Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBritannia Cove at Oyster Point DSEIR 4-2013 DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT fog BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN State Clearinghouse # 1996092081 ,,,.,,, ra✓ a �i iii � r � � o' � V!l � .,� r 1 � y 1 i f� wa I � m 0 III III II II tils111111 II DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN State Clearinghouse # 1996092081 PREPARED FOR: City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Department of Economic Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 PREPARED BY: URS 1333 Broadway Street, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612 April 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................I-1 A. Introduction...............................................................................................................I-1 B. Purpose of the Draft Subsequent EIR.......................................................................I-1 C. Type of EIR...............................................................................................................I-3 D. Draft Subsequent EIR Review Process.....................................................................I-4 E. Intended Uses of the Subsequent EIR.......................................................................I-5 F. Organization of the Draft Subsequent EIR...............................................................I-7 G. Levels Of Significance..............................................................................................I-8 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................II-1 A. Introduction..............................................................................................................II-1 B. Proposed Project......................................................................................................II-1 C. Project Objectives....................................................................................................II-2 D. Significant Effects....................................................................................................II-2 D. Areas of Controversy...............................................................................................II-2 F. Alternatives..............................................................................................................II-3 G. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................II-3 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................III-1 A. Overview of the Environmental Setting.................................................................III-1 B. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point("Project")............................................................III-9 C. Project Characteristics............................................................................................III-9 D. Project Objectives.................................................................................................III-20 E. Discretionary Actions...........................................................................................III-20 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................IV.A-1 A. Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant.....................................................IV.A-I Agricultural Resources.......................................................................................IV.A-1 MineralResources..............................................................................................IV.A-2 Recreation...........................................................................................................I V.A-2 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page B. Aesthetics........................................................................................................... IV.B-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.13-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.B-2 Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.13-18 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.13-25 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.13-26 C. Air Quality ......................................................................................................... IV.0-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.0-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.0-3 Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.0-23 CumulativeImpacts.......................................................................................... IV.0-45 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ IV.0-45 D. Biological Resources .........................................................................................IV.D-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.D-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.D-2 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.D-9 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.D-13 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.D-13 E. Cultural Resources..............................................................................................IV.E-1 Introduction.........................................................................................................IV.E-I Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.E-3 Environmental Impacts........................................................................................IV.E-7 CumulativeImpacts...........................................................................................IV.E-12 Level of Significance after Mitigation ..............................................................IV.E-13 F. Geology/Soils......................................................................................................IV.F-1 Introduction.........................................................................................................IV.F-I Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.F-3 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................IV.F-15 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page CumulativeImpacts...........................................................................................IV.F-23 Level of Significance after Mitigation ..............................................................IV.F-23 G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials............................................................................IV.G-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.G-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.G-3 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.G-8 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.G-17 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.G-18 H. Hydrology/Water Quality ..................................................................................IV.H-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.H-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.H-3 Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.H-13 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.H-25 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.H-25 I. Land Use and Planning........................................................................................IV.I-1 Introduction......................................................................................................... IV.I-1 Environmental Setting......................................................................................... IV.I-3 Environmental Impacts...................................................................................... IV.I-18 CumulativeImpacts........................................................................................... IV.I-23 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................. IV.I-24 J. Noise ................................................................................................................... IV.J-1 Introduction......................................................................................................... IV.J-1 Environmental Setting.........................................................................................IV.J-2 Environmental Impacts........................................................................................ IV.J-8 CumulativeImpacts........................................................................................... IV.J-19 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................. IV.J-19 K. Population and Housing.....................................................................................IV.K-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.K-1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.K-3 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................IV.K-7 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.K-10 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.K-11 L. Public Services....................................................................................................IV.L-1 Introduction........................................................................................................ IV.L-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................ IV.L-4 Environmental Impacts....................................................................................... IV.L-8 CumulativeImpacts.......................................................................................... IV.L-13 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................. IV.L-13 M. Transportation and Circulation ......................................................................... IV.M-1 Introduction....................................................................................................... IV.M-1 Setting................................................................................................................ IV.M-4 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... IV.M-51 ImpactAnalysis............................................................................................... IV.M-65 Existing"With Project" Impacts..................................................................... IV.M-66 N. Utilities/Service Systems ...................................................................................IV.N-1 Introduction........................................................................................................IV.N-1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................IV.N-5 Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................IV.N-18 CumulativeImpacts..........................................................................................IV.N-29 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............................................................IV.N-30 V. GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES............................................................................ V-1 A. Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................... V-1 B. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project................................................. V-1 C. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.................................................... V-3 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT...................................................VI-1 A. Purpose..................................................................................................................VI-1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page B. Project Objectives.................................................................................................VI-1 C. Methodology.........................................................................................................VI-2 D. Selected Alternatives ............................................................................................VI-3 E. Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................VI-5 F. Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................................VI-18 VII. PREPARERS OF THE EIR AND PERSONS CONSULTED.....................................VII-1 LeadAgency......................................................................................................... VII-1 Subsuquent EIR Consultant.................................................................................. VII-I Subsequent EIR Subconsultants........................................................................... VII-I VIII. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... VIII-1 General References..............................................................................................VIII-1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................VIII-1 AirQuality...........................................................................................................VIII-1 Biological Resources...........................................................................................VIII-3 CulturalResources ..............................................................................................VIII-3 Geologyand Soils ...............................................................................................VIII-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................VIII-4 Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................VIII-5 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................VIII-6 Noise ...................................................................................................................VIII-7 Population and Housing ......................................................................................VIII-7 PublicServices....................................................................................................VIII-7 Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................................VIII-8 Utilities and Service Systems..............................................................................VIII-8 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page v TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP), Revised NOP, and Responses to the NOPs Appendix B: Development Application Appendix C: Bioretention Area Appendix D: Transportation Information Appendix E: Geotechnical Report Appendix F: Air Quality Data Appendix G: Water Supply Assessment Appendix H: Sewer System Master Plan Appendix L Noise Data Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure III-1: Regional and Project Site Location.......................................................................III-2 Figure III-2: Existing Prcjec t Area Land Uses.........................................................................III-3 Figure III-3: Views of Project Site, Views 1-4..........................................................................III-4 Figure III-4: Planning Sub-Areas...............................................................................................III-6 Figure III-5: General Plan Designations Governing the Project Area.......................................III-7 Figure III-6: Views of Surrounding Uses Views 5-8.................................................................III-8 Figure III-7: Project Site Plan..................................................................................................III-12 Figure IV.B-l: Photo Location Map...................................................................................... IV.B-6 Figure IV.B-2: View of the Project Site, Views 1-4.............................................................. IV.B-7 Figure IV.B-3: Views of the Project Site, Views 5-8 ............................................................ IV.B-8 Figure IV.B-4: Views of the Project Site, Views 9-12.......................................................... IV.13-9 Figure IV.F-l: Project Site Geology.......................................................................................IV.F-9 Figure IV.H-1: Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan.........................................................IV.H-18 Figure IV.I-1: Project Site General Plan Designations............................................................IV.I-9 Figure IV.I-2: Project Site Zoning Designations...................................................................IV.I-11 Figure IV.J-1: Noise Measurement Locations........................................................................ IV.J-4 FigureIV.M-l: Area Map..................................................................................................... IV.M-2 Figure IV.M-2: Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ................................... IV.M-3 Figure IV.M-3: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes............................................................... IV.M-7 Figure IV.M-4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................... IV.M-8 Figure IV.M-5: Existing AM& PM Peak Hour Volumes, Veterans Blvd........................... IV.M-9 Figure IV.M-6: Transit and Shuttle Routes ........................................................................ IV.M-22 Figure IV.M-7: Year 2017 W/O project AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................... IV.M-28 Figure IV.M-8: Year 2017 W/O project PM Peak Hour Volumes..................................... IV.M-29 Figure IV.M-9: Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control.............................. IV.M-33 Figure IV.M-10: Oyster Point/Gateway & Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd Configurations... IV.M-34 Figure IV.M-11: Year 2035 W/O Project AM Peak Hour Volumes.................................. IV.M-40 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page vii LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) Page Figure IV.M-12: Year 2035 W/O Project PM Peak Hour Volumes................................... IV.M-41 Figure IV.M-13: Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control............................ IV.M-43 Figure IV.M-14: Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Project Increment................................. IV.M-51 Figure IV.M-15: Project Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Project Increment.................................. IV.M-52 Figure IV.M-16: Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Project Increment................................ IV.M-53 Figure IV.M-17: Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Project Increment................................ IV.M-54 Figure IV.M-18: Existing W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................... IV.M-55 Figure IV.M-19: Existing W/Project Buildout PM Peak Hour Volumes........................... IV.M-56 Figure IV.M-20: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 AM Peak Hour Volumes......................... IV.M-57 Figure IV.M-21: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes ......................... IV.M-58 Figure IV.M-22: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes....................... IV.M-59 Figure IV.M-23: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes...................... IV.M-60 Figure IV.M-24: Year 2017 W/Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations .......... IV.M-67 Figure IV.M-25: Year 2035 W/Project Level of Service and Queuing Mitigations .......... IV.M-74 Figure IV.M-26: Year 2017 W/Project Phase 1 AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes, VeteransBlvd ......................................................................................... IV.M-83 Figure IV.M-27: Year 2035 W/Project Buildout AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes, VeteransBlvd ......................................................................................... IV.M-84 Figure IV.N-l: Project Utility Plan......................................................................................IV.N-22 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table II-1 Summary of Impacts/Mitigation Measures......................................................II-5 Table III-1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout.......................................III-11 Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (Project site).................................................................................................III-14 Table III-3 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes........................................................................................................III-15 Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics ................................................................................III-16 Table III-5 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures..........................................III-19 Table IV.B-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary ...................................................................................... IV.B-2 Table IV.B-2 Bay West Cove Specific Plan Setback Requirements ............................. IV.B-17 Table IV.0-1 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary......... IV.0-3 Table IV.0-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards......................... IV.0-11 Table IV.0-3 2010 Estimated Average Daily Regional Emissions............................... IV.0-13 Table IV.0-4 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco- Arkansas Street Station............................................................................ IV.0-13 Table IV.0-5 Thresholds of Significance for Construction-Related Activities............. IV.0-24 Table IV.0-6 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities............... IV.0-25 Table IV.0-7 Construction Phases................................................................................. IV.0-28 Table IV.0-8 Off-road Construction Equipment........................................................... IV.0-28 Table IV.0-7 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities............... IV.0-30 Table IV.0-9 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)............... IV.C-37 Table IV.0-10 Average Daily Mitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)................... IV.C-37 Table IV.0-11. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Updated Operational Emissions (tons/year)........................................................... IV.C-38 Table IV.0-12 Operational Emissions (tons/year)........................................................... IV.C-39 Table IV.0-13 Existing Day Care Facilities Cancer Risk................................................ IV.0-41 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page ix LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Page Table IV.C-14 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) ..................................... IV.0-43 Table IV.0-15 Construction GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year).................................... IV.0-43 Table IV.0-16 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) ..................................... IV.0-44 Table IV.D-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.D-2 Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species...............IV.D-4 Table IV.E-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary....................................IV.E-2 Table IV.F-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary .......................................................................................IV.F-2 Table IV.G-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary...................................IV.G-2 Table IV.H-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary...................................IV.H-2 Table IV.H-2 Comparison of Projected Run Off...........................................................IV.H-20 Table IV.I-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary ........................................................................................IV.I-2 Table IV.I-2 Setback Requirements................................................................................IV.I-12 Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies.....................................................................................IV.I-15 Table VLI4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes......................................................................................................IV.I-21 Table IV.J-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary.................................... IV.J-2 Table IV. J-2 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results.................................................... IV.J-5 Table IV.J-3 CNEL Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Locations .............................. IV.J-6 Table IV.J-4 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas............................................. IV.J-7 Table IV.J-5 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels.......................................................... IV.J-8 Table IV.J-6 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project....................................... IV.J-11 Table IV.J-7 Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses.................................... IV.J-13 Table IV.J-8 Vibration Levels at Nearby Receivers...................................................... IV.J-17 Table IV.J-9 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases ......................................................... IV.J-19 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page x LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Page Table IV.K-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.K-2 Table IV.K-2 Current and Future Population, Employment and Housing South San Francisco and San Mateo County.......................................................IV.K-3 Table IV.K-3 Population Projections: South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities 2005 to 2020........................................................................IV.K-4 Table IV.K-4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project Projected Employees...................IV.K-9 Table IV.L-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary....................................IV.L-2 Table IV.M-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria................................... IV.M-10 Table IV.M-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria............................... IV.M-11 Table IV.M-3 Intersection Level of Service Existing&Existing +Project.................. IV.M-14 Table IV.M-4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Existing& Existing +Project.............. IV.M-15 Table IV.M-5 Off-Ramp Queuing Back to U.S.101 Mainline...................................... IV.M-17 Table IV.M-6 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 Without&With Project.......................................................................... IV.M-18 Table IV.M-7 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 Without&With Project.......................................................................... IV.M-19 Table IV.M-8 Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operations............................... IV.M-20 Table IV.M-9 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Existing& Existing +Project...... IV.M-20 Table IV.M-10 Public Transportation Service................................................................. IV.M-23 Table IV.M-11 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service .............................................................. IV.M-24 Table IV.M-12 Year 2017 Without Project Trip Generation........................................... IV.M-30 Table IV.M-13 Intersection Level of Service—Year 2017 Without&With Project...... IV.M-35 Table IV.M-14 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2017 Without&With Project..... IV.M-36 Table IV.M-15 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2017 Without&With Project..................................................................................................... IV.M-38 Table IV.M-16 Year 2035 Without Project Trip Generation........................................... IV.M-42 Table IV.M-17 Intersection Level of Service Year 2035 Without& With Project......... IV.M-44 Table IV.M-18 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2035 Without&With Project..... IV.M-45 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page