure is based on volume-ta-capacity ratio. LOS figure in parenthesis is based on observed freeway speeds, Source for existing volumes: Caltrans 1he CMP level of service standard for 1-280 in South San Francisco is LOS D and for 1-380 in San Bruno is LOS F. According to CMP guideooes, the 1997 reported LOS for 1-280 in the Project Area vicinity is LOS F without exemptions and LOS A with exemptions. The use of exemptions is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips tha t do not originate from the connty of the freeway segment under evaluation. C7. Transit C7(a) Local Bus Routes Local, mainline and commute hour transit service is provided to the project study area by the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans). Table 5.1-4, Existing SamTrans Bus Routes Serving the Project Area, lists SamTrans routes serving the Project Area and vicinity 0 Routes 193, 122, 390 and 391 travel along EI Camino Real. Routes 130 and 131 travel along Mission Road and through the neighborhoods east of Mission Roado Routes 32 and 34 serve local streets in the western and southern sectors of the Project Area vicinity 0 5.1 ~ 20 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MaTCh 24~ 2000 501 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.14 Existing SamTrans Bus Routes Serving the Project Area Route ST32 Description Service between Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue and Arroyo Drive/El Camino Real. Local service including East and West Orange Avenue, EI Camino Re~l, and Mission Road. ST34 Service between Tanforan Shopping Center (San Bruno) and Geneva/Carter (San Francisco). Local service including South Spruce Avenue and Huntington Avenue. ST 122 Service between Stonestown Shopping Center (San Francisco) and Buri Buri Shopping Center. Local service along El Camino Real, Arroyo Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard, and direct connection to the Colma BART station and the Stonestown, Westlake, Buri Buri, Serramonte, and Westborough shopping centers. ST 130 Service between Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue and Daly City BART. Local service along Hillside Boulevard, Evergreen Drive, Mission Road, and Grand Avenue including direct connection to the Colma and Daly City BART stations. ST 131 Service between Colma BART and Tanforan Shopping Centero Local service along Hillside Boulevard, Huntington Avenue, Evergreen Drive, and Old Mission Road including direct connection to the Colma BART station and Serramonte and Tanforan shopping centers. ST 133 Service between Colma BART and Tanforan Shopping Center. Local service along Spruce Avenue/Hazelwood Drive, HuntingtonAvenue, Ponderosa Road, West Orange Avenue, Hickey Boulevard arid ]unipero Serra Boulevard, including direct connection to the Colma BART station and the Serramonte and Tanforan shopping centers. ST 193 Service between SFO and Stonestown Shopping Centero Local service along El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard, with direct connections to SFO, the Daly City BART station, and San Francisco State University, ST 390 Local service along EI Camino Real and direct connections to some BART and CalTrain facilities from as far north as Daly City BART to as far south as the' Palo Alto CalTrain station. ST 391 Local service along El Camino Real and direct connections to some BART and CalTrain facilities from as far north as the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco to as far south as the Palo Alto CalTrain station, Source: SamTrans, 1999 No SamTrans bus routes provide service to either the South San Francisco or San Bruno CalTrain stations. However, routes 390 and 391 provide service to within one block of the Millbrae CalTrain station. Routes 130 and 193 provide service to the Daly City BART station, and routes 133, 122, 131 and 5~ 1 ~21 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation 130 provide service to the Colma BART station.. SamTrans service also provides/accepts inter-agency transfer passes to/from the Santa Clara County Transit District at shared bU'i stops and San Francisco Municipal Railway routes at selected pointso C7(b) BART The BART system is a heavy rail system that currently serves northern San Mateo County, the City and County of San Francisco, and Alameda and Contra Costa Counties 0 BART currently does not directly serve the City of South San Francisco. TIle southern terminus of BART is the Colma station about a mile north of the ColmaJSouth San Francisco border. C8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation lhe Crane Transportation Group conducted bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in conjunction with the A.Mo and P.M. peak period vehicular traffic carmls in October and early November 1998 and at select intersections in 1999. The counts, which show the number of bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the selected intersections or roadway segments, are summarized m Figure 5.1-6, Existing Pedestrian and . ' Bicycle Volumes. The figure shows how observed pedestrian and bicycle connts were significantly higher during the A.M.. peak traffic hour than during the P.M. peak hour at the north and south ends of the study area, primarily due to the presence of high school students traveling to El Camino High School and South San Francisco High School during the morning conunute. Tn general, there was a low level of bicycle traffic on project study area streets. No more than eight bicyclists were observed at any count location. During the A,,~. peak traffic hour a total of about 250 pedestrians (mostly students) crossed Evergreen Drive between Mission Road and Miller Drive toward El Camino High SchooL The vast majority of these students were dropped off from SamTrans buses. About 100 pedestrians crossed Mission .Road (two- way count) north of Evergreen Drive during this same time period, many walking between the high school and delicatessen 00. the west side of the street. During the same time period, 175 pedestrians traveled along Orange Avenue at Memorial Avenue, mostly students walking towards South San Francisco High School. 5~1.22 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 BART Construction Parking -,/ 900/0 lEI Camino High School Stude nt . Parking Lot 1 000/0 ,I Evergreen Dr i'~8% I +- 640/0 CD 0 -+ 330/D~O MSROla 8- 330b I ~~ Cii I( .... a. Sequoia Dr <D cr: gr PE n:J () [jj 950/0 ~ ~ NF Kaiser Ent. ~c~ $yS, :tvcY 0% -.. 1 % -.. 350/0 -.. W~stborough Blvd t NP 34 % --. {' -0 ex:. c: c .~ BART ~ I Access - - Rd#1 NP NP -c a: c o .iij ~~ 100/0 t 200/0 (ij .0 Qi E E o o 970/0 c;;. 0> I .i ~ '650/0 i o South San Francisco ::!: c: 'E High School Student (j Parking Lot [j 320/0 ~ n . Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ') 2/00-367 -01 NP = No Parking ~ = Early Morning (6:00 - 7:00 AM) 320/0 = Mid-day (11 :00 AM - 12:00 PM) 1320/01 = Evening (6:00 - 7:00 PM) Note: The Percentages shown represent the h ig hest of the Three surveyed time periods FIGURES - 1 - 6 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5,,1 Transportation and Circulation During the PoM~ pea~ traffic hour (which occurs after most high school activity has ceased), a maximum of 22 pedestrians were cormted crossing the streets near El Camino High School with up to 12 pedestrians crossing at any given location near South San Francisco High Schoolo The highest P.Mo peak hour count was 39 pedestrians (two-way count) crossing EI Camino Real just north of Arroyo Drive. TIle City General Plan Bicycle Routes map designates "'Bicycle Routes" along Hillside Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, EI Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, Orange Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, Commercial Avenue, Avalon Drive, Chestnut AVen\le and Grand Avenue (Mission Avenue to Chestn~t Avenue) in the Project Area vicinity. C9. Existing Roadway System Operational and Safety Concerns C9( a) Operatiolzal COtlCerns All intersections listed above as having unacceptable A.M. and/ or PoM.. peak hour level of service were observed to have extended to extreme delays during these time periods en one or more approacheso These conditions, along with other observed operational problems that represent significant existing operational concerns, are described below. (i) EI Camino Real/W estborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue At the signalized El Camino Real/Westborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue intersection., there is congestion on the Chestnut Avenue approach and departure lanes, primarily due to the close proximity of the traffic signal at the nearby Antoinette Lane intersection. I-Iowever, this intersection is currently maintaining minimally acceptable A.M. and P.M. peak hour operation. (ii) Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard At the Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard stop sign controlled intersection, drivers turning left from the stop sign controlled Evergreen Drive approach onto Hillside Boulevard during the AoM. and P.M. peak traffic hours experience extended 'delays! primarily due to the high volume of high-speed through traffic on Hillside Boulevardo (iii) EI Camino Real/Mission Road There is extended delay for the left turn moveUlent. from soutllbound EI Camino Real to southbound Mission Road during both the AoM. and P.M. peak traffic hours. 5.1-24 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation (iv) Avalon DrivelI-280 Southbound On-Ramp The westbound Avalon Drive left turn to the 1-280 Southbound On-Ramp experiences extended dela y and backups during the A.M. peak traffic hour. Due to the heavy volume of this movement, vehicles back up from the westbound left turn pocket through the A "alon Drive /Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection and on the southbound Junipero Serra Boulevard approach to Avalon Drive. (v) Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Significant delays are experienced on both Chestnut Avenue and the northbound Commercial Avenue approaches to this intersection during the evening commute peak hour. Delays are somewhat less during the morning commute. (vi) Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Major delays are experienced en all approaches to this intersection during the morning commute. The lack of protected phasing for left turns from Grand Avenue produces the greatest delays for these movements. C9(b) Safety Concerns Along Mission Road and Evergreen Drive where they front El Camino High School, large numbers of students were observed jaywalking before and after school. Students were observed crossing both Evergreen Drive and Mission Road mid-block to access bus stops and adjacent neighborhoods. This situation creates potentially hazardous traffic conditions immediately before and after school each day. C10. Planned Transportation System Improvements CI0(a) Roadways and Intersections The South San Francisco City Engineer has projected that the following roadway and intersection improvements will be completed by the year 2010.1 (i) Hickey Boulevard (McLellan Boulevard) Extension lhe City of South San Francisco, Town of Colma, and San Mateo County currently plan to extend Hickey Boulevard between El Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard. To date, the roadway has not been 5 .1- 25 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 TrRnsportation and Circulation officially named but has been referred to as McLellan Boulevardo The proposed extension alignment is shown m Figure 5.1...7, Year 2010 Intersection Geometries and Controls. The section of the extension within the South San Francisco city limits (Leo, between El Camino Real and Mission Road) will be built as pa,rt of the ongoing construction of the South San Francisco BART station. The extended .Hickey Boulevard will form the north boundary of the station. It is projected that San Mateo Connty will complete the remaining section between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard soon after opening of the first segment, and well before 2010. Current extension plans indicate that the road will have four lanes with separate turn lanes a t intersections between EI Cami1i.o Real and Mission Road and potentially only two lanes plus turn lanes at intersections between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevardo Details of planned intersection improvements are shown on Figure 5.1-7. All intersections along the Hickey Boulevard Extension (EI Camino Reat Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard) will be signalizedo A signalized intersection will also be provide~ midway between EI Camino Real and Mission Road to facilitate access to/from the BART station and the parcel en the north side of the roadway. A raised median will be provided along the extension from El Camino Real to Mission Road allowing right turns in and out only from proposed drivewayso No parking will be allowed on either side of the street. No driveway connections are planned along the Extension between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard. (ii) EI Camino Real/Mission Road Intersection Signalization The Town of Colma has requested that Caltrans cooperate in providing a traffic signal at the EI Camino Real/Mission Road intersection. This intersection should be signalized by 20100 (iii) EI Camino ReallW estborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Intersection An additional lane will be provided on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. It will be striped as an exclusive right turn lane. Also, the southbound El Camino Real intersection approach will be reconfigured to' provide two exclusive left turn lanes, two exclusive through lanes and a shared through/ right turn lane. This latter improvement will be provided in conjunction with construction of the Costco store along El Camino Real. 1 Kianpout, Cyrus, City Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication with Mark Crane, CTG, February 11, 2000, 5.1-26 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 --c " 8 .rg :i ~ ~~t. .- ~AAT Access \.r~~#1" ~ Hickev Extension _ __ -...-\.11..-....-.------- c .2 ii en t-- tr. c( ~a Evergreen Dr ~er Ent .J ~~ __, Hickev lea. --..--...., . J ~ ~tt OJ ti :r ...... BART Accessll...... ~~j~~'. .f t c t .~ ~. ~. ~. c; tV ~ p.. n ~ := Stop Sign m == AH-Way..Stop Controlled Intersection @J ::: SignaUzed Intersection & == Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ~ FIGURES.. .., - 7 2100-367 -01 Year 201 0 Intersection Geometries and Controls EL CAMINO CORAJOOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.2 Transportation and Circulation (iv) Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Intersection Left turn phasing will be provided for left turns from Grand Avenue and the northbound Grand Avenue left turn lane will be lengthened. lhe eastbound Chestnut Avenue .approach will be widened to provide one exclusive left, one exclusive through and one exclusive right turn lane, CI0(b) Transit (i) BART-SFO Extension ' Construction is currently underway to extend BART from Colma to San Francisco International Airport (SFO).. The alignment through South San Francisco is underground and will pass through the EI Camino Corridor study area via the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-wayo lbe South San Francisco BART station is also under construction and will be botmded by El Camino Real to the west, Mission Road to the east, a new street to the south (currently designated BART Access Road #1) and the Hickey Boulevard Extension to the north. Figure 4.0-2, in Chapter 4.0, Land Use, shows the site plan of the planned BART station. The plan indicates that BART Access Road #1 along the south side of the station connecting EI Camino Real and Mission Road will be one-way, eastbound. BART Access Road #1 will have a signalized intersection with EI Camino Real and an all-way-stop intersection with Mission Road. lbe site plan also indicates that the BART station will have driveway connections to EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard Extension, BART Access Road #1 and Mission Road. The driveways connecting to EI Camino Real (allowing right turns in or out only due to the raised median along El Camino Real) will provide auto egress from the BART parking structure and ingress to a residential/ commercial ~evelopment adjacent to the station. BART service to the Hickey Station and SFO is scheduled to begin in 2002. (ii) Anticipated Local Bus Improvements There are currently approximately 40 buses per hour serving the Project Area vicinity during the morning and evening commute peak traffic hours. BART and SamTrans project a significant increase in local bus service once the new BART line is in operation; specific routes and service have not been determined at this time. 5.1-28 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation D. POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Dl. South San Francisco General Plan The following policies in the Transportation Element of the South San Francisco General PI-an would apply to the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment. Guiding Policies: Street System and Standards of Service . 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the anangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled, . 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the eMP during peak hours. . 402-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter J1.1ile of a CalTrain or BART station, or a City- designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. Implementing Policies: Street System and Standards of Service . 4.2-1-2: Undertake street improvements identified in [General Plan] Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Improvements identified include. .. connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station. . 402-1-7: Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. . 402-1-10: Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based m LOS standards~ Guiding Policies: Alternative Transportation Systems . 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centerso Implementing Policies: Alternative Transportation Systems . 4..3-1-4: Require provision of secure, covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. 5.1-29 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation . 403-1-7: Undertake a program to improve 'pedestrian connections between the rail stations - South San Francisco and San Bnmo BART stations and the Caltrain Station - and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: . Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; . Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to acconuDodate increased pedestrian use; . Providing intersection I~ulbing/ to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtownf across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other'high use areas; . Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and . Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. D2. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program . According to the 1999 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP), designated CMP roadways in the vicinity of the Project Area include El Camino Real, 1-280f and 1-380. There are ro CMP intersections located near the Project Area. Project impacts to these CMP roadways are discussed below. For the freeway segments, impacts are based m minimum LOS standards established by the Congestion Management Agency; for El Camino Reat impacts are based on the more conservative LOS D standard established by the . City of South San Francisco, E. PROJECT IMPACTS El. Significance Threshold Criteria According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form)f a project could ha ve a significant effect on the environment when it would: . Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; . Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county c0ngestion management agency for designated roads or highways; · Result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks; . Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; · Result in inadequate emergency acceSSj 5~1-30 El Caminq Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EI~ March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation . Result in inadequate parking capacity; or . Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. . As noted ~arlier, LOS 0 is considered by the City of South San Francisco as the minimum acceptable operation for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections; LOS E is co~sidered to be the poorest acceptable operation for the movements or approaches to intersections with side street stop signs or yield controls. For purposes of this EIR, the following criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of circulation impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. · If an intersection impact was identified as significant in the 1993 EIR but new or additional mitigation would be required to address the impact of the Amended Plan, the impact is considered to be significan t. · If an intersection was not analyzed in the 1993 EIR and operates at unacceptable LOS with the Amended Plan, the impact is considered to be signific~t and would require mitigation. . If an signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection with Existing Plan (1993 EIR) volumes is operating at LOS A, B, C, or D and deteriorates to LOS E operation (or worse) with the addition of Amended Plan traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. If stop-controlled turn movement deteriorates to LOS F operation with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigationo . If the Existing Plan (1993 EIR) LOS at a signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection is already at LOS E or F, or the LOS of a stop-controlled turn movement is already LOS F, an increase in traffic of one percent or more due to the project is considered to be significant and would require mitigation, . If traffic volume levels at an Existing Plan (1993 EIR) unsignalized intersection increase above Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant #11 criteria levels with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. . If traffic volume levels at an Existing Plan (1993 EIR) unsignalized intersection already exceed signal warrant criteria levels, an increase in traffic of one percent or more due to the project is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If project-related traffic changes would increase safety concerns substantially (beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR), the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. 5.1-31 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pltln Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation .. If Freeway mainline operation with Existing Plan (1993 EIR) volumes is currently at LOS A, B, C or D, and changes to LOS E or F with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant and would require mitigation. . If freeway mainline operation with Existing Plan (1993 EIR) volumes is already LOS E or FI an increase in peak direction traffic of one percent or more due.to the project is considered significant and would require mitigationo E2. Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIR The .1993 EIR for the Existing Redevelopment Plan identified significant impacts for (then-) existing, 2010 without project, and 2010 with project conditions, at the following intersections: · Hickey Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramps (LOS E during the P.M. peak hour under existing conditions); . Hickey Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps (LOS E during the P.M. peak hour under all scenarios); · Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard (LOS E during the AoM. peak hour with the project, LOS E during the P.M. peak hour without and with the project); . El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard (LOS E during the P.M. peak hour without the project, LOS F during the P..M. peak hour with the project); . El Camino Real/Westborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue (LOS E during the A.M. peak hour without and with the project! LOS F during the P.M. peak hour under all scenarios); · Westborough Drive/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps (LOS E during the P.M. peak hour nnder existing conditions, LOS F during the PoM. peak hour without and with the project); · Chestnut Avenue/Hillside Drive (LOS F during the P.M. peak hour under existing conditions); · Avalon Drive/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-Z80 Northbound Ramps (LOS E during the P..Mo peak hour without and with the project); · El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS F during both peak hours under existing conditions); and · Hickey Boulevard Extension/El Camino Real (LOS E during the PoM.. peak hour with the project), 5~1-32 El. Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Measures were identified. in the 1993 EIR to reduce all identified intersection impacts to a less-than- significant level. The 1993 EIR identified the need for signals at the following intersections: . Mission Road/Grand Avenue (existing); · Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue (existing); . Hickey Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps (existing); · Hickey Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramps (existing); . Mission Road/Evergreen Drive (2010 without project); · Hickey Boulevard Extension/El Camino Real (2010 without project); · Hickey Boulevard Extension/Mission Road (2010 without project); and . BART Station New Street/El Camino Real (2010 without project), The 1993 EIR found that signalization of the above intersections would reduce the impacts to less-than- significant levelso Since publication of the 1993 EIR.. signals have been installed at Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue.. Hickey BoulevardjI-280 Northbound Ramps.. and Hickey Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramps. In addition.. the City plans to install signals at the future Hickey Boulevard Extension/EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard Extension/Mission Road, and BART Station New Street/EI Camino Real intersections as part of the BART station construction. The City continues to monitor levels of service at Mission Road/Grand Avenue and Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersections, and will install signals if necessary (these intersections are currently operating a t acceptable levels of service). The 1993 EIR did not find any significant impacts with respect to freeway operation. Projected base case traffic plus the new BART station would increase traffic CIl Evergr~en and Mission and would create safety concerns for pedestrians crossing both streets.. particularly high school students. On-street parking availability and on-street parking conflicts with pedestrian traffic near the BART station' were also identified as impacts in 2010 without the project. With the project.. development could result in obstructions of through traffic by turning movements into new driveways along existing streets within the Existing Plan Area. Project-related pedestrian impacts in the vicinity of the BART station and construction traffic impacts were also identified as significant Measures were identified to reduce the impacts to less...than-significant levels 0 5~ 1 ~33 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation E3. Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Impacts The following discussion presents cumulative (year 2010) conditions that would result from implementation of the Existing Redevelopment Plan, based (Il an updated traffic analysiso Future traffic projections for this analysis include .trips associated with the new Hickey BART station and adjacent commercial development, Costco and residential development on the former Macy's warehouse site, residential and City park development en the former McLellan Nursery site, and other approved development in the City and adjacent juris dictions0 Traffic projections also include consideration of local traffic redistribution due to completion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension between EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard as well as BART Access Road #1 between EI Camino Real and Mission Road at the south end of the new BART station. Figures S.l-SA and 5.1-8B, Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 2010 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes illustrate year 2010 AoM. peak hour volumes and Figures 5.1...9A and 5.1-9B, Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 2010 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes present year 2010 P.M. peak hour volumes en the Project Area roadway system with comple~on of the Existing Redevelopment Plan, based m the updated analysis. lhe year 2010 traffic volumes for the Existing Redevelopment Plan were derived through the procedures discussed below. E3(a) Existing Pl.an (Updated Analysis) Traffic Volumes A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation and distribution projections were developed or obtained for a 11 approved or likely developments within. the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan study area (as presented in the City's recently updated General Plan), such as the Hickey BART station and the residential/park development m the McLellan site. Traffic studies have been completed for several proposed or approved projects in the area. These studies were reviewed and the data used directly if no changes 'have been proposed to development levels analyzed in the reports, such as traffic levels associated with the new BART station. Where the levels of development now proposed are different than those analyzed in the reports, CTG adjusted the trip generation to reflect the' increased (or decreased) traffic that would be expected. The specific distribution patterns projected in each study were then applied to these incremental differences in trip generation. Where previous reports had evaluated a study area smaller than the one 1U\der consideration in this SEIR, traffic from the individual projects was extended' to the boundaries currently under examination, CfG then developed separate trip generation and distribution projections for each proposed (but not approved) development within the study'area that would be likely to be completed by 2010, but for which no traffic study had been completed. 5~ 1 ~34 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan AmendmentrDraft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 t Avalon Dr ~ 1 86 --+ ~ c: 215.~ C\I m UJ ~~ e ., S --S (!a 9) ......- 323 .35 @ 286 -+ ~ ~ran~ Ave 95 .. -:; 1 05 40 ~ >- ~ 495 5 Westborough Blvd -~..- co ~ o .~ E d {jj n Not to Scale SOU R C E: C rane Trans porta ti on G ro u p FIGURES. "1 -SA ') Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 201 0 A.M~ Peak Hour Volumes 2100-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 379 t...SO 25 I 50 +-246 .J -4- L. .-:40 Hickev 1"'!!i Extension ----.._~------ 48 J ~ ~ i ,. 535 ........ 6 1 98 38 393-. ~ 34 7 ~ c: c o "I ~ 1536 I -La ! l:O .- 0 ______ ~~~l~c~-ss ~ .Road #1 i G Hickev Exten.!i2~ _ - - - uA!} - -... --...... - - ~V -.... . II:: o ~ 6l 6 li: < ar:-O Evergreen Dr ~ser Ent. 7 n Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ~ 1260 J21! ~ Hickey . 161 J~ to 215 463 --. j 4 75 :f .1O! -- ee.iiT _A~~!.s~ Road #1 -,.;r ~ i 80 J~ 151 55 t.~ 445 ~ FIGURES.., -BS 2/00-367 -01 Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 201 0 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ..... 395 . 502 Avalon Dr ~ 155 ~ ~ c: 60 .~ oN m n N at to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ~ 2/00-367 -01 ! GO e .8- S ~ ~~g) 5 WeStborouQh Blvd -~ ,-- i a: o ..!: IE (J {jj +- 327 .55 @ 327 ----e. ~ ~ran~ Ave 91 t ~ 91 60 t >. :E -L33 FIGURES - -- -'9 A Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 201 0 P.M. Peak HourVolumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR - t.S3 1056 ~ ~57 45 I 299 r- 235 .J + L... "Y <;.. 46 HiCkeYOExtension ------ ------ 35 J g ., t c+ 40 -+'~ 75 160 O~ ~ 1657 --c a: c: o .(1) CI) :i ~ Not to Scale SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ') -L 274 69 37 ~ 43 ~542 .J HiCke~t::SiOn ..-----..,."...-.--- 22 J ~ ., t c+ 41 0 ______ 6 239 33 51 .= 383 .~ co 1340 ~ -L100 . I 31 + L. t 145 OBART Access · ~oad#1--' g t r-- .~ 1 64 ~ 1712 w -c > in CD .J + ~ Hickey 41 Extension ..- t 1 40 J ., 346 521 112 t 'U 0: c o .J + ~ BART AccesO ~oad#1-- & t 80...J ~ 24 534 FIGURES. ~ -98 2/00-367 -01 Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Year 201 0 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.1 Transportation and Circulation A sununary of the projected gross A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation by type of land use is presented in Table 5.1-5, Trip Generation - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis). Trip generation projections have been obtained from individual project studies or developed using ITE's Trip Generation, 6th edition. (i) Reduced Net New Trips Due to Pass-By Capture For new residential and office development, all trips would be newly added to the local roadway network. For new retail development, a proportion of gross trip generation would be attracted from traffic already traveling en the local roadway network. Attraction of traJfic passing immediately adjacent to a site is referred to as pass-by capture. Based up:n historical studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the degree of pass-by trip capture is a 'function of both the size of the commercial/retail establishment and the amount of traffic <X\ the adjacent street system. Typically, the smaller the retail. development, the higher the proportion of pass-by capture. For proposed retail/ commercial developments within the Existing Project Area, pass-by capture rates during the A.M. peak traffic hour ranged from 15 to 35 percent, and during the P.Mo peak traffic hour, pass-by capture rates ranged from 30 to 50 percent, depending upon the size of the centero It should be noted tha t hnn movements to and from Project Area retail driveways would still reflect the overall gross trip generation levels and not the pass-by captureo The reduced impact due to pass-by capture is only fully measured at nearby intersections. (ii) Reduced Trip Generation by Uses in Close Proximity to BART Stations Studies by BART have shown that residentiat office and retail developments constructed in close proximity to an existing BART station (outside central.business districts) are likely to have lower than average trip generation02 Based upon these findings, Table 5.1-6, Reduction in Peak Hour Trip Generation by Development Within One-Quarter Mile of BART Station, identifies the percent reductions in trip generation that have been utilized for dev:elopments within close proximity to the Hickey BART station. To provide a conservative analysis, no reduction in trip generation has been projected for the existing residential areas that are within a quarter mile of the new BART station or for other nearby area activities, such as El Camino High School. 2 Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Draft EIR, August 1997. 5.1 ~39 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental ElR MarCh 24, 2000 Land. Use Residential Apartmentsl Apartments Shopping Center1 Office 1 Other City Park Remove Gov't Center 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1..5 Trip Generation - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Size Daily Rate I Vol AM Peak Hour In .... "Out. . Rate I Vol '. Rate .1 .Vol 0.076 46 0.323 195 .. ....... .:PM.Peak.Hou.t.:.~.:.. . . .. .'. In.: . . . . ,.OUt. '. R'at~.1 Vol Rate. I. . V~l 0.315 115 601 d.u. 227 d.u. Single 179 Familyl,2 d.u, Townhouse1;2 34 d.u. 4.98 Condos 400 5.86 d.u. Retail/Commerc iall Office Coste 0 1471000 (3) sq. ft 63,000 (5) sq. ft. 13,000 8.26 sq" it. 5~64 3,390 O~08 19 0.43 98 190 O~19 0.42 46 6.63 1,506 0.181 33 O~42 75 96 O~20 0.488 87 0.371 67 8~14 1,458 0.067 2 0.07 28 0.278 10 0.37 148 0.27 0.36 9 0.171 143 O.IS 6 73 170 2,346 14,994 5,894 108 N/A N/A ( 4) 265 (4) 240 (3) 680 (3) 680 (5) 90 (5 ) 57 (5) 257 (5) 279 1.03 14 O~14 2 O~19 3 O~93 12 (6) (7) (6) (7) 10 ..59 (6) (7) (6) (7) 79 ..87 10 .. 233 79 ..7 No tes: 1. Trip Generation Rate Reduction due to BAR T (development within easy walking' distance of Hickey station). Residential-Peak Hour: Daily: 15%; Peak Direction: 25%; Off Peak Direction: 5% Commercial-Peak Hour: DaiIJF 5%; Peak Direction: 5%; Off 'Peak Direction: 5% Office-Peak Hour: Daily: 25 Yo; Peak Direction: 25%; Off Peak Direction: 25% 2. Includes McLellan site, currentI~ under construction, 3. Daily and P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate Source: Castco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis by Rajappan & Meyer, February 12, 1999, 4. No A,M. trip rates included in this study. However, Costeo stores in the Bay Area. do not open- to the public before 9:00 AoM, Therefore, during the morning commute only employees would be accessing the store. The Casteo gas station is assumed to be open during the morning commute. . 50 See Traffic Report for explanation of formulas. 60 Traffic Impact Report - Promenade/Mid-Peninsula Housing Subdivisions & Alta Loma Park on McLellan Nursery Site by Crane Transportation Group, May 29, 1997. 7. Survey data collected by Crane Transportation Group, November 1998. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997, unless noted. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group . 5.1-40 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental ElR March 2412000 5,1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1~6 Reduction in Peak Hour Trip Generation by Development Within One-Quarter Mile of BART Station Land Use Residential Office Commercial/ Retail/ Shopping ~eak Commlit~ .Direction Trip . -250/0 - 25 0/0 - 5 0/0 Non~Peak'.t:91l1Jl\~te Direction Tnp .. 5 0/0 .. 25 0/0 ~ 5 0;0 Source: Crane Transportation Groupl based on surveys by BART (iii) Increased Local Area Traffic Due to Development Outside the Redevelopment Area Year 2010 daily traffic projections due to anticipated growth within South San Francisco have been developed for major roadways throughout the City as part of the recently completed General Plan Update Circulation Element. In addition, traffic projections have been developed as part of the recently completed Terrabay EIR for Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue due to buildout east of U..So 101, within the City of Brisbane and for the Terrabay project..3 To complement traffic projections from both sources, Crane Transportation Group also contacted the Plarming Deparhnents in the cities of Colma, Pacifica, Daly City and San Bnmo to determine if any approved or likely major developments will be built and in operation by 2010 that will add traffic to the roadway system being examined as part of this SEIR (i.e., the Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road, El Camino Real, }unipero Serra Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue and South Spruce Avenue corridors)..4 The potential projects considered most likely to add traffic are a commercial/residential development in Colma located just north of the Mission Road/Hickey Boulevard Extension intersection, a new BART station and nearby redevelopment area along both sides of EI Camino Real and Huntington Avenue in San Bruno and completion of residential developments along Skyline Boulevard in Pacifica.5 Overall, by 2010 the majority of increased traffic on major roadways in the vicinity of the Project Area would be due to development outside the local area, in particular the Terrabay, East of 101 and Brisbane developments to the east and projects in the San Bruno redevelopment area to the south 0 3 4 5 Draft Supplemental EIR Terrabay Phases II and lIt July 1998. All jurisdictions except Daly City responded to the information request. City of San Bruno Redevelopment Project Area Plan Draft EIR, by Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. 5.1-41 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendmen-t Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation E3(b) 2010 Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Operating Conditions (i) Intersection Level of Service Year 2010 intersection levels of service with completion of the Existing Redevelopment Plan (Updated Analysis) .and other cumulative development within the study'area are presented in Table 5.1-7, Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), for AoM. and P.M. peak hour conditions respectively, All 32 analyzed intersections would experience acceptable A.M. and P.M. peak hour operation with the exception of the four intersections listed below.. . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard: LOS E during P.M. peak hour; . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp (Avalon Drive westbound left turn onto the 1-280 Southbound On-Ramp): LOS F during A.M. peak hour; . Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (Evergreen Drive stop sign controlled left turn): LOS F during A.M. and P.M. peak hours; and . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all-way stop): LOS E during AoMo peak hour, LOS F during P ..Mo peak hour. The conditions at all of the above intersections under the Existing Plan would. worsen compared to existing conditions 0 Under the Existing Plan, all Hickey Boulevard Extension intersections as well as other new intersections adjacent to the BART station would operate at good to acceptable levels of service (LOS A to C) during both commute periods. 5.1 ~42 El Camino Conidor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft S upplemen tal EIR March 2412000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1-7 Intersection Level of Service -Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Existing'Plan (Updated An~lysis)" Intersection Existing Control .:. ....LO.S/~elayl ,. , A.M. P ..M. Hickey Blvd./I-280 SB Ramps Signal 8/13.4 Cj15.8 Hickey Blvd./Imperial/I-280 NB Signal Cj21..4 C/25.9 Ramps Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra Blvd, Signal D/30a2 E/64.9 EI Camino Real/Hickey Blvd. Signal C/23.8 Cj19.6 EI Camino Real/Kaiser Signal B/601 BIB.1 El Camino Real/ Arroyo Dr~ Sig.nal B/IO.9 B/7.4 EI Camino Real/Westborough Signal Dj28.8 o /34.8 Blvd.jChestnut Ave. EI Camino Real/Orange Ave. Signal Cj19.5 C/23al EI Camino Real/South Spruce Aveo Signal D /20.4 D /25.9 Westborough Blvdo/I-280 SB Ramps Signal 8/6.2 B/9.8 Westborough Blvd./I-280 NB Signal D /30.9 C/2507 Ramps/Junipero Serra Blvd. Chestnut Ave. / Antoinette Ln. Signal B/10.3 C/15.0 Chestnut Ave. /Mission Rd. Signal B/10.1 B/I0.1 Chestnut Ave./Grand Ave. Signal Cj18.0 Cj19.3 ChestnutAve./Hillside Blvd, Signal Cj23.6 B/7.4 . Avalon Dr.jI-280 NB Off- Signal C/16.1 C/15.0 Ramp jJunipero Serra Blvd. South Spruce A veo /Hnntington A ve.. Signal B/1O.3 B/10.9 Grand Aveo/West Orange Ave. Signal D/26.7 C/16.7 Avalon Dro/l-28D SB On-Ramp WB Avalon left- F/220.22 A/5.0 turn yield El Camino Real/Mission Rd, 'SB El Camino left B/8.7 C /12.3 turn stop-controlled Orange A yea/Memorial A veo 5B Memorial stap- H/BaD 8/8.6 controlled Evergreen Ora/Hillside Blvd. EB Evergreen left F/4892 F/150S2 turn stop-controlled Chestnut Ave. / Commercial A ve. All-way stop E/37.7 F/l11.2 Mission Rdo/Evergreen Dr. All-way stop D /25.7 C/l1.2 Mission Rd./GrandAve. All-way stop C/19.2 C/1306 Orange Avea/Myrtle Aveo All-way stop 8/9.2 B/9.1 GrandAve./Willow Ave. All-way stop 0/20.5 o /21.5 5,1-43 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5,,1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1-7 continued Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Future Intersection Hickey ExtensionjEI Camino Real Hickey Extension/Mission Rd, Hickey Extension/Hillside Blvd. El Camino Real/BART Access Rd. #1 Mission Rd. /BART Access Rd. #1 Future Control Signal Signal Signal Signal All-way stop Existing' Pla~:'. (Up4ated A~alysisl:. , . . ~O'~/D~.iayl '. .:..... .'. ....~. A..MjI . . 'P.M~' B/1103 Cj17.3 Cj15.9 Cj15.0 B/13.9 C/1S01 A/2.5 B/S.5 C/1308 B /7.7 Notes: 1. A verage vehicle delay is in seconds. 2. Analysis software produces unrealistic results above 3 minutes (180 seconds). 3. Note: Boldface type indicates unacceptable level of service. Source: Crane Transportation Group (ii) Signalization Requirements Table 5.1-8, Signalization Needs - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), shows that the following four unsignalized intersections would warrant signalization by 2010 due to traffic levels associated with the Existing Redevelopment Plan and other cumulative development within the study area. Two of the four locations are also projected to experience unacceptable levels of service. . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp . Mission Road/Evergreen Drive . Mission Road/Grand Avenue . . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue The Mission Road/ Evergreen Drive and Mission Road/Grand Avenue intersections would, however, maintain acceptable all-way stop levels of service during the A.M" and P.M. peak traffic hours 0 It should be noted that all four intersections currently warrant provision of signals, 5.1.44 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 Table 5.1-8 Signalization Needs -"Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Unsignalized Intersection Avalon Dr./1-280 SB On-Ramp EI Camino Real/Mission Rd, Mission Rd.jEvergreen Dr, Mission Rdp / Grand Ave. Evergreen Dr.jHillside Blvd. Chestnut Ave./Commercial Ave. Orange Ave. /Memorial Ave. Orange Ave./Myrtle Ave, Grand Ave./Willow Avep Existing Signal Need Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Note: 1. Assumed signalization by 2010, Source: Crane Transportation Group (iii) Freeway Operation 5..1 Transportation and Circulation . Year ~010'SiSD:al ~~ed: . With Ji:nstingn:Plan . ..' (Updated Analysis)' . Yes N/Al Yes Yes No. Yes No No No Table 5.1..9, P.M. Peak Hour Freeway Volumes - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), shows projected year 2010 P..M. peak hour volumes and expected levels of service m 1-280 through South San Francisco and on 1-380 in San Bnmoo Projections have been obtained from C/CAG and reflect BART serving SFO, .butno Caltrain extension underground from the current Fourth and Townsend terminal to the Transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco, C/CAG modeling shows that the BART extension to the airport will potentially result in a substantial decrease in peak direction (northbound) traffic along 1-280 in South San Francisco during the evening commute peak traffic hour by 20100 Peak direction peak hour volmne decreases of 15 percent or greater are projected. Southbound traffic m 1-280 as well as traffic in both directions en 1-380 are projected to increase by 2010p PoM. peak hour LOS D operation would result en all northbound and southbound segments of 1-280 (from south of Avalon Drive to north of Hickey Boulevard) in South San Francisco; P.M. peak hour 1-380 westbound operation would be LOS E; and eastbormd 1-380 operation would be LOS c~ 5~ 1 ~45 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation lhe CMP level of service standard for 1-280 in South San Francisco is LOS D and for 1..380 in San Bruno is LOS F. Theoretically projected 2010 PM peak hour operating conditions would be within CMP level of service standards on both freeways. Table 5.1-9 P.M. Peak Hour Freeway Volumes - Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) Freeway Segment 1-280 (North of Hickey Blvdo) 1-280 (Hickey Blvdo to Westborough B Iv d . ) 1-280 (South of Avalon Dro) Existing Conditions , Northbound Southbound' Volume LOSt Volume LOSI 81090 E (F) 6,930 D (C) , Existi~g' J'lan, (Updated Ana~ysls) NoithboWld ,., , ',SOUthbOlDld . ,Voluine ., LOS Volwne..,..' LOS, 6,750 D 7,140 D 81510 E (F) 6,810 o (C) 71065 D 61930 o 9,750 E (F) 6,005 o (C) 8,295 D -6,780 D Freeway Segment 1-380 (1-280 to El Camino Real) Eastbound Volume LOSt 3,400 C (A) Westbound Volume. LOSt 51800 C (F) Eastbound . Volume' :LOS 3,670 C We~tbound. . Volume ," ..LOS 8,950 E Notes: 1. There are two methods of characterizinK freeway operatin~ conditions. The I'Sf LOS fixure is based .on volume-lo-capacity ratio. The LOS figure in parenthesis is based on observed freeway spee I Sources: Existing Volumes: Caltrans 2010 Existing Plan: Hexagon Transportation Consultants (C/CAG approved traffic modeling projections). (iv) Operational and Safety Concerns The following transportation system operational and safety concerns could be anticipated due to traffic increases from the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) and other cumulative development within the study area: . Mission Road and Oak Avenue Driveways: Although individual site plans have not yet been prepared for the residential developments within the Project Area, provision of numerous driveways and their. associated movements will obstruct through traffic flow. 5.1-46 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation . Excessive, Traffic .Speeds Along Evergreen Drive: A BART station egress driveway will be constructed as the fourth (westerly) leg of the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection. BART traffic traveling along Evergreen Drive may travel at higher than desirable speeds while accessing Hillside Boulevard. . El Camino Real Driveways: Disruption to through traffic flow could arise if right turn deceleration areas are not provided along EI Camino Real m the approaches to major driveways serving new developments. (v) Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions The proxini.ity of Project Area residential units to the BART station and plans for. significantly increased bus service along EI Camino Real and Mission Road will produce a measurable increase in pedestrian traffic crossing local roadways near the station. From 150 to 250 pedestrian trips per hour between residential units and the BART station or bus stops could be expected. Some pedestrian traffic would also be generated between the. BART commercial center and new residential areas (as well as existing neighborhoods near the station).. Foot traffic between the high school and the BART commercial area would be expected to be heavy, particularly after school. Pedestrians from the Macy"s residential site would be able to access the BART station via a new signalized intersection along the Hickey Extension midway between EI Camino Real and Mission Road. However, there is the possibility that high school students will cross Mission Road somewhere between the Hickey Extension and Evergreen intersections to access the station's commercial center, This condition would represent a safety concern. It is assumed that Project Area and project~assisted individual site development plans would be required to incorporate adequate sidewalks or pathways for safe pedestrian travel. Therefore, pedestrian access for individual developments is not considered an issue. Increases in traffic by 2010 would also increase potential concerns for all local area bike riders. Although there would be an increase in hazard potential, there is no .evidence that this increase would result in any major safety concerns. (vi) Parking Conditions Existing roadways in the Project Area vicinity may be subject to use by BART overflow parkingo This could result in a shortage of on-street parking in existing neighborhoods as well as in the new housing areas near the station.. Assuming that code parking is provided for all project residential and commercial areas, including an appropriate number of BART commercial spaces within the BART 5 I 1-47 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIRuMarch 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation parking garage,.it is not expected that redevelopment project vehicles will produce an added major on- street, parking concemo E3(c) Improvement Measures for Existing P.lan (Updated Analysis) (i) Intersection LOS/Signal Needs 1. Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard: Restripe the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right b.un lane. Widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard ~pproach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/ through lane as an exclusive through lane. Change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turns. Resultant PoM.. Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-A verage Delay :; 30.8 Seconds 20 Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp: Signalize Intersection. Resultant A.M. Peak Hour Operation: LOS B-A verage Delay = 1006 Seconds. Alternatively I all~way stop control could be considered 0 Resultant A.Mo Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-A verage Delay = 27 Seconds 3. Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard: Left turn volumes from Evergreen Drive would not warrant signalization of this intersection. Only 10 vehicles are projected to make this b.un during the A.M, peak hour with 20 vehicles making this turn during the P.Mo peak hour in 2010. Therefore, consideration should be given to the following improvements. . Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard that will restrict movements to right turn in and right turn out at Evergreen Driveo Northbound Hillside Boulevard traffic desiring to make a left turn to Evergreen Drive would be required to continue to the Hickey Boulevard Extension intersection and conduct a V-turn. Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north m Hillside Boulevard would be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard 0 · Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard and a channelized median break at Evergreen Drive that will allow both left and right turns onto Evergreen Drive as well as right turns from Evergreen Drive. The median would only preclude left turns from Evergreen Drive 0 Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north CI1 Hillside Boulevard would be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard. 5.1-48 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation 4.. .Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue: Signalize Intersection. Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right nun lane. Provide an exclusive left nun lane m the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. Provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Resultant A.M. Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-Average Delay = 20.8 Seconds. Resultant P.M. Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-Average Delay. = 18.3 Seconds 5. Mission Road/Evergreen Drive: This intersection is mentioned here because the warrant analysis shows the need for signalization 0 Therefore, signalization should be considered if delays become excessive. However, the evaluation indicates delays will be within acceptable levels with the current all-way stop configuration. 6. Mission Road/Grand Avenue: This intersection is mentioned here because the warrant analysis shows the need for signalization. Therefore, signalization should be considered if delays become excessive. However, the evaluation indicates delays will be within acceptable levels with the current all-way stop configuration. (ii) Individual Project Access 7. Minimize the number of driveways serving all new developments. If this is not possible, provide a continuous two-way left turn lane on the adjacent roadway in location with major driveways lining both sides of the street. 8. Provide right turn deceleration areas CI1 the El Camino Real approaches to all new major driveways. (iii) Vehicle Speeding 9. Increase speed enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a problem due to the opening of the BART station. If regular speed enforcement is not an optionl consider providing traffic cahning measures along the street to reduce speeds. (iv) Pedestrian Safety 10. In order to lessen identified existing safety concerns m Mission Road and Evergreen Drive in the vicinity of El Camino High School, install a railing within the right-of-way of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive along the school frontage to funnel students to crosswalks and discourage students from crossing the street mid-block. 5.1-49 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment . Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Implementation of the above improvement measures would eliminate most intersection deficiencies or safety concerns of the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis). 1he deficiency at Hillside Boulevard/Evergreen Drive would remain, as the intersection does not warrant signalization but some drivers would experience excessive delay. E4. Impacts of Redevelopment Plan Amendment TI1.is section presents the expected impacts to the local transportation system due to development of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. All impacts are presented in relation to 2010 traffic conditions with development of the Existing Redevelopment Plan as identified in the 1993 EIR. Impacts are also , compared with the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis) in order to provide a current context for the analysis, since traffic conditions have changed substantially since the 1993 EIR was prepared. E4(a) Traffic Volumes Traffic projections for the Amended Redevelopment Plan were developed in a manner similar to that for the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis). Future traffic projections for the Amended Plan analysis include the added trips associated with the new Hickey BART station and adjacent commercial development, Costco and the residential development on the former Macy's warehouse sitel residential and City park development m the former McLellan Nursery site and other approved development in the City and adjacent jurisdictions.. Traffic projections also include consideration of local traffic redistribution due to completion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension between EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard as well as BART Access Road #1 between El Camino Real and Mission Road at the south end of the new BART station. Amended Plan development, location and gross trip generation are presented in Table 5.1-10, Trip Generation - Amended Redevelopment Plan. The resultant A.M. peak hour volumes are presented in Figures S.1...10A and 5.1-10B, Amended Plan Year 2010 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes; P.Mo peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 5.1-11A and 5.1-11B, Amended Plan Year 2010 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes. 5.1-50 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24~ 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1-10 Trip Generation - Amended Redevelopment Plan : 1:-: : I: ~ .,} ""::; "~::::: )~.()tL/j8Y\t~ . . . AM..;Pea.k...HcnJi"......wn....""' ... ... . . ....p~.~~fPeak "HQUI" .:.~..n~. .' ....... --n."n....",.>" Daily In Out In '.=:.Out Land Use Size Rate I Vol Rate I Vol R~te . I Vol R~te I" . .Vol : Rat~"l: ::v~i Residential Apartmentsl 391 5.64" 2,206 0.076 30 0.323 127 0.315 124 00"19 74 d~u. Apartments 263 6~63 1,744 0.08 21 0.43 114 0.42 111 0.20 33 d.u~ Single 179 8 .14~ 1,458 O~ 181 33 0.42 75 0.488 87 o ~ 371 67 Familyl,2 d.u. 9.57 Townhouse 34 d.u. 4.98 170 0.067 2 0.278 10 - O~27 9 o ~ 171 6 Condos 91 d. u. 5.86 534 0.07 6 0.37 34 0.36 32 0.18 17 Retaill C ommerciall 0 ffice CosteD 1471000 (3) 14,994 (4) 265 (4) 240 (3) 680 (3) 680 sq. It. Retail 225,000 0.38 4,656 0.68 84 0.46 56 1.71 210 1.71 210 sq 0 ft. Shopping 312,400 (5) 18,724 (5) 265 (5) 171 (5) 830 (5) 900 Center1 sq. ft. Office 1 189,900 8.26 1,570 1.03 196 0.14 27 0.19 37 0.93 177 sq 0 ft. Other City Park (6) 10 (6) 10 (6) 79 (6) 79 Fire Station 7,900 (7) 10 (7) 10 (7) 10 (7) 10 sq ~ ft. In tensifica tion 8,900 40 356 0.72 7 O~48 4 1.80 16 1.80 16 of use sq. ft. Notes: 1. Trip Generation Rate Reduction due to BART (development within easy walking distance of Hickey station)o Residential-Peak Hour: Daily: 15010; Peak Direction: 250/0; Off Peak Direction: 5% Commercia 1- Peak Hour: DailJ!: 5%; Peak Direction: 5%; .Off Peak Direction: 5% Office-Peak Hour: Daily: 25~; Peak Direction: 25%; Off Peak Direction: 25% 2. Includes McLellan site, currently under construction. 3. Daily and PM Peak Hour Trip Rate Source: Costeo South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis by Rajappan & Meyer, February 12, 1999 40 No AM trip rates included in this study. However, Casteo stores in the Bay Area do not open to the public before 9:0(, AM. Therefore; durin~ the morninK commute only employees would be accessinK the storeo The Costeo Kas station is assumed to be open during the morning commute. 5. See Traffic Report for explanation of formulas. ' 6. Traffic Impact Report - PromenadelMid-Peninsula Housing Subdivisions & Alta Lorna Park on McLellan Nursery Site by Crane Transportation Groupl May 29, 1997. 7. Estimate-Crane Transportation Group Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineersl 1997,unless noted. Complied by: Crane Transportation Group 5.1-51 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 f o I ~ ~ ~~g) ........ 330 t 35 GJ) 288 --... ~ ~ran~ Ave 95 -. ~ 1 06 40 ~ >. ~ L41 5 Westborough Blvd -) -- ..- 171 t 975 Avalon Dr ~ 189 --.... ~ c 215.~ N m UJ Qj CD cr o c= E ~ {jj CD > c( -c c:: ~ CJ n N at to Scale s au RC E: C ran e T ran s portat i on G fQU P FIGURES. 1 -~ OA ~ Amended Plan Year 2010 A.M. Peak HourVolumes 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIA -LS3 29 I 53 +-294 .J + L. ;:47 Hickey -"tl Extension ------~------ 48 J~ ..., t r+ 540 --+ '5 237 45 441,1 352 --c c: 6 .iij co :i 1591 ~ La ! 130 .- 0 _ _ _. _: ~~~!.~~t;.ss '-=' .Road #1 t c- Hick.ev Exten,!ign. _ - - - _A!:. ------.-.- ~V -... . c .2 ~ 6 ~ a: - < ~O 3 151 j {l 1t055 308. ~ 60 W ~ser Ent. 7 N ot to Scale SOURCE~ Crane Transportation Group 1262 J 42! u Hickey 171 J~ co 252 461,i 470 :E 1 0 '1 ~ .. - 79 ~ 152 4 7 --. +j 484 ~ t 712 FIGURES. 1 -1 DB Amended Plan Year 2010 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes 2/00-367 -01 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ~397 ... 504 Avalon Dr ~ 1 5 7 ............. ~ c: 60 ~O T~ N m ~ Not to Scale so U R C E: Crane Trans portati on G rou p ') 2100-367 -01 i " e ,8- S -s cta~ 5 WestboroUQh Blvd -) ,-- if CD !r o .~ E (j CD ........ 331 t 55 @ 333 -+ g! ~ran~ Ave 93 t ~ 92 60 ~ >- ~ -L33 FIGURES _ '1 - '1 '1 A Amended Plan Year 2010 P.M. Peak HourVolumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR ~397 .. 504 Avalon Dr ~ 157-+~ c 60 t~ C\i co UJ ~ Not to Scale SOURCE~ Crane Transportation Group ') 2100-367 -01 ! Cd e .1. S --s (tag) 5 Westborough BlVd -) ,-- ., a:- o c E (J CD ~331 ,,55 @ 333 -+ ~ ~ran~ Ave 93 -. -:; 92 60 ~ >. ::! L33 FIGURES - "1 -., ., B Amended Plan Year 201 0 ~M. Peak HourVolumes EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SElR 5~1 Transportation and Circulation E4(b) Intersection Impacts (i) Level of Service Table 5.1-11, Intersection Level of Service - Amended Redevelopment Plan, shows that the trips generated by the Amended Plan would produce the following level of service impacts. . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard(signalized): P.M. peak hour operation in 2010 would change from LOS E under the' 1993 EIR to LOS F under the Amended PIano Traffic from the Amended Plan would represent more than a one percent increase over Existing Plan (1993 EIR) conditions. The 1993 EIR determined that conditions at the intersection in 2010 with or without the Existing Plan were unacceptable, and identified measures to improve the LOS to acceptable levelso However, updated mitigation would be needed to address the impacts of the Amended Plano For these reasons, this would be a significant impact. Under .the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), this intersection would also operate at LOS F in the P.Mo peak houro · El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (signalized): PoM. peak hour operation in 2010 would change from LOS F under the 1993 EIR to LOS E rmder the Amended Plan. While this is an improvement in LOS, it would still be an unacceptable level of service~ The 1993 EIR determined that then-existing conditions at the intersection (as well as conditions with or without the existing plan) were unacceptable, and identified measures (second left turn lanes en the Westborough and Chestnut approaches, plus the Oak Avenue extension) to improve the LOS to acceptable levels. However, updated mitigation would be needed to address the impacts of the Amended PIano Therefore, this would be a significant impact. Under the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), the intersection would operate at acceptable LOS D during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours. . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp (yield-controlled turn movement): AoM. peak hour operation for the westbound left turn to the on-ramp would change from LOS E under the 1993 EIR to LOS F under the Amended Plan. The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant impacts at this intersection; therefore, this would be a significant impact. Under the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), this intersection would also operate at LOS F during the A.M. peak hour. 5.1-56 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1-11 Intersection Level of Service - Amended Redevelopment Plan , ' ''\ Amended" Plan . LOSID~l~>:l Existing Control Intersection A.M. P.M. Hickey Blvd.jI-280 SB Ramps Signal Cj15.2 C/1600 Hickey Blvd./lmperial/I-280 NB Signal Cj22.5 D/27.8 Ramps Hickey Blvdo /Junipero Serra Blvd. Signal D /38.7 F/98.5 EI Camino Real/Hickey Blvd. Signal 0/37.8 C/29.2 EI Camino Real/Kaiser Signal B/6.2 BIB.l EI Camino Reali Arroyo Dr. Signal B/l1.0 B/7..9 El Camino Real/Westborough Signal 0/29.8 E/42.8 Blvd.jChestnut A vel ~l Camino Real/Orange Ave. Signal C/19.9 C/24.9 EI Camino Real/South Spruce Signal Cj20.5 D/2604 Westborough Blvd./I-280 SB Ramps Signal B/604 B/9.8 Westborough Blvd./I-280 NB Signal 0/32.4 D/26.3 Ramps/Junipero Serra Blvd. ChestnutAve./ Antoinette Ln. Signal B/9.7 B/14.6 Chestnut Ave. /Mission Rd. Signal B/1002 8/10.8 Chesblut Ave. / Grand A ve. Signal C/18.9 C/20.7 Chestnut Ave..jHillside. Blvd. Signal C/23.7 B /7.5 Avalon Dr./I-280 NB Off- Signal C/16.0 B/15.0 Ramp /Junipero Serra Blvd. South Spruce Ave.fHuntingtonAve. Signal Bjl003 8/10.9 GrandAveo/West Orange Ave. Signal C/2409 C/16.7 Avalon Dro/I-280 SB On-Ramp WB A valon left-turn F/218.62 B/SoO yield El Camino Real/Mission Rd. SB El Camino left turn B /807 C/12.7 stop-controlled Orange Ave. /Memorial A ve 0 SB Memorial stop- B/B.l B/8.7 controlled Evergreen Dr./Hillside Blvd. EB Evergreen left tum F/53S2 F/20902 stop-controlled Chestnut A veo / Commercial Ave. All-way stop E/42.4 F/119.1 Mission Rd. /Evergreen Dr.. All-way stop . D/29.5 C/16.4 Mission Rd.jGrandAve. All-way stop D/24.1 Cj18.6 Orange Ave./Myrtle Ave. All-way stop B/9.4 B/9.5 GrandAve.jWillow Ave. All-way stop D /27.2 D/20.7 5.1-57 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 2412000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1..11 continued Intersection Level of Service - Amended Redevelopment Plan ~ ~:~; ~ ~_:;. :::: -: ::.': : : ~: ~ ~: ~: :.::: ~: : J ~: -: ~ ~:.: ~; ~ ~ ~ ~;.::.::.: :. ~ ~. ~ G ~ :.~;..::): ~:-: ::: ~.;;: : ~; .. ..::'";:: ~. ~: : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ :. ~:: : :.~ ~:::.; ~:.: :::-: ~ ~:: : ~ : ~:.:;: : Future Intersection Hickey Extension/El Camino Real Signal B/12.7 Cj19.2 Hickey Extension/Mission Rdo Signal C/16.9 Cj17..7 Hickey Extension/Hillside Blvd. Signal B/13.9 C/1701 EI Camino Real/BART Access Rd. Signal A/208 B/505 #1 Mission Rdo/BART Access.Rd. #1 All-way stop Cj18.5 e/11..1 Notes: 1. Average vehicle delay is in seconds, 2, Analysis software produces unrealistic results above 3 minutes (180 seconds). 3. Note: Boldface type indicates unacceptable level of service Source: Crane Transportation Group · Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (stop-controlled h.un movement): AoM. and P.M.. peak hour operation of the stop sign controlled Evergreen Drive approach in 2010 would change from LOS E and D nnder the 1993 EIR to LOS F under the Amended Plan. The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant impacts at this intersection. 'Therefore, this would be a significant impact" Under the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), this intersection would also operate at LOS F under both AoM, and P.M. peak hours. · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all-way stop): A.Mo peak hour in operation in 2010 would be LOS E and P.M. peak hour operation would be LOS F. This intersection was not evaluated in the 1993 study; therefore, the impact would be significant. (A.Mo and PoMo peak hour projected' volumes in 2010 at adjacent intersections are 40 to 60 percent higher with the Amended Plan in comparison to 2010 projections from the 1993 study 0 It is therefore likely that this intersection, if evaluated in 1993, would not have been projected to experience unacceptable operation.) Under the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), this intersection would also operate at LOS E in the A..M. peak hour and LOS F in the P ..Mo peak hour. (ii) Impacts to Intersection Signalization Requirements Three unsignalized intersections warranting signalization by 2010 with the Amended Redevelopment Plan also warranted or were m the border of warranting signalization with traffic from the 1993 Redevelopment Plan (as studied in the 1993 EIR). One intersection warranting signalization due to 5~1-58 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 24, 2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation traffic from the Amended Plan was not analyzed in the 1993 EIR (Chestnut Avenue/ Commercial Avenue). (Volumes projected near this location in 2010 for the Amended Plan are 40 to 60 percent higher than those in the 1993 EIR and this location would likely not have warranted signalization i f evaluated in the 1993 EIR).. Of the three intersections warranting signalization in the 1993 EIR, a 11 would experience an increase in volume of more than one percent due to traffic activity associated with the Amended Redevelopment Plan.. Under the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), these four intersections would all warrant signalization as well. . Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access: AM and PM peak hour volumes would be increased by more than 1 % at a location with volumes already projected to exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. . Mission Road/Grand Avenue: AM and P11 peak hour volumes would be increased by more than 10/0 at a location with volumes already projected to exceed peak hour'signal warrant criteria levelso This would be a significant. impact. . Avalon DrivejI-280 Southbound On-Ramp: Significant LOS impacts were identified above. . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue : Signifi~ant LOS impacts were identified above. E4(c) Impacts to Freeway Operation Freeway impacts under th~ Amended Plan are shown in Table 5.1-12, Amended Plan Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour. Overall, projected 2010 levels of service for 1-280 and 1-380 with Amended Plan vo~umes are better than those projected in the 1993 EIR. In the 1993 EIR, 1-280 was found to operate at LOS E and 1-380 was found to operate at LOS F. Under the Amended Plan, 1-280 would operate at LOS D and 1-380 would operate at LOS E. The CMP level of service standard for 1...280 in South San Francisco is LOS D and for 1-380 in San Bruno is LOS Fo Therefore, projected 2010 P.M. peak hour operating conditions Wlder the Amended Plan would be within 0v1P level of service standards en both freeways. Under. the Existing Plan (Updated Analysis), 1-280 would also operate at LOS D and 1-380 \vould operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. 5~ 1-59 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Table 5.1"12 Amended Plan Freeway Volumes and Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour :i ~ J f ~ 1 ~ fj m w; J':~ ~ J ~:~.: ~ ;.~~. ~ i: ~ ~~1 f ~ W m m ~ j; ~: m J; ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ rJ U ~ i : ; ~ ~U ~ L ~~) i ~ ~ : ~:: i : .~ ~:.~ ~~ k ~ f~~.~ ~ ~ ~;< ~ .: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:) ~? n 1 L~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fP ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~.: : .. Amended Plan Conditions , Northbound Southbound Volwne LOS ,Volume LOS, 6,785 D 71150 D Freeway Segment 1-280 (North of Hickey Blvd.) 1-280 (Hickey Blvd. to Westborough Blvd.) 1-280 (South of Avalon Dr.) 7,095 D 6,995 o 8,325 D 6,805 D 1-380 (1-280 to EI Camino Real) 3,675 C ,,, '. ^ .,"^..~ ~,':: " : ' ^:.. Wesiboun d"" ."" ,.~ 'H """:' ",0' ...., ,. ',"" , Volume ..LOS 8,965 E Notes: Notes: 1. For existing conditions, first LOS figure is based on volume-ta-capacity ratio, Sources: Existing Volumes: Caltrans . Amended Plan Volumes: Addition of project increment to San Mateo C/CAG modeling projection base, E4(d) Impacts to Pedestrians and Bicyclists No analysis was conducted near South San Francisco High School in the 1993 EIR. Near EI Camino High Schoot the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection could expect about a 14 percent increase in traffic (or about 185 vehicles) entering the intersection during the morning peak traffic hour due to the Amended Redevelopment Plan versus the Existing Plan (1993 EIR). Overall, vol~e increases near EI Camino High School are well within the capacity of the local roadway network. Existing and Existing Plan (1993 EIR) safety concerns for midblock pedestrian crossings near the high school would remain with the Amended PIano Due to the fact that mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR for pedestrian safety (installing fencing in front of EI Camino High School and relocating bus stops to the high school side of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive) are not expec~ed to be implemented, this impact would be considered significant.6t7 Volumes along all major streets in the study area would increase with the Amended Redevelopment Plan as compared those projected for the Existing Plan in the to 1993 EIR. However, increases would not 6 Hollinger, Kathy, SamTrans, personal communication, March 14, 2000. 7 Kozitza, George, South San Francisco Unified School District, personal communication, March 13, 2000. 5.1-60 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation be considered to produce an additional significant safety impact for bicyclists beyond that associated with the traffic levels projected in the 1993 EIR. E4(e) Operational and Safety Impacts Amended Plan traffic levels would not produce any significant increase in safety concerns as compared to those identified for the Existing Plan in the 1993 EIR (i.e., concerns regarding too many driveways being provided to serve new developments, the lack of right turn deceleration areas along EI Camino Real CIl. the approaches to new major driveways and potential speeding along Evergreen Drive). Mitigation identified in the 1993 EIR has been clarified to ensure that the appropriate improvements will be implemented. E4(j) Parking Impacts Assuming that code parking is provided for all project residentiat office and commercial developments, it is not expected that project vehicles will produce a significant parking impact with the Amended Redevelopment PIano The same projection was made in the 1993 EIR. The potential for BART overflow parking on local streets would be the same with the 1993 Redevelopment Plan or the Amended Redevelopment Plan. E4(g) Impacts from Oak Avenue Extension Projections have been developed for 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan P ..M. peak hour traffic conditions of the likely traffic diversion resulting with the extension of Oak Avenue between EI Camino Real and Mission Road" Based upon parameters set by the City Engineer, the new segment .of . Oak Avenue would extend easterly from EI Camino Real as the fourth leg of the El Camino Reali Arroyo Drive intersection and would connect to the existing Mission Road/Oak Avenue T- intersection. In conjunction with the new extension, the existing segment of Oak Avenue between Mission Road and Grand Avenue would be improved as a two-lane collector street. The Oak Avenue/Mission Road intersection would initially be all-way-stop controlledo Antoinette Lane would not connect to the new Oak Avenue extension. Figure 5.1-12 Amended Plan P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Oak Avenue Extension, shows that the proposed extension would likely result in a diversion of about 625 vehicles away from Chestnut Avenue (between El Camino Real and Mission Road) during the P.M. commute peak traffic hour 0 This would result in significant commute period operational improvements to the Chestnut Avenue intersections with Antoinette Lane and Mission Road and a more moderate improvement to the EI Camino 5 .1-61 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 @) 395 ~ Arroyo Or -- ......." 435 ~ 1970 1875 1885 ..... @) Westborough Blvd --... 1275 @Q) 1:J a: c: o ~0 CIJ ~ @ @ ...... Extension ..... Oak Ave Oak Ave _ _ I ............ ........ ~------ ~ . ~ @ @ f370) 1600 ~ <i Q) cr o c E tj fij .... 1335 f265) Legend 540 ~ t 450 25 ,50 f205) E110) @\ @ ~370) <:ill) 1490 1155 ....... +-- c: ...J .... ~ 1160 --.... G) 915 c E269J ~ S Fire g]]) c: <. House ------ ROADWAY EXTENSION IMPROVE EXiSTING ROADWAY (2 LANE COLLECTOR) --- 50 = 2010 VOLUME WITHOUT OAK AVE EXTENSION @ = INCREMENTAL REDISTRIBUTION IN TRAFFIC DUE TO OAK AVE EXTENSION n Not to Scale so U RC E: Crane T ra ns portatij on G rou p ~ 605 470 ~ @ @)\ FIGURES - ~ -., 2 2100-367 -01 Amended Plan Year 201 0 ~ M. Peak Hour Volumes with Oak Avenue Extension EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.1 Transportation and Circulation RealjWestborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. Resultant P.M.. peak hour operation at EI Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue would change from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D, thereby eliminating a significant impact due to Amended Redevelopment Plan traffic. The EI Camino Real/ Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue intersection would maintain acceptable operation with the completed extension. E4(h) Impacts from Combined Oak Avenue and Antoinette Lane Extensions Projections have also been developed for 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan P.M.. peak hour condttions of the likely traffic diversions due to both an Oak Avenue extension (as detailed above) in combination with the southerly extension of Antoinette Lane along the BART right-oI-way from EI Camino Real to south of South Spruce Avenue. Antoinette Lane would not connect to Oak .Avenue for this evaluation. The Antoinette Lane/Orange Avenue intersection would be all-way-stop controlled and the Antoinette Lane/South Spruce Avenue intersection would be signal controlled. The exact termination point of Antoinette Lane south of South Spruce Avenue would be near the new Tanforan BART station, although specific details regarding roadway connections in this area still need to be worked out with the City of San Bruno. Figure 5.1..13, Amended Plan P.M.. Peak Hour Volumes with Oak Avenue and Antoinette Lane Extensions, shows that during the P.M.. peak traffic hour an Antoinette Lane extension could expect to divert about 400 two-way trips from El Camino Real between South Spruce Avenue and Orange Avenue and about 475 two-way trips from El Camino Real between Orange Avenue and Chestnut Avenue 0 P.M. peak hour traffic along Chestnut Avenue between EI Camino Real and Commercial Avenue would decrease by an additional 40 to 50 vehicles with both the Antoinette Lane and Oak Avenue extensions in operation, as opposed to just the Oak Avenue extensiono This would result in slightly better conunute period operating conditions at the Chestnut Avenue intersections with El Camino Real, Antoinette Lane and Mission Road than would be experienced with just an Oak Avenue extension. Based upon projected volumes, both the Oak Avenue extension and the Antoinette Lane extension would only require two travel lanes, with turn lanes provided on intersection approaches. 5.1-63 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Am~dment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 @) 395 ~ . Arroyo or --+ 435 ~ 1970 1875 1885 +- @) - Westborough Blvd ......... 1275' @Q) 1945 ~J 1975 J ~ Not to Scale -0 a: C- O .;; UJ :E @) @ ........ +- Oak Ave Oak Ave Ext::l~ I ........... ....... -------- ~ @ @ ~375) 1600 ~ ... t 2160 so U R C E: Crane Transporta ti on G rou p Ci; --.. 5 en 1335 ~ ~ ~305) .s 1955 I ..5 1 I .e t E229) ~ g 2375 + ~; w (-260) 270 I 235 c <ffi>1@ ~~ I 1890 2 t 2290 E260) 535 \\, Ora~ @) ,\ t ~ ~ E}]g) 2185 465 to E.ill) @ \ 43t ,~ @ Eill) 1085 -+- E150) S. Spruce 5t ~ I 710 ........ I f120) ~ 1260 c: -110 560 ~ 915 I (-11 0) :f E 170) ~ 2/00-367 -01 540 l t 450 E205) E110) E390) 1490 ~ 25 ,50 @~ @ ~ 1155 ~ E 1 00) 9~ 7 650 @Q) --.. 1160 f285) ~ Fire House CD --.. ~ 915 1U <:ill) .~ E e o t) 325 ~ '290 @) @D 425 @ -+- .. Orange Ave s. Spf\Jc9 S\ Legend - - - IMPROVE EXISTING ROADWAY (2 LANE COLLECTOR) ....._ OAK AVE ROADWAY EXTENSION _ _ _ ANTOINETTE LANE ROADWAY EXTENsrON 50 = 201 0 VOLUME WITHOUT OAK AND ANTOINETTE EXTENSIONS @ = iNCREMENTAL REDISTRIBUTiON IN TRAFFIC DUE TO BOTH EXTENSIONS FIGURES. "1 - -- 3 Amended Plan Year 201 0 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with both Oak Avenue and Antoinette Lane Extensions EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.1 Transportation and Circulation F. MITIGATION MEASURES Fl. Measures Carried Forward from 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR FI(a) Intersections Due to changes in conditions, new mitigation measures have been identified for all significant intersection impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. No intersection improvement measures have been carried forward. Fl(b) !ndividual Project Access 1. Minimize the number of driveways serving all new developments.. If this is not possible, provide a continuous two-way left turn lane along the adjacent roadway in location with major driveways lining both sides of the street. 2. Provide right turn deceleration areas 00. the El Camino Real approaches to all new major driveways. Fl(c) Vehicle Speeding 30 Increase speed enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a problem due to the opening of the BART station. If regular speed enforcement is not an option, consider providing traffic calming measures along the street to'reduce 'speeds, F2(d) Pedestrian Safety Measures identified in the 1993 EIR for pedestrian safety have since determined to be infeasible by the implementing agencies (SamTrans and the South San Francisco Unified School District). Therefore, these measures have not been carried forward. 5~1-65 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5..1 Transportation and Circulation F2. Measures Identified in this SEIR F2(a) Intersections For intersections that require a fair share contribution, the contribution shall be determined by the difference between conditions under the Amended Plan and conditions that would occur of no plan were in effect. . (i) Hickey BoulevardlJunipero Serra Boulevard: 1. Provide a fair share contribution toward the following improvements, . Restripe the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/ right turn lane. · Widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane. · Change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turns. Resultant P.Mo Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 38.1 Seconds (ii) EI Camino ReaIIWestborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue There are no feel-sible improvements (beyond those being planned by the City) within the existing curb- to-curb widths en all four intersection approaches which could provide acceptable PM peak hour operation. However, two alternative measures that would either require right-of-way acquisition or construction of a new street would provide acceptable operation. 20 Widen the southbound El Camino Real intersection approach to provide an exclusive right" turn lane. This would potentially require right-of-way purchase along the west side of EI Camino Real near the intersection. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 37..1 Seconds 3. Provide the Oak Avenue Extension between the El Camino Real/ Arroyo Drive and the Mission Road/Oak Avenue intersections. This measure would divert enough traffic away from the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue/Westborough Boulevard intersection to provide acceptable P.M. peak hour operation with Amended plan volumes. TIle extension would be two lanes wide with turn lanes added co intersection approaches and signalization of the Oak Avenue/Mission Road in tersection. 5.1-66 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation Construction of this extension could in itself result in significant environmental impacts, such as temporary construction impacts (noise and dust), increased nmoff, and traffic noise along the new roadway segment. Given that the exact alignment of the roadway is not known at this time1 identification of specific future impacts would be speculative and is not required under CEQA. Resultant P.Mo Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 3809 Seconds (iii) Avalon Drive/I...280 Southbound On-Ramp: 4. Signalize Intersection, Resultant A.M. Peak Hour Operation: LOS B-A verage Delay = 10.6 Seconds 50 Alternatively, all-way stop control or stop sign control of all eastbound traffic + westbormd left turns could be considered~ Resultant A.Mo Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 27 Seconds for stop sign controlled movements (iv) Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard 6. Left turn volumes from Evergreen Drive would not warrant signalization of this intersection. Only 10 vehicles are projected to make this turn during the A.M. peak hour with 20 vehicles making this turn during the PoM. peak hour in 2010. Therefore, consideration should be given to the following improvements. . Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard that will restrict movements to right turn in and right turn out at Evergreen Drive. Northbound Hillside Boulevard traffic desiring to make a left turn to Evergreen Drive would be required to continue to the Hickey Boulevard Extension intersection and conduct a V-turn. Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north m Hillside Boulevard would be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard. · Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard and a channelized median break at Evergreen Drive that will allow both left and right turns onto Evergreen Drive as well as right turns from Evergreen Dri.ve. The median would only preclude left turns from Evergreen Drive. Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north on Hillside Boulevard would be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard. 5.1-67 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.1 Transportation and Circulation (v) Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue: 7. Provide a fair share contribution toward the following improvements: . Signalize intersectiono . Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through. lane and an exclusive right turn laneo . Provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. . Provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Resultant AoM. Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-Ave~age Delay = 21..2 Seconds; Resultant PoM. Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-Average Delay = 19.6 Seconds (vi) Mission Road/Grand Avenue 8. Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contribution toward signalization of this intersection, if determined to be needed by the City Engineer.. The projec~ impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. (vii) Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access 9. Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contribution toward signalization of this intersection, if determined to be needed by the City Engineer. . The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. F2 (b) Pedestrian Safety 10. Implementation of the following measure would lessen identified existing safety concerns m Mission Road and Evergreen Drive in the vicinity of El Camino High School. . Install a railing within the right-of-way of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive along the school frontage to funnel students to crosswalks and discourage students from crossing the street mid-block. 5.1-68 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5..1 Tl'anSpoTtation and Circulation G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Future traffic projections for the Amended Plan analysis were based en cumulative conditions, including the added trips associated with the neW Hickey BART station and adjacent commercial development, the Costco and residential development on the former Macy's warehouse site, residential and City park development m the former McLellan Nursery site and other approved development in the City and adjacent jurisdictions. Traffic projections also include consideration of local traffic redistribution due to completion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension between EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard as well as BART Access Road #1 between El Camino Real and Mission Road at the south end of the new BART station. As such, no further cumulative analysis is necessary. H. CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES All mitigation measures identified above for project-specific traffic impacts, including those carried over from the 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR, would also apply to cumulative impacts, I. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION All intersection improvements would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. All operational and safety impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. 5.1 ~69 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment. Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 AIR QUALITY A. SUMMARY The Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the generation of air pollutants during project construction and operation. Fugitive dust generated by construction activities could be significant, but the implementation of all applicable dust control measures would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level 0 Although it would involve the development of transit-oriented devetopment projects, the Amended Plan would decrease population and increase VMTs and would be inconsistent with the1997 Clean Air PIano (This impact was identified as significant unavoidable in the 1999 General Plan Update ElR and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted which applies to the Amended Plan.) No impacts related to on- or off-site sources of toxic air contaminants a re anticipatedo Based on carbon monoxide modeling, the Amended Plan would not result in any CO hotspots at any area intersections, and no localized air quality impacts would occur. B. INTRODUCTION The Initial Study, published en March 9, 1999, determined that the Amended Redevelopment Plan would have no new or increased significant impacts related to the creation of objectionable odors 0 As such, this topic is not discussed in this EIR section.. This section focuses m air quality. impacts .associated with project-generated traffic and stationary sources, including the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants. This EIR section was prepared in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines, published in April 1996. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS Cl. Smog and its Causes Smog is a general term based ell the words smoke and fog that is used to describe dense, visible air pollution. Although some air pollutants are colorless, smog is corrunonly used to describe the general concentrations of pollutants in the air. Smog is formed when combustion emissions and gaseous emissions, such as reactive organic compounds (ROC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight to form ozone. Ozone is a gas that, in the upper abnosphere, helps to shield the Earth from harmful radiation. However, in the lower atmosphere where people Ii ve.l ozone poses health risks 'and damages crops, rubber, and other materials. Particulates, such as soil and 5~2~1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 2412000 5.2 Air Quality dust materials, and vehicle exhaust particulates often mix with ozone, CO, and other compounds and create a brownish haze in the air, lhe topography and. climate of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin) combine to make it an area of smog potential. The climate of the Bay Area is Mediterranean in character, with mild, rainy '. winter weather from November through March, and warm, dry weather from Jtme through September. In summer, the Pacific high-pressure system typically remains near the coast of California; subsidence of warm air, associated with the Pacific high, creates frequent summer atmospheric. temperature inversions 0 Subsidence inversions may be several hundred to several thousand feet deep, effectively trapping pollutants in a small volwne of air near the ground. In winter, the Pacific high-pressure system moves southward, allowing ocean-formed stonns to move through the region. The frequent stonns and infrequent periods of sustained sunny weather are not conducive to smog formation. Radiational cooling during the evening, however, sometimes creates thin inversions and concentrates air pollutant emissions near the grOlUldo In general, northwesterly winds generated by high-pressure cells over the Pacific Ocean are drawn through the Golden Gate and forced into a more westerly orientation. Wind monitoring data indicate that the Project Area is relatively well-ventilated, with winds averaging approximately seven miles per hour on an annual basis. C2. Air QualitY Regulation Air quality within the Basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning! policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the Basin are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities. C2(a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U"S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EP A) is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the national ambient air quality standards (Federal standards) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for six IIcriteria" pollutants which are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare" The six criteria pollutants include .ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NOz-a form of NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter (PM10)! and lead.. The DoS.. EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking 0 5~2..2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.2 Air Quality In response to its enforcement responsibilities, the .DoS. EP A requires each state to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes how the state will achieve the Federal standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the air quality within the state or air basin. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently classified by the U..S. EPA as a nonattainment area for ozone. C2(b) California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CALEP A), oversees air quality planning and control throughout Califomia. It is primarily responsible for ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding to the Federal CAA requirements, and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products within the State. The ARB has established emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for various types of equipment available commercially. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Like the U.S..' EPAJ the ARB has established ambient air quality standards for the State (State standards). These standards apply to the same six criteria pollutants as the Federal CAA, and also include sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. They are also more stringent than the Federal standards and, in the case of PM10 and S021 far more stringent. lhe amendments to the CCAA require air pollution control districts to achieve the State standards by the earliest practicable date. Based en monitored pollutant levels, the CCAA divides ozone non attainment areas into four categories-moderate, serious, severe, and extreme-to which progressively more stringent requirements apply. Because it exceeds State standards, the Basin is classified as a nonattainment area for ozone and PMlOo C2(c) Bay Area Air Quality Management District The management of air quality in the Basin is the responsibility of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is responsible for bringing and/or maintaining air quality in the Basin within Federal and State air quality standards" Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within Federal and Sta te standards. 5~2~3 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality (i) Clean Air Plan As discussed previously, the federal and State Clean Air Acts require the preparation of plans to reduce air pollution to healthful levels. The BAAQMD has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Clean Air Plans (CAPs), the most recent and rigorous of which was approved in December 1997. The 1997 CAP was d'esigned to address attainment of the State standards for ozone 0 The 1997 CAP contains 39 stationary and mobile source control measures, which include: developing rules to reduce vehicle trips to and from major residential developments, shopping centers, and other indirect somces; encouraging cities and counties to plan for high density development; and clustering development with mixed uses in the vicinity of mass transit stations. The 1997 CAP discourages "urban sprawl," while strongly endorsing high-density mixed-use developments near transit centers that reduce the need for commuting by personal vehicles. (ii) BAAQMD Rules and Regulations The BAAQMD is responsible for limiting the amount of emissions that can be generated ~oughout the Basin by various stationary and mobile sources. Specific rules and regulations have been adopted which limit the emissions that can be generated by various uses and/ or activities, and identify specific pollution reduction measures which must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules not only regulate the emissions of the six criteria pollutants, but also toxic emissions and a.cutely hazardous materials. They are also subject to ongoing refinement by the BAAQMD. Emissions sources subject to the~e rules are regulated through the BAAQMD's permitting process 0 lhrough this permitting process, the BAAQMD also monitors the amonnt of stationary emissions being generated and uses this information in developing the CAP. Any emissions sources that would be constructed as part of the proposed project would be subject to the BAAQMD rules and regulationso (iii) CEQA Guidelines In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its CEQA Guidelines as a guidance document to provide lead government agencies, consultants, and project proponents with tmifonn procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA. This document describes the criteria that the BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting en the adequacy of environmental documents, such as this EIR. It recommends thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to 5~2~4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.2 Air Quality avoid or reduce air quality impacts. This EIR was prepared following the recommendations of the CEQA Guidelines. C2(d) Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a council of govenunents for the Connties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Salanoo ABAG is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, conununity development, and the environment. ABAG also serves as the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under. Federal and' State law. In this role, ABAG reviews proposed projects to analyze their impacts on ABAG's regional planning efforts. Although ABAG is not an air quality management agency, it is . responsible for several air quality planning issues. Specifically, as the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the , - nine counties, it is responsible, pursuant to g176(c) of the 1990 amendments to the CAA, for providing current population, employment, travel.. and congestion projections for regional air quality planning efforts 0 It is required to quantify and document the demographic and employment factors influencing expected transportation demand, including land use forecasts. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b), ABAG is also responsible for prep~ring and approving the portions of the Basinfs CAP relating to demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programsl measuresl and strategies. C2(e) Local Governments Local governmentsl such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through their police power and land use decision-making authority. Specifically, local governments are responsible for the mitigation of emissions resulting from land use decisions and for the implementation ~f transportation control measures as outlined in the CAP. The CAP assigns . local governments certain responsibilities to assist the Basin in meeting air quality goals and policies. In generall a first step toward implementation of a local government's responsibility is accomplished by identifying air quality goals, policies, and implementation measures in its General Plan. Through capital improvement programs, local governments can fund infrastructure that contributes to improved air quality, by requiring such improvements "as ride sharing.. park and ride, bicycle facilities, and traffic signal timing improvements. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, local governments assess air quality impactsl require mitigation of potential air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitor and enforce implementation of such mitigation. 5~2-5 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality C3. Existing Air Quality Environment C3(a) Regional Air Quality To identify ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates 31 air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. lbe closest monitoring station to the Project Area is located in San Francisco on Arkansas Street. This station monitors levels of ozone, PM101 CO, N021 and S02. Table 5.2-1, Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at San Francisco Monitoring Station, lists the . concentrations registered and the violations of State and Federal standards that have occurred at the San Francisco monitoring station from 1993 through 19970 As shown, the San Francisco station has registered values above the State standard for PM10' Table 5.2..1 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at San Francisco Monitoring Station !Year Pollutant Standards!. z ' 1993 1994 1995 1996 ,1997 SAN FRANCISCO ~ ARKANSAS ST. STATION OZONE (03) Maximum I-hour concentration monitored Tpm) 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.09 Number of days exceeding Federal standar >0.12 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State standard >0.09 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 SUSPENDED P ARTICULATE MA TIER (PMto) Annual ge<?metric mean (pgl m3) 25.1 24.7 22.1 21.4 22.5 Number of days exceeding Federal standard >15011g/m3 0 0 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State standard >50 llg1 m3 5 6 0 2 0 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) Maximum B-hour concentration (prm) 5.0 4.4 4.4 3.7 4.2 Number of days exceeding Federa standard >9 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State standard >9 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02) Maximum I-hour concentration (ppm) 0.08 O~O9 0.09 0.08 0.07 Number of days exceeding State standard >0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.006 Number of days exceeding State standard >O.05pprn 0 0 0 0 0 Sources: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data (for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997); and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines (April 1996). ~ Parts by volume per million of air (Phm) or micrograms per cubic meter of air (J.lg/m3) J.Federal and State standards are for t e same time period as the maximum concentration measurement unless otherwise indicated. 5.2..6 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 241 2000 5.2 Air Quality C3(b) Local Air Quality The vicinity of the Project Area is characterized by residential, institutional and commercial uses, open spacei' and undeveloped land.. Emissions sources include stationary activities, with minor sources such as space heating, cooking, and water heating, and mobile activities-primarily automotive traffic. Motor vehicles are the primary sources of pollutants within the area.. Currently, portions of the Project Area are developed and have stationary somces that include boilers, solvent usel and entrained road dust. These sources emit HCs, nitrogen oxides (NOx)' and PM10. Undeveloped parcels within the Project Area emit negligible amounts of PMlO from sources such as windblown dust and hydrocarbons (HCs) from biogenic sources. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO.. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standard have been recorded at any of the BAAQMD's monitoring stations since 1991. However, because elevated co. concentrations are generally localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion at specific intersections or roadway segments can lead to high levels of CO, or "hot spots," while concentrations at the nearest air quality monitoring station may be below State and federal standards. For this reason, the BAAQMD recommends that CO modeling be conducted for projects in which traffic would impact intersections or roadway segments operating a t level of service (LOS) D, E, or F or would cause a decline to LOS D, E, or F. As discussed in Section 5.1, Transportation and Circulation, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would add trips to the following intersections, all of which currently operate at LOS D, E, or F or would decline to LOS D, E, or F with implementation of the project. Given this! CO modeling will be performed for these intersections, · El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard · EI Camino Real/South Spruce. Avenue . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound Ramps; . Chestnut Avenue / Commercial Avenue; · El Camino RealjWestborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenuej · Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard; · Grand Avenue jWillow Avenue; . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound'Ramps; · Mission Road/Evergreen Drive; 5.2-7 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality . Mission Road/Grand Avenue; and . Westborough Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps. The BAAQMD' recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model developed by Caltrans for predicting CO concentrations near roadways, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at various locations. CALINE4 adds roadway-specific CO emissions calculated from peak traffic volumes to ambient CO concentrations~ For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based en a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by BAAQMD. This methodology assumes worst-case conditions (Leo, wind direction is parallel to the primary roadway, 90 degrees to the secondary road; wind speed of less than one meter per second; and extreme atmospheric stability) and provides a screening of maximum, worst-easel CO concentrations. Maximum CO concentrations were calculated for peak hour traffic at the intersections noted above~ The results of these calculations are presented in Table 5.2...21 Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrationsl for representative receptors located 50, laO, and 300 feet from each intersection. As shown, the simplified CALINE4 procedure predicts that, under the worst-case scenario, CO concentrations do not exceed the State l-hour or 8-hour CO standards under existing conditions at any of the study intersections. Based on this analysis, CO hotspots do not currently exist near these intersectionso C3(c) Air Taxies Regulation of toxic air contaminants (TACs), termed Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under federal regulations, is achieved through federal and state controls en individual sources. Federal law defines HAPs as non-criteria air pollutants with short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects 0 The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments offer a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reductions in both mobile and stationary source emissions of HAPs. A total of 189 air pollutants have been designated HAPs because of their adverse human health effects 0 Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments amends Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments to replace the former program with an entirely new technology-based programo Under Title III, EPA must establish maximum achievable control technology emission standards for all new and existing SImajor11 stationary sources. Stationary .sotu"Ces of HAPs are requ~ed to obtain an operating permit from the BAAQMD pursuant to Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments. 5.2-8 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24~ 2000 5..2 Air Quality Table 5.2~2 Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 50 Fee~ 100~Feet 300 :~Feet Intersection I-Hourt . oS-Hour' I-HourI" OS-Hour i-HourI' 8-Hour EI Camino Real/ Hickey Boulevard 7.5 4~4 6.7 3.8 5.6 3~1 El Camino Real/South Spruce A venue 8~9 5.4 7.7 4.4 6~1 3.4 Avalon DrivejI-280 Southbound Ramps 6.6 3.7 6.0 3.3 5.2 2.7 Chestnut A venue/Commercial A venue 6.6 3.8 6.0 3.3 5.2 2.7 EI Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue 9.5 5~7 8.1 4.8 6.3 3.5 Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard 6~4 3.6 5~8 3.2 5~1 2~7 Grand Avenue/Willow Avenue 5~7 3~1 5.3 2~8 4.9 2.5 Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps 7.1 4.1 6.4 3.6 5.4 2.9 Mission Road/Evergreen Drive 5.9 3.3 5.5 3.0 5.0 2.6 Mission Road/Grand Avenue 6.2 3.4 5.7 3.1 5.0 2.6 Westborough Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps 8.8 5.3 7.6 4.4 6.0 3~3 Source: Impact Sciences, Inco Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 5.2. 1. State standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal standard is 35 parts per million. 2. S tate and Federal standard is 9.0 parts per million. California State law defines TACs as air pollutants having carcinogenic effects. Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (the Tanner Bill, passed in 1983) established the State Air Toxies Program and the methods for designating certain air toxies as TACs. A total of 191 substances have been designated TACs under California law; they include the 189 (federal) HAPs adopted as TACs in accordance with AB 2728. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; AB 2588 does not regulate air toxic emissions. Under AB 2588, sources emitting more than 10 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant must estimate and report their toxic air emissions to the local Air Districts 0 The local Air Districts then prioritize facilities en the basis of 5~2-9 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 5.2 Air Quality emissions, and "high priorityll facilities are required to submit a health-risk assessment and commwlicate the results to the affected public. Depending a1 the risk le~els, emitting facilities are required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures. The BAAQMD is responsible for implementing AB 2588 in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The District is currently working to control TAC impacts from local Uhot spots" and from ambient background concentrations.. The control strategy involves reviewing new sources to ensme compliance with required emission. controls and limits, maintaining an inventory of existing sources to identify major TAC emissions, and developing measures to reduce TAC emissions. The BAAQMD publishes the. results of the various control programs in an annual report, which provides information en the current TAC inventory, AB 2588 risk assessments, TAC monitoring programs, and TAC control measures and plans. The major source of TACs contributing to ambient risk in the Bay Area is motor vehicles (45 percent of the risk associated with all sources). The BAAQMD inventory. of TAC soW'Ces for the Bay Area identifies 28 sources of toxic air contaminants within South San Francisco, including the Kaiser Medical Center within the Existing Project Area. According to the California TAC inventory, the Kaiser Medica} Center emits approximately 0.55 pounds per year of ethylene oxide (an antimicrobial disinfectant used for sterilization) and approximately 3,986..4 pounds per year of chlorinated fluoroc~bons ("CFCs./' widely used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants). The Kaiser facility has not been identified as a priority site and is not required to prepare a health risk assessment. C4. Sensitive Receptors Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality be<:ause infants, the elderly, and people with health afflictions, especially respiratory ailments, are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present.. Sensitive receptors within and in the vicinity of the Project Area include various single- and multi-family residences,. EI Camino High School., the Kaiser Medical Centerl South San Francisco High School, and Los Cerritos Elementary Schoolo D. POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK · Federal, State, and regional air quality regulations are discussed earlier in this section. 5.2.10 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 241 .2000 5.2 Air Quality The following policies in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the South San Francisco General Plan would apply to the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment. Guiding Policies: Air Quality · 7.3-G-l: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality s~andards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. · 703-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote the use of alternatives to the automobile for transportationf including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. · 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and, emissions generators by distancing them from each other. Implementing Policies: Air Quality · 7.3-1-1: Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. · 7..3-1-2: Use the City's development review process and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development en air quality. . 7.3-1-3: Adopt the standard conshuction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. E. PROJECT IMPACTS El. Significance Criteria In ord~r to assist in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the CEQA Guidelines identify criteria which may be deemed to constitute a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in physical conditions. Specifically, Appendix G of the Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) lists the following as criteria for determining that a project may ha ve a significant air quality impact: · Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 5.2...11 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment , Draft Supplemental EIR March 24i 2000 5.2 Air Quality . Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; . Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment nnder an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); . Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and . Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, In order to facilitate the intent and significance determinations of the CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD has issued criteria for determining the level of significance for project specific impacts within its jurisdictiono The City of South San Francisco defers to these criteria when assessing project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts for projects proposed within the City. El(a) Construction Emissions According to the BAAQMD. CEQA Guidelines, the determination of significance with respect to construction emissions should be based on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all the applicable control measures for PM10 indicated in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines would be implemented, then air pollutant emissions from construction activities would be considered less..than- significant. If a project would not implement all applicable control measures, construction emissions would be considered a significant impact. El (b) Operational Emissions (i) Regional Emissions According to the BAAQMD, the evaluation of air quality impacts of planning documents, including redevelopment plans, should focus on an analysis of the plan's consistency with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan. At the time of this EIR, the most recently adopted air quality plan is the Bay Area 1997 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines notes that, in most cases, quantification of future air pollutant emissions is not necessary as part of this analysis 0 The following four significance thresholds should be used to determine plan consistency with the CAP: · Plans must show over the planning period that population growth for the jurisdiction will not exceed the values included in the current CAP; 5~2..12 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pliln Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality . Plans must show over the planning period that the rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the jurisdiction is equal to or lower than the rate of increase of population; '. Plans must demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the CAP; and · Plan policies, land use maps, and implementing ordinances must reflect buffer zones to avoid odors and taxies impacts. (ii) Localized Emissions The 'BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines notes that there may be some instances where quantification of a plan's air quality impacts may be appropriate, such as to evaluate CO concentrations at local intersections from project traffic.. A project contributing to CO concentrations exceeding the State AAQS of 9 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for one hour would be considered to have a significant im pact. E2. Summary of Impacts in the Previous EIR J1Construction activity resulting from the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutantso" (1993 DEIR, page 272). This impact was considered to be potentially significant but mitigable, through City or Agency required implementation of dust control measures for individual projects, The previous EIR concluded that the other air quality impacts of the Existing Redevelopment Plan were all less than significant. E3. Impacts of Redevelopment Plan Amendment E3(a) Construction Emissions As noted previously, the 1993 EIR identified construction dust as a potentially significant impact of the Existing Redevelopment PIano It was concluded that the implementation of standard dust control measures would reduce construction dust impacts to a less-than-significant level. During construction activities associated with buildout of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, emissions would be generated by on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. In particular, fugitive dust would be generated during grading, excavation, roadbuilding and other earthmoving activities, and travel by construction equipment, especially en unpaved surfaces. The resulting dust, which includes PM10, is subsequently entrained into the air by 5~2-13 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24~ 2000 5.2 Air Quality wind and vehicle tires.. While much of the airborne dust would settle out on, or near, the construction - site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing existing particulate levels within the surrounding area. Sensi~ve receptors in close proximity to the Project Area which could be affected l?y construction dust include residential uses, the Kaiser Medical Center, and El Camino and South San Francisco High Schools 0 Future sensitive receptors within the Project Area could also be affected by construction dust generated by other Redevelopment Plan projects nearby. Overall, the potential for the Amended Plan to generate dust during construction activities would be greater than the Existing Plan, due to the greater number of sites within the Project Area. However, in accordance with BAAQMD guidelines, the analysis of construction dust impacts should not focus en quantification of construction emissions, but rather emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures. As with the Existing Plan, the Amended Plan would be required to implement standard dust control measures recommended by BAAQMDo With the implementation of these measures, no new or increased significant impacts related to construction dust would occur. E3(b) Operational Emissions (i) Regional Emissions The 1993 EIR determined that the Existing Redevelopment Plan would be technically inconsistent with the 1991 Clean Air Plan due to the fact that the population of the Existing Plan would exceed the population projections used to prepare the 1991 Clean Air Plan. However, the 1993 EIR concluded tha t the Existing Plan would actually have a' net beneficial air quality effect by constructing high-density, mixed use development in the vicinity of the Hickey BART station. Operational emissions associated with the ultimate development of the Project Area would primarily result from vehicular trips to and from the various individual parcels. Other sources of emissions would include stationary sources such as water heaters and cooking applianceso As discussed above, according to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of the air quality impacts of the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendments should be based en an analysis of the Amended Plant s consistency with the Bay Area 1997 Clean Air Plan, Consistency of the Amended Redevelopment Plan with the CAP is determined by evaluating whether the Amended Plan is consistent with the population and VMT assumptions utilized in the CAP. For the 1997 CAP.t ABAG's Projections '96 provides the appropriate set of population projections0 Table 5.2...3, Comparison of Existing and Amended Redevelopment Plans, shows the buildout potential of both the Existing and Amended Redevelopment Planso 5~2~14 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24; 2000 5.2 Air Quality Table 5.2-3 Comparison of Existing and Amended Redevelopment Plans Land Use Multi-Family Residential Office Commercial/ Retail / Shopping Existing 'P,l~n 1,240 units 13,000 sq. It. 88,000 sq. ft. 'Amended ,Plan 757 units 189,900 square feet 443,800 square feet Source: City of South San Francisco Within the South San Francisco Sphere of Influence, ABAG forecast a total population of 64,000 in 20100 It should be noted that the Existing Redevelopment Plan was approved in 1993 and its buildout was included in the population forecasts in ABAG's Projections 1960 Compared to the Existing Redevelopment Plan, the Amended Plan would result in a reduction of 483 multi-family residential units; based en an average Citywide population of 2.9 persons per household, this would result in a population decrease of 1,400 persons, or 390/0 from the Existing Plan. With buildout of the Amended Plan, the total population of South San Francisco would be expected to be approximately 62,600 in 2010, a decrease of approximately 2..20/0 over the total population forecast with the Existing Redevelopment Plan. lhe 1999 General Plan Update EIR noted that the overall updated General Plan build out population forecasts - which take into acconnt the land use designations of the Amended Redevelopment Plan - are generally consistent with the population forecasts used in the CAP, and show approximately a 140/0 increase from 1999 to 20200 Given this, jurisdictional population projections with the Amended Redevelopment Plan are consistent with the population assumptions used in the CAP. However, in place of some of the transit-density residential development under the Amended Plan, a total of about 532,700 additional square feet of commercial/ retail and office uses would be developed, As a result, the Amended Plan would be expected to generate approximately 46,412 gross, two-way daily vehicle trips when completed and fully operational, an increase of approximately 550/0 over the 29,866 gross, two-way daily vehicle trips expected to be generated by the Existing Redevelopment Plan. (It is important to note that gross, two-way daily vehicle trips are not reflective of the net new traffic that will be produced m the local roadway system in that many trips associated with commercial/retail uses will be attracted from traffic already en the local roadway system. These figures are used here for the pwposes of evaluating the traffic increment between the Existing and Amended Planso) 5.2-15 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 502 Air Quality One of the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan is to reduce VMTs; in other words, to ensure that vehicle trip mileage within a city does not grow faster than its population. The General Plan Update EIR noted that VMTs in the South San Francisco are expected to increase from approximately 2.3 million under existing conditions to approxim.ately 3.1 million under buildout conditions (including land uses under the Amended Redevelopment Plan), an increase of about 370/0 from 1999 to 2020. Because the rate of increase of VMTs is expected to be greater than the rate of increase of population over the buildout period, the General Plan Update EIR identified a significant air quality impact. The findings adopted for the General Plan Update note that implementation of the policies of the Update would reduce the criteria air pollutants associated with the rate of increase of City-wide VMT, but not to the extent that the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. A statement of overriding.considerations was adopted for this impact. The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment is consistent with the 1999 General Plan Update. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would be subject to the policies of the General Plan Update pertaining to the siting of land uses near transit, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation (4.2-G-S, 4..3-G-2, 4.3-1-4, and 4.3-1-7, discussed in Table 4.0-1). Pursuant to section 15152(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the regional air quality impacts of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment are determined to have .been adequately addressed in the 1999 General Plan Update EIR. No further discussion is required. (ii) Localized Emissions As was done to assess existing CO concentrations, the simplified CALINE4 procedure was used to assess future (year 2010) CO concentrations 50, 100, and 300 feet from the study intersections with the addition of traffic generated by the Amended Redevelopment Plan (cumulative traffic was also included). The results of this modeling are shown in Table 5.2.4, Predicted Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, Project impacts would be considered significant if the addition of project-generated traffic caused a CO standard to be exceeded or if there is any measurable increase in a standard that is already exceeded, As shown! the simpli~ied CALlNE4 procedure predicts that, under worst-case conditions, CO concentrations at the study intersections would not exceed the State I-hour or 8-hour CO standards under the Amended Redevelopment Plan with cumulative traffic. Based en this analysis, CO hotspots are not predicted to exist near these intersections and project impacts to nearby sensitive receptors such as residences would not be significant. 5~2-16 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality Table 5.24 Predicted Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 50 Feet 1 00 Fe~t 300 Fe~t :,Intersection 1-Hour 8~HourZ. l-Hour1 8-Ho1ir 1-Hourl '8~Hour El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard 6.6 3.8 5.7 3.3 4.6 2.5 El Camino Real/South Spruce Avenue 6~1 3~5 5.4 3.0 4.4 2.3 Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbonnd Ramps 4.6 2.5 4~3 2~3 3.9 2.0 Chestnut Avenue / Commercial A venue 4.9 2~6 4.5 2.4 3.9 2.0 El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut A venue 6.5 3.8 5.7 3.2 4.6 2.5 Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard 5.0 2.8 4.6 2.5 4.0 2~O Grand A venue /Willow Avenue 4.2 2.2 4.0 2.0 3.7 1.9 Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps 5.8 3.3 5.1 2.8 4.3 2.2 Mission Road/Evergreen Drive 4.4 2.3 4~1 2.1 3~8 1.9 Mission Road/ Grand Avenue 4.7 2.5 4~3 2.3 3~9 2.0 Westborough Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound Ramps 6.0 3.4 5.3 3.0 4.4 2.3 Source: Impact Sciencesl Inco Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 5.2, 1. State standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal standard is 35 parts per million. 2. State and Federal standard is 900 parts per million. (iii) T oxics As discussed above, the BAAQMD recommends that local plan impacts with respect to toxics be evaluated based on the presence of buffer zones aroWld existing or proposed land uses that would emit those air pollutants. As noted previously, the Kaiser Medical Center has been identified by the BAAQMD as a source of TACs due to its emissions of ethylene oxide (an antimicrobial disinfectant) and CFCs (used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants), but is not identified as a priority siteo The residential uses proposed to the east of the Kaiser Medical Center would be buffered by the Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way. Uses to the north and south would be buffered by existing roadways and parking areas~ Provided that the Kaiser Medical Center continues to adhere to all permitting and 5.2..17 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental E.IR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality reporting requirements set forth in State and federal TAC legislation, activities at the medical center are not expected to have any adverse impacts on new residents of the Project Area. The Project Area is not located adjacent to any other existing or proposed future off-site sources of toxies. Given this, ro impacts to project residents related to off-site toxies would result. Toxic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any large amotU1ts in conjnnction with the operation of uses within the Project Areao Only common forms of hazardous or toxic substances typically used, stored, or sold in conjunction with retail/ commercial activities would be present in small quantities. Most uses of such substances would occur indoors. Other uses that could be developed within the project area that would require emitting toxic pollutants as a by-product would include dry cleaners and gas stations. Any use of a toxic s~bstance that could involve an air release would be subject to regulatory control under the permitting authority of the BAAQMDo The potential for toxic air pollutants would be evaluated during the permit process by the BAAQMD, which may require emission control equipment at the site. Given the fact that on-site toxies emitting uses would be subject to permitting requirements and would involve only common uses, incompatibilities between retail/ commercial uses and nearby residential uses are not anticipated. F. MITIGATION MEASURES Fl. Measures Carried Forward from 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR No measures have been carried forward from the 1993 EIR. F2. Measures Proposed as Part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan The following measures are features of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, have been identified as mitigation in the General Plan Update EIR (and would apply to the Project Area), or are standard mitigation requirements of the City. F2(a) Construction Emissions 1. In accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project shall implement the following dust control measures during all construction activities: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily (with recycled water, if possible)o 5.2..18 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment PIan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality · Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive ten days or more). . Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil ~inders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)o · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or requiring all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. · Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers CIl all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. · Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites~ · Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto .adjacent public streets 0 · Post signs that limit vehicle speeds m unpaved roads and over disturbed soils to 10 miles per hour during construction. · Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. · Use canvas drapes to enclose building floors during the application of mineral-based fiber insulation to structural steel frames. · Require the construction contractor to designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessaryo · Require construction contractors to maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions 0 All internal combustion engines shall be kept well-tuned wi th regular and periodic inspection and maintenance checks to minimize exhaust emissions. Owing construction, tru~ks and equipment shall be running only when necessary, F2(b) Operational Emissions (i) Toxies 2. Future retail and commercial uses within the Project Area shall include an adequate buffer zone from adjacent residential uses.. The dimensions of the buffer zone must ensure that the encroaching retail/ commercial use does not expose adjacent residences to nuisance levels of odors or toxics emissions. In establishing the appropriate dimensions of the buffer zone, the City shall consider future actions to be taken at the facility to control odor (such as filters) 0 It should be noted tha t odor mitigation measures targeted at the receptors (ioe. the residences) are not appropriate. 5.2-19 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.2 Air Quality F3. Measures Identified in this SEIR F3(a) Construction Emissions No additional measures are required. F3(b) Operational Emis~ions (i) Taxies No additional measures are required. G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to the BAAQMD, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As discussed earlier, the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMTs that is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 CAP. This impact was identified as significant unavoidable in the 1999 General Plan Update ElR, and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would be subject to the policies of the General Plan Update pertaining to the siting of land uses near transit, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation (4.2-G-5, 4.3-G-2, 4.3-1-4, and 4.3-1-7). The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment is consistent with the 1999 General Plan Update, and cumulative regional air quality impacts are considered to have been Uadequately addressed" in the General Plan Update EIR, pursuant to Section 15152(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. H. CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES Adherence to the General Plan policies noted above would also help to mitigate the cumulative impact. I. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to construction dust emissions and toxies would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the measures identified herein. S~2-20 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental fIR MarCh 241 2000 5.3 NOISE A. SUMMARY The Project Area includes a mix of commercial, residential, institutional, and vacant uses, with portions of the area currently under construction. The dominant source of noise in the Project Area is traffic noise; other major noise sources include construction noise and human activity at local commercial and retail establishments. Sensitive receptors within and adjacent to the Project Area include single- and multi- family residences, churches, schools, and a hospital. Construction noise would be a unavoidably significant short-term impact, as identified in the 1993 ElR for the Existing Redevelopment Plan; however, no new or increased impacts would occur under the Amended Plan. Project-generated traffic would not result in any significant noise increases at off-site sensitive receptors.. On-site noise levels along EI C~mino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential .uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact.. In addition, single-event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise _ levels at new residential uses within the project area. Mitigation measures would be carried over from the 1993 Redeve-lopment Plan EIR, including adherence to the South San Francisco noise ordinance for construction noise and the preparation of a detailed noise assessment foy"future residential development to ensure that traffic noise does not exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL in exterior areas and 45 dB(A) CNEL in interior areas. The implementation of all identified mitigation measures would reduce all noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. B. INm.ODUCTION The Initial Study, published en March 9, 1999, determined that the amended Redevelopment Plan would have no new or increased significant impacts related to noise from a private airstrip. As such, this topic is not discussed in this EIR section. This section focuses on construction noise, on-site and off- site noise associated with project-generated traffic, and potential on-site noise impacts from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operations and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) aircraft flyovers. The noise discussion presented in this EIR section is based Q1. technical reports and literature, traffic noise modeling conducted by Impact Sciences, aircraft noise contours from the South San Francisco General Plan, and the noise impacts discussions from the 1993 El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan Final EIR and 1996 BART-SPO Final EIR/EIS. 5.3..1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental fIR March 2412000 5.3 Noise c. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ct. Introduction to Noise Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. It is an undesirable by-product of society's normal day-to- day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects an health. The definition of noise as unwanted s~und implies that it has an adverse effect on people and their environment. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to SOlmds at all frequencies, being less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to medium frequencies which correspond with human speech.. In response to this, the A-weighted noise level (or scale) has been developed. It corresponds better with people's subjective judgment of sound levels. This A-weighted sound level is called the unoise level" referenced in units of dB(A). Since noise is measured en a logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy results in a three dB(A) increase in noise levels. However, changes in a community noise level of less than three dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear.1 Changes from three to five dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, and the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound. Noise SOW'CeS occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment, loudspeakers, or individual motor vehiclesi and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles)" Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically .uhard" sites and 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically IIsoft" sites.2 For example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a . point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) a t 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.3 Sound levels can also be attenuated .by man-made or natural barriers, as illustrated in Figure 5.3-1, Noise Attenuation by Barriers. 1 Highway Noise Fundamentals (Springfieldl Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation~ Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 81. Highway Noise Fundamentals, p. 97. A 'hard" or reflective site does not provide any excess ~ound-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt, concrete, and very hard packed soils. An acoustically "soft" 0 r absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and most ground with vegetation. Ibid., p. 97. 2 3 5.3-2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 Sou ree / Deflected Noise ~ , , :....:, Barrier . R:o~~a:..d ~w::a. y . ....:,. . .., ,: , '" . .: oa...;: ...... ....... I.. I'J $ ~ ....... ....... 0,.. 8 . , 'oj.. , ;1' Receptor '~ W 5 . 5 ~ "Barrier Effectll Resulting from Differences in Elevation. / li n e"of-Sig h t Deflected Noise . , , :..:::::: , :::::- -- Receptor Sou rea ~~;S .:t:: - - - <:~ ~~ 5.5' ! l j ....R;o:ad,w,a.y . ~B.~~.r:.r .i..e:r "Barrier Effectll Resulting from Typical Soundwall. SOURCE: 01993, Impact Sciences FIGURES - 3 - ~ ') Noise Attenuation by Barriers 388-01e5/99 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.3 Noise Solid walls, berms, or elevation differences typically reduce noise levels by 5.0 to 10.0 dB(A).4 Sotmd levels for a source may ~so be attenuated 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) by a first row of houses and 1.5 dB(A) for each additional row of houses.5 The noise attenuation provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 5.3-1, Typical Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation for Structures in California. Table 5.3~1 Typical Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation for Structures in California ; Building Type Noise .Reduction - .dB(A) . Open Clo~n;~~. . : Windows Windows Residences Schools Churches Hospitals / Convalescent Homes Offices Theaters Hotels /Motels 17 17 20 17 17 20 17 25 25 30 25 25 30 25 Source: Transportation Research BoardJ National Research CouncilJ Hi~hway Noise: A DesiKn Guide for HiKhway EngineersJ National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 11.7. When assessing community reaction to noise, there is an obvious need for a scale that averages varying noise exposure over time and quantifies the result in terms of a single number descriptor. Several scales have been developed that address community noise levels. Those that are applicable to this analysis are the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Leq is the average A-weighted sound level measured over a given time intervaL Leq can be measured over any time period, but is typically measured for I-minute, IS-minute, l-hour, or 24-hour periods. CNEL is another average A-weighted sotmd level measured over a 24-hour time period. However, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals' increased sensitivity to noise levels during nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained after adding five decibels to sound levels occurring during the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p~m., and ten decibels to sonnd levels occurring during the nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For example, the logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dB(A) 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dB(A) CNEL. 4 Highway Noise Mitigation (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Deparbnent of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 18. 5.3-4 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5~3 Noise C2. Existing"N oise Environment The Project Area includes a mix of commercial, residential, institutional, and vacant uses, with portions of the area currently under construction. Major roadways in the vicinity of the Project Area include El Camino Real (SR-82), Mission Road, Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, Grand Avenue} Chestnut Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and Orange Avenue. Within the Project Area, the dominant noise sources are traffic and construction noise. SFO is located approximately four miles southeast of the Project Area, and single-event aircraft flyovers also contribute to ambient noise levels in the area. C2(a) Traffic Noise The existing noise levels along major roadways within or adjacent to the Project Area are identified in Table 5.3-2, Existing On-Site Noise Levels. (The estimated noise levels are based en existing traffic levels and do not include aircraft noise.) As shown, the 60 dB(A) CNEL noise contour is located' approximately 514 feet from the centerline of EI Camino Real, 186 feet from the centerline of Mission Road, and 87 feet from the centerline of Grand Avenue. The 65 dB(A) CNEL contotU' is located approximately 165 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real, and is within .the roadway lanes of Mission Road and"Grand Avenue. The 70 and 75 dB(A) CNEL contours are located within the lanes of all three roadways. C2(b) Point Sources of Noise Point sources of noise are generated by normal human activities within and adjacent to the Project Area, and consist of such activities as people talking, doors slamming, landscaping equipment operation, car/personal stereos, auto alarms, domestic animals, etc. Other major point noise sources in the Project Area include the commercial facilities along EI Camino Real, Mission Road, Spruce Avenue, and other area roadways, which generate noise from the operation of various types of machinery, auto repair equipment, and air conditioning units. Currently, construction noise is the primary stationary (point) noise source within the project area. Construction activities involving earthmoving equipment and other heavy machinery are occurring along the length of the future BART alignment (the former Southern Pacific railroad right-oI-way), with substantial activity concentrated in the area of the future Hickey Boulevard BART station between Mission Road and EI Camino Real. 5 T. M. Barry and J. A. Reagan, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Washington D.C.: U.S. Defartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Admmistrationl Office of Research, Office of Enviromnenta PolicYI December 1978), NTIS, FHWA-RD-77-108, p. 33. 5.3-5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pian Amendment Draft Supplemental ElR M2rch 24, 2000 5.3 Noise Table 5.3..2 Existing On-Site Noise Levels .Roadw~y · Segment CNEL at 75 Feet ........ .f .. :.. .:. ...... .... ... ... Distance from Center of .Roadway No~e Cont~. 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL . 60 ~CNEL EI Camino Real · north of Westborough Blvd. 68.5 53 165 514 Mission Road · north of Chestnut Ave. 64.0 60 186 Grand Avenue · east of Mission Rd. 60~6 87 Chestnut Avenue · east of El Camino Real 63.9 59 182 Source: Impact Sciences/ Inc. Calculations are provided in Appendix 5.3. Note: 1. ,; -" = LdtJ noise contour is located within 50 feet of the roadway centerline. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, point sources of noise are typically limited to normal human activities such as people talking, children playing, personal and car stereos, and domestic animals it C2(c) Aircraft Noise South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a substantial number of departures from SFO, particularly large aircraft climbing over the Coast Range for Pacific Rim destinations. Aircraft flyovers constitute South San Francisco's major noise source. Aircraft noise in South San Francisco results from aircraft departing from Runways 28L and 28R and, to a lesser extentI' southbound flights departing from Runways 1 L and lR and turning over the city. State l~w requires that each county with one or more public-use airports establish an airport land use commission and prepare and adopt a comprehensive airport/land use compatibility plan for areas sUITOrmding those airports. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments (CjCAG) serves as the Airport Land Use Commission, and is responsible for preparing,. adoptingl and implementing the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP applies to the geographic areas in various cities and unincorporated areas in San Mateo Connty that 5.3~6 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MaTch 2412000 . 5.3 Noise are affected by the operation of SFO and other County airports. One of the major goals of the CLUP is to protect the general welfare of residents in the vicinity of each airport from the adverse affects of aircraft noise. To this end, the C/CAG has adopted aircraft noise/land use compatibility standards to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land use policy actions. The 1996 CLUP establishes the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO, based on the 1983 Noise Exposure Map, as accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Federal Aviation Regulations (F AR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. (The C/CAG is currently completing an updated CLUP for SFO, which is based on a 1995 FAA-approved Noise Exposure Map.) The South San Francisco General Plan contains 1995 and 2000 FAA-approved 65 dB(A) CNEL aircraft noise contours, and 2006 projected 65 dB(A) CNEL aircraft noise contours. Most portions of the Project Area are outside the 1995 and 2000 noise contours, with the exception of a small area of the proposed EI Camino addition, roughly between South Spruce Avenue and the southern boundary of South San Francisco High School. The 2006 projected contours are shifted slightly to the northeast, and would expose a larger portion of the proposed El Camino addition to the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contourl roughly between South Spruce Avenue and Orange Avenue. The 1989 SFO Master Plan outlined substantial expansion and improvements to airport capacity, including a new international terminal, modified parking and circulation, and additional maintenance and support facilities. These improvements are underway and will accommodate an approximately 260/0 increase in annual. aircraft operations. Although the overall flights to and from SFO will increase, the population affected by average overflight noise levels (as defined by the CNEL contour) is expected to decrease. This decrease is a function of the smaller 65 dB(A) CNEL contour that will result from the elimination of the noisier, Stage 2 aircraft. The General Plan notes that while average aircraft noise levels will be reduced, single-event flyover noise will continue to be problematic in South San Francisco. With the increased number of flights" single-event flyover noise is expected to become more frequent" SFO will implement mitigation measures to reduce flyover noise, including the potential revision of departure routes over San Mateo County and the potential reduction in use of Runway 28, which points in the direction of South San Francisco. C3. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both time and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and 5~3..7 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 241 2000 5.3 Noise auditoriums are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. Based (Il this definition, existing sensitive receptors within and along roadways adjacent to the Project Area include various residential uses throughout the area," South San Francisco High Schoot the Kaiser Hospital, the Santa Cristo Society, churches, EI Camino High School, Los Cerritos Elementary School, the Good News Chapel, and the Boys and Girls Club. In addition, future residents of the Amended Project Area would be considered sensitive receptors. Existing noise levels at sensitive receptors along the roadways within and adjacent to the Project Area are shown in Table 5.3-3, Existing Noise Levels at Noise...Sensitive Locations. As shown, existing noise levels at most sensitive receptors in the area" are below 65 dB(A) CNEL. Certain residential uses along El Camino Real, Hillside Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue have ambient noise levels slightly above 65 dB(A) CNEL. In general, the single-family homes along these roadways front the street, and the noise levels shown in Table 5.3-3 reflect conditions in the front yards of the houses." Noise levels in the backyards, which are typically considered exterior living space for the purposes of ambient noise standards, would be 3 to 5 dB(A) quieter due to attenuation provided by the houses. D. POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK D1. South San Francisco General Plan The Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan provides community noise control objectives and standards. Table 5.3-4, South San Francisco Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Noise, illustrates the City's land use criteria for noise-affected areaSj the criteria indicate the CNEL noise level ranges that are acceptable for various types of land uses within the community. The table shows, for various land uses, the noise level below which a new land use would be considered compatible with the exterior noise environment with no special noise insulation requirements. The criteria provide a means to evaluate potential land use conflicts with the existing or predicted future noise environment. The following policies in the Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan would apply to the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment. Guiding Policies . 9-G-l: Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. 5.3..8 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR Mnrch 241 2000 Table 5.3--3 Existing Noise Levels at N oise..Sensitive Locations Roadway · Segment El Camino Real · north of Westborough Blvd. · south of Westborough Blvd. ' Mission Road · north of GrandAve~ Grand Avenue · between Mission Rd. and Chestnut Ave. Evergreen Drive · between Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd. Hillside Drive · between Chestnut Ave. and Evergreen Rd. Chestnut Avenue · between Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd. Orange Avenue · between EI Camino Real and Memorial Dr. Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Trailer Park Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Kaiser Hospital South San Francisco High School Single-Family Residential El Camino High School Single- and Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single- and Multi-Family Residential Single- an~ Multi-Family Residential Los Cerritos Elementary School Boys and Girls Club Good News Chapel Spruce A venue · between El Camino Real and Huntington Ave. Single-Family Residential W estborough Avenue · between EI Camino Real arid J unipero Serra Blvd. . }unipero Serra Boulevard · between Westborough and Hickey Blvd. Hickey Boulevard · between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd. Single- and Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 5~3 Noise dB(A) , CNEL 66.2 62.8 66.9 65.8 61.8 65.1 62.7 64.5 56.0 65.8 66.8 63.4 61.2 59.4 61.2 64.7 64.5 64.8 62~9 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Calculations are provided in Appendix 5.3. Noise levels are calculated for the. nearest edKe of the nearest existing building to the center of roadway. 5.3-9 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise Tab Ie 5.3--4 South San Francisco Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Noise over 70 . General ~and ~se ~Cr~te#a , Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Development should not be undertaken Land Use Residential CNEL Range Less than 65 65 to 70 over 80 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Commercial less than 70 70 to 80 over 85 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Industrial less than 75 75 to 85 Open less than 75 over 75 SatisfactorYi no special insulation requirements Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan Hearing Draft. Noise Element, Table 9.2-1. July 1999. . 9-G-2: Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. Implementing Policies . 9-1-4: Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. 5.3...10 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.3 Noise · 9-1-5:. Require that .. applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. · .9-1-6: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where. practical. · 9-1-7: Require the control of noise at source.through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators. D2. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan As discu~sed earlier, C/CAG serves as the County's Airport ~and Use Commission and is responsible for preparing the CLUP to regulate land uses in areas that could be affected by the operation of SFO and other airports in the County. The C/CAG does not have any authority over airport operations, but i t does have the authority to .conduct land use planning for areas around airports. The C/CAG must make a determination that general plans, zoning regulations, and any proposed new development in its planning area are in conformance with the CLUP. However, local governments can overturn decisions of the ALUC by a four-fifths vote. Noise policies contained in the" CLUP are discussed in detail earlier in this EIR section. According to CLOP policies for SFO, residential development is allowed without noise insulation in areas with aircraft noise levels up to 65 dB(A) CNEL, residential uses are allowed with special noise insulation in areas where aircraft noise levels are between 65 and 70 dB(A) CNEL, and new residential development is not allowed in areas where aircraft noise levels exceed 70 dB(A) CNEL. These policies are consistent with the land use compatibility standards for noise contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. E. PROJECT IMPACTS El. ' Significance Threshold Criteria In order to assist in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the CEQA Guidelines identify criteria which may 'be deemed to constitute a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in physical conditions. Specifically, Appendix G of the Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) lists the following as criteria for determining that a project may ha ve a significant impact: 5~3-11 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise . Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; . Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels; . A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or . A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The CEQA Guidelines do not define a substantial increase in ambient noise. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines do not provide an impact threshold for potentia~ noise impacts. As such, the following thresholds of significance were developed for this noise analysis, based en the plans and policies discussed previously in this EIR section. These thresholds apply to both the project and cumulative impacts. Cl(a) On-Site Thresholds According to the General Plan land use criteria for noise-impacted areas, shown in Table 5.3..4 above, and CLUP land use compatibility policies.. residential uses are satisfactory with exterior noise levels up to 65 dB(A) CNEL, commercial uses are satisfactory with exterior noise levels up to 70 dB(A) CNEL, and open space uses are satisfactory with exterior noise levels up to 75 dB(A) CNEL. Given this, the project would have less-than-significant impacts if exterior noise levels around new residential; commercial, or open space uses were within the II satisfactory" noise limits noted above. The General Plan and CLOP land use compatibility criteria state that with a noise analysis and special noise insulation as needed, residential uses are II conditionally compatible" with exterior noise levels between 65 and 70 db(A) CNEL and commercial uses are conditionally compatible with exterior noise levels between 70 and 80 dB(A) CNEL. If the project were to result in the development of new residential or commercial uses within these Uconditionally compatible" noise level ranges, a significant impact would result unless a noise analysis and adequate noise insulation features were proposed as part of the development. The General Plan and CLUP land use compatibility criteria state that residential land uses are "incompatible" with exterior noise levels greater than 70 dB(A) CNEL, commercial uses are incompatible with exterior noise levels greater than 80 dB(A) CNEL, and open space uses are incompatible with exterior noise levels greater than 75 dB(A) CNEL.. The project would result in a 5.3-12 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise significant impact if it were to result in the development of uses within these uincompatible/1 noise level ranges. Cl(b) Off-Site Thresholds Off-site noise thresholds consider both the City's noise compatibility guidelines identified in Table 5.3...4, and community response to changes in noise levels. Changes in a noise level of less than three dB(A) are typically not noticed by the human ear. Changes from three to five dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A five dB(A) increase is readily noticeable. Based on this information, the following thresholds have been established for this analysis: · An increase' of five dB(A) or greater in noise level that occurs from project-related activities would be considered significant. . An increase of three dB(A) or greater in noise level that occurs from project-related activities would be significant if the resulting noise levels exceed the City's noise compatibility guidelines (65 dB(A) CNEL) at noise-sensitive locations. . An increase of less than three dB(A) in noise level that occurs from project-related activities would not be significant. E2. Summary of Impacts in the Previous EIR The previous EIR identified the following significant impacts of the origin~l project (the approved Redevelopment Plan). IINoise would be generated during project-assisted construction activities. U (1993 Draft EIR, Summary page 30) Project-related construction noise impacts could include noise intrusion from construction of project-facilitated residential and commercial new development within the project area, and possible exposure of project-facilitated new housing to BART construction noise. lhe original EIR found that these impacts could be substantially reduced by the implementation of measures related to construction scheduling, equipment. mufflers and maintenance, idling prohibitions, equipment location and shielding, quiet equipment selection, notification of neighbors, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. However, the impact would remain significant after mitigation. "Project-facilitated new housing along the frontages of El Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue would be exposed to traffic-related average daily noise 5.3-13 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5.3 Noise levels at or above the City General Plan identified threshold (65 dBA CNEL) triggering mitigation needs." (1993 Draft EIR, Summary page 29) This impact was found to be significant but mitigable (through requiring mitigation for specific projects within the Plan Area to reduce noise levels, and through compliance with Title 24 standards for multi-family residential units). "The proje~t area is and will continue to be exposed to SFO-generated -Ssingle-event' noise levels from project area overflights that could interfere with indoor residential activities, including sleep, if not adequately mitigated in the design of new project area structures." (1993 Draft EIR, Summary page 29) This impact was found to be significant but mitigable (through requiring all residential projects in the Project Area to be designed to achieve the necessary exterior-to-interior noise reduction to meet the single-event criterion limits and the City's Noise Standard). The original EIR found that project-generated traffic would not result in any significant noise impacts Citywide. E3. Construction Noise Impacts Development of the proposed project would require site preparation (i.e., grading) and construction of the proposed facilities and structures. These activities typically involve the use of heavy equipment such as tractors, loaders, and concrete mixers. Trucks would be used to deliver equipment and building materials, and to haul away waste materials. Smaller equipment such as jack hammers, pneumatic tools, saws, and hammers would also be used throughout the site during the construction phase. . This equipment would generate both steady state and episodic noise that would be heard both en and off the project site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has compiled data regarding the noise-generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. These data are presented in Figure 5.3...2, Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment.. As shown, noise levels generated by heavy equipment can range from approximately 68 dB(A) to noise levels in excess of 100 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a ra te of approximately six dB(A) per doubling of distance. 5 ~ 3-14 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MarCh 24, 2000 60 Compacters (Rollers) Front Loaders (!) 8 ackhoe 5 z en :> w z 0 ~ :! Tractors z I W l- e:: z c( Scrapers, G radars 0 w i= 00 ~ OJ Pave rs ::! 0 t) ...J T ru cks <( z a: w (!) Concrete M i xe rs I- ~ z ::J >- 0 CD z Concrete Pumps 0 <( W I a: en w ......J 3: <( Cranes (Movable) 0 c: a.. w ~ ti: z ::E Cranes (De rrick) w ~ 0- S > Pumps 0 a: w <C Z 0 Generators ~ en Com p resso rs I- Pneumatic Wrenches f-z OW <~ Jack Hammers, Rock Drills a... 9: ~:::l -0 w Pile Drivers (Peaks) a: Vibrators w J: f- 0 Saws Note: Based on limited available data samples. NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET 70 80 90 100 110 . . . - . - SOURCE:United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, I'Nolse from Construction Equipment and Operations. Building Equipment. and Home Appliances," NTID 300~1. ~ 388-01-5199 FIGURES _ 3 - 2 Noise Levels Of Typical Construction Equipment EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SEIR 5.3 Noise Noise . levels generated during. future construction activities could affect noise-sensitive uses located within and directly adjacent to the Project Area. Such uses would include the Treasure Island Trailer Park, the Red Baron Trailer Park, the Harmonious Holdings condominium complex, the Days Inn motel, Kaiser Medical Center, the recently completed Greenridge residential project and the future Promenade residential neighborhood (currently under construction), the Santa Cristo Society, churches, various . single-. and multi-family residential uses located along Mission Road, Grand Avenue and Commercial Avenue, and EI Camino High School. A substantial level of construction activity is currently occurring within the Redevelopment Project Area; specifically, construction of the Promenade residential project en the former McLellan Nursery site and construction of the BART line along the fonner Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. In addition, the site of the former Macy's warehouse and the BART site have been graded, in anticipation of construction of the BART station and the extension of Hickey Boulevard to Mission Road. The Promenade project is expected to be complete and occupied by the end of 2000 and the BART Station/Hickey Boulevard extension is expected to be completed by May 2001. Given this, some overlap of the construction activities of the Amended Redevelopment Plan with the BART -related construction is expected to occurl particularly.. Redevelopment Plan activities in proximity to the .BART station such as the proposed mixed-use project 00 the BART site, the proposed residential and Costco projects on the Macy's site, and the anticipated residential development on the Cuneo site. In the Willow Gardens neighborhood, construction activities could result in noise impacts to the residential areas located north, south, and east of the neighborhood. The loudest construction activities associated with the Willow Gardens rehabilitation would include the demolition of tw'o of the multi-family units, and the operation of earthmoving equipment to remove the grassy strip along the eastern boundary of the neighborhood and replace it with a lane. Within the El Camino Addition, noise "from construction activities would have the potential to affect adjacent residential uses. The Chestnut Creek site is bmmded by single-family residences m the east and portions of the El Camino Commercial frontage are bounded by single-family residences on the east. The California Water Service Company site is bordered en the east by multi-family residential uses; however, the portion of the site proposed for the fire station is not directly adjacent to any residences. lhe Safeway site is not directly adjacent to any residential uses.. Other sensitive receptors would include South San Francisco High School; however, the school is m the very southern end of the Amended Plan Area, and classroom areas are buffered from the commercial uses to the north by a parking lot and administrative offices. Construction of the fire station could result in noise impacts to employees of the California Water Service Company administrative offices on Chestnut Avenue. 5.3.16 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise As noted previously, the 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR identified conshuction activities associated with the proposed residential and commercial development as a significant short-term impact, and identified mitigation measures such as scheduling, equipment muffling, notification, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator to reduce impacts. Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, the number of sensit~ve receptors potentially exposed to construction noise would increase due to the increased Project Area, but the type and intensity of construction noise would generally be expected to remain the same. Most of the sites identified for redevelopment (and thus construction activities) under the existing Redevelopment Plan would also undergo development under the Amended Redevelopment Plan~ Based m the expected types of construction activities, the Amended Plan would result in short-term construction noise impacts. The Amended Plan would be subject to the mitigation measures for construction noise identified in the 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR, including compliance with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance, which limits the hours of construction. However, because construction noise was identified as an unavoidable significant impact of the Existing Plan, it would also be considered an unavoidable significant impact of the Amended Plan. It should be noted, though, tha t the construction noise impacts of the Amended Plan would be similar in type and intensity to the Existing Plan, and that no new or increased significant impacts would result. E4. Operational Noise Impacts Noise impacts would result from implementation of the proposed redevelopment activities. These impacts would primarily result from project-generated vehicular traffic and the increased human activity within the Project Area. Each of these potential noise impacts is discussed separately below. E4(a) Traffic Noise (i) On-Site Noise As noted previously, the 1993 EIR for the existing Redevelopment Plan identified a significant impact related to on-site traffic noise along El Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue, and required that individual noise assessments be conducted prior to approving future residential projects within those areas to ensure that exterior noise levels would be below 65 dB(A) CNEL and interior noise levels would be below 45 dB(A) CNEL.. The long-term future noise levels along major roadways adjacent to the Project Area are identified in Table 5.3-5, Predicted Future Exterior On-Site Noise Levels. The estimated noise levels are based m 5. 3~ 17 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise future buildout traffic levels tmder the Amended Redevelopment Plan; noise levels under the Existing Plan are also shown. Due to the relatively low traffic levels en the roadways directly adjacent to the Willow Gardens neighborhood, no on-site traffic noise impacts are anticipated. Table 5.3-5 Predicted Future Exterior On-Site Noise Levels -Roadway '. Segment Future Noise Con~ours - Distance From, Center ~f ~adway ::, '. ' 7S CNEL 70 CNEL - ,6S,CNEL, 60. C~,EL Exist. Amend. Exist. Amend. Exist. Amend. ' Exist., Ame.rid. Plan Plan Plan Pian Plan" Plait ' Plan ,Plan' EI Camino Real · north of Westborough 60 64 153 165 465 510 Mission Road · north of Chestnut 40 47 116 140 .GrandAve · east of Mission 79 83 Chestnut Avenue · east of EI Camino Real 57 58 156 161 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Calculations are provided in Appendix 5.3. 1 IJ _" = CNEL noise contour is located within 40 feet of the roadway centerline. As shown, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in on-site noise contours generally similar to the Existing Plan. Under both Plans, the 75 dB(A) CNEL contour would be located within the lanes of all three roadways, and the 70 dB(A) CNEL contour would be located within the lanes of Chestnut Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Mission Road. Along El Camino Real, the 70 dB(A) CNEL contour distance would increase from 60 feet under the Existing Plan to 64 feet under the Amended Plan, but in both cases would extend only to about the edge of the roadway. Along Chestnut Avenue, the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour distance would increase from 57 to 58 feet from the. center <?f the roadway. Along Mission Road, the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour distance would increase from 40 to 47 feet from the center of the roadway. lhe small incremental contour increases along Chestnut 5.3~ 18 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise Avenue and Mission Road would not expose any new sensitive receptors to noise levels above 65 dB(A) CNEL, and would not result in any new on-site noise impacts over the Existing Plan.. The largest incremental increase would occur along El Camino Real, where the additional traffic under the Amended Plan would increase the distance of the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour from 153 to 165 feet from the center of the road way. The planned development along this portion of EI Camino Real would be mixed-use, with retail uses en the ground floor and multi-family residential uses en the upper floors. The exposure of additional residential units (whether developed under the Existing Plan or the Amended Plan) within the larger 65 dB(A) CNEL contour area along EI Camino Real would be an increased impact over the Existing Plan. However, the Amended Plan would be subject to the mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR, which would reduce on-site noise impacts along EI Camino Real to a less-than-significant level. Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, the Cooeo property, Chestnut Creek site, and Oak Avenue sit,e would be developed with residential uses. These sites are located along Mission Road, and the proposed noise...sensitive uses could be exposed to exterior noise levels above 65 dB(A) CNEL. These uses would also be subject to the mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR, and the potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. No other on-site noise impacts were identified. Given this, the Amended Plan would not result in any new or increased significant on-site noise impacts. (ii) Off-Site Noise As discussed previously, the 1993 EIR concluded that the Existing Redevelopment Plan would result in a total noise increase of about 1 dB(A), which would not be perceptible and would not result in any significant impacts. No mitigation measures were required. Table 5.3-6, Predicted Future Exterior Off- Site Roadway Noise Levels, shows a comparison of existing, Existing Plan buildout, and Amended Plan buildout noise levels at off-site noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. As shown, with the addition of traffic from the Amended Redevelopment Plan to the local roadway network, noise levels at all identified noise-sensitive receptors would increase less than 1.0 dB(A) CNEL over the future noise levels expected from the Existing Redevelopment Plan (Updated Analysis) and less than 3.0 dB(A) CNEL over existing noise levels.. Neither the incremental nor the total increases in off-site 5.3-19 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 5.3 Noise Table 5.3~6 Predicted Future Exterior Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels Exist. Noise. , . Plan ' Amend. Increase (Updated :Plan . Q'ver Roadway . Noise Sensitive Existing Analysis) Buildout ExiSt. , . Signi f. · SeRment Land Uses N aise 'Noise Noise ' .PI an Impact? EI Camin() Real · north of Westborough Trailer Park 65.0 66~3 66~7 0.4 No MF Residential 61~6 62.9 63.3 0.4 No SF Residential 65.7 ) 67.0 67.4 O~4 No Kaiser Hos~tal 64.6 65.9 66.3 0.4 No · south of Westborough SSF High Sc 001 60.6 61~2 61.2 0.0 No Mission Road · north of Grand Ave. SF Residential 62.7 62.9 63~6 O~7 No El Camino Hi~h Sch. 60.3 60.5 61.3 O~8 No Grand Avenue · between Mission Rd~ and SF & MF Residential 63~4 64~1 64~3 0~2 No Chestnut Ave. Evergreen Drive · between Mission Rd~ and SF Residential 56~O 55.3 . 55.5 0.2 No Hillside Blvd~ Hillside Drive · between Chestnut Ave. SF Residential 64.5 66.7 66~8 011 No and Evergreen Rd. Chestnut Avenue . betvveen Mission Rd. SF & MF Residential 65~4 66.3 66~4 0.1 No and Hillside Blvd. Orange Avenue SF & MF Residential 63.7 · between EI Camino 63~4 63.8 O~l No Real and Memorial Dr. Los Cerritos Elem. 61~2 61.5 61.6 0.1 No School Boys and Girls Club 59.4 5917 59.8 O~l No Good News Chapel 61.2 61.5 61~6 Otl No Spruce Avenue SF Residential 63~3 64.1 · btwn~ EI Camino Real 64.1 0.0 No and Huntington Ave. Westboro~ Avenue · btwn. Camino Real SF & MF Residential 63.3 65.0 65~1 0.1 No and Junipero Serra Junipero Serra Blvd. SF Residential · between Westborough 63.5 63.7 63.8 0.1 No and Hickey Blvd. Hickey Boulevard · btwn. EI Camino Real SF Residential 60.4 62.7 63~2 0.5 No and Junipero Serra Notes: SF = Single-Family; MF == Multi-Family Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Calculations are chrovided in Appendix 5.3. Noise levels are in dB (A) CNEL and calculated for the nearest edge of the nearest existing buil ing to the center of roadway. 5 ~ 3- 20 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pian Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.3 Noise noise levels would be perceptible to the human ear. Given this, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in any new or increased significant impacts with respect to off-site traffic noise. ES. Operational Noise Other Than Traffic Noise E5(a) On-Site Point Noise The Project Area consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses, ~d existing point noise somces include normal human activity, operation of air conditioning and heating equipment, operation of machinery for auto repair and other service commercial uses, and construction noise along the future BART alignment. _ lhe Amended Redevelopment Plan would intensify land uses within certain portions of the Project Areal particularly the area arormd the future BART station" Although the intensity of land uses would increasel the types of new point noise sources resulting from the Amended Plan would generally be similar to existing point noise sources, and would primarily be limited to noise from normal human activity associated with residential and retail commercial development. No land uses that would result in excessive stationary noise are expected to be developed within the Project Area. Given this, no new or increased significant impacts would result. The proposed fire station en Chestnut Avenue would be a source of intermittent noise from emergency sirens or fire alarm bells. Uses immediately adjacent to the fire station include the California Water Service Company administrative offices, the Hetch Hetchy water line right-oi-way, the Safeway shopping center, and the Ron Price auto dealership. lhe nearest residences to the fire station site are located east of the site on the opposite side of Chestnut Avenue; other nearby residences include a row of apartment buildings on Commercial Avenue near Chestnut Avenue.. Although some nearby residen ts might find the occasional siren/ alarm noise annoying, these noises would" be of short duration and would be expected to occur only in emergency situations (or for training purposes)~ Given that occasional fire and police sirens are common in an tuban environment, stationary noise from the fire station would not be considered significant" E5(b) BART The BART -SFO extension is currently being constructed m an alignment that nms underground through the EI Camino Redevelopment Project Area. The 1993 EIR for the existing Redevelopment Plan noted that the planned tmdergrrn.m.d alignment would eliminate BART noise impacts within the Plan Area, assuming the use of resilient ties and floating trackbed in the BART design. The 1996 Final EIR/EIS for the BART-SFO extension project noted that the project would result in groundborne noise impacts to 39 to 43 sensitive receptors and vibration impacts to 90 to 100 sensitive receptors. Identified mitigation 5.3- 21 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 5.3 Noise measures include use of a floating slab trackbed, resiliently supported ties or soft rail fasteners, or off- site building isolation. The Final EIRjEIS determined that the implementation .of these measures would reduce groundbome vibration and noise levels in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood, at the Kaiser Medical Center, and at the homes in the Mayfair neighborhood to a less than significant level. BART noise and vibration impacts to the amended Redevelopment Plan would be similar to the impacts identified in the 1996 BART-SFO Extension Final EIR/EIS. Projects developed along the BART alignment would be subject to noise and vibration from the BART trains. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR/EIS, and currently being implemented through the BART construction activities, would be expected to mitigate noise and vibration impacts within the project area. Given this, the project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to BART noise. E5(b) Aircraft Noise As noted earlier, most. portions of the Project Area are outside the 1995 and 2000 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contours, with the exception of a small area of the proposed El Camino Addition, roughly between South Spruce Avenue, and the southern boundary of South San Francisco High School. The 2006 projected contours are shifted slightly to the northeast, and would expose a larger portion of the proposed EI Camino Addition to the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contour, roughly between South Spruce Avenue and Orange Avenue. ' Those portions of the Amended Redevelopment Plan area that are within the 2000 approved and 2006 proposed 65 dB(A) CNEL aircraft noise contours are in the southern part of the El Camino Addition, and generally consist of existing commercial development along El Camino Real and residential development farther east. No new residential projects are proposed for this portion of the Project Area; therefore, no significant impacts are expected with respect to average aircraft noise. The General Plan notes that while average aircraft noise levels are expected to decrease in the future, single-event flyover noise will continue to be problematic in South San Francisco. According to th e General Plan, SFO will implement mitigation measures to reduce flyover noise, including the potential revision of departure routes over San Mateo County and the potential reduction in use of Rnnways 28L and 28R, which point in the direction of South San Francisco. All portions of the Amended Redevelopment Plan area will continue to be exposed to excessive noise levels from single-event aircraft flyovers in South San Francisco, which would represent a potentially significant impact. The 1993 EIR for the existing Redevelopment Plan identified a significant impact related to single- event aircraft flyovers in residential areas. Mitigation for this impact included design of new 543- 22 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.3 Noise . residential projects to achieve the necessary exterior-to-interior noise reduction to meet single-event flyover limits and the 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise standard. New residential projects constructed under the Amended Plan, including the Willow Gardens rehabilitationl would be subject to the mitigation measures from the 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR. These measures would reduce noise impacts from aircraft flyovers to a less-than-significant level. Given thisl no new or increased significant impacts would occur. F. MITIGATION MEASURES Fl. Measures Carried Forward f~om Redevelopment Plan EIR Fl(a) Construction Noise 1. Limit noise-generated construction activities, including truck traffic going to and from a site, for any purpose, to the hours stipulated in .the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.050). 2. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. 3.. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.. 4. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from nearby existing residences and other noise-sensitive land uses. 5. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. 6. Notify neighbors within 1,000 feet of project construction areas of the construction schedule in writing. 7. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of th e noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The Agency should be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and an individual project sponsor should be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices.) 5~3-23 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.3 Noise Fl(b) "On-Site Traffic Noise 8. The noise compatibility of future residential and other development in the project area should be assessed during individual project review. As a condition of individual residential project approvals in the project area, mitigation measures should be required as warranted to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor use areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dB(A) CNEL in habitable rooms. 9. In addition, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes standards that apply to all new multi-family residential units in California. These standards require that all multi- family buildings to be located in areas where the existing noise level exceeds 60 dB(A) CNEL must have an acoustical study performed to identify acoustical measures that may be required in order to limit maximum interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL in any habitable room. F1(e) Aircraft Noise 10. As a condition of development approval and/or project assistance, all project-facilitated residential projects in the project area should be designed to ,:\chieve the necessary exterior-to- interior noise reduction to meet the single-event criterion limits and the City's interior noise standard. This would require specific studies at the development stage for each individual project to outline the steps necessary to comply with the applicable standards. F2. Measures Identified in this SEIR F2(a) Construction Noise No additional mitigation is required. F2(b) On-Site Traffic Noise No additional mitigation is required. F2(c) Aircraft Noise No additional mitigation is required. 5.3-24 EI "Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.3 Noise G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative noise impacts would primarily occur as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and other development in the area. The roadway noise modeling conducted as part of the analysis for long-term traffic noise increases included cumulative development in the area (see Table 5.3-6). As discussed above, cumulative traffic (including traffic from buildout of the Amended Redevelopment Plan) would result in significant on-site noise impacts to future residential uses along EI Camino Real if mitigation measures were not implemented. No other on-site or off-site traffic noise impacts were identified. H. CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures carried over from the 1993 Redevelopment Plan EIR for project-specific on-site traffic noise impacts would mitigate cumulative on-site traffic noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. I. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Construction noise is considered to be an unavoidably significant impact, as identified in the 1993 EIR for the Existing Plan; however, no new or increased construction noise impacts would occur under the Amended Plan. All other noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this section~ 5.3- 25 El Glmino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5.4 LOSS OF OPEN SPACE A. SuMMARY The Willow Gardens neighborhood currently contains a O.45-acre common greenspace, approximately 20 feet in width by 1,000 feet in length. Although not officially designated for park or open space uses, this linear grass area is used for recreational purposes by residents of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, primarily by children playing. The proposed Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would result in the removal of the entire O.45-acre greenspace and the construction of a lane in its place. Following the loss of the greenspace, some users, particularly older children, would likely move to the other open space (courtyard) areas in the Willow Gardens neighborhood; small children and toddlers would be expected to play in new landscaped yard areas adjacent to their units, or in a newly constructed tot lot. It is expected that most users would shift their activities to other open space or yard areas within the neighborhood rather than venture outside the neighborhood to a developed park site. As such, the Amended Plan would not increase the use of these other recreational areas to the degree that any physical deterioration would result, and no significant impacts would occur. B. INTRODUCTION The Initial Study, published m March 9, 1999, determined that the Amended Redevelopment Plan . would have no new or increased significant impacts related to the overall demand for parkS. As such, this topic is not discussed in this EIR section. This section focuses on impacts associated with the loss of a greenspace area in the Willow Gardens neighborhood. A brief discussion of existing park facilities in South San Francisco is included for informational purposes. c. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ct. City Parks and Open Space The city of South San Francisco is currently served by a wide variety of parks, open spaces, and recreation programs. The city contains two community parks, four neighborhood parks, and 12 mini parks.. San Bruno Mountain. State Park, a major regional open space resource, is directly north of South San Francisco. The City also maintains a Joint Powers Agreement with the South San Francisco Unified School District for use of parks and playfields for school sports and City recreation programs. Citywide, total park and recreation acreage includes 70 acres of developed parkland, 168.5 acres of 5.4-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5,,4 Loss of Open Space open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. Table 5.4-1, Park Sizes and Service Areas, lists the typical sizes and service areas of the various types of park facilities located within the city. lhe updated General Plan states that the Sunshine Gardens/Mission Road areal which includes the Willow Gardens neighborhood, is served by school facilities but currently lacks developed parkland. Planned parks identified in the General Plan Schools, Parks, and Open Space diagram near the Willow Gardens neighborhood include a linear park along the BART alignment and an expansion of Orange Memorial Park to the north. The General Plan Update EIR notes that buildout of the planned parks identified in the updated General Plan would increase the city's parkland ratio from 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents to 2.6 acres per 1,000 residents (excluding school and open space acreage); this additional parkland is expected to meet the demand of existing and new residents of the city. Table 5.4-rl Park Sizes and Service Areas Facility Regional Parks Community Parks Neighborhood Parks Mini..Park Special Facility Linear Park TyPical Size 100 acres or more 20 to 50 acres 4 to 12 acres 0.25 to 1 acre Varies Sufficient width to protect resource and provide maximum use .Service Area County or Bay Area City 3/4-mile radius 1 /4-mile radius City City , Exa~ple.' .'.>, . . : ~ · , San Bruno Mountain State Park Orange Memorial Park Sellick Par k Zamora Pia y Lot Magnolia Center Bayfront public access areas Source: 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan C2. Willow Gardens Neighborhood The 9.3-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood is located off Willow Avenue, and includes Nora WaYt Sandra Way, Brusco Way, and Susie Way. The neighborhood currently consists of 53 four-plex residential structures, totaling 212 multi-family units. In the vicinity of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, the nearest park is Orange Memorial Park, located on Orange Avenue approximately 0.5 miles south of the neighborhood. Orange Memorial Park is 21 acres and is the City's largest park. Recreational facilities at Orange Memorial Park include playfields, basketball, tennis and bocce courts, and an indoor swimming pooL Sunshine Gardens School, 5.4..2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.4 Loss of Open Space located on Miller Avenue approximately 0.25 miles north of the neighborhood, provides an additional 11.5 acres of developed recreational opportunities, including playground equipment and sports fields. The only developed recreational facility within the Willow Gardens neighborhood is a small playground area, designed for YOtmg children, in the courtyard of the building cluster between Sandra Way and Brusco Way. A small grass courtyard is adjacent to the playgrormd area, and provides additional recreational opportunities; another grass courtyard is located in the adjacent building complex between Sandra Court and Brusco Way. Along the eastern boundary of the neighborhood, to the rear of the houses fronting Susie Way, is a conunon greenspace numing the length of the neighborhood. The greenspace consists of a O.45-acre linear grass area, measwing approximately 20 feet in width by 1,000 feet in length. A sidewalk extends along the west side of the grass and a tall hedge runs along the east side of the grassl abutting the wooden fence that separates the Willow Gardens neighborhood from the multi-family residences to the east. Although not officially designated for park or open space uses, this linear grass area is used for recreational purposes by residents of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. In particular, for those units that front Susie Way, the grassy area serves as a common "backyard" and provides an area for children to play. A site visit to the Willow Gardens neighborhood was conducted during a weekday moming in January 2000; although school was in session and no children were observed using "the greenspace, numerous toys were seen scattered in the grass. Although the condition of the grass appeared acceptable, the greens pace is too narrow to be used for organized sports games, such as soccer or football games. It is expected that some informal athletic activities, such as tossing a baseball or kicking a soccer ball, do occur in the greenspace. D. POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Applicable policies of the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element of the South San Francisco General Plan include the following: Guiding Policies: Parks and Recreation . 5..1-G-l: Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. . 5.1-G-3: Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open spacei improve access to existing facilities where feasible~ 5.4..3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.4 Loss of Open Space E. PROJECT IMPACTS El. Significance Threshold Criteria According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form), a project could have a significant effect m the envirorunent when it would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.. A project could also have a significant effect if it would result in the need for new park facilities to maintain established performance objectives, and the provision of such facilities could cause significant environmental effects. As such, the loss of the Willow Gardens greenspace area is evaluated in the context of whether it would increase the use of other nearby recreation facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration of those facilities would occur, or whether it would result in the need for the provision of additional recreation facilities in South San Francisco~ E2. Summary of Impacts of Approved Redevelopment Plan The 1993 EIR identified significant impacts related to the need for additional park acreage and noncompliance with city distance standards for neighborhood parks, and mini-parks.. Identified mitigation measures included requiring future development to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees for mini- parks/ construction of a neighborhood park near the McLellan Nursery site, and the development of a linear park along Colma Creek and the BART right-of-way. Impacts were found to be less-than- significant with the implementation of these mitigation measures. E3. Impacts of Redevelopment Plan Amendment Under the Amended Redevelopment Pian, a rehabilitation project is proposed for the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Figure 3.0-5, Willow Gardens Addition, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, shows the proposed site plan for the Willow Gardens rehabilitation project.. The specific features of the rehabilitation project include the construction of a private entryway and private yard space for each unit, the construction of trash enclosures at the front porches of some nnits, and the addition of a bedroom" or family room to certain units. In addition to the building improvements/ a lane would be constructed along the eastern boundary of the neighborhood, behind the units along Susie Way, in the current location of the grassy area. Ingress to the lane would be provided by two new street segments, one in the current location of either 352 or 356 Susie Way and one in the current location of 396 Susie Way. The lane would provide one-way circulation northbonnd and southbound from the central access (352 or 356 Susie Way) and one-way circulation southbound from the northern access point (396 Susie 5 .4..4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.4 Loss of Open Space Way). Egress.from the .lane would be provided by two new street segments in the locations of existing pedestrian walkways between Susie Way and the grassy area. The lane would provide parallel parking spaces m the east side of the roadway. A Utot lot" (small children's playground) would be constructed at the south end of the lane, to the rear of the unit at 324 Susie Way. As noted above, it. O.45-acre greenspace area currently exists along the east side of the neighborhood, to the rear of the buildings along Susie Way. The grassy area is currently used for recreation by residents of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, particularly by children playing. The Willow Gardens rehabilitation portion of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the loss of the entire greenspace area for construction of the lane. Following implementation of the rehabilitation project, residents along Susie Way would need to use other grass areas in the neighborhood for recreation. These could include the new private yard space developed as part of the rehabilitation project, or common areas such as the courtyards of the building clusters between Nora Way, Sandra Way, and Brusco Way. Outside the Willow Gardens neighborhood, the nearest greenspace would be found at Sunshine Gardens School, which is loea ted approximately 0.25 miles north of the neighborhood and contains open grass playfields. Orange Memorial Park, located approximately 0.5 miles south of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, contains a nwnber of developed recreational amenities including open grass playfields. The loss of the greenspace area behind Susie Way would be an inconvenience to some residents who currently utilize i t, in that they would need to go to the other areas mentioned above in order to engage in recreational activities that require more area than provided by a private yard. For parents with YOtmg children or toddlers, the provision of private yard space and a new tot lot behind Susie Way would be expected to accommodate most of their no~al playing activities. Under CEQA, the loss of an open area in itself is not considered a significant environmental impact. However, a significant impact could result if loss of the area were to result in an increase in the use of other recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of those other facilities were to occur. The existing greenspace is about 0.45 acres in size, and primarily serves the residents who live en Susie Way (a total of 92 apartment units). Because the grass area is long and narrow, it is too constrained for playing formal sports games such as soccer or football. The greenspace is used mostly by young children playing with toys, or by people informally tossing a ball around. Loss of the greenspace would require the current users to find other areas in which to engage in these recreational activities. Some users, particularly older children, would likely move to the other open space areas in the Willow Gardens neighborhood, such as the courtyards and playgronnd area between Nora Way, Sandra Way, and Brusco Way. Small children and toddlers, who are more constrained by their parents! ability to watch 5.4-5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.4 Loss of Open Space them, would be expected to play in the new private yard spaces adjacent to their units, or in a new tot lot behind Susie Way. In general, the types of activities that currently occur in the greenspace - which primarily can be described as children "'playing" - have no requirements in terms of size of the area or types of facilities. It is likely that children in the Willow Gardens neighborhood currently use the entire neighborhood - both greenspaces such as the grass area and hard spaces such as sidewalks and driveways - for playing. For this reason, it is likely that most children would simply adapt to the new design of the neighborhood- shifting their play activities to the courtyard or private yard areas - rather than venture outside the neighborhood to a developed park site. To the extent that certain residents want to throw or kick a ball around, or run around in the grass} they might choose to go to a developed park. However, based en the cUrrent pattern of use, a substantial diversion of users of the existing Willow Gardens greenspace to nearby recreation areas (e.g., Sunshine Gardens School or Orange Memorial Park) is not expected, and the Amended Plan would not increase the use of these other recreational areas to the degree that ,any physical deterioration would result. Although the loss of the Willow Gardens greenspace would affect certain residents, especially in terms of convenience, such effects would be social impacts, rather than physical environmental impacts. As such, these impacts would not be significant under CEQA. In addition, additional parkland identified in the General Plan is expected to meet the demand of existing and new residents of the city, including residents of Willow Gardens. Therefore, the loss of the greenspace. would not result in significant impacts related to unmet demand for park and recreation areas. F. MITIGATION MEASURES Fl. Measures Proposed as Part of Redevelopment Plan Amendment No mitigation measures are proposed as part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. F2. Measures Identified in this SEIR No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The O.45-acre greenspace is used exclusively by residents of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, particularly those who live along Susie Way. No cumulative impacts related to the loss of the open 5.4-6 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 5.4 Loss of Open Space space would occur within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, as the population of the neighborhood is expected to remain relatively stable following implementation of the rehabilitation project resulting in no increased demand for neighborhood greenspace. To the extent that the loss of the greenspace area increases the demand for parks outside the neighborhood, that demand would add to the cumulative demand for parkland within the City. However, given the relatively small number of residents in the Willow Gardens neighborhood that would be expected to use parkland outside the neighborhood as a direct replacement for the greenspace, the project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. H. CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES No significant cumulative impacts were identified and no mitigation is required. I. LEVEL OF S.IGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts were identified. 5.4..7 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES A. SUMMARY This section focuses on impacts to potential archaeological resources on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites (other impacts to cultural resources within the Project Area h a v e been addressed by the 1993 EIR). An updated literature search and field survey of the sites were conducted in March 2000. The literature search confirmed that no known prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. The field survey identified midden deposits within a man-made earthen feature on the California Water Service Company site; it was concluded that the midden. deposit was imported from another location. Due to standing water on the sites, the archaeologists were unable to verify the presence or absence of prehistoric materials on other portions of the sites. The implementation of a mechanical auger program and, if necessary, hand excQ.vation and resource recovery and documentation would reduce impacts related to development on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites to a less- than-significant level. B. INTRODUCTION The Initial Study, published en March 9, 1999, determined that the Amended Redevelopment Plan would have no new or increased significant impacts related to cultural resources. This determination was based m the conclusion that the only recorded archaeological site within the Project Area (CA-SMA-299) had been destroyed, and that impacts related to unknown archaeological resources would be mitigated by conducting field investigations prior to construction, monitoring during grading or trenching, and proper documentation of resource finds. The only potential historic resources within the Project Area were the structures en the McLellan Nursery site, which has since been approved for the development of 179 single-family homes (under construction) and 34 townhouses (recently occupied). The Initial Study was prepared using the latest guidance from CEQA regarding impacts to cultural resources~ Subsequent to publication of the Initial Study, the City' received information that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. This EIR section presents an evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources m those sites. The description is based on an updated literature search and field investigation conducted by Holman & Associates in 5.5-1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources March 2000.1 . Historical background information is based on the cultural resources discussion in the 1993 EIR. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ct. Geographic Setting The Project Area is within one mile of the San Francisco Bay shore in an area which has been heavily urbanized with a variety. of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses.. Prior to the first development of the area in the 1890s, the corridor site was located near the edge of an extensive tidal marshland habitat.2 The earliest maps of the area were made in the 1850s and are curated at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California. These maps delineate' a complex system of sloughs tha t bordered the Bay shore. The edge of this marshland was marked by grasslands and mixed hardwood forest.. ' C2. History C2 (a) Native American Period The native peoples who occupied the Project Area vicinity (i.e., the San Francisco Peninsula) at the time of European contact are known as Costanoan, a term derived from the Spanish word "Costanos" meaning coast people. (Native Americans currently living in the Bay Area prefer the term HOhlone" meaning II abalone people"). lhese people subsisted by hunting, fishing, and the gathering of musselsl other shellfish, and native plants.3 The immediate ancestors of the local Costanoan people are believed to have moved to the San Francisco region aronnd A.D. 500 from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta area.4 The Project Area contained one recorded cultural resource site, a Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299); according to the 1993 EIR, the site has been destroyed. 1 Holman and Associates Archaeological Consultantsl Archival Search and Field Inspection of the Chestnut Creek Site, South San Francisco, San Mateo COuntyl California, March 16, 2000. California Archaeologist Consultants, Inc., An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Corporation Yard for the City of South San Francisco, November 1991. Ibid~ Unnamed Archival Review of Cultural Resources on the San Francisco Peninsula. 2 3 4 StS-2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources C2 (b) Spanish Period. The first Europeans to reach the San Francisco area were Spanish explorers. The first expedition in 1769, led by Gaspar de Portola, traveled down the peninsula as far south as present-day Menlo Park. The second expedition was led by Fernando Rivera and Fray Francisco Palou in 1774. This expedition followed an inland route up the peninsula as far as the Golden Gate in search of a suitable mission site. A third expedition was led by Juan Bautista de Anza in 1776. This expedition resulted in the establishment of Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores). A few months later, Mission Santa Clara de Asis was founded to the south. El Camino Real (the trail established by de Anza in 1776) became a heavily traveled route between the two missions and their outposts.5 C2(c) Mexican Period During the Mexican rule of California (1822 through 1848), large tracts of land were issued to private individuals, usually cattle ranchers and hide and tallow traders. The Project Area vicinity was part of Jose Antonio Sanchez's 14,639-acre Rancho Buri Buri, one of the largest grants en the peninsula. The rancho owned 10,000 cattle and 1,000 horses as well as several sheep herds. The rancho contained two adobe houses, a grist milt and boat landing on a slough from which hides and tallow produced at Buri Buri were shipped.6 C2 (d) Early American Period California became part of the United States in 1848 as a result of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The Gwin Act of 1851 established a commission to settle disputes over the validity of Mexican land grants. The Sanchez Family ownership of Buri Buri was upheld in 1852. In the following years through the 1870s, several wealthy Americans including Charles Lux, Ansel L. Easton, and Darious O. Mills purchased thousands of acres of the Buri Buri Rancho. By the 1850s El Camino Real had grown into a highway traveled by wagons and stage coaches.7 The 1J12 Mile House", as stage coach station constructed in 1860, is located adjacent to the Project Area. This station was the origin of the community of Baden, a multi-ethnic community with an economy based on fishing, agriculture, livestock, and meat packing. In 1908, the community was incorporated and renamed South San Francisco. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 5.5-3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment PIan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources C3 Undiscovered Cultural.and Historical Resources The Project Area is within a substantial area. of potential cultural and historical resources. The ecotone which existed between marshland and upland habitats described above was attractive to prehistoric people who subsisted (Xl. shellfish, marine mammals, waterfowl, fish grass seeds, acorns, deer, elkl antelope and other local resources. The location of Colma Creek through the Project Area increases the likelihood of past use of the area by prehistoric peoples. The peninsula vicinity also has a rich history from the Spanish, Mexican, and early American periods. Although the Project Area is heavily urbanized, it is possible that additional undiscovered resources could still exist within the area tha t could be uncovered during construction-related grading. D. POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK D1. South San Francisco General Plan The following policies in the Historic and Cultural Resources section of the .Open Space and Conservation chapter of the South San Francisco General Plan would apply to the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment. Guiding Policies · 7..5-G-l: Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco/s identity and quality of life. Implementing Policies · 7..5-1-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed [in] areas of known resources. · 7.5-1-5: In accordance with State Law1 require.the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. 5.5-4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources E. PROJECT IMPACTS El. Significance Threshold Criteria To determine whether cultural resources could be significantly impacted for CEQA purposes, the significance of the resource itself must first be detennined. El (a) Historical Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, an historical resource (including both built environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) is presumed sigriificant if it is listed CI1 the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission. An historical resource may also be considered significant i f the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. The criteria are as follows: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, infonnation important in prehistory or history. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. lhese procedures are spelled out under PRe 5097. El(b) Archaeological Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not otherwise determined to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to PRe Section 21083..2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the following criteria: 5~5...5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24/2000 5.5 Cultura I Resources 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; , 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. A nonunique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Nonunique archaeological resources receive no further consideration under CEQA. El(c) Human Remains According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are significant. E2. Impact Criteria and Methodology E2(a) Impact Criteria Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates a finding of significance if a project would eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre-history. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect en the environment if it "may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.1I A "substantial adverse changell means "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resoW'Ce is impaired.1I Material impairment means altering JJin an adverse manner those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.!1 According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form), a project could ha ve a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or disturb any human remains. Impacts to these cultural resources not determined to be significant according to the significance cri teria described above are not considered significant for the purposes of CEQA. 5 ~5-6 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources E2(b) Impact Methodology Project activities that would disturb soils and underlying formations have a potential to disrupt or destroy historically significant or unique archaeological resources and human remains. Significant impacts are most likely to occur when construction-related excavation would damage or destroy an archaeological depositl because it may damage or destroy the data potential of the resource tha t conveys its historic or scientific significance or uniqueness. The presence of archaeological resources within a project area prior to development generally is determined through archaeological reconnaissance--that is inspection of exposed ground surfaces-- sometimes augmented by limited subsurface testing. Many archaeological sites have no surface manifestations. An area where no sites have been discovered may be assessed as archaeologically sensitive en the basis of proxirhity to known archaeological deposits, history of site use, or known aboriginal or historic settlement patterns. Pursuarit to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological monitoring during construction and other /I discovery provisions" may be identified as a measure to avoid impacts to deposits that might be uncovered during construction. Assessment of the significance of the known or potential archaeological site or deposit may require additional archi val research or archaeological excavation to ascertain the origin of the deposit, classes of data present, vertical and horizontal extent of the deposit, and site integrity. E3. Summary of Impacts in the Previous EIR lhe previous FEIR identified the following impacts of the original project (the approved Redevelopment Plan). Prehistoric resources within the existing Native American archaeological village site in the project area could be subject to disturbance during project-facilitated construction. (1993 Final EIR, page IV.K- 3) lhe Final EIR formd that no significant impact would occur if the following mitigation measure is implemented: a field inspection and evaluation of the identified cultural resource is conducted by a qualified archaeologist prior to development of the site. 5.5..7 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources Previously undiscovered cultural or historical resources could be disturbed during construction activity. (1993 Final EIR, page IV.K-4) The Final ErR. found that no significant impact would occur if the City requires the implementation of the following mitigation measure: field inspections are conducted prior to construction, grading or trenching activities are monitored and resource finds are properly docwnented. The project would change the use and character of the Rod McLellan Nursery site, an importan t element in the local history. (1993 Final EIR, page IV.K-4) The project would change the Rod. McLellan Nursery from a wholesale and retail nursery complex to a residential neighborhood. While the site is not designated architecturally Of/historically significant, the project would result in the loss of this important element in the local history. E4. Impacts of the Amended Plan As noted earlier, one prehistoric archaeological site, CA-SMA-299, was recorded inside the Project Area. CA-SM-299 was evaluated as part of the BART Extension EIS/EIR, and it was determined that the integrity of the site had been Jlcompletely destroyed" and that the resource was absent where i t had previously been identified. The Initial Study for this SEIR concluded that the Redevelopment Plan Amendment would have no impacts on this identified archaeological site. Since publication of the Initial Study, the City received information that prehistoric archaeological resources might be present within other portions of the Project Area, within the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. An updated archival search and field inspection were performed in March 2000, specifically focusing en these portions of the Project Area. A review of previous reports at the Northwest "Information Center concluded that a two-kilometer long midden deposit had once been identified along Colma Creek in the areai howeverl auger testing conducted in 1994 as part of the CA-SMA-299 site record found no evidence of this resource along the creek. It was confirmed that CA-SMA-299 is located outside the California Water Service Company. and Chestnut Creek sites~ !be updated field survey found evidence of midden deposits within a man-made earthen feature en the California Water Service Company site. This midden appears to have been imported from another location as part of the construction of the earthen feature. The site report for CA-SMA-299 notes tha t areas along the creek were historically mined for topsoil, which resulted in spreading around the remains of shell middens to areas outside the actual prehistoric sites. Due to standing water, Hohnan & Associates was unable to verify the presence or absence of archaeological materials en other portions of the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. As such, significant 5.5..8 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources archaeological resources could be present on those sites, and development in these portions of the Project Area would have the potential to disturb those resources. This would be a significant impact. F. MITIGATION MEASURES Fl. Measures Carried Forward from Redevelopment Plan EIR The California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites were not identified as potential archaeological resource sites in the 1993 EIR, and no specific mitigation for those sites was identified. F2. Measures Identified in this SEIR 1. A program of mechanical subsurface testing shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine the extent of archaeological deposits on the California Water Department and Chestnut Creek sites~ 2. If significant archeological resources are identified, a data recovery program for archaeological impacts shall be undertaken as follows: . Hand excavation of the deposit. · Field data collection would be followed by laboratory analysis of recovered material. · The results of the data collection and analysis would be documented in a technical report. G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts upon cultural resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed m a site-by-site basis. Where such resources exist, buildout of the Project Area.. together with other development in the City and region, would result in an incremental adverse impact to cultural resources. In this case, the cumulative impact would be to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. These impacts were addressed in the 1993 EIR and in the Initial Study for the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Provided that mitigation as deftned by CEQA and the City of South San Francisco is implemented in conjunction with cumulative development in the area, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. H. CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES No additional mitigation is identified for cumulative impacts. 5~5-9 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 5.5 Cultural Resources I. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION In the absence of a detailed subsurface investigation, the type and extent of prehistoric archaeological resources en the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites are not known at this time.. Given that future development lUlder the Amended Redevelopment . Plan could affect significant prehistoric resources on these sites, impacts would be considered unavoidably significant. 5 ~ 5-1 0 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS A. PURPOSE Section 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. The discussion is to include the identification of any significant impacts that can be mitigated, but not to less-than-significant levels. B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .B1. Transportation and Circulation There would be no unavoidable significant impacts. B2. Air Quality There would be no unavoidable significant impacts. B3. Noise Construction noise is considered to be an unavoidably significant impact, as identified in the 1993 EIR for the 'Existing Plan; however, no new or increased construction noise impacts would occur nnder the Amended Plan. B4. Loss of Open Space There would be no unavoidable significant impacts. B5. Cultural Resources In the absence of a detailed subsurface investigation, the type and extent of prehistoric archaeological resources en the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites are not known at this time.. Given that future development under the Amended Redevelopment Plan could affect significant prehistoric resources on these sites, impacts would be considered unavoidably significant. 6.0-1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7 .0 ALTERNATIVES A. SUMMARY . Three alternatives to the proposed project were evaluated, based on the potential to reduce identified significant impacts 'of the.proposed project or at the request of City of South San Francisco staff. Specific alternatives include a No Project alternative, a Removed El Camino Addition alternative, and a Removed Willow Gardens Addition alternative. Based on a comparison 'of the impacts of each alternative, the No Project alternative was. identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative. Of the development alternatives, the Elimination of the EI Camino Addition alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. B. PURPOSE The purpose of the Alternatives section of this EIR i& to assess a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126 (d)(l)). CEQA also states that "the EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. II Generally, significant effects of an alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the proposed project, and should provide decision-makers perspective as well as a reasoned choice. However, the Guidelines state that the selection of alternatives should be governed by a II rule of reason. II c. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN PREVIOUS EIR The 1993 EIR evaluated seven alternatives to the EI Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan.. These included: 1) no project alternative - status quo; 2) no project alternative - minor growth; 3) redevelopment as proposed, but with no General Plan amendment; 4) redevelopment with modified General Plan amendment - reduced residential densities; 5) redevelopment with modified General Plan amendment - higher residential densities; 6) modified redevelopment activities; and 7) modified redevelopment area boundary. Under both no project alternatives, it was assumed that the relatively stagnant economic conditions in the . . Existing Project Area would remain. The no project - status quo alternative assumed that no new development would occur in the Project Area, and that environmental conditions would remain exactly as they were described in the existing conditions section of the 1993 EIR. The no project - minor growth alternative assumed that the BART extension would be constructed in an above-ground design, Colma Creek would not be covered, and only minor new development (e.g., a 96-unit project on the Harmonious Holdings site) would occur. The environmental effects of the minor growth alternative were 7.0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MaTch 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives found to be generally less than the Existing Redevelopment Plan, with the exception of increased visual and noise impacts related to an above-ground BART alignment. The redevelopment as proposed, but no General Plan amendment alternative assumed that redevelopment activities would occur in the Project Area but with residential densi~es consistent with the Planned Commercial designation (Le., 15 to 30 units per acre). The environmental effects of this alternative would found to be generally less than the Existing Redevelopment Plan, although it was concluded that some blighting conditions would remain in the Project Area due to the lower development densities. The modified General Plan amendment - reduced densities alternative assumed that redevelopment activities would occur in the Project Area but at maximum residential densities of 30 units per acre. The effects of this alternative were generally similar to those of the redevelopment as proposed, but no General Plan amendment alternative. The modified General Plan amendment - increased densities alternative assumed that redevelopment activities would occur in the Project Area but that residential densities on certain parcels would be increased, resulting in an 11 % increase in total units. This alternative was found to have increased impacts with respect to land use compatibility, visual quality and urban design, transportation, noise, public services, soils and geology, and air quality. Under the modified redevelopment activities scenario, the General Plan amendment would occur, but there would be changes to the allocation of project tax increment revenues to various types of redevelopment activities~ Specifically, the total allocation to affordable housing would be increased and the allocation to additional agency projects, such as BART undergrounding or the Colma Creek covering, would be reduced. This alternative was found to have increased beneficial impacts with regard to the provision of affordable housing, but less ability to encourage new private development because the BART undergrounding and Calma Creek covering would not be adequately funded. Under the modified redevelopment area boundary alternative, both reduced and expanded Project Area boundaries were examined. The analysis concluded that reducing the size of the Project Area would exclude identified blighted areas and reduce the overall effectiveness. of the redevelopment program. Expanding the size of the Project Area was found not to be viable because no blighted areas had been identified outside the Project Area boundary. No off-site alternatives were examined because the Existing Project Area was determined based on the proposed BART extension alignment and the maximum area within which blighting conditions OCCUI. The alternatives analysis of the 1993 EIR is incorporated by reference in this SEIR. It should be noted that certain conditions in the Existing Project Area discussed in the previous alternatives analysis have changed substantially since the 1993 EIR. For example, the BART subway alignment has been fully 7.0-2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 7.0 Alternatives funded and is currently under construction, the Macy's warehouse has been closed and demolished, a 96- unit condominium project has been built on part of the Harmonious Holdings site, and a single-family residential project is currently under construction on the McLellan Nursery site. D. At TERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT To develop project alternatives, the EIR preparers reviewed the significant impacts in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0 of this EIR. As discussed in those chapters, the new or increased significant impacts of the Amended Plan include increased congestion at several local intersections, pedestrian impacts, and regional air quality impacts. Most of those impacts are related to the level of development rather than the location of a particular proposed use; the analysis of the No Project Alternative in this chapter explores this issue because the alternative would generate a substantially lower number of automobile trips. In addition, South San Francisco Planning Department staff were consulted regarding issues the City would like to see explored in the alternatives analysis; the Removed EI Camino Addition and Removed Willow Gardens Addition alternatives reflect their concerns. D1. Alternative 1: No Project (Existing Redevelopment Plan Buildout) A project-specific EIR typically analyzes a No Project alternative that is the equivalent of a #no development" alternative. That is, the No Project alternative would result in withdrawal of the project being analyzed, and the resulting impacts would generally be a maintenance of existing environmental conditions. A no development alternative may not be feasible, in that it would require that the City refuse to approve any new development proposals within the Existing Project Area, despite existing zoning or land use designations. However, should a no development alternative occur, the resulting impacts would be maintenance of the existing environmental conditions within the Project Area, as discussed in Chapter 5.0 of this SEIR. For this SEIR, which evaluates the impacts of buildout of an Amended Redevelopment Plan, withdrawal of the project would result in the Existing EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan continuing to be in effect. The land uses approved for each parcel within the Existing Redevelopment Project Area, which would be developed under the No Project alternative, are identified in Table 3.0-1 in Section 3.0, Project Description. Within the Existing Project Area, implementation of the Existing Plan would generally result in more high-density residential development and less commercial/retail development than the Amended Plan. The Existing Plan would not involve any redevelopment activities within the Willow Gardens or El Camino Addition areas. As noted in Table 3.0-1, the Existing Plan would result in the development of a total of 1,240 multi-family residential units, 13,000 square feet of office uses, and 88,000 square feet of commercial/retail/shopping uses. In comparison, the Amended Plan would result in the development of a total of 757 multi-family 7.0-3 EI Camino CanidoT Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives residential units, 189,900 square feet of office uses, 443,800 square feet of commercial/retail/shopping uses, a 16-pump gas station, and a fire station. Dl(a) Transportation and Circulation The transportation impacts of the No Project alternative are discussed in detail as "Existing Plan (Updated Analysis)" in Section 5.1, Transportation and Circulation. The No Project alternative would result in approximately 29,866 gross, two-way daily vehicle trips, approximately 360/0 fewer trips than the 46,412 gross, two-way daily trips expected under the Amended Plan. (It is important to note that gross, two-way daily vehicle trips are not reflective of the net new traffic that will be produced on the local roadway system in that many trips associated with commercial/retail uses will be attracted from traffic already on the local roadway system.) Under the No Project alternative, the following four intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service.. The impacts of the Amended Plan are shown in parenthesis for comparison. · Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard: LOS E during the P.M. peak hour, delay of 65 seconds. (Under the Amended Plan, this intersection would operate at LOS F with a delay of 99 seconds; total traffic entering the intersection would be g% greater.); . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On...Ramp (Avalon Drive westbound left turn onto the 1-280 Southbound On-Ramp): LOS F during the A.M. peak hour with a delay of 220 seconds. (Under the Amended Plan, this intersection would also operate at LOS F with a delay of 219 seconds.); . Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (Evergreen Drive stop sign controlled left turn): LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (Under the Amended Plan, this intersection would also operate at LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. hours; total traffic entering the intersection would be increased by 1.30/0 during the A.M. peak hour and by 4.20/0 during the P.M. peak hour.); . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all-way stop): "LOS E during the A.M. peak hour, with delay of 37.7 seconds; LOS F during the P.M. peak hour with delay of 111 seconds. (Under the Amended Plan, this intersection would operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour with delay of 42.2 seconds and LOS F during the P.M. peak hour with a delay of 119 seconds; total traffic entering the intersection would increase by 2.70/0.). The No Project alternative would result in acceptable LOS D at the intersection of EI Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E during the P.M. peak hour under the Amended Plan). A~ shown above, with the exception of the El Camino Real/Westborough/Chestnut Avenue intersection and a worsening of the unacceptable LOS at the Hickey Boulevard/]unipero Serra Boulevard intersection, levels of service under the ~ No Project alternative would be the same as the Amended Plan. However, the Amended Plan would generally result in greater delays than the No Project alternative. 7 . 0-4 . EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives The following four intersections would warrant signalization by 2010 due to traffic levels associated with the No Project altemative and other cumulative development within the study area. Two of the four locations are also projected to experience unacceptable levels of service under the No Project alternative, as noted above. All four locations noted below would also warrant signalization under the Amended Plan. · Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp; · Mission Road/Evergreen Drive; . Mission Road/Grand Avenue; and · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. The No Project Alternative would result in generally the same opffational and safety impacts as the Amended Plan. lhese impacts include safety concerns at Mission Road and El Camino Real driveways, excessive speed along Evergreen Driver and pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts in front of EI Camino High School. The No Project alternative would be subject to the traffic and safety mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR. Due to the fact that traffic conditions have changed substantially, some of the mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR may no longer be sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts of the No Project Alternative. Additional improvements, identified in Section 5.1, would be necessary to achieve acceptable levels of services at all local intersections. Dl(b) Air Quality The No Project alternative would result in fewer construction dust impacts than the Amended Plan, as the area of potential development would be reduced with the removal of the EI Camino and Willow Gardens Additions. This alternative would still be subject to BAAQMD's standard dust control mea~ures, and it is expected that all construction dust impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The No Project alternative would result in approximately 29,866 gross, two-way daily vehicle tripsl a reduction of approximately 360/0 from the 46,412 gross, two-way daily trips under the Amended Plan.. Overall, this reduction in vehicle trips would reduce regional air quality impacts. It should be noted that the 1993 EIR identified a significant regional air quality impact because, at that time, the increased population of the Existing Plan was not accounted for in the population forecasts used to prepare the Clean Air Plan. At this time, development of the high-density, transit-oriented development approved under the Existing Redevelopment Plan has been incorporated into the 1997 Clean Air Plan. As such, the 7.0-5. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives No Project alternative would be consistent with the CAP and would not result in any significant regional air quality impacts. Given that the No Project alternative would result in a 360/0 reduction in vehicle trips over the Amended Plan, no significant localized CO impacts would occur. The No Project alternative would result in generally the same type of development (residential, commercial, office) as the Amended Plan, and no new impacts related to toxics would occur. Dl(c) Noise Construction noise exposure under the No Project Alternative would be reduced over the Amended Plan, as the area of construction would be less with the removal of the Willow Gardens and EI Camino additions. However, the overall types and intensities of noise levels would be similar to the Amended Plan, as similar construction activities would be occurring. The Existing Plan would be subject to standard construction noise reduction measures identified in the 1993 EIR, such as construction scheduling, selection of quiet equipment, and notification of neighbors within 1,000 feet of a construction area. Howeverl as with the Amended Plan, overall "construction noise would be considered an unavoidably significant impact of the No Project alternative as identified in the 1993 EIR. Although the No Project alternative would result in a substantial reduction in traffic over the Amended Plan, noise impacts would still occur along local roadways. Specifically, as discussed in the 1993 EIR, on- site noise impacts could result to residential uses developed along EI Camino Reat Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue. While traffic noise would be reduced, noise exposure could be greater under the No Project alternative because of the larger number of residential uses developed. As with the Amended Planl the Existing Plan would require that the noise compatibility of future residential projects be assessed during individual project environmental review, and that mitigation measures be required to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and in indoor areas to 45 dB(A) CNEL. No off-site noise increases would be expected to result under the No Project alternative. The 1993 EIR stated that the Existing Plan would be expected to increase noise levels by about 1 dB(A) at off-site locations. As with the Amended Plan, this noise increase would not be perceptible to the human ear and would not be significant. Under the No Project alternative, the Project Area could be exposed to excessive noise from single-event aircraft" flyoversi this exposure could be greatEr than under the Amended Plan because of the higher . number of residential uses. The Existing Plan would require specific noise studies at the development stage for each individual project to ensure that the necessary exterior-to-interior noise reductions are achieved. 7 .O~6 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental fIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives Dl(d) Loss of Open Space The No Project alternative would not involve the inclusion of the Willow Gardens neighborhood in the Redevelopment Plan Area, and would not involve any of the improvements associated with the Willow Gardens revitalization project. As such, no impacts related to the loss of open space would occur under the No Project alternative. Dl(e) Cultural Resources Under the No Project alternative, development would only occur within the Existing Project Area. Development would not occur on the California Water Service Company site, but would still occur on the Chestnut Creek site. As noted in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the City has recently received information that prehistoric resources may be present on the Chestnut Creek site. The No Project alternative would be subject to mitigation measures adopted in the 1993 EIR, including field investigation before construction, recovery of any significant resources, and documentation of findings. However, because the type and extent of potential prehistoric resources on the Chestnut Creek site are not known at this time, the impacts of the No Project alternative would be unavoidably significant. Dl(f) Other Impacts Other environmental impacts of the No Project alternative are discussed in detail in the 1993 EIR for the El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan. Major significant impacts identified in the 1993 EIR include the following: · Alteration of the visual character of the area, including visual contrast between residential development on the County Center site and the Mission Road/County Center neighborhood, and visual contrast between the BART parking structure .and EI Camino Real and Mission Road. With mitigation (incorporation of design parameters), the EIR found that these visual impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. · Potential impacts to a recorded archaeological site (CA-SMA-299). The 1993 EIR concluded that the original Redevelopment Plan could affect these resources, and could affect other unknown archaeological resources present in the project area. With mitigation (further investigation and implementation of a research design plan, and the presence of a Native American monitor), the 1993 EIR concluded that these impacts would be less than significant. · Potentially significant geologic and geotechnical impacts, including severe ground shaking in the Project Area in the event of an earthquake, earthquake-induced liquefaction of sand lenses within the Colma Formation, soil erosion from rainfall and from pumped groundwater, and erosion of shallow cut slopes in localized areas of clean sand. With mitigation (preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations and design and construction in accordance with the most current standards for 7.0-7 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 7.0 Alternatives earthquake construction outlined in the Uniform Building Code), the EIR concluded that potentially significant geoteclmical impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. . Increase in the rate and volume of runoff into local storm drains and Colma Creek. Sections of the Colma Creek channel within the Project Area may not be adequate to acconunodate runoff from a 50- year storm, which would represent a significant impact. Storm drainage improvements currently planned or underway for Colma Creek to reduce flood hazards to a 50-year storm recurrence interval, together with on-site stormwater collection design to meet City standards and construction to meet FEMA standards within the lOO-year flood zone, would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. · Declining quality of stormwater runoff due to non-point source urban pollutants and increased soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during project-facilitated local construction. The ErR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for individual development, obtaining a NPDES permit for any development over five acres, and implementing Best Management Practices to reduce non- point source pollution. · Growth inducement, which was identified as an inherent impact, because it was a goal of the Redevelopment Plan to facilitate and encourage high-density residential and commercial development. · Increased demand for fire protection (calls for service). With mitigation (monitoring of call levels and staff increases where necessary), the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. · Increased demands for police protection (demands on staff). With mitigation (monitcring of additional police calls and employment of additional officers as needed! and safety considerations in residential design), the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. · Increased demands for school capacity. The EIR identifies a number of mitigation measures! including the use of portable classrooms, reopening closed elementary and middle schools, increasing school impact fees! additional school impact fees! general obligation bonds, and the sale of surplus property . · Increased demand for parkland, because portions of the Project Area would not be adequately served by neighborhood parks or mini-parks. The EIR concluded that the construction of mini-parks, dedication of parkland, or payment of in-lieu fees by individual projects would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. · Lack of sewer line capacity in the Mission Road trunk line and the Macy's trunk line. Mitigation measures included conducting a detailed engineering analysis prior to granting project approvals for a substantial portion of residential development in the area. 7.0-8 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Ameitdment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives With respect to the impacts identified above, the Initial Study found that the corresponding impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would be similar to or less than those of the Existing Redevelopment Plan, and would be mitigated with measures identified for the Existing Plan. D2. Alternative 2: Elimination of the Willow Gardens Addition Alternative 2 would result in the elimination of the Willow Gardens Addition from the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Under this alternative, the Amended Plan Area would include only the Existing Plan Area and the EI Camino Addition. None of the rehabilitation activities proposed for the Willow Gardens neighborhood would occur under this alternative. D2(a) Traffic Elimination of the Willow Gardens Addition would increase Plan-related traffic by approximately 54 trips, as the eight multi-family units to be removed under the Amended Plan would not be removed from the complex. This relatively small increase in trips would not be expected to substantially affect the distribution of traffic to the network, and no increased intersection impacts are expected. Given this, the traffic impacts of Alternative 2 would be identical to those of the Amended Plan~ D2(b) Air Quality Under Alternative 2, the Willow Gardens revitalization project would not be implemented" Construction dust would be expected to be slightly reduced under this alternative, as the construction activities associated with the Willow Gardens project would not take place (LeI no units would be demolished and the open space area would not be removed). - For the remaining redevelopment projects under Alternative 2, the standard dust control measures of BAAQMD would be implemented to reduce construction dust impacts to a less than significant level. As noted above, Alternative 2 would result in an increase of about 54 vehicle trips compared to the Amended Plan. This relatively small increase in traffic would not be expected to substantially affect the distribution of traffic to local intersections, and no new localized CO impacts would be expected. With respect to regional air emissions, the additional 54 trips under Alternative 2 would slightly increase the project's VMTs, although the overall effect on regional air quality would be negligible. As with the Amended Plan, Alternative 2 would still result in an increase in VMTs (primarily traffic associated with commercial development) and a decrease in population when compared to the Existing Redevelopment Plan, and would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. With the exception of Willow Gardens, Alternative 2 would result in development of the same type and in the same place as the Amended Plan, and potential impacts related to toxies would be similar. 7~O-9 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR MaTch 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives D2(c) Noise Under Alternative 2, construction noise impacts would be reduced, as no construction activities would occur within the Willow Gardens neighborhood. However, construction activities would still take place in the Existing Project Area and the EI Camino Addition, and noise levels would be of the same type and intensity as the Amended Plan. As with the Amended Plan, this alternative would be subject to standard construction noise reduction measures identified in the 1993 EIR, such as construction scheduling, selection of quiet equipment, and notification of neighbors within 1,000 feet of a construction area. However, oyerall construction noise would be considered an unavoidably significant impact of the Alternative 2 as identified for the Amended Plan. Traffic noise impacts under Alternative 2 would generally be similar to the Amended Plan, as traffic levels would be roughly the same. The slight increase of 54 trips associated with the elimination of the Willow Gardens portion of the project would not substantially affect traffic noise levels on local roadways, and would not be expected to increase on-site noise contours to the extent that any new on-site uses would be exposed to excessive noise levels. As with the Amended Plan, Alternative 2 would require that the noise compatibility of future residential projects be assessed during individual project environmental review, and that mitigation measures be required to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and in indoor a~eas to 45 dB(A) CNEL. No new off-site noise increases would be expected to result from the 54 additional trips under this alternative. As with the Amended Plan, off-site noise increases would not be perceptible to the human ear and would not be significant. Under Alt~native 2, the Project Area could be exposed to excessive noise from single-event aircraft flyovers. As with the Amended Plan, Alternative 2 would require specific noise studies at the development stage for each individual project to ensure that the necessary exterior-to-interior noise reductions are achieved. D2(d) Loss of Open Space Under Alternative 2, the Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would not be implemented and none" of the associated improvements to structures, streets, or landscaping would occur. The O.45-acre Willow Gardens open space area would not be removed, and could continue to be used by residents for playing and other recreational activities. (Removal of the open space was not considered to be a significant impact of the Amended Plan.) D2(e) Cultural Resources Under Alternative 2, the Willow Gardens neighborhood would not be added to the Project Area; however, there are no known cultural resources on the Willow Gardens site. Under Alternative 2, 7 ~o~ 10 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives development would still take place on the Chestnut Creek and California Water Service Company sites, and there would be a potential to disturb prehistoric resources. The mitigation measures identified for the Amended Plan would be required of Alternative 2, including a subsurface testing program and data recovery program for any significant archaeological resources identified. However, because the type and extent of potential prehistoric resources on the Chestnut Creek and California Water Service Company sites are not known at this timer the impacts of Alternative 2 would remain unavoidably significant. D2(f) Other Impacts Other environmental impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to or slightly less than those of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, as identified in the March 9, 1999 Initial Study.. These impacts would include the alteration of the visual character of the Project Area, exposure of residents to groundshakingJ potential erosion, increase in runoff, decline in stormwater quality, increased demands for public services (police, fire, schoolsJ parks), and increased demands for sewer capacity.. The impacts of the Amended Plan were determined to be" similar to or less than the impacts of the Existing Redevelopment Plan (see section 01(f)), and would be mitigated with measures identified for the Existing Plan.. D3. Alternative 3: Elimination of the EI Camino Addition Alternative 3 would involve the elimination of the EI Camino Addition from the Amended Redevelopment Plan Area. Under this alternative, the" Amended Plan Area would include only the Existing Plan Area and the Willow Gardens Addition. The following sites would not be added to the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area under this alternative: California Water Service Company, Safeway shopping center, EI Camino Real commercial frontageJ and South San Francisco High School. The following projects would not take place: a fire station on the California Water Service Company site and 100/0 intef!sification of conunercial uses along the El Camino Real commercial frontage (a net increase of about 8,900 square feet). D3(a) Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative 3, there would be a reduction of approximately 356 traffic trips when compared with the Amended Plan, representing approximately 1 % of the 46,412 total gross, tw~-way daily trips of the Amended Plan. (As noted earlier, gross, two-way daily vehicle trips are not reflective of the net new traffic that will be produced on the local roadway system in that many trips associated with commercial/retail uses will be attracted from traffic already on the local roadway system.) Although the reduction in these trips would not be expected to substantially alter traffic patterns in the area, it could reduce the Amended Planl s significant impacts at certain congested intersections. 7 .0-11 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives D3(b) Air Quality Under this alternative, construction activities would not occur along the EI Camino Commercial frontage or on the California Water Service Company site. Total construction dust would be expected to be reduced, but would still be potentially significant from construction on the other sites in the Project Area~ As with the Amended Plan, standard BAAQMD dust control measures would be implemented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Altemative 3 would result in a decrease of about 356 vehicle trips, and impacts related to localized CO emissions would be expected to be similar to or slightly less than those of the Amended Plan. With respect to regional emissions, the reduction of 356 vehicle trips, while reducing the overall project VMTs, would not be enough to lower the rate of increase of VMTs below the rate of increase of population~ So while Alternative 3 would result in lower regional air emissions than the Amended Plan, this alternative would still be inconsistent with the population and VMT assumptions of the Clean Air Plan. D3(c) Noise Under Alternative 3, construction noise impacts would be reduced, as no construction activities would occur within the EI Camino Addition. However, construction activities would still take place in the Existing Project Area and the Willow Gardens Addition, and noise levels would be of the same type and intensity as under the Amended Plan. As with the Amended Plan, this alternative would be subject to standard construction noise reduction measures identified in the 1993 EIR, such as construction scheduling, selection of quiet equipment, and notification of neighbors within 1,000 feet of a construction area~ However, overall construction noise would be considered an unavoidably significant impact of Alternative 3, as identified for the Amended Plan. Under Alternative 3, the EI Camino commercial intensification and fire station projects would not be developed. The reduction of 356 vehicle trips associated with elimination of the EI Camino commercial intensification project would result in a slight reduction in noise levels along local roadwaysI' but some future projects would still be located within the 65 dB(A) CNEL contour. As with the Amended Plan/ Alternative 3 would require that the noise compatibility of future residential projects be assessed during individual project environmental review, and that mitigation measures be required to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and in indoor areas to 45 dB(A) CNEL. Off-site noise levels would decrease slightly from the reduction of 356 trips undE!" Alternative 3. As with the Amended Plan, off-site noise increases would not be perceptible to the human ear and would not be significant. 7.0-12 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives Under Alternative 3, the Project Area could be exposed to excessive noise from single-event aircraft flyovers. As with the Amended Plan, Alternative 3 would require specific noise studies at the development stage for each individual project to ensure that the. necessary extenor-to-interior noise reductions are achieved. D3(d) Loss of Open Space Under Alternative 3, the Willow Gardens neighborhood would still be added to the Project Area, and the proposed rehabilitation project would occur. As such, the loss of 0.45 acres of open space would still take place and impacts related to the loss of open space would be identical to those of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. (Removal of the open space was not considered to be a significant impact of the Amended Plan.) D3(e) Cultural Resources Under Alternative 3, the project would not include the EI Camino Addition.. Because development would not occur on the California Water Service Company site, there would be no potential to disturb prehistoric resources on that site" Development would still take place on the Chestnut Creek site, and there would be a potential to disturb prehistoric resources. The mitigation measures identified for the Amended Plan would be required of Alternative 3, including a subsurface testing program and data recovery program for any significant archaeological resources identified. However, because the type and extent of potential prehistor:ic resources on the Chestnut Creek site is not known at this time, the impacts of Alternative 3 would remain unavoidably significant. D3(fJ Other Impacts Other environmental impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to or slightly less than those of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, as identified in the March 9, 1999 Initial Study. These impacts would include the alteration of the visual character of the Project Area, exposure of residents to groundshaking, potential erosion, increase in runoff, decline in stormwater quality, increased demands for public services (police, fire, schools, parks), and increased demands for sewer capacity. The impacts of the Amended Plan were determined to be similar to or less than the impacts of the Existing Redevelopment Plan (see section D1(f)), and would be mitigated with measures identified for the Existing Plan. E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Based on the information in this section, Alternative 1, the No Project alternative is the "environmentally superiorlf alternative. As specified in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126, d, 2), if the No Project 7 ~ 0-13 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 7.0 Alternatives alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3, Elimination of the EI Camino Addition, would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would result in the greatest reduction in developed area and vehicle trips. 7.0-14 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 8.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE. ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES A. PURPOSE Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible if a large commitment of these resources makes their restoration thereafter unlikely. According to Section 15126(fJ of the CEQA Guidelines, irretrievable commitments of such resources are to be evaluated to assure that their consumption by a proposed project is justified. In addition, t his - section must also identify any irreversible damage that can result from environmental accidents associated with the proposed project. B. DISCUSSION Buildout of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would represent a long-term commitment to a more intensive land use than currently occurs en most of the Project Area sites. The Redevelopment Plan would, therefore, involve an irreversible commitment to the use of non-renewable resources during the construction and operation phases in the fonn of refined petroleum-based fuels, natural gas for space and water heating, and mineral resources used in construction materials. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would generally result in less use of such resources for residential uses than would the Approved Plan, and more use of such resources for office and commercial uses than would the Approved Plan. Irreversible long-term environmental changes would accompany the proposed conversion of the vacant or partially developed sites within the Project Area to more urban uses. lhese changes would include, among others, increased impermeable, non-vegetated surfaces such as pavement arid buildings. As noted in the Initial Study for this project, the Project Area does not contain natural open areas that have biological habitat value. Mitigation measures are identified in the previous EIR and in Chapter 5.0 of this SEIR to minimize the effects of development impacts. The types of uses anticipated under the Amended Redevelopment Plan would not use significant amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to risk of upset or release of hazardous substances. 8.0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 9.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT A. PURPOSE Section 15126(g) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended, requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Such a discussion should also include projects that would remove obstacles to population growth, and the characteristics of a project that may encourage and/or facilitate other activities that, ei t her individually or cumulatively, could significantly affect the environment. CEQA emphasizes t ha t growth in an area should not be considered beneficial, detrimental or of little significance. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the growth-inducing potential and impact of this project. B. INlRODUCTION In general terms, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if i t meets anyone of the following four criteria: . Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area). . Economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.). . Establishment of a precedent setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, or general plan amendment approval). . Development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an lIinfill" type of project). Should a project meet anyone of the above listed criteria, it can be considered growth-inducing. The growth-inducing impacts of the Amended Redevelopment Plan are evaluated against these four growth-inducing criteria in this section. c. ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT Ct. Removal of an Impediment to Growth In gener~t growth in an area may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to 9.0-1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 9~O Growth Inducement growth. In this context, physical growth impediments would. include non-existent or inadequate access to an area as well as the lack of essential public services (e.g., water service), while planning impediments may include restrictive zoning and/ or general plan land designations. The Project Area is currently accessible from EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue, Mission Road, and Grand Avenue; the Willow Gardens Addition is accessible by Susie Way, Nora Way, Brusco Co.urt, and Sandra Court. No off-site roadway extensions would be required to support the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, the project would not induce growth due to the extension of transportation infrastructure. The Project Area is surrounded .by a highly-developed urban a!ea, and is currently served by the Ci ty' s water and sewer system; no major infrastructure extensions or new connections across undeveloped lands would be required to serve the project. Therefore, the Amended Plan would not induce growth due to the extension of public services. In addition to the physical impediments discussed above, development impediments and regulatory legislation, such as land use ordinances and building codes, may restrict or deter localized growth and can be considered an impediment to growth. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the updated General Plan land use designations for the property, and approval of this Amended Plan would not require amendment(s) to the General Plan. Therefore, the Amended Plan would not be considered growth-inducing based on this criterion. C2. Economic Growth The previous EIR identified growth inducement as an inherent impact, because it was a goal of the Redevelopment Plan to facilitate and encourage high-density residential and commercial development. . As with the existing Redevelopment Plan, the goal of the amended Plan is to facilitate development. The Amended Redevelopment Plan involves the redesignation of certain parcels along the El Camino Corridor from primarily high-density, transit-oriented residential to a mix of commercial/retail and lower-density residential uses.. New commercial uses are also proposed for parcels along EI Camino Real in the El Camino land addition. Given that the development under the Amended Plan would result in the direct generation of additional long-term employment opportunities, it is expected tha t the Amended Plan would directly and indirectly foster economic growth within the Project Area and elsewhere in the City. The Amended Plan could also induce growth by introducing additional short-term employment opportunities during construction <Xl. individual Project Area sites. The new permanent and temporary employment opportunities provided by the Amended Plan. could help induce 9.0-2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pian Amendment Draft 5 upplemen tal EIR March 24, 2000 9.0 Growth Inducement people to move into the area, and some indirect .economic growth, such as an increased demand for goods and services and housing, could likely result from project implementation. lherefore, the Amended Plan could be considered growth-inducing based on this criterion~ Future residents of the Project Area would generate demand for goods and services, and induce growth in lo.cal businesses. This growth was accounted for by the changes in land use anticipated under the updated General Plan and the Amended Redevelopment Plan. However, there could be development or redevelopment of additional businesses to respond to the needs of new residents. Compared with the buildout potential of the approved Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the development of 483 fewer multi-family units. Given that the Amended Plan would result in substantially less residential development than the existing Redevelopment Plan, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would be less growth-inducing in this respect than would the Approved Plan. C3. Precedent-Setting Action In general, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would make the land uses in the Project Area consistent with the land use designations and policies of the updated General Plan. Given that the proposed projects ~ould not require an amendment to the General Plan or General Plan Land Use Mapl the amended Redevelopment Plan cannot be considered growth-inducing based on this criterion. Most of the proposed projects would be consistent with the existing zoning for their respective sites, with the exceptio~ of the California Water Service Company site within the EI Camino Addition. Development of a fire station 00. this site would be inconsistent with this zoning and would require a rezoning to reflect a public use. At this time, there are no zoning approvals requested as part of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and the City is in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance to make it consistent with the updated General Plan. However, zoning amendments are not considered precedent-setting actions because the zoning map has undergone similar amendments in the past. C4. Development of Open Space lhe Existing Project Area is governed by an approved Redevelopment Plan, which allows development of priinarily high-density, transit-oriented residential uses. The Project Area is generally surrounded by highly-developed tuban uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, churches, and parks; land uses fronting the major roadways, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, include a mix of retail and service commercial, industrial/ manufacturing, office, and business park uses. As it exists today, the Existing Project Area and both land additions are generally developed. Proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan would redesignate certain parcels along the EI Camino corridor 9.0-3 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 9.0 Growth Inducement and the EI Camino land addition for commercial/retail uses; the Willow Gardens neighborhood would be rehabilitated with new building, street, and landscaping improvements. Given that the Amended Project Area is bounded by major roadways, is generally developed and is SUITOlUlded by a highly- developed urban area, and would not encroach en rural or undeveloped lands, development of the Amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in growth-inducing impacts related to the development of open space. 9.0-4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 10.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR TO WITHIN IMPACTS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED A. PURPOSE Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a brief statement of the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project have been determined not to be significant and not evaluated in the EIR. This section provides such a statement for the Amended Redevelopment Plan. B. INITIAL STUDY An Initial Study was prepared for the Amended Redevelopment Plan that determined topics for which there could be potentially significant (new or increased) impacts, and therefore that needed to be considered in the SEIR. (The Initial Study is reprinted in Appendix 1.0 of this SEIR.) Those effects found not to be significant, or to be within the level of impacts identified in the original EIR, are listed below. The effects listed below are not evaluated in Section 5.0 of this SEIR. For additional information regarding the determinations for each effect, please refer to Appendix 1.0. Please note that the conclusion that an impact was adequately analyzed in the previous EIR does not mean that it is not a significant impact of the revised project; rather, such a conclusion indicates that ro supplemental analysis is required under CEQA. The Initial Study found that some effects might be within the level of impacts identified in the original EIR, but that there was not enough evidence available at the time to omit the topic from further study. Those topics are evaluated in Section 5.0 of this SEIR. C. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR TO BE WITHIN IMPACTS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED Ct. Aesthetics Project would not have a substantial adverse effect m a scenic vista. Commercial development along the EI Camino Corridor would be subject to the d.esign parameters identified in the 1993 EIR; other anticipated development within the EI Camino Land Addition would have similar or less visual impact than the existing Redevelopment Plan. The Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would be expected to have a beneficial visual impact by improvements such as providing landscaping and trash enclosures. 10~O..1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, .but not limited to, trees, rock out crop pings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Amended Redevelopment Plan area does not contain any significant scenic resources. Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and 'its surroundings. See above. Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Project Area currently experiences light and glare typical of urban mixed-use areas. The proposed retail/ commercial and residential development along the EI Camino Corridor would result in new sources of light and glare, but overall levels would be similar to w ha t exists today. The proposed fire station would be adjacent to uses that are not sensitive to lighting and which currently utilize nighttime lighting. The fire station would be expected to use standard nighttime lighting fixtures for security and safety purposes. As such, development of the fire station would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in the levels of nighttime lighting in the vicinity over existing conditions. C2. Agricultural Resources Project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use.. lhe project is located en "urban and built-up landsII' according to the San Mateo County Important Farmlands Map. Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Most of the land within the Project Area is zoned for urban uses. The proposed fire station site is zoned Open Space, .which permits the existing agricultural use. However, the General Plan contains nO general policies relative to agricultural usesJ and no specific policies promoting continued agricultural uses in the EI Camino Corridor. Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Approximately one acre of agricultural land along Chestnut Avenue would be displaced for construction of the fire station. This impact is not considered significant given that the agricultural land is isolated by urban uses, the land is not considered important farmland, and there are 110 policies in the General Plan promoting continued agricultural uses in the EI Camino corridor ~ 10.0-2 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant C3. Air Quality Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial nmnber of people. lhe commercial and residential uses proposed are similar to uses already in the area, and do not typically create significant odors. All other topics are discussed in this SEIR. C4. Biological Resources Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Setvice. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not affect any new areas of natural habitat. Both of the land additions to the Project Area consist of existing developed areas with no biological resources or ecologically sensitive lands. A biological reconnaissance of the vacant land near Chestnut Avenue confirmed the absence of sensitive biological resources in that area. Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to wetland habitat in the Project Area. The proposed land additions are urbanized and (according to the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report) do not contain wetland areas. A biological reconnaissance of the vacant land near Chestnut Avenue confirmed the absence of sensitive biological resources in that area. Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. See above. Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The 1993 EIR did not identify any specific, significant impacts related to wildlife movement corridors. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is generally within the same urbanized area as the existing Plan. Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such "as a tree preselVation policy or ordinance. Because of the urbanized nature of the Project Area, the 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to locally designated species. The amended Redevelopment 10.0.3 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment PIan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIRsMnrch 24, 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant Plan would result in new commercial/retail development along the EI Camino Corridor, and would add two existing urban areas to the Project Area. Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or state habitat conservation plan. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan is applicable to the Project Area. C5. CuI tural Resources Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts to paleontological resources. The General Plan does not mention paleontological sites within South San Francisco. The Final EIR/EIS for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension concluded that the potential for finding deposits in the Colma Formation is low. In addition, no unique geologic features are present within the Project Area. Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.. The Project Area contains one recorded archaeological site (CA-SMA-299). Studies conducted for the Final EIR/EIS for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension concluded that the integrity of CA-SMA-299 has been "completely destroyedll and that the resource was absent where it had previously been identified. lhe BART EIR/EIS noted that the site could not satisfy CEQA criteria for significance, and concluded that impact to the resource would be less-than-significant. The 1999 Initial Study for the Amended Redevelopment Plan evaluated cultural resources impacts with respect to the 1998 CEQA Guidelines (which are more stringent than the previous version of the Guidelines used for the 1993 EIR and BART EIR/EIS)I and concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be less-than-significant. It is possible that previously unknown archaeological resources are located in the vicinity of CA-SMA-299,. or in other portions of the Project Area,. and tha t development of the Amended Redevelopment Plan could affect these resources. In general, this is unlikely, as the El Camino Addition to the Project Area is mostly built out, and the Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would not involve major excavation. However, to the extent that infill development occurs on vacant parcels, or requires excavation into native materials, the Amended Plan would" be subject to the mitigation measures from the 1993 EIRI which include conducting field investigations prior to construction, monitoring during grading or trenching, and proper documentation of resource finds. lhe implementation of these measures would mitigate impacts related to the discovery of unknown archaeological resources in the Project Area to a less than significant level. 1 0 ~ O~4 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 10..0 Effects Found not to be Significant Potential impacts to archaeological resources (Xl the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites are discussed in this SEIR. Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. According to the 1993 EIR, the only potential historic resources within the Project Area were the structures en the McLellan Nursery site. The McLellan site has since been approved for the development of 179 single-family homes (W1der construction) and 34 townhouses (recently occupied). No historic sites are identified in the El Camino land addition or in the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. See discussion above. C6. Geology and Soils Project would not expose people or sbuctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of 10ss1 injury, or death involving fault rupture. The 1993 EIR notes that there are no records or indications of active fault traces in the existing Project Area. The expanded portions of the Redevelopment Area do not contain active fault traces. Project would not expose people or sbuctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong groundshaking. The 1993 EIR notes that the project area would be subjected to severe groundshaking in the event of an earthquake en any of the faults in the region. Use of seismic design parameters in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code, as required by the original EIR, would reduce the risk from ground shaking to an acceptable level. Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injwy, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. lhe site- specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to development in areas with liquefaction potential, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant level. The Willow Gardens neighborhood is outside the liquefaction hazard area. Project would not expose" people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. The EIR concluded that the risk of earthquake-induced landsliding in the Existing Project Area was low. The 1993 EIR and General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report do not identify the El Camino' or Willow Gardens Additions as being within areas prone to landsliding. 1 0 ~ 0- 5 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment " Draft Supplemental EIR March 24; 2000 10~O Effects Found not to be Significant Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Most development would occur en previously developed parcels. Any grading, excavation or dewatering activities required for redevelopment would be subject to the mitigation measures identified in -the 1993 EIR to minimize erosion~ The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to development of these sites, and would reduce hazards related to settlement within areas of alluvium or fill materials~ Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on... or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapsell The amended Redevelopment Plan would have similar or less impact relating to unstable geologic tmits or soils. The existing Plan area is underlain by Colma sandy loam which is generally dense and strong. New structures based in it would experience little fonndation in~tability. Both the EI Camino land addition and the Willow Gardens neighborhood are also underlain primarily by Colma sandy loam soilsl with alluvial soils in areas along Cohna Creek. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to these sites, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant level. Project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. The 1993 EIR notes that the Colma sandy loam soils underlying the Existing Project Area exhibit virtually ro expansion potential. Both the EI Camino land addition and the Willow Gardens neighborhood are in areas that may include moderate potential for shrink-swell. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to these sites, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant level. Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste waterll The proposed project does not include the use of alternative waste water disposal systems. C7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to public health hazards. lbe types of new uses anticipated under the Amended Redevelopment Plan do not normally involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably forseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 10.0..6 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 10.0 Effects Found n.ot to be Significant environment The Amended Redevelopment Plan does not include any uses that would use significant amounts of hazardous materials. Hazardous waste generation or storage would be subject to existing County, State and federal requirements designed to prevent releases and minimize hazard. No industrial development is proposed within the Project Area. Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed .school.. See discussions above. Project would not be located co a site which is included m a list of hazardous materials sites with potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment The types of land uses tha t could cause health hazards are not located in the Project Area. Most of the identified sites with leaking underground storage tanks are in the eastern part of the City but some are along EI Camino Real. Should such sites exist within areas proposed for redevelopment, cleanup would be required according to existing law before such sites could be occupied. The Project Area and land additions do not contain any other facilities or uses that have been known to create or cause a significant health hazard~ For a project located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project' areall lhe Project Area and proposed land additions are within the height restriction area of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. No hazards would result if all development complies with the height limits specified in the Plan. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. TI1ere are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not involve any changes to the existing arterial street network, including emergency routes. Potential impacts with respect to the level of service an local roadways are addressed in the Traffic and Circulation section of the SEIR. The relocation of the fire station (and possibly, Emergency Operations Center) would have beneficial impacts on the City's emergency response because the facilities would serve an identified need~ Project would not expose people or shuctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The site is located in an urbanized area, and does not involve the placement of structures in areas containing flammable brush. 1 0.0-7 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant C8. Hydrology and Water Quality Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The uses anticipated within the existing Project Area and proposed land additions would not create effluent discharges from point sources, and thus would not violate any waste discharge requirements. Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to groundwater resources. Almost all of the uses proposed for the Amended Redevelopment Plan would occur on parcels previously designated for development, or en previously-developed parcels. Development of the fire station would not affect any California Water Service Company wells, and no impacts related to recharge were identified by the Wate.r Service Company. Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course o~ a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns. Within the existing Project Area, Colma Creek flows through a concrete-lined channel. The proposed El Camino land addition is mostly built out and the proposed Willow Gardens addition is already developed. Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of swface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Infill development along EI Camino Real and roadway improvements planned as part of the Willow Gardens revitalization project could increase the amount of stormwater draining into Colma Creek. Application of the flood hazard mitigation measures identified in the 1993 "EIR, together with the flood control improvement projects along Colma Creek, would reduce potential flood hazards to a less-than-significant level. Project would not create or conbibute runoff water which would exceed the capacity "of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Within the existing Project Area, water quality impacts could be greater because of the potential frequent use of parking lots and regular truck deliveries to stores. Within the EI Camino area addition, the amended Redevelopment Plan could result in similar" water quality impacts, both during construction and after construction. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, the Plan would not result in a substantial change in water quality because there would be no substantial change in use of the site. lhe 1993 EIR required projects to incorporate water quality measures based m the latest Best 10.0..8 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant Management Practices identified by the US EP A and RWQCB. These mitIgation measures would also apply to the amended Redevelopment Plan, and would account for the proposed change in uses. Project would not place housing within a lOO"year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. New commercial/retail development within the lOO-year floodplain would be required to be raised above the flood elevation, or floodproofed to prevent damage due to shallow flooding. The northern portion of the El Camino land addition is located within the lOO-year flood zone" The fire station (if built within the flood plain) would need to incorporate design features to avoid or prevent damage. The Willow Gardens neighborhood is not within the IOO-year flood zone. Project would not place within a IOo-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. See discussion above. Project would not expose people or sbuctures to a significant risk of loss, injmy or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or damll See discussion above. Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injmy or death involving Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflowll Based CX\ the location of the Project Area relative to the Bay and the nearest enclosed body of waterl a tsunami or seiche would not be expected to affect the Project Area. Neither the 1993 EIR nor the General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report mentions mudflows as a significant hazard. C9. Land Use and Planning Project would not physically divide an established community. lhe Amended Plan would not result in the displacement of any units within the Existing Project Area or EI Camino Addition. Rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood would require the removal of between four and eight residential units.. The Redevelopment Agency would comply with current California redevelopment law and provide relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced persons. Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project. 10.0-9 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment , Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant CIO. Mineral Resources Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state. The Project Area is not designated as a natural resource area in the South San Francisco General Plan. Project would not result in the loss of availability of a Iocally...important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. See above. ell. Noise For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. All other topics are addressed in the SEIR. C12. Population and Housing Project would not displace substantial nmnbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Amended Plan wo~d not result in the displacement of any housing units within the Existing Project Area or EI Camino Addition. Rehabilitation of the Willow "Gardens neighborhood .would require the removal of between four and eight residential nnits. The Redev~lopment Agency would comply with current California redevelopment law and provide relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced persons. The Agency's Amended Five Year Implementation Plan indicates that such replacement housing is feasible (through affordable housing proposed elsewhere within the City). Project would not displace substantial nwnbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. See discussion above. C13. Public Services l1te project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered "governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, respo~e times or other performance objectives for fire or police protection services. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact en the Fire Department with respect to fire protection (calls for service) which would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. lO.OwlO El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant Given" that there would be less residential development, and fewer expected calls for service, no new or increased impacts are expected with respect to fire protection. The construction of a new fire station (as a replacement for an existing station) would have a beneficial impact CIl fire services, because an engineering analysis has identified the need for a replacement station. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact en the Department with respect to police protection (demands en staff), which would be reduced to a Iess-than-significant level with mitigation. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in any new or increased impacts because the residential population would be lower. The increased commercial and park development could result in an increase in service callsi the monitoring and employment of additional officers required by the 1993 EIR would also apply to the amended Redevelopment Plan.. lbe proposed improvements to the Willow Gardens neighborhood are intended to increase safety and reduce demands on the Police Department. Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the need for new of physically altered school facilities, the consbuction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain objectives. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact with respect to school capacity and identifies a number of mitigation measures. The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino ~orridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses. Given tha t there would be less residential development, and less public school demand, there would be no new or increased impact related to public schools. Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance objectives for other governmental services. The 1993 EIR does not identify any significant impacts related to other governmental services. The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve less residential development, and would be expected to require fewer government services in general than the approved Plan. C14. Transportation and Circulation Project would not result in a change" in air traffic patterns. The San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the Project Area.. Development associated with the amended Redevelopment Plan is not expected to affect air traffic. Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. The 1993 EIR does not iden tify any significant safety hazards. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not alter the design features 1 0 ~ 0..11 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant of any roadways along the El Camino Corridor. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, a new street may be constructed and other streets modified; these changes are intended to improve circulation within the site, and would be constructed in compliance with City standards. Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The 1993 ElR did not identify any impacts related to emergency access.. As with the existing Plan, the Amended Redevelopment Plan would add vehicle trips along the EI Camino Corridor.. It is not expected that these "additional trips would interfere with emergency access along the roadway. Rehabilita~ion of the Willow Gardens neighborhood is intended, in part, to improve circulation through that neighborhood. All other topics are addressed in the SEIR. CIS. Utilities and Service Systems Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water" Quality Control Board. See discussion below. The types of uses proposed do not raise any specific issues with respect to wastewater treatment requirements. Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The 1993 EIR identified a potential significant impact related to the provision of adequate fire flows at the Wye Motel site. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in changes in land uses a t the Wye Motel site~ No impacts related to water demand were identified with the existing Redevelopment Plan. The "Cali~omia Water Service Company has adequate supply to meet the highest projected demand for sites in the service area through 2020. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact related to sewer line capacity in the Mission Road trunk line and the Macy's trunk line. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to wa"stewater treatment capacity. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would result in less residential development and more commercial/ retail development than the approved Plan. Depending en the type and intensity of uses developed, these changes could result in a net reduction or increase in wastewater generation. An engineering analysis, as required by the 1993 EIR, would determine the need for additional trunk capacity and identify funding responsibilities for recommended improvements. Within the EI Camino land addition, any new development would be required to demonstrate that sufficient sewer capacity exists in the local lines. The Willow Gardens Rehabilitation project would 10.0-12 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pllln Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 241 2000 10.0 Effects Found not to be Significant result in the removal of between Jour and eight residential units; wastewater flows would not change substantially. South San Francisco is currently in the process of upgrading its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate new development The treatment plant will be expanded to an operational capacity of 13 million gallons per day ~ This expansion would accommodate the projected dry weather flow in 2015~ Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed. See discussion above. Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. See discussion above. Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Storm drainage in the project area is. accommodated within the Calma Creek channel. See discussion in C8, Hydrology and Water Quality above, for discussion of potential impacts related to increased runoff and surface waters. Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. The 1993 EIR did not address impacts to solid waste disposaL Solid waste from the city of South San Francisco is disposed at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox MOlllltain Landfill, has permitted landfill capacity through the year 2016, and plans for accommodating waste disposal after the permit expires. Project would .be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Solid waste is not expected to significantly increase as a result of project implementation. Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The types of uses proposed raise no specific issues related to compliance with solid waste laws and regulations. 10~O-13 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 2412000 11.0 LIST OF EIR PREP ARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED A. LIST OF EIR PREP ARERS The following persons/ organizations were involved in the preparation of this SEIR. Impact Sciences, Inc. Arlyn Purcell, Director of Environmental Services, Northern California Brett Hondorp, Staff Planner . Vicky Krikelas, Staff Planner Tammy Chew, Assistant Staff Planner Crane Transportation Group Mark Crane, Transportation Engineer Holman & Associates Miley Holman, Principal Sixth Street Studio Valerie Reichert, Graphic Artist B. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED B1. General . City of South San Francisco Robert Beyer, Redevelopment Project Manager Norma Fragoso, Housing and Community Development Manager Martin Van Duyn, Economic and Community "Development Director Allison Knapp Wollain, Consulting Redevelopment Planner · South San Francisco Unified School District Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent · Katz HQlli~ Paula Kelly, Senior Associate Stephanie Smith Lovette, Senior Associate 11.0-1 EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 11.0 List of EIR PrepaTers and Organizations and Persons Consulted B2. Transportation and Circulation · City of South San Francisco Cyrus Kianpouf, City Engineer . Sam Trans Kathy Hollinger, Bus Facilities Planner · South San Francisco Unified School District George Kozitza, Associate Superintendent of Btlsiness Services 11.0-2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24,2000 12.0 REFERENCES ALL SECTIONS The following documents are excerpted or summarized in parts of the SEIR, and are incorporated by reference ~ City of South San Francisco, General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH NO. 97122030, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, June 1999. City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements of the General Plan, 1986 (as amended). City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, Hearing Draft, July 1999. El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan Final EIR, 1993. BART-SFO Final EIR/EIS, 1996. CHAPTER 4.0 LAND USE, PLANS AND POLICIES Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 98, December 1997. City of South San Francisco,. General Plan, Housing Element 1990-1995, adopted December 9, 1992. CHAPTER 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation and Circulation Caltrans, 1996 Traffic Manual. City of San Bruno Redevelopment Project Area Plan Draft EIR, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Rajappan & Meyer, February 1999. Draft Transportation Study for the South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Crane Transportation Group, January 2000. Draft Supplemental EIR Terrabay Phases II and III, July 1998. 12.0-1 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 12.0 References Hollinger.t Kathy, SamTrans, personal communication, March 14.1 2000~ Kianpour, Cyrus, City Engineer.t City of South San Francisco, personal communication with Mark Crane, February 11, 2000. Kozitza.t George, South San Francisco Unified School District, personal communication, March 13, 2000. Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Draft EIR, August 1997" Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, ApriI-1996. Bay Area Air Quality Management.District, Bay Area, 1997 Clean Air Plan, December 1997. California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data (for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Noise Barry, T. M~ and J. A. Reagan, F HWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Office of Environmental Policy, December 1978), NTIS, FHWA-RD-77-108.t p. 33. Highway Noise Fundamentals (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation.t Federal Highway Administration, September 1980.1 pp. 81 and 97. Highway Noise Mitigation (Springfieldr Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation.' Federal Highway Administration, September 1980).1 p. 18. South San Francisco General Plan Hearing Draft. Noise Element, Table 9.2-1. July 1999. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117. Cultural Resources California Archaeologist Consultants, Inc., An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed .Corporation Yard for the City of South San Francisco, November 1991. Holman and Associates Archaeological Consultantsr Archival Search and Field Inspection of the - Chestnut Creek Site, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, March 16, 2000. Unnamed Archival Review of Cultural Resources on the San Francisco Peninsula. 12.0..2 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR March 24, 2000 APPENDIX 1.0 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation Responses 03/10/1999 12:2L 3~10-1999 12.1tPM ~JUd2g6039 SSF PLANNING FROM IMPACT SC I ENCES I NC 4. 1 5 989 2450 Notice of Preparation To: Stat&: C1earinS HOU$~ and Li~t of Local,. R@gional, State and Federal Agencies Subject Notice of PreparatiOtl oi a Draft Environmentallmpact Report I..t!ad ~q-: Q?n5uItirtc rlTD1: Agency Name: City of South San FranClscO Rcdevdopment Agen~ Addresa: 315 Maple Avenue South San Frandsco.. CA 94803 Contact: Alh~ Knapp Wollam. Phone: 650-829-6633 Fax: 650-829-6639 firm Na....e= Imp~t Sciences AdclftlS: One Kai&e'r Plna., Suite 1520 Oakland, CA 94612 Contact: Arlyn Purcell Phone; 51~2'7-D494 Fax: 510-267-0490 The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Ageney IIIld will prepare an et\virorunental impact report for t:Ir proje<:t identified below and in the attached Project Desaiption. We need to know the Views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information whkh is samme to the arney's statutory relponsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Yout agenty will need to use the ElK prepaNd by our tlency when considering yOUt permit or oths approval foY the project. The projett description, location and potentJ.al envirDNllerttal effects are contained. within the attached Ptoj<<t Description. A copy of the BnvirONnental Checklist (Initial Study) i. attached.; thsefore# the ElK will not include 5UpportinS documentation for all impacts found to be les. thin: signilkant. Due to tfte. time liJzUI$ DW1d.ated by State law I your respocase mUlt be sent at the eadie.st pos.ible dat~ but not later tlum 30 4tIy$ after the rec;eipt of this notice. P~ase send your resportse to the City of South San PranC'-l~o at the- addras shown above. w. will netd the namt! for a con~ person In your agency. Project Title: Redevelopment Plan Amencbnent, E1 Camino Corridor at)' of South San Pl'8ftcisco, s.n ~teo Coun~ Project Location: rJOjett Description: See attached. Project Oac:ription Date: March 9, 1999 Sipature: Tille: Consulting R~development S})e(iali Tel.phoPe: 650-829--6633 Anachuaents: N~e of Preparation Mailinl Liat Pl'Ojtct De,aiptio~/Envlronmentti Checklist PAGE 03 p-~ Project Title: Lead Agency: Project Location: Applicant: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST' Redevelopment Plan Amendment, El Camino Corridor City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner (650) 829-6633 In the City of South San Francisco. The existing EI Camino Redevelopment Project Area is bounded generally by Hickey Boulevard to the north, EI Camino Real to the westl Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Mission Road and Grand Avenue to the east. The proposed contiguous (EI Camino Real) land addition consists of 78 parcels totaling about 70.5 acres, beginning at the southern boundary of the existing Plan Area at Chestnut Avenue and extending south, bounded by EI Camino Real on the west, Commercial Avenue and the San Francisco Water Department Hetch Hetchy line on the east, and the southern boundary of South San Francisco High School on the south. The non- contiguous (Willow Gardens) land addition is 8.77 acres and consists of the Willow Gardens neighborhood, which includes Susie Way, Nora Way, Brusco Court, and Sandra Court. See attached map for the locations of the proposed land additions. City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Existing General Plan Designations: Affected Portions of Existing Project Area: High-Density Residential. El Camino Real Land Addition: Medium-Density Residential; High-Density Residential; Retail Commercial; Open Space Willow Gardens Land Addition: High-Density Residential Existing Zoning: Affected Portions of Existing Project Area: P-C-L, Planned Commercial; 0-5, Open Space; R-2-H, Medium Density Residential; R-I-E1 Single Family Residential; R-3-L, Multiple Family Residential. EI Camino Real Land Addition: C-l, Retail Commercial; R-3-L, Multiple Family Residential; 0:"'5, Open Space; R-2-H.. Medium Density Residential. Willow Gardens Land Addition: R-3-LI Multiple Family Residential. Description of Project: Amendment to the El Camino .Corridor Redevelopment Plan and expansion of Plan Area. lhe EI Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan was adopted m July 14, 1993. An ErR was certified for the project m June 231 1993. The General Plan land use designations for existing portions of the Redevelopment Plan area along EI Camino Real reflect planned high-density residential development near the future BART corridor. The amended Plan would redesignate most of those parcels to retail/ commercial uses, as originally planned; the General Plan designation an the McLellan Nursery site would be modified to reflect approved single-family residential and below-market-rate units. The Plan Area would be expanded to include the non- contiguous 8.77-acre Willow Gardens neighborhood, and approximately 70.5 acres along El Camino Real contiguous to the existing eastern boundary of the area. Anticipated land uses within the existing Project Area include a continuation of the existing commercial uses and development of infill commercial uses, development of a 156,000 'square-foot Casteo store and El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 1 Initial Study 3/9/99 retail uses on the 20-acre Macy's site, and the approved 179 single-family homes and 34'below-market- rate units on the McLellan site. Anticipated land uses within the EI Camino Real land addition include the existing multi-family residentiat retail! open space and school uses, and increased commercial development, expanded park uses (yet to be defined), a new fire station (to replace one to be demolished) and p~ssibly, associated uses such as a training facility and Emergency Operations Center! and renovation of the existing retail development (i.e., Safeway). A rehabilitation project is proposed for the Willow Gardens land addition. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project area includes the existing El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area (Planning Area No. 11 of the South San Francisco General Plan).. plus the two proposed land additions .described above. The existing Project Area contains a mix of land uses, including office/commercial, light industrial, agricultural, residential, and vacant. A railroad right- of-way and the Colma Creek channel traverse the existing Plan Area. The Willow Gardens land addition consists of multi-family residential units. The EI Camino land addition contains multi-family residential units, a community garden, a City Field Yard, California Water Service Company property that supports offices, water tanks, and a well field with lettuce crops, a greenhouse operation, a retail commercial center with a Safeway store, a right-of-way to be used for the BART extension, various retail commercial uses and a few vacant lots along EI Camino, and South San Francisco High School. All portions of the project area are surrormded by wban uses in the City of South San Francisco. The future BART station will be immediately south of the Macy's site; the site is also adjacent to a mobile home park. The McLellan site is adjacent to the Alta Lorna School, a park, and single-family residential uses. The Willow Gardens land addition. is adjacent to Parkway Heights Middle School and single-family residential uses. The El Camino land addition is adjacent to residential and commercial uses, and the Orange Avenue Park. Other public agencies whose approval is required: No other agency approvals would be needed for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a IIPotentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x X x X Aesthetics Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazards Land Use and Planning Noise Public Services Transportation / Circulation Mandatory Findings of Significance x Agricultural Resources Biological Resources Geological Problems Hydrology and Water Quality Mineral Resources Population and Housing Recreation Utilities and Service Systems x X x X Note: The project involves amendment to a Redevelopment Plan with a certified EIR. Therefore, the purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the revisions to the project could result in ~ impacts (significant impacts not identified in the 1993 EIR) or substantial increases in the impacts identified in the 1993 EIR. Where the- revised project would result in significant impacts that were already identified in the 1993 EIR, and where the mitigation identified in the 1993 EIR would still be EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 2 Initial Study 3/9/99 03/10/1999 12:22 3~09--.1999 11; S7AM 6508296639 SSP PLANNING FROM IMPACT SCIENCES I"IC 4115 989 2450 PAGE 02 P.~ ~ impiemen.ted -as part of the I'€visGd project" there is 110 need. for additionAl environmental evaluatiQn~ Where the revised project could reallt In new or increased significant impacts, those issues will be evaluated in a Supplemental E1R (SEIR) foJ' the amended Rtdevelopment Plan. Where it appears that . the revised project would not result in new or increased impacts. but there is not etlOUlh evidence at this time to ~ubstantiate that cordllSion, those ~ win also be evaluated ~ the SEIR. Changes in cirCUUtRanca ~ new information rould alto raise issue:; regarding new or increased impacts; those issues will also be eval'-lated in the SliIR.. DETERMINA nON: -X- <A'\. 'the basis of th~ initial ~al~tion; , h! posed. project m.~y have a sisNficat\t effect CS\ the enVironInellt alld an IMP ACr REPORT is required. Jim City l,.~ 't . hief Pl~.r t"" San 'Prantisoo \ Date: Ma1'eh 9 i 1 ~ _ Sigl\a lure: E.1 Ca n\i tlO CorriduJ' R8:lev~ Plan Arnend.u.ent 3 initial Stud.Y 3/9/99 EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant New or Increased Impact Potentially Significan t Unless Mitigation Incorporated New or No New Increased or Impact . Increased Less Than Impact Sig-nificant --~-- ..' . . ~ . - , ,- . :~"1 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: .... "'"" "''''.-.u ~..~"..... .....~..... ... - ~ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x The 1993 EIR states that the approved Redevelopment Plan could significant~y alter the visual character of the area. Identified impacts include visual contrast between residential development CIl the County Center site and the Mission Road/County Center neighborhood, and visual contrast between the BART parking structure and EI Camino Real and Mission Road. With mitigation (incorporation of design parameters), the EIR found that these visual impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. lhe amended Redevelopment Plan would involve redesignating certain parcels along the El Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses. Depending upon the height and bulk of the proposed commercial/retail structures, visual contrast could still result. However, the incorporation of design parameters identified in the 1993 EIR would reduce visual impacts for conunercial development along the EI Camino Corridor to a less-than-significant level. These measures would also apply to new commercial development within the EI Camino land addition. Other anticipated development within the EI Camino land addition (expanded park facilities, fire station) would .have similar or less visual impact. TIle Willow Gardens neighborhood rehabilitation project is intended, in part, to improve the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood, by improvements such as narrowing street widths, providing landscaping, and providing trash enclosures. Given this, the amended Redevelopment Plan would be expected to have a beneficial aesthetic impact on the Willow Gardens neighborhood. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? x See the response to Item 1a above. The 1993 EIR does not identify any scenic resources within the existing Project Area (the existing visual character is defined mainly by the type and scale of development present). lhe two land addition areas do not contain any significant scenic resources. b) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? x See the response to Items la and 2a above. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adv~rsely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant impacts with respect to light and glare. Both the existing project and the amended Redevelopment Plan would result in nighttime lighting and a potential increase in reflective surfaces. The existing Project Area and proposed addition along EI Camino already experience light and glare typical of urban, mixed use areas; the retail/ commercial and most of the other uses proposed under the amended Redevelopment Plan would result in light and glare similar to what exists today. If the expanded park. facilities use nighttime lighting, there could be increased impacts 00 the adjacent neighborhoods; nighttime lighting for the fire. station could also have an impact. These issues will be evaluated in the SEIR. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 4 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Significan t New or Increased Impact Potentially New or No New Significant Increa sed or Unless Impact Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact Incorpo ra ted SiWlificant "I~ :.: 1 . fj fjl . 11.....- I" . .~ 1 ..- II rfj _.. ~ . . ''''" ,:~~:~~:~~~:;' <;' ~~~~: ~ . 1 ~ ~: 1 .11 . ".: :;. ~ -( II . I. : I I.;.~.. ~~;: .~.:. .,~ ~ :" 'Y .11 ~- : jI 1 ~. ~ II 1 .1 1 I I II .1 · I ., .A,(; It I CU I.TL' R..\ I. f{ ES(> U I~CfS J n d("l...'rrn i J 1 i ng whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to t.he California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? x The San Mateo County Important Farmlands Map shows the Project Area as IIUrban and Built Up Lands." Therefore, there would be no related impacts. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? x All of the land within the existing Project Area and most of the land within the proposed land additions is zoned for urban uses. lhe Open Space zoning for some of the .land near Chestnu t Avenue and Commercial Avenue supports the existing agricultural land uses, which include a corrunwlity garden, lettuce crops, and greenhouses. Use of some of this land for expanded park facilities would remove the agricultural uses but would no~ conflict with the existing zoning; use of the land for a fire station would conflict with the zoning. However" the General Plan contains no general policies relative to agricultural uses, and no specific policies CIl agricultural uses in the relevant Planning Areas. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts with respect to the change in use. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland" to non-agricultural use? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to the loss of agricultural land. Several agricultural parcels are located within the existing Plan Area in the vicinity of Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue. The existing Redevelopment Plan would result in the development of all agricultural parcels within the Plan Area. This outcome would not be changed by the amended Redevelopment Plan. Agricultural lands present within the El Camino land addition include commercial greenhouses, lettuce crops, and a community garden. Some of these lands could be displaced by the expanded park facilities and new fire station. The impacts of such displacement are not considered significant because 1) the agricultural lands are isolated and surrounded by developed, urban uses, 2) the lands are not considered important farmlands, and 3) there are no policies in the South San Francisco General Plan promoting continued agricultural uses in general or in that area. No agricultural lands are present within the Willow Gardens land addition. Given the above information, no new or increased impacts would result. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 5 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Si~ificant , : - ~~. .~", ~"" " " : ":'" ~ ~~~:' :~" ~.;~>I "~.. ~ ~,.:. ' "",.,"-;; t;. : " .:~,. '";.. : ' " ~. I- I.. I I I~ I.. I ..1 I ." I.. ~ ~ : "': ;: .., .. .. ~ ":~ " ~. ~ ~ =" , ., ' , '.,,: ~~~~~.:~~ ~..,;' ?:,'...~.~~ :i~~::~r~~'.,~';~'. '~~.~J..*;it :,P ,1 .-\IR QL'..\LrrV - \\"IH..rt~ C1\"Clilablp, 11'1(1 -.,ignit"icclJH'P criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? x The 1993 EIR identified significant air quality impacts with respect to construction dust emISSIons. Implementation of standard dust control measures during construction was determined to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. With respect to mobile emissions, the existing Redevelopment Plan was found to have a net beneficial effect on air quality because it would involve the development of high-density residential development adjacent to a mass transit station. Under the amended Redevelopment Plan, parcels designated for high-density residential uses along the EI Camino Corridor would be redesignated for retail/ conunercial uses. Within the El Camino land addition, new commercial uses would be developed along El Camino Real; existing park uses would be expanded and a fire station would be built. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated, the land use changes resulting from the amended Redevelopment Plan could res~lt in fewer or greater air quality impacts than the approved Plan. For this reason, air quality impacts will be evaluated in the SEIR" b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? See the response to Item 3a above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? See the response to Item 3a above" d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Area include EI Camino High. Schoot Alta Lorna Middle School.. Kaiser Permanente Hospital, Parkway Heights Middle School, South San Francisco High School, parkland, and single- and multi-family residences. lbe air quality analysis described in Item 3a above will consider sensitive receptors. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x The creation of odors was not identified as an impact in the 1993 EIR. The amended Redevelopment Plan mainly involves intensification of retail/ commercial development along the EI Camino Corridor and the rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. The commercial and other uses anticipated are similar El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 6 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentiall y New or No New Significan t Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant to uses already in the area, and do not typically create significant odors. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x The 1993 EIR identified no significant impacts to special-status species, due to the lack of suitable habitat in the Project Area. lbe amended Redevelopment Plan would not affect any new areas of natural habitat. Both of the land additions to the Plan Area consist of existing developed areas; the maps from the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report indicate that there are no biological resources or ecologically sensitive lands in these areas. A biological reconnaissance of the vacant land near Chestnut Avenue confirmed the absence of sensitive biological resources in that area. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to wetland habitat, due to the existing disturbed condition of Calma Creek. The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in development of the same parcels along the" Colma Creek corridor, although the proposed land uses would be changed from residential to retail/ commercial. The proposed land additions are urbanized and (according to the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report) do not contain wetland areas. A biological reconnaissance of the vacant land near Chestnut Avenue confirmed the absence of sensitive biological resources in that area. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts to wetland habitat. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal poot coastal, etc..) through direct removal., filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to wetland habitat, due to the existing disturbed condition of Colma Creek. The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in development of the same parcels along the Colma Creek corridor, although the proposed land uses would be changed from residential to retail/ commercial.. The proposed land additions are urbanized and (according to the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report) do not contain wetland areas. A biological reconnaissance of the vacant land near Chestnut Avenue confirmed the absence of sensitive biological resources in that area. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts to wetland habitat. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, EI Camino Corridor 7 Redevelopment Plan Amendment x Initial Stud y 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significan t Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact IlTlpact Incorpora ted Significant I I The 1993 EIR does not identify any specific, significant impacts related to wildlife movement corridors.. The amended Redevelopment Plan is generally within the same urbanized area as the existing Plan, and therefore would not result in any new or increased impacts to wildlife dispersaL or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? x Because of the urbanized nature of the Plan Area, the 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to locally designated species. The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in new commercial/retail development along the El Camino Corridor, and would add two existing urban areas to the Project Area.. Therefore, there would be no new or increased significant impacts. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? x There are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply to the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. Therefore, there would be no related impact. 5.. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts to paleontological resources. The General Plan does not mention paleontological sites within South San Francisco.. The Final EIR/EIS for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension concludes that paleontologic impacts would not be significant because the potential for finding deposits in the Calma Formation'is low. Therefore, the amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in any new or increased significant impacts to paleontological resources. The existing Redevelopment Plan Area consists of a relatively flat, urbanized area along EI Camino Real. The El Camino land addition consists of another existing urbanized area along EI Camino Real. The Willow Gardens neighborhood is an existing multi-family residential neighborhood.. No unique geologic features are present within the Project Area. Therefore, no new or increased impacts would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? x The Project Area contains one recorded archaeological site (CA-SMA-299). The 1993 EIR concluded that the original Redevelopment Plan could affect these resources, and could affect other unknown archaeological resources present in the project area. With mitigation (further investigation and implementation of a research design plan, and the presence of a Native American monitor), the EIR concluded that these impacts would be less than significan 1. Studies conducted for the Final EIR/EIS for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension concluded that the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 8 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentiall y New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact 1m pact Incorpora ted SiRcificant integrity of CA-SMA-299 has been ucompletely destroyed" and that the resource was absent where it had been ,previously identified. lhe BART EIR/EIS concluded that the site would not satisfy CEQA criteria for significance. Therefore, the amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in significant impacts to the recorded site. The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve development of commercial/retail uses instead of residential uses on several parcels along the EI Camino Corridor. The mitigation measures identified previously would be required of individual development proposals within the Redevelopment Plan area. The El Camino land addition to the Plan Area is generally built out, so that new commercial development would not result in impacts to archaeological resources. To the extent that infill development occurs m vacant parcels or redevelopment requires excavation into native materials, the mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR would mitigate impacts related to discovery of unknown resources in those areas. The Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would not involve major excavation, and no new impacts to archaeological resources would be expected. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5? x According to the 1993 EIR, the only potential historic resources within the Project Area were the structures m the McLellan Nursery site. The McLellan site has since been approved for the development of 179 single- family homes and 34 below-market-rate units; construction is currently underway. No historic sites are identified in tlje El Camino land addition or in the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Given the above information, no new or increased impacts to historic resources would be expected. . d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x _ See the response to Item 5b above. -- - . nn n__n__n __n___ ::--~ . .--------~--. no . --- : I i -':::"::--':::~-I ~JIl .00_____ moo n 00__ m n m.. m___n n n __ n . __ n . n. .L n__ '.: __n__ mn_ n 00000000- : . mm__________n ~ _ .: . , " . ~ ,"'"~_ 0"'''_' ._... . .~ .... _ .. ...~ ___ _ ,_ _.... .II..,,~~. 6. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial' adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. x The 1993 EIR notes that there are no records or indications of active fault traces in the existing Project Area. The expanded portions of the Redevelopment Area do not contain active fault traces. The closest active faults to the project area are the San Andreas (about 1.5 miles southwest), the Hayward (about 15 miles east), and the Rogers Creek (about 30 miles northeast). Given this, ground rupture is unlikely to occur within the Project Area, and the amended Redevelopment Plan would not expose people to potential fault rupture. IX The 1993 EIR notes that the project area would be subjected to severe grormdshaking in the event of an ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 9 Initial Stud y 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significan t Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increa sed Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant earthquake on any of the faults in the region. With mitigation (preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations and design and construction in accordance with the most current standards for earthquake construction outlined in the Uniform Building Code), the ErR concluded that. this potential significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The amended Redevelopment Plan would still result in the exposure of people to seismic ground shaking; a t any particular time, the potential nmnber of exposed people could be higher, but the number of long-term residents exposed would be lower. Use of seismic design parameters in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code, as required by the original EIR, would reduce the risk from ground shaking to an acceptable level. This measure would be implemented for all individual projects developed within the Redevelopment Area; therefore, there would be no new or increased impact. . IX The 1993 EIR notes that liquefiable deposits have been found at depths of between 20 and 30 feet along Calma Creek. The EIR finds that earthquake-induced liquefaction of sand lenses within the Calma Formation could result In the sudden failure or differential settlement of building formdations constructed on overlying unconsolidated soil deposits. Implementation of recommendations made in the required site-specific geotechnical studies would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The existing Project Area and the EI Camino land addition include areas along Calma Creek that are underlain by alluvial soils. The General Plan: Existing Con~itions and Planning Issues report indicates tha t areas along Calma Creek have a moderate potential for liquefaction. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to development in these areas, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant level. The report shows the Willow Gardens neighborhood as outside the liquefaction hazard area. IX The 1993 EIR notes that earthquake-induced landsliding within the project area would be expected to occur only on moderately steep slopes located on the west side of El Camino Real, including the McLellan Nursery site. The EIR also notes that there is no evidence of landslide scars or soil creep on the natural hillside t hat rises above the west side of El Camino Real, and that the Colma Formation deposits exposed on the hillside are generally stable. The EIR concluded that the risk of earthquake-induced landsliding was low. iv) Landslides? The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve the development of commercial/ retail uses 00 parcels currently designated for high-density residential development. lhe McLellan site is currently under construction; other sites to be redesignated within the existing Project Area are on flat land. Within the EI Camino land addition} all development would occur CIl flat parcels to the east of El Camino ReaL The 1993 EIR and General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report do not identify the EI Camino or Willow _ Gardens land additions as being within areas prone to landsliding. For these reasons, there would be no new or increased impacts related to landsliding. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? IX The 1993 EIR notes that the project area is predominantly underlain by Calma sandy loam soils} which have a low erosion potential. (A review of the Geology and Stratigraphy Map in General Plan: Existing Condi tions and Planning Issues indicates that areas east of El Camino Real along Colma Creek are underlain by alluvial soils.) The 1993 EIR notes that soils disturbed by project construction activities, including exposed cut and fill slopes or stockpiled fill, would be subject to erosion from rainfall and from pumped groundwater. The EIR also EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 10 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentiall y Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or N e\V or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Si~ificant notes that, although substantial cut slopes or fill embankments are not anticipated for the project areaJ shallow cut slopes in localized areas of clean sand could result in significant erosion impacts. The 1993 EIR also states that the project area contains occasional local pockets of clean sand that lack sufficient silt and clay binder, and have considerably higher erosion potential. The EIR identifies the presence of imported fill of unknown composition en several parcels in the northern portion of the Plan Area. With mitigation (analysis of soil samples as part of site-specific geotechnical studies.. and the replacement of any unstable soil materials), the EIR concluded that this impact would be less-than-s~gnificant The amended Redevelopment Plan involves development in the area identified in the 1993 EIR with most risk of cut slope erosion (the McLellan Nursery site); this site is currently under construction with the approved uses. Within the existing Plan Area, the project involves the redesignation of land uses on certain parcels from high-density residential to commercial/ retail. The mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR would apply to these parcelsJ and there would be no new or increased impacts. Within the El Camino land additionJ the amended Plan would involve the development of new commercial and public uses along El Camino Real. Most development within this area would occur on previously developed parcels. Any grading, excavation or dewatering activities required for redevelopment would be subject to the mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR to minimize erosion. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR' would be applied to development of these sites, and would reduce hazards related to settlement within areas of alluvium or fill materials. The Willow Gardens revitalization project would involve a nwnber of building, roadway, and landscape improvements, the demolition of one or two four-unit residential structures, and the p'ossible construction of a community building in an existing paved area.. Any grading activities required for the revitalization project would be subject to the mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR to minimize erosion. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading! subsidenceJ" liquefaction or collapse? x 1be 1993 EIR states: IJThere is no evidence that the project area is geologically unstable. . .ff The EIR also notes that the Calma sandy loam is generally dense and strong, and that new structures based in it would experience little foundation instability. Development in areas located immediately adjacent to Calma Creek could result in significant ground stability impacts; the EIR identifies the preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations (and replacement or stabilization of soils, or the use of special Ioundation designs as needed) as mitigation.. Both the El Camino land addition and the Willow Gardens neighborhood are also underlain primarily by Calma sandy loam soilsJ with alluvial soils in areas along Colma Creek. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to these sites, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant leveL Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts with respect to unstable geology or soils. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994)J creating substantial risks to life or property? x The 1993 EIR notes that the Colma sandy loam soils underlying the Plan Area exhibit virtually no expansion potentiaL Therefore, no new or increased impacts would result from development of commercial/retail uses (Jl certain parcels within the EI Camino Corridor. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 11 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted SiWlificant Both "the EI Camino land addition and the Willow Gardens neighborhood are also underlain primarily by Colma sandy loam soils, with alluvial soils in areas along Cohna Creek. The General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report indicates that areas with urban land cut-and-fill soils may include moderate potential for shrink-swell. The site-specific geotechnical studies required by the 1993 EIR would be applied to these sites, and implementation of measures identified in those studies would mitigate the potential hazard to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts with respect to expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? x The proposed project does not include the use of alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no related impact. 7. HAZARDS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to public health hazards.. The types of new uses anticipated under the amended Redevelopment Plan (commercial/retail, residential en the McLellan site, park uses, fire station) do not normally involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials} and therefore the project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to hazardous materials use.. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x The amended Redevelopment Plan does not include any uses that would use significant amounts of hazardous materials, because the project includes development of new public and commercial/retail uses and the rehabilitation of a residential neighborhood. Hazardous waste generation or storage would be subject to existing Connty, State and federal requirements designed to prevent releases and minimize "hazard. No industrial development is proposed within the Project Area. Therefore, there is no impact related to risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? x See the responses to Items 7a and 7b above. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 12 Initial Study 3/9/99 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentiall y Potentially New or No New Significan t Significan t Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Si~ificant X The existing Project Area and proposed land additions are located in an urbanized area and surrounded by a mix of land uses including commercial/retail, residential, and public schools. The types of uses that could cause health hazards are located mainly in the southeast and east parts of the City, not in the Project Area. The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report lists 114 known sites with leaking underground storage tanks in the City; most of these sites are in the eastern part of the City but some are along El Camino Real. Should such sites exist within areas proposed for redevelopment, cleanup would be required according to existing law before such sites could be occupied. The Project Area and land additions do not contain any other existing facilities or uses that have been known to create or cause a significant heal th hazard. Therefore, the amended Redevelopment Plan would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? x As shown on Figure 3-8 of the General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report, the Project Area and proposed land additions are within the height restriction ,area of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. No hazards would result if all development complies with the height limits specified in the Plan. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in.a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? x There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. Therefore, there would be no related impact. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? x The amended Redevelopment Plan would not involve any changes to the existing arterial street network, including emergency routes. Therefore, there would be no new or. increased significant impact on an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potential impacts with respect to the level of service on local roadways will be addressed in the Traffic and Circulation section of the SEIR. The relocation of the fire station (and possibly, Emerger:-.cy Operations Center) would have beneficial impacts CI1 the City's emergency response becaus~ the facilities would serve an identified need. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 10ssJ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x The site is located in an urbanized area, and does not involve the placement of structure in areas containing flammable brush. Therefore, no new impacts would occur. EI Camino Corridor 13 Initial Stud y Redevelopment Plan Amendment 3/9 /99 Potentially Potentiall y New or No N evv Significant Significant Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Si~ificant ~1!!W!,r~~"~;v f ~~:"~~"_:'X:_d:~~ ___<-_. n, "<<__ "' -~~ ,-----:~'"":"::"~~::-~:.~~~'"" ---:::~": " " __n___" '" .,,.J ~'~- 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: i' v ~;rF, ;:irf~~~~~ )~r i~~9:Ft~_~~~~~~i~;:i',": ~:' J ~};fi ~:J; {i:,:~:~::~j,~~~'- a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requiremen ts? x The uses anticipated within the existing Project Area and proposed land additions include public, commercial/retail, and residential uses; these uses would not create effluent discharges from point sources, and thus would not violate any waste discharge requirements.. Potential impacts related to nonpoint source pollution are discussed nnder Item Be, below. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e..g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The 1993 EIR noted that groundwater depths varied within the Project Area, and that groundwater was recorded at a depth of approximately 17 feet below the ground surface on the east side of Mission Road. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to groundwater resources. lbe General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report notes that the ,groundwater basin underlying the City is divided into two aquifer systems, the Colma system (in the Colma Formation) and the Merced system (in the Merced Formation).. In addition, a perched water table about 20 feet below grormd surface has been found in wells along Calma Creek.. Recharge is generally concentrated in the immediate near-stream areas where open space is present. A small portion of the City's water supply is derived from eight groundwater wells in the vicinity of Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road. Most of the existing and proposed Project Area is rmderlain by the Calma Formation or alluvium. Within the existing Project Area, the amended Plan would result in commercial/ retail development en parcels previously - designated for residential development; therefore, no new or increased impacts related to groundwater would occur. Within the EI Camino land addition, new development generally would occur m previously developed parcels, and no new impacts to groundwater would occur in those areas. However, land above or adjacent to the well field might be used for expanded park facilities and a fire station.. The SEIR will examine the impact of developing this area on the well field. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, development would consist of building, street, and landscape improvements that would not substantially change the land coverage. No new impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated in this area. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? x The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns.. Within the existing Project Area, Calma Creek flows through a concrete-lined channel. lhe proposed El Camino land addition is mostly built out and the proposed Willow Gardens addition is already developed. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts related to the alteration of drainage patterns. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment r'lan Amendment 14 Initial Study 3/9/99 Po ten tiaII y Significant New or Increased Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated New or Increased Impact Less Than SiWlificant No New or Increased Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? x "The 1993 EIR notes that the Redevelopment Plan would increase the rate and volume of runoff into local stonn drains and Colma Creek. The EIR notes that the downstream reaches of Calma Creek have been designed to carry peak runoff from a 50-year storm, assuming full urbanization of the surroundmg watershed, and that the Redevelopment Plan would not cause increased downstream flooding in Colma Creek. However, the EIR notes . that sections of the Calma Creek channel within the project area may not be adequate to accommodate nmoff from a 50-year storm, which would represent a significant impact. In addition, tributary drainage systems and existing storm drains could result in a significant flooding impact. Storm drainage improvements currently planned or underway for Calma Creek will reduce flood hazards to a 50-year storm recurrence interval (within a fully developed watershed, in accordance with Flood Control District Standards). The 1993 EIR concluded that these improvements, together with onsite stormwater collection design to meet City standards and construction to meet FEMA standards within the lOO-year flood zone, would mitigate impacts related to redevelopment of the EI Camino Corridor to a less-than-significant level. Within the existing Project Area, the largest area of ~developed land is the McLellan site, which is under construction. The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the development of new commercial/retail uses along the EI Camino Corridor and the rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. The EI Camino area is generally built out; however, as with the existing Redevelopment Plan, the development of any infill, vacant ("'dirt") parcels along EI Camino Real would increase the rate of runoff into Colma Creek. Roadway improvements proposed as part of the Willow Gardens revitalization project could increase the amount of impervious surface in that neighborhood, which ultimately drains to Cohna Creek. Application of the mitigation measures identified in the 1993 EIR, together with the flood control improvement projects along Colma Creek, would reduce potential flood hazards to a less-than-significant leveL e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The 1993 EIR notes that the Redevelopment Plan could result in declining quality of stonnwater runoff due to non-point source urban pollutants and increased soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during project- facilitated local construction. The EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring the" preparation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for individual development, obtaining a NPDES permit for any development over five acres, and implementing Best Management Practices to reduce non-point source pollution. Within the existing Project Area, the amended Redevelopment Plan would result in redesignation of the McLellan site, which is already under construction with fewer units than approved under the existing Redevelopment Plan." Other affected parcels within the existing Project Area would be developed with commercial/retail uses instead of high-density residential useSj depending en the density and proposed use, water quality impacts could be greater because of the potential frequent use of parking lots and regular truck deliveries to stores. Within the EI Camino area addition, the amended Redevelopment Plan would involve the development of new public and commercial/ retail development along the EI Camino Corridor, and could result in similar water quality impacts.. both during construction and after construction. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, the Plan would not result in a substantial change in water quality because there would be no substantial change in use of the site. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 15 1ni tial Study 3/9/99 Potentiall y Potentially Ne'W" or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpo ra ted Si~ificant The 1993 EIR required projects to incorporate water quality measures based en the latest Best Management Practices identified by the US EPA and RWQCB. These mitigation measures would also apply to the amended Redevelopment Plan, and would account for the proposed change in uses. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts related to water quality. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? IX See the responses to Items 8a and Be, above. g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? x The 1993 EIR notes that portions of approximately eight parcels within the Redevelopment Plan area are located within the lOO-year floodplain.. Three of those parcels are designated for the new BART station and the remainder were designated for high-density residential uses in the existing Plan. The EIR concluded tha t elevating the first floor of any residential structure above the lOO-year flood elevation, either through the use of fill or through pile-supported construction, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The amended Redevelopment Plan involves the redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses, and the rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. New commercial/retail development within the IOO-year floodplain would be required to be raised above the flood elevation, or floodproofed to prevent damage due to shallow flooding. The northern portion of the EI Camino land addition is located within the IOO-year flood zone. Expanded park facilities within the flood zone would generally be a compatible use; the fire station (if built within the flood plain) would need to incorpo~ate design features to avoid or prevent damage. The Willow Gardens neighborhood is not within the lOO-year flood zone. Given the above information, there would be no new or increased impacts related to water-related hazards. h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? x See the response to Item 8g above~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? x See the responses to Items 8g above and Bj below. j) Inundation by seiche, tsnnami, or mudflow? IX Seiches are waves in an enclosed body of water. A review of area maps shows that the nearest enclosed body of water, San Andreas Lake, is approximately three miles down-drainage from the Project Area (the dam en San Andreas Lake is more than five miles from the site). The Project Area is located en an inland portion of the San Francisco peninsula, approximately 2.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 2.5 miles from San Francisco Bay. Elevations within the project area range from about 50 to 100 feet above mean sea level. Given the intervening topography, a tsunami would not be expected to affect the Project Area. Based upon this information, there would be no significant impact as a result of seiches or tsunamis~ El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 16 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No Nevv Significant Significan t Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpor a ted Significant Neither the 1993 EIR nor the General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report mentions mudflows as a significant hazard. Therefore, there would be no related impact. ._u<"pq/.:;JfR"~'~.~ .~~~:.~~--- ---::::::~~~~ I"" ~~l<<d~~U~ ___....n_m.m """--"'1"_ . ,......._..",.".~".... ,,,...,,,,..,,..,.,,4~,,^,,,_.~, ,~..~., .....~~_.-~. ""'<}~__ '\, Jr.':"":Jr"".J,,,I)~. ;iUL~.~~.jI'n.J <<.._m...".",,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,...<<,,,,,,-oT 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X The existing Redevelopment Plan calls for the development of high-density residential uses on a parcel en El Camino Real that (at the time of the 1993 EIR) contained six single-family residential units. This parcel is now vacant,. and nnder the amended Plan would be designated for new commercial/retail development. Therefore, no impacts to an established community would result from the amended Plan. lbe Macy's site is currently vacant, and the approved uses on the McLellan site are under construction (the site was previously a nursery). Within the El Camino land addition, new public and commercial/retail uses would be developed along EI Camino Real. No development within the existing residential neighborhood is proposed. Rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood would require the removal of between four and eight residential units. Current California redevelopment law requires the provision of relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced persons. Given that the Redevelopment Agency would be required to comply with these provisions, impacts related to disruption of the established community would be less... than-significant. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? A Redevelopment Plan was approved for the EI Camino Corridor in 1993. The existing Redevelopment Plan designates several parcels within the existing Project Area for high-density residential land uses, wi th densities. of 40 to 50 units per acre. Proposed amendments to the Plan would delete these high-density residential designations and redesignate certain parcels along the El Camino corridor for commercial/retail uses; the McLellan site would be redesignated for lower-density residential uses,. consistent with the approved uses for the site. Approval of the Redevelopment Plan amendment would require an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the land use designations. The affected parts of the existing Plan Area are zoned P-C-L, Planned Commercial; the McLellan site is zoned 0-5, Open Space, R-2-H, Medium Density Residential, and R-I-E, Single Family Residential. Residential land uses at a maximum density of 30 units per acre are allowed within the P-C-L district, subject to a use permit. lbe commercial/ retail uses proposed nnder the amended Plan would be consistent with the current zoning of the project area. The parts of the McLellan site zoned 0-5 and R-2-H would need to be rezoned to reflect the approved residential uses. The amended Plan would involve two land additions to the existing Plan Area. The portion of the El Camino land addition fronting El Camino Real is zoned C-l, Retail Commercial. New commercial uses proposed along El Camino Real would be consistent with existing land use designations and zoning. The expanded park facilities would be developed in an area zoned 0-5, and thus would be.consistent with that land designation. The fire station would likely be developed in an area zoned 0-5, and thus would require a rezoning to reflect a Public use~ EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 17 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significan t Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Si~ificant The Willow Gardens land addition is zoned R-3-L Planned Unit Development, multiple family residential. The Redevelopment Plan would involve rehabilitation of the units and street improvements; no changes to the land use or zoning in Willow Gardens would result. The existing Redevelopment Area is discussed in the South San Francisco General Plan as Planning Area 11~ The existing Redevelopment Plan designates several parcels along the EI Camino Corridor for high-density residential uses, including the former Macy's site. Existing policies for Planning Area 11 (Policies B-11-1 through B-11-18) specifically call for transit-oriented residential development on the affected sites within the Project Area; the amended Redevelopment Plan would not be consistent with these policies, but it is unclear whether significant environmental impacts would result from the inconsistencies.. In addition, the City's General Plan is currently being updated, and it appears (from a review of the Preferred Plan Land Use Diagram) that the updated Plan will include policies that reflect the proposed changes to the Existing Project Area. The SEIR will discuss project consistency with existing and (draft) updated General Plan policies. Within the EI Camino land addition to the Plan Area, new development would reflect an intensification of commercial/ retail uses along EI Camino Real. Such development is consistent with Policy 6-5 of the General Plan, which states that deteriorated properties along El Camino Real within this area should be upgraded. The provision of expanded park facilities is consistent with Policy 6-1 of the General Plan, which states tha t Orange Avenue Memorial Park should be extended to Chestnut Avenue and additional playfields and open space areas improved. There are no General Plan policies .specific to fire stations, so the development of a station w.ould not be iriconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood is consistent with General Plan Policy 5-5 I which states that the Willow Gardens neighborhood should be renovated. The proposed rehabilitation would result in the loss of four to eight units, which would not be inconsistent with General Plan policies tha t promote the retention of affordable housing, as the units are market rate. The Agency proposes to purchase 17 4-flex units (68 units) in Willow Gardens and convey them to the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition for rehabilitation and renovation. The improved units would be provide for low- to moderate-income households by virtue of deed restrictions and a development agreement. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x There are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply to the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. Therefore, there would be no related impact. I II II I~ II . II . I.. . · ',' . ,;.~' '.:..~ :. ~ ',:':,' " ~ I :t ... II . II . - ~! . ' , ,~(:'" ~~ . ; '~':~:;": ~:~":"'~1~~ ~~~..~ ," H~, MI~I:I{}\l. RESOL'RCES.. \,\'ould tilt' projl'cl: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? x The Project Area is not designated as a natural resource area in the South San Francisco General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact on loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general IX EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 18 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentiall y Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant plan, specific plan or other land use plan? See the response to Item lOa above. ~ -. ..... -...., -' --.. - .. ., .>>~, ..... ~<.. . .",,,,",,,,. ...."" . ....,,,,"''",,,. -' . --- ~. . - _IT -,. V~_ ~: 11. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The 1993 EIR notes that the noise resulting from project-generated traffic would affect housing along the frontages of EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue. The existing Redevelopment Plan would also be exposed to noise from ~FO overflights. The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve less residential development, but more retail/ commercial development than the original project. The number of trips could be greater, so overall noise impacts along roadways serving the Project Area could increase. In addition, there could be localized noise impacts from the expanded park facilities and the fire station. The SEIR will evaluate potential noise impacts, including impacts on future project residents, using updated information. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or gtoundbome noise levels? x See the response to Item lOa above. The types of uses anticipated within the existing Project Area and proposed land additions would not create groundbome noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? See the response to Item lOa above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The 1993 EIR found that construction within the project area could cause significant short-term noise impacts for existing and new residences and businesses. Implementation of standard construction noise measures, including scheduling, use of proper equipment, shielding, notifying neighbors of upcoming construction, and use of a noise disturbance coordinator would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures would be equally applicable to new development occurring under the amended Redevelopment Plan. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? x The General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report indicates that a portion of the El Camino EI Camino Corridor . Redevelopment Plan Amendment 19 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Si~ificant land addition would be within the projected CNEL 65 contour for 2006 operations at San Francisco Intemational Airport. The Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas (Table 13-2 of the report) indicate that noise levels of up to 70 dBA, CNEL are satisfactory for commercial uses. Therefore, there would be m new impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? x There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the existing Project Area or proposed land additions. lherefore, there would be no related impact 12. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The 1993 EIR identified growth inducement as an inherent impact, because it was a goal of the Redevelopment Plan to facilitate and encourage high-density residential and commercial development. The amended Redevelopment Plan involves the redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses. New commercial uses are also proposed for parcels along El Camino Real in the El Camino land addition. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, a number of building, street, and landscape improvements would be made. Between four and eight units would be removed from the neighborhood. As with the existing Redevelopment Plan, it is the goal of the amended Plan to facilitate development. The growth induced could be different because the proposed development would include mainly commercial (employment-generating) uses rather than transit-oriented residential uses. It is not known whether the growth induced would be greater, or would lead to increased environmental impacts. Potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed amendments will be discuss"ed in the SEIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 1:he construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x The 1993 EIR does not identify any significant residential displacement impacts. The EIR notes that the existing Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to use the power of eminent domain to acquire private property, if necessary, to implement measures to eliminate blighting conditions. The existing Redevelopment Plan calls for the development of high-density residential uses on a parcel on EI Camino Real that (at the time of the 1993 EIR) contained six single-family residential units. This parcel is now vacant, and under the amended Plan would be designated for new commercial/retail development. Therefore,.no existing housing would be displaced by the amended Plan. Redevelopment activities within the EI Camino land addition involve the development of public and commercial uses along EI Camino ReaL No development would occur within existing residential areas, and ro residential units would be displaced. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 20 1ni tial Stud y 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially Ne'W" or No New Significant Significan t Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant The Willow Gardens rehabilitation project would involve building, street, and landscape improvements. Between four and eight residential units (one or two four-unit structures) would be demolished. In accordance with California redevelopment law1 the Redevelopment Agency would be required to provide relocation assistance and replacement housing to all displaced residents. The Agencyls Amended Five Year Implementation Plan indicates that such replacement housing is feasible (through affordable housing proposed elsewhere within the City). Compliance with these measures would reduce displacement impacts to a less-than-significant level. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x See the response to Item 12b, above. I. ~ .1 II . . II . I: I. 1.1 .I'. ~ ~ ~::, ..:: '......" '.': ';.1~. ".:.~~ : :,~. ~::.:' :~~~:; 1.1 rl'L.IJ L.I (.: S ~I{ \-'1 (~[~S a) Wauld the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? x The site is located within the service area of the South San Francisco Fire Department. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact en the Fire Department with respect to fire protection (calls for service). With mitigation (monitoring of call levels and staff increases where necessary), the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial! retail uses. Given that there would be less residential development, and fewer expected calls for service, no new or increased impacts are expected with respect to fire protection. lbe construction of a new fire station (as a replacement for an existing station) would have a beneficial impact on fire services, because an engineering analysis has identified the need for a replacement sta tion. IX The site would be served by the South San Francisco Police Department. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact on the Department with respect to police protection (demands on staff). With mitigation (monitoring of additional police calls and employment of additional officers as needed, and safety considerations in residential design), the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ii) Police protection? The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve development of commercial/ retail uses 00 certain parcels where residential uses are planned, and development of public and additional commercial uses in the El Camino land addition. Police staffing is usually measured as a ratio of officers to populationi from tha t standpoint, the proposed changes would not result in any new or increased impacts because the residential population would be lower. lhe increased commercial and park development could result in an increase in service calls; the monitoring and employment of additional officers required by the 1993 EIR would also apply EI Camino Corridor 2"1 Initial Study Redevelopment Plan Amendment 3 /9/ 99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact 1m pact Incorpora ted Si~ificant to the amended Redevelopment Plan.. The proposed improvements to the Willow Gardens neighborhood are intended to increase safety and reduce demands on the Police Department. For these reasons, no new or increased impacts are expected with respect to police protection. IX The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact with respect to school capacity. The EIR identifies a number of mitigation measures, including the use of portable classrooms, reopening closed elementary and middle schools, increasing school impact fees, additional school impact fees, general obligation bonds, and the sale of surplus property. iii) Schools? The amended Redevelopment Plan would involve redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses. Given that there would be less residential development, and less public school demand, there would be no new or increased impact related to public schools. iv). Parks? IX See the response to Item 14, below. v) Other governmental services? I IX The 1993 EIR noted that the existing Redevelopment Plan would result in increased vehicle trips which would increase road maintenance requirements, and that project construction equipment could damage area roadways. The EIR concludes that project-facilitated increases in taxes would mitigate roadway maintenance requirements, and that construction traffic would be required to repair any damage to local roadways. lhe amended Redevelopment Plan would involve less residential development and more commercial development than the existing Plan, and could result in increased vehicle trips. As with the approved Plan, tax revenues from the commercial development would be expected to mitigate roadway maintenance requirements. Construction-related roadway damage would also be required to be repaired by construction contractors. Based on this information, the amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in any new or increase~ significant impacts on the maintenance of public facilities. lhe 1993 ErR does not identify any significant impacts related to other governmental services. lhe amended Redevelopment Plan would involve less residential development, and would be expected to require fewer government services in general than the approved Plan. Therefore, no new or increased impacts would result. a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? TIle 1993 EIR conduded that the original project would have a potentially significant impact an parks and recreation, because portions of the Project Area would not be adequately served by .neighborhood parks or mini-parks. The EIR concluded that the construction of mini-parks, dedication of parkland, or payment of in- -lieu fees by individual projects would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. El Camino Corridor RedeVelopment Plan Amendment 22 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in less demand for such facilities because fewer residential units.would be developed. Therefore, the revised project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts on parks. The Cityls Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan identifies a linear park along the fonner Colma Creek. lbe amended Redevelopment Plan would result in the redesignation of certain parcels along the EI Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/ retail uses. A decrease in the nlUllber of residential units to be developed in the area could reduce the level of fnnding or land area set aside by individual development projects that could be used to implement the linear park project. The General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report notes that the 1990 Orange Park Master Plan outlined improvements and expansion to meet the needs of city residents, and that the area of proposed park expansion has been designated as "planned park. II The proposed park improvements would be beneficial in that they would help to meet anticipated park demand. The possible conversion of the Community Garden along Commercial Avenue to another use (such as a fire station) could represent a significant impact; the SEIR will evalua te this issue. The Willow Gardens Rehabilitation project would involve converting an existing open space area behind the units on Susie Way to a new street. New landscaped areas along the street frontage would replace a portion of the area lost. The SEIR will examine impacts related to the loss of recreational open space. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? N/A TIle impacts of the park facility expansion are addressed as part of the other topic areas in this lni tial Study. Therefore, this topic is not applicable. !OW~YF>.<-I~^-V~---""-"~."'~'''<>>-iiAA ~-:-'-.~'~'w~-....'..- -"lj t. .llrnr p; . . ~-=;::-- . - -- -- ----,--/l[ .-------------,~ -:n---"El i rn_- ~/ ... ...:. _ . u,,_ lIr. :J!I ---n..-..---L1mI~n__..n_ ~., >_:___nnn_ mrm ~.~~~..w: <. ~,.~,._..__., nn~:~=-:~~ 15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the- volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? The 1993 EIR identified significant project-related traffic impacts at three intersections in the project vicinity. With mitigation (certain roadway improvements) these impacts were determined to be reduced to a less-than -significan t level. Within the existing Project Area, the McLellan parcel will be developed with the approved uses, at a lower density than studied in the 1993 EIR. Other sites within the existing Project Area currently designated for high-density residential uses would be redesignated for commercial/retail uses. Depending on the intensity or type of use, the number of trips could be greater or less than previously studied; trip distribution would also be differen t. Within the El Camino land addition, new commercial/retail uses would be developed along EI Camino Real that would generate additional trips and could affect intersections not studied in the 1993 EIR. Proposed park EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 23 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentiall y Ne\V" or No New Significan t Significant Increa sed or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitiga tion Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Si~nificant facilities would also generate trips (though not necessarily during peak commute hours).. The improvements proposed for the existing Willow Gardens residential neighborhood would not result in increased trips because there would be no increase in units ( between four and eight residential units would be removed). Project- specific and cumulative traffic impacts will be evaluated in the SEIR. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? See the response to Item 15a, above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? x The San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the Project Area. Development associated with the amended Redevelopment Plan is not expected to affect air traffic. Therefore, there would be no impacts on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e~g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? x The 1993 EIR does not identify any significant safety hazards. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not alter the design features of any roadways along the EI Camino Corridor. Within the Willow Gardens neighborhood, a new street may be constructed and other streets modified; these changes are intended to improve circulation within the site, and would be constructed in compliance with City standards. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts. IX The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts related to emergency access. As with the existing Plan, the amended Redevelopment Plan would add vehicle trips along the EI Camino Corridor. It is not expected tha t these additional trips would interfere with emergency access along the roadway. Rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood is intended, in part, to improve circulation through that neighborhood. Therefore, there would be no new or increased impacts. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? IX The 1993 EIR identified a signif.icant impact related to overflow parking from the BART site on residential streets, as well as overflow parking on EI Camino Real. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Within the existing Project Area, the amended Redevelopment Plan would involve the redesignation of certain parcels along the El Camino Corridor from high-density residential to commercial/retail uses. The applicants of each individual project would be required to provide adequate parking for their uses. The same requirement would apply to new uses within the El Camino land addition. The rehabilitation of the Willow Gardens neighborhood would change parking. islands m site but result in no net reduction of parking spaces. Parking impacts will be evaluated in the SEIR to confirm the provision of adequate parking and re-evaluate the BART overflow parking issue. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs I X El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 24 Initial Stud y 3/9/99 Potentiall y Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increa sed or Ne\V or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorpora ted Significan t supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The SEIR will include a discussion of the circulation features of the amended Redevelopment Plan, including those related to adopted City policies. ' ~~~[lli I) n~~-_'--n~~~.~.~~_._~~~~~.~.~ "'"...,..._~..__ n.. n.. ,;i:" . .__ 1leI1MIJI . , 1>--,......._ ..~ ,""..,;.:u.. ....__ 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? x See the response to Item 16b, below. The types of uses proposed do not raise any specific issues with respect to wastewater treatment requirements. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could 'cause significant environmental effects? x The 1993 EIR identified a potential significant impact related to the provision of adequate fire flows at the Wye Motel site. The EIR required upgrading of the water line in Hickey Boulevard as part of any future development of the Wye Motel. site. The amended Redevelopment Plan would not result in changes in land uses as the Wye Motel site. No impacts related to water demand were identified with the existing Redevelopment Plan. The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report indicates that the California Water Service Company has adequate supply to meet the highest projected demand for sites service area through 2020. For these reasons, no new or increased significant impacts would result. The 1993 EIR identified a significant impact related to sewer line capacity in the Mission Road trunk line and the Macy's trunk line. Mitigation measures included conducting a detailed engineering analysis prior to granting project approvals for a substantial portion of residential development in the area. The 1993 EIR did not identify any impacts with respect to wastewater treatment capacity. The amended Redevelopment Plan would result in less residential development and more commercial/ retail development., than the approved Plan. Depending on the type and intensity of uses developed, these changes could result in a net reduction or increase in wastewater generation. An engineering analysis of the Calma Creek trunk sewer along Mission Road and Macy's trunk sewer, as required by the 1993 EIR, would determine the need for additional trunk capacity and identify funding responsibilities for recommended improvements. Within the EI Camino land addition, any new development would be required to demonstrate that sufficient sewer capacity exists in the local lines. The Willow Gardens Rehabilitation project would result in the removal of between four and eight residential units; wastewater flows would not change substantially. South ~an Francisco is currently in the process of upgrading its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate new development. The treatment plant will be expanded to an operational capacity of 13 million gallons per day. This expansion would accommodate the projected dry weather flow in 2015. Given the above, no new or increased impacts to the sewer system would result. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water Ix EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 25 Initial Study 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significant Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Significant drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Storm drainage in the project area is accommodated within the Calma Creek channel. See the responses to Items 8a through Bd above for discussion of potential impacts related to increased runoff and surface waters. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? x See the response to Item 16c above. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? x See the response to Item 16b above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? x The 1993 EIR did not address impacts to solid waste disposal. Solid waste from the city of South San Francisco is disposed at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries} owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has permitted landfill capacity through the year 2016, and plans for accommodating waste disposal after the permit expires. Therefore, no new or increased impacts would result from the amended Redevelopment Plan. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? x The types of uses proposed raise no specific issues related to compliance with solid waste laws and regulations. Therefore, there would be no related impact. .' :~ :z ::=:=~~~ 'n ~ ~.~.~ " >. . . .~ :~'"~.~~ ~; ~'''''''.*~~~ ~~~ ri'~-~---"~~ mJ]~111ft 11-- . . j~ __.. ____. u.... __... ~ ,.. ..~=. --.. _ -- .u. . ~'n ~ ~".. __u,,"'~, . !~. '.' ....'~_.. ~~__~"" '_>M "...-."*",-",_~;,,,~__ ,..,.... ..... -"'~ -<Hi......._.. .' '" ..., ...~. .~_, .. _ . _ .. _ .,._,v "'" .""1'.,(.... .. .. ., i('.'.. .. _ . . ~. . 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history? As noted in the discussions above, there would be no new or increased impacts with respect to biological resources or historic resources. There could be impacts with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 26 lni tial Stud y 3/9/99 Potentially Potentially New or No New Significant Significan t Increased or New or Unless Impact Increased Increased Mitigation Less Than Impact Impact Incorporated Si~ificant recreational facilities that degrade the quality of the environment. It is not known at this time whether the amended Plan would result in any new or increased impacts to these resources. lbese topics will be analyzed in the SEIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The number of impact categories identified in this initial study, along with the cumulative impacts of potential projects in the vicinity of the project create potentially significant cumulative impacts which will be discussed in the SEIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? See the discussions related to transportation and circulation, visual quality, seismic hazards, water quality, noise, air quality, and other topics above. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 27 Initial Study 3/9/99 Sources of Information Used in Preparing Initial Study Incorporation by Reference: The prior EIR prepared for the existing Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Wagstaff and Associates, Inc., is a key document to be used in the preparation of the SEIR for the amended Redevelopment Plan, and is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study (portions of this dOClUl1ent are sununarized in various parts. of the Initial Study). Beyer... Robert, Redevelopment Project Manager, City of South San Francisco, telephone conversations, February 18 and. February 23, 1999. City of South San Francisco, General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997. City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements of the General Plan, 1986 (as amended). City of South San Francisco Zoning Map. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Willow Gardens Neighborhood Revitalization, Staff Report, April 22, 1998. Fragoso, Norma, Housing and Community Development Manager, City of South San Francisco, telephone conversation, February 22, 1999. Impact Sciences site reconnaissance, February 24, 1999. Van Duyn, Martin, Director, Economic and Community Development, City of South San Francisco, telephone conversations, February 18 and February 23, 1999. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment 28 Initial Study 3/9/99 KatzHollls <S0 <?\ LEGEND Proposed Added Area Boundary A\>\ \ c;:/ South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Second Amendment to the EI <?amino Corridor Redevelopment project PROPOSED ADDED AREAS This map was prepared for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily to sea/et nor ShOUld it be use to ascertain preCise project area boundS ty lines. 04/13/1999 16:41 5508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 02 ~~ .<rf~ ~ "Ii;'" ..~. <-.... : ,.., ~.J ~,~ - , April 6, 1999 HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY RECEIVED API? 1 2 19.99 PLANNING Allison Knapp Wollman City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, EL CAMINO CORRlDO~ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA The County of San Mateo, Office of Environmental Health Services, reviewed the subject documents and its attachments.. The attachments included the Project DescriptionlEnvirQnmental Checklist. Our responses are as follows: Page 13: Evaluation of Environmental ~mpacts, 7. Hazards, Item d): . The information included in this section is generally torrect. Please ensure that you review the most current listing of known leaking underground fuel tank sites to verify whether or not such sites are located within the areas proposed for redevelopment. Our office publishes a list of such sites on a quarterly basis. Should such sites exist, and require cleanup, we will be happy to work with yom agency to achieve the cleanup and allow the redevelopment to proceed. In general, we allow development of sites under certain ~ondjtion, such as: soils have been adequately addressed; an acceptable risk assessment for residual contaminants is on file; and the development will not interfere with continuing groundwater cleanup and/or monitoring. Page 14: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, 8. Hydrology and Water Quality, Item b): . The Califomia Water Service (CWS) well field is located in the vicinity of the areas proposed foe redevelopment.. Please contact the CWS regarding the locations of their wells in relation to the redeVelopment area and for any concerns they may have. . 'Tliank you for the opportunity to comment on the wEl Camino C~rridor ~RcdevelQpment Project document&... ,. If you have any questions, call our staff at (650) 36J..4305- Sincerely, Eliza ouan Hazardous Materials Specialist cc: Dean Peterson, PIE.., Deputy Director, Environmental Health Services Rick Miller, Program Manager, Remedial Oversight Program, Environmental Health Services PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAl., PROTECTION DIVISION hard o( Supe-m$ol8: Rose J8(obs GIbson · RiChard S. Gordut) · Mary Griffin · Jerry Hill · ~tJthael O. NeVin · Health &emcee Dtree\or: Margaret Taylor ;&55 County CenlCI~ · ReG\VQOd City. CA 94(J63. PI,n~l; 6~O~363f4305 · TlJD 650~573.3206. F~\ 650.363-7862 hU.)) ;l1~ . heal\h. eo -63n-mcalco I.;a - U$ .fJ5/11/1999 16: 02 6508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 02 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Administration BuildioC, 398 B Street South SaD Franeisco, CaUfomia 94080 (650) 877-8702 F.:x: (6S0) 583-4717 ~\v April 30, 1999 City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 31 S Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Allison Knapp Wollam Re: Redevelopment Plan Amendment. EI CaDJino Corridor - Initial Study The South San Francisco Unified School District would like to respond to the Environmental Checklist as follows: 13. PUBLIC SERVICES iii} Schools The District belie\les that the revised project will result in "Potentially Significant New or Increased ImpactHto the District and must be evaluated in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the amended Redevelopment Plan. The 1993 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the eorreat Redevelopment Plan - EI Camino Conidor .. identified a significant impact with respect to school capacity and economic issues relating to the fiscal impact for basic aide tax status of the District. The EIR identified a number of measures available to mitigate the school capacity issuesll The purpose of the project was to generate resources to fund the City"s share of the costs to place undergroWld the BART line scheduled for alignment close to District school sites~ The District and City approved an agreement which includes certain tax proceeds to be passed through to the District. Subsequent agreements have resulted in full funding of the project by BART with no City contribution required. The description of the proposed Amendment to the project · Expansion of the plan area of approximately 80 acres will delay the time when the District will qualify for basic aide status.. Currently J the District receives 92.4% of Base Revenue Limit from property taxes and 7~6% from the State~ ~05/11/1999 16:02 6508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 03 City of South San Francisco Redevelopment ~gency Attention: Allison Knapp Wollam Page 2 The matter of basic aide status is critic:.al to the operation of the District's Educational Program and must be considered in the review process of this proposed expansioDw Six of San Mateo COWlty'S 23 districts are "basic aide"~ San Mateo Union High School District, a basic aide district, had a funded Base Revenue per ADA (Average Daily Attendanf;c) of 55,256 and South San Francisco Unified School District had 53,561 per ADA in 1997-98. Please call me if you have any questions.. Sincerely, ,/'"' ' IJ _0017,,;~d: ~ ..