xi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Page Table IV.M-19 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2035 Without&With Project..................................................................................................... IV.M-48 Table IV.M-20 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................... IV.M-61 Table IV.M-21 Project Trip Distribution......................................................................... IV.M-61 Table IV.M-22 2017 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service....................................... IV.M-68 Table IV.M-23 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service....................................... IV.M-75 Table IV.N-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact FindingSummary ......................................................................................IV.N-2 Table IV.N-2 South San Francisco District Actual and Projected Water Demand (AF)*..........................................................................................................IV.N-8 Table IV.N-3 South San Francisco District Available Water Supplies (AF)*...............IV.N-24 Table IV.N-4 South San Francisco District and Proposed Project Projected Water Demand (AF)* .........................................................................................IV.N-25 Table VI-1 Project Alternative Scenarios.........................................................................VI-4 Table VI-2 Alternative B: Transportation Impacts ........................................................VI-11 Table VI-3 Alternative C: Transportation Impacts ........................................................VI-17 Table VI-4 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project...................................VI-19 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Table of Contents Draft Subsequen t Environmen tal Impact Report Page zii I. INTRODUCTION A. INTRODUCTION The subject of this Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR) is the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) located Nvithin the Cit_T of South San Francisco. The proposed project (Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan) consists of the development of an approximately 20.1 acre Office/Research and Development(R&D) business park, located Nvithin the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, Nvhich is referred to as the `Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan." The project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, an amendment to the BaY West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, a Precise Plan, adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and a Sign Application approval. The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clariA- the aggregation of floor area ratio (FAR) across Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1. The lead agency for this project is the City of South San Francisco, located at Department of Economic and Community Development, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, 94083. A detailed description of the proposed project is contained in Section III (Project Description) of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Because the proposed project Nvill require approval of certain discretionan- actions by the Cit T of South San Francisco and other governmental agencies, the proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared. B. PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR The City has prepared this Draft Subsequent EIR for the folloNving purposes: • To satisA- the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21178) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 14, Sections 15000-15387). • To inform the general public,the local community, and responsible and interested public agencies of the nature of the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Specific Plan, the possible environmental effects,possible measures to mitigate those effects,and alternatives to the proposed project. • To enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding Nvhether to approve development of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. • To provide a basis for preparation of future environmental documents (if required). Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page I-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • To serve as a source document for information needed by several regulatory agencies to issue permits and approvals for the proposed development of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. • To evaluate potential significant environmental effects of the project. The determination that the City of South San Francisco (City) is the "lead agency"is made in accordance Nvith Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the lead agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Draft Subsequent EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City regarding the potential environmental impacts, the level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts. As described in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged Nvith the duty to avoid or substantialIv lessen significant environmental impacts, where feasible. In discharging this duty*, a public agency* has an obligation to balance the project's significant impacts on the environment Nvith other conditions,including economic, social,technological,legal and other benefits. This Draft Subsequent EIR is an informational document, the purpose of which is to identifv the potentially* significant impacts of the proposed project on the environment and to indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be avoided or significantly*lessened; to identifv any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and to identifv reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that Nvould eliminate any* significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The lead agency*is required to consider the information in the Draft Subsequent EIR, along Nvith any other relevant information, in making its decision on the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. Although the Draft Subsequent EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that Nvill be made regarding implementation of the project, CEQA requires the City to consider the information in the Draft Subsequent EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect in the Draft Subsequent EIR. The City* is responsible for certifving that the Subsequent EIR for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan satisfies the requirements of CEQA. Once certified, the Subsequent EIR Nvill serve as the base environmental document for Britannia Cove at ON-ster Point Precise Plan and Nvill be used as a basis for decisions on site development. Other agencies may also use this Subsequent EIR in their review and approval process. This Draft Subsequent EIR Nvas prepared in accordance Nvith Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines which defines the standards for EIR adequacy*: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. " C. TYPE OF EIR The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point EIR is a Subsequent EIR. As defined in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent EIR shall be prepared Nvhere substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions of the previous EIR; substantial changes occur Nvith respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken requiring major revisions of the previous EIR; or new information of substantial importance, which Nvas not knoNsn and could not have been knovm, at the time the previous EIR Nvas certified as complete shows new or more severe environmental impacts. The project site Nvas originally part of the Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area, established by the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Beginning in 1997, the approximately 55 acre (on- shore portion) Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area (170 acres, 118 located offshore) has been redeveloped in phases. The project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project. The original site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe fabrication facilities, ship repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of the original site are located offshore and are not subject to development. The on-shore area of the site has been redeveloped in phases. In December 1997,the City certified an EIR for the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, a proposed mixed use commercial project. The 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith each planning area proposing a different development scenario. The project area Nvas defined as Planning Area 1 in the 1997 Bav West Cove Precise Plan. One planning area (Planning Area 5) Nvas located offshore in the San Francisco Bav and the only proposed project for Planning Area 5 Nvas to create tidal Nvetland, as required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup Order. By 2000, only Planning Area 4 had been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan. In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. The development application included a subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub-planning areas: la and lb. The City certified a Supplemental EIR for the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently Planning Areas 2 and 3 Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D uses. The project Nvould develop Planning Area 1 and Nvould complete the development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove Precise Plan in 1997. This Subsequent EIR specifically considers Nvhether the 2013 proposed project Nvould result in new significant impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or if the project Nvould cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. This Subsequent EIR also discusses any pertinent new information or changes in circumstances that could result in new significant impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnren tal Impact Report Page I-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. Previously imposed mitigation measures from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are identified and, where appropriate, are clarified, refined, revised, or deleted. This Subsequent EIR also identifies whether or not new mitigation measures are required. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvas Nvider in scope and covered a larger area than the proposed project in this Subsequent EIR. The proposed project covers only Planning Area 1 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. D. DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR REVIEW PROCESS A Notice of Preparation (NOP) Nvas prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on December 14, 2012. The City circulated the NOP for a 30-day review period for the public and agencies to identIA- environmental issues that should be addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15205(b)(2), the Draft Subsequent EIR Nvill be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies. Submittal of the Draft Subsequent EIR to the State Clearinghouse Nvill commence the 45-day review period. During the review period, copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR Nvill be available for review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Economic and Community Development Department and at the South San Francisco Main and Branch Libraries during normal business hours. The folloNving are the addresses for the City of South San Francisco Planning Division and the South San Francisco Main and Branch Libraries: Citv of South San Francisco Planning Division Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco Main Library 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080-3125 Grand Avenue Branch Library 306 Walnut Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Written comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR may be sent via U.S.mail and addressed to: Gera*Beaudin,Principal Planner Citv of South San Francisco Planning Division, Economic and Community Development Department P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page 1-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; FolloNving a public hearing and after the close of the written public comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR, responses to written and recorded comments Nvill be prepared and published. The Final Subsequent EIR Nvill consist of the comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, anv text changes needed on the Draft Subsequent EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). To consider approval of the proposed project, Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to certifv that: • The Final Subsequent EIR has been completed in compliance Nvith CEQA • The Final Subsequent EIR Nvas presented to the City, and that the City revieNved and considered the information contained in the Final Subsequent EIR prior to approving the project • The Final Subsequent EIR reflects the Citv's independent judgment and analysis In conjunction Nvith the City s certification of the Final Subsequent EIR, the City must also adopt written findings that address each significant environmental effect identified in the Final Subsequent EIR, consistent Nvith Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must also adopt the MMP to ensure implementation of mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid significant effects during project construction and/or operation. If feasible mitigations and/or alternatives are not available to reduce significant environmental impacts to a less-than significant level, those impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If the City elects to approve the proposed project, and the proposed project Nvould have significant unavoidable impacts, the City Nvill also be required to identIA- the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Subsequent EIR and any other information in the public record. This "Statement of Overriding Final Considerations" Nvould be incorporated into the Findings and Nvould explain the specific reasons whN- the benefits of implementation