~. ,. ~(..,.. ~ ~ /01- l...- .... I" i , I 4~ce B. Smith Assistant Superintendent! Business Senrices sc Attachment: City of South San Francisco Environmental Checklist cc: Board of Ttustees Dr9 Richard J. Rigg 2 APPENDIX 3.0 Mitigation Measures from the Previous Redevelopment Plan EIR EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Frandsco January 31; 1993 UJ Z o i= c ~ i= :i Q Z C UJ I- U cC a. :Ii ~ I- Z < o iJ: Z <.:J ,US II. o >- a: "C( ::E :E :::J en CD C CI) ~ c c .!! .! Q) 52 ca:W ..... > 1a a; 8. ... 0 .. ..J ca CD ... (I) U G) :6 = ~..:. ::E .c: c: a - a: CD ..... ~~;~MI E~ts~m~ iQ)2~c:iu) CI)--tn..C') CD ca~!caQ)~ r-cCl)5::s CD c: .- 8 't: rn-tr-c:08. fJ-2.!;ca....: -- U) o.gJi2 0:8 5g="ECi;"Et: '::Jca~!~8 "-"cn~CI)8Q.CD .~ .! : i -0 -i :: ..... "''"Cc>c ~~o~:mca~i CUo 'E~--CD ~:C-CD~oE 8cnuo:2caoc. c: 0><"'0 Q)O___!!O~ =;0 c:N> ~ ~ ~.s: as~-! o I: .- en -. CD o ~ Q)~>-'ca "C .- > en CD .- ~ca8='E=; caX "CD ,., .c!CD~E>'.. c: .r=. ,,- .Q (I) CDca....-.Q.c::! "- C\lj2 CD -0 t-=" .., CD ,,2 0 a: c:: a: .. > 16 -- -ca<--:-Q)N~ W m(J1:J=~ cn'E 1iaftSQ) -- CDO .c:: e E =e ~"ii=C c: "C OJ.._ ::I ~ e ";; i ~ 3! ;. "~ iE:sU)-O--GJ bcae~~o.!! ca.c:QftlfD~.a c .m a - .C: ~ "m as ~'C CD 0 c: ra tS -" c CD ~ as Q1 as ! :J .:= "en ... Q.CDQ)CI)c:=ca el:.c .tail:.. .- Q) ... en .:= CD 0 G)CD-.C "'c J: ..::.2 J! as 2 ~'!! tii .. Q) ... N c:: =: II -[:3-;4) ~ a .Q Ca _~ s i ~ :~tsU)ca .!e ~<D.lte! I c- is:: i 2' CD as ::s .!! '-c.=n-a. ""0 G) ~ G) Il!! - ~ .c: CD -- 'E t! ...c;~i~! c: "Q ._... ._ AlII em '"IiIICDCI)~ I;cCl)cn.&:.aaQ is .- CD € ..... ... i I~~a:~~ .8'5f/iG3=:CD IllIIC 1::J -~ = co E CD ~c; II) <<I 1(1).- ~i ~tD 8.~Q)...CI)J: Eo:::g ,!S!":;" .... Or. s .!!, e z '0 .... en :::I en 5i S ~ -- ='Oi~ : .~ ca s:I ui ii-2. c:i!eo .2 . CD 2 ~i~i Sl8Si fa :i ~~ ~I_SL c .... liS -! c.'" as i ~ ~!I.!~ ca I: .. -s · E J:: ~8:;~ (!) .... c .- .... ! .2 *= c.Q1iii ~ ~ "S; ! ~I~~ Q) .... 8 p Eoc:s ca ... ilIII_ ... I:I":c ca....cQ) Q..CbEE -l;o.Q. e!.g.9 ~ erG) ~ Q).>(IJ D ~"C ~~:m~ ~lee= Q. ~=a~ ~i~~i G)I Gi.c i c: I e "Q. :SeQ.CD iiG)~:2 at!~ !! ~I . >.u c."" o.c 0 .P""tJ.... .!1!~8~ .. ~ fa "c;liCi;--a =!Q)i~ ~ >-.- u ~Q)'CCD . ~ J: fl) .0' · "1. -- ~ Ci. & \Wi "C 12 ' c:~is~ ~ii:!~ 2' ca CD" l1Cc-C..c: ~e8:I:;= 1:1 :l!CDO c:CGj-'E ~!.cfiB "i"I:& ilia! U~CD'50 , :;: .s.z .c = c I:c.....;;:ca 'lit ca .= .= == fj Ciifi I: 1:8 ~ !! .c ~ .2' ~g~; ~ c~ .5Z c 168. .SiP UJ =QJ ~a: 8 c c mea....... .- W :::J "Z i~ol ... c: J: ...... o SP = :t:: a..Cn3:~ en G) .. ~ U) ca CD 2 c .2 ca .~ :t= :E en U ~ < Z < Z ,; ! .:; cr ! Q) c o Z CJ) ...J UJ ~ ~ "C -.I ~ c: CD c:~cawC ~ 0 ... ==~CI)c <D 0 .9! .- ~o ~ .! ,,~ CD ~..-= en ~ "C & "en 130)41 en l'a .r. .~ c:: :E Q...... E ,,52 .... C ,., ._ :t= .. ~ ,,- ... c en 0 < CD 0 -e- C ... a.. .c >. !"C~ 1-=a:a....CD.-.... .1.c~1ii"E ~~~i~E ~.m i~ ca~ ~'E~ocnCD Q.Q)"t: "DE E :g g) C ca'- ca o CD Q...2 oeela~i Q) *c Q." ca- ~G) cine. ::iCl)~~c::'ii ~asQ)CDl"'ft'- CD ~ _ ~~. Q) ........c.cnc as~~EalQ) -.I .a_ ... ___ -0 CD Draft EIA . II. Summary Page 18 t3 ca ~ .5 CD ....:0 c ftS l]:si! -.. 0 ==> eftS .2lC cn:l "'c" Ccui: ca J:. as .5.Z .. .2 .-. -- "2 ~ "2 .Q) Q) 9 C/J-J(/) R R II C/)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 B cui ~ ..- s.} · .< < c: ca Q) c: J: .g' Z Z o .52':= :e: a..cn=:::E ~ c::;e .2 ~ asS .~ en cC c( =G:I :fa: z z Q) C.) ~c: c crans....,., · ~ CJ ....... :s 'E;:-'1G Q) "2 B .9' ~cW~; f1j G) ,.. :1 VJ ra Q.) 2 c .2 16 g 3 ~ -d CD ! .... -5 .S c- cr CI) e '- cD Q) C C 0 0 z z UJ ~ CD 13 ca ~ Q) ~ ::: ~ ~CI) .c;-a ca::l ~t:~fI) 4 en .Q 0 .- ,., < -C::E~J:E<<iio.. ... ! g :s e. >-- -2 " " ~:1 e.c ~==.;= i ~ -~ ~ .- , E ~ ~ ~ E~:tE"OStDCI)= 'Ct.._.Qa:>> .ace:; ~ I- 0 ~ a: .!e :g .~.- rae~8"E~:2;= Q)8ca 8.iii-a:= ~ ca Q, == ta 4J!! ~ fI) :cEU):o~cDC:o ..Ui as .- t: as (J ~ as ! >-.. G)~ ca&:cn ~Q)J: CD:CCDQJ-CD ~ ~.... .s:. ca > .r; en c""~c:'- <:!:! .. c: C Q) C '-a ... 8.... oOCG"Qoae ... 01: -fU'E c;;~S t3 GJ i CJ CD i!: CD .C "C caE ~Eca~CDCD ~ g.C: ~ g.0- 0 = Cii .- "ii J! -- CD CD 0) B 8 CD>.-~>ee > r::.GJ!~G)$Ji!!"C I--ol-.....-c....ca...ca C/J ~ = ~ ..! 'E CD 1:) c: .!! :I ~ Q 0 CD B 0 CD <5 .D C .;; ~ CG'-p-.Co ~l'\CD .... ...<U4I)ca o ca ~ .... en 0 .:&r. ca CD .!9 e. 0 - CD ... ... <0 co2cnU)Q)CCDC:QJ ~ .0 ~ ...,J .... ~ G) ca Ll)' CD ~ ..~ .,., .~ ca CI) ~ '"' ::5 4D.... "c:::..c .. - ~ +- ... .2.0 f\ ~.... ca"C - CUI- 8 ~.!!! u ~ c: o '"C -..... - ca c: It) , ^ ..... as g ;! .-. ... c C; 0 ! E ~ as" ~ VI .;: ~ ~ E i - 9; c caNQ.. .;c:2.>:-"2€O <<I o.~ a CD :iw a ~ ~ c5 ~. ~ "CD :t= ftS 8 C; Em; .. = .2 gJ .!! ~ E as ;: E c. '- 0 en N 41 J CD i 15 ~ !.s caBan(/) E ca~! E.e~ E"O.~.w fI) CI)~o c~~~~~~~.2m~!e==~o~ - ~o~ ~c: ~ u~c~m= 0 !... s..r..- (l)U1- c- ~9=J:) Q) c: JIi as c:t~ 2~CDOim:: i c en CD &"ca.2 utj=: CDUj catv) ~~ CD.-::t c.E: CD .cn~ 1.~!!~c;;~t~1 file 8 3~~~ en ~~!noc~~:~IB!l 0=~~ .c .a~1lCDQ)...Q)~ 4D'2Sts ._~ ~ ; J ~ ~ E g i E i! ~ : !. i !. ~.~ 8. S! CD! UJ J:J ~ ti -x e b ca .c en t3 e fa tIS en e::s ~. t'l ! " 0 CD CD e a.. c ~ .. ! Q)'.- 3 a.. CD CD .>> ... ~ .-.. t.. ~-. Q. j E s:;, Ca CD E ~ ..... ,~ .I: C .... 3 c: Q e c. ! 00 :I .'5 .! )( fJ) :J .!: 8'- "'-I U .to 0 " 0 t: c. ftI CG u..... CD :I U ca " Draft EIR II. Summary Page 17 i c. -~ CD ...:0 c: ca ~~ .--- 0 :t::> era .~ 3 "c:"- i!i .Y~.2 -- ... .2 =+2 .2>> Q) ..521 CI)~CI) H I R CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 Q) u Ci i ~ .- 2' .:111: 1:= 1& .!! c: = .~ o ~-....- o..Cn~~ ~ c:;Q .2 ! CUB .2'- r.o =CD 2ct CD U _ c: c raca...~ .- CJ ~::: ~:eofG ~ c: == .2, O O..-:t= a..u;~2 en Q) ~ ~ en ca fI) 2 c ~g Ta :s 2 en- 13 ca 'f en --I- ~a: ~< __ CD - cD ca~ j... CI) 'S ~ CD fa I!!c: CD CD ~E cae. >..2 c CD as > m B1:I ::sCii i~ "- CD >.:2 = en .!! ! 'E ~ . ca ~ c 1ii !i.2 .c~~ ~,..S en 0 en Draft E1R II. Summary Page 20 CIJ ...J ~ !. Q) 0 ...... .-. ~ CD ... > .f~ - .:.: CD en ca ~!~O CD en ca ti 0) c: -:1 ca ~2 !!c c Q. ... Q) J!gz> SeScc ~G)ca-o Q) Q ! C cnra--f! 8.c-~ o ! · e ~ ~ ~i c.. .. 13 .2 0 !~~caa: taca-fi...c '" &J '--ca 5: .2 ~.. ..., II) ~ ~ ... E .~ VI CI) .... Eo:E::E C'a -- .2' .: ~ taa:!c:ca c. w"- ca. ... a.C CD c en ~1i5 ~ 0).- .- Q) &:: .ii5 z= J2 "tJ CD c! a B &~ C/J o <c ~ .... Q) u)"C =:: ~ ....S::" iii E ~ ~ c c > c: c 'ii ..59 >- G) CD C. c"ti g g>> C\1 g>> ..!5! 0 CD .2 ~ ~ CD -= n; ~S: R !! ~ co .a 'ea a 'eI) U C II) ~0~~~e~~G~ o~ ~ ~~c~~ I- CI:Io.> CD ~= c > !'_a: Q) 1:1.'0 G) CD U ~ ~ ~~U~G~~ 0 e C0~'v . .: 1:: -a I- ~ as ,P 't:I t- ca c: _I r::" CD Q) -c ca ==- Q. ca CD G) .. I: . 0 .- ... c CD.. .... E ~ Q) 'E n ti ::I ~ · z:. "- Q) 0 co CD n; fI) 1:J co .- t.;;. = CD ai u:i 0 CD fI) CD .c :a=. =: ::t i II) a.- !J CD 0 CD ai ~ cO c -aoaC:'~~:;: c'E CD.... ~ CI)~"" I!!ti ... - c: c: II;. C CD .r:. Q) ..-: Q) ..S::I ! .... CD Q) ~0b8 .~=~0~Q<>~=o ~~>! c: CD c: ~ en .... CD .- COO 1: as CD Q) - " as ,~ 15 a ~.8 'i iD 'i ai"'~ ii R t .. I:! 1 ~ = "0 ! as ~ ~ O~~&c ~_~m G~ c~~~~ ~C~0~C ~uwE~o~c~m~~o~8 ~~m~~~~~m~ c =~~0G~ ~ 5 E ~ u c CD ca: .... ... .. 8 Q) -c CD > CD .... J:: Co .~ ., C ... fD 0 E c ... Q) ~- :::s gs ~.s:::. ~a t ~ ! C \; i' ~ C1 ~ ! Q. ~ ~ E ~ ~ ! .E c ~ B CD 4( ca OCD ~ 'E 3: J9 CD "" R Q) 'e;; J2 ~ 8. G (I) e .. U) ~ > ca ..... .- 411_ .., 4D :J en ~ __ ...... ~~~~~moc5~j>c~m ~s~~~.~ a:~~c~~ ~~~OO~~ ~~~ ~o-e -!~mGmEo-~~~ ~~~E~Ec~c ~~~~~~!~~~0~ ~i~ ~~Om~ ic~2_GmiS~E=~~~~!~~~m_ ~~m~0~ > ~~~~~~CmC>~~0 .:t ... 0 '61'> .- CD '" I -..:-.;;;.; .." .- U E as ca ~ .- ~ 0 )( ~ :c Q) 0 CD)( '- :I .. CD .CD ~ .... )( c~~~~....~~~~~~~~~W~~~~0~ 11 c. .~ CD ...25 c ca 5:g -.. 0 => c: ra .~ $ "'c"- case ca z=. ca .2 .. .5.2 =CIJ=: cCI)c .~ CD .gl cn~CIJ I I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 8 ..- i: C cata ~ ._ Q IZ c: c;; G) c.c .g: '0 .sp= .-c= a..CJ)~::t ~ :s c...- .2 ! tas .gJ In .1: Q) :Ea: ~ _ c e caca...^ --.2 ::J:: C:=B~ !!! L: ... .Z" o .2'.-- .1:: a..CI)3C:E CI'J -I I- a: c( aJ en CD ~ ~ U) ca Q) :e c: .2 ca .2 := 2 CD .....c::ai =.s~ a:8'O=~ome c( ftS CD 1: .- c · aJ :S'! $t ; .~ <De ~ 7ii "0 E us 1:11: C. 11 ... ca I. CD ~CD ~caE ~o=~~~!"Co Q. ~ .- .~... c c: oC6ii"gca;SE c..Q ftS '-- 8 ~a ca a) Eoog~~ !i!O = E-8a: fIi=~ caw c:-...ftIz:,CD ocaQ)L.U~"u(Jo en .E(I)Q.~ '-CC c:~E:EEo~l!i .~ a8="~ ui"!; c 1.i5 e ! 0 .gl t5 (5 a: 8 c:c..Q)::iB~ftS.!! 8-e'-....oo...c:Q)(/) Q) as. CD as J: !f: !E;~~:ai;Q) ...Q.'-.-ca.......uc: c::O:1cn-::::J~CCD .- =- en Q) as u ts ca J: =>caCft~22~'" 5 ~ eQ) n:s .!Q ... .... c ... :'-l:' Ca:>fI)CI)CDO (/) co ts ca ~ _ .sa .5 CD CI) ~ ~ 5w~~ =~ E~- m~~ ~ 0 'u ~c ~ w~ um Q~- a~~o u ~m ~c~mft s:; "I't M ca Q) ~ Q) .:Jl ~ 0 ,,, '-' >-C:'" u: 01'--..1: oR.c: uG;" Ca as . c:: Q) 1i .2 Cl S .!!! ftS ! ! I- ca I- as CD -- ~ a>- 0 CD Q) :B :6 ~ 16 c: en C. 'E CJ c .! Q - ;, ..- .ca CD > 0) ca e: .~ .... .2 CD I- I: 0 ~ G) .s:. ~ :I cD CD S .n E ~ s:. .! i 1i5 - > ~ as ..c a: as = c i "S U !5 II) C =.. .!:P i!: t-- ... CD ! ~~~~< ...m~o2~ ~~ -~ OG~~ w~~~=m!!~!~~fU21~i~~~se~~ <~~ -v~_ ~ ~~cc ~~...o m~e~!~~iia8Um!-~i~~~~~ ~~o~~umwcm~; ~ !0~~~!=i ='1- J: Q. 0 "'0 " ..c "0 CD .r::. ~ CL ~ ~ i ca =' · c: 0 P .... CD .... .. c....- 1: ca .-.- ca ~ c: ~ u...... . '0 ! at (I) ca a" 0 0 Q. CD ~ u2 2 ~ I ca "e .... Sui ~ ~a~-c~~c~~m ~~~ m~~m .Q 'E li ca ! :8 oS! 0 .59 CD .s:::. :2 Q.;; )( & :g G) 0 I ~ c Ci ~~2c~~m.~~~~~ G00m 00~e .. E~ 0'" _.D e-- 0 o.c a,..-o -CDW a..c.ca: ~ w~~o- ... ...~~c~ca~ 00- ~ : = $ .c ; S "0 S G) .= a ~ :; CD .E U g>> a 1& = ~ : 2 g = ~ e CD ~ m i ~! :I ~ ! c .c i S R CI) Qi i Ile .!i .. ~ a: 0 0 ..2: ! & E "C- ~ ~ " CD 1: ~ ~ ca ca ... a. ca ~~!oo-~~e~~o=G~~~cmCl)~!~co L ~ c~W~~~oce~mw ~~m~_ .... ~ Q) ..- ... .- ... -- ca .- CD 0 C CD fa en ca 4f'!!I ~ .: W ~~~E~E= m~Ec~ ~-mcu~= ~e~~~e!ji~cca5e~~!~eSI~! a:. Q. I!! 0 := __ ~ ftI J -0 CD 0 _ ~._ ... ... c ~ en ca ca .... en -I I- et C a3 -cca"i c::3~ ca .2 QJ - ftS E ~>E c~CD8 cam,r:, .C en ~ G) ... '- I;~o -c .C R J!1 · CD1.i5tUcaE!: Q.CDcnCDW tDlc-co J:: g as .- .... · en rn S CD CD ~~ G) __ ~>e~o co e c..... .- .c Do c::... CEoe... G).- C~m o..:~...o ..casl... cn~c.~cn Q) E CD CI) Q) 5a~&::i' :I .: ... .2 Ca CD2:~!c: ::t CD .._ CI) 0 en Q) -c iii i ;; ~ cn.c ...E ~i:; &~ a::tnfl) ~~ c:catlcao .2 en C .- .:::: c: =C)8~>'.! .- "C CD CO 1i5 :I~-E~CD ~.= i Ea caI .. 0 .- e ... en > OcaQ)~!l! "Sc:gns"'l ~:8 "8 .!! ~ ~ J!SE"E~as -c CI) .- Q) ca G.1 CDI-~:g1:> WD:::.CI)Q)O &< 0 ! E ! S. m ~ ~ 8- Il_ ~=="iiJ;! II) .. .Y en > ::I ~ '0 i .= -8 i Draft EIR II. Summary Page 21 ~ Q.. .; G) ...~ c as 5:2 ~- 0 => c ca .~ 5 ...c...., CcaC:: ftS ~ lU .~ .. .~ =U)= CcnC: .~ CD ..!ill UJ..JU'J II I I' CJ)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31 t 1993 CD (.) ~ c c .!! ~ "~g c::: ta en G) t: ~ ~ ...J ~cW~~ li cQ .2 ~ ~8 .~ en =(1) ~a: en CD .... ::I U) ca Q) :I c .g 1i .2 := :E CD . ~ ... ~as~e o " .. ~Q. 8- ":~CDR a:Q)~~ < a"S "CD CDcC...-o CDE: 0 oeD ca CD CD CL! :g c:! "act) o 7a&Q) ..... >'.u C = '-' ~~ __ cD CI) i~E.g~ CD!.e.,=o EE8!CD Ea IcaZ/: 8 ]i=~ ....~ !!cQ)o ~ CD C ..... ~~:2c:~~ . caCUJca c CD ! -c.. ,... ~ Q.. ,.Z Q)gQ)".g~ CD c: 0;5 Ii Q) .!! E~ >)C caW c'E-! CD ... (I) -B Q) _ >- cu.- as E ca CD c.. ~..... ........ 'tJ ... CfJ c..... ... 5 -0 ~ .e i .s.1 ~- a: Q) :2 :I: ~ 0 < > Oen CD o::m-8!= C1l o .-c c mcu...." .- (J ~ oX 'E:E 0 Cii ,,.. .! c = .~ VJ O o.~ ~-= a..Ui:::E II) t3 ca ~ c .!e Q) ~ o .c.~:g co....... .J::. .Cii ~ I- I;; en E 0 0 1:C:o e '" ~"OmQ)- 2 -! cp .c cD m :;j ! ca c: ts :2 .!! CD . =: .= ..:: 8. c: rei as II) e ca Q) I ~i!: Q.. ... 0';':'" CD m 'e = ~ ~ -- ~ ES ca ~ S i i ! :: eC . m ~~ C') J!'" ~ <<>> ~1;; E CJ 2 =- C .2 --- e Q) ~ CD .c ca c.. CD is: 8 8 ei:I: ~ E i'Ci:g~ e~R.~ o~-6 e"C!t:E:ailo:;<~'O)caU) - m.. S 8 00> .........0 m fD R = J: ca fI) at --...." J::. .. _ -a ca g>> -= 8.c CD CD~ Q)'CCC CD CD co-:c ; e -M = s i ::1 C ~ .2 ! :; = 0 ~ "4>> 12 c. --- G) 1ii ~ 8 .! G ~ .!! 13 .s= i :g .c: !=~ScDiEo5~i.5IE=; ....z CoO 0 ;I:::' 0 CD .r:. en Q.. '"- c: CD fa ii ~ 0 ::I .- !... _ D.!! .sz ...... ca !i:c;;i ~~"E t!c ~~.5 rJ ~ic "CDCD~>C:CD"'CD~CD~U)G)O<D fI) e.r. e 0 as e" e.!Il15 &0.-00: E .!! 0.= Q.~CD a.1 c..~i ~c ~ E~ 0"0- u.2 oJ2 CD c..1- "S._.2R Q)~G)"3!~~~~=Ea:o]i=~ ~I- tD :g i 0 :1 Q) e CD .... 8 :$ Q) )( :;: CD 1:1 U) ~ ~ (I) ~ Q." 0 .....a CD .c -c Draft EIR II. Summary Page 22 ">;~IU) :t:: ca ~ i;; o ~ oa. !. t-=" ~ Q) .2 a:G)'-cu < a.a > m<~~ i"8 s.(1Ioi! eal~~ ~~w Q. tDG)cnR ~ E ..- CD "'E=~ oR---c :; a; 0.... C ... po .6 CDe::.2. E ca 0 "'0 !c::~~ :CU"-CI) Q)-- CD ~ c.. en .~ CD- B=i>>3 CIS en C. 1: en cs::2 agOD: -- ca ~ 0 C6;;CDCD .s.! t- a; > ~ '-0 ~~~~ ~~i.~ cC Q)- -- s:. ca W ----G) o c a: ~ .m ; 0 a: :2 t:Je2cc= o co .- aJ 0 .- .- E '5.'EcaCD.... O!!o=2 "-" R w 0 U>> ~ co.a ::::C<<>>GJlU :Q GJe= a~ CI) t\1 C QS a.~c 0 ~..2Re"O cDca--CD ..> .. C:CDCDica Cbe "D ~ 0 .;! .....COa:aI ~.s: c:: ~ ....t-)oc CD .....;: g Q) ~ ~ J! .en Cii Q .... en .!! > ..: C ...01-...:,.. c:--cc .a:: .-.. Ca < "B ii ~ .6 m ftI CiS (j fa Q. .s c>> ...:is c ta I! 32 ~O .= > c as 9C CD :J "'c" ccae:: as ..c as .~ .. .s.2 =m= CcnC:: .2>> CD .9 (/)..JU) I I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1 993 B Ci a ~ =5Ii ... c:e ca ~ C~.~ o ~:=:= a..- en 3: ::i ~ :0 c..... .2 ~ ca8 .2' (I) :t:(I) :Er:t CD (.) ~c c crans..."" ._ l '11 .... 41": ....~ ... ca 1::=00: ~ ~..s::: ~ c]j'~ ~ en ~ ::s en ta Q) ~ c ~2 'ta c. := :! en lj ra ~ I- ~ ~ .0 ~ ~ ~ < ~ o i:: c:c 5 ~ ~ .c"2 rA "i ca .. ft o ~ Il& a!.-~ o en CD ~ __ ::3 fI) .~ c 0 U en ~ .~ i1el !QJ Ci.8~,,; c -c en 2' G) ca.- .g 8 c g ... ca as .. .c~CJI: CI)~ ! E .g c~ CD r-ft as -c 'C .... c i"l~ & ca~z! Q CJ fa .2 CD a: = A' ~ - c >"'WO ;:~fI)fI) CO c: .- cD '"3 ca :: 0)-:" ~~o;~ uQ)..c<D ..EN U.Q c,g....-a-c Q) c.J: ~ ~ E E C) ca ~- Q) := ... UQ1s=m ca It- oE ~c:~nsE c.o"~ U)..... i:1 ~~ t) M II) ~2'- 0) ....0 CD c:'" ... "- ._ ~ en C. as ~8~m~ s= .... c. G) ca ca ,&;. "-' ,nQc--a: -cJiii!O--.-. Q) .."0 Ow Q)... G)cn en c cCD ~ 13 .- E .C as = '.~>-~ ~o en R CD .~ ~Q.~ co !E!!~ -CDasl-n <<I... G) .~ i a:,.j en c. c ... Q) ca Cii ; a. ct). .e '- ,,- c: ~,-~iB g &.in :g & tDca=Q)CI) ~~!m~ ... en cD 8 CI) ".c 13 ::t c: 0 !~i-~" - ca CD E~ ca ~=::li : a ct! C .R .- - .- ~ Q) =: ns~~-o c::CCI)- o .2 c Q.e ! am ca U)G)-QCD t3 ... .- >- cu.ccot-:t:: c..~eoca c.o c:I E "a .i .Q a C~...... n ca ..... ca .- ij ,S!-as Il_ Ci ~ ~ "E ~~CDaca ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 411( ~ SB Q):! ~tU 2i< C GJ CD__ co >. >- ca ~'E= Oans G)'E~.W . = CDe c:: >-CD8~:;! as.~ (I) 0- :e Q) to- _ C' . ~ 8- i .2. ca GJ c5 a sa .iii .. Gi.....ca..~> CUca !tcn>!ElUQ)CD!iica C.lC:a:>>= aJ:~ca~ c:: .2 "C ~ .! .E ... 0 CIJ en 9; !!t3'CCD....fti~:J:t:Ow Ji CD .! c: >; &'- oc ..2 --I (I) ....I!!ca - ::Icnn - .. 4'- Q)c 0-0'" Clio!!.c.. g..!.uQ) ~ei"'fI) c::.s:n:~!C;;B CDa.6.~ ~ ~.I.iao :9.~c ~-g! ..2 e.c . c:~i1ii U=R ...--.Cacn>-OCD...~!C 1~~:-gti"~';.5!:t cutS --......... ftS1ij:=~ftS)(....:g! ~ i i ~ .2 i 31 & "in : i..E ...... CD t; c :c ~ --- Cl c: CI1 Sea) .- e.- 0 ~ .6 = ~ ~. . CD = .52 ... CD .!! c... ~ e Q) = ~>tD=a:=Q)"..2CD>.!l I~ G) c>> cu - r:. ~ c "0 c. ra )( ...CfJ~:::W...-ca__OS=CD en ~ >-. :I:: o m rJ'J o -I :i Q. B ftS ~ < . &: ::::I en ~ Q) .~ ca c .~ en en :E a.. ~ ra 2 ~ t -c a: c o -ii5 .!! 2 ==- ca Q) a: e .e u- ta Otl) -0 W-' CJ'J -I >a - O. is en o -I ~ a.. I ~ :s en ~ Q) .~ 7a c .52l en en "S C Uit CD s= <.> ~ ..: C ~ Q ::::3 e B 1ii Q) ~u.. caCfJ <DO ~-I 2 o. .- :I Eo.. as : 0->> - > w< - II tIJ -I >. := o o r.n o ...J ::E Q. t ~ ~ en ~ Q) .~ ca c .gl UJ en I , S! ii5 e ~ CD en e ~ -2 :J ~ ... c au. :Jcn eo B..J fij G)~ ~Q.. Draft EIR II. Summary Page 23 II u co c. ~5 CD ..:is c: as rJ:2 .- 0 => c as ac: .w ::I "'c" c: as c cu.cca .2 .. -~ := en := erne .~ Q) .9 cn~cn u a I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 ! "iiiti ~ .- ~ .- c:e C6 .!! c::; .r; o gJ.- .w a...i:n~2 ~ C::. :a ~ii5 .2 c:: i~ .- en :BG) :Ea: Q) (.) ~c c mea....,.,. =.Y =' ~ ~~B a ....0 0) ~~ == a...U5~:::E en ..J ~ .-t= o U) Q) ~ ::s en ns (I) 2 c .2 ca .2 := 2 is U) o ...J ~ a.. . = ~ en Q) ~ tS) .~ fa c: en US en en 13 m ~ (/J -I >. .* o o m en U'J o 0 ....J ...J :E 2 Q. Q. I I ~ .= =' :::J en en ~ ~ Q) Q) . !:::! . !:::! ca ca c . c: .2' .2' UJ en en en ~ ~ U) ~ ! ~ :::I .8 s= 1:: 8w om coO N~ a: .2 ~c. -ci: ~>: CD= >-0 ~~ ~~ ~ ~...... - ~ ~ .8 ::E ~ ~ "S · 51 w ci om CD ~g i ;Q:.. ~ ~~ :!; 1:i: J ~.---. ........ CD~ :; >.0 c: Q) >- Tii ~Ci G) ~B B II _ m. S .2 U) In = C ~ f! .2 ftlflIaIu ..2 C ai ~Q)I! -- t: G ai . 5IBS~. ~ caCD~"O "2 en -c.- c: - c ~ ca ! en ~ J2 -t.. CJ ~ - ~ " !~S -g ~ CUi.! ~ c( .!.Z CD'" a: .. =c.... c ~ !Q)<<J n S .. '- en ..;IE: en cc as c =. CD -w en.g 2 B -a= cuc::"2 ~ ..a' 8 en -I >. :t:: o (/J La. en o -I en en CJ) -' ....I ~ >. >- >-. :I: :t:: := 000 Q) Q) G) .~ .~ .~ tii Ci Cii c c c .S7I .2J .52' en UJ en UJ (IJ en >, ii a en C. E ~ "2 ~ .8 s: 1: ~ Q co N . :::: i m >.. CD~ ~~ J:O - - - UJ ~ >- :=' o CD ~ tel c: .2> en en fI) c. E ! i ~ B s= 5 51 o CD N I , 1:i ..a:~ m~ ~o ~~ .g ~ J:~ II .... <a G) !fniu= ~ c c. ~- 'S l.geiB 'Q=J::~ !!cnc c ~ ."If ... CD ... ... .... Q)" ~ (.a ... .~ en "I c: c:= CD .~CCl) 13 .2$ .~ :I ... :;: U) .~ .. ,.., .II -~- Q.~!.- ! c: ~ .2 S .2 $I:i=CD~ o~:J'" "'ca"t:J~ !SOCfJ .!!t-co~ S .-!Nj att!.'- .....(xii 21 CD.:19 ij .......3Z.l:8'" .. . :I .... en ~..... .. .c: 0 >.. CI) e );... !:.oca a.. en -I >.. :t:: o E we.&:. Q)~'" en.~ · ~ ca 8 ~ en .9l < ~ ! ~ .:.: -2 ~-8~:i' c: ca '-- C)" . .a .6 c: c;; ...U;~Q) li .x ; a:: ;;;~;.::8 ~ c.J u... .- !_E ~8it3 CGOCl)W cc--o W-c 0 CD-J.... ~~~,; oC:a.a:: . ~ ~ .Il C U) E ~ .2 -c 8 wen "0 Q) .!a < !.:.~ en 0; .5 en .x LL. ~~CI) ~og a:I(/'J =. 0.5 C)...I ca 5 E E .... Q) .8e~ ..--J;! en ~ CD .. 0 ~~~ as : -- CD ~~ C:~a. o c( .... c:...w .... :J EcCl) taU;Q CJQ)~ -~o WO... II Draft EJR II. Summary Page 2C 13 as c. .; CD ..15 c: res ~:g .... 0 => C fa .~ 5 "'c'" &::caC ca .c ca .Sl ... .2 =(1)= C:CI)S: .~ Q) .2J rJ)...JUJ U II I C1J~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 B 1i a ~ --g .- 'E= Cii. Q) c: .t::. 109 "'0 OJ. S = c-.c;; :>0 :i ~ :a c.~ ,,2 ~ && .~ en :1::0) :Eo: ~ ~ C I: mCU...'" =.5.a' ::s =: c::: == ,g ~ ~ ~..... .:r O "'-''''' .... ..1:::: a..cn3:::e en G) ... ~ co ca CD :E c: .2 ca .9 .~ 2 C ern So Q.-I e~ Q)Q.. c Q) .. CJ= ~ C en .~ CD "C ~ Q) ~ Cl)Lt) a..r-- o >. c.~ (t) 0 cae.. ... c CI) ca .~ ii: c~ ca o t..... >.,13) o c:: ... CD '-CJ <C~ en 13 CIS ~ U'J -J >- := o Q) e s:.~ 8~O ..... S en SQ)O mc:-' OO~ w""Q.. - miCD UJml: o~.s ;~E Q)~.a ce.... ~ J: ":;; e:.~ 'v ca ... 5 c: G :e .2 a ~Ti~ caCDo !! ~ :Sale c(~= en E e -- ~ ~ I ~w CD en >-0 CD-I ~o ::t" ::. ~ ra~ CD -- a::1i5 8 ; -e ~ ca UCIJ -0 W...J II en -' >. :I: (.) 1: .~ '- >..CD CD c ::.:..e .W' ~ ]:~ I:D e ~= sj 0::' ;-s Ca)~ Sc:C (ijo(/J I: ..0 ga=...J -i2 :aea. ca~ CD "6 a; C ca c:: Oo.m ~<8:E ca.2 en 2 c.. . - . -gw iiScn caO L:;-I ~g e~ ~= ..- U) S -;c ~..!!.. ~ '::;0 2:CJ) me >--1 OJ E ~ e x~ - UJ ..J ~ :t:: (.) en ..J >-r. :t= o ftS t: ....... g. . CD C E= en U'J !~5 eg:o ='C G):>-I O!UJ .9-22 CD asO S Q)D.. zi-' -,c CD CD~ m.!l= .c cD. z-;:, .. 0 .. ca II) g~~ g.~~ Q)-S Q)~..c C:Q)e c:gu .!! c .m ra ca - O:J - e fa ... fa G) ~ "~.. c c:: 51- ~ a:: J;: ,.. 0 .... lOX ::::s 8' ,,% ca ~ e -CD ~ ~ a ca "-'" c: as as ::I Q) .&: 0 Q)..c e c:~a ci.8 00.... 00..- .. ... ... en ~8:e ~8:cD <ca:.<as3: UJ '- CD ~ 8.. EW t!cn mO z...J o .. CD~ No.. t I - I ~c , > 2 ii51& >.. ,,~ CD- ~ca ~&: :t~ - en ~ ~ ..- "ill - )( CD CD ~~ C11CIJ UJo e~ ,,& :I cQ.. ::I . ~CL '- E eca ,l: ... aC e~u. .8Zen iijoq cueD.... :>~o :;a. - .... II CJ) ..J >. := o :E .~ .. CD c: ~ ~a as :J Se o.c ... 0::10 ~~ G).9! CG)~ .S!cO cao(/) c ..0 g-.... :c::iJ~ :S!CL ca....... J:: -. CD (.) Q) c ca c ooJ! ~"E -< ~.a en COw Z g~ N...I t 1::: 0 ,;-- > ~ as~ ca- c~ CD )( cn~ 00 .... &(1) ... 0 3.-' ~ ". ..:2 00. . c · .g8.. ~ E <f! II en ..J. >.. ~ o co U) c o G) c J! E ~ ... cz: Jl~ CD e ~e: .e as c.c ., 0 G:I .~ ~i ca I!! c CD .~ C en .-. CI) 1i i i CD C fD .c ~ ..; i ~ en Ui CD ca c ! c:.2 e>> .i &i CD ~ - ~ GJ "Ci :g~ a: ~ 2' c c.- "2 109 ~ = =~ ~.2 2: ca CD . .sS rn rJ'J CIJ -I -I -I >.. >., >- _ :t= := 000 CD CD CD .t:! .~ .~ ca C;; "ij c c c .2' .~ .2' en C/) en CJ) (J) (/'J .ca CD 'a: ~ 'e ca o. iD i! o 1i5 c: CD )( CD -g CD >- CD ~ :t ~ "e ca o ijj ~ C .Q .. ca en I- a: < ~ T.i a: c ~2 CD en ;i "i! o 11 c: Q) 1C CD 1:i t.. > Q) CD ! ~ CiS ~ I 1& "~ Z G) ~ a a: II II _ Draft EIR It Summary Page 25 1:5 ca Q. E CD ci rJ:2 -- 0 => era gc 11)::1 "'c" ccac ca =. ca ~ ...!.Z ==CI)= C::CI)~ ,,~ CD ..riP U'J...JUJ I I I U)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 3', 1993 ! 1i i ~ .- Si! ..S c: 'ii ~ c ;; ..~ o ~.~ := 0.03:2 > == :a C -en r .52 c caa .~ en .1:: G) :Ea: en Q) ... ~ en CIS CD ~ c .2 n; .2 ~-= 2 ~ ca~...~ .=.Y :J = c:: ::: .2 n3 .S! ~...!i1 O '-'I ~.-. :t:: a..Ci5~:i fI) ts n:s ~ UJ ..J I- a: < CD CD .-c ~Q)c: ..c a ftI >- i en ....., ~ C~- :2 Q) ca o CD ~ 0....0 IOCl)~ m 0 c '- ftI .. ca ceCJ --CDat o .:a.: .- !! (.) ..- c ca .c CD .. a ,., 2' ,- '"C .x I:- .... . C In ~.2caGJ ca ~ c .- 5 .!!! ~ ".., ......~ .. o~..'t]U) ..- a. U) C fa t- C leD ::3 G) a: .2 e Ca <... ... fa :s~ CD 1i.i co ClI.~ .... ca i:! cnc_g~ G:J "'- -- ~ CD (I) O"'.9!~=E Q)~CI)cu8 a:ecaea en s.1 ~cn- t! =-ocac2 C CI) as :; c .as ~ 0 · ..I' .::: 0 ~ .s u U) -0 Co).. J:"., en en 16 GJ C:GJ ~Q).: .. Q) en c: "- "C 0) c: ~ · n fa 0 -.:: G) .~ ....,. ~ u ; ..c. Ca'=' ;: .gJ QQ) Q) S~ C5 >-~ = =':as--iJi!~ ~.a"".cCl)3cc U a .... CD E: s.l ca ~~< G) Gi:c:.in:: ..~ Q) ItS ... ~ CD ca ~i~~8C.1iil!.. .- CD > iii I- G) CD "~ e c W >. t; a: C "S ....Q.CDC...CI)c(CDO :c SoJe.::ca"a:: 1;:) ...: m CO >- CD ~ ~ ! .2 r:..! := (j CL ..~ c. 11 .!! ... r- 0 >- a~ .:!B ca.W ......... ..... . ...... C) CDCD...Ocncn..... C\I--CI)rnUc't=a.~ ~ as CD. "C.- I;; ca -- ~ ,-QQ)m-ctJCD"t:t: ca~"'''jCl)''CQ):1 ~ .~ ~ ~ e.a > ,~ ~ .~ __ U CI) 0 '-J en -I I- a: c aJ a~ c c .S!"g 1& (Dcu.... 0........11) fa :IIi E ~cu o ~ e ~CD"" ~:gUJ _CI)~ c.:t; :i!ca .a & ~ ~c: A.e ceca 8ao ~ ----- a:J!W <c... cnCDO ....E-8 CI) Q) -~ CD > CI) B-e... 4D 0. = a: .~ ~ CIJ >- :Ii: o i== ~ c CD .E ~ a: E c( t! .5: CD ~~~ c.asC ~g~ ~i~ !. Cii ~ ...gg CD c !'E; 1;; 8 Cs g .!!. ~ ~.. i caJ!! · l:5cn.s2~ E~2'! i Ca ~ i '-~ca-C s=. .!9 c.. ca U)-- =i>-2' .a :g -e .- .!!! "en ca ~ t!I !"! ! Draft EIR II.. Summary Page 2& l- e:: c CD i ~ Q. ca ~~~ i! c( &: CD m .2 Cbccn c: ._ c: = ra ccnc. 8 CD )( .~ Q) a~'" c at 0 - ~.... -E ..- i ca....j2 Q. ae -- ~ ca aleS ~... .52" G) CI) ... CD:I . CD't:Itii --e2-a (D-oII!!rd) ....~ UJ Q) ~~~r:: e .- ~- c o~~! u.. as Q. ~ ..... ~ ~ c U =c taQ)C .~c :c 0 0:5* 0 Qg CU-CI)U)COcn ~... =ca-<D~~ .....s-~1i5tU"025:ca :ifJ)Bca!~8.ol ~ ~ ~ "g ~ 8 3 .~ ~ ~CD.ci! c: ~ E ... a ca C;; 0 en ra C) .Q) ~ :E a. ca == T: (.) ~ ... GI ... CD ca ~ __ en . ~ c ~ : en c;; c: w .;C ---. .9l G) R .= cu CD 8 ... CD ~ .\l z:. "C U) ! ..c 0 0 .e QS....~gca...~CDCca Q~o11:i~~i!~ ~...i 5c......!... COw i ~.. 11 ~ ~ =! 0 ~ ~ a J;! ~U) ~ li I ~ CD ~ as.- :J !' as e fD ~ 1:1 C) ~ ! 8 CI Q. C;; 5 c "iiJ ....~- c~c&::2.... a~.Q -.- ~ 0 0'" en ~~ E8.e>>!~!!~I; C'aCD -I!:4DQ):==QlQJ ~~ccac~...I!~.s= o.~ a. ~~ 0 CJ __ ... .. ts ns c.. .E G) ...15 c: ta B:2 ..-. 0 :=:> C ca .~ 5 ...c:~ c: cu &:: ca .c: ca .2 .. .Y =CI):= eU)e .~ CD .Si? UJ~C/J H I I CfJ~~ El Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 ! 1ii ta ~ .- 2' Il" c= Ci .! c: = .g> o .Q).~ -- a.CfJ~2 ~ c::~ .2 ~ 70& .~ co ~1: CD ~c: Q) (.) ....c c caca...~ .- (,) :I.z c:::o~ CD C J: 4I~ ~~~~ U) CD . ~ en ta Q) ::E c: .2 ra .g- ~ 2 o t5 ~ a ... ft a- I ~ en C U .- ~ .2 i en eTa 0 ..c: c ..... '- ~ .1:: .52 ... -- en : ~ i .5 i CD en ~Y U) C;; 'c :>> ~ m : C:c~ca= .S .- -en e ~ .5.l CD ~ U ~ -.;;a.cacn Q) '- C .- m OSRo_ c: ;t::--e .9 .2':s ! D. iJca~! .r.! - CD 0 .. .. CDSg;;:ftS ... CD N -- ~ s ! "C ... ~ as QI-&ca1:l13 .... )(CDC>>GJ ~ ~ ~ ::m e "- .a5 _~ ~ CJ Ca res ~ :::s .. i :e~i~=s i! I .... i t C/J -I >. = o en C o :e "2<<1 8:0 fa 00: .... Q) ~8 ... fa ~ Q) >-:2 ... :- o e -'c. "O'Tj Q)- i =' ! i cnt3 .... CI) c ........ . Q) 0 E Q. c: ~ ..- J2 o~a; .. 0 t-. Q.~ ! .~ ~ 0 en E.t:. e .~ ....~ :eu.. Q.(/J :. 0 -c~ 2: 0 aJ... >--~ CDi ~.-- .Y e so. caS !! 81 .e ; ~ o UJ .!!. -oe W-JQ. II en ..J ?i- c 2! & & <CDS >.~~ :t:=''''CI) 0.21:' :i D- CD ~~ o U) -- e CD......... c c J2 ~Q ca~ c CI) .2 )( = Q) "0>- "0 CD ca~ CD -~ gz ~c Q) 0 .9- ~ '~&)5 ~o ~'-tn "tJ 8: 0 <as-l en en 10 ~-1 CD 0 a:~ ~t3 ..- a> e.- res e oc. -s w 0 cz:. 0= ~- ~ U) ~ im )((1)'--'" Goi -0 ..J -- 2:ee aJeD.. >-.... ,s= CD :I: ~ .. ~ .w~~ :J:D..W II: C/J ~ >- :II: t) en c: o :e B CD B:a ca 0'" .-Q. oQ) N 8 ... ca ~ aJ ~:g .... > o e ---~ i-c i:i ~ ~ cn13 -- Q) c .~ CD e E Co c: ~ .. .g o::3a; ~~- ~"- ! -- ~ 0 en ~. w ~cn 0;-0 .~ -' ~ 0 as::. catl 1:.~ ~e c. 2-- &::1 ._ B c:= :I ~ ,~ ~ ~ 1:iOtS ~ en -2. mOe >...J C. CD s= ~E;s= ,,!Ii e ~ :t.....~ - en ...I ?i- .. c I!! 8. & <C11.2t- >;.:s~a: :t=:;Q)4( CJ~-cm CD C c:: = .2 I .s 1:: ... n z II) ~ u;. ex: :~m=a2 -!w GJCDZca.. CSJ!(IJ CC,-oo-CI) .... S ~- 0 a: ... J! -- C in >- Q) C 0 112 '-" C ra! C,Q CDanm · .2 ~ ns ,2 E :g ..... ... .s ii CD - =- :J -(I) en .s- Q) ... > E .~ C 'D ~ Q) .- QJ.C 'l1li: ... ~ 0 0 --o=,cQJ ca~c ~ ~ 0 .~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~~=""ECD~ E "0 Q) ..9! .l: 'e c: .C: "2 ca Q) u u~- o"Ct raO :g(JQ)cuEc: _ .> ca :g e .. -~ B g>> w . o ..0 ~ ~ C CD fa 'c c: Ci~i5.ftS~U)~~o '"0 as "ai en ...... &:: e :E "2 IV co :; 1: Q) .!! COo ca~ ~ ~ Ute:2i'-:' (D&::G) 'ECD >eC') N .E~ ~ c.- > ~p = .~ - --- 0 --. .... ca ca 1u .2 1) .c ~ Q.. i CI) t:o c: ~ CD · >;:(1) C) : w '~:i OS ~ ~ "e .~ ! CfJ >.. .c" c.Y ~ CDiSl Ell. ca e a. .... fI) - J20-&~= ~~~ICi ~ .!! .l: ~=: n c:...,......~ ~io~e ~a;fI)l~ ._1: eCD ~.u.g 0= I!stsl!c a 2.--- tj"'c.oJ: CDU)~= ._.D I;;; ~ ~eOCDU) ~a.!:iQ; 1:i ._> CD ~~i~i5 tt .S!! D ~ ClC :s "8 12 .s = .c:~ a ::J E .!! 8 ::s )C ~CD Draft EIR II. Summary Page Xl 13 ra c. .5 CD ..15 c ca ~:g .... 0 ~> eftS DC -ii :s "'c" C:ca~ cu .r: ca .Y ... .2 =<<1)= CCI)C .2' Q) "gJ C/).Jcn n II I (/J~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 ~ ca i ~ .- 51! .z c: C& Q) c: z= .2' lcWi5 ~ cQ .2 ~ iia .~ en :=<D 2C%: en CD -. :I U) ca CD 2 c .2 fa ~ ::E C) (.) ~E:: C caca....~ ;:.~ ::J == c~Bcu .! c: ... .2 O C).~.~ c..cn3:::s en ..J ?i' c CD o <.... ~a:: :t= ...c OeD >. ~ j R . s.l ca :I:~~ (D ca .- =c1)~ C R>>-! · OCD....& en CD ca ~-8ic -en .iii Cs g CI)~ Oas " 0. 0 ".. ca- ... en 0 ;ii"2a: .C .u ~ c C;; 8. eQ) .Q -8 U) :I 8.sc3 .... .~ CD !: en -8 t7Jc:::~ ~ .2 c is 8~ en ftI en c .~ Cl)CD1::I.r=. ci~E en CI) 13 ca ~ ... CD 0 Q)c.~ ... ~!o;:g -"2 1: ..... en ::IS ~ 0 fa · !.OJaQ) ala:! .!9 as c: as= as. U =ca....Ec--= ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 0 ~ u CLe ~ ; g Ii C/) .= "2 ~ca .. c -- ..- G) ~.a Q) g.~ vi::! E- ~ e ~ -! e 11 ~ E ~ ~ e..CIJ Q) ~ 0..- 8.! .~ .... >.)( E E:J ca CXlCf)CJG) -ocm b i~ · 8~t;8c C:.c "i (I) CD co CI ca.....CD-..ca~U3.Y ,... WCD .J:. m ,,- tI) ~ - -- ... -cI CD I- .~ .~ 1:1 C >- c 'E " a: ja ;j !.o~: ~ ~i:a en ~""'E. 0=- CD Q). 0 I) X = c 8 e C; c(~E.!!!.S'~= ! .... ..- a.... co e;; CI) U ~:Q.2cnt-.!! 0.... .~ U). Q) en " ca s:. CD .. ct&~gi:a~~~g UJ .-I ?i' c:: l! & 8- <Q)..s2 ~~ ~ =5CD 0.__ 1:1 ~ CD .... _2 CD ~ CD ! E~ c ..... 8.5 .2 C-c C. .2 Q) .0 u@ >. cu 2 u ~ 1i5 en J:j c:: CD ~ 8"0 fJ) !! CD Ci ca = C en C .2 c c: Ji! Q) c>>t3 E ~:s Q) o en I o! (/) CJ :: ~-ca I;; ra '- ~~ ~ -- .... = .Z" C GJ ra13ca'5 .t:21iic ~U;.gE uCCI)8 2 8 Q) t- en .:.: " i i :g ~C;;U~ ~e:g~ ~ · :2 a. ---!8~ ~e=ca ~~ Ca.- ,\D~:S2 .... .-r= -- < a~"Qs ~- i c: c 13.....0" ~ 1M .- .. Ii; .=- :=: - !~~~; ,~ en Q) .!! "g ...,ca-c"... LIJ ~ en ...J >. :t= (.) '-:8 "CD <a cc< en iJ .<<1) e' a.: ,... ~ ~ .i ~ . Sl ~ CD VJ ~ a .... ~ ~ CD ca 8 ~"tJECfJ 1: t- "3 :\ .:t=. c: Q) "!! .oE5"CftSE~ c:~>c ccn~ca ,...~ftS...ra w..... :f!c:e.m = LL ..Q.. 0 ... fI) ::1. U) Q::CiG)OOCD C.01:J ~(I).~= ~ 0 cow ca... t: _ ~l-nCDeaJ~i: 111;: a: ii ... ::t >- ca (!)<=c1ii:Ecna.. ~mCDQ)=aas..9(i __ G) 0 ::s .~ '- ::I CD ca CD I:T .... QCJ,-~(I)-"2g -S"Clrag.!.ci " CD "t:I Q) C CJ ~ '-'.eftS:2!!ECI)~ i.!c~rac.cm c: t! ftI ~- ! e ~~ ~ "; .sl CD U "- J: ca .... ~ ~ ~ ~! 0.... Q) I: > CD ~ a: CD .gI ~ a CiS... ... i en - I: CD .- ~- 0:'-01 gg ~2ra"-"2"C!! u rnca..a::2ra!u.cn Draft EIR II. Summary Pig. 28 ~ ~ CD --25 c as ~:g ~O => c: as -fls --c-- c: as c ca .s:::. as .Sl....2 =Cft~ ccnc .2' CD ..!;P VJ...JUJ I I I UJ~ UJ..J.cn EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31 t 1993 PJ cai ~ ._ l ~ .:K c; 1ii ~ "2 :: _~ o ~.-:t= a...Cn~:E ~ :c 1::41_ J2 ~ TUg . SlJ en =CD 21%: Q) (.) ___c c: caca...~ .~ l \ .... = ... ..:: .., ns c:: :'!:: B .... ~ c:: ..... .z O OJ... ~~ a...Ci5~~ en Q) '-' :2 en fa f.J) ~ c .Q ca .2' .~ ~ Cfi l3 to ~ >- tiC i c c as · c..~ ~l fa 0 c..:.. ...J: ca .521 CD .... .5 0 G)CJ z:1- --a.. -aU) C Q) ca~ - ... .2~ .15 .2 ~ ca !~ ~o Q) CD .....S < Z -< z ~ CD ~ Q) Q) c r.: .2 ca B .1: ~ cD ~ 1: ::2 -- o Z ~ .l ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ... as ~ ~ .!! u ! .s i ~ is :t1 (D c CD m Q) "8 S=4DCG I-.r:.,... .........>-. · CD -c - c::..cati i ! ~JE! ~.- .. u o~caQ)tS ~G)!,Qca I :!il .. :g ~ ~ ~ = ::I -- OJI-iis ~~~~.2 <cuca.... ~a:J8 ufO io fA.~ ~ ..... a as a. Q) ~ .= en 0 ... ~ -~ i .. ~ I f!J :::I 0. a G) ......eE - .:. 0.- i i u i:;~ c::'" .~ CD 51 .- CD ~. ~ .2 ! 1 CIJ ...I l!" 8- CD 0 ... - .a !? ::::s ~ LL.~ i I fA. i ! -!:: ! ::::s :t .... 0fD C"'e:: ca CD 2- Q) -- ID .- "e '- en E~ns.!ca ~.:= > fI)~~3Ze E E::S8: ~~....8ca fa ...- 0 rn ~~--..Ci as- cnC= ~~"E~; .0 ; ~ a. i c~caRG) CJ ....CD- .- .~ (I) > ... =t1~ -!Oaj CDtD~_Ccz>> ~ ~ :a .!! -2 ca · ftS;:....: ~a!.:i~i -e ES ES "(1) 8 "e. c. !cac. C/) >- CJ) QJ ~ · CD Ll) C~I:-~>CD ... ca =- 0 -... en ~ CD .c ::s J: Gi:: ca ~. Bci2s~.sui !:tDCD-o__cn'i Q)CC~CDcaeCD ~~ 0JQ:C i .- "8 & ~ 1:) ~ ":: E l! .)eel) G) .92 .. ~v ca - :I: (I == 0 " CD G) "'c ... .~ ~ 0 .~ () - "ti -- CD :t: .!!W~:2S:gE tiO&:I:~>-C~ a) en i :: Ji .- ecDC ~a.d; ft CD.g. -0 '--cacn:SmCVrtl .. fI) C as '- .X'" Il e ..: CD ftI CD ~ CDO.c:>L:~ .!Q.-= .. II( CD ~ :::r ~CDi!...~ w --S CO!! >-Z .~ ~ ~ .., i o. 0 ~ ~II)... ." ftI ~ ! ca CD ...... ~.2001O.r:.a1 ca m ... .. -c Draft EIR II.. Summary Page 29 en .-I ~ ! !.2 ~ GJ .... > :::I Q) u..-a 1:1 ! c -52>> ::; -8 - :I.~ CD .!! 1:1 CD ~ cG)Su - Q).ooc"E :2..........Q)cu CI)...-':'>~ CD ::J"" C .. 0 .~ cp ca ==.cG)Q)~ C1SCI)')(OU) -: ca fI) .s I ~ e ~U)~o eCUcaa;c:: c....cnm... i.~ 8 E .~ -eQ)g~ o Q.. C c .6 c <<tel) 0 en Q ~ s= ... a ~...-t5l:' '~C:CD~.~ C -- > ~ (.) 8~~!! cat>>UCI)-- .0 ca .!e "8 ~ es.g 2 ca en _ ca .ii;:sol ,,-- .szCc:; c!i~:t:: ra ! .___ -0 Cl)Q)O C- .- a Q..z:. Q) c:: ra.J.. = ~ ~2J G:lUE~U)CI) "'LL CD caU)e!~" n ~ Q) .- CD GiOCl)~1)~ .- ..... ~ 4D .i .... eoc>c'-'c · CL CI) Q) .~ c: .- en en - ... CD CD 0 CD Ji!a en i ~ ~c.cn CD" t- )( -- .- ca 1:3 (1)0 -02 c > .- cD.!- !aeto .!Q c.. ra as ..oS~CI)"ii~! c: CD 'P.1: ;= .!! rei ~:::I .....cm ",&:~:lECD::Jts ~ .~ CD ~ -r! c:r (I>> Ui 1: C CD IlZ fI) --. .5 8 -- > en ~ e ~ .f/J 0 ! ftI C. 1:5 ca ~ ~E CD ...:0 c co rJ:2 ..- 0 => C ca .~ 5 "'c'" c: fa c: CG=.ta .s.z ... .~ ::=(1)= CU)C "g1 Q) .~ CIJ..IUJ H I I C/)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 2i 1ii fa ~ ....- r. '11 ~- 1:; ca ~ .2 :: .2, o .52' ~- .:t=' a...Cf.)3:~ ~ :s c~- ~g ~ &8 ...-. U) =CD :ia: Q) (.) ~ c c cans..."" .~ u .... = ~.~ ~ fa c::: 0 r"'I\ Q) C J: .:11:- ~cW~; :::I rn ~ !! & 8. <CI)~ ~:s~ o~-8 en Q) ..... :) CI) ns Q) ~ c .2 is ~g' := ~ >'cn~ Q).QC; l! . U) 1:1 .... ~.... ... CD'" c 8' u c ca :3 8 CD J.2 E1:S ...~ tI) .C .... ... ~ '- .SP !.~ns~c.o cac.ocuc c: .= 5 ~ .ii .2 c .~ 0 E t5ca:=~ 2Ti.i~ ! .c 0 · U;aoO:J:2 c: v. -:::::I 8a>oWO .0 L: .!9 ~ i :g .2 = ~ -~'i6cu J5 8 - --- ca Q) C .... a.. '-' ~ '-' E ~ U) Q) _~ iloQ)!eQ) I~ ca ~ C CD o 0. Q. Q) .- 11: .5 .~ :2 ~ en U)- 13 ca ~ c:U)O 2 !.i "t; ~Je · 2CD== r;;~Ecn c'" :::I !8ag~ ~i~=== O-G:l~C ~ .22 Q.. .. al en cD ~... rn IDcn-01i5QJ ~S , lit =a .!! zi5~~ .e~ca~ ~ o.cn-c~ .~ at t3 Q) ... (&) C CD en 0 ~.~ ~=~ C:~.5cca .9 !Ii - .1:) i · E CD 2 .. I .9- E ... !.- ~ CD CI) CI) :I:: 0'"..... c: c: ~tt dJ .z a&~oe f2 t:: - == <..> ~ ex: ~ ~ Q ~ 4IIIt ffi ~ ~ u.i <:J i ~ Q ~ e CfJ tn -I ~ ! & 8- <(1).2 ~':; ~ :t::"'Q) o~"C CD I: i (D J::= U ! ~o .u CD !:g ca :> CJ e ...Q.4I CD '-' en Z=OCD a ..- .- as :I:: r.~13 wrjcaJ! Q)oe: > CD 0 e ._; c..ec E a..! ...... G.1 C:!"C ca.... .pt c: CD u .- 1ii 2 c: ~ .. 0 CD __ auo OG)~ en co en CD .OJ ca .S t! Q E s Ct) Q) i -cuC; "B 't6 ~ E "0 ca ra = :ft fio~.!!fI) 13 ~. - 1- ()... as .J:. as CD ... CD U) ~ "0 1: en .." en .~ ~ Q. ; as -:- c !.. '0 .S: 0 ~ 0.11 .! < ~.- -8 Q) ! n ca 2 f! CIJ <S fIj .- as ~ ts C\1 ~! ~ c. ~ " ! as .~ ~ ~ g ~ :S ! .= g ~~:~e~gim~gs- ~i~ 1l~~>~!b0=~:cg~o~e ~~~~-Ei~~~~~-~~c~ IIIIjQ en .CD ca ~ftI CD Q. ~ = ca ~ E ~ <'3 CD 8 'C ~ 0 m ~ ~.- ~~.- c 0 ~ ~2 "-!! ::: u :& ~ .9 0 .2 U; as :e CD .2 Q~~~o~~o~~~~MEO~~ o~c~~~~X~~m~~o~~~ ~~ca! o~ ;~e~co-~~ ~-~~aci=~io~la~ji ~-->Q)C: -o~U"C~fI)OC.2 ~- ~oe=2~m2~~==~R~0= EcoG~~~ ~~O~ mo~i .cs.52c t5!!! ~ di!.c c 8:5l II) >-::2 (;)13 CD.fi caOJ:~Oo 2._.;I! ~ ~ CD >- .... .5 E "0 I as..:.:: .~ ca c: "0 .:Ii c:s ~ Q) CD "C ~~~-~E~~E~~~~~~0~ '! 8 ! i ~ 8 5 ~ 8 ~ i e ~ 8! ~ ; Draft EtR II. Summary Page 30 t5 ca c. .; CD ...15 c to 5:2 ~~ 0 ~ > c as .~ 5 "'c" C:caC: ca ~ as ~Q ....2 ' =0:= C CI) C .~ Q) .gI U)..Icn I I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 fj Cii fa ~ =.~ .. c= ra (I) . c .c .~ '0 2>>= :I: o..tn3:~ ~ cQ 12 ~ (6& ..~ CfJ ~Q) :ia: 8 ~c c rata....,... .- (.) :) = i~.2~ ~~~; en -I ~ II) c ... & ! <CDS! - ... CD >..='> ~""CD 0.a"O rJ) G) ~ ~ en ca Q) ::E c .2 C6 o := ~ cai-c E cD CD .- 0 ca CIS o 1: a: Q.G) 15 8. c: :~ Ci eft e .a 1: 13 c: CL. (I) fa GJ ;; CD :.;; G).O' .~ ~ ~ ... ~ )(m-oCGQ. CDU)C .J:. o~ca = ~o1ii J gCCDR~ ...a:CSCl) ~.!2cai .2 .... .- 0 Q. CD en E ... )( '- Oi ca ~.CZJ ~20ca:g caca~(I).. ..cwtnCG co-.-Q)'- CD"CO~= E ceo E c. Q) <. ~ :8 Q) ca II) ca ca .- a:-o~E~B en co 13 tIS g C en i- CD E en CD Ie cD E ! i..Q:::I>'c c.. >. ~:g8c~ ~1:U)ij:So::l:::l ~~;; &..~~ ic8 i : i.~~ cui ~ ml CDD l!R CI) E~o"i: Ca e "C ,,5: ! 0.. CD :i 8- n~ CR>CDO .~ & s .~ ! ~ ~ ~ c. ens.B;u-8cn;>CI) c..5 .C II) CD ca C c=' as .... 4D c:: n Il E'" >.'-; f)~ ca m ~ e -c .. en .- CD CD > I;;;; ___ C "U ci 1C e ~ -J < CD =CDI!Q)C.Q.~~E o~caas;;G)Q) OtG~ COunoS....CD 0 2 ~ ~ a;~ >.05"2.... i S.2.e ..Qi t:as~~ coli ~C.cni~ ~...:- =:g=.!~13t!CD~2 ~ ~ .!! .... C.! ~ ~ CD is.. _ 8 ~.~.E ca ~~o en en ...J Q)i .. -- =' Q) .. > ::t Q) u.-o ~~ ~:;-i i~~i i!itUCii:)( c: -c .- CD Q"cE .- ~ CD i~i~ GJ c: ! .~- .s::. .- ~ ..-c~ c: Q) ca :Eo.c~ =2=.8 ~.....~ ..!u;ca ~8C::i E .2 en Ca CD c;; .- OR .c "5 ~ en CD (ij oQ) (I) ~ > ~ ... c > ~E<8~ I .5 ~ ~ B <DftlWCD ZQ.LLm... en E G) .521 Q) CD .... >- QJ.r:. I- I- ~=. a: Q).... < C 76c:c::m Q) E .- .- ~ E .~~al!j 8:i~ CDS ~ as.-R.J::.~C>> ca......cu1:l o~:aoC6E en CD"'c;1 c Q) >.~ a. o ... 6 CD ~- .6 :ClSoc;;:e o.!!...c-o~ a.. ~ i .ft !! ~8 o.alt;41ftS c: - Q. c: "0 .... =e ca .2>> ! S s Re:cau.c ~fG"l CD --..ncQ)c:E ~ .~::E = ~ i aew ale.. ..., Q. LA. C5 C;; ca CIJ ..J ~ !! & ! <41).2 a .. fD ~~> C3:2-! ftS i e i: ra c: t)1i5CDca Q)aJ:2cn '0 sa en ca Q.aJCGai ~S~8 c: ~::e3: . ..--- ~ ~ a: - ,c ~ ca .: Q) > ~ .- aen J: e tsg.~~~ .2. i ~ fa - ~.3d:~ 8 cr... _ ca!c:W... :a!~~~ > Q) g ~:g ~.!~ =~i;.B8 <CI)~.c en ..- c... Q) 0 E.:.9 c.oc:: R ..- ..~ CD. ts CD >j... Q) -0 as ~e~ j: 0 ~=iii = c. >.. ~ .- .c -rU)-a tS:G) fI1 CI.C · e!m~ CL.~U~ .- fI) ca Il C 'E ~ ~.- CU CD .........s::...u ~i:iClS o CD 8. 'C: ... ~ '-- c:: en Q)J;! m- ~83~ CfJ ..J ~ c e &m ! <OG)O .. 0 .... Dc ::ar.. ~ :s > =>:;fD OCC..-O c . c: ca CI) !Ii oCl)'E ca = ca > ca~"'C e4D'Casi: 8:~CD ca [E~1J5 caG.1~O'" lS IS. CD .2 Q) U) s= ::: , .- 0 :-= en o ... -c ~ -- .. &: C ~~caBo ftS -3 f5 c: = ~ cr.- n:J c:: :g G) eCft IE ,Cl. >.... ~....., ~G)Q),g .- ..Q "1;Ii Cs ~ - 3;2.2 Ji! o ~ .... C u.. c: 0 ~..- >. .2 i c 0C C :I: g ~ ~8~.ts~8 <<120.0 ca~C;;=CD cn8:C:l:fti <ca88::e r.n c: 32.2 ~ en 8 e G) 11).- CD .~ .~ .0 :I:: en > u~ .... as ~ ,,, ~ C c: 8. ~2 .2 E C;; UCDc 2"'G) 1;) i ..E CCI)i 8 I en ... i~E ..... · ..... ca ~c:! := .- C;; u=c ca ~ ~ ~(I)o i!-o .- 5l "C e _ c D.caca Draft EIR II. Summcvy Page 31 t5 ca .Q. .; ~ ..15 era 5 :g . ..- 0 := > eftS .~ S ~E:" Ccal: ca.z:,ca .~ ... .~ =g)= CfI)C .~ CD I~ (/)..JC/'J I I I CIJ~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 ! ca ~ ~ ~~ 1& Q) C s= .Sl o !2":=" = a...CfJ3:~ ~ :0 c.U; .2 c 16s. · 52' en .-= CD ~a: CD (J __ s: c cam...o .-- u ~ = c: 0 ~_ Q) C J:: I~ ~o OJ ~~ .-t: a...U33:~ Q) ..c i 1i liS E en e ::s U) fa CD 2 c .2 16 .2' =' 2 = e · G)a:J ~O cO o~ nCl: 2 Q) .....c CI) ... c:: E 8 0 ... U).... W~ C CIJ Q.. .5 zS <-8 U) 13 ca ~ c( Z < Z 1:i ! .3 C* Q) '-' c .2 Cii B ~ .e ca c: .Q ..1:: ~ ~ ca o Z CIJ ~ ~ -Q) Q1 a:i5E-= .c <Q.<DsBe aS en Oc:: ~fI) ~ ~ 00 CD ... ca-ca"'CI)~> ocaJ:~urn'Co..ca c:: en u ^)C ..- en ~ .2 as >.... CD -.:.. en ~ t3C:=CCD~U;CDi 2tG~o=cca= .... .c. If "C:: ca CD l- ea ... .& g :' 5.l CD Q) .. g ;& ~ Ilcn ..! ! :; ~ ~ 5 u = ..2' i ~ ..5l' E :1 ! a !CI)1(CDCOoU)oo ,..: ........ Q) ... ... en a >-0'-'... CD"'" caas'" ~cacI-O;ecQ.,E.! Sl!~a:cu=02~o= O:J:lCe... CoeD :r.... en 0 OJ - 0 I r ca .. ~"Di:G)OC ".SGI ~ CD ... .&:. 0 :g ftS. >-. ! ..a'-a""'O~"Oas:::l ::sCD .....cocaa:~ Cl)8>ioca~5c~i I-- c 13 0 z:; en ..g 9 0 ex: ca -ii !.5: c. Ji :I 1: I. ;S en CD E l! cD f! ~ .~ Q) ....ca.'-~~-c~~...... en ~ e" 8- CD 0 '- - ~ CD .. > ~-! >- o CD ~~ ~J: ~c ca;a; E Q) .= .x = - e ~ 2' c.c; 0..- en ca .~ Q) .! ; .~ 0 (I) --..~ ~CD'" g>'E .- fa en cO~E ~~Q) Q):I-- -oQ, ca~c. '- ~ ~ ns a (I) Cac:o I 0 ~ Q) - III c:......" CD > <.!ffi en .... j! ~ ~ Q)c c: ..~ :.: U J:.: ~ i ... en ~~ !.!! t- CD := .!! en c:~ ~~ Q):E .~ Q) ~>- CI) ~ >- ~Q)13 ~ ~ ca ~ .. c.. ~ ~~ e .~ !: .... Q) Sl LLU)~ Draft EIR II.. Summary Page 32 en -J ~ & G) 0 ... - .a~ If! II) en a !! .C i ~ ca Q) BE c · 0 i= ... ca ~ .- 2: a: ~Q)- gcow '- C CD .!Q 8 ;5 c ... c:: .t"\CD~ ili ~ .5.1 ~ E :t: CD _OE .tJ i- ~ atsa; CfJ CD ... o "e- ! z Q.. as rJ) -J B~ .mli t3Ej: .!!. -8 CfJ e '- ->a D.CD- ....a;(J CD ~ CD C:~..c 4D~'- J: .- ... ....cuo "0>- · CD = ~JI) Q U ca ca .... c. ca CD fa E > U Q) cu CD Q.55 .... CD c .! co .- ~cai ~ ! ~ ~ .~ .! CI) ~ · Q)cI)"C~ Eii-S8: .c-Oj Q!~rn u ca c.. .E tD ...25 c:: fa ~:g ... 0 => c CD gc CI)~ "c- &:caC ca =. ca .5.! ... .~ ' =(1): C en C .~ CD .ga UJ..JUJ I I I C1J~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31 , 1993 B caa ~ 0- 2 .:It t:: Cii ~ i: = ,,~ o ~~.~ :II: CL.cn;:2 ~ c::S J~ ! ~a .~ U) .C' fD ::Eo: Q) u ~c c cara..~ ~...... CJ ~. Z" 1::::.s1 !! c ..... .oZ- O C)~~ :r= a..i:i53:~ en ..J c( z l- et C CD < z en CD ... ::s co as ~ ~ c .2 ca .52" :t: :E ~ ! .5 ~ .!2 c:: ~ ~2 1U ~ .S CT l~ ! 18 c: c ~g .2 n; :II: CD 1:1 := i E 0 0 z z en ..J en ...J en ts ~ ...OCD :go 0"" CitS en Ccu ~; CD!~ ~';.8> .~ -c >.... -E~ CD it!ii~l! ~ca ~ Cle CD ca~'" CD · eG.lQ)cl Q),Cc ~~a~!~W!it a.!;;~S.-co ~ -a U ... .- -c 2 '- .w G) CD)( ca "..... CD bcn"C.cCDOca8~ C:~!~CD~! .'i ra "i~!cca ~ c: a.Gj-=SR ~ ~- ,,2 ... a.r:. en ._ CD ~ );:<DQ) :cct.te"'~ a- ~ = I .~ ~ ~! ~ ~ "ui~!E.!o- j!V ~ > "" ca e .- ... ca Q)>.....'t:;...cfD.. ~ e ~ 5 ~ 0-- > ~ CI)(.)~"E~ ~~!= I-. cae :1 "ii "'0 U ~ "0 ~ a: tI) - --~ ~QCD~::Sn;ftI~- ~O:5~i=!j! .... ; ~ -c Q) ca CD 'E .. ~ CD l3 filE Q) .......... "C) '- e ca - ~ GJ ! Q.cuJ::'" ...~...'- Q)Q)e.! c1ii:2ra !I:;! .... ~ _ liS ~..~ fa ..:caQ)~ c: " ~ CD CD CD ..rn .s a.c~ :e:go ~~~CD ,-ca~= .! ..5 c: 0 I Q) .2 ~ !!~~~>. Cl)Q)"Oca= ~ ... 0 c...- 3t~~ns~ .~ Q. u ... U) ...J (iaCl) c ... CD at ~i >.-8 :I:: C ()~ .=-: ~CD>-ceti ... c: 13 "Q "I! C i.:.::e ~t3= Q)ECD*~ca2Q "'~"uC;;CI) ..8-!O~...c:[ ~ SE ~ S I .~ : Q) o-ocn .. "C .oftS~i1ii 'CaftS oC.-S C!CDa:22i .2 ca 5 C ... S CD ..-:= --- .... 0 - en ... -c <J 0 .- ca CD as "04) enc: ..c ta "O-.!Q "'Q ,,2 S: CfJ _:=.U)2:e= ... fa ... ~ " a..... = Q) ca ~"OiJ! C:.cCnas~,:, ta....C'G.z-'-~&: CiiC:Ocaol!ca ..Q .- C Q) -- = ~ VJ "t: C "0 ;: JR en ... ~ ~~ CD ~ ~ ....,~-CD ca: .! I ~ '- c:.=... o CJ.- CD .. CD · CD e ~ I ~~ E CD c. Q) en ca ca ; en · E E G:J ~"S .~ eoo !CD:8 ~..;=~ I- Co._ CD It.; ~ fn "ea " .5: .a = () .w B ~ -c ~ CD as... ,-=.. = 0) Q)cnCDO&::JG).:.::.C ~ ~ m e I 0 ~ ~ ,,- ,~ ~ li .Q CD CD "Sll ! ~ OW J . c: 1:: > .r:. :3 ~ .- -- a ! !.! .2 g 2ie 2......c::~ ~1&~;=8!!.2~ : =: ca. t" ::: U) ca .~= CD C:.- .a "" CD 0 QO(l)=Oo .. ~~!!~a:'"O CUs ~nf!CiC:>. .5J: ~.~J CIS.~:C R fa g t.) ~ .2 CD ~!Q I (Sea e E ....- ..... liliiii:: e fa :s ... 3 ...:; co oa. i .! a a c. S ts "'... C'a...cuG)c (DGJ ~ ca ~ ~,,- G >".-e ~ Q) C. CD " Ill: .S: ~ CD ii :~ 7i) "3 ca - ! Ca co aj ~'EcaO!5.!caG)Q)CD ~cu~~...l-u==Ca . Draft EIR II. Summary Page 33 13 as c- .s G:J ci B:2 .- 0 => ~ ta DC: -w :s "'c'" c ca c: fa s::. ca .~ .. .2 =cn= cu)c .gJJ CD .~ cn~CI) n I I (I)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 CD U Ci i ~ ..~ y .:& c: 16 .!! c :; .52' O o~- *= a..U5~~ ~ :s c..- as; ~ 168 .9 en :1:(1) ::Ea: Q) U -.t: C caca..~ ._ y ~.x ~=BC6 !! ~...g' O "--J/...~.... c-Ci53:~ VJ ...J en ... & G) 0 .... ~ :I CD ~ > tf.@ CI) CD ... ~ en ca CD :i c .2 Ci .2' :t:: ~ "c: ~ca Q)CD S CD o!= E '0 .&; ~ .z:. =' Q. C ca .. ":a... Q) fJ 0 8 .. [> .. 'CG =Q)~ 1XE .. ... ~ CD = ,,5 o!-8C1)~o .~! .59 li! c;; ~.9! ~ i ~ ~ o ~.- ~C ~ 0 U 0 ~occa-CJ)ct2cu as J: Q) CO 15 0..... c .. .. icn:grnQ) ^!c: >- en i -- ca ..Z 8 i! a.'I::! oEI c C U Q.- CD ot: ns Q) C .., (5 2 .!! CJ !~~:::cOot-S c:: u'" . ca CI) .. ct g.....; .- CI) -= CD ~ II) C c: '- (.) ~c:...._... e.S!cc '-! ~ 0- 0 ~ m u n ~ E "0 ~ c: ca J! ftS Cfj :: ~ .- .!2 ; g.~ ...TJ E ~ i .~ on; Q) :e; ca ~ ~ 8 CD ?: = Q)rnc~=c: ~m4J "'0 .0 8 CD >..!! ~ ! ~ a; e ~ ra = l &1 8 i ~ .~ ocawct!C>>Q)CQ):t= ~~ cu 0 O..Q co< c E rJJ en ts f 'E c c ~CD .2~ ~ Q) .- 11 ~ .; Q) CD .~ m; U C ~ Q) u = '- 2 CD 12 CZJ ~ ij[ii5)(~U) .~~~8~ica fUoalCD caz:. ! , '\ z:. 16 ..: a: CD "'i . '< ...., ... CL G) < ... ~ rn en 0.- > CD as CD c i CD ef ;"'ns"i .~ I" en ... 0 a. a; E D e CD "V -.- CI) d: oQ)~1:Ie:c:9I! , u-cC; . CD 0..... ~ c!:CU!! c;mgS ~=am ~i)=cB ~ ! ..(I) i5. :: a fD as =:=~6.S!O::lEc: O...ca. CD OG)^ . t) CD'll:> ~ .. (.) .Z ,-~4:caCD~=..mca ~ICDS"bQ)iU; ~ = >. i ::J .~ .... CJ ~ a :t::=:... ca..... c:: !! .1: ~ ~ u :: CD :! .~ ._~ CI) C;; ,,- 5!! =- z= ... :3 ~._.c (fU" G) i 3f &1 ! u J! o. I '- ~ < Z < Z 1:i e -5 ~ .m Ct .2 c;; B oe ca c ~ T3 i o z en .-I ... fa "0 c ~E~ ~ ~i~8c ~ a.5 5 (I) ca uca=!!!~U)=..-:.. .. tafDc.O=c -= CD ... = .... ~ .- '>~Q)..(J ~ 2!a:=Q)~i;'C .e .. ~ 0 "5 ~ , ! o ... c- ..-... C.CCCGJ1ii9S GJ-oOo....s=... ~- 012.....c~ I- S i.c :J :g a~ CI C:c~ifiiOC .9 0- 8=' ..o.g ~.-! ... CD I- ca Oo.neO~a..Cii o .~ .- .Q cD (/J :I:: ~cn at -~ >.=0.0 CD CD &:: I ftI"C U ~ >-.c.- .a!~ &i!; ~ ,x ::s c: E E ... c: :s VJ co as .~ ID Q as a. I-- I- 8 .... _. Q) ~ ... a: a: .- OJ as .=. CD CD -.ccc ~~...--! I ~ m .co I a 15 (,) en fa (.) s m ~ a:I ~ IE ~ o (J) ..J B ui asD. Q) CDC ~ CD cf~ CD ....c.Cijcn !.:g c: ca ~ .g -c J!O:::Q) (iji~lil U cC > as 0 .~ e · ~ en "ca~Q)~ ~tii.cCl) lU .2. E 3Z ! Q)et:5~ ~ ~! ~. ".: 8.Q)Q)"'O .c:~cn= ~... Q)t: fa J:: 0 .- ~ C.. :t= 2 .- ! :: =~Q)~Q) -o-c~~.c TJQ)"-c-- . as 'iii >- c: >- -- .~ ~ ca .c 08~-~ CD.'" CD Q) CD -cn-,C::-e !ca~aftS Q) :e ~ ! t: ~~~!.; (/) c: IlQ B l e it ~ fa Cb .~ ~ ~ .~ -= ~ .~O;! ! .c ... c: 2 fa ~!ca~Q. -E"'-CQ. =jC:-OCG ic~~o 1: CD B.!2 .. CD="'~C i .= ~ i- E R = GI 0 .9- ~ CI)!:Z a. CD:S CD "C..~uj . i .~ 'C .~ .S' ii a.S c: .s: :S..e 0- CD ! 111- ~ ~ U) .. () .. ca '" c c: ii ~i~i .1. ! :g ~ ! e'-S020 Q. !Q.Q. Draft EIR II. Summary Page 34 1j ca c. .5 G) ...:6 c ca 5:g ..-. 0 => c ca .~ 5 'E c c cacaca .~ :: .~ =",= c: en c: ,,~ CD 9 UJ-Jcn II I I CfJ~~ EI Camino' Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 B a;; ~ ..- Q .- c!t:: 1& fD c:: z: .g> '0 !2J=:t= ~Cn~2 ~ :a c.- ,,2 ! CiiR ..gs CI) :t=e ~a: ~ ..... c: C taca__~ ;:.Si! :) = c: 0 ~ Q) C J: .:11: .......0 OJ == :t: a..cn3:~ en CD ... ::3 en ca Q) :! c .2 C;; ~~ = ~ en l3 ca ~ ~ E .~ cD ~ i ,,!: a; co :5 .I! .. --- ... u 0 ca... -- co ~~ ..~ 0 0-- ....1:1 D.4Z) ~ 8 ~ )( it>> .... 111- "3 i: .il: --.CD !i "CJ2 -Q) :3 > o Q) ~1:1 c( z < z -ci e ~s c:r e c o ~ g "e Ci c .52 :t:: ~ 1:l ca o Z en -' t- ct .~ <. -- C%1cC5 15lU", ..W U ~.~ := -- ..~ R "20_ eo~ EJ'cD CD a- 0 ~ "c C JJ.Q -c >-.!! Q) C > 1& as.&:! :mQ.. "Q 16 Q) ~!= nCJc .2. 15 0 vi e e en GI a.. "0 t3 ril Q) 3 ! ~~ S::OE'>> I- ~ ._ en ..5 ~ ~ CD "2 rn'-~..ci.c c. CD ,,:It ... '- .C o ....... t6 .... ..= u - ~ t, 0 ~ en CD :I: .::&: ..... i' G) i;O'icn...-o -cQ)l:JQ)....cn "C.s=.Q)~o~ Q) :: .= ::s Cl)Q) -c Q)~~Q)'-CD &:::t::g=o:g Q) ~ II. c::: CD "> .c ~ ..- II) E! ... Q. ~ ... C\I c.. en E ~ 0 ca ftJ c::: CD <D 8 · ~ = U) en ~.:....~ i!ocaiio! ca....TJu fZ) c. ~~ ..,. ~ .ftSC1:)W"... ..- ~ ~ m ~ 0 .S; ~ en "C .&:. ..... E .A'" en 0 13 _I, 0 c: lj .fD .~ " ~ 'C 2 0 i c: "2 c: ".. CiS 0... ... .!9 · ii ~ . J: c Q) ~. E ~ 0 o~:::ca ftS~ <.J = E c..! c..c en c: .Q ... ca e ~ ! II ~ ~ ... ... ~ 0 :8~ ..- -c >.B ~ . :t::~c~ OC>>G.lm "'s::.~ -oca...~ d)ec:ca "5i u ..- c.. =ca:l:: ..c'-r:t~ CG13cnQ) 1i5G)GJC CD .-. ... ....~'OO Q) 1i"3 en CD"OCD EG)~'- .... u o cacaCG I- ,,~ ! It) jicaN &i~f m - "- ...~ '- en e Q -e ea._ 'lICtftSQ))C ~"2~e ~ca"'8: ~'iiioca VJ -I ~ ~ 8, & <a:a.2 - '- CD >-:1> :a"'G) o-2~ c;; "2 as . ... ~ U) o ~ GJ ca2~ Q)~cn ...u- cacucno t5~!.2 2 -- a ~ .-oC'"o ~ CiiJ: o CD ... g U.coca ....~a: -c CI)..-. - i:i!CUW ~cuc"" .... c. ra 0 1:I.....(.)ta o ..... ca E ~~~.9 .... 0 ~ .8 >.=t r"'A ..c e < .~' .~ ftS Q) ~<DQ)J: c;.cc... en ..J ~ U) C '- CD & ~CD5! - ... CD >-.~> =:;a:. 0__1:1 i! tIS C. !! ... · c: ra · nQ)CD~ c)) E c Q) .-. .-! e~-() c.oi as !c.eE .5 ..~ .!9 15 i" 'C c.. (.) a:;.!Gi ..rn:e ~c::co ~8E; ca~.s::. i .~ - ... Q) i ~o .S "C .- -...I oG:J >-~..ji :e~ ~CD :3~~= ~=~~ Q~~J2 (,) ~ c: ctS Draft EIR II. Summary Page 35 ~ c- .; CD ..25 c ca t!:g ~~ 0 :!:: > C as ..~ 5 "'c'" ccue:: ca ~ as .s.l .. .~ :::rn:!:: CCI)C ..2' Q) .gs C/J..Jcn a I a CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 ! a;fi ~ ~.-. s.z .a: c:t: 1& <D C z: ~g> <5 .2':!:: := c...CI)3:~ ~ 15 C..~ . cr;. ~g c 1&B. 02' f.Q .:t::CI) 21%: Q.1 (.) ~c ~ rata..,..,. .=.2 ::.1 =- c: :: 0 ns. Q) c: ~ 2' ~~~; < Z ~ ~t- CDCC a< <CD ~ -5 i ~ en aJ '-' :1 en ns (Z) :i c .2 16 .Sil :I:: 2 In c .2 C;; .gJ ..... "e fti c ~2 := -c 'i o z en 13 ta ~ c:a :tl ~ c CD CD m c CD .c ca .c ~ ~ 1-~Q)Ci t-;. ca 8 -- :g GJ " ! Q) 1:J4O II) ti1 ~ .>:i ~; Q) CD = ~ ~ ~ .~ .5.:- :3 e i!: . - .r:.:I:: .. &: ~ ~ ftS "2 e c...! ca Q. ... as ~ .!!! ~ ti '- ::3 a,., .. a.. '- CD ... ca Q. 0 0 Ll- D C63'E (/j~ca a a.. >-E c: ~"C 0 m 6>- fI) c: - = en ca , e . E .~ ~ .e ~ .~ 0 .~ .9 CJ) CD ~ 0 ...-:; Il_ Q) Q CD .c ~~~!<<I8C&.= ES016"5 ::)c:tUE=caiG;':..:~CI)e8 .:c;r.-cQii'-4IlIIl:Oa.,ca Q)~= a--UJ G) G)-en!~ e u ~ -;i cJ;!= ~o CD ca ca oQ)c~c:!a.....ca"""J::ca- ~ i!! 3;0 ~ 00'" CD-- C 0 e c: en 1: ::a en CJ a.2 0 --o_-us 0 o~ 013 at! cta'fi a~ 8 8:Q.ftS~ a~ fii ecn-: ~i CD: ~.~ 6~~!;1! iB ra ca ~ CD 8 1& .... CD m Ci5 c. "- C -Q ,... t-- "C > CD ~ e! CD .u .... 2 Q) U) a:a:-E!~"'Q)Q)=crai5E.c 'II( 4( 5 Co i 2 ~ ~ c ! Q) "S .9! oQ) ~ OJ .~ .5 c. a: ::J ca 0 LL :i 0 w :r: en ..J :g '- g; c ~ . OJ .2 0;:; '- If>> CD-- ~ C =~ o Q) co. .2 E t;; .- .S ! ..Q32 E ~ 8B Q) en .~ .f/) tl ~ -! ::J ..... U3 Q) fa C CD ,< E en c CD E ..fD e Y-:CDC o~ ..... CD G:I J::ca -- .!e i (5 ~ C~~a; !E&l~ :" ~ ~. GJ en (S ~- '- ecarn- 8oc:~ .... "g 0 ~ .!! 'iii :a ~ >- fi ~ u ~ ~ co . oS? . ca .... ~ en .o=i.- E fUcn...:2Q ..- ca>~ ~ i .Q.. e en j2 ... .Y c.. en CD:S'C ~J! C:CUftl.Qu - ct) CD ca~ ~.. -- 0 -r:O~ .c CD CD ... u;c2:C: .~ 0 Q) i! o cnE .... :g CD = ~O-'O .s=~~... e ._ c Cl)SU)C11 ji~1 u ~- u c. CI)>U)~ "t:Ji-c~ 1c:~Ji .9 = .2 ',- Il CJJ:)uSCi) i>-~Q)~ c. '0 C :g ca, CUQ)>CD 2g~e~ ct ca .... Q.._ II CD I/) CD In N (I) CD .5 ..c:C\I'-'-i!:Sca (l)fIJ ~C\!.~racnt-ca!,ftSCD= .M ~co icae~"C ~ .... (f) .c ts- U Q) ca ftS c (,)0"-'" a. U ~ca C'Q~"-"'oS'Ec::nu~ ~e 0 0 Q).-Ja Q) CG i) '- ~ ._....~OC "-0.0'0 c ....... :t= c..... C\I 5 e ... c:~:3-u,QJUCDQ.&C: CZ) ns CD ~ m :: "C is .CD j; i E-o C;; o~ >-.CD~..s C! ~.! :s .... ----.a ~ I;; a 8. ~ ~SC='O"tJ)(!!COJ:l != .&>-.2$t CD:sUi! en Q)U G)Q;;oZC:UCI) GJ Q~:gfiQ.~~4)!2i iiSQiCi5. SEl!~ ... '0 I > B e 32 .s ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~a~J9Gs.8 . U-oC!.0..,.S2cn G)...... ~ Q) ~ ~ '- en ~ ..12 ~ (J ~ I ... C) U) ca ..... CD U .. Il_ c: u[c:'Et3.xcnCl)cuEm~ .Q) -- == Q) CD .9i! I == ~ ::I ~ ... ~ ~ 41 ~ "0- >-.... as ~ ~ Q) ca ~C::~"""'C::~"'Oas=Q) ..... CD 1:3 en c. 0 ~- 0 .c ..... ca >- :g ~ .!1 Q :i :t: 5 8 'S c: l! u: c: ~ S ~ Draft EIR II. Summary Page 38 U fa Q. -; Q) c~ rJ:2 .~ 0 => eftS 9C CI)~ "'c'" emc as ~ ca .Y .. .w =U)= cwe .2' ~ .2' r.n~cn a I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 ! "iii i ~ .~ fll ... c; ca .! ~e = .~ O C).,- ~c Q.Ci5~2 ~ cQ .2 ! taB. .~ CI) .. CD ~a:: 8 _c c: cata...~ ~- s.z ::I ~Z 'E~oca .!! c: .=. "g o 0= ,,~ a..Ci5~:E en CD a-r. ~ en ta Q) ~ c: .g ca .g-" .~ ~ UJ E =s CD .... en )( ~E! ~ 12 Q) ~.c: 8~ ~; .... G:t liS Q) CSu~ CD ca ~ J: Q-~ eE>- en .- .c CD"'~ CD C <D ... Q) J: CDE.g en 8-- ca .... ca e Q) CD (.)>... c: G) ca -'1:1... - U) ts ftS ~ en Q) e !I G) fa II- :.c! .. .Y '0 Cl)J: CD ~ .... :s fI) S ~ .il ~ ts50 - ~a 1:J ~Sl ~ ~ :I c ~ C5 fD isi '- 0 U) ....-'J o eo.. .co "::3 ~ C cnO>. CD - "'~'E a:I Il~ CD c;; t: ~oa C- ,y S! " .: 1ii c .!e c 0 c .2 u; !~a; .. l:I Q. ... ca ~ ~"Q) CD II) > calCl) cu~~ t: i E ;~e....;. en ~ en ~"iiifIJl !~~i .... 8 >- J:: 1U ca "SQ c: >- Q. j5 .2 () "2 s :c ~CI) ~~u~ ..... fa (I) 0 II !ra c :g .2 '0 ::1:= o ~ CD U "C Ci · cncuCl)c;) "2 '0 G) .9! ar::=~ ---o.r;.u >- "in a J! 1: -S ::1 -- &e ~~ ~ -- (.) Q.CDCDCI) 0:U... .il...~o e-.2 en "2 ~"CEca Cl)CDo- ......0U) o l! ..... :1 ~!:a~ ca(D~::I en OJ U fI) - D~ EIR II.. Summary Page 37 -< Z < Z ,; ! .3 g ... c .2 C& g "e ca c .2 = -c -c ca o Z c;; ]J 1; c CD cc "C en CI) .! "2 CD ci'.9 c .!! ~ E com....ca == c: CJ ...c: as "g ~ .... ca CI) ~:~ ~fJ)tjfi :~~ - ca...Q)Q)ca -... is Ii 8 e5-a; NS,!! a CDe-=>-CDRlc!iCl) '-. '- ..c - ,r;, .- Q. K ~. ~ .~ -0 ~ = i "~ ~ o '0 t::: CD en Q).... ca G)~ ca~CD-~ur- .s::~~..Q~8!:Cli2 1-1-C::_CI)caouca~ a: ftS Ben'" - Q. _Q .. c: < :a 'en '2 fA! E en 2 ~m:: >'cs.!!! - ~~ Q.. __ en .c ... CD ~ - _Q o 0 C CL E ca ~ ..fa ca rn ::...a.,caQ~ca~2i.!: as .S; .c ~:c :: -- -- a E ~gt ! "2 .. :;: .r z is c ~S; J! :I: ::i::JS~c~cat!~W8 CI) e en Il~ '- E "D en ... es; ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ! .0 .~ a: CD Q) GJ en l! CC.- E c ~ "2 i >-.x u :$ i: ~ 00) .~ .....~.c.cG)C'O....Q)as .... 13 fa C. .~ CD ci t3:g -~ 0 ==> Cftl .~ 5 "c'" C(lC .~ = .~ :t:CI)'= CCI)C .2l CD .gt CJ)...IU) I I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31. 1993 ! ca Ii ~ .-2 .S C!:: 1; ~ c: == 02 cf ~~ ; ~ .:0 C4l-' .Sit ~ ni& .~ en .1:: Q) ~a: Q) CJ ....c E: cata...'*' .- (J ~.s; 'E::oCii Q)CJ:C ~ cB~ ~ ~ < z c( z ~ Q) .... ~ w (IS CD ~ c: ~g C6 .2 :I:' :! ~ ~ -3 cr e c o ~ C) := E o z en ~ en 13 ~ en c: >.c ~ 'C 1:>> .0 .2 '- Q) t ~ IL: c: ... II) .., .~... ca Q) en .......... 'v ... =." en ..~ C . ~(jftSCD==EQ)CD .2. :: a; ... 0 G) ~! fIi e ~ C;; ca .! :I .C; en ti Q.. as ria 1:5 E C;; G) Q;) CD - 15 .!!. ~ .:. ~:5 ~ = .~ .~ ~ i !. ~ !' €jJ8: · cn!.=i fa eftl~Q)"CD(I) a ~ i ..6 ~ = .5 8 8. .~ ~ G)e ~ B ~ ! ~ e <! ~ .; Ji .2 = CD i'E:I !~.gu ~ e ). Q~caftSCi.ai'E J.- ...a 8 y ti"~:: em 8 ... E !cf - .~ i 0 0 .2 ftI "~ ~ ~ ;! -.J ~O~~-1icafl)g o ~ .... E ! ;! .g.. ca ". c:- ~ CD i CD c .!.l CD .!2 9: ao~U)i:J'E1iiE < -.lN~as~Uca..CD < z < z .... II-. ....... QJ as CD .s= CD u1:o fI)~~5 =~.9i .5 0 '"0 <D ,,"'Gl:= cD ...0 ~~ 8.~ cD )( ~ · EU)Q)ca~ .~ c..... E = Q) 2 .2. 8 -- .&J "0 e 012Q)Q. eC~'-CD ~ .2 i B = '- t3 tIS ..... ::Jmc_o U) fI\ ca ca ~ucn Cl)ccnots E .2 CD - ca c:~~!~ Q 0 0 - .- -~()<D>. ca en t\ CJ .... ,.,.. C.::I: := .Z"' =:t ca :t: ~ cu"'~. :E.-.=!cr U'J ~ · - u ~ OC C -m~ =~ .... .2 .. _ CD en ~ In Do! C :: >. a 0 CD .~ Gi r:: .co ... i E ~ ca .Q :t= ! .... =. --= ~ t: ~ eOII- .- en 2 E cn.....:cO>.CUCDCI)..>.CD"OCDC ~ .x CD ~ >- ~ 't1 -- .c .!S "0 CD 0 :t= 1i .2 ta - C3 ~ == E .a .s c:"a .. E ..c U ii u '- ~ ca CD c __ U) .- CD C CD.- c: :a:: c.. c -0 Q) ! '- C ~ .. .i' co en :.1 " ; 0 .g I I . .-- Q) E 0 CD .- 0 .. .. :J cr .s CD .... 0) ..... G) 'C 'E - - .- e .!t2.... CD ~ ~ .~ Q) CD i -0 9 ~ c "E "0 ! Oii.!; ~ i .. ..::: U E E .S!! ~ ! ~ CD ~ ca C)'" Q) W U ~ ! c == ~ ! .9! .> a: .c Q.. c-.5 .!! ..c en E 8. = a .- >-. g. Q) 0 e < ..... .g .!! :as: 2 t- :c: . 8 )( .!2 0- E.l:. Q.aJ CD U ca C ... CD ~ .~ ca.-C;. c: c::: >:i ~ e ui....a; E lII( .iii - ... ! CD 0 0 GI E 1:: Q) 0 c: ! a ..... ~ J: 0 en ca .&J C .0 1:) 0 Q.:: C') .2 C'I 0 CD C ~.... CD Ez:. 0.0 · 0" ~~-~~"'~~-u8~...Q~~3C .Q...ca'-e "~~G)ca ljE>'-oo 2'.2 5; Q)j i.52s ~~~ ns~~.e ~~ ~1=n~~ccS8.-~~~c~= E.-! CD ~~ CD ~ - J ~ c:u1l2 ~ ell '- ! en 'O.en ns E c e 2'.m = i ca = t3 '- OJ (!. :J J- a. ::J ~ c. 8 CD .- l! co = -= as .t; I~~ o~o ~2~=~..~~~~&~R<!.c.i!.Gi! I Ei-oa: CD as '-.2~!iP Q~~-!e~Q~e!CCim!i~ ~O~~~~~cm~~Sm~~~>E Draft EtR II.. Summary Page 38 ~ Ca .E CD ...J5 C fa ~:g .- 0 => eftS .~ 3 ..c..... ;2 i .2 .. .w :t:cn= cCI)c .2>> fD .2J C/J..JC/'J I I I CI)~~ EI Camino Corridor Program City of South San Francisco January 31, 1993 8 mli ~ .- SZ .x c: 1ii ~ c: == .g> ~~31 ~ c::Q ~g ! dig .~ U) =CD ::Ea: Q) u ~r: c: cans.... 0 ;: .~ :::::J ; C::=O~ Q) C ~ ~Z '0 .~:= :t= Q..CIJ3::i Draft EIR It Summary Page 38 en, ! :1 U) ftS cD 2 c .2 a; C' = ~ en li ~ en ~ (D caract) g>> 8>>.; =? .- :t: b Q; c:: · u Q) :'=: CD .!!. .~ CI) ED.u,Efi '-- CD w..; c: .- CD ..:: ... .- < CIS ;e' ~c:~!=t caJ~~~ Ji.OfD.c::li ~ .... c ~Q) ~ cD 9J ra ..c:: ~_ - as ii: CD ~S j~~I.~ J > c:: e ~S 8. ca ca Q.--c: . a:I CD ~ o-.s~ .~o Ea ca~ CIS Q. · cD 0 C;; .~ Q ~ U · ....~n "c(CDC:!~ :III( :SQ)~. im;:8""C5lii 13 [ .s G) ...:0 C fa ~:g .~ 0 => c: ftI ~i' 3 ..c:~ crae ca .c as .!.Z ... .s.l --- ... .c ~.2 .~ CD .gl UJ..JUJ I R II (/)~~ APp.ENDIX 5.1 Traffic Report EIR TRAFFIC SECTION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN March 14, 2000 Prepared For: Impact Sciences Prepared By: Crane Transportation Group 545 Burnett Avenue, Suite 101 San Francisco, California 94131 TRANSPORTATION . This EIR chapter describes the existing transportation network and operating conditions in the City of South San Francisco and the project area, future circulation system operating conditions with the existing redevelopment plan and future operating conditions with the amended redevelopment plan. Local transportation system conditions are described in this chapter for the following scenarios: . Existing; . Year 2010 "Adopted Plan" or Base Case conditions (Le. anticipated future conditions with the currently approved EI Camino Corridor redevelopment plan); and · Year 2010 "Amended Plan" or "The Project" (i.e. anticipated future traffic conditions with adoption and implementation of the proposed EI Camino Corridor Amended redevelopment plan). Impacts have been determined for 2010 Amended Plan (or Project) traffic conditions in comparison to expected 20 I 0 Adopted Plan (or Base Case) conditions. I. SETTING A. REGIONAL FREEWAY ACCESS The network of freeways, arterials and local streets serving the proj ect area is diagramed on Figure 1 and described below. Interstate 280 (1-280) is the principal freeway providing regional access to the EI Camino Corridor area. To the north, the eight-lane freeway provides access to the cities of Colma, Daly City, San Francisco and points beyond (Bay Bridge, etc.); to the south I.. 280 provides access to the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Redwood City and points beyond to San Jose. Local 1-280 interchanges serving the project area are located at Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard and Avalon Drive - (see Figure 1). B. LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK El Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major arterial roadway that extends north to Market Street in Colma and south to San Jose. It has six lanes in the project vicinity south of Hickey Boulevard and north of Mission Road, and four lanes between these two intersections. Traffic flows in the project vicinity are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening. Mission Road extends between El Camino Real just north of the City limits (in the City of Colma), south to Chestnut Avenue. The route has two lanes just south of EI Camino Real and widens to four lanes in the project vicinity. Two-way traffic flows are relatively balanced in each direction in the morning and evening; however, traffic volumes during . 3/14/00 CTG Page 1 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR the morning commute period are higher than those in the evening due to the added traffic from EI Camino High School during the morning. Hillside Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway in the project area, bordering the City near its northeastern boundary along the base of San Bruno Mountain. Hillside Boulevard extends north through the City of Colma to Mission Street in Daly City (Le. to S.R. 82, the northbound extension of EI Camino Real) and southeast to Highway 101. T raffle flows are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the evenIng. Junipero Serra Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway that extends south from the SIlR.l/I- 280 split in San Francisco to Avalon Drive in South San Francisco. Traffic flows are predominantly southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening. Hickey Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway that extends westerly from El Camino Real into the neighborhood west of Skyline Drive~ Traffic flows just west ofEI Camino Real are predominantly eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Evergreen Drive is a two-lane residential roadway that extends between Mission Road on the west and Hillside Boulevard on the east~ The route runs along the southern border of EI Camino High School Gust east of Mission Road). Traffic flows adjacent to the high school are predominantly westbound in the morning and balanced each direction in the evening. N ear Hillside Boulevard, traffic flows are approximately balanced both during the morning and evening commute. Grand Avenue is a two-lane ro~dway that extends easterly from Mission Road to downtown South San Francisco and an interchange with the U~S. 101 freeway. Near Chestnut Avenue, traffic flows are predominantly southbound in the morning ~d northbound in the evening. Oak Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends between Mission Road on the west and Grand A venue on the east. Pavement is in average to poor condition. Westborough Boulevard is a fourllolane arterial roadway that extends westerly from El Camino Real to Skyline Boulevard, where the route's name changes to "Sharp Park Road." East ofEI Camino Real, its name changes to "Chestnut Avenue." Traffic flows on Westborough Boulevard are predominantly eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening~ Chestnut A venue is an arterial roadway extending easterly from El Camino Real to Hillside Boulevard. The route has four lanes near EI Camino Real and Hillside Drive, but narrows to two lanes where roadway widening has not yet occurred (Lell east of Commercial Drive). Traffic flows are predominantly eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Avalon Drive extends east and west of its partial interchange with 1-280 into adjacent residential neighborhoods. A southbound on-ramp and a northbound off-ramp only are provided at the interchange. The route has two lanes on either side of its interchange with 1-280 and four lanes through the interchange area. Traffic flows on Avalon Drive 3/14/00 eTG Page 2 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR through the interchange area are predominantly westbound during both the morning and evening commute periods. Orange Avenue is a two-lane street extending both east and west ofEI Camino Real. To the west it curves to the north and intersects Westborough Boulevard at the Camaritas Avenue intersection. T 0 the east it extends into the neighborhood east of Grand Avenue. Traffic flows are more than double east of EI Camino Real compared to west of EI Camino Real. Orange Avenue provides access to the local road serving the South San Francisco High School parking lots. South Spruce Avenue is a four..lane roadway extending to the northeast ofEI Camino Real. It narrows to two lanes in the downtown area of South San .Francisco. It also . extends west of EI Camino Real into a residential area. Traffic flows east of El Camino Real are predominantly eastbound during the morning commute and westboWld during the evening commute. c. EXISTING LOCAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1. Study Intersections To evaluate the impacts of the project, the 27 local intersections most likely to be affected were studied-I 8 signalized intersections and 9 stop sign controlled intersections. The 27 study.intersections are listed below while schematic diagrams of lane configurations on . each intersection approach are presented in Figures 2A and 2B. All intersections are in South San Francisco except as otherwise noted. Signalized: . Hickey BoulevardlI-280 S.BIl 280 Ramp (Daly City) . Hickey BoulevardlI-280 NIlB. Ramps (Daly City) . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard · El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard . El Camino Real/Kaiser . EI Camino Real/~oyo Drive . EI Camino Real/W estborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue . El Camino Real/Orange Avenue . El Camino Real/South Spruce Avenue . Westborough BoulevardlI-280. S.B. Ramps . Westborough BoulevardlI-280 N.B. Ramps/Junipero Serra Boulevard . Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane -. Chestnut A venueIMission Road . Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue · Chestnut A venueIHillside Boulevard . Avalon Drive/I-280 N.B. Off-Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard . South Spruce A v enue/Huntington Avenue . Grand Avenue/Orange Avenue 3/14/00 CTG Page 3 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR A 11- Way Stop Sign Controlled: . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue . Mission RoadlEvergreen Drive . Mission Road/Grand Avenue . Orange A venue/Myrtle Avenue . Grand Avenue/Willow Avenue Stop Sign Controlled: . Orange A venuelMemorial A venue . Evergreen DriveIHillside Boulevard (Calma) Yield Controlled Left Turn: . Avalon Drive/I-280 S.B. On-Ramp . El Camino ReallMission Road (Colma) 2. Intersection Turning Movements Intersections, rather than midblock roadway segments, are almost always the critical capacity controlling locations for a local circulation system. To evaluate existing intersection operation in the project area, AM and PM peak hour turning movement traffic counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group at the 27 study intersections in October and early November 1998, just after the beginning of the EIR study. Additional counts were also conducted at select locations in the spring and fall of 1999. These existing turning movement counts are presented in Figures 3A and 3B for AM peak hour conditions and 4A and 4B. for PM peak hour conditions. The overall AM peak traffic hour was found to be 7:45 to 8:45, while the PM peak hour was found to be 4:45 to 5:45, although a few intersections were found to have their individual peak hours offset by 15 minutes either earlier or later. The peak traffic hours at each location were, however, used for analysis purposes. D. EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATION 1. Level of Service Methodology In order to understand the current status of a local roadway network, a grading system. called Level of SerVice (LOS) is commonly used by traffic engineers and planners. The LOS grading system typically used for signalized intersections involves a rating scale which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum. delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. An existing LOS analysis has been performed for each of the 27 study intersections. Signalized Intersections. For signalized intersections, the Level of Service scale is also commonly associated with an average vehicle delay tabulation in seconds (1994 Highway Capacity Manual operations method, TRB Circular 209). The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. The 3/14/00 CTG Page 4 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan ErR relationship between LOS and delay at signalized intersections is presented in the Appendix. . Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale~ LOS ratings for the nine unsignalized study intersections were determined using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway . Capacity Manual (HCM)1l Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one letter designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection as well as an average vehicle delay value. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled or a particular movement yield controlled are also evaluated using the LOS scale. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and average delay designations pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for individual turn movements or approaches rather than for the entire intersection. The relationship between LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections is presented in the Appendix. 2. Level of Service Standards Level of Service (LOS) D is considered by South San Francisco as the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way stop intersections; LOS E is considered to be the poorest acceptable operation for side street stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements or yield controlled movements. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Draft 1999 Congestion Management Plan (eMP) shows that EI Camino Real through South San Francisco is a CMP monitored roadway segment. The CMP level of service standard for EI Camino Real is LOS E. However, for this study, South San Francisco's more conservative LOS D minimum acceptable operation standard has been used for intersections along the roadway. 3. Existing Level of Service Ratings Existing levels of service for all study intersections are presented in Tables IA and IB for AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Currently, the majority of study intersections are operating at acceptable levels during the weekday AM and PM peak traffic hoursll However, five of the study intersections are operating at unacceptable levels during AM and PM peak conditions, and thus are identified in this EIR as significant existing impact locations. AM Peak Hour. During the AM peak hour, four intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service: . Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue (signal) LOS F . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp (westbound Avalon left turn to on-ramp) LOS F . EI Camino Real/Mission Road (southbound EI Camino Real left turn to Mission Road) LOS F . Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (eastbound Evergreen Drive stop sign controlled left turn) LOS F 3/14/00 CTG Page 5 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR PM Peak Hour. During the PM peak hour, the following three intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service: . EI Camino Real/Mission Road (southbound EI Camino Real left turn to Mission Road) LOS F . Evergreen DriveIHillside Boulevard (eastbound Evergreen Drive stop sign controlled left turn) LOS F . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all..way stop) LOS E E. EXISTING SIGNAL WARRANTS A signal warrant analysis has been perfonned at the nine unsignalized study intersections for AM and PM peak traffic conditions. The analysis was completed based on the "Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant #11 n standard from the Caltrans 1996 Traffic Manual. The Peak Hour Warrant standard is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that, for at least one hour of the day, the minor street suffers long delays in entering or crossing the major street. Signal warrants vary depending on whether the intersection is located in an urban or rural setting. For this EIR, warrant analysis was conducted using "urban conditions" criteria. The results of the existing signal warrant analysis are shown in Table 2. The table shows that signal warrant criteria (Caltrans Warrant #11) are exceeded during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours with current volumes at the following five intersections: · EI Camino Real/Mission Road (Calma) . Mission RoadlEvergreen Drive · Mission Road/Grand Avenue . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp These current signalization needs are identified in this EIR as significant existing impact locations. F. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY CONCERNS 1. Operational Concerns All intersections listed above as having unacceptable AM and/or PM peak hour level of service were observed to have extended to extreme delays during these time periods on one or more approaches. These conditions, along with other observed operational problems which represent significant existing operational concerns, are described below. EI Camino ReaVWestborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue. At the signalized EI Camino RealI Westborough Drive/Chestnut Avenue intersection, there is congestion on the Chestnut .A venue approach and departure lanes, primarily due to the close proximity of the traffic signal at the nearby Antoinette Lane intersection. However, this intersection is currently maintaining minimally acceptable AM and PM peak hour operation~ 3/14/00 CTG Page 6 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Evergreen A venue/llillside Boulevard. At the Evergreen A venueIHillside Boulevard stop sign controlled intersection, drivers turning left from the stop sign controlled Evergreen Avenue approach to Hillside Boulev.ard during the AM and PM peak traffic hours experience extended delays, primarily due to the high volume of high speed through traffic on Hillside Boulevard. El Camino ReaVMission Road (Colma). There is extended delay for the left turn movement from southbound EI Camino Real to southbound Mission Road during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Avalon DriveR-280 Southbound On-Ramp. The westbound Avalon Drive left turn to the 1-280 Southbound On-Ramp experiences extended delay and backups during the AM peak traffic hour. Due to the heavy volume of this movement, vehicles back up from the westbound left turn. pocket through the Avalon Drive/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection and on the southbound Junipero Serra Boulevard approach to Avalon Drive. Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. Significant delays are experienced on both Chestnut Avenue and the northbound Commercial Avenue approaches to this intersection during the evening commute peak hOUfIl Delays are somewhat less during the morning commute. Chestnut A venue/Grand Avenue. .Major delays are .experienced on all approaches to this intersection during the morning commute. The lack of protected phasing for left turns from Grand Avenue produces the greatest delays for these movements. 2. Safety Concerns The following existing circulation system safety concerns have been identified in the project area: Along the EI Camino High School Mission Road and Evergreen Drive frontages, large numbers of students were observed jaywalking before and after school. Students were observed crossing both Evergreen Drive and Mission Road rnidblock to access bus stops and adjacent neighborhoods. This situation creates hazardous traffic conditions immediately before and after school each day. G. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The Crane Transportation Group conducted bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in conjunction with the AM and PM peak period vehicular traffic counts in October and early November 1998 and at select intersections in 1999. Count results are summarized on Figure 5. The figure shows how observed pedestrian and bicycle counts were significantly higher during the AM peak traffic hour than during the PM peak hour at the north and south ends of the study area, primarily due to the presence of high school students traveling to El Camino High School and South San Francisco High School during the morning commute. In general; there was a low level of bicycle traffic on project area streets. No more than eight bicyclists were observed at any count location. 3/14/00 CTG Page 7 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR During the AM peak traffic hour a total of about 250 pedestrians (mostly students) crossed Evergreen Drive between Mission Road and Miller Drive toward El Camino High School. The vast majority of these students were dropped off from SamTrans buses. About 100 pedestrians crossed Mission Road (two-way count) north of Evergreen Drive dwing this same time period, many walking between the high school and delicatessen on the west side of the street.. During the same time period, 1 75 pedestrians traveled along Orange Avenue at Memorial Avenue, mostly students walking towards South San Francisco High School. During the PM peak traffic hour (which occurs after most high school activity has ceased), a maximum of 22 pedestrians were counted crossing the "streets near EI Camino High School with up to 12 pedestrians crossing at any given location near South San Francisco High SchooL The highest PM peak hour count was 39 pedestrians (two-way count) crossing EI Camino Real just north of Arroyo Drive. The City General Plan Bicycle Routes map designates "Bicycle Routes" along Hillside Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, EI Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, ,Orange Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, Commercial Avenue, Avalon Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Grand Avenue (Mission Avenue to Chestnut Avenue) in the project area. H. " ON-STREET PARKING The Draft EI Camino Corridor BART Site Alternative Study conducted in 1991 found that there are approximately 750 existing curbside parking spaces within convenient walking distance (approximately one quarter mile) of the BART station site. Approximately 250 of these spaces are located along EI Camino Real, Evergreen Drive or Mission Road. The remaining 500 curbside spaces are located on side streets or in residential areas in close proximity to the proposed station site. Crane Transportation Group conducted weekday parking surveys along all major and select minor streets within the project study area in mid-January 2000.. Survey periods were 6:00-7:00 AM, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM and 6:00-7:00 PM.. A summary offindings, presented in Figure 6, indicates that there was a high concentration of existing on-street parking activity ,on EI Camino Real adjacent to Kaiser Hospital (up to 1 00 percent occupancy), in the immediate vicinity ofEI Camino High School (from 58 percent to 100 percent occupancy depending on the location) and at select locations along Arroyo Drive and Grand Avenue (68 percent to 95 percent occupancy). In the vicinity of the Willow Gardens subdivision, on-street occupancy ranged from 61 percent to 1 00 percent. Otherwise, most on-street parking locations in the project area had occupancies ranging - from 6 percent to 65 percent during the hours surveyedll Midday occupancy of the EI Camino High School and South San Francisco High School student parking lots was 90 percent and 97 percent respectively. Survey results indicate no on-street parking problem in the vicinity of South San Francisco "High SchooL 3/14/00 CTG Page 8 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR I. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE 1. Local Bus Routes Local, mainline and commute hour transit service is provided to the proj ect area by the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans). Table 3 describes SamTrans routes serving the project vicinity. Routes 193, 122,390 and 391 travel along EI Camino Real. Routes 130 and 131 travel along Mission Road and through the neighborhoods east of Mission Roadll Routes 32 and 34 serve local streets in the western and southern sectors of the project vicinity . No SamTrans bus routes provide service to either the South San Francisco or San Bruno Caltrain stations. However, routes 390 and 391 provide service to within one block of the Millbrae Caltrain station. Routes 130 and 193 provide service to the Daly City Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station while routes 133,122, 131 and 130 provide service to the Colma BART station. SamTrans service also provides/accepts inter-agency transfer passes to/from Santa Clara County Transit District at shared bus stops and San Francisco Municipal Railway routes at selected pointsll 2. BART BART currently does not directly serve the Peninsula. The southern terminus of BART is the Colma station about a mile north of the ColmalSouth San Francisco border. J. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1. Roadways and lntersections The South San Francisco City Engineer! has projected that the following roadway and intersection improvements will be completed by the year 2010. 3. Hickey Boulevard Extension A Hickey Boulevard Extension between El Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard is currently planned by the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. The proposed extension alignment is shown on Figure 7. The section of the extension within the South San Francisco city limits-i.e. between EI Camino Real and Mission Road will be built as part of the ongoing construction of the South San Francisco BART station. The Hickey Boulevard Extension will form the north boundary of the station. The City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County will also complete the remaining section between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard within the same time frame (by the end of 2001) to coincide with the opening of BART service. The City will have a meeting in June or July with the Evergreen neighborhood to discuss this near term project Current extension plans indicate that the road will have four lanes with separate turn lanes at intersections between EI Camino Real and Mission Road and potentially only Mr. Cyrus Kianpour. 