of the proposed project override the unavoidable environmental effects that Nvould result from project implementation. E. INTENDED USES OF THE SUBSEQUENT EIR This document serves three purposes. The City Nvill use this Subsequent EIR to evaluate the environmental implications of adopting and approving the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. LastIv, this document may be used as a source of information by responsible agencies Nvith permitting or approval authority over the project. As defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency is the public agency Nvith the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for approval of the project. Upon completion of the Subsequent EIR process, the City Nvill cert*A-the Subsequent EIR for the Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page 1-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The project Nvould require the folloNving actions or approvals: • Certification of the Subsequent EIR • Specific Plan Amendments to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area, FAR, and Land Use Components • Zoning Text Amendment to South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 20.210 to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area and proposed FAR • Approval of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan • Approval of a Development Agreement • Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map • Adoption of a TDM Plan • Approval of Master Sign Program • All future developments that are not othenvise covered by the proposed project may be subject to a separate permit or precise plan approval that may be subject to subsequent CEQA review in accordance Nvith Public Resources Code section 21166 and SSFMC Chapter 20.210.001 The folloNving is a list of City agencies and their responsibilities in approving the proposed project. • Department of Economic and Community Development • Building Division: ■ Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy • Planning Division: • Specific Plan amendments • Precise Plan • Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design Review, CEQA Review • Engineering Division: o Grading Permits, Subdivision Approvals, Encroachment Permits,Plan Check • Police Department: o Citv's Security Issues Compliance Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Fire Department: o Fire Code Compliance In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that may have discretionary authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to, the folloNving: • Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) — Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre and permit for deNvatering during construction, and approval of operational stormwater treatment • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Ensure compliance Nvith all traffic related standards relative to state highways. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) — Ensure that all applicable federal and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained • San Mateo County Flood Control District—Design approval for on-site flood control. • San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance Nvith regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans. • Federal Aviation Administration — Establishes height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco International Airport. • GCAG Airport Land Use Committee — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. • BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission — Review pportions of the project that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction. F. ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR This Draft Subsequent EIR is organized into eight sections as follows: Section I (Introduction): This section provides an introduction and a description of the intended uses of the Subsequent EIR and the review and certification process. Section II (Executive Summary): This section includes a summary of the project description, environmental impacts that Nvould result from implementation of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact before and after mitigation. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Section III (Project Description): This section presents a complete description of the proposed project including project location, project characteristics, and project objectives. This section also provides an overview of the study area's environmental setting including a description of existing and surrounding land uses, history and background of the project and project site, and a discussion of related construction phases to be analyzed in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis): This section is the primary focus of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Each environmental issue contains a discussion of existing conditions for the project area including the regulatory setting, analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, an assessment and discussion of the significance of impacts associated Nvith the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, cumulative impacts, and level of impact significance after mitigation. Section V (General Impact Categories): This section provides a discussion of the potential growth inducement of the proposed project as Nvell as a summary of any significant unavoidable impacts associated Nvith the proposed project. Section VI (Alternatives to the Proposed Project): This section includes an analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project to provide informed decision making in accordance Nvith Section 15126(f) of the CEQA Guidelines. The range of alternatives selected is based on their ability to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Section VII (Preparers of the EIR and Persons Consulted): This section presents a list of lead agency, other agencies and consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. This section also identifies persons consulted during preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Section VIII (References): This section provides full references of sources cited in the Draft Subsequent EIR. G. LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE This Draft Subsequent EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. The folloNving are definitions of terms used in this Draft Subsequent EIR: • Less than significant impact: Impacts that are adverse, but that do not exceed the specified standards of significance. • Potentially significant impact: Significant impacts that may ultimately be determined to be less than significant; the level of significance may be reduced in the future through further definition of the project detail. Potentially significant impacts may also be impacts about which there is not enough information to draw a final conclusion; however,for the purpose of this EIR, they are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to significant impacts and require the identification of feasible mitigation measures. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page I-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Significant impact: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that can be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. • Significant and unavoidable impact: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page I-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank. Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt L b1troductiorz Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page I-10 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION This summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project as required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines. The summary includes a brief description of the project, the project objectives, areas of controversy/issues to be resolved, and a summary of alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, this chapter provides a table summarizing: (1) potential environmental impacts that Nvould occur as a result of the proposed project; (2) the level of significance of the environmental impacts prior to implementation of any applicable mitigation measures; (3) the recommended mitigation measures and/or project requirements that avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented (refer to Table II-1, Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures at the end of this chapter). B. PROPOSED PROJECT The project is development of the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. The project consists of the development of an approximately 20.1 acre Office/Research & Development (R&D) business park, located on a parcel in the Sheanvater Redevelopment Plan Area. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings including 884,344 square feet of Office/R&D use; up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space; and a 9 story parking structure. Business/commercial development on the site Nvould total 1,030,344 square feet. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the project Nvould be constructed in three phases, starting in 2013 and ending in 2019. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Project buildings Nvould be consistent in character, Nvith simple geometry. Exterior building colors ma-- differ to create visual interest and building identity on the project site. Building forms Nvould vary in capacity, height, and shapes to create architectural variety and individual building identity, while at the same time maintaining a unified campus characters. The buildings Nvould be situated near the perimeter of the site thereby creating large areas to accommodate open space, landscaping and surface parking. Landscaping Nvould be installed between the buildings and Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards. Pedestrian facilities Nvould be provided along Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards,where appropriate. The project proposes a reduced parking ratio of 2.83 spaces/1,000 square feet, Nvith the exception of retail and hotel uses which propose 3.3 spaces/1,000 square feet and 1 space/room ratios, respectively. Parking Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sul nrary Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; supply Nvould be phased over the project construction phases. The project Nvould ultimately include 2,670 parking stalls, Nvhich Nvould meet the Municipal Code required parking for Office/R&D (2,503 stalls), retail (67 stalls), and hotel (200 stalls), Nvith 100 stalls shared beN,-een Office/R&D and hotel uses at full buildout. Of the total number of parking stalls, 52 Nvould be sized for handicap parking. Parking ratios Nvould vary for new development projects Nvithin the 20.1 acre site during the phased incremental development. The project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the Ba_T West Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), and a Sign Application approval. The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clariA-the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1. C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the project are as follows: • Develop the site Nvith high-quality Office/R&D, and retail/hotel uses to serve the project's employees,visitors, and the City of South San Francisco. • Construct a cohesive Nvorking campus environment Nvith a clear organization of buildings, structured parking, and pedestrian circulation and open space. • Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements that are in line Nvith the East of 101 Area guidelines. • Create an open space and pedestrian path network that incorporates parks and landscaping for passive recreational use. • Emphasize the pedestrian environment Nvith Nvell-designated and useful landscaping that respond to the climate of the Citv. • Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and Ferry service. • Provide connection from the Bav Trail, bordering the project site,to bicycle network. D. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CEQA requires a discussion of potentially significant environmental changes that could result from the project. The project would result in significant impacts to noise and transportation resource areas. See Table II-1 for a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures. E. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY This Subsequent EIR addresses environmental issues that are knoN-,n or Nvere raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) public review period. Comment letters Nvere received regarding the project from the Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sunrnrary Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County*, and San Francisco International Airport. No other agencies or private parties submitted comments on the project. Although no areas of controversy* Nvere raised during the NOP public review process, the City anticipates that air quality*,noise, and traffic may be areas of concern for the project. F. ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives Nvere analyzed that Nvould avoid or substantially* lessen some of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives include the folloNving: • Alternative A: No Project Buildout Under Existing Approved Development. Under Alternative A, the project site Nvould be developed Nvith Office/R&D, hotel, and/or retail uses previously* approved for the project site. • Alternative B: Reduced Intensity 0.75 FAR. Development at a 0.75 FAR reduced intensity* (assuming a 40/60 split for office/R&D respectively*) on the portion of the site that is currently* undeveloped. The overall FAR Nvould be approximately* 0.67 across the combined planning area (Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and Britannia Oyster Point). • Alternative C. Reduced Intensity 0.5 FAR. Development at a 0.5 FAR reduced intensity* (assuming a 40/60 split for office/R&D respectively*) on the portion of the site that is currently* undeveloped. The overall FAR Nvould be approximately* 0.55 across the combined planning area (Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and Britannia Oyster Point). G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table II-1 summarizes the various environmental impacts associated Nvith the project; includes the mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid the environmental impacts; and identifies the level of impact significance after mitigation. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Sunrnrary Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank. Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt II Executive Summary Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page II-4 N .+��•' U cz cz U U ti O O G� bA bA bA cz o ^= bA c ct lun u cz U "O cz 'C OU U c� bA� ��• p O bA U 7s = Nct U O p �tj) bA'C cz C) b�A Ln N ct 0 N S, by— P� bA � U U O +� �" � �" U m �'� cz cz cz '� 'c� bA U G' ct U O U U U U 'C cA f— cz cz tj) O .0 _O rA F-1 00 cz s CZ 4: A U a� c o ro ro cz u a° vA cz U cz c U U V O U U U O U Ct O ui +6 TEL cz ILI cz cn o W 00 + 00 o 00 cz 00 rA 00 rA 00 � k C/1 W ti N N O � •� N N � O N � � . At ct O ct IX y =p '� �� O �C c`ry �- O-o p v �� U o P. 0, n cC, cz cC N �, O .In ;� O ,� �"'.. .O �„ N N m CC O 'r CZ 0 � O ct U bA bA 0 0 P. �. a rbA 'C S� +� Cl s-i O O C 1. N O O N ,S��" ,sy.' c� N U c� 't r�� O 0 °G ¢�'C 4.1 ct cz tl P. L=. w cC V] s. a� L. cC ¢� 0 O , 9. C V U � W QI O 00 O U r 4. U CC O U O bA U O �i I U � O 00 ti W � O � cn O � O � U � Q M cz cz cz ti At Ct a ti :o o ' o o ° cz o ° o .0 > 0 a" o •� o ai ro C7 W ' ° o �' cz on ct ; .O ° cz ° cz U cz 0 u cz cz oneo � ° � oUn Sao 00 ° ° � �, Ct 5w � aa c cz cz 0 0 U U c ° �- a c � Ct -° cz o d o � 'o 0 0 � o cz cz 71 � ¢ o ti ° t ° cz cz cz 'U CZ O r--� N O U O cn `n 00 00 00 O a.•o a.•o a .o cz cz cz cz N U U U U At U U ti O U U � N U � o Ste. c O � ° U o U ° o "'. ct Ln cz cz cz cz cz cz ° w o 0 0 0 0 C U cz to to to cz e+C 4? U �--I U S. ICI c 0 U U U 0 0 W 0 cz s-' N on N * N O r O u cz cz cz 0 cz u cz U cz cz U cz u U0 u ch cz cz cz u cz cn ° U w s 00 A 00 cz 0 y cz N +�. U ti 0 At � � k ti O O a a'd U U cz o c1 1 0 0 0 p o o 14 to U ct a U 0 '- U p Z cz cz cz '^ 5 o U Cwt co) IC OMo o ro ro ro c o cr to o 0 CZ p cz n � cz V] V] " U S. CC O 00 = E W Q O 00 Ct � O U fd c� U o OC�ol !Ti o .U�. a cz U "C C O im, O eC cC 'C U � O � � U �. � � � � p„ � ¢• U U '� � cz p �" �., U p CZ W U-I W M cz N �b G cz O 0 -C iU O cd cz A_ A � � = .y O cz cn cd bA c� c� a 00 O_ O fd cz 4 cz 00 u 00 0 00 cz cz N +�. U ~ p V O b4 7 At � U W ti 7s N 7 0 o .o cz �U. cz Q' O o o U cz o U ,sU.' bA w -C U �, ' U p' d N O U O. O. U �, O ' � ° o U ° o o o *� O O ro ° o rA C �o U o 2 S.U. °�' U Z ° ai o v v °�' ° v to.0 cz �. cC 0 SOU. O U iU•' O cC O O N N `+may cz �. �. U on'o cz u U cz cn y.y O s•. U O�, �A U c� '- '� �"" a .U. cz c U cz O U N W O O.4. 'C �. o ° O O s. O. a O O O O. O p U cC U cz O U ," ° N U CZ s.. U O �.� U O s. s, s� O p c� U c� U cz v� cd .s�- cd ' �. O U U y cd U o U cz O d �. c U _cz N C C C o U cz ai U o C: cz s O U O �"'••� •.. cd O •.. o o ^' 'C O O C9. r O cUi cUi U U cC U ~ — U U U N 'n � �, N•� •�'C O P. cz 0 'C V� U P.w cz " U S. � O U a � � CZ U O v') 0 0 ~ ¢ �� cn U 0 �"'•• O. � 0 ° cn 00 o o U 00 cz cz Q N cz p V O b4 At � O W ti U u p cz - cz q N U d O 0 O U c�L : N U O U cz cz 00 � a •� w U cUi 'cz co U O ° ct cz 'u, U = v ,bA Pa ° w ro ° ° �! o `° o o = U o E o ° ° `� ° ° U u yU,i U Fr u cz O r- p Ln L ° o u W ct ° b�A a O a 0 cz 'C G cz U s0. � �. v = C � o ro E cz cz cz U cC O U c In Ln cz 0 cz 0 � •.. 0 o ° ° ° o � a o o v o u.� .o ° `z cz 0 P iti CC O fd � O U 7 � cz a .� � o U � N" O ILI p IZ W •� � o o~ o � o cz CZ U A q *� ti +••, b�A b�A b�A � � ti N u � c ct cz cC cz p CZ cz ° �� a. � =° CZ U C � ro v v cz O O 00 = U U E Ct c fd CC ct �i" � ° U U 0 •b�A 21 ct Z o cz o o cz o °�' u U °� u o U ° ° a o ° 0 0 O •un W 0 ri O bA S. N U 0 U OU F� ° w ? `� o PI! C, o o ' �" o ors ° o n LIL 11 w O O cz O 7 At U U ++ ? � k C/1 W ti ,�. �" `+'� L" � .� c� N ,-O � � U � N � � ^' ¢r.O ,fir" c� �" •�� � ,r"-i NO s0 0 u s0.' O. cz 'C 0 'C U o ' o �° o o °' �° ct 0 � o ° c -o u u 0 a i O on ' on" t x CZ� ono � � � o W N cC 'cd NBC O 'c� . `,�--� ''� N �. �'. �--' "C c� a+ cd Cl eC Q + u cd o Ln o U U 0 o 0 p O * o Ln p cz cun Ln cz ° Ln o H Ln U " U S. 00 CC O 00 U � W QI O 00 O U r CSC 4. U CC O U O bA U eC ". cr O �i � U � O 00 ti W � O � cn O � O � U � Q N + At cz ° o c>C U U on U U o U .° C ct U O o V s•: , "�'. O U i i•-, ,r"., Fr �.�, Fr N -0 = U O M 'C cC cz �"'•. "~ p O cn O. O O r--� �"'-. U U cC c� U S-'. "O U •� O O U cz �.� � `'�� � � � � � O � c� U cz U O u r--� O V] cC O U O 8 N tip O " .�" U U v' ,�•, 1 En c�Cd Oy.., U N "�.' p O O ct cz C, bA O U N C� ¢r U .6 b y O , U ' U � 5 cC O s cd 'C O N � � o .o0 u .� �' a. ° � ; � ° p er o C 84 '� ro 0. 0 0 o o .� 0 Ln Z 'n CC O 00 fd � O U 7 � 0 ti cn U 00 Q z N At 7 ° w a z � i U a cz �, 0 cz o °a. one cz u 'R a. ° u °' on o zn) �" N � �. O N � CZ C v Ste. 0 •bA � CZ cC +��' `-' 4-. O '� O CZ In u °�' �=° off ? aopo '° � cz o u 'n 'n cz o cz O 4" C L" s s- '0 c W) ~ O O ti) N O p ccz ccz 0 U 0 �. U ,�-� �-' u cz a� a O N p cC cz U o o � wa . 0 C, °' '� cz O o ° a� ro O on oA ° cz '0 O o cz ., cz '" cz 0 cz 0~ 00 =U cz W a O f d cz � O � O O ct O � "C 'P � O O U ct � U � o IZ u cz cz 5 ¢ o cz ¢ .° � � H ,� H � � �,o N F" � •� :� � W cz u � u =o 00 00 O 7 At U U ++ ? � k C/1 W ti a O Li U U U i•" � U c�� 0 N CC U = = W N c CC C CZ U ,� cz rA cC r--� U U cC CZ CZ U my �c�• p C , U C N o U sN- U U U U U Cc) W) U 4? N o p U U cz C U U U U — C U ct O 'C cn yamy.y., O c�C U cOC cC O ° ° � 5 - � ° mo=o ¢ cz c� O �, w U cz Ln ° U � ° ro° C, w ° -0 o o 0 � � CZ on a a o ° U o a CZ ct � Ln eC O bn U U eC � bn U O O i•„ N a :O p �" ° U O O 'C U U +U N O cz ct � H cz ,�. cn O CC O O U O bA eC ". cr O �i I U � O Z W � O � cn O � O � U � Q U U ++ ? � k C/1 W ti At cz cz cz U CZ u a ° cz o °cz � 'o o ° o -o ° ° ° � -o ° 0 ° o ro cz U O. C �' N �' ' c� N 0 c� °O c� O r O = tip ct y :C cC 0 w u M �° .� pUp O a a' '� c b 05., °� u b�A p � o cz cz ° one �' �, � �, � � o p � .a� 5n � o o U p o ro `z ° one o u o =u = 0 CZ o o �7 o . � o ° 0 3 ° � cz 0 u -o ° � a a cz ct cap o u 8 'C a o p bA u • 0 U.' ,0 � ° 'C 'p � pip� O � U � '� � � � � � U p ��CZ CC O 00 oo O U r CSC 4. U CC O U O bA U eC O �i � U � O 00 ti W � O � cn O � O � U � Q ti cz cz cz AF a ti • cz N '� Nc}y L. ct ) ¢• cz U 0 O ct CZ U �' v v U ocz m ,}�-� O y0.� d a .a ct ro '" 0 ' ' '" � o ° cz cz cz In u cz C) ° •o 0 0 Ln Ln 0 cz ct ct cz Ln cz 0 bJl s.. � � U a� O � � 'C f� � cd � cC � � � � � ¢• ICI U U U cz E� Ct . sue. a .fd cz Ea�n Ln L ct U U -0 ° ° cz Ln Ln O 75 cz U "C O ,s.; O (y' m s CZ Ln p Ln N Ln O Ln Ln •O .U. U O �'sue.' ° � �" ,U,.,., �" U � U O cC c O 0 Ln W cC �r •� cn U Ln cz u '� 'u cz an cz U U •U Ln Ln ^~ O O cn cz 00 cz 0 00 00 M �-- �-- �-- �-- �-- 0\ cz cz cz cz cz ti Sy U +' bA bA bA bA bA cz cz cz cz cz cz ti S. cz cz cz cz cz cz O O O O O O CC V � �--I U S. ICI IC U U U U c ° w � � o cz "C bJA a� �' U U to U 112n C C ° .� cz CZ � cut cz cz U ct °� o u ° ° cz �1 ccz .O s.. 0 C2 0 .y r- N Ct ci O o cz u cz u 61 CA cz ct N H u ct to •�' cz U cz Ln cz cz U Ln ed p O U eC O O eC eC ? eC O O eC cz N .+��•' U cz U U ti O cz cz cz to cz cz cz cz u Cl Ste, ° '�C U w y"i O �"•' N•r, cz " U U p O cz to G .~. a� cz v y N U / bA N i O O N ti)00 m 0 O 0 - U ct bA v ct � a� an a O •� ° o . ° ro n u O o 4 a ° o U cz U ti)to cp c o o ct o oc 8 o U or) 0 0 0 cz -o ° It • -o 1 ° � °�' °' U o ~ cz 0 CZ cz cz j u ICI = U ICI O U fd E ° O . o . C o o ° o o o p u ro 0 U O N cd cz Cl cd cz U U U � U p •� bA cz UN1, •� tp c cz ° �y N � C s o O U 0 ti to 71 tj) O is p O •� O 0 O O all CZ cz cz cz Ln cz cz cz Ln 'n o cz cz cz ° O ° spy et , ° spy o U bA 0 L OU 0 En N •+++�•' U cz U O '� *� ti +••, b�A b�A � O At U cz on a. 'o ° ° o o � 00Ln o � o � CZ =o cp u cz ct° H app U o cz ° u ° ro 0 U o ° U bA It � 0 U � tea. cz O � 'rte'-� •� 'C O N s. c� y C O O O •.� "C cz cz U cz cz cz U ~ U ICI ICI O fd ro o o cn cz yam.., O U �' S-'. � U O � U O r-- O cC r-- ° O 0 CZ p O � o N U U N ° O p W cz cz ct W cz U O p� O '� N ry O O ct ct =o ° ° cn •� cz o Ct o 00 00 b cz 00 U z aN rA ``�' o At an x Z a Z m � cz s, p o p p O U) 0 � � � °� °� � � p °o � � s-. � d? � .�' O N cC n � ct °� cz ° U U b � O N N O O O N N N p a� ro p o p ro o v Ct U cz Ln cz cz cz u U CZ ct 0 cz cz cz cz p P.U d ° a.•� on ° a ° a.� a . °a. °�' °�' row° � . ° Z Z Z cz~ U ICI ICI O U O O [� 7 COC Ski � Ud •�• O a O O O O N s-. O 00 •Z ¢ `Z U O ct ° cz U ti) o p o o •Ln o ~ cz o z ° ¢ o z ' im, o°n= � °' ~ o W a N cz o M cz `z o 0 cz °' 00 o cn o A u0 u4 -0 L7. CZ fd 00 U aaO °� a ¢" oO � q At ® � § ._ R 3 \ 2 \ % ( � 2 2 \ 9 f 2 2 2 .\ § � U $ § 3 2 � � � \ - / t k � / � / s % ƒ \ \ 2 t \ \ *� ti cz cz At C%1 a a W �, ti C, " "" 4-i •.�i U N om". "~" ° cz U Cd ct •p �'' ��'' O ,� '� �" O 7s cd � v4 N cam .. cC cz CZ cz u U CZ cz cz n C C N 7 .0�. u ° 0 00 U cz U 4. CC N N O O O p ° O O N cz cC O 0 cz U 0 U U �- a c Ct c ° � E a°n :C 'C � 'C v o ' o CZ _o 'n ° o 7:$ ro ° v ct � ° c -0 �: 71 u cz p - O bA U cc O U o ?. o . 0'o Ucz cz � o .° o U U � � a.� o � o U o ° � a� � ti o d ? i =ova.> � = ° �? W 0 W W H a ' o O o H a o ff H IZ Ln cz cn 4 C)O cz `0 u 0 O ° 0 CZ � � O +� Ll e, 11 - U 7F, 00 U 0 P. 00 U Ct cz cz ti z N N 'In cz p V O b4 � U W ti U � N �"U. z 0 O c� U ° o °„ cz u C U --' ro p ° �- c0i m eC U O U O CZ ° U , w OC U U 4, U s. a� O a ° d bA U O U .� S-" "'C O O U .U. °�". ¢" sU-� ,,rte., Z O �. OU 0 bUA�. N �bA 4 O CO) t b U U cz U 0 bA O U U U O C�. CC :O r�- bJJ O O O U " U O cz U O O U CC O 00 00 fd � O U 7 � cz a .� c cz Li U O U ICI •.U. cn U cC 00 rA °G Q U U ++ ? � k C/1 W ti At cC � U U C) U cz o0 on U .� ° cz ° n 0 U 0 s, U bA U U cC ' �. O -O s .Ct to CC O U U 0 .� �O oO ct O u ' � O O ,��• U cC o � ¢' U � ° 0 o ° UU � 0 u � � c�cz s. O U O 0 U u .0 .0 0 U O ° cz 4, 0 u cz O u O .� u '� CZ � °s. �7S ° •�. u cz ct cz Cl 0 O U _ ro •gin U 0 a�, 0 °�' 'o v a •o v 0 �, to 0 o •.. 0 0 cz . °' ro o 4, U o ° '0 O C� a..i W Q ,��' w O ,r-'i N .r, a..i a..i ,r-'i U cz cn 00 CC O 00 CSC y U CC O U O bA U O �i � U � O 00 ti W � O � cn O � O � U � Q M O G� •F U U � W ti c p „UU„ O, O ar"., N N , "C U �, U ,� U O �' 6' OU U ,r"., S".. ,� "C O cz U U p •� o U U o 4, i� o f o on.o oA . ct rA CZ 0 CZ chi u o o •�" b chi o ° o o u ° °� ct o U 'C •- a °A cn °�. ° o U °" sue. 'C U i u o ' ro °'. ct ° °' U o o ' w° o ��- � w � � � � � � .-. C U U 0 r U cUi U vO v � 0 'v U U bA U w o �U EA cz cz U Ui " U U At r-- U o w "C O r-- U u ° O ro cz cl U p U b°A OUte . a. G H O w D O D w U •--I U S. 00 CC O 00 � O U 7 � U U U 00 ono o o ° ILI In ° cn U 0 u z a� rA o At 0 ° . o = o , =cz b ro o - o oa� * O cz ° a cz u a cz ° l o o 0 5 y ° . U U C U _ 5 r5 o °a{ ° w CZ 4.1 ' cc o r 0 Maur ro n U cz cz cz ° � � ° �„" �'. O yd? S-" S-. �. � rte, � �� O � ,�•, ''� � � U N U O� O O cz ~ c 0 U ICI ICI O U r.. b�A U U cn O bA O O 0 cz A N O N O O i." s•. O ,r�•I N ¢,.�-' a •c ° cad ° r h o ° h ° u ° ' � ' ° ° o L ° cz � o 0 cz Ln Ln M �-- �-- �-- �-- �-- O\ N .+��•' U U U U U ti ti ti S. cz cz cz cz cz cz cz cz O O O O O O O CC V � �--I U S. ICI IC = U U U U U E 1. a c 00 ° w Cd cz � cz 00 00 1 cN O U O �.' O O O y0., p O ° a Ln W E-i . H U O '�" � ors �' •�, a � oo cn � bA � � p N N •� � � �-i r-- � N � O � �4 v U ' u ° u ° °' cz � a a � a as a. a, ° a, � a. � • ° a. � ° ° � a. � � a� :� `� +�+ U U cz U U cz U ti C%1 W W W W W W �syy c� ti ,-z U N �• cz cz •� t . =. O bA oc O �:) U U U O W o CZ P. -p U U P. 81 C't m P-� UU N r U U cC CZ ct cz ct cz -pW i o � � W C � SU. " • U s- U •.. U � O O cz O ' ¢" G O� cd O U ~ �] •.� cd cd ¢, O 4-i P- P-i bA bA cz C" b�A ct" U N N O O c� U +� L Ln V �--I U S. ICI cz U U U 0 Ct fd o i o f P� cz bA'C 'C co Ln bA U U U Ln CZ cz U O pU cz cz U u u U O� O U U U U !-'-� �" v'� U cz U U Pi"'- �' a ¢" a ,rU.' ,rbAI O •0 O P�. cC ^' P�" .ILI„ 5 C-t cz "U cut O r ct cz 3 U bA s. cn cn _ u " U W 00 00 � O o 0 s 00 cz 00 q M O ti U N .. c u cz O sO'' o p ro ° �ro CZ `� � co C C) U to , O c0 U Ole cz o =ff ° tea; u � U � � � � � ° ^� U o U cz U o U s. c W) ro U CA ro a� CZ •.. p y on �° [� o % =cz o on oA. o 44 ° v cz CZ CZ u � c o � � �' � w � � � � � c � � o � H �" chi' °��' ,� •� � � � a� � ,� � � N "" U �. O ~ v -AAA bA ct O O U ° � �-� cz ° �+ U bA ¢" N 0 O '—+ b��A "��' .+". U. ¢" U ~ 'C^' b��Ai sOy r3 •�. / H C • Q / H w U C 0 • Q —U � O U E a�n vz 0 0 U u w p o o Ct cz U U . ° o E 44 CZ 0 0 0 U c 7�L w O U U X0.1 � �.•� 0.1 � �. c�C � '� � Q ti z M N O V O b4 ti N 0 cz N cz N U a? U U C C Li c O ° C cz P.� �to � p O Cl CZ ct ' cz cz cz o ° v � ° ° cz � cz CZ u cz u ° v c ° to scn cz �'"°r ..y �, '� '+-i .,��. , fir' c� U ,-; o �, '� •b in w , ,� ° ''C as � � � .S-'�' ;-p�,�r-'� '��'" � U '0 O � � N N �j � ;-p�+ � "~�' � N •p ° sV-i s�-i ,�""-i �'. U � �.� CC O 00 CSC O U a � U ro ro y� cd ° N bA c o ct o cz a ° W c i0r � W 0 0 At cz ? O � � ct w a, Cz -Z� o on � aa� � ° . ° `� ° o o ° ro 7s cz t "C cz cz ° cz O ° *" u o ; o CZ ° u cz cz N N N CC O 00 fd � O U 7 � o � o C-1 cz 00 O 0 ct O U U cn U NCI cz G_ U PS 00 4. 0 N .+��•' U cz cz U U cz Q' ? 0 cz oc Er cz u Coll � '�" � �--' �--' �--' U •� Off"" U ti oc O ,�—� bA = U �" O CZ !+- U � c "C ,� r N 0 O '� N app c�C s. .. U U O O ,d? O U icy' N cC cz O n 'C U P. CC U cz � O D U �� y p •.� S. 0 "C "C C cC U U c/ cz .� ro Ln �O o Ln m Ln Ln U +� 44 cz cz cz u u o o °' eC O U eC p U U o _ O cZ cz C 0 o O cun cz 00 U U fd CC Ln Ln cr b�A Ln Ln U Sn' �. �N 0 E O S•. O O c an, -o � � U i � o im, 7s U ct �.y p ct 4; cz C) U o °' � cz u U / $". rl cz cn U 0 p L: cz U O U O � U U U S•. U � U � � .,, U 'C 00 00 �. O � � O ct M sn' CZ cz cz U U on cd cz � U 0. 0 w ° U U 'C cC � 'C U U U O U 0 0 U o ° R o oP� 0 o ro U p o u U U cz O � � l �•„ O � cd W � � � � a `� � � y„i ,� •� � s.• cC W o a z CZ ° o ° � � � � � x o moo . O � .� p � � -o �. •� • � O -o ..r cz +, o C j 0. cz ct ct roa o '� ' row W) cz o one o o Uo o o arm o U °3 O w U �; � o -, �; � = ' � wp ' A„i a � /-� L" O N �C'' s••i ? �--, N 7 P� U U O L U cd � U NU �'' O "C O �+ 0 .� O F" .U. U o c�CZ kr) �y ism'_, s••i O '~ O � cn U � ,r- O --i � O � O � � ,r- ,�,,. � s-i , �•,,ct w Cd O E a 2 " U S. CC O fd � O U 7 � cz a .