3/14/00 CTG Page 9 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR two lanes plus turn lanes at intersections between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard. Details of planned intersection improvements are shown on Figure 7. All intersections along the Hickey Boulevard Extension (EI Camino Real, Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard) will be signalized. A signalized intersection will also be provided midway between EI Camino Real and Mission Road to facilitate access to/from the BART station and the parcel on the north side of the roadway. A raised median will be provided along the extension .from EI Camino Real to Mission Road allowing right turns in and out only from proposed driveways. No parking will be allowed on either side of the street. No driveway connections are planned along the Extension between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard.. b. .El Camino ReallMission Road Intersection Signalization The City of Colma has requested that Caltrans cooperate in providing a traffic signal at the EI Camino Real/Mission Road intersection. This intersection should be signalized by 2010. c. EI Camino ReallW estborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Intersection An additional lane will be provided on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approachll It will be striped as an exclusive right turn lane. Also, the southbound EI Camino Real intersection approach will be reconfigured to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, two exclusive through lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. This latter improvement will be provided in conjunction with .construction of the Costco store along El Camino Real. d. Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Intersection Left turn phasing will be provided for left turns from Grand Avenue and the northbound Grand Avenue left turn lane .will be lengthened. The eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach will be widened to provide one exclusive left, one exclusive through and one exclusive right turn lane. 2. Transit a. BART Extension Construction is currently underway to extend BART from Colma to San Francisco International Airport (SFO)~ The alignment through South San Francisco is underground and will pass through the EI Camino Corridor study area via the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The South San Francisco BART station is also under construction and will be bordered by EI Camino Real to the west, Mission Road to the east, a "New Street" to the south (named BART Access Road #1) and the Hickey Boulevard Extension to the north. 3/14/00 CTG Page 10 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Figure _ in section~ of this EIR (Land Use) shows the site plan of the new stationll The plan indicates that BART Access Road # 1 along the south. side of the station connecting EI Camino Real and Mission Road will' allow west to east (EI Camino Real to Mission Road) non.. BART traffic flow, but not east to west flow ~ BART Access Road #1 will have a signalized intersection with El Camino Real and an all-way-stop intersection with Mission Road. The site plan also indicates that the BART station will have driveway connections to EI Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard Extension, BART Access Road # 1 and Mission Road. The driveways connecting to El Camino Real (allowing right turns in or out only due to the raised median along EI Camino Real) will provide auto egress from the BART parking structure and ingress to a residential/commercial development adjacent to the station~ BART servic;e to the airport is scheduled to begin in 2002~ b. Anticipated Local Bus Improvements There are currently approximately 40 buses per hour serving the project area during the morning and evening commute peak traffic hours. BART and SamTrans project a significant increase in local bus service once the new BART line is in operation~ K. FREEWAY OPERATION Recent PM peak hour traffic counts were obtained from Caltrans for the 1-280 freeway in South San Francisco and the 1-380 freeway in San Bruno. Count results are presented in Table 4 along with existing freeway operation levels of service. Traffic flow is predominantly northbound on 1-280 and westbound on 1-380 during the PM commute, with observed reverse flow patterns during the AM commute~ Currently, during the PM commute period the 1-280 freeway experiences stop-and-go operation northbound through all of South San Francisco, while southbound 1-280 traffic travels at or close to the 65 mile per hour speed limit.. On 1-380, westbound PM peak hour traffic experiences stop-and-go operation during the evening commute, particularly from El Camino Real to 1-2801l Congested northbound operation on 1-280 backs up traffic onto 1-380.. In the eastbound direction 1-380 traffic travels at the speed limit during the evening commute~ Existing freeway operation level of service can be determined based upon two methodologies; observed travel speeds or a theoretical relationship between freeway volumes compared to a capacity per lane per hour (1994 Highway Capacity Manual)~ Based upon observed travel speeds, northbound 1-280 in South San Francisco and westbound 1-380 in San Bruno are now operating at LOS F during the evening conunute peak hour, while southbound 1-280 is operating at LOS C and eastbound 1-380 is operating at LOS AI Based upon the theoretical relationship between volume and capacity, northbound 1-280 is operating at LOS E, westbound 1-380 at LOS C, southbound 1-280 at LOS D and eastbound 1-280 at LOS C~ The theoretically predicted levels of service in the peak travel directions do not, however, fully take into account the downstream congestion which is currently resulting in the stop-and-go conditions along northbound 1-280 and westbound 1-380 during the evening commute. The eMP level of service standard for 1-280 in South San Francisco is LOS D and for 1- 380 in San Bruno is LOS F. According to CMP guidelines the 1997 reported LOS for I. 280 in the project area is LOS F without exemptions and LOS A with exemptions. LOS 3/14/00 CTG Page 11 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR A (with exemptions) is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the county of the freeway segment under evaluation. II. IMPACTS A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA For purposes of this EIR, the following criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of circulation impacts due to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. . If a signalized or all-way-stop intersection with Base Case (without project) volumes is operating at LOS A, B, C, or D and deteriorates to LOS E operation (or worse) with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. If a Base Case stop sign-controlled turn movement deteriorates to LOS F operation with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If the Base Case LOS at a signalized or all-way-stop intersection is already at LOS E or F, or the Base Case LOS of a stop sign-controlled turn movement is already LOS F, an increase in traffic of one percent or more due to the proj eet is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If traffic volume levels at a Base Case unsignalized intersection increase above Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant #11 criteria levels with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If traffic volume levels at a Base Case unsignalized intersection already exceed signal warrant criteria levels, an increase in traffic of one percent or more due to the project is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If, in the opinion of the EIR registered traffic engineer, certain project-related traffic changes would increase safety concerns substantially, the impact is considered to be significant and would require mitigation. · If I -280 mainline operation with Base Case volumes is currently at LOS A, B, C or D, and changes to LOS E or F with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant and would require mitigation. . If freeway mainline operation with Base Case volumes is already LOS E or F, an increase in peak direction traffic of one percent or more due to the proj ect is considered significant and would require mitigation. B. 2010 ADOPTED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS This section presents the anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to the adopted non...project Redevelopment Plan (Base Case) growth in traffic expected in the project vicinity by the year 2010. Future traffic projections for this Base Case analysis 3/14/00 eTa Page 12 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR include the added trips associated with the new Hickey BART station and adjacent commercial development, the Costco and adjacent residential development on the fonner Macy's warehouse site, residential and City park development on the fonner McLelland Nursery site and other approved development in the City and adjacent jurisdictions. Traffic projections also include consideration of local traffic redistribution due to completion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension between EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard as well as BART Access Road # 1 between El Camino Real and Mission Road at the south end of the new BART station.. 1. 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Year 2010 traffic volumes for the Adopted Redevelopment Plan were derived through the following procedures: 8. Gross Trip Generation From Project Area New Development AM and PM peak hour trip generation and distribution projections were developed or obtained for all approved or likely developments within the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan study area (as presented in the City's recently approved General Plan) such as the Hickey BART station, the approved Costco store and the residential/park development on the McLelland site. Traffic studies have been completed for several proposed or approved proj ects in the area. These studies were reviewed and data used directly .if no changes have been proposed to development levels analyzed in the reports, such as traffic levels associated with the new BART station. Where currently proposed development levels are different than those analyzed, adjustments in trip generation have been made to reflect the increased (or decreased) traffic that would be expected. Development specific distribution patterns projected in each study were then utilized for these incremental differences in trip generation. Where previous reports had evaluated a study area smaller than the one under consideration in this EIR, traffic from individual projects was extended to the boundaries currently under examination. Separate trip generation and distribution projections were then developed for each proposed but not approved development within the study area likely to be completed by 2010 for which no traffic study had been completed~ The location of each new development along with its projected gross AM and PM peak hour trip generation is presented in Table 5. Trip generation projections have been obtained from individual project studies or developed using the traffic engineering professions standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation., 6th edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. b. Adjustments to New Development Gross Trip Generation 1) Reduced Net New Trips Due to Pass-By Capture F or new residential and office development, all trips would be newly added to the local roadway network. For new retail development, a proportion of gross trip generation would be attracted from traffic already traveling on the local roadway network. 3/14/00 eTG Page 13 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Attraction of traffic passing immediately adjacent to a site is referred to as pass-by capture. Based upon historical studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the degree of pass-by trip capture is a function of both the size of the commercial/retail establishment and the amount of traffic on the adjacent street system. Typically, the smaller the retail development, the higher the proportion of pass-by capture. For proposed retail/commercial developments within the "Redevelopment Plan area, AM peak traffic hour pass-by capture rates ranged from 15 to 35 percent, while during the PM peak traffic hour pass-by capture rates ranged from 30 to 50 percent, depending upon the size of the center. It should be noted that turn movements to/from project area retail driveways would still reflect overall gross trip generation levels even with pass-by capture. The reduced impact due to pass-by capture is only fully measured at nearby intersections. 3/14/00 CTG Page 14 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR 2) Reduced Trip Generation by Uses in Close Proximity to BART Stations Studies by BAR T2 have shown that residential, office and retail developments constructed in close proximity to an existing BART station (outside central business districts) are likely to have lower than average auto trip generationll Based upon these findings, the following percent reductions in trip generation have been utilized for developments within close proximity to the Hickey BART station. PERCENT REDUCTION IN AVERAGE PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION BY NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY* TO THE NEW HICKEY BART STATION Residential Office Retail PEAK COMMUTE DIRECTION TRIP -25% . -25% -5% NON-PEAK COMMUTE DIRECTION TRIP -5% -25% -5% * Within a quarter mile of the BART station. Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon surveys by BART To provide a conservative analysis, no reduction in trip generation has been projected for the existing residential areas that are within a quarter mile of the new BART station or for other nearby area activities, such as EI Camino High Schoolll 3) Reduced Trip Generation Due to Internal Trips Between Adjacent Commercial Uses No redevelopment parcels are programmed to have two adjacent commercial uses in the Adopted Redevelopment Plan other than the Costco store and its adjacent gas station. A majority of the gas station traffic is projected to be drawn from customers already accessing the Costco retail store.. With the Amended Plan, in addition to the Costco retail store and gas station, the former Macy's site will also contain an adjacent commercial/retail center and residential uses. A proportion of the gross trip generation from each development would be expected to remain within the former Macy's property as internal back and forth trips. Based upon the Costco traffic study,3 10 percent of the total gross PM peak hour trip generation from the Amended Plan developments would be expected to remain internal to this site~ No internal trip reduction was projected for the Costeo site during the AM peak traffic hour. 2 3 1999 I Referenced in Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Draft EIR, August 1997 Il Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis by Rajappan & Meyer, February 3/14/00 CTG Page 15 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR c. Increased Local Area Traffic D.ne to Development Outside the Redevelopment Area Year 2010 daily traffic projections due to anticipated growth within South San Francisco have been developed for major roadways throughout the City as part of the recently completed General Plan Update Circulation Element In addition, traffic projections have been developed as part of the recently completed Terrabay EIR4 for Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue due to buildout east of the U ,,8. 101 freeway, within the City of Brisbane and for the Terrabay project. To complement traffic projections from both sources, contact was also made with the Planning Departments in the cities of Colma, Pacifica, Daly City5 and San Bruno to determine if any approved or likely major developments will built and in operation by 2010 that will add a significant amount of traffic to' the roadway system being examined as part of this EIR (i.e. the Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road, EI Camino Real, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue and South Spruce Avenue corridors). The . potential projects considered most likely to add traffic are a commercial/residential development in Colma located just north of the Mission RoadIHickey Boulevard Extension intersection, a new BART station and nearby redevelopment area along both sides of EI Camino Real and Huntington Avenue in San Bruno6 and completion of residential developments along Skyline Boulevard in Pacifica. Overall, by 2010 the majority of increased traffic on most South San Francisco redevelopment area major roadways would be due to development outside the local. area, in particular the Terrabay, East of 101 and Brisbane developments to the east and projects in the San Bruno redevelopment area to the south. d. New Traffic on the Redevelopment Area .Street System Figures 8A and 8B present year 2010 AM peak hour volumes while Figures 9A and 9B present year 2010 PM peak hour volumes on the project area roadway system with completion of the Adopted Redevelopment Planll 2. 2010 Adopted Redevelopment Plan Base Case Operating Conditions 8. Base Case Intersection Level of Service Year 2010 intersection levels of service with completion of the Adopted Redevelopment Plan are presented in Tables lA and IB for AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectivelYIl All 32 analyzed intersections would be experiencing acceptable AM and PM peak hour operation with the following four exceptions. . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp (Avalon westbound left turn to the Southbound On- Ramp) LOS F AM Peak Hour 4 Draft Supplemental EIR Terrabay Phases II and III, July 1998. 5 All jurisdictions except Daly City responded to the information request. 6 City of San Bruno Redevelopment Project Area Plan praft EIR by Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. 3/14/00 erG Page 16 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR · Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard (Evergreen Drive stop sign controlled left turn) LOS F AM & PM Peak Hours · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue (all-way stop) LOS E AM Peak Hour LOS F PM Peak Hour · Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard LOS F PM Peak Hour All Hickey Boulevard Extension intersections as well as other new intersections adjacent to the BART station would be operating at good to acceptable levels of service (LOS A to C) during both commute periods. b. Base Case Intersection Signalization Requirements Table 2. shows that 4 currently unsignalized intersections would warrant signalization by 2010 due to traffic levels associated with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan. Two of the 4 locations are also projected to experience unacceptable levels of servicell Locations are as follows: · Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue · Mission Road/Evergreen Drive · Mission Road/Grand Avenue The Mission Road/Grand Avenue and Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersections would maintain acceptable all-way stop levels of service during the AM and PM peak traffic hours. It should be noted that.all 4 intersections currently warrant provision of signals, based upon peak hour volumes. c. B_ase Case Freeway Operation Table 4 shows proj ected year 2010 PM peak hour volumes and expected levels of service on the 1-280 freeway through South San Francisco and on the 1-380 freeway in San Bruno. Projections have been obtained from C/CAG and reflect BART serving the San Francisco airport, but no Caltrain extension underground from their current Fourth and Townsend station to the Transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco. Projections potentially reflect completion of t4e Existing El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan. C/CAG modeling shows that the BART extension to the airport will potentially result in a significant decrease in peak dire~tion (northbound) traffic along 1...280 in South San Francisco during the evening commute peak traffic hour by 2010. Peak direction peak hour volume decreases of 15 percent or greater are projected~ Southbound traffic on 1- 280 as well as traffic in both directions on J...380 is projected to increase by 2010. PM peak hour LOS D operation would result on all northbound and southbound segments of 1-280 (from south of Avalon Drive to north of Hickey Boulevard) in South San Francisco, PM peak hour 1-380 westbound operation would be LOS E while eastbound 1- 380 operation would be LOS C. 3/14/00 CTG Page 17 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR The eMP level of service standard for 1-280 in South San Francisco is LOS D and for I~ 380 in San Bruno is LOS F. Theoretically projected 2010 PM peak hour operating conditions would be within eMP level of service standards on both freeways. d. Base Case Operational and Safety Concerns The following transportation s'ystem operational and safety concerns could be anticipated due to Adopted Redevelopment Plan traffic increases: . Mission Road and Oak Avenue Driveways Although individual site plans have not yet been prepared for the residential developments proposed within the redevelopment area, provision of numerous driveways and their associated movements could disrupt through traffic flow. This will "represent a potential significant operational and safety impact. . Excessive Traffic Speeds Along Evergreen Drive A BART station egress driveway will be constructed as the fourth (westerly) leg of the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection. BART traffic traveling along Evergreen Drive may travel at higher than desirable speeds while accessing Hillside Boulevard. This will represent a potential significant safety impact. . EI Camino Real Driveways Significant disruption to through traffic flow could arise if right turn deceleration areas are not provided along EI Camino Real on the approaches to major driveways serving new developments. This will represent a potential significant operational impact. e. Base Case Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts The proximity of existing and additional project area residential units to the BART station and plans for significantly increased bus service along EI Camino Real and Mission Road will produce a measurable increase in pedestrian traffic crossing local roadways near the station. From 150 to 250 pedestrian trips per hour between residential units and the BART station or bus stops could be expected. Some pedestrian traffic would also be generated between the BART commercial center and new residential areas (as well as existing neighborhoods near the station). Foot traffic between the high school and the BART commercial area would be expected to be heavy, particularly after school. Pedestrians from the Macy's residential site would be able to access the BART station via a new signalized intersection along the Hickey Extension midway between EI Camino Real and Mission Road. However, there is the possibility that high school students will jaywalk across Mission Road somewhere between the Hickey Extension and Evergreen intersections to access the station's commercial center. This will represent a potential significant safety concern. It is assumed that project area and project-assisted individual site development plans would be required to incorporate adequate sidewalks or pathways for safe pedestrian 3/14/00 CTG Page 18 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR travel. Therefore, pedestrian access for individual developments is not considered a potentially significant issue~ Overall increases in traffic by 2010 will increase potential concerns for all local area bike riders. This increase will represent a potential significant safety concern. 3/14/00 CTG Page 19 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR f. Base Case Parking Impacts Existing roa.dways in the project area may be subject to use by BART overflow parking. This could result in a shortage of on-street parking in existing neighborhoods as well as in the new housing areas near the station. These effects may represent a potential significant impact. Assuming that code parking is provided for all project residential and commercial areas, including an appropriate number of BART commercial spaces within the BART parking garage, it is not expected that redevelopinent project vehicles will produce an added significant on-street parking impact. 3. ; Required 2010 Adopted Redevelopment Plan Base Case Intersection Improvements (see Tables 7 A and 7B) a. Intersections 1) Avalon DrivelI-280 Southbound On-Ramp · Signalize Intersection Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS B-A verage Delay = 1 0.6 Seconds . Alternatively, all-way stop control or stop sign control of all eastbound traffic + westbound left turns could be considered. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Averag~ Delay = 27 Seconds for stop sign controlled movements - 2) Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue . Signalize Intersection . Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. . Provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. · Provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay = 20.8 Seconds Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay = 18.3 Seconds 3) Hickey BoulevardlJunipero Serra Boulevard . Restripe the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. 3/14/00 eTG Page 20 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR . Widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane. 3/14/00 CTG Page 21 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR . Change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left tll!Ds. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D~Average Delay == 30.8 Seconds 4) Evergreen DrivelHillside Boulevard Left turn volumes from Evergreen Drive would not warrant signalization of this intersection. Only 1 0 vehicles are projected to make this turn during the AM peak hour with 20 vehicles making this turn during the PM peak hour in 2010. Therefore, consideration should be given to the following improvements. . Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard that will restrict movements to right turn in and right turn out at Evergreen Drive. Northbound Hillside Boulevard traffic desiring to make a left turn to Evergreen Drive would be required to continue to the Hickey Boulevard Extension intersection and conduct a U -turn~ Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north on Hillside Boulevard would be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard. . Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard and a channelized median break at Evergreen Drive that will allow both left and right turns onto Evergreen Drive as well as right turns from Evergreen Drive. The median would only preclude left turns from Evergreen Drive. Drivers along Evergreen Drive desiring to travel north on Hillside Boulevard would. be required to access the nearby Hickey Boulevard Extension for a signal controlled left turn movement to Hillside Boulevard. 5) Mission Road/Grand Avenue Consider providing signalization if delays become excessive. However, all-way stop evaluation indicates delays will be within acceptable levels. 6) . Mission RoadlEvergreen Drive Consider providing signalization if delays become excessive~ However, all-way stop evaluation indicates delays will be within acceptable levels. b. Individual Project Access . Minimize the number of driveways serving all new developments.. . Provide right turn deceleration areas on the EI Camino Real approaches to all new major driveways. . Consider providing a continuous two-way left turn lane along Mission Road near Oak Street in locations with major driveways lining both sides of the street. 3/14/00 CTG Page 22 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR c. Vehicle Speeding Increase speed enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a problem due to the opening of the BART station. If regular speed enforcement is not an option, consider providing traffic calming measures along the street to reduce speeds. d. Pedestrian Safety Implementation of the following measures would lessen identified existing safety concerns on Mission Road and Evergreen Drive in the vicinity of EI Camino High School. . Bus Stops. Request SamTrans to reroute buses to let students off and pick students up on the high school side of Evergreen Drive (north side) and Mission Road (east side). This would significantly reduce the number of students crossing these roadways. . Crosswalks. In its student orientations and assemblies, EI Camino High School should continue regularly advising students to use crosswalks and not jaywalk. If this does not help to relieve midblock crossings before and after school, the high school should consider fencing or landscaping the grounds fronting on Mission Road and Evergreen Drive to channel students into and out of gates located near crosswalks. This measure could only be implemented by the School District. C. 2010 AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS This section presents the expected impacts to the local transportation system due to development of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. All impacts are presented in relation to 2010 traffic conditions with development of the Adopted Redevelopment Planll 1" 2010 Amended Plan Traffic Volumes Traffic projections for the Amended Redevelopment Plan were developed in a manner similar to that for the Adopted Base Case Redevelopment Plan~ Amended Plan development, location and gross trip generation is presented in Table 6. Amended Plan resultant AM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 1 OA and 1 OB while PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures I1A and lIB. Overall, the Amended Plan would result in the same or higher trip generation from the vast majority of parcels. The Macy's property, which would have a new Costeo store with either the Adopted or Amended Plan, would have higher generation with the Amended Plan due to the replacement of 263 apartments with 200 apartments as well as 171 ,500 square feet of office and 171 ,500 square feet of shopping centerll The Cuneo property generation would be higher during both commute periods due to an intensification of uses with the Amended Plan as would combined commercial/ residential development adjacent to the BART station and on the Harmonius Holdings parcel. 2. Amended Plan Intersection Impacts 3/14/00 CTG Page 23 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Tables lA and IB show that trip generation from the Amended Plan would produce significant level of service impacts at 4 intersections. 3/14/00 eTa Page 24 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR IMPACT 1 . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue AM peak hour operation would remain LOS E; average delay would increase from 37.7 to 42.2 seconds; total traffic entering the intersection would be increased by 2.5%. PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F; average delay would increase from 111 to 119 seconds; total traffic entering the intersection would be increased by 2.. 70/0. This would be a significant impact. IMPACT 2 . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard PM peak hour operation .would remain LOS F; average delay would increase from almost 65 to 99 seconds; total traffic entering the intersection would be increased by 8.0%. This would be a significant impact. IMPACT 3 . EI Camino Real/W estborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue PM peak hour operation would degrade from LOS D to LOS E; average delay would increase from about 35 seconds to about 43 seconds. This would be a significant impact. IMPACT 4 . Evergreen DriveIHillside Boulevard AM and PM peak hour operation of the stop sign controlled Evergreen Drive approach would remain LOS F. Total traffic entering the intersection would be increased by 1.3% during the AM peak hour and by 4.2% during the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact. The Amended Redevelopment Plan would also result in slightly improved operation at one interse.ction projected to experience unacceptable operation with traffic from the Adopted Redevelopment Plan. . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp AM peak hour operation for the left turn to the on-ramp would remain LOS F, but average vehicle delay would decrease from about 220 down to 219 seconds. 3. Amended Plan Impacts to Intersection Signalization Requirements All four unsignalized intersections warranting signalization by 2010 with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan would also warrant signalization with traffic from the Amended Redevelopment Plan. No new intersections would warrant signalization solely due to traffic from the Amended Plan. Of the four intersections warranting signalization with the Adopted Plan, only three would have volume levels increased by more than 1 percent 3/14/00 CTG Page 25 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR due to traffic activity associated with the Amended Redevelopment Plan. V olumes at the , Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be increased by 2.5% during the AM peak hour and 2.70/0 during the PM peak hour. The project's significant impact at this intersection has already been identified in Impact 1. IMP ACT 5 . Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BAR T Access AM peak hour volumes would be increased by 8.4% and PM peak hour volumes would be" increased by 17.5% at a location with volumes already exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. IMP ACT 6 . Mission Road/Grand Avenue AM peak hour volumes would be increased by 7.6% and PM peak hour volumes would be increased by 11. 7% at a location with volumes already exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. The Amended Plan development would slightly reduce AM peak hour volumes at the Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp intersection, thereby not producing a significant impact in regards to signalization needs at this location. 4. Amended Plan Impacts to Freeway Operation During the PM peak traffic hour the Amended Plan development would produce only minor increases in traffic levels approaching South San Francisco on the 1-280 freeway from either direction compared to the Adopted Redevelopment Plan; about 1 0 new vehicles per hour (VPH) southbound approaching the Hickey Boulevard Off- Ramp and about 30 new VPH northboUnd approaching the Avalon Drive-Junipero Serra Off-Ramp. V olume increases due to the Amended Plan would be slightly greater traveling away from South San Francisco on 1-280; about 35 new VPH traveling northbound north of the Hickey Boulevard interchange and about 25 new VPH traveling southbound south of the Avalon Drive interchange. In the peak direction of traffic on 1-280 (northbound) operation would remain LOS D. Since the minimum acceptable operation for 1-280 in South San Francisco is LOS D, the impact would be considered less than significant based upon the significance criteria utilized for this EIR. Likewise, along 1-380 peak direction, PM peak hour LOS E operation would remain with the addition of Amended Redevelopment Plan traffic. Since the minimum acceptable operation for 1-380 is LOS F, the impact would be less than significant 5. Amended Plan Impacts to Pedestrians and Bicycle Riders Amended Redevelopment Plan AM peak hour traffic volumes would not be measurably higher than those due to the Adopted Redevelopment Plan at locations experiencing high pedestrian crossing movements in the vicinity of South San Francisco High SchooL Near EI Camino High School, the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection could expect about a 6 percent increase in traffic (or about 115 vehicles) entering the intersection 3/14/00 CTG Page 26iSouth San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR during the morning peak traffic hour .due to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. In comparison to existing AM peak hour traffic entering this intersection (1 ,315 VPH), the Adopted Plan will produce a 4 percent increase in traffic (up to 1,3 74 VPH) while the Amended Plan will produce a 13 percent increase in entering traffic (up to 1,490 VPH). Overall, volume increases near EI Camino High School are well within the capacity of the local roadway network. Existing and Adopted Redevelopment Plan safety concerns for midblock pedestrian crossings near the high school would remain with the Amended Plan. However, even though volumes would increase with the Amended Plan, these increases would not be considered a significant safety impact that would require mitigation measures beyond those listed for the Adopted Redevelopment Plan. V olwnes along most major streets in the study area would increase slightly with the Amended Redevelopment Plan as compared.to Adopted Redevelopment Plan. However, increases would not be considered to produce an additional significant safety impact for bicyclists beyond that associated with Adopted Plan traffic levels. 6. Amended Plan Operational and Safety Impacts Amended Plan traffic levels would not produce any significant increase in safety concerns as compared to that identified for the Adopted Redevelopment Plan (i.e. concerns regarding too many driveways being provided to serve new developments, the lack of right turn deceleration areas along EI Camino Real on the approaches to new major driveways and potential speeding along Evergreen Drive). 7. Amended Plan Parking Impacts Assuming that code parking is provided for all project residential, office and commercial developments, it is not expected that project vehicles will produce a significant parking impact. The potential for BART overflow parking on local streets should be the same with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan or the Amended Redevelopment Plan. . III. MITIGATIONS A. INTERSECTIONS AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 1 Chestnut Avenue/Commercial A venue~Significant impact to AM and PM peak hour operation (see Tables 7 A and 7B). . Provide a fair share contribution towards the following improvements. . Signalize intersection. . Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. 3/14/00 CTG Page 27 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR · Provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. · Provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay = 21.2 Seconds Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay == 19.6 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 3/14/00 eTa Page 28 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 2 Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard-Significant impact to PM peak hour operation (see Table 7B). . Provide a fair share contribution towards the following improvements. . Restripe the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. . Widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane. . Change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turns. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 38.1 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 3 EI Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue-Significant impact to PM peak hour operation (see Table 7B). There are no feasible improvements (beyond those being planned by the City) within the existing curb-to-curb widths on all 4 intersection approaches which could provide acceptable PM peak hour operation. However, two alternative measures that would either require right-of-way-acquisition or construction of a new street would provide acceptable operation. . Widen the southbound EI Camino Real intersection approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. This would potentially require right-of-way purchase along the west side of El Camino Real near the intersection. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 37.1 Seconds . Provide the Oak Avenue Extension between the EI Camino RealI Arroyo Drive and the Mission Road/Oak Avenue intersections. This measure would divert enough traffic away from the El Camino Real/Chestnut A venue/W estborough Boulevard intersection to provide acceptable PM peak hour operation with Amended plan volumes. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 38.9 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 3/14/00 CTG Page 29 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 4 Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard-Significant impact to AM and PM peak hour operation (see Tables 7A and 7B). . Provide same mitigations recommended at this location for the Adopted Plan (i.e. provide a m.edian along Hillside Boulevard to restrict movements to right turns in and out of Evergreen Drive or to allow left turns into Evergreen Drive in combination with right turns in and out). AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 5 Mission RoadlEvergreen Drive/BAR T Access-Significant impact to signalization needs. . Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contributio~ towards signalization of this intersection, if determined to be needed by the City Engineer. The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 6 Mission Road/Grand Avenue-Significant impact to signalization needs. . Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contribution towards signalization of this intersection, if determined to be .needed by the City Engineer. The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. IV. CIRCULATION IMPACTS DUE TO AN OAK AVENUE EXTENSION Projections have been developed for 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan PM peak hour traffic conditions of the likely traffic diversion resulting with the extension .of Oak Avenue between EI Camino Real and Mission Road. Based upon parameters set by the City Engineer, the new segment of Oak Avenue would extend easterly from EI Camino Real as the fourth leg of the EI Camino RealI Arroyo Drive intersection and would connect to the existing Mission Road/Oak Avenue Tee intersection. In conjunction with the n~w extension, the' existing segment of Oak Avenue between Mission Road and Grand Avenue would be improved as a two-lane collector street. The Oak AvenueIMission Road intersection would initially be all-way-stop controlled. Antoinette Lane would not connect to the new Oak Avenue extension. Figure 12 shows that the proposed extension would likely result in a diversion of about 635 vehicles away from Chestnut Avenue (between EI Camino Real and Mission Road) during the PM commute peak traffic hour. This would result in significant commute period operational improvements to the Chestnut Avenue intersections with Antoinette Lane and Mission Road and a more moderate improvement to the EI Camino Real/W estborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. However, resultant PM peak hour operation at EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue would change from an 3/14/00 CTG Page 30 South san Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D, thereby eliminating a significant impact due to Amended Redevelopment Plan traffic. The El Camino RealI Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue intersection would maintain acceptable operation with the completed extension. v. CIRCULATION IMPACTS DUE TO A COMBINED OAK AVENUE EXTENSION AND AN ANTOINETTE LANE EXTENSION Projections have also been developed for 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan PM peak hour conditions of the likely traffic diversions due to. both an Oak Avenue extension (as detailed above in Section IV) in combination with the southerly extension of Antoinette Lane along the BART right-of-way from El Camino Real to south of South Spruce Avenue. Antoinette Lane would not connect to Oak Avenue for this evaluation. The Antoinette-Lane/Orange Avenue intersection would be all-way-stop controlled and the Antoinette Lane/South Spruce Avenue intersection would be signal controlled. The exact termination point of Antoinette Lane south of South Spruce Avenue would be near the new Tanforan BART station, although specific detail regarding roadway connections in this area still need to be worked out with the City of San Bruno. Figure 13 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour an Antoinette Lane extension could expect to divert about 400 two-way trips from EI Camino Real between South Spruce Avenue and Orange Avenue and about 485 two-ways trips from El Camino Real between Orange Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. PM peak hour traffic along Chestnut Avenue between EI Camino Real and Commercial Avenue would decrease an additional 40 to 50 vehicles with both the Antoinette Lane and Oak Avenue extensions in operation as opposed to just the Oak Avenue extension. This would result in slightly better commute period operating conditions at the Chestnut Avenue intersections with EI Camino Real, Antoinette ~ane and Mission Road than would be experienced with just an Oak Avenue extension. Based upon projected volumes, both the Oak Avenue extension and the Antoinette Lane extension would only require two travel lanes, with turn lanes provided on intersection approaches. 3/14/00 CTG Page 31 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR D. AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 IMPACTS COMPARED TO THOSE PROJECTED IN THE 1993 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN This section presents the expected impacts to the local transportation system due to development of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. All impacts are presented in relation to 2010 traffic conditions for the Redevelopment Plan proposed in the 1993 El Camino Corridor program. 1. Amended Plan Intersection Impacts The Amended Plan would produce significant year 2010 level of service impacts at 5 intersections in relation to those proj ected in the 1993 Redevelopment Plan analysis. IMPACT 1 . Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue AM. peak hour operation would be LOS E while PM peak hour operation would be LOS F. While this intersection was not evaluated in the 1993 study, AM and PM peak hour 2010 projected volumes at adjacent intersections are 40 to 60 percent higher with the Amended plan in comparison to 2010 projections from the 1993 study. It is therefore likely this intersection, if evaluated in 1993, would not have been projected to experience unacceptable operation. This would be a significant impact. IMP ACT 2 . Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard PM peak hour operation would change from LOS E to LOS F. This would be a significant impact. IMP ACT 3 · EI Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut.Avenue PM peak hour operation would change from LOS F to LOS E which, while better, would still be an unacceptable level of service. This would be a significant impact. IMPACT 4 . Evergreen DriveIHillside Boulevard AM and PM peak hour operation of the stop sign controlled Evergreen Drive approach would change from LOS D or E to LOS F. This would be a significant impact. INSER T 3/15/00 CTG Page 1 South san Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR IMP ACT 5 . Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp AM peak hour operation for the westbound left turn to the on-ramp would change from LOS E to LOS F. This would be a significant impact. 2. Amended Plan Impacts to Intersection Signalization Requirements Three unsignalized intersections warranting signalization by 2010 with the Amended Redevelopment Plan also warranted or were on the border of warranting signalization with traffic from the 1993 Redevelopment Plan. One" intersection warranting signalization due to traffic from the Amended Plan was not analyzed for the 1993 Redevelopment Plan (Chestnut Avenue/ Commercial Avenue). However, 2010 volumes projected near this location in the Amended Plan are 40 to 60 percent higher than those in the 1993 Redevelopment Plan and this location would likely not have warranted signalization if evaluated in the 1993 plan" Of the three intersections warranting signalization with the 1993 Plan, all would have volume levels increased by more than 1 percent due to traffic activity associated with the Amended Redevelopment Plan. IMP ACT 6 . Mission RoadlEvergreen Drive/BART Access AM and PM peak hour volumes would be increased by more than 1 % at a location with volumes already projected to exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. IMPACT 7 . Mission Road/Grand Avenue AM and PM peak hour volumes would be increased by more than 1 % at a location with volumes already projected to exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. Significant impacts have already been identified at the Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On - Ramp and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersections. 3. Amended Plan Impacts to Freeway Operation Projected 2010 levels of service for 1-280 and 1-380 with Amended Plan volumes are better than those projected in the 1993 evaluation (LOS D vs. LOS E for 1-280 and LOS E vs. LOS F for 1-380). 4. Amended Plan Impacts to Pedestrians and Bicycle Riders No "analysis was conducted near South San Francisco High School in the 1993 analysis. Near EI Camino High School, the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection could expect about a 14 percent increase in traffic (or about 185 vehicles) entering the INSERT 3/15/00 eTG Page 2 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR intersection during the morning peak traffic hour due to the Amended Redevelopment Plan versus the 1993 Redevelopment Plan. Overall, volume increases near EI Camino High School are well within the capacity of the local roadway network. Existing and 1993 Redevelopment Plan safety concerns. for midblock pedestrian crossings near the high school would remain with the Amended Plan. However, even though volumes would increase with the Amended Plan, these increases would not be considered a significant safety impact that would require mitigation measures beyond those listed for the 1993 Redevelopment Plan. Volumes along all major streets in the study area would increase with the Amended Redevelopment Plan as compared to 1993 Redevelopment Plan. However, increases would not be considered to produce an additional significant safety impact for bicyclists beyond that associated with 1993 Plan traffic levels. ' 5. Amended Plan Operational and Safety Impacts Amended Plan traffic levels would not produce any significant increase in safety concerns as compared to those identified for the 1993 Redevelopment Plan (Le. concerns regarding too many driveways being provided to serve new developments, the lack of right turn deceleration areas along EI Camino Real on the approaches to new maj or driveways and potential speeding along Evergreen Drive). 6. Amended Plan Parking Impacts Assuming that code parking is provided for all project residential, office and commercial developments, it is not expected that project vehicles will produce a significant parking impact with the Amended Redevelopment Plan. The same projection was made in the 1993 Redevelopment Plan. The potential for BART overflow parking on local streets would be the same with the 1993 Redevelopment Plan or the Amended Redevelopment Plan. E. MITIGATIONS-AMENDED PLAN VERSUS 1993 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Intersections AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 1 Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue-Significant impact to AM and PM peak hour operation. . Provide a fair share contribution towards the following improvements. . Signalize intersection. . Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. INSER T 3/15/00 CTG Page 3 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR . Provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. . Provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-so.uth. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay = 21.2 Seconds Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS C-A verage Delay = 19.6 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 2 Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard-Significant impact to PM peak hour operation. . Provide a fair share contribution towards the following improvements. . Restripe the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lan~ and a shared through/right turn lane~ . Widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane. . Change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turns. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS .D-A verage Delay = 38.1 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 3 El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue-Significant impact to PM peak hour operation. ' There are no feasible improvements (beyond those being planned by the City) within the existing curb-to-curb widths on a114 intersection approaches which could provide acceptable PM peak hour operation. However, two alternative measures that would either require right-of-way acquisition or construction of a new street would provide acceptable operation. . Widen the southbound El Camino Real intersection approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. This would potentially require right-of-way purchase along the west side of El Camino Real near the intersection. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-A verage Delay = 37.1 Seconds . Provide the Oak Avenue Extension between the EI Camino RealI Arroyo Drive and the Mission Road/Oak Avenue intersections. This measure would divert enough traffic away from the EI Camino Real/Chestnut A venue/W estborough Boulevard INSERT 3/15/00 CTG Page 4 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR intersection to provide acceptable PM peak hour operation with Amended plan volumes. Resultant PM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-Average Delay = 38.9 Seconds The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 4 Evergreen DriveIHillside Boulevard-Significant impact to AM and PM peak hour operation. · Provide a median along Hillside Boulevard to restrict movements to right turns in and out of Evergreen Drive or to allow left turns into Evergreen Drive in combination with right turns in and out). AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 5 Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp-Significant impact to AM peak hour operation. · Signalize Intersection Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS B-A verage Delay = 1 0.6 Seconds · Alternatively, all-way stop control or stop sign control of all eastbourid traffic + westbound left turns could be considered. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: LOS D-A verage Delay = 27 Seconds for stop sign controlled movements AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 6 Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BAR T Access-Significant impact to signalization needs. · Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contribution t~wards signalization of this intersection, if determined to be needed by the City Engineer. The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. AMENDED PLAN MITIGATION 7 Mission Road/Grand A venue---Significant impact to signalization needs. · Monitor operation of this intersection and provide a fair share contribution towards signalization of this intersection, if determined to be needed by the City Engineer. The project impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. INSERT 3/15/00 CTG. Page 5 South San Francisco Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Tables Table lA (page 1 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 EXISTING ADOPTED AMENDED INTERSECTION CONTROL EXISTING PLAN PLAN EXISTING Hickey BlvdlI-280 S.B. 280 Ramp Signal B-1 1.7(1) B-13.4 C-15.2 Hickey BlvdlImperiaVI..280 N.B" Ramps Signal C-18.9(1) C-21.4 C~22.5 Hickey BlvdlJunipero Serra Blvd Signal C-19.9(1) D-30.2 D-38.7 El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd Signal C-18.0(1) C..23.8 D~37.8 El Camino ReallKaiser Signal B-5.8(1) B-6.1 B-6.2 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr. Signal B-10..5(1) B-1 O~9 B--l1.0 El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd/ Signal D..26..5(1) D..28~8 D..29.8 Chestnut A ve EI Camino Real/Orange A ve Signal C-18.7(1) C..19.5 C~ 19 . 9 El Camino ReaVSouth Spruce A ve Signal C..18..3(1) C~20.4 C-20.5 Westborough Blvd/I-280 S..B. Ramps Signal B-5.3(1) B~6.2 B-6.4 Westborough BlvdJI-280 N.B. Ramps/ Signal C-24..6(l) D-30.9 D-32.4 Junipero Serra Blvd Chestnut A vel Antoinette Lane Signal B-9.2(1) B-IO.3 B-9 . 7 Chestnut A veIMission Rd Signal B-9.9(1) B~l 0."1 B~ 1 0.2 Chestnut A ve/Grand A ve Signal E-44.4(1) C..IS.O C-18.9 Chestnut A velHillside Blvd Signal B-3.3 (1) C..23.6 C- 23 . 7 Avalon Dr/I-280 .N"B. Off-Rampl Junipero Signal 8-14.0(1) C..16.1 C..16.0 Serra Blvd South Spruce A ve/Huntington A ve Si~nal B-7.4(1) B.a 1 O~3 B..I0.3 Grand A ve/Orange Ave Signal C-16.7 D-26~7 C-24.9 Avalon Dr/I-280 S.B. On-Ramp W.B. Avalon left F -125.5(2) F-220.2* F--218.6* turn yield EI Camino Real/Mission Rd S.B. EI Camino F-136.S(3) B-8.7(1) B-8.7(1) left turn stop sign contro lied Orange A veIMemorial Ave Memorial stop sign B-7.7(4) B-8~O B-8.1 controlled INTERSECTION EXISTING (cont). Evergreen Dr/Hillside Blvd Chestnut Ave/Commercial Ave . Mission RdlEverg;reen Dr Mission Rd/Grand Ave . Orange A veIMyrtle Ave Grand A ve/Willow Ave FUTURE Hickey Extension/EI Camino Real Hickey ExtensionIMission Rd Hickey ExtensionIHillside Blvd El Camino Real/BART Access Rd#l Mission Rd/BAR T Access Rd #1 Table lA (page 2 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR EXISTING CONTROL YEAR 2010 ADOPTED AMENDED PLAN PLAN EXISTING Evergreen stop sign controlled F-162(5) F -489* F -535* ~lI-way stop D-26.4(6) E-37.7 E..42.4 All-way stop C-19.S(6) 0..25.7 D..29.5 All-way stop C-15.5(6) C..19.2 D--24.1 All-way stop B-8.7(6) B-9.2 8..9.4 All-way stop C-19.2(6) D~20.5 D~27.2 FUTURE CONTROL Signal B-1 1.3(1) B..12.7 Signal C-15.9{l) C~ 16.9 Signal B-13.9(1) B--13.9 Signal A-2.S(1) A~2.8 All..way stop C-13.S(6) C-18.5 (1) Signalized level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds). (2) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds); westbound A valan left turn. (3) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds)t southbound El Camino Real left turn. (4) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), southbound Memorial Ave approach. (5) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), eastbound Evergreen Ave left turn. (6) All-way stop controlled intersection-average vehicle delay (in seconds). * Analysis software produces unrealistic results above 3 minutes (180 seconds). Findings presented only to give idea of whether Amended Plan impact is greater or less than Adopted Plan impact. Source: Crane Transportation Group Table IB (page 1 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 EXISTING ADOPTED AMENDED INTERSECTION CONTROL EXISTING PLAN PLAN EXISTING Hickey BlvdlI-280 S.B. Off-Ramp Signal B-14.6(1) C~ 15 .8 C-16.0 Hickey Blvd/I-280 Imperial/N.B.. Ramps Signal C-21.S(1) 0..25.9 D..27~8 Hickey BlvdlJunipero Serra Blvd Signal C-20.S(l) F ..64.9 F..98.S EI Camino Real/Hickey Blvd Signal C-15.9(1) C-19.6 D..29 ~2 EI Camino Real/Kaiser Signal B-7.6(1) B-8.1 B~8.1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr. Signal B-6.2(1) B.. 7.4 B~ 7 . 9 El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd/ Signal D-30.5(l) D~34~8 . E~42.8 Chestnut A ve EI Camino Real/Orange A ve Signal C-18.8(1) C~ 23.1 C-24.9 EI Camino Real/South Spruce Ave Signal C-22.4(1) 0..25.9 D..26.4 Westboroush Blvd/I~~80 S.B. Ramps Signal B-8.9(1) B-9.8 B-9.8 Westborough BlvdlI-280 N..B. Ramps/ Signal C-21.3(1) D~25.7 D~26.3 Junipero Serra Blvd Chestnut A vel Antoinette Lane Signal B-13.3(1) C-15~O B-14.6 Chestnut A ve/Mission Rd Signal B-6.9{l) B..l 0 ~ 1 B..IO.8 Chestnut Ave/Grand A ve Signal C-24.0(I) C~19.3 C-20~7 Chestnut A ve/Hillside Blvd Signal B-6.1 (1) B~ 7 .4 B.. 7.5 Avalon Dr/I-280 N.B. Off-Ramp/ JuniperQ Signal B-14..1 (I) B~ 15 .0 B-15 .0 Serra Blvd South Spruce A ve/Huntin~on Ave Signal B-8.9(1) B--I0.9 B~ 1 0.9 Grand Ave/Orange Ave Signal B-8.0(1) C-16.7 C-16.7 Avalon Drll-280 S.B. On-Ramp W.B. Avalon left A-4.6(2) A..5.0 B..5.0 turn yield EI Camino Real/Miss~on Rd S.B. El Camino left F--IOl.l(3) C-12.3(1) C-12.7(1) turn stop sign controlled Orange A velMemorial A ve Memorial stop sign B-7.8(4) B..8 .6 B..8~ 7 controlled Table IB (page 2 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 EXISTING ADOPTED AMENDED INTERSECTION CONTROL EXISTING PLAN PLAN EXISTING (cont.) Evergreen Dr/Hillside Blvd Evergreen stop sign F -61.3(5) F..lS08* F..2090* controlled Chestnut A ve/Commercial A ve Alt...way stop E~38.0(6) F-lll.2 F-119.1 Mission RdlEvergreen Dr All-way stop B-8..6(6) C..l1.2 C-16.4 Mission Rd/Grand A ve All-way stop B-7.7(6) C-13.6 C..18.6 Orange AvelMyrtle Ave All-way stop B-7.8(6) B-9.1 B~9.5 Grand A velWillow A ve All-way stop C-15.3(6) D-21.5 D..20.7 FUTURE FUTURE CONTROL Hickey ExtensionlEl Camino Real Signal C...17.3(1) C..19.2 Hickey ExtensionIMission Rd Signal C-15.0(l) C..17.7 Hickey ExtensionIHillside Blvd Signal C-15.1 (1) C--I 7.1 El Camino Real/BART Access Rd #1 Signal B-5.S(1) B-5.5 Mission RdlBART Access Rd #1 All-way stop B-7.7(6) C..II ~ 1 (1) Signalized level of service-average vehicle delay ( in seconds). (2) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), westbound Avalon left turn. (3) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), southbound El Camino Real left turn. (4) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), southbound Memorial Ave approach. (5) Stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds), eastbound Evergreen Ave left turn. (6) All-way stop controlled intersection-average vehicle delay (in seconds). * Analysis software produces unrealistic results above 3 minutes ( 180 seconds). Findings presented only to give idea of whether Amended Plan impact is greater or less than Adopted Plan impact Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 2 SIGNALIZA nON NEEDS EXISTING, YEAR 2010 WITH EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YEAR 2010 WITH AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN '(Intersections with AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Meeting or Exceeding Caltrans Signal Warrant Criteria)(l) YEAR 201 0 YEAR 2010 SIGNAL NEED SIGNAL Nt:ED EXISTING \\'ITI'I WITH SIGNAL EX I.STIXG Al\'1ENDED UNS1GNA LIZED INTERSECTION NEED Pl..A N P I..A N Avalon Drll-280 Southbound On-Ramp Yes Yes Yes El Camino Real/Mission Rd (Calma) Yes (2) (2) Mission RdlEvergreen Dr Yes Yes Yes Mission Rei/Grand Ave Yes Yes Yes Evergreen DrlHillside Blvd (Colma) No No No Chestnut Ave/Commercial Ave Yes Yes Yes Orange A ve!Memorial Ave No No No Orange AveIMyrtle Ave No No No Grand AveIWillow Ave No No No BART Access Rd #l/Mission Rd NA(3) , No No (Year 2010.0nly) (1) (2) (3) Caltrans Warrant # 11. Assumed signalized by 20 1 O. NA = Not Applicable. . Source." Crane Transportation Group ROUTE ST 32 ST34 ST 122 ST 130 ST 131 ST 133 ST 193 ST 390 ST 391 Source: SamTrans Table 3 EXISTING SAMTRANS BUS ROUTES SERVING THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESCRIPTION Service between Airport BoulevardILinden Avenue and Arroyo Drive/EI Camino ReaL Local service including East and West Orange Avenue, EI Camino Real and Mission Road.. Service between Tanforan Shopping Center (San Bruno) and Geneva/Carter (San Francisco). Local servicing including South Spruce Avenue and Huntington Avenue. Service between Stonestown Shopping Center (SF) and Burl Buri Shopping Center (South San Francisco). Local service along EI Camino Real, Arroyo Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard, and direct connection to the Colma BART station and the Stonestown, Westlake, Buri Burl, Serramonte and Westborough shopping centers~ Service between Airport BoulevardlLinden Avenue and Daly City BART. Local service along Hillside Boulevard, Evergreen Drive, Mission Road and Grand Avenue including direct connection to the Colma and Daly City BART stations. Service between BART and Tanforan, Hazelwood Avenue. Local service along Hillside Boulevard, Huntington Avenue, Evergreen Drive and Old Mission Road including direct connection to the Colma BART station and Serramonte and Tanforan shopping centers. Service between Colma BART and Tanforan Shopping Center. Local service along Spruce A venue/Hazelwood Avenue,. Huntington Avenue, Ponderosa, West Orange Avenue, Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard, including direct connection to the Colma BART station and the Serramonte and Tanforan shopping centers. Service between SFO and Stonestown Shopping Center. Local service along EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard, with direct connections to San Francisco International Airport, Daly City BAR~ and San Francisco Stat~ University. Local service along El Camino Real.and direct connections to some BART and CalTrain facilities from as far north as Daly City BART to as far south as Palo Alto CalTrain. Local service along EI Camino Real and direct connections to some BART and CalTrain facilities from as far north as the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco to as far south as Palo Alto CalTrain. - Table 2 SIGNALIZATION NEEDS EXISTING, YEAR 2010 WITH ADOPTED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YEAR 2010 WITH AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (Intersections with AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Meeting or Exceeding Caltrans Signal Warrant Criteria)(l) Table 4 FREEWAY VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE 1..280 (North of Hickey Blvd) 1..280 (Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd) I~280 (South of Avalon Dr) 1..380 (1-280 to El Camino Real) * 1-280, October 1999 1-380, 1998 PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING * NB SB 8;090 6;930 E (F) D (e) 8,510 6,810 . E (F) D (e) 9,750 6,005 E (F) D (C) WB EB 5,800 3,400 C (F) C (A) 2010 WITH ADOPTED PLAN WITH AMENDED PLAN NB SB NB SB 6,750 7,140 6,785 7,150 o ODD 7,065 6,930 7,095 6,955 D D D ' D 8,295 D WB 8,950 E 6, 780 D ED 3,670 C 8,325 D WB 8,965 E 6,805 D EB 3,675 C Level of Service Determination Methodology: Travel Speeds ()-1994 Highway Capacity Manual,. Theoretical analysis using # of lanes and volumes-1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Source: Existing Volumes-Caltrans; 2010 Adopted Plan-Hexagon Transportation Consultants (e/CAG approved traffic modeling projections); 2010 Amended Plan-Crane Transportation Group. Addition ofproject volume increment to C/CAG modeling projection base. All volumes rounded up to the nearest 5. ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ 11) _ G.l .. ,.Q = E-4 ~ 00< ~- ~~ uZ ~~ <E-4 ~o z~ <~ ~~ ~O E-4~ z= z~~ o~= ~~z E-cO< <~~ ~~~ ~>~ z~~ ~Q~ ~~~ ~~o ;0= ~Q< ~~ OZ u~ o~ ZZ ~~ ~~ <0 u~ ~> ~~ Q a. = " = ~ = ell ~ ~ ~ 1.. = o = ~ c:a ~ ~ :a < ~ -; Q I- o 00= .: s cb = ~ r::: N ~ ~ 0- 00 ~ = Gtl QI ~ N U OO~ ~ I;I:J ;:J ~. Z fU E = Z ~ ~ .... = o ~ = * =' ~ ~ = ~ ~ ... ~ * ~ ~ ..w = o ~ ~ : ~ ~. c ~ G.l .... * ~ * ~ o ~ > ~ ~ CUi .... = * ~ ~ ~ ~bOC ::s c.. 0 ~ o e ..;= o ::s ~ M ~~"t;~ V \0 ,....... ~ ~ 10 ......-f o tr) ,...., N t' ;0 ..- \l) \.C ...... ~ ~ ~ o r--.. <"! o ,........ 00 r--.. C'! N r--.. \0 q o l'- 00 Q-\ ~ ::I -0 ~ ~ OOt:a 00 ..- o .0 M ~ 0\ ['. ~ 0\ ['... ~ o ........ ~ o ....... ~ ,-......, a> OJ :$ c -a ]:g ~ e Q) .'S C.,g ~ ~ Q,) ,......, U 0,) (l) Q) s::::: ~ "'0 ~ CI} (.) ~ ~::> ~ aJ .;; 0. g- to "- ~.- ;;;-- .c >< ~$ ~O ~~~~U ~ o B en o U VJ ~~ u ~ ~ N o ~ ~ ~ M r:: ~ ~ (1') CO ~ ti') &; 10 ......... t1l ,....." ~ ~0\00 ....... co ~ tn 00 00 M ~ ....... ........... ~ N ff1 "......, r;- ~ '"0 ,..... M ~ o N ,......, t- ::!: ~ N ,... ~ r--... ~ ........... ........... r;, ....... C ~ ~ ~ C)t) ~~ ~ N QO ~ 00 V) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V) \C~ c ~ ; ~ ct! d- r:.T ::s en tI) ~ o 0 ~ o 0 ~ o 0 ~ M~ ........ ,.....,. o ~ iii r---. d € OJ Q. 8 ~ o f1) ~ :I U ~ ]~ Qi ~ ~ 5 CJ E ~ 0 ~ ~ (; Vl 0 N ~ c:: .9 S 00 ~ <( ~ ..n ~ M 00 0\ ~ ~ o 0\ .....-t ............. ~ co ~ ,.,...." N 00 ........ ,-..., 10 ~ f1 ~ ~ ~ ~ rrl ~ ~ N ~ 0, N ~ ......... ~ \0 \0 r--.. ~ \0 .q- 00 ,-.... '0 an ...... ~. ,-..... ~ ~ Vi a: ::I '-0 o V') ~ & UJ o o o o I.r) ~ Of) c: c:: Cl) ~ · Ci II.- '\J ~ c... ~ -u; s:l. 0 c ~$~a I. = o = ..:c = QI ~ ~ ~ ~ M a-l t)J) ~ c. ~ In ~ ~ ..c ~ ~ oo~ ~..... ~E-4 uZ ~~ :: ~ 5 z ~ 0 -< ~ == ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q ~ z =3 < ~~~ ....-l~~ ~S:s ~~~ ~;;.~ Z~~ ~Q~ ~~~O ~ ~ =:: = ~O~ E-4~~ ~S 8.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 00 U~ ~ > ~ 'U' ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ I. o ~ bIJ ::I :S~ -as .:l ~ tt .c ~ -c. = fIJ G.l rIj ~ ~ z Gl e =: Z -0 \0 > ~ ...w :s o ~o = 0\ == ....... Q Q-\ > Vl = ~ ~ G.) .".. ~ ~ '0 ...... > '-0 ...... = o ~ - ..... M co N ~ C'f1 ~ ~. = ~ ~ '\0 ca r-- ~ ~ Q > ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl 0: \0 q ...... ::s --0 00 00 ....... ~ '-n 0\ ~ 00 ~ \0 ~ an (/) ....." .2 ::s ~ o N ('fj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ......-I. 6: ~ o C'J 00 ........ ,...." c QC ....... 00 ,.... o 00 C'! ~ M 00 Vl r-..... ~ ~ V) t' N ~ ~ N ~ \0 ff1 c \0 ~ \0 ~ N \0 ~ ~ v 00 f" r--. 0\ ~ \0 00 N ,......, f'.. ~ N M ~ t' ~ c r-..... ~ f" ff1 ri1 t'- ~ t11 \0 ~ V) ,..... M ("f) ~ t;.. ['-. ~ In ......., =.. 'I) 00 C! ['-. ~ < Z 00 00 r--... ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ v 0\ N.... \0 N ~ G' '< Z \0 00 1.0 \0 V V 5" ~ ~ ~ M ~ \C ~ ~ an ~ ,........ 1.() \C ::s ~ to N lr) d \0 QO V) ~ \0 \0 ~ ...c 'I) ::s ~ \0 ~ ~ = "1J ~ N N ~ f'. r---: N ....... ... > CI) o Q. ~ ~ ]!.-.~ ]!,-.ta~< t: = 1:: ~ Go) -= ~ "-S en C1) :gi ~~ -8] ~ B~~~.g ~ "U _ .;; Q.. .;; 0 e s::: ";; S .;; S e ~S~:$~~~O~S~~~ CI} ~ ::s ~ 0 o Q) ~ .a ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 5 c: ~ ::s t.... \t~ . ~ 0 GJ =t :.a {/) c.. ~ C ~ ~ 0 QQ) .....-4 G) l -- ~ ~ ,....-4 U ~ o o .c~ -= 11-1 :s a... o tU ~ t= N QJ ...... U 4) ~ c cu > < ~ q r'f1 ~ VI ~ co ...... o C'! o ...... 0'\ ,...... \0 f"1 N ~ o ~ ~ ~ r---- ~ rr) ~ N ~ r--... ~ 00 ~ ~ \0 ....... N ~ N \0 CO tn M ~ \0 ::s '1:1 00 N :J ~ ~ ~ tn "1 N \.0 ~ ~ ca ~ -a ...::: ~ ....., ~ .';:: c tI) t:: en c: a.> 0 Q) 0 OJ~ ~~ ~'\:S ~ tI} .;; s:: .~ p ";; ~ Q) 0 cu 0 d) Q. er::~Q:::8~$ rJ) ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ QJ ~ U ::J · ;: ~ c. <l) C en ..c ~ OQ) ~ Q z~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~o ;o~ E-4Q~ ~~ OZ u~ OC ZZ ~~ ~~ <0 u~ ~> ~~ Q d o .~ 1n o o ~ .0 e ~ a 00 ..c ~ o rJ'J ~ o Cl) o B en :.a OJ) 1:= ~ "c; ~ ~ en m: G.) c :.c ........ .~ c Q) e ~ o OJ > tL> 'T t < ~ o ....... ~ ::I -0 c .9 ......, u =' ~ (1) ~ c o "j ~ GJi C aJ o Q.. .C ~ ~ ::J o :E: 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ 'T ~ ~ ~ 0 ...... ~ ~ o ~ 6 Z5E=:~ ~ U an ~ ~ N ~ ~ o Q ~ ~ "$. < ~ o ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~U~ ~ e: ~ ~ 0 ~ o Q ::c ~ < 6 ~ ~ ~ 'T<~'#. ~~~V1 ~ a ~ ~ o u ~ '#- :( an Q ~ 5 < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u V) ~tt:~ =>00 o :c ~ S ~~E:~ J<uV") :$~~N ~ ,...... z 0 ~ Q ~ Cf) ~ :3 ~ ~ ~ r---: ~ 0\ ......... 0; N ~ ::E c:i: :; e o = o "~ o c.. tI] a ~ ~ GJ C ca s.... U ;>.. J:J (l) ..... 'i:i5 ~ rJ'J .... ~ z c ~ ~ ~ (.) :E ;: o ~ a Q.. ~ E o ,.J ~ ........ :( ~ t/) c .g en .S: :e ..0 ::3 r.rJ OJ) C -en ::s -ct o ::3 ::c 0 ea .... -s (j -=--=-~ .s 6 5 .5 ] "i ~~~.gi ("'r1 to · - c (t.:I ~~~8~ ~~~ ~~ \0 ~ 5 ~ a ~~e ~u ~~~eo~ ~ 'M~I Z"o 1.1') N I '"0 + + + S ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 :>< >< C . ,-.. .-. cell ~ ~t..GtU<5 == ~~Zoo ..J ..J ~ ~ M ~ .,... :e. t:, ~ 00 ~ 0'\ ,...... ;>. c o Q) ~ E E o (J 0.0 ::: .e o e Q.) ..c ~ 00 c ~ .~ O\~ 0\ ~ ,....... Q) .... NcE Q.) C ~ C'O ..= 2 ~ ~ ::E ~" -< i) 0 ~ ~ <1i :E ~ ~ ~ ~ e i ~ 8 8: I!:! gp .~ :g "s ~ Q. 0 S ~ ~ .~ 0 -s >. ~ gp <<3 0) .... I:: C. ~ < ~ .g 1:) g ai <<S 0 Q.. E --0 0 ~ ~ ] ~ .. 0 ~ < ~ e ~ ~ f-4 ~ E 8 4) ~ .5!a ;S .~ U C en a .- .- ~ e .9 a ~ E rn 0 tf.l of: B ~ ::s VJ b.O 000 cJ) U 0 o ~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ] Qi =c E-t ~ Q) =' >. 1.-.. o ""0 2 CfJ ::l tI'J d> t;; 11) ~ rn ..c ~:.a~ ~ ~ c "i: .5 ";';; r- -e ~ ..... Q) U g ] ~ :I: U Q) ~ .5 ..0 tU :s :9 ~ rti 5 :E .... ~ ~ .9-- CfJ -0 .b ~ a~.2' .b<c.. "; 0 E o Z <1) ...... CU .J;) E OJ > o Z * * * ~ ~ C s::: ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ .... 0\ 0\ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ...... ~ ~ ~ s: ~ ~ ~ ~ ;::::: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ;:: ~~ .-= ~ ~ 5 ;S~ 'C =: st .~ .9 13 ~l: ~ c s:: ~ ~ ::: ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , - ~U ;::s: ..... c~ ~~ 13~ ~~ .~ C ~l) ~ .-I ~ '=!) = c.. '--' \Q ~ :s = ~ ~ 00< ~jIIIIIl ~~ uZ ~~ <~ ~o z~ <E-- ~;. ~o ~~ z= z~~ o~~ ~~z E-tO< <~~ ~~~ ~;;-...~ zr.l~ ~QQ ~~z . ~ ~ =~~ E-tO< Q~ ~~ OZ U ~' 0'-' zz - l1-li ~~ <0 u~ ~~ ~~ Q I. = o = ~ =: ~ ~ ~ ~ a. = Q == ~ au ~ ~ :a <" b -; Q I. o ~ ~ ::I .$ ~ L= fIJ':= ~ ; ~ ~ Ci3 -c = "rIJ GJ ~ N U OO~ ~ fIJ ~ ~ G.I Z ~ E = Z -0 > ,... = o '" ~ : Q 0 > ~ = ~ CLl i :: -0 ~ > N .... = o ~ .... * ~ * '0 > C t-II G.l i : ~ >Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ...... = * ~ 0: 00 \0 V) \0 N <t: ~ & bO == ::3 UJ ~ 0 ~ o e .i 0 g:s .....0 ~ Q. VJ N 'Il:t ~ tq to ~ 00 ~ "M ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ,........ ~o ~ ~ Vita r-... 0 o ~ N o "...... ~ -.::t ~ ~ ~ N N c, ~ M ~ N CO ....... N ~ ~ & .VJ o o ~ ~ o u t:i o U ] bl) ~ 00 c e c c .g 'U;' · a ~ Cl) ..g ,-., · a al (1) -;; Q. 0. C E .- !Z p.. -= E CL>~~ 0 ~<-~uQ) ~ ~ en U 0 ~ '--' ~.i 0 o o ...... en o ~ tn ~~ ~ ~ N "...." '0 0\ ~ M \0 l(, ....... ~ tr) \0 M N ~ -.n ........ ........... ~ r-... ~ 00 N ~ ~ \0 tri ~ o 0 r--: ~ ,......" ~ o ~ ~ ["-... .......... ~ Q\~ ..... ~ N ()O ~ t- ".....,. e "....... ~~ ......... N ~ ~ N ........ t' r---. N ~ ~ .......... ~Vc ~ ~ ~ N \0 ,...... ~ ~ 00 ~ = ~ ~ '\o~ C'! ~ 00 V) ~ & VJ o o "l ~ f' ........ ~ ~ :::s o ~ o .....-4 ~ N ....... t- ......-c e (1) a. o '- ~ o <U c ::s U ~ r--.. ........ r--.... \0 ,...." ~ ~ ".-.... ~ ......... r----. ~ ~ r---- co ~ 00 00 ~ ~ V} t'- ! '0 N ~ 0\ ....... rr; ('r) M~ ~ ~ N Vl ......... co 1.0 -..:::t.. ......... ",-..... ~~ N ~ 00 oci d:! d- ;s VJ ~ o ~ o f' ~ ....... cC ........ 00 00 d M \0 0'-\ ~ ,....." ~ .......... r-... .....-I .......... ~ ~ 0\ r---- ......... .......... o r--- ~ ~ o ........ o ~ 00 t' ~ ,....,. ~ N o ....... f'. \0 ~ ~ ~ o {'. ....... 00 0\ ~ ::s -0 ~ M ~ CD :$ ~ ~ ...... ~ 0 ~ 5 c..c:O ~ .g ~ ~ .~ ~.~ ~ c ~___o:::___u C: cu ~-g Cii c .J aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N G.l CJ) ~ ~ '-' \.C ~ :c = E- ~ 00;:$ ~~ ~Z U~ ~~ :: 0 ~ ~ = ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ E-t ~ =- z =3 ~ Z~~ O~~ ~~Z E-O< ~~~ r-1>~ Z~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ;.~ ~ Q ~O< ~~ ~~ 8~ O~ zz ~ - ~~ u~ ~~ ~~ Q a. = e :c ~ ea ~ ~ ~ ~ a.. 0 ~ ~ = :a ~ "'-" ~ ~ ~ .:: it -a =- ti3 -0 = ~ Q.Ii ~ N u en '= ~ Q.l rIi ;;J ~ tU Z Q.l E cu Z .......... ~ Q-\ 10 ~ 0 r:--- ........ V} ....... ,.... M M N 1IW ::J 0 ~ It 0 '0 ~ to .... ~ f': ~ Q-\ ~ ~ ..-: ...... .......... ~ ~ N r:-. N 0 ~ ('fJ N N ....... ~ ~ N = ~ ,....... ->> 'in to ...... N ...... ".-... r; ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ \D ~ rrl \0 N an ~ ....... = 0 u M ~ \0 M .... ~ N M N ~ ~ ~. rf) ~ 00 ~ V) ~ In 0 00 ......... ...... = ~ ~ <<II ~ ~ 00 00 ...... ~ I:' e f' ~ q ~ ~ .......... Q v '0 \0 \0 ~ an ,........ > \0 00 0\ \0 Nr- t.r) M rr1 ~ ~ ~ ......... ..... ~ ~ ~ 00 M ~ N '0 ~ ~ '-q M ~ V) I.r) ~ c;; ::s r:r ~ c- .::s -c fI] CIJ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 V) lrl 00 ....... N~ ['. N~ ,........ N N ....... ~ c; ~ "0 N ~ ca ~ -0 lO ~ ~ ] .... 00 ~ r::: c c:: ..g ~ 00. to ~ ~ .Cii ~ c. 1: 0;; ~Q. ..a u Co 0 Q.) Cl.) lU ~::Sr;5u~::S~ c o oi ~ rJJ f-. ~ < t:q lr) en ::s o .2 o tf.) E ~ ~ :e ::Co ~ :t ~ ,-..-. tn M ~ !:i ........ \0 00 00 0 0 0 ~ ~ r\! ~ ~ V) r--.. ~ 0 N N M .......... \0 \0 N N N rt) ff1 ~ ~ ~ \0 00 ,.........,. ~ N N ~ M .......... t' l' M rf) M rt1 f"1 ~ ~ ~ .......... V) ......-I. \0 N ......... ['. t' cc oc 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 \.0 0 00 \.0 00 ~ QO r---.. 00 ~ ............ ~ ......... \0 \.0 ~ M M OC! 00 \0 \0 \C lr; 111 \Ci \Q \Ci :::s ~ t.n ...... ~ :s ~ ~ N N ....... t--.. ~ ::s ~ 00 N ::s -0 \0 r---. v: '-0 N '-n o ~ lr) ~ N ~ ~ C/) Q. ~ ]--~~< 5 5~ t:~~ "'0 ~ "'0 "'d ~ "'0 0 ov; a OUi C .;i C e ~ ::S ~ 8 .~ 8 ~ :$ ... c cu ~ ~ ~ Q,) <( rX~ ~ ...... s:: Q) ".-..... .-0 tI) -(ii ..... Q,) Q. o:::::S ~ Q) s... 0 ::J ~ 0 ~ ..'" ~ > . ~ 1:" = ..( ~ g ~ 7J ~a~cq .0 (1) N 0) rt) ....-4 0 ~ u .,....... ~ ~ ~ C\S q ~ .... ::t C ...... tI) (l) ....c: .::.:: ~ 8 -n a.. ,.....r U 1. = c == ~ ea ->> ~ ~ =- ~ ~ ~ t)Ll = ~ ~ \C ~ ~ = ~ ~ 00< ~E= uZ ~~ ~ b ~ z ~ ~ < E-t == ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i1 ~ Q ~ z =3 ~ z~;:J o~~ ~~z ~o< ~~~ ~>~ z~~ ~Q= ~~ ~ € ; ~ ~ = ~Q< ~~ OZ U~ o ~ ~ Z Z N ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ ~ ~ 'U' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I. Q ~ bJj = .5 ~ = Cf) c::! ~ ~ . "0 ::s i G.) fI} ~ ~ Z 41 E = Z ~ ~ ...wo = o .Q.) -; e == Q 0 > ~ = .... ell i € Q 0 > ~ ~ = o ~ ti ~ ~ '0 0 > ....... c ~ Q.) i € c; > Q.) ..... =- ~ <t-J a- U) o o ~ r-: o ~ ~ \0 C tU o ~ "i c. ~ V1 00 = QJ Q) .... ~ u: 0 \0 ,....... ~ \0 ....... ~ ~ C)C) ~ r--- N r---: \0 10 rf1 o ~ ~ 0- rJJ o o ~ 00 00 ~ c o OJ u It: .U; C1) ~ = rn ~ ::J c c..-. ~ 0 ~ o t'! ~ M ~ N ~ ;) ~ M ~ ,......... ~ ~ co ~ ~ If) ~ ffI') \0 \Ci :3 --0 ~ oc G) > o e r.fj Q) ~ p::: Q. '--1< ca ~ti cu 8 0 ~ "E.E .5 e :t t8 Q) 8 ~ e 0) ~ ru; .- CIl ~ U 0 ~ c "a ~ Q. U ~ ~ C1) ~1Ue ~it: ~~ ~~8 ~~~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ = Q.. ~ \.C r..l :E = ~ ~ oo:S ~E-l ~z u~ ~~ ~~ z~ <~ ~o ~Q E-t~ z- z~s O~I ~~~ ~s~ ~~~ ~>~ z~~ ~Q~ ~~~ ~~~ =0< ~Q~ ~~ OZ U~ o\-' ZZ -- -- ~=- <0 ud ~> ~~ ~ ~ S 25f=~ ~ u V1 ~ ~ ~ ::>00 o r:: ::c o ~ oi < ~ ti tJJ '" ... ~ ~'7~f-.';fl. ~~~Utrl .~ ::$ ~ ~ ::c: u 6 ~ ~ o tLl ~ ~ ~ 0 :.a () bIJ = ~ c; ~ ~ (/1 = Q) c: :c ....... .~ ~ ~ < ~ ~E-t~ ~ () VOl tn ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 0 ~ ~ :I: g ~ z -< -< 0 j:Q ~ ~ ...-.t ~oo B ~ ~ tl ~ g :$ ~ ; -0 ~ 0 02 ffi "0 0 .g en ~ ~ c o ai - .u s:: - ~ ~ 0 ...... tn < N Q ~. ~ ;#, :.;: an o ~ c o Q.) ~ E e o o bIJ c -2 '-- o ci: e 6: fU *- ..s o bO c c:: o .:- - 0\- .1U O\.a 1:: ~ Q$' & .. ~ NtB C ....... Q) e .. ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 r: ~ ~ u ~ < E :u 0 Q) >. 