� a � c U O O CZ c _ U U ar CC U U U U U U U Sy U U U a� �L cz U �� Wa tj) cn U � a. o s U P•r P•r a�r� � q U U ++ ? � k C/1 W At ti cz cz N N •,��. '� 'U V� O� C O CZ �bA� -0 0 v a� a cd i O r O bA p 0 O � � bOA O4 � on e o ° ° �c � U o • 0 0 .0�. p 0 5 u O O O O cz O ,�- O �O a0"� � N cz O � •� ¢ �n U � a -� o o °oz' s 0 ct cz to cz cz O U O 0 O ct ct p '�ct cC ,�- , N ,r-I N ,mss'"-. bA cz c O Us- 0 c O c N N �C a� U p � �p-- •� Pa k, O N 6 W � N o— U CC O 00 O U r CSC y U CC O U O bA eC O �i I U � O 00 ti IZ W � O cn O � O � U � Q c ? O � ti 0 oc U U CCU cz ¢" Z bA z U cz o U d ° v �' s- rC � P P cz a� 7s ° cz ° p � rC '^ + U o cz to o o `er °�° ❑� o o � •u y�y ��- o`r to¢"� U �y cad N to Ct CZ cd �n 'C cC � � N sue. � 'O N '� O pp bA r iU. cUy N O �� °' ° M U N c �n a ° °� ° o ro ° °� E� cd ° ° cv o o cz cz C` °erg-' � z c7 ro � E ' ° v� o 2 � ct � �' a" U a" 6 a" a�mss ' ,� o ° �L" 0 cz o N �, "C ' O O -0 6 w N O U 'U V] cz p N � O L" bA U cC M �.' O cn �' cC 0 O o O ±. �., .� •,r�� N �--' O ^U' N ¢" ¢"�"" ��y'" U N N " �O �.' �.' O N O N cz � � � P-i o w P-i a' ,^� `3 � O � � a' cOC".o '�." /-� H '� � 'C •� � � � °U °U � a' � a' � a � U � CC O 00 fd � O U 7 � 0 ono v� ti U Cam'' rA ct cz cn U U U P.u tom. q O � o O o cz o 0 o �-.. 4. Q oUc cz cz Ct �. U P. O � ' �U U 0�. " zi $ P. U ccd U .O . cd O cd U O c U u O ,^� cz O O O t,., W yU•i � O +o. bA ,z O P. O Ct U ,�., a. U Pa U U P-.-0 Ln w w w .� !=.� p � U � � u � F � ' O 'C U U c`z r-- U �' O U Z O O U U pC u �, cC O p O O . . U N U U ct �, r+ �I ,�. 'u 91. SO 7s ll oo � O U u ct � U o U O � btA U O 0 O p v') cn cn O e,C � O s•• � � U 0 � q M O 7 At 7s u cz 7s U U ++ ? � k C/1 W ti N U O O �•' O '��N � � � � sU-� O. � �' .O V � O � O. n ti) N �s� p ��O p O. O ptp,5 O. a s, cC ... cC ... cz W U o U cz °�' ° 0 u `� p o o u 0 ° cz O0. +, 0 • ¢ ' U ro a awn P o 0.01 0 0 cz �° u o ct o 0 0 0 0 �� u "+ o U cz 0 O o u ID cz ct cC N � S"„ ,F�" U !"-� '� '� •.� ,�„ ,��. U fir' '� U V \ CC O 00 O U r CSC y U CC O U O bA eC O �i � U � O 00 ti W � O � cn O � O � U � Q :O :O •� O •� O U b�A tog to 9 k cr W ti N � ct N 0 O U N N cd O N g "C a cd to U° u O o - ro U O o U ° °� ro U 'ct cz U ° to z 44 ' o Z cz U " cz u 7s o cz 'z O 0 cd 41-. p y U O N ? O cz " goo cz u � -o o � o cz O N 0 O cC V] O y 0.•i O 4-i �. O '+ cz oc ct U CC O 00 fd � O U 7 � cz E a�n O ° O o � o e1ti CZ U o 00 00 O cz cz cz 7 At ti bAU v U W cz U U ro U OU U �_ C cz U N " ^ bA c O U U bA U U O CC bA cv o U P. i cz U O °' U �C cC +� r" a� U c� °;,' o cz n W cz U v NLn o a� N o� U cz ❑ c N to O O W O U O O U O O •p•�' U �. 'C O O U U U bA Cd U + cz u cz N �� rU rU- +�U N s� cz J U OCR 00 CC O 00 Ct lcnz cz U U N 'O 00 U .. p cz � N to U a�3 � a � •� � aU � `� U 00 00 s 00 cz � q N .+��•� U U cz U 7 At U O W 4; cz boa' cz U U C, O Fr 7s U O ~ u 7s 'Inn U U U V •0 U �--� � �" �U �--� i- c- � cz o _ 'n k cz cz CZ Ln CZ ors U P� cz U U O bA y C cz p S. s- Pa Ln � S. � � O U cz cz ' ct "— � C CZ ~ U ICI ICI 4. U � � o o� �UOO z 0 cz c 0 cz U O Ln b. ct bA x o o U „ c cz U O �' O ,�-'� U O � � a acct .° ot� U cz d U W cz bA �,•^i " O U U O Ln u ct CZ U O U U O 00 U "C ct U O 00 00 O V U U cz U CZ UN 5 cct O 8 N p U s. :O UU U �� �� .U. U O . ACC ��", a••� a 0 �' ¢-' cd �¢'' N � O U t�•" U O 0 cyd C/� C/� U .'~,�•cz Cd sU *O" 'C pA N bA U Cd N -- 'n 4 U N ❑�. N U p �- �° = = o .¢ `a ° o U U O a ro o o CO) ° o Ct C on o ono � 4, O " U o cz O °' U- P. U ro on H w a. ct /-� • • • • /-� N R 'U cz H w " U S. CC O oo fd � O U 7 � cz a �76 a U) U cz U U 0 U cC O cad O N e,C D O im, O O � CA cz cz c� bA U O cz cz CC � � U Cd � � � N cz At U � � k O W � Z ti cz °n j ° U o ct P. cz Ln C° , b Q H a s ro � N. o o cz � o .� 0.5 O P. a� an � •° w .� U p w° cz cz eC ° o v-) U 0 ro C7 o o ro a. f) o U U P U P P. U :; ~ ICI = U E W a p 9 ICI Ski � U" •�• � ° ro -° W U � N ccz �. 0 O i." 0 •V cn cn p �. .' cz CZ w U Z ? ^C > � O cn cz U -0 ccz 0 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR provides a brief overview of the proposed project site's existing regional and local setting. Additional descriptions of the environmental setting as it relates to each of the environmental issues analyzed in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this Draft Subsequent EIR are included in the environmental setting discussions contained Nvithin Sections IV.B through IV.N. This section also compares key elements of the proposed project Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Regional and Local Setting The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) project site is located in the City of South San Francisco (the Citv), approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco. South San Francisco, built upon the San Francisco Bay plain and northern foothills of the coastal range, is located along major transportation corridors and hubs. These include U.S. 101, Interstate-280 (I-280), Interstate-380 (I-380), BART, Caltrain, and the Union Pacific Railroad main line (formerly knoNsn as the Southern Pacific Railroad). The project site is located at the northNvest corner of Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District of South San Francisco. Local access to the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point(the Cove)project area is currently provided from Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards and regional access is primarily provided by U.S. 101. The project site is not directIv accessible to transit; hoNvever, the South San Francisco Caltrain and San Bruno BART Stations are located approximately half a mile miles and approximately 3.1 miles southNvest of the project site, respectively, and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is less than one mile east of the project site. These transit stations are served by shuttles provided by area companies and the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Alliance. Figure III-1 illustrates the regional and project site location. An aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses are shoNsn in Figure III-2,Nvhile Figure III-3 shows views of the project site. Project Site The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNver pump station located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, the Caltrain railroad tracks to the Nvest, Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco Bav to the north, and commercial properties and research and development buildings to the east. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description Draft, subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-1 Basemap:Esri 2033 �r sEb�rtt Er„E � 6� � s4a , A, 0 500 1,000 2,000 '+ NFeet r r ,;�v°eg M;; f' r/f �a ° taa asr �� ✓✓ adcY'Sand San J Franoi ou P ro�e¢t A ✓ � w; i✓� l�F � ;� �RSb BPfawd» ntE 4uE 4t;t qr q Project Site boundary �''� ✓a �� �t��� �u�°.SdyW a'ahuun9 M!:!4tlwd " ta Ers ” 41 qVO 1,11, Al V t��� any �a..�.,✓ r f�,~x"� ra "� j V t. say .P6a99k' raaEx7a a 4aa�aE as sf "Ono A rD av, " �I E iGr ail"I Ave C,✓ry "a,�a#✓a "d✓ E.ay sry - ds"°rtw E G�and Ave <4 a"da 9,^YA It aam e �i ro r° , EEuNa:@aeapkbra, ��'>cnceAve � E Jzmm�e t fi M Fli .✓ Sw IylVjr auk; �a�0 a'raa�a5t ✓ 1, 44 °° City of South San Francisco Britrunfia Couc(it Oyster Point Figure 111-1 Regional and Project Location I , f���r'�//' �//� �///I/�1��/'� irp�i��yr,;/ ��_�'/ �� �klm✓r"i'�Viu"^wl�� ' N�° %�' //// /ifw/�I�j/�' f �( � P '�;'� l"a/✓iii/ �� // ���� ' m y � // mum11 ! roN��m'mra i��/ � % �� pn // N11NN IIWWWWWllwV / a I �e t J1"NJSi1U II�11 ? 9wmn �wrnmJN l f ' %� prNis�mwW�mawm / I I r r II II f r - y m , , Im Im City of South San Francisco II II III � Br,trunria Cosa'(it Oyster Point Figure 111-2 Existiri;Projcct Arai Land Uscs r f . f View 1 View 2 Looking west towards Highway 101 from Looking south at the existing onsite sewage Veterans Boulevard pump infrastructure from Veterans Boulevard View 3 View 4 View of pedestrian sidewalk and chain link fence View from Veterans Boulevard of eastern border project site °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o iSBrrtrunzia Co.0 OyStcr Point Figure HIS Views of the Project Site, Views 1-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Existing Land Use Regulations The proposed project site is governed by the C*tv of South San Francisco General Plan and the C*tv s Zoning Code. Under the General Plan, the project site is located in the East of 101 Area Plan area and the ONTster Point Planning Sub-Area (see Figure III-4). As shown in Figure III-5, the City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) designates the proposed project site as Business Commercial. The project site is zoned Bay West Cove Specific Plan District. Bay West Cove Specific Plan District The Bay West Cove Specific Plan serves to refine and to implement the General Plan Nvith respect to the Specific Plan Area and to combine the concepts, procedures, and regulations of the General Plan, former redevelopment plan, zoning ordinance, and certain aspects of the subdivision ordinance. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District is further divided into five planning areas. The project site falls Nvithin Planning Area la and lb. Uses permitted in the District include, but are not limited to, office buildings for professional or business purposes,research and development(Planning Area la), day care centers,public park/recreation facilities, eating and drinking establishments, convenience markets, hotels/motels (Planning Area lb), maintenance and repair services, personal services, and retail. Office/R&D (Research and Development) use may be permitted in Planning Area lb only if it is proven that a full service hotel project is not viable on site. The maximum FAR in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels, and 0.5 for all other uses. Higher FAR Nvould be alloNved Nvith a request to grant a bonus for the inclusion of TDM measures, off- site improvements, and specific design standards. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District also includes regulations related to maximum building heights, setbacks, architectural guidelines, landscaping, open space, parking and loading, transportation and circulation, transportation demand management, public improvements and infrastructure, public services, signs, and implementation. Surrounding Land Uses Land uses surrounding the project site are mostly limited to office, R&D, commercial(including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and park and recreation. The Caltrain tracks are located adjacent to the northNvest of the site, Nvith US 101 located adjacent to the tracks. The Oyster Point Marina is located due east and includes marina slips, pier, park, and other marine facilities as Nvell as the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal,Nvhich opened in June 2012. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is located Nvithin a half mile from the project site. Shuttles run from the South San Francisco Caltrain station to the Utah-Grand Avenue area and Ouster Point area office buildings during commute hours. Land uses surrounding the project area are shown in Figure III-6. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-5 r A, o aoo i,000 - 2,0 00 •� ��� �r� ra,i�r//°`i�ir�rrrma/�� � d/a"!iiO/iii»> �,,r,rei�rr��a�i,�l; 1i yvii/ 1),jj pry ea,4ur y�;, irl.�P/aG/rylPm. v„ fF `I °rgiiaio��irar�r�raryaayrrriii��r ri��� ���a r�rl {.•'' �rrrrrvir�2rr9ory r�arorrr�n�r,�i�� a_ w� tio o°1412, .. r t ri r ,. f lJWNWAnIWWAI,�r ��rr rrr�jrarr�aiaai�araiaaaaiiara%rr���roirornrry/rrra0pwooirmrrP� San Bruno Canal ------------------------ 111 � r X, W, �f r W, f 5" San Francisco �� �� y Uy /i0 "011M,rrrniio frf % / / ///Oirr/ p " %vlrr /D/%///%% D �ira,oq%iDirlrrll,rr,�rd�gelvrl liU///!,O///��///�OUrl o„f� of G � J 141 141 City of South San Francisco Br,trunzia con,(it Oyster Point Figure 111-4 Planning Sub-Areas 1 o aoo 1,000 2,000 � 4 ax NFeet Olk rn � a P���� V, Dy '" '� °'° + �i�rt�`� ♦aaA°� � ""� � . ���� � V�@tya-Atn,�, OR/" Ir, i 9 viii 01 tlm m A �a w'ir .." �:+Fr'nv� � J ...:...:.:.... Oo NO 0i�ah�n°` rrw9u"0r0Umu�Nr Y r •nriw�-�. 4 D +1 G� � I�pyu��,ru a?r tFP � ub " �� '✓�� apu � pr� u ry. � P � ts n w aw w � �'BaP 'Yw IIIIN4":Ig' W d V � m NY , lary t "q p� � ti0 a b r a ' tion "�"� �r , ti fR5a1M�i4�;+rt�t'p'm ta`a aq u 1L M r� �_� ,� �mman�mras aa0mt"Cw�rNttnur9ar kmw�'� —__ f� � � ��. Per E ans'paacmad(in cell ter d� Lott Oveday District � 0", `i f � aAA Existing�t,Yi�ndaatlA�Lrq��aWL eltect!nm � � �A � ed Street O"WZU Prop � V , InzteTchauurge0mtx n sectuaxrcn Study k,ea p 71 cl • �m 0B I� � aa�� ray r W�°v i xr ;. � its* f �VB9 44 °° City of South San Francisco Br,tru n Figure 111-5 nria con,(it Oyster Point General Plan Designations GovcYnin'a the Project Area View 5 View 6 R&D land uses, east side of Veterans Boulevard Eastern boundary looking south towards Oyster Point Boulevard i 0 v i y ifs Qk ' !a 7r l/,i ✓/n // I�/�j�/ i ����ii� : ii/l� ol � %?✓jF'1rf j%l� i��/�f���l/%�i%fi���f%/�i/�I��',!,�%lf%Jn�/����������lrii�� //: ��� — �/� ✓i� /�/i�i�//�i��r�� f�i"� i�� %/ii FYi/l���il�yi�yr itrfJrryl� o-/i r/� /l �/ ��ao /% ! //�F��/ 1�p /%/%��ff/I✓f�/fi%f�/�/r i/l�Fii%����%/%����/�y�0��1!Y/��f�rl�'��r/tr i/ i1 r�i���.,�/�i/��;i,�i��/(i�f����/"i/}l�l i�s111��/ily�l�7��/.r��y�,rty��1�/�'%l.D��✓f(/�'1r7.