0 ~ ~ Q) 0\ ~ ::E l2 E ~ ~ t8 e (l) Q) 0 ~ a.,t:J 0 :3 8: o~ ~ ~ .~ :0 "s .5 ~ ~ g 1) ~ Q) I:i ~ ..0 oS cu U en 0';; ~ "~ ~ OJ) o "'is C1) 15 c 0.. ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ 0 c:: ~ y c U td a 0 0- S e"'O ~ o ~ tU ..&J ~ 0 e S E <( .s <: e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e tI) 8. Q) ~ 6 .~ ~ ~ "m g as .!a "S: e tIl c :.a ~ e .9 ..g - a ~ S fI) rJ') 0 fI:I gp '~.s ~ - -::s en 01) "g ~ 8 8 :t 8 i ~ ta ~ f; u "'a 0 ~ co .-.~~ U .: ~ ='"- d.i:i: ~ o 0 5 ~ . ~~~ ::1 ~e ~~~ "0-00 .~~~ g..oo ~t.n :s .s ~ e ~ : ~ o :::R "'0 0 ~ "_ ..... ~~ co c c-0:5 ~ :-e ~ is o~ ai:'.5 .;i O'l M e ~ ~ ~ rs ~NO e~ 5-8 g oo~~~ (l..o ~ t\1 v)N ~ t: ~::Co Cl) + + ~ 0 e ~ .5 ~ ~><>< fr~ ~ ~:g ~~"2"~ Q) ~ ~ g ~ ~ = ~ ~ 0 a ~ ~ ~ """"" c...... ~ tU .... ^. ~ tI) ::: V') ("fi \0 0 C. ~ ~ "t: Q) ~ ~~O'\~ E "'0..- lU C ~ "1 .,....... a :E ~ lI~~..gE..o<~ P Eo- t, ~ ..0 .;; 0 E ~ '-" C ..... r;/) 0. Z . <<S ~ a: 6: ~ * * * ,-...... "'.$ ~ ~ c :;:: ~ ~ ;: ;:: ~~ 0\ 0\ ........... t:"' ~ ~ ;: "~ t.tJ t:: e~ .......... S , c ~ e ~ ~ ~ ;;:s .~ ...... ~ ~ ~ 'S ~ t: ~9 -1::: ~ ~ 5 ~G \0 s:: ... c 5 "';:: e-... ~ ~t: ~ 0 s: 5} tU s:: \J i: .~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~l) .;:: .. c~ ~~ t3~ '"<~ .~ C ~u Table 7 A MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION El Camino Real/Mission Rd Chestnut A ve/Commercial A ve Hillside Blvd/Evergreen Dr Avalon Dr/S.B. 280 On-Ramp EXISTING C-15.3(1) D-28.4(1) 8-8.9(1) A It-D...22. S(4) Table 7B YEAR 2010 ADOPTED AMENDED PLAN PLAN * C-20..8(2) D-27.7(3) B-9.6(1) Alt~D-26.1 (4) * C-21.2(2) D-27.7(3) B-9.5(1) Alt-D...25.9(4) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR . INTERSECTION EI Camino ReallMission Rd Chestnut A ve/Commercial A ve Hillside BlvdlEvergreen Dr Hickey Blvd/Junipero Serra Blvd EI Camino Real/Westborough/Chestnut EXISTING B-14.7(1) 0-33.0(1) N/A N/A YEAR 2010 ADOPTED AMENDED PLAN PLAN * C-18.3(2) B-7.5(3) D-30.8(S) N/A * C-19.6(2) B-8.1 (3) D-38.1 (5) D-38.9(6) D-37..1 (7) (1) Signalize intersection. (2) Signalize intersection. Restripe eastbound Chestnut approach from a combined left/through, exclusive through and an exclusive right turn lane to provide an exclusive left, exclusive through and an exclusive right turn lane. Add a left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. Provide protected phasing east/west and split phasing north/south. (3) After completion of Hickey Extension provide a median along Hillside Boulevard to prohibit eastbound Evergreen Dr left turns. (Level of Service is for northbound Hillside Blvd left turns into Evergreen Drive, which would still be permitted.) (4) Provide AlI- Way-Stop control or stop sign control all movements except westbound through traffic. (5) Restripe the eastbound Hickey Blvd approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, one through lane and a shared through/right turn lane, widen the westbound Hickey Blvd approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the combined left/through lane to an exclusive through lane (resulting in a left, two throughs and a (free) right turn lane). Change east and westbound Hickey Blvd from split to protected signal phasing. (6) Provide Oak Avenue Extension (7) Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound EI Camino Real approach. Intersection proposed for signalization before 2010. * Source: Crane Transportation Group Figures ,- ~g 8 ~ ~ EI Camino High School e EverP,een Ave m 0: .~ ~ it; a iii c: (\) to < c.. AITOYo Dr ~ WestbOtouQh Blvd ~ ~ t!! o -s ~ (j iJ:; . South San Francisco High School ~ EI Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Pia n EI R rr Figure 1 Area Map ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP , Not To Scale ~ NORTH '- ~ ~ ~ " , Not To Scale I I ~ NORTH .1 I I I ~~ I I I I 5 Westborough 8IvrJ ~ 8J ~ .~ -==1 -~ - I i 0: o .S J l;j I I I -I = Slop Sign (!) = Sig na lized Intersection & = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection t f!}] = AU-Way..Stop Intersection ~ El Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR ( Fig.ure 2-A Existing Intersection Geometries and Controls J , I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP \- J f/ ~ c:: .~ ~ ~ Not To Scale ~ NORTH -I = Stop Sign [1]= AU..Way-Stop Controlled Intersection ~ EI Camino Corridor Amended Redevetopment Plan EIR @ = Signalized Intersection &, = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection ~ ~ , Figure 2-8 Existing Intersection Geometries and Controls CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP '- .J r' ~ Not To Scale ~ NORTH 4t e I ~ ~~V Avalon Crt ~ 180 -+ ~ 215t~ ~ m ! ~ 1:3 e C) 12 \:.- EI Camino Corridor Amended Redeveiopment Plan E IR Figure 3-A Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 1 , rr CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ 1 " ~ Not T () Scale ~ NORTH ~ C: ~Q .~ ~ ~ El Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR ,- ~ , Figure 3-8 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ ~ ~ ~ Not To Scale ~ NORTH r:~ e I ~ ~~~ ~290 .55 . @ 300 ---... ! ...., aran;:. A 85 t q: 90 60 ~ t -~ - ~ ~ .~ ~ (J i:fj ~ EI Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EtR Figure 4-A Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 1 , rr CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ J " ~ Not To Scale ~ NORTH de c:: .Si! = ~ \.. EI Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR ~ , " Figure 4-8 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ 1 ., ,.,.. Hot To 8CIIe ~ NORTH ~ t! .~ c3 i:ii /1),. fm15 ~ 1200 EI Camino High School ~ 19@ 9[i A~ Kaiser Ent~ slID ~ c:: .Q f.? .. "" ~ Wesfborounh Blvd 6 lID ~ rn .~ & .g 175 ":! @~ em @ 2 == AM peak HourPede.strians @ := AM Peak Hour BicycleS m = PM Peak Hour Pedestrians &. :; pM Peak Hour Bicydes surveyed octoberlNovember 1998 south San Francisco High School ~ Ei camino ColTtdOr Amended Redeve\Oprnenl p~n EIR Figure 5 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ~RANETRANSPORTAT'ON GROUP BART Construction Parking ,/ 900k I EI Camino High i. ... School Student ~. . Parking Lot (/ 1 000/0 ~ tl Evergreen Dr BART ,,- , --- -;(CC'6ss - ~ ni U1 Rd #1 &1 'sa% i +- 640/0 CD & -... 33%~ ~ I Q. 330/0 I [ ,r~ Q; .. S uoia Dr ~ .e - , a iiJ 950/0 ..;. ~ NP Kaiser Ent. " Not To 8C111e ~ NORTH 00/0 ~ 10/0 ~ ~ 1010 ... ArroYO or -- 7 68% 350/0 -.. .Westboro, I h - u9 8!vd t NP 340/0 -. / , ..,~ NP NP b ct c: .Q '" . CI) ~ , NP -~PI t 230/0 ~~ t t 20010 200k Q; .E ~ E 8 320/0 ..... 970/0 ~ ~ 16 l CC '650/0 ~ ~. I ~ o South San Francisco :; .~ High School Student (J Parking Lot iO ~ EI camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EI R " CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ NP = No Parking ~2O/g) = Early Morning (6:00 .. 7:00 AM) 32% = Mid-day (11:00 AM - 12:00 PM) 1320/01 = Evening (6:00 - 7:00 PM) Note: The Percentages shown represent the highest of the Three surveyed time periods J ~ Figure 6 Existing On-Street Parking Usage January, 2000 J " Not To Selle , ~ I t: .t- NORTH ~~t.t.. 1- ~ll. .;- .J~~ . .. Hick9J .() Extension Hick. Hickel" .0 Extension __-- _ . ____--t ---_ex. __iii. - ------. ...J l"~t+ ...J 1 ~tt ..t. .!~ttt~ t ~ =rJ ti Q] i J2 ! t.. ~~ II ~l. .- ...- if ~RT Access BART ACCSS$-DJ >. ROa'd#1-- -Ifoad ,,- ........ c:: J~~ .f t ~ ~ -. .1 ~ ; = Stop Sign @ = Signalized Intersection m== AII-Way-Stop Controlled Intersection &, = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection ~ EI Camino Corridor Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR Figure 7 Year 2010 Intersection Geometries and Controls J , ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP \. 1 ~~~ ~w~ ~wvu ~~.~v ~.L.JLV'..JO.JO ~t<ANt:. I t-<At~S GROUP ",- .. Av.on CJto c::> 186 -+ J 215.2 "" m ~ Er camino COf,tdor Adopted RedQve!opm9f"tt Plan EI~ r PAGE 02 ~ Not TCt Sew ~ NORTH Figure 8-A Yr 2010 Adopted Plan AM Peak Hour Volumes J ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ ~ ....LJ...V...J't",J..JO ~~AN~ I~AN~ GROUP ,,- Hoc To ScaIIJr ~ C! i 1536 I l.o ! l:.O to ~RT AcCOSS ------ .. .---.... Road _1 f& 705 ~ Hicl.rt,!XJ!'11i"----- ~ -----...:1'---- ..... j ~~ O~C ~W Em- EWfVI88" Of ~ Et Cam'MO Corridor AdOpfed Redevolopment Plan EIR ". PAGE 03 ~ 1260. ~ 21 1 . __~e.l..~ E*nalon -vi 161 J~'" t im 215 463,t 475 ! 506 )0 ! &ART A~SS'O ------ RoIIcI af 80 ..JI ~ f S 151 55 t"! 445 ~ ~ , Figure 8-8 Yr 2010 Adopted Plan AM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP '-- ~ u~t~UI~UUU .~.~u .......J4U.....10JC l,;KANt. I t-<AN:, c,jROUP PAGE 04 rr ~ Not To Scale ~ NORTH I .1 l <t~v J Q: .1 lJ fiJ '-... EJ Camino corridor Adopted Redevetopment Plan EIR .J ~ " Figure 9.A Year 2010 Adoptod ptan PM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ ~ .............wr............6.-f\tJ.".J'U '-'~~I 'tC I r(~r....=- ~~UUt-1 ~ Not "0 SC8Ie ~ NORTH if c:: .R ! till .-1324 ~ L1DD I 36 .. l. . 145 OSAIifT Acev~ · M.dJ,..... I t 1Sr ~ 1705 -0- HdcevE~S'~___- ...--_...~ .... . l j .. lij 6 ti O~.o ~., . Enl. \.- EI Ca.mtno COfllaor Adopt.d RtJaevelopmen1 PIAn etR ~ Ck PAGE 85 ~ .1 128 529 i .,J. ~ ! Hfc~ 0 c..t"".ron ... t 1 3S ....T .., 322 482,12 t i o 472 .1 .J l 5 84RT A~.~ "*.r -:VI 80 J ~ f 158. 23 475 -. ~ , Figure 9-8 Year 2010 Adopted Plan PM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP \- 1. >r.wJ....J1I ......'-'.. ~"-"'~..., ...I...J...u......JvwJu "-'t(~I'4t:.. I k: ANS GROUP PAGE 06 rr ~ Not To sea ~ NORTH t Avalon Dr ~ 1 89--- ~ 215~ -5 ' .~ ~ lla.... EI CamtnO Corridor Amended R.dev.'opment Plan EIR Figure 10--A Year 2010 Amended AM Peak Hour Volumes J , ,,- CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ J .........",.J...trJ....J'-I...Ju v~~~~ 'K~N~ ~UU~ " Not To &:1118 ~ ft .~ i _ 1591 ~1- 'La . Il:O to ~RT AcceSS .~~~_. . ~~_.-_.. .. Ram '" tJ: -... EI .Camlno Corridor AmQ.nded Redevelopment Plen EIR " PAGE ~ 7 ~ 1262 ~42 1 _. _..~~.~ EwIIInSion ,., 171 J 1 ~ f 451 t i "70 576 JO -! BART AccenO . _...~.. Road ., 79 J:. ..,. t 47 6 152 " ". 484 i J ~ Figure 1 0-8 Year 2010 Amended AM Peak Hour Volumes CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ ~ ---110 .... "-' ~ ~.... .... ~ ....1 "'" \J I ......... 'L. I 1'.....1 ~ .:J \, ~ U U r- ""~ut:.. Uti ". ~ Not To Seale ~ HaRTH \........-- r Avalon Dr c;:5 157-+~ 1:' 60 ~O .~ ~ if rl .i J iii llrr.... Er Camino Corridor Amended Redev.topment Plan EIR Figure 11-A Year 2010 Amended PM Peak Hour Volumes J ~ ~ CRANE TRANSPORT A lION GROUP ~ ~ ... ~ ...,..... ..... .... - - IIW' -...t '-I" ,...... ~I- I rt ~I 't:l ur-c:uur- ~ Nor To ScM ~ NORTH E c: .1 i L 276 69 37 I 43 ...... 576 .J + l. c:46 .._-~O2!~.. 28 J: ~ f ~ 463-...1 306 33 07. a 384 j .1471 Cf ~100 ~ I 31 + t.. r 145 If'I'Ii &ART AtC9sa. '-VGdlr.. : I t 17r ~ 1819 _---~_~l!~~~--.-.-(~ ... ; ~ 6 ~Or l-- O~-C ~., Enr~ """- 1:.1 Camino CorrlClor Am.ndec:t Redev4fopment Plan EIR ". I-' Al.3t:.. tl ~ ~ , 150 526 -8 .,J ~ i ::::;",. J C1J t - , 58 ., 373 640 11 t )) o .549 tt I I .8" .-.,1 t i 8ART~~ . . ~~.f--W . 85 J .., t 181 24 592 t J ~ Figure 11.8 Year 201 0 Amended PM Peak Hour Volume. CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ ~ '-It ........... .. '-- .. ......... " -J ....Jf""t uur- 'P'''' ~ ~ ....... .... ~ .... ...... .., ..", ""IfI#" ...... ......... ...... ~ .."". "... ~ Not To SCIII. .~ NORTH ~ .j i. @ e ~ 395 ....... ....... ..' ~ Oltk Ave Ost Ave art:.--:. . ,.................... /IIrOVO (Jf -------- .-... 60S -- ..... 8 @ 470 ~ @) 435 @ t 1970 540 1 t 450 25 ,so @)\ ' caID 18851. Em> E~Q?J Em> @),@ 1875 @ @Q) 111-... ~?O) ~ , W.,stt>~h BtWJ J 1600 1400 EH?J 9~ ...... ...... 1155 ....... .... ? 1275 70 ....... 650 @ 1335 ....... ---.. C:E) ~ ~ 1160 915 0 ~~ ~ .~ Fire ~ ~ (J House 0, .. _ _ Roadway ~ten~ion ....... Improve Existing Roadway (2 Lane Collector) 50 ~ 2010 Volume without Oak Ave Extension · @ ::: Incremental Redistribution in Traffic Due to Oak Ave Extension '-.. EI CaminQ CQlTla~r ~",.nded Red.vetopment PI an e.R ~ ~ "'~t:. 1 tJ Figure 12 Year 2010 Amended Plan PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Diversion With Oak Ave Extension Between El camino Real and MisSion Road CRANE TRANSPORTA liON GROUP ~ '-II ,...." "L.. I ~ HI 't::J ~rtUur ""~ut. .l J. ~ " Not To ~III ~ NORTH ~ C 'S f 25 t 50 @~ ,@ c:m> 1155 1111-- f~~ :;;r 850 @) @ 395 ~ AtfO'IG or - ..... 435 @ t 1970 @ I Ern3> 1875 1885 . ~ @ EmJ WC1#b~ 13.._ 1600 Ulvd ...... ........ 1275 @ @) ~ ...-- EJtl.,.sion +-- Oak AWl oak AV8 . _. ........... ....... -------- ~ ~ - ~ @ 540 1. + 450 E~5> I Em> ~3~9) 1490 ~ i ~ S --+ ~ f:D.f ~ L 1955 J .~ 1 I.~ 1 ~ Firs ~ c! 2375 +. HOUS9 Gi €26Q) 270 II 235 ~~ <!!3> @ . 1890 2 ~260) , 535 \\ Or~ @ ,~ f~ J 1.....::s \\ 2185@W, @ ~ '\\ @) t 2175 " 1945 @) ~I 1085 f. .- fJE) S.~Sl ~ I I 1 750 ....... · -I- @) t 1260 mID f mID ---+ 915 "I' ~~ s u 325 \ 1 290 ~ @ .. 425 @) ......- OrBnqe Ave spruce SI S. - _ _ - I""rove Existing Roadway (2 Lane COllector) ......... Oak Ave Roadway Extension _ _ _. Antoinette lane Roadway I::xtension ~ El Camino Corr,dor Amenae<J Redevelopment Plan EIR 50 = 201 0 VoluITe without Oak and Antoinette Extensions @ = Incremental Redistribution in Tra1fic Due to 80th Extensions Figure 13 Year 2010'Amended Plan PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Diversion With Bath Oak Ave and Antoinette Lane Extensions J ~ ,,- CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~ 1 Appendix SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Description A Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable,. and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths contribute to low delay. B Delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of average delay. c Delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. Fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures, resulting in drivers having to wait through more than one red signal indication, begin to appear.. Tbe number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Delay in the range of 25. 1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures noticeable. E Delay in the range of 40.1 to 60,,0 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. Poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F Delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths. Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual ALL..W AY SlOP LEVEL OF SERVICE... AVERAGE DELAY RELATIONSIllP Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds per vehicle) A ~5 B > 5 and =:; 1 0 c > 10 and s 20 D > 20 and ~ 30 E > 30 and ::; 45 F > 45 Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR MINOR MOVEMENTS AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds per vehicle) A ~ 5 B > 5 and s 10 c > 10 and ~ 20 D > 20 and s: 30 E > 30 and :5 45 F > 45 Total delay is defmed as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. . Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual 9-14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 7-1191 Figure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) I I I . I I I I I I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 600 , I , I I I I :s:: 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) I:L OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) > 500 . -... :J: i-O '- We( 400 w 0 - D:a: ~a. en D. a:c:( 300 1IIIIIIII o UJ z:E --~ :E-I 200 0 > ~ * <-' X 100 * 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 0 I I I I I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET.. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. APPENDIX 5.2 Air Quality BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Ti tIe: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR A valon!l.. 280 SB Onramp Existing Traffic V 01 urnes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 N orth- Sou th Roadw ay ~ East-West Roadway: 1-280 SB Onramp Avalon Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 2 2 A vera~e Cruise Speed A.M. P.Mt 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 ]998 24. 84 16.74 12~ 71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22. 93 15.46 11. 73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6435 5.63 5.15 4t92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5427 4.82 4~62 4~73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4~90 4.50 4~32 4~43 2003 16.86 1 ] .37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14408 9~Sl 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 O. 78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2483 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A~M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 W < v > E W < v > E o ^ ^ 0 Q^ ^ 0 180 > < 165 150 > < 380 215 v v 930 55 v v 455 < ^ > < ^ > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -8 Road 1 ~ 145 N -$ Road 510 E- W Road I ,275 E.. W Road 985 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBlrrIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1~7 1.0 lt145 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 5.7 440 1.7 * 1.275 * 21402 100,000 P.M4 Peak Hour N -5 Road 2.2 1~7 1.0 * 510 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 5.7 440 1.7 985 21.02 lOOtOOO TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 - Hour 50 Feet from Road way Edge 6.6 5~9 3.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 5.5 3.3 300 Feet from Road way Edge 5.2 5.0 2.7 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Proj ect Ti tie: Intersection: Anal ysis Condi tion: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR Chestnut/Commercial Existing Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 4~5 243 0.7 2000 North-South Roadway: East- West Roadway: Commercial Chestnut Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 2 4 A veraj!;e Cruise Speed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 J 26 7 1 10.30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 II . 73 9~50 8.00 6.93 6.]4 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14417 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4490 4450 4432 4.43 2003 16486 11.37 8.63~ 6498 5.88 5.10 4~54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6440 5.39 4.69 4.]7 3.85 3.71 3484 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4427 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5452 4.46 3.77 3~28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M 4 Peak P.M. Peak N N 40 20 5 15 5 5 W < v > E W < v > E 40 ^ 5 25 ^ ^ 5 630 > < 590 525 > < 685 200 v v 30 245 v v 20 < > < ^ > 190 2S 25 205 20 30 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -5 Road 490 N-S Road 525 E- W Road 1 ,690 E.. W Road 1,700 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 2.2 1~ 7 1.0 490 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 1,690 21 ~ 02 lOO~OOO P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 2.2 1.7 1.0 * 525 * 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 5~4 348 146 * 1 t700 * 21.02 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 6.7 3.8 ]00 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.0 3.3 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.2 5.2 247 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In te rsecti on: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8- hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persis tence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South S an Francisco Redevelopment PI an SEIR . El CaminolHickey Existing Traffic Vol urnes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 North-South Roadway: East- West Roadway: EI Camino Hicke y Roadway Type At Grade At Grade NOt of Lanes 6 4 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.M4 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24~ 84 16~74 12.71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 1 5 ~ 46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6493 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21 ~ 02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5~15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13424 10.04 8.13 6.85 5493 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 1 8.24 1 24 3 1 9433 7.55 6.36 5452 4.90 4.50 4.32 4~43 2003 16.86 11.37 8463 6.98 5.88 5. ]0 4.54 4.17 4~Ol 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7492 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3485 3~71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2475 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNlNG VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 215 780 2 285 585 15 W < v > E W < v > E 595 ^ ^ 10 280 ^ ^ 10 1 > < 10 25 > < 10 460 v v 10 240 v v 10 < > < ^ > 260 380 5 660 750 15 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -S Road 1 t 982 N -5 Road 2,260 E- W Road I ~541 E-W Road 1.500 ROADW A Y CO CONTRlBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A..M~ Peak Hour N-S Road 4.9 3~5 1.6 1,982 * 21.02 100,000 E~ W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 1 t541 21402 100,000 P. M~ Peak Hour N-S Road 4.9 3.5 1.6 * 2~260 * 21.02 100tOOO E- W Road 2.2 147 1.1 * ] t500 * 21.02 1 OO~OOO TOT AL CO CONCENTRA TIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.3 7.5 4.4 tOO Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.7 3.8 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.5 5~6 3.1 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Anal ysis Condi ti on: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR El Camino/South Spruce Existing Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 O~7 2000 North-South Roadway: East - West Roadway: El Camino Sou th Spruce Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 6 4 A vera~e Cruise SQeed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24 ~ 84 16~74 12. 71 lO~30 8467 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 11473 9~50 8.00 6493 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14~ 17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6~35 5463 5.15 4.92 5.03 200] 19.63 13.24 10404 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 I 8.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6436 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 I 0.44 7.92 6.40 5~39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3~81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P4M4 Peak N N 45 1 t560 455 95 1 ; 120 280 W < v > E W < v > E 55 ^ ^ 245 80 ^ ^ 490 125 > < 65 95 > < 170 60 v v 230 75 v v 355 < ^ > < > 70 655 250 305 1 ~440 250 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 3 ~O 15 N-S Road 3,545 E.. W Road 1 ~370 E.. W Road 1 t640 ROADW A Y CO CONTR1BUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A~M. Peak Hour N-S Road 4.9 3~5 1.6 3,015 21.02 lOOtOOO E- W Road 2.2 l~ 7 1.1 1 ~370 21.02 lOO~OOO P4M. Peak Hour N-S Road 4.9 3~5 1.6 3,545 * 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 1 ,640 21.02 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 8~2 7.2 5.8 P.M. Peak Hour 8.9 7t7 6.1 8-Hour 5.4 4.5 3.4 BA Y AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In ters ecti on: Analysis Condi lion: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South S an Francisco Redevelop ment Plan SEIR EI CaminolW estborough Exi sting Traffic Vol urnes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway: EI Camino WestboroughlChestnut Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 6 4 Avera~e Cruise Speed A.M. P4M. ]0 10 10 .10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16~74 12~ 71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6~65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15446 11.73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14417 lO~75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4~92 5.03 2001 19.63 134 24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4~82 4.62 4~73 2002 18.24 12.3 1 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 ] 6.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9451 7.21 5.83 4t91 4427 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 lO~78 7.30 5.52 4~46 3.77 3~28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 45 1,180 270 125 825 305 W < v > E W < v > E 100 ^ ^ 180 125 ^ ^ 280 785 > < 755 530 > < 725 335 v v 395 330 v v 345 < ^ > < > 375 400 335 650 1,075 445 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 3,020 N-S Road 3,670 E- W Road 2,720 E- W Road 2 t630 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations "fraffie Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A .M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 4.9 3~5 1~6 * 3,020 21 ~ 02 1 00,000 E-W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 2,720 21.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 449 3.5 1.6 3~670 2 1 .02 100~OOO E- W Road 2.2 147 1.1 2,630 21.02 lOO~OOO TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 8.9 7.7 6.1 P.M. Peak Hour 9.5 8~ 1 6.3 8- Hour 5~7 4.8 3~5 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title; Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8..hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR EvergreenIHillside Existing Traffic Vol urnes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 North-South Roadway: East - West Roadway: Hillside Evergreen Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO A verage Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24~84 16.74 12.71 10.30 8467 7450 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22. 93 15.46 11. 73 9.50 8400 6493 6.14 5.61 5.35 5~46 2000 2 1.02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5~63 5.15 4492 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6436 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5488 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10444 7.92 6.40 5.39 4469 4.17 3.85 3~71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5~83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3~52 3.41 3~54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3477 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2~83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 45 1 ,030 0 20 425 0 W < v > E W < v > E 30 ^ ^ 0 30 ^ U 0> < 0 0> < 0 75 v v 0 15 v v 0 < > < > 70 410 0 45 940 0 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -5 Road 1 ,585 N-S Road 1 ,425 E- W Road 220 E.W Road 110 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBlITIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A4M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 * 1 ,585 21402 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 * 220 21.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 1,425 * 21.02 100~OOO E- W Road 2.2 1 ~7 1 ~ 1 * 110 21.02 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 6.4 5.8 5.1 P.M. Peak Hour 6.2 5.7 5.0 8-Hour 3~6 3.2 2.7 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Ti tie: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Moni toring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor~ Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR GrandIWillow Existing Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 North-South Roadway: East -West Roadway: Grand Willow Roadway Type A t Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 2 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12.71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5t88 1999 22.93 15.46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5t35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8470 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.3 1 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4~90 4450 4.32 4.43 2003 16~ 86 II ~3 7 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4417 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 I 0.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 0.18 7430 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 4 185 40 160 50 W < v > E W < v > E 4^ ^ 60 5 ^ ^ 50 2> < 4 5> < 0 17 v v 235 28 v v 150 < > < > 25 200 160 270 195 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -5 Road 822 N..5 Road 804 E- W Road 501 E-W Road 450 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet I 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M4 Peak. Hour N..S Road 5.4 348 146 822 2 1.02 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1 ~O 501 21.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -8 Road 544 3.8 1.6 * 804 * 21 ~ 02 100~OOO E~ W Road 2.2 1~ 7 1.0 * 450 * 2].02 lOO~OOO TOT AL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Road way Edge 5.7 5.6 3.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.3 5.3 2.8 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.9 4.9 2.5 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR . Hickey/Junipero Serra Existing Traffic V 01 urnes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 0.7 2000 North .South Roadway: East -. W est Roadway: J uni pero Serra Hickey Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 Avera~e Cruise Speed A.M4 P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year ]0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16&74 12~ 71 10.30 8467 7~50 6.65 6.07 5478 5~88 1999 22. 93 15.46 11 ~ 73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6~ 14 5~61 5435 5.46 2000 21.02 14417 ] Or75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 lO~04 8.13 6~85 5.93 5.27 4~82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5~52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8463 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7492 6.40 5.39 4~69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4~27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3t28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A. M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 140 410 290 245 345 120 W < v > E W < v > E 235 ^ ^ 155 245 ^ ^ 260 575 > < 245 410 > < 380 110 v v 130 190 v v 250 < > < ^ > 150 355 180 170 440 110 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 1 ~585 N-S Road 1 ,655 E- W Road I ~57 5 E- W Road 1 t640 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBlffIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet I 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1~6 1 t 585 21.02 100,000 l!:- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 * 1 t57 5 2 1.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 5~4 3.8 1 ~6 1,655 * 21.02 lOO~OOO E.. W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 1,640 * 21 ~ 02 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A~M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Road wa y Edge 7.0 7.1 441 1 00 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.4 3.6 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 544 5.4 2.9 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR MissionlEvergreen Existing Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2~3 0.7 2000 North .South Roadway: East-West Roadway: Mission Evergreen Roadway Type At Grade At Grade N04 of Lanes 4 2 Avera2e Cruise Speed A.M. p .M~ 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84. 16~74 12. 71 10.30 8.67 7~50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22~ 93 15.46 11. 73 9.50 8~OO 6.93 6.14 5.6] 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.] 7 10.75 8.70 7433 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 I 3.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9~33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 t 1.37 8.63 6.98 5488 5~10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 I 0.44 7.92 6440 5439 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4491 4.27 3.81 3.52 3t41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5~52 4446 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 0 270 100 0 360 100 W < v > E W < v > E O^ 210 o ^ ^ 80 0;> < 0 0> < 0 Ov v 220 Ov v 60 < > < > 0 455 60 0 485 45 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 1 t035 N -5 Road 1,025 E. W Road 590 E- W Road 285 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N..5 Road 544 3~8 1.6 1 t035 21 ~ 02 1 OO~OOO E- W Road 2~2 1~7 140 590 21.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -8 Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 1 t025 21.02 lOOtOOO E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.0 285 21.02 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRA TIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8- Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 5~9 5.8 3.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.5 5.4 3.0 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 5~O 4.9 2.6 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Inters ecti on: Analysis Condi tion: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background i-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8- hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR Mission/Grand Existing Traffic Vol urnes SF - Arkansas 4&5 243 0.7 2000 N orth-SOllth Roadway: East- West Roadway: Mission Grand Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.Mt 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24 &84 16474 12.71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6493 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21402 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6435 5~63 5.15 4.92 5~O3 2001 19.63 13.24 I O~04 8.13 6.85 5~93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16486 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5410 4.54 4.]7 4.01 4.14 2004 15447 I O~44 7~92 6440 5.39 4469 4~17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.5] 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 O. 78 7~30 5.52 4~46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P ~M. Peak N N 0 465 175 0 375 195 W < v > E W < v > E Q^ 205 o ^ ^ 295 0> < 0 0> < 0 Ov v 75 Ov v 50 < ^ > < ^ > 0 415 20 0 360 55 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -5 Road 1 t260 N-S Road 1,225 E- W Road 475 E-W Road 595 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A4M~ Peak Hour N~S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 1 ,260 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 475 21.02 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3~8 1.6 1 ~ 225 21 & 02 100,000 E-W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 595 21.02 lOOtOOO TOT AL CO CON CENTRA TIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6t2 3~4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.7 5.7 3~ 1 300 Feet from Road wa y Edge 5.0 5.0 2.6 BA Y AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In tersection : Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background i-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR W estboroughII - 280 NB Ramps Existing Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 4.5 2.3 Or? 2000 North-South Roadway; East-West Roadway: ] - 280 RampslJuni pero Serra Westborough Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 Avera~e Cruise Speed A.M& P.M~ 10 ]0 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 ]5 20 25 30 35 40 4S 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12.71 10.30 8467 7.50 6.65 6.07 5478 5.88 1999 22. 93 15.46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4492 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5&93 5.27 4.82 4462 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5452 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 ]5.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7~21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4446 3.77 3.28 2t95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 140 665 275 125 210 125 W < v > E W < v > E 100 ^ ^ 420 155 ^ ^ 540 ItOlO > < 470 810 > < 685 180 v v 220 210 v v 215 < > < > 450 135 325 850 680 220 S S Representati ve Traffic V 01 urnes (Vehicles per Hour) N -S Road 1 ,975 N..5 Road 2?385 E- W Road 2t 720 E-W Road 2,835 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBlfflONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 2.2 1.7 141 1 t 97 5 * 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 * 2,720 * 21.02 100,000 P~M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 242 1.7 1.1 * 2t385 , 21.02 100,000 E- W Road 544 .. 3.8 1.6 * 2,835 * 21.02 lOOtOOO TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Road way Edge ] 00 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 8.5 7.4 5.9 P.M. Peak Hour 8.8 7.6 6.0 8-Hour 5.3 4.4 3.3 BA Y AREA AQMD SIMPLIFffiD CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In tersecti on: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR AvalonJI-280 SB Onramp Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 147 O~7 2010 N onh-South Roadway: East-West Roadway: 1-280 SB Onramp Avalon Roadway Type At Grade At Grade N o~ of Lanes 2 2 Avera~e Cruise S~eed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Avera~e Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12.71 10.30 8.67 7.50 6465 6~O7 5.78 5~88 1999 22.93 15.46 11. 73 9~50 8.00 6t93 6.14 5~61 5~35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8~70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5615 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5~93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4~73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 .4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5~lO 4.54 4~17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3~85 3.71 3.84 2005 14~O8 9.51 7~21 5.83 4~91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3441 3.54 2010 1 O~ 78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3~77 3~28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 W < v > E W < v > E O^ 0 Q^ ^ 0 189 > < 171 157 > < 397 215 v v 975 60 v v 504 < ^ > < ^ > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Representati ve Traffic V 01 urnes (Vehicles per Hour) N -S Road 1 , 190 N -5 Road 564 E- W Road 1 t3 35 E-W Road 1 ,058 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2~2 1.7 1.0 * 1 ~ 190 1 06 78 100,000 E- W Road 5.7 4.0 1.7 * 1 ~33 5 1 0.78 + 100,000 P .M4 Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1.7 l~O 564 1 0.78 + lOOtOOO E-W Road 5~7 4.0 1.7 1,058 1 0.78 lOO~OOO TOT AL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) A.M. P.M~ Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-H our 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.6 4~3 2.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.3 4.0 2.3 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.9 3.7 2~O BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Mom toring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR Chestnut/Commercial Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 . North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway: Commercial Chestnut Roadway T)'pe At Grade At Grade No~ of Lanes 2 4 Averaae Cruise Speed A.M~ p ~M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (m.iles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16~ 74 12.71 1 O~30 8.67 7.50 6~65 6.07 5t78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6~93 6t 14 5.61 5.35 5~46 2000 21 ~ 02 14.17 10.75 8~70 7.33 6~35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5~O3 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8~13 6.85 5~93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4t73 2002 18.24 12.3 1 9.33 7~55 6436 5452 4.90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6~98 5488 5~10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15447 10.44 7.92 6~40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3t52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 o~ 78 7.30 5.52 4~46 3.77 3428 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A. M4 Peak P.M. Peak N N 40 20 5 15 5 5 W < v > E W < v > E 40 ^ ^ 5 25 ^ ^ 5 873 > < 627 608 > < 908 212 v v 40 286 v v 35 < > < ^ > 215 25 35 233 20 35 S S Representative Traffic V 01 urnes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 547 N-S Road 614 E-W Road 2~OO7 E- W Road 2,075 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feel Volume Factor A~M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1.7 1.0 * 547 1 O~ 78 1 00,000 ~- W Road 5.4 348 1.6 * 2~OO7 * 1 O~ 78 + 1 00,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1.7 l~O 614 * 1 0.78 + 100,000 E-W Road 5.4 3.8 166 2,075 * 10.78 + 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.8 4.9 2~6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.4 4.5 2.4 300 Feet from Roadway. Edge 3.9 3.9 2.0 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8...hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisc~ Redevelopment Plan SEIR EI CaminolHickey Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF .. Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 N orth..Sou th Roadway: East-West Roadway: EI Camino Hickey Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 6 4 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO AveraRe Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12.7] 1 O~30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22~ 93 15~46 11. 73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6t 14 5.61 5.35 5t46 2000 21.02 ]4.17 lO~75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13 t 24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4~32 4.43 2003 16~86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4~Ol 4.14 2004 15~47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3~84 2005 14.08 9.51 7~21 5~83 4.91 4.27 3tSl 3.52 3.41 3~54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 110 797 2 180 642 15 W < v > E W < v > E 285 ^ ^ 10 227 ^ ^ 10 1 > < 10 25 > < 10 1.495 v v 10 1,058 v v 10 < ^ > < ^ > 683 190 5 1 ,811 779 15 S S Representative Traffic Volu~es (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 3, 180 N-S Road 4,3 I 5 E- W Road 2t584 E- W Road 3,311 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feel 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N..S Road 4.9 3.5 1.6 3,180 * 10.78 + 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 * 2,584 * 1 O~ 78 + lOOtOOO P ~M. Peak Hour N..S Road 4.9 3.5 1.6 4,315 * 1 o~ 78 + l00tOOO E- W Road 2~2 1.7 1.1 3 t311 * 1 O~ 78 + 1 00,000 TOT AL CO CON CENTRA TIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 5~8 6.6 3.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.2 5.7 3~3 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 4~4 4.6 2.5 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In tersecti on: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR El Camino/South Spruce Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF · Arkansas 3.5 1.7 O~7 2010 North-South Roadway: East - West Roadway: EI Camino South Spruce Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 6 4 A veraB;e Cruise Speed A.M. P~M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACfORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per,hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12471 10.30 8.67 7.50 6465 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 11. 73 9~50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 lO~75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5t27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18~24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6~36 5652 4.90 4~50 4~32 4t43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5~lO 4.54 4~17 4.01 4~14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6~40 5.39 4.69 4t 17 3~85 3.71 3~84 2005 14.08 9.51 7~21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3~52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 0.78 7.30 5~52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2~95 2t75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TIJRNING VOLUMES A.M~ Peak p .M~ Peak N N 55 1 t562 466 112 1 ,502 328 W < v > E W < v > E 71 ^ ^ 268 96 ^ ^ 512 145 > < 70 105 > < 185 70 v v 290 .85 v v 385 < ^ > < ^ > 75 787 570 315 1 ,565 280 S S Representative Traffic V 01 urnes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 3~354 N-S Road 4t132 E. W Road 1 ,809 E- W Road 1 t 795 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway SO Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N..S Road 4.9 3.5 1.6 3~354 1 0.78 + 100,000 E-W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 * 1 ,809 1 0.78 + 1 OO~OOO P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 4~9 3.5 1.6 * 4t132 1 O. 78 + 100.000 E.. W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 1 t 795 1 O~ 78 + 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A~M~ P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8- Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.7 6~1 365 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5~ 1 5~4 3.0 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.3 4.4 2.3 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Mom toring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR EI Camino/W estborough Amended Plan Traffic Valumes SF - Arkansas 3t5 1.7 0.7 2010 North-South Roadway: East - West Roadway: El Camino WestboroughlChestnut Roadway' Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 6 4 Average Cruise SEeed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FAcrORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year ]0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 12~ 71 10.30 8.67 7~50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15~46 11.73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5~61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13624 10.04 8.13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18~24 12~31 9t33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4~90 4~50 4.32 4t43 2003 16.86 11 ~37 8463 6.98 5t88 5.10 4~54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 1 O~44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4~69 4.17 3~85 3.71 3.,84 2005 14.08 9.51 7~21 5t83 4t91 4627 3~81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 0.78 7.30 5~52 4t46 3.77 3~28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M~ Peak P.M. Peak N N 122 1 .334 295 319 1~175 390 W < v > E W < v > E 249 ^ ^ 216 312 ^ ^ 349 944 > < 803 549 > < 882 355 v v 393 411 v v 368 < ^ > < > 405 653 284 671 1.308 393 S S Representative Traffic Volumes rv ehicles per Hour) N...S Road 3,424 N-S Road 4t326 E- W Road 2,935 E- W Road 3,144 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N~S Road 4.9 3.5 1~6 * 3,424 1 O~ 78 + 100,000 E- W Road 262 1.7 1.1 2~93 5 1 0.78 + 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 4.9 3.5 166 * 4~326 1 o. 78 + 100.000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 3,144 1 O~ 78 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6~5 3~8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5~3 5~7 3.2 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.4 4.6 2~S BA Y AREA AQMD SIM:PLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR EvergreenIHiUside Amended Plan Tr~ffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 North-South Roadway: East -West Roadway: Hillside Evergreen Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 Average Cruise S~eed A.M. P~M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16.74 124 71 I O~30 8.67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 114 73 9.50 8~OO 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14t 17 IOt7S 8t70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5~15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13 ~ 24 10404 8.13 6685 5~93 5.27 4.82 4t62 4~73 2002 18.24 ] 2~31 9.33 7.55 6.36 5~52 4.90 4.50 4.32 ' 4.43 2003 16.86 11637 8.63 6.98 5~88 5.10 4.54 4~17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6~40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3~85 3.71 3.84 2005 14.08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4691 4627 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4t46 3~77 3~28 2.95 2~75 2.69 2683' PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A~M. Peak P.M. Peak N N 30 1 ,693 0 15 884 0 W < v > E W < v > E 10 ^ ^ 0 20 ^ ^ 0 0> < 0 0> < 0 55 v v 0 15 v v 0 < ^ > < ^ > 50 712 0 35 17645 0 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 2,510 N-S Road 2,579 E- W Road 145 Ew. W Road 85 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1 ~6 * 2751 0 1 O. 78 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1 ~ I * 145 * 1 0.78 +- 100,000 P ~M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 2~579 * 10.78 + 100,000 E- W Road 2.2 It7 1.1 85 * 10.78 + 100,000 TOT AL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) A.M. P~MI Peak Hour Peak Hour 8- Hour 50 Feet from Road way Edge 5.0 5.0 2~8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.6 4.6 2~5 300 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.0 4.0 2.0 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In tersecti on; Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuri ng CO: Background l~hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South S an Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR GrandIWillow Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 N onh-South Roadway: East- West Roadway: Grand Willow Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 2 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P.M~ 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24684 16~ 74 I 2. 71 1 0.30 8~67 7.50 6.65 6.07 5~78 5.88 1999 22.93 lSt46 11. 73 9.50 8~OO 6.93 6.14 5661 5.35 5~46 2000 21 ~ 02 14~ 17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5~15 4.92 5.03 2001 19~63 13.24 10.04 8~13 6.85 5t93 5.27 4~82 4.62 4~73 2002 18~24 12.31 9.33 7.55 6~36 5~52 4690 4~SO 4.32 4~43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4~54 4.17 4.01 4t14 2004 15.47 1 0.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4~17 3t85 3.71 3.84 2005 14t08 9.51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4~27 3.81 3~52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7~30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2675 2.69 2~83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A~M. Peak p .M~ Peak N N 4 226 46 262 67 W < v > E W < v > E 4^ ^ 71 5^ ^ 68 2> < 6 5 > < 0 17 v v 234 28 v v 153 < ^ > < ^ > 28 271 164 363 194 S S Representative Traffic V 01 urnes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 940 N-S Road 1 ,00 1 E- W Road 523 E- W Road 487 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBlITIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feel 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 940 * 1 O~ 78 + lOOtOOO E-W Road 2.2 1.7 1.0 * 523 * I Ot 78 + 1 007000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 1 ,00 1 * 1 0.78 + 1 ()() t 000 E- W Road 2.2 1.7 1.0 487 . 10478 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) SO Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M~ Peak Hour 4.2 4.0 3.7 P.M~ Peak Hour 4.2 4.0 3.7 8-Hour 2.2 2.0 1~9 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFmn CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: In tersecti on: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring co: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR . Hickey/Junipero Serra Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway: Junipero Serra Hickey Roadway Type At Grade At Grade N o~ of Lanes 4 4 Average Cruise Speed A~M. P~MA 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Avera~e Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16474 12.71 lO~30 8.67 7~50 6.65 6.07 5.78 5.88 1999 22.93 15~46 11.73 9.50 8~OO 6.93 6.14 5.~61 5.35 5.46 2000 21.02 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5.15 4492 5~O3 2001 19 ~63 13.24 lO~04 8~13 6.85 5.93 5~27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9.33 7~55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4~50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5~10 4.54 4.17 4.01 4t14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14~O8 9~51 7.21 5.83 4.91 4.27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3~54 2010 I O. 78 7.30 5452 4~46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak P.M. Peak N 140 375 390 225 280 265 W < v > E W < v > E 230 ^ 217 250 ^ ^ 426 1.084 > < 438 859 > < 1,026 110 v v 154 194 v v 399 < ^ > < ^ > 150 290 255 175 410 203 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 1,642 N-S Road 1 ,856 E-W Road 2,538 E- W Road 3,178 ROADW A Y CO CONTRlBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2~2 1.7 1.1 * 1,642 1 O~ 78 + lOOtOOO E- W Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 2~538 * 10.78 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -5 Road 2.2 147 1.1 1 ,856 * 1 o~ 78 + l00~OOO E- W Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 * 3,178 1 o~ 78 + lOOtOOO TOTAL CO CON CENTRA nONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 5.4 4.8 4.1 P.MA Peak Hour 5.8 5.1 4.3 8-Hour 3t3 2.8 2~2 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Ti tie: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South S an Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR MissionlEvergreen Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1.7 0.7 2010 North-South Roadway: East- West Roadway: . Mission Evergreen Roadway Type At Grade At Grade No. of Lanes 4 2 Averase Cruise S.Qeed A.M. P.M. 10 10 10 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24 484 16.74 12. 7 1 10.30 8.67 7~50 6.65 6~O7 5.78 5.88 1999 22~ 93 15.46 11 t 73 9.50 8.00 6~93 6~1.4 5~61 5.35 5.46 2000 21 t 02 14.17 10.75 8t70 7~33 6.35 5.63 5~15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13 t 24 10t04 8~13 6.85 5.93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18~24 12t 31 9~33 7.55 6~36 5tS2 4t90 4.50 4.32 4.43 2003 16.86 11~37 8.63 6698 5~88 5.10 4.54 4~17 4~Ol 4~14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5.39 4.69 4.17 3.85 3.71 3.84 2005 14~O8 9.51 7.21 5.83 4~91 4~27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M~ Peak P&M. Peak N N 0 340 87 0 465 118 W < v > E W < v > E 43 ^ ^ 204 41 ^ ^ 88 5> < 0 5> < 0 36 v v 211 39 v v 44 <: ^ > < ^ > 0 524 40 0 637 40 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road I , 198 N-S Road I t349 E- W Road 547 E- W Road 295 ROADW A Y CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet Volume Factor A.M4t Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 3.8 1~6 * 1 t 198 1 O~ 78 + 100,000 E- W Road 2.~2 1~7 1.0 547 * 1 0.78 .... 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 5.4 348 1.6 1 t349 * 1 0.78 + l00tooO E- W Road 2.2 1.7 140 * 295 1 0.78 -+ 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 100 Feet frOTIl Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 4.3 4~1 3.8 P.M. Peak Hour 4.4 4~1 3.8 8- Hour 2.3 2.1 1.9 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: ~ Nearest Air Moni toring Station Dleasuring co: Background 1 ~hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Anal ysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR Mission/Grand Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1~7 0.7 2010 North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway: Missi on Grand Roadway Type At Grade . At Grade No. of Lanes 4 4 A veraRe Cruise Speed A.M~ P.M. 10 10 10 10. EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5S 1998 24.84 16.74 12. 71 10.30 8467 7.50 6.65 6.07 5478 5.88 1999 22.93 15.46 11 ~ 73 9.50 8~OO 6.93 6.]4 5.61 5~35 5.46 2000 21602 14.17 10.75 8.70 7.33 6.35 5.63 5t15 4.92 5~O3 2001 19.63 13.24 10.04 8~ 13 6~85 5~93 5.27 4.82 4.62 4.73 2002 18.24 12.31 9~33 7.55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4650 4~32 4~43 2003 16~86 11.37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4~54 4.17 4.01 4.14 2004 15.47 10.44 7.92 6.40 5~39 4.69 4.17 3~85 3.71 3t84 2005 14.08 9tSl 7~21 5.83 . 4.91 4t27 3~81 3~52 3.41 3.54 2010 10.78 7.30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3.28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2t83 TOTAL CO CONCENTRA nONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Roadway Edge ]00 Feet from Roadway Edge 3 ()() Feet from Roadway Edge A.M. Peak Hour 4.5 4.2 3.8 P~M~ Peak Hour 4~7 4~3 3.9 8-Hour 2.5 2.3 2~O BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS Project Ti tie: Intersection: Anal ysis Condi tion: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background 1- hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan SEIR W estboroughII - 280 NB Ramps Amended Plan Traffic Volumes SF - Arkansas 3.5 1 t7 0.7 2010 North.South Roadway: East-West Roadway: 1-280 RampslJunipero Serra Westborough Roadway Type At Grade At Grade NOt of Lanes 4 4 Average Cruise Speed A.M. P~M~ 10 10 ]0 10 EMFAC7G COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Avera~e Speed (miles per hour) Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1998 24.84 16,74 12. 71 10.30 8.67 7~50 6.65 6t07 5.78 5~88 1999 22~ 93 15~46 11. 73 9.50 8.00 6.93 6.14 5.61 5.35 5~46 2000 21.02 14~ 17 10.75 8.70 7~33 6~35 5.63 5t 15 4.92 5.03 2001 19.63 13~ 24 10.04 8.13 6.85 5693 5t27 4.82 4t62 4~73 2002 18.24 12~31 9.33 7~55 6.36 5.52 4.90 4.50 4.32 4t43 2003 16.86 11 ~37 8.63 6.98 5.88 5.10 4.54 4.17 4~Ol 4.14 2004 15.47 lO~44 7.92 6.40 5~39 4.69 4.17. 3.85 3.7] 3~84 2005 14.08 9~51 7.21 5.83 4~91 4~27 3.81 3.52 3.41 3.54 2010 1 o~ 78 7~30 5.52 4.46 3.77 3~28 2.95 2.75 2.69 2.83 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A~M. Peak P.Mt Peak N N 140 668 263 130 215 134 W < v > E W < v > E 110 ^ ^ 442 ]60 ^ 606 1~288 > < 540 989 > < 877 180 v v 273 210 v v 287 < ^ > < ^ > 455 125 369 865 685 270 S S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road 2,070 N-S Road 2,532 E-W Road 3,175 E..W Road 3,231 ROADWAYCOCONTIDBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 50 Feet 1 00 Feet 300 Feel Volume Factor A~Mt Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1.7 1.1 * 2,070 1 Ot 78 + 100,000 E- W Road 5.4 3.8 1.6 3,175 * 10.78 + 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road 2.2 1.7 141 7,532 1 0.78 + 100,000 E- W Road 544 3.8 1.6 * 3~231 . 1 0.78 + 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 50 Feet from Road way Edge 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 300 Feet from Roadway Edge A.M~ Peak. Hour 5.8 5.2 4~3 P4M. Peak Hour 6.0 5.3 444 8-Hour 3.4 3~O 2t3 APPENDIX 5.3 Noise NOISE LEVELS... Existing Off-Site ADT Volumes Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix ROADW A Y NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Segment Land Use Lanes Width V olum.e (mph) Receptor Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL EL CAlvlINQ REAL north of Westborough Blvd. Trailer Park 6 10 24,275 40 115 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 Single- Family Residen tial 6 15 24,275 40 125 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 Multi - Fanilly Residential 6 15 24,275 40 100 0 0 1480/0 0.70(0 Kaiser Hospital 6 15 24,275 40 125 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 south of Westborough Blvd. School 6 15 33,125 40 135 0 -5 1.80/0 0.70/0 MISSION ROAD north of Grand Ave~ Single- Fa:mil y Residen tial 4 0 12,900 30 60 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 EI Call1ino High School 4 0 12,900 30 100 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 GRAND A VENUE between Mission Rd. and Single- and Multi-Family Chestnut Ave. Residential 4 0 8,075 30 35 0 0 1.80/0 O~7O/o EVERGREEN DRNE betvJeen Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd4 Single- Fanill y Residential 2 0 2,425 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 HILlSIDE DRIVE between Chestnu t Ave. and Evergreen Rd. Single- Famil y Residential 4 0 15,300 35 60 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 CHESTNUT A VENUE bet\r\reen Mission Rd. and Single- and M ul ti- Fam.il y Hillside Blvd4 Residential 4 0 11,875 35 40 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 ORANGE A VENUE betvveen EI Camino Real and Single- and M ul ti - Fam.il y Memorial Drive Residential 2 0 7,925 30 30 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 School 2 0 7,925 30 50 0 0 1..80/0 0.70/0 Boys and Girls Club 2 0 7,925 30 75 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 Good News Chapel 2 0 7,925 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 0470/0 SPRUCE A VENUE between El Camino Real and Huntington Ave. Single- Fatnily Residential 4 0 14,625 35 40 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 WESTBOROUGH A VENUE betvveen El Camino Real and Single- and M ul ti- Fantil y Junipero Serra Blvd. Residential 4 12 21,375 40 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 jUNIPERO SERRA BLVD4 between Avalon C t~ and Westborough Ave. Single- Fam.il y Residential 4 20 22;000 40 75 0 -3 1.80/0 O~7% HICKEY BOULEVARD behrveen El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd~ Single- Fa m. Uy Residential 4 0 15,125 35 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 (1) Distance to centerline of rQadway. Assum.ed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.700/0 12.700/0 9 .600/0 MediuIn-Duty Tmcks 87~43O/o 540So/C 7.520/0 Heavy- Duty Trucks 89~100/o 2~B4O/o 8.060/0 NOISE LEVELS - Amended Plan Off..Site ADT Volumes Design Dist. from. Barrier Vehicle Mix ROADW A Y NAME Median AD! Speed Center to Alpha A ttn~ MediUlTl . Heavy dB(A) Segment' Land Use Lanes Width V olum.e (mph) Receptor Factor . dB(A) Trucks Tru4<s CNEL EL CAMINO REAL north of W estborough Blvd~ Trailer Park 6 10 36,080 40 115 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 Single- Family Residential 6 15 36/080 40 125 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 Multi- Fanlil y Residential 6 15 36,080 40 100 0 0 1480/0 0.7<'/0 Kaiser Hospi tal 6 15 36,080 40 125 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 south of Westborough Blvd. School 6 15 38,360 40 135 0 -5 1.80/0 0470/0 MISSION ROAD north of Grand Ave. Single- Family Residential 4 0 16,135 30 60 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 El Camino High School 4 0 16,135 30 100 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 GRAND A VENUE benveen Mission Rd.. and Single- and Multi-Falnily Chestnut Ave.. Residential 4 0 9,955 30 35 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 EVERGREEN DRIVE behveen Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd. Single- Family Residential 2 0 2,175 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 Olr~/O HILLSIDE DRIVE between Chestnu t Ave. and Evergreen Rd. Single- Family Residential 4 0 26,015 35 60 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 CHESTNUT A VENUE between Mission Rd. and Single- and Multi-Family Hillside Blvd. Residential 4 0 14,990 35 40 . 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 ORANGE AVENUE behAreen EI Cantina Real and Single- and Multi - Famil y Mem.orial Drive Residential 2 0 8,665 30 30 0 0 1.80/0 O.~/o School 2 0 8,665 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 Ot7% Boys and Girls Club 2 0 8,665 30 75 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 Good News Chapel 2 0 81665 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 O.~/o SPRUCE A VENUE beb\reen EI Canlino Real and Huntington A ve~ Single- Family Residential 4 0 17 ,595 35 40 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 WESTBOROUGH A VENUE between El Canlino Real and Single- and Multi-Family J unipero Serra Blvd. Residential 4 12 32,540 40 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0.7010 JUNlPEROSERRA BLVD. benveen Avalon Ct. and Westborough Ave. Single- Fanilly Residential 4 20 23;210 40 75 0 -3 1.80/0 OtT'/o HICKEY BOULEVARD between El canUno Real and Junipero Serra Blvd. Single-Fam.ily Residential 4 0 29 ,300 35 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0470/0 (1) Distance to centerline of roadway. AssUl1led 24-Hour Traffic Distribu tion: Day Evening Night T otaI ADT V olUJ1\es 77 .700/0 124700/0 9.600/0 Medium-Duty Tnlcks 87.430/0 5.050/0 7~52OJo Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.100/0 2.840/0 8.060/0 NOISE LEVELS... Existing Plan Off-Site ADT Volumes Design Dis t. from. Barrier Vehicle Mix ROADW A Y NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Mediwn Heavy dB(A) Segm.ent Land Use Lanes Width Volume (~ph) Receptor Factor dB(A) "Trucks Trucks CNEL EL CAMINO REAL north of Westborough Blvd. Trailer Park 6 10 32,840 40 115 0 0 1.80/0 0.70/0 Single~Family Residential 6 15 32,840 40 125 0 ..3 1.80/0 0.70/0 M ul ti- Family Residential 6 15 32,840 40 100 0 0 1.80/0 O~7O/o Kaiser I-lospital 6 15 32,840 40 125 0 0 1.80/0 O~7O/o south of Westborough Blvd. School 6 15 37 ,565 40 135 0 -5 1.80/0 0.70/0 MISSION ROAD north of Grand Ave. Single- Famil y Residential 4 0 13,575 30 60 0 0 1.80/0 O.T>/o EI Camino High School 4 0 13,575 30 100 0 0 1.80/0: 0.7010 GRAND A VENUE between Mission Rdt and Single~ and Multi-Family Chestnut Ave. Residential 4 0 91500 30 35 0 0 1.80/0 O~7O/o EVERGREEN DRIVE between Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd~ Single- Family Residential 2 0 2,035 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 o ~7O/o HILLSIDE DRIVE between Chestnut Ave. and Evergreen Rd. 5 ingle- Family Residential 4 0 25,350 35 60 0 0 1.80/0 O~7O/o CHESTNUT A VENUE between Mission Rd~ and Single- and Multi-Family Hillside Blvd. Residential 4 0 14,655 35 40 0 0 1.80/0 O.~/o ORANGE AVENUE between El canUno Real and Single- and Multi..Family Memorial Drive Residential 2 0 8,505 30 30 0 0 1.80/0 0.7010 School 2 0 S,5OS 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 O.~/o Boys and Girls Club 2 0 8,505 30 75 0 0 1.80/0 Ot7O/o Good News Chapel 2 0 8,505 30 50 0 0 1.80/0 O~7% SPRUCE A VENUE between El Carnino Real and Huntington A ve~ Single- Family Residential 4 0 17 ~490 35 40 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 WESTBOROUGH AVENUE between El Camino Real and Single- and Multi-Family Junipero Serra Blvd~ Residential 4 12 31~730 40 75 0 -3 1.81)/0 o ~7O/o }UNIPERO SERRA BLVD. betYleen Avalon Ct. and Westborough Ave. Single-Fantil y Residential 4 20 22,855 40 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0,.70/0 HICKEY BOULEVARD between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd. Single- Family Residential 4 0 26,100 35 75 0 -3 1.80/0 0.70/0 (1) Distance to centerline of roadwaY4 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volu:mes 77 ~700/o 12.700/0 9 .600/0 Medium-Duty Trucks 87,.430/0 5.050/0 7.520/0 Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.100/0 2.840/0 8.060/0 Table N-l ON..SITE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing ADT Volumes Design Vehide Mix Distance from. Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Alpha MediuJIl Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor TnJ.cks Trucks 75 Feet' 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL EL CA1v1INO REAL north of Westborough Blvdr 6 15 24,275 40 0 1.80/0 O~~/o 51 115 345 MISSION ROAD north of Chestnu t A ve ~ 4 0 12,900 30 0 l~OO/o 1400/0 112 GRAND AVE east of Mission Rd. 4 0 8,075 30 0 1.80/0 O~ ~/o 68 CHFSTNUT A VE east of El Catnino Real 6 0 11,875 35 0 1.80/0 o 4 ~/o 49 128 1 Distance to centerline of roadway. ft_" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 40 feet of the roadway centerline. ASSUIlled 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT V oluJDes 77.700/0 12.700/0 94600/0 Mediulll-Duty Tnlcks 87.430/0 54050/0 7.520/0 Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.100/0 2.840/0 8r060/o Table N-l ON...SITE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Future Existing Plan ADT Volumes Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADW A Y NAME . Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Segm.ent Lanes Width Volume (rnph) Factor Trucks Trucks . 75 Feet) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL EL CAMINO REAL north of Westborough Blvd4 6 15 32,840 40 0 1.80/0 O.~/o 60 153 465 MISSION ROAD north of Chestnu t Ave. 4 0 13,575 30 0 1.00/0 1400/0 40 116 GRAND AVE east of Mission Rd. 4 0 9,500 30 0 1.80/0 O.jM/o 79 CHESTNUT A VE eas t of E1 Camino Real 6 0 141655 35 0 1 ~8O/o o. ~/o 57 156 1 Distance to cen terline of roadway. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 40 feet of the roadway centerline. Assunled 24- Hour Traffic Distribu tion: Day Evening Night Total ADT V olUlJ\es 77 .700/0 12.700/0 9.600/0 Mediun\-Duty Tntcks 87.430/0 5.050/0 74520/0 Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.100/0 2.840/0 8.060/0 Table N-l ON-SITE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Future Amended Plan ADT Volumes Design Vehicle Mix Distance from. Cepter of Roadway ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Alpha Mediunt Heavy CNEL at DISrANCE TO CONTOUR Segtnent Lanes Width Volume (m.ph) Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet1 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL EL CAMINO REAL north of Westborough Blvd. 6 15 36,080 40 0 1.80/0 O.jMlo :..<;:..:.~~69:~O>.. .. 64 165 510 MISSION ROAD north of Ches tnu t Ave. 4 0 16,135 30 0 1.00/0 1.00/0 47 140 GRAND AVE east of Mission Rd. 4 0 91955 30 0 1.80/0 O~j'O/o 83 CHESTNUT AVE east of El Camino Real 6 0 14,990 35 0 1.80/0 O~~/o 58 161 1 Distance to centerline of roadway. . "_tt:::: contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 40 feet of the roadway centerline. AssUDled 24- Hour Traffic Distribu lion: Da y Evening Night Total ADT V olu:mes 77 t70% 12.700/0 9.600/0 Medium-Duty Trucks 87.430/0 _5~050/o 7.520/0 Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.100/0 2.840/0 8.060/0 APPENDIX 5.5 Cultural Resources e3/26/26~~ ~9:46 4152826239 HOLMAN AND ASSOCIATE PAGE Ell Hi ASSOCIATES ARchaeologicaL Consultants .. SINCE THE BEGINNING.1r 361~ FOLSOM 5T~ CALIFORNIA 94110 SAN FRANCISCO, 41~/~~O..7.28(1 Nanna Fragoso Housing and Community Development Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue P.O.Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 March 16, 2000 Dear Ms. Fragoso: RE: ARCHIVAL SEARCH AND FIELD INSPECTION OF lHE CHES1NUT CREEK 'SITE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At your request I have completed both an archival search and a visual field inspection of the above referenced project area in South San Francisco. The folloVJing report contains a summary of the infonnation gained by me from this process, along with recommendations for further research. When we first talked about this project, it was limited to the development of a parcel of . land on the northern bank of Colma Creek betw'een Chestnut Avenue and the Orange Memorial Park in South San Francisco. CUJTently the parcel is bordered by a water company along Chestnut, by property on the north, and apparently by the Memorial Park on the east; the only map provided to me to date does not have accurate borders .marked on it_ The parcel itself is for the most part an open field used in the past for agricultural pwposes; cabbage and kale plants arc still visible in rows. In addition the southeastern comer of the parcel is covered by operating greenhouses. Two well houses (?) accessed by elevated ramps from the creek levee are also along the southern edge of the parcel. The issue of cultural resources came up in a letter from the San Brono Mountain Watch group dated Janwuy 21, 2000. lbis letter contends that the project area contains a recorded archaeological site, visible throughout the open space by numerous shellfish fragments. The letter ' concludes with a plea to leave the parcel untouched. Tbe site referred to in their letter is not given a number, but is. referred to as tbe site recorded by Barbara Bocek in 1989. In an attempt to clarify this matter t you sent me a copy of a report done in 1994 by Carolyn Rice for the BART-San Francisco Airport expansion project, in which Ms. Rice reports on the presence of the site Sma-299 y originally recorded by Bocek inside the proposed right of way for the transportation corridor being studied by Ms. Rice. Ms.. Rice summarized the findings . of Ms. Bocek, stating that she bad concluded.that the archaeological site had been substantially ~j/2~/2~~~ 09:46 4152826239 HOLMAN AND ASSOCIATE PAGE 02 destroyed by historic topsoil mining in the area. In addition Ms.. Rice conducted some mechanical subsurface testing of the site on her own, confirming the fmdings of Ms.. Bocek that this archaeological site had been essentially destroyed in historic times. In my February 15,. 2000 proposal to you I proposed to obtain a copy of the original Bocek site survey form of the property, and 10 conduct a visual reconnaissance of the field to the southeast of Chestnut Avenue which you marked in pink to see if in fact there was still remnants . of an archaeological site there as claimed by the Mountain Watch people.. I personally visited the Northwest Information Center early this month and obtained an original copy of the Sma-299 site survey form, prepared by Barbara Bocek in 1989 and amended by Carolyn Rice in 1994.. The maps included in this report made it clear that Sma-299 is in fact not recorded inside the Chestnut Creek prQject area, but is (or was) located northwest of Chestnut Avenue, on the northeastern bank of Colma Creek north .of its crossing with the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. In sununary, the 1994 Rice report has essentially no bearing on the Chestnut Creek project area: Sma-299, destroyed or not, was never recorded at this locatioD.. The site survey form however does contain some potentially interesting information, presented below: . "Site is mentioned in letter by William Wihr of San Francisco. According to original site record, site consisted of a 2 kilometer long shell midden (Bocek 1989). When originally recorded, some traces of shell and tire-altered rock, plus 2 flakes, were observed on the surface. At the time of re-recording, however, no cultural remains were visible on the ground surface, nor in 20 shovel auger test bores (see referenced below).u (Sma-299 site survey fonn amended 1994 pp~2 of2). Bill Wihr, a local archaeologist once affiliated with San Francisco State University, had in the past noted a two kilometer long midden deposit starting up at the Colma cemetery area extending down creek into the area later recorded by Bocek. My literature review however failed to turn up any more information by Wihr about the location of this resource along the creek. On March 1 0 of this year I and associate Matthew Clark attempted a visual inspection of the project area so~theast of Chestnut A venue~ The visual inspection proved to be useless at the time thanks to the presence of standing water over much of the parcel and the presence of a dense weed cover elsewhere; it appears that the field has been most recently used to grow a nwnber of different kinds of cabbage, and then allowed to go fallow. While the visual inspection of the field itself was hampered by the water. and dense ground cover, we were able to locate actual archaeological soils (midden) on the banks of the two , ramps which lead from the levee up to the well enclosures. A spill of very dark midden containing visible amounts of shellfish remains is evident on the top portions of both o.fthese ramps. It is also evident from its placement that this material has been imported from somewhere, since it has been placed on top of artificially built up ramps. Elsewhere inside the field the soils, where visible, consist of a light to medium brown sandy clay loam, very different than the soils noticed on the ramps~ An occasional fleck of 2 03/2~/2~~~ ~9:46 4152826239 HOLMAN At~D ASSOCIATE PAGE 03 shellfish was noted~ but nothing like the shell midden on the ramps was seen at the intervals through the ground cover inspected by us. It is our suspicion that the fields themselves prob~bly represent the original grade of the area, since the adjacent greenhouses are also located at thiS general low elevation, much lower than the built up levee sides which run parallel to Calma Creek. It is vet)' possible that the midden seen on the two ramps was placed there at the same time the levees were built: it is possible that the midden itself came from the cutting of the current channel of the creek itself if not in the immediate area, then close by. SUMMARY In summary, we are currently unable to verify the presence or absence of archaeological deposits inside the Chestnut Creek project area. The San Bruno Mountain Watch group claims that there are visible remains of midden throughout the parcel~ Thanks to the standing water and dense ground cover we are currently unable to verify this~ We did however discover visible midden deposits on the two ramps leading from tbe levee, but it is clear that this material was deposited 1;here historically from another location. Both the .Chestnut Creek parcel and the small parcel located on the northwest side of Chestnut Avenue (not originally part of our study area) still have a very high potential for containing unrecorded archaeological deposits, one of which may have been the origin of the midden seen on the ramps. of the Chestnut Creek project area. This midden could continue north from the creek throughout the Chestnut Creek parcel, and may also exist under the working greenhouses which form the southeastern comer of this parcel. RECOMMENDA nONS It is the recommendation of this report that a program of mechanical subsurface testing be conducted at both the Chestnut Creek project area and the new parcel located on the northern side of Chestnut Avenue to demonstrate the presence or absence of midden deposits at these locations. Until this has been done, there is no way of knowing whether or not planned development of either of these parcels will impact significant cultural resources. Presence or absence testing of these two areas may be only the first step in the process however.. If actual midden deposits are located at either location, it may be essential to evaluate . their significance through a program of hand excavation to research their potential significance as defined under current CEQA guidelines. Both the Rice report and the Bocck site survey form mention the fact that these areas were historically mined for topsoil, a process which in one example (Sma..299) led to the almost complete destruction of the resource~ The process of wholesale removal of topsoil (midden) often times blurs the picture by spreading aro\U1d the remains .c;>f shell middens, a picture which is further blurred by historical fanning activities~ Any midden deposit located through a program of backhoe testing or hand augering may have little actual scientific importance if it can be demonstrated that the deposits are historically deposited, similar to the small areas of midden seen on the ramps on the Chestnut Creek project site. If this is evident through subsurface testing, then there may be little need to recommend any fOmI of mitigation of impacts to the deposits. If. on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that there are 3 03/20/2000 09:46 4152826239 HOLMAN AND ASSOCIATE PAGE 04 intact archaeological deposits still in development areas, it will be necessary to consider a range of potential mitigation proposals, including project redesign to avoid or substantially reduce construction related damage. Sincerely, Miley Paul Ho Iman Holman & Associates REFERENCES: Archaeological Site Survey form, CA-Sma-299. 1989; amended 1994 Rice, Carolyn 1994 BART-San Francisco Aixport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report! Supplemental Draft Environlnental Impact Statement Archaeological Survey Report. Prepared for BART/SamTrans. San Bruno Mountain Watch 2000 Letter to Ma}'or Karyl Matswnoto and Councilmembers regarding the pre sence of archaeological materials at the Chestnut Creek site. 4