���,j����I�I���Ji,���l�i�j� View 7 View 8 San Francisco Bay border to the north Looking southeast towards Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard intersection °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o iSBrrtrunzia Con,rat OyStcr Point Figure III-6 Views of the Surrounding Land Uses, Views 5-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; B. BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT ("PROJECT") Planning History The project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project. The original 172 acre project site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe fabrication facilities, ship repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of the original project site are located offshore and are not subject to development. The on-shore area, 55.4 acres, of the original project site has been redeveloped in phases. In December 1997, the City certified an EIR for Bay West Cove, a proposed mixed use commercial project. The Bay West Cove project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith a different development scenario proposed for each planning area. The current project site Nvas defined as Planning Area 1 in the 1997 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. One planning area(Planning Area 5) Nvas located offshore in the San Francisco Bay and Nvas envisioned as tidal Nvetland, as required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup Order. By 2000, only Planning Area 4 had been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan. In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 (the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project). The development application included a subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub- planning areas: la and lb. Land uses permitted in Planning Area la included office/R&D, Nvhile hotel uses Nvere permitted in Planning Area lb. The City certified a Supplemental EIR for the Bay West Cove Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently, Planning Areas 2 and 3 Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D uses using the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The proposed project is the last phase of development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan in 1997. By developing Planning Area 1, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan is intended to complete development of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project is the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan. The project Nvould implement the development of an approximately 20.1 acre Office/R&D business park,located Nvithin the Bay West Cove Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings including 884,344 square feet of Office/R&D use;up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space; and a parking structure. Business/commercial development on the project site would total 1,030,344 square feet. The proposed project Nvould also enhance accessibility to the Bay Trail located on the northern side of the project site,near the San Francisco Bay. Although the proposed project Nvould not include improvements to the Bay Trail it Nvould improve pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the project area. The proposed project Nvould also include the relocation of the 48-inch storm Nvater drain line and other on-site project utility infrastructure, as Nvell as implementation of a Project Utility Plan. Further, the proposed project's design Nvould include the use Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; and maintenance of bioretention areas and other onsite storm Nvater treatment facilities, which are described in Section IV.H-Hydrology and Water and detailed in Appendix C. The project site plan is shoN-,n in Figure 111-7. The project Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Table III-2 outlines the differences in proposed development between the proposed project, the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould be constructed in three phases. Under the conceptual phasing program, Phase 1 Nvould consist of the development of two Office/R&D buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project site roadways, site utilities, lighting, and landscaping. Phase 2 Nvould consist of the development of two additional office/R&D buildings, a 3-story parking structure, a restaurant, retail space, and site utilities, lighting, and landscaping. Surface parking Nvould be reconfigured on the site. Phase 3 Nvould consist of the development of three additional office/R&D buildings, expansion of the parking structure from 3-stories to 8 or 9-stories,installation of additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting, and reconfiguration of surface parking on the site. Conceptual project phasing and buildout is shoNsn in Table III. The project Development Application,including phasing plans,is shoNsn in Appendix B of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The project also includes an amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the BaY West Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, a Development Agreement, Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), and a Sign Application approval. The Specific Plan Amendment Nvould include text amendments to clarIA- the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1, and the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia ONTster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR, as Nvell as a map amendment to aggregate sub-areas la and lb into Planning Area 1. Table III-3 outlines the development standards in the City's Zoning Code and any changes that Nvould occur under the proposed project. See Appendix C for the full text of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code changes. As stated previously, the project applicant is seeking a blended FAR from one Planning Area to another across the original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point planning areas for an aggregated FAR. The Britannia ONTster Point site is developed at an FAR of 0.58. The project proposes the transfer of FAR from the Britannia ONTster Point site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) to the project site (Planning Area 1) for a combined FAR of 0.86. Buildout and FAR for the project and Britannia Oyster Point, both individually and combined,is shoNsn in Table III-4. Although construction of the project Nvould be phased to accommodate market forces, it is assumed that Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Each phase of the project Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Nvould require from approximately 21 to 24 months for design and construction. The project Nvould require the use of pile driving equipment during construction. Impervious surfaces and landscaping Nvould constitute approximately 632,000 and 242,000 square feet, respectively, for a total development of 1,030,344 square feet on the site. Table III-1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout Building Square Height Phase Buildings FAR Footage Floors (feet) Parking Spaces 1 B3 132,034 4 82 (2016) B4 120,559 5 96 60 Hotel(200 rooms) 126,000 9 105 Surface Parking 732 Total–Phase 1 .43 378,593 792 2 B1 102,737 4 82 (2017) B2 102,737 4 82 Retail 20,000 Parking Structure — 3 25.5 498 Surface Parking* 122 Total–Phase 2 .26 225,474 — — 620 Total Phase 1 & 2 604,067 — — 1,412 3 B5 137,425 5 96 (2019) B6 130,802 5 96 225 (aggregate B7 158,050 6 113 spaces-B5,B6, B7) Parking Structure — 8 78 1,300 Surface Parking* (459) Total–Phase 3 .49 426,277 — — 1,066 Total Phase],2, &3** 1.18 1,030,344 — — 2,478 Total Phase] 2, &3*** 1.18 1,030,344 — — 2,670 *Reconz f figured **Ratio at 2.5'1000 for R&D, Podium parking 285 spaces, Parking Structure 1,798 spaces, Sur face.Parking 395 spaces ***Ratio at 2.83'1000 for R&D, Parkilig Structure 1,990 spaces Source:DESArchitects, Britannia Cove at Oyster Point,Design Guideline Submittal, and February 20, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Protect Description Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-11 r �%%� / /% /' / i -' Nom- a � °��✓� 1 � �+ r ' -,�� / :.� ....._„�":I IV III 01('• / NP r �v� ///'i/. ', /l,' %/ / _._ 1 LU i, �! .�/ %� U all 9 `r / I M /ii C1w d uj / f // " I r, c /r I � U i, /io, �' / /ir//�i/i prop "'�;, ^" �°" �` ✓ N�pe "-", P i '. 111117 1 /—%ir / /% ,. "a 1u1 __rte r r: i `"'/'" egl /for � /i ''i /6 % r� � ✓//i x�, r/ IN „ r /// %�/� //�/ i luulluullllll ' luuuuuul / Pxw LNULN uuld'jis Z ern6ldA d,N\lui,d ,IsAo 1,IA13 w.a 1.9A] fordA� 1eerg'9 00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013 Building Framework and Character Building frameNvork and characteristics have been updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,to represent a more cohesive campus style environment that Nyould be pedestrian friendly. Project buildings Nyould be consistent in character, Nyith simple geometry. Exterior building colors ma-- differ to create visual interest and building identity on the project site. Building forms Nyould van- in capacity, height, and shapes to create architectural variety and individual building identity, Nyhile at the same time maintaining a unified campus character. The buildings Nyould be situated near the perimeter of the site thereby creating large areas to accommodate open space, landscaping and surface parking. Landscaping Nyould be installed betNyeen the buildings and Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards. Pedestrian facilities Nyould be provided along Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards, N-,-here appropriate. The building design Nyould incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and aluminum metal panels. The building base of each building Nyould have a contrasting design and articulation Nyith the rest of the building, and Nyould be sensitive to the pedestrian scale. Building rooflines Nyould have enclosures to screen mechanical systems. Open Space Network The open space netNyork is a complete update since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. It is designed to alloNy for building and project site connectivity Nyith recreational opportunities. The parking structure location and building placement Nyould alloNy for interior site and exterior frontage open space areas. The open space areas Nyould contain outdoor amenities, gathering spaces, and passive use areas. An amphitheater, along Nyith a bocce court, sports court, and outdoor dining areas Nyould create the center of the open space netvyork, for a total landscaped area of 242,289 square feet. Site furnishings Nyould be provided for tenant and visitor use. Open spaces in entrance locations Nyould be determined during campus design and according to tenant's needs Nyith a focus on connecting the site to Oyster Point Boulevard, Veterans Boulevard, and the Bav Trail. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-13 ('to)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I(project site) Parking Site Ratio Area (per Use Building Area(sf) (sf) FAR 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan(proposed project) R&D/Office 884344 2.83 2,503 Hotel w/Restaurant 126,000 1/room 200' Retail 20,000 3.33 67 Total 1,030,344 874,344 1.18 2,670 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project R&D 620,000 2.83 1,698 Hotel 296,000 0.75 225 Retail 10,000 5.5 50 Restaurant 10,000 5.5 50 Child Care(100 children minimum)' — Total 916,000 874,344 0.58 2,023 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Auto Display Showroom 23,866 N/A Seib-ice/Reception 24,570 N/A Car Wash 1,716 N/A Customer Parking — N/A 280 Seixice and Handicap Parldng — N/A 82 Additional Parking — N/A L459 Totae 50,152 874,344 N/A 1,821 r 100 of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D bzrddings and area also included in total R&D par king count(?1'4,242,above. Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay best Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of offiee'R&D sgzrare footage in eitherPlannbrgArea 1 orPlannbrgArea 2/3. 3 The r°enraining sgzrare footage of the 1997 Bay M est Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area I would be covered with car display lots. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III ProfectDescription Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-14 00)of South San Francisco April 201; Table III-3 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes Existing Bay West Cove Specific Proposed Bay West Cove Specific Plan and Municipal Code Zoning Plan and Municipal Code Zoning District District Building Limitations Life-Science/Office/R&D FAR is 1.0 FAR may be blended across Planning Gross FAR and the Hotel FAR is 2.0.Hotel will Areas within the Bay West Cove not be counted against the 1.0 Specific Plan District provided that Office/R&D FAR and the Life the maximum development allowed Science/Office/R&D FAR will not be for the Bay West Cove specified in applied against the hotel FAR. the Bay West Cove Specific Plan is not exceeded. Planning Area 1 Divides Planning Area 1 into la and Planning Area 1 would be amended lb. to(1)eliminate the alternatives considered for Planning Area 1 in the prior 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan(2)consolidate Planning Areas la and lb, (3)allow for the development of both Life Sciences/Office/R&D uses and Hotel uses within Planning Area I.and(4) allow for FARto be transferred from Planning Area 2 within the Bay West Cove Specific Plan to Planning Area 1. Lead Agency City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Department Source:Bay Nest Cove Spec(fic Plan,Jzrly 26, 2012. Pedestrian Circulation and Amenities The project proposes a new pedestrian circulation system and new pedestrian amenities compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The new pedestrian circulation and amenities provided Nvould emphasize connectivity and project area access and it is discussed below. The project Nvould incorporate a pedestrian-oriented environment Nvhere employees and visitors Nvould be able to connect to the entire system of buildings and outdoor spaces Nvith a comfortable and easy-to- navigate circulation network after arriving via transit, car or bicycle. This network Nvould include connections between buildings, parking structures, transit stops, open spaces, the Bay Trail, and public sideNvallcs. Landscaping The project proposed a new landscaping plan compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The new plan is presented below and it is meant to reflect the new project site plan and City requirements. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page 111-1.5 ('to)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Landscaping on the project site Nvould emphasize a natural and informal landscape using simple plant materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants Nvould be chosen considering the climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 area and Nvould be combined Nvith variations in landform and circulation routes to create a series of Nvind-protected spaces rather than being large expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants Nvould vary, but could include Afghan Pine, Cajeput Tree, European Hornbeam, Lombardy Popular, New Zealand Christmas Tree, Purple Leaf Plum, Purple Leaf Acacia, Ornamental Pear, Red FloNvering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf Tristania, and Timber Bamboo. Preliminary landscape and site materials are shoNsn in Appendix B. Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics Parking Ratio Building (per 1,000 Parking Use Area(sf) Site Area(sf) FAR sf) Stalls Britannia Cove at Oyster Point(proposed project) R&D/Office 884344 2.83 2,503 Hotel w/Restaurant 126,000 1/room 200' Retail 20,000 3.33 67 Total 1,030,344 874,344 1.18 2,670 Britannia Oyster Point(Planning Areas 2 and 3) R&D 560,825 3.1 L739 Retail(required under 10,000 3.33 33 current entitlements)' Restaurant(required under current entitlements)3 Child Care- 8,000 3 24 Total 578,825 974,527 0.58 1,763 Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point R&D/Office L445J69 294 4,242 Retail 20,000 3.33 67 Hotel 126,000 1.59 200' Child Care 8,000 3 24 Total 1,599,169 1,848,871 0.86 1 4,433 1100 of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242,above. 'Retail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the Britannia Cove at OysterPoint proposed development plan. 3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay ll est Cove Commercial Project was not provided. Itwas asszmzed itwozdd be part of ofee'R�D sgzarre footage in eitherPlannbrgArea 1 or Planning Area 2 3. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III ProfectDescription Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Signage Although the Signage Program may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, it Nvill be redesigned to accommodate the new project site and design standards. The new Signage Plan is discussed below. The project Nvould include the development of a unified Signage Program for the entire project site, developed to achieve project site branding, vehicular and pedestrian Nva--finding, facility/occupant identification, and regulatory circulation support for traffic, fire and safety. Signage Nvill assist day-to-day users, couriers and visitors to navigate safely and efficiently to the project site and to their destinations throughout the project site. The unified Signage Program Nvill identiA- elements that Nvill serve as a consistent design style throughout the campus reflective of the design character of the business center as a N-,-hole. Lighting Although the Lighting Plan may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, it Nvill be redesigned to accommodate the new project site and design standards. The new Lighting Plan is discussed below. Project site and architectural lighting systems Nvould be installed to provide illumination levels recommended for safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Lighting Nvould be designed to appropriately illuminate signage and Nvayfinding system components to make information clearly legible at night. Lighting on the exterior of the buildings Nvill be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design to be compatible Nvith the overall campus architecture and consistent Nvith SSFMC Title 20. Vehicular Circulation Although vehicular circulation may contain similar elements to the one proposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould implement a new redesigned system to accommodate the new project site plan and design standards. The main commonalities between the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the proposed project are the locations of main access points on Ouster and Veterans Boulevards. The new vehicular circulation system is described below. The employee/visitor system would be served by the primary entrances and the access lane that leads to the parking structures and the arrival to the internal project site buildings, as seen in Figure III-5. Project accesses Nvould consist of two primary entrances, one each on ONTster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard; two secondary entrances on Veterans Boulevard; and three supplemental/service accesses. Circulation through the campus Nvould be achieved by creating one internal access lane along the interior edge of the office buildings and one access lane along the Nvestern border to the project site, adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. This access lane Nvould be served by two primary entrances: one on ONTster Point Boulevard, and one at approximately 1100 Veterans Boulevard. The access lane Nvould be served by secondary entrances that link to the parking structure. The secondary entrances Nvould primarily serve the hotel. Supplemental Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-17 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; access points would also exist along Veterans Boulevard to provide limited access to buildings but not directIv to the internal access lane. Project site users Nvould also use a supplemental access point from Veterans Boulevard to reach podium parking associated Nvith the office buildings located at approximately 1140 Veterans Boulevard. Service/delivery Nvould be served by the secondary entrances and the access lane or by the supplemental access points. Service and delivery vehicles Nvill be limited in usage of the primary entrances. Emergency vehicles Nvould utilize all entries and supplemental access points as necessary to reach the access lane and central pedestrian spine. Internal access roads Nvould be lined Nvith open space parking stalls,landscaping, and Nvould include passenger drop off areas. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Parking The project proposes a parking ratio of 2.83/1,000, Nvith the exception of retail and hotel uses which propose 3.3/1,000 and 1 space/room ratios, respectively, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Parking supply Nvould be phased over the project construction phases. The project Nvould ultimately include 2,670 parking stalls, which Nvould meet the required parking for Office/R&D (2,503 stalls), retail (67 stalls), and hotel (200 stalls) Nvith 100 stalls shared between R&D and Hotel and Nvould be an increase from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project that proposed 2,023 total spaces. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project proposed a ratio of 0.75 spaces per room. Of the total number of parking stalls, 52 Nvould be sized for handicap parking. Parking ratios Nvould vary for new development projects Nvithin the 20.1 acre project site during its phased incremental development. Total parking counts for the campus during phased development Nvould be an aggregate of new structured parking, below grade parking, new interim surface parking (if necessary), and existing surface parking. To accommodate more landscaping and the added green space the proposed project Nvould have a loNver amount of surface parking than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. This Nvould also loNver the amount of impervious areas on site and maximize green space available to employees and visitors. Transit The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site is not directly served by rail or public bus transit services; hoNvever, three transit agencies (Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans) provide commuter rail and bus service in the vicinity. The East of 101 Area relies on supplementary shuttle services to connect employees Nvith the BART and Caltrain stations. Shuttle services are operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and include the Utah-Grand and ONTster Point Ferrv, Caltrain, and BART shuttles. Shuttle service has improved and expanded since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Nvith a new shuttle stop across the street from the proposed project. The proposed relocation of the South San Francisco Caltrain station Nvill include a bicycle/pedestrian under-pass of the railroad tracks to allow for better pedestrian accessibility to and from the East of 101 Area. A new San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ferry terminal at the ONTster Point Marina services South San Francisco and connects to the East Bay. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal opened in June 2012, since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-18 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Program The project Nvould propose a new TDM based on new project site plans, parking and TDM standards. Although the new plan Nvill have similar elements to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project TDM, it incorporates updated City and State requirements regarding parking supply and alternative modes of transit. Chapter 20.400 ("Transportation Demand Management") of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance outlines the TDM goals for the City and outlines policies aimed at reducing drive-alone commute trips by more efficiently using existing transportation facilities. The purpose of the TDM plan is to develop a set of strategies,measures and incentives to encourage future employees of Britannia Cove at Oyster Point to Nvalk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool, or use other alternatives to driving alone when traveling to and from Nvork. The TDM Program elements for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point include on-site amenities that encourage the use of alternative transportation. Table III-5 lists the proposed Britannia Cove at Ouster Point TDM Measures. Table III-5 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures Reduced Parking Supply Promotional Programs—Tenant and Employee Outreach Carpool and Vanpool Parking Allocation Transportation Management Association(TMA) Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking Space Bicycle Commuter Resources Placement Motorcycle and Scooter Parking Placement Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home Program Passenger Loading Zones Association for Commuter Transportation(ACT) Membership Transportation and Commute Information Kiosks Commuter Amenities(Onsite and nearby) Bicycle Connections Parking Programs—Free Carpool and Vanpool Parking Bicycle Parking—Long-Term(Class I) Zipcar and/or Enterprise WeCar—Car Sharing Bicycle Parking—Short-Term(Class II) Alliance Shuttle Programs(Caltrain,BART,and Water Fern-) Showers and Clothes Lockers Downtown Dasher—Middav Seixice Pedestrian Connections Commuter Choice—Pre-Tax Options(Transit,Vanpool, and Bicycle) Direct Route to Transit/Public Transportation Access Employer Commute Subsidies/Allowances and Parking Cash Out Designated Employer Contact Transit and Trip Planning Tenant Training and TDM Resource Representative Free Try Transit Program Campus Transportation Coordinator/Commuter Regional 511 Carpool and Vanpool Ride-matching Assistance Seixices The Cove Commute Webpage and Resources Flextime Infrastructure Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report PageIII-19 ('io)gfSouth S'anFrancisco April 201; Table III-5 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point TDM Measures TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures e-Concierge Commuter Seixices Teleworking/Telecommuting Infrastructure Employee Transportation and Commuter Brochure Compressed Work Week Infrastructure Annual Campus Spare the Air Transportation Fair New Facility Kick-off Event(at 50 percent occupancy) Source:Britannia Cove at TD_llPlan,November 5, 2012. D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES • The overall goal of the project is to complete the development of the Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area and the Bay West Cove Specific Plan through the orderly and systematic redevelopment of the project site into a regionally-oriented office/R&D, retail, and hotel development compatible Nvith the office, R&D, life science campus and hotel uses in the surrounding vicinity. The objectives of the project are as follows: Develop the project site Nvith high-quality Office/R&D, and retail/hotel uses to serve the project's employees, visitors, and the Citv of South San Francisco. • Construct a cohesive Nvorking campus environment Nvith a clear organization of buildings, structured parking, and pedestrian circulation and open space. • Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements that are in line Nvith the East of 101 Area guidelines. • Create an open space and pedestrian path network that incorporates parks and landscaping for passive recreational use. • Emphasize the pedestrian environment Nvith Nvell-designed and useful landscaping that respond to the climate of the City. • Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and Ferry service. E. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS As defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency is the public agency Nvith the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for approval of the project. Upon completion of the EIR process, the City Nvill cert*A- the Final EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment and project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The folloNving approvals Nvould be required by the City for the project: • Certification of the Subsequent EIR • Specific Plan Amendments to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area, FAR, and Land Use Components • Zoning Text Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.210to accommodate changes to descriptions of the Planning Area and proposed FAR • Approval of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan • Approval of a Development Agreement • Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map • Adoption of TDM Plan • Approval of Master Sign Program • All future developments that are not othenvise covered by the proposed project may be subject to a separate permit or precise plan approval that may be subject to subsequent CEQA review in accordance Nvith Public Resources Code section 21166 and SSFMC Chapter 20.210.001 In addition, the folloNving is a list of City agencies and their responsibilities in approving or recommending approval of the proposed project. • Department of Economic and Community Development 0 Building Division: ■ Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy 0 Planning Division: • Specific Plan Amendments • Precise Plan • Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design Review, CEQA Review 0 Engineering Division: ■ Grading Permits, Subdivision Approvals, Encroachment Permits,Plan Check • Police Department: 0 Citv's Security Issues Compliance Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft, iubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-21 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Fire Department: 0 Fire Code Compliance In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that have discretionary or ministerial authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to,the folloNving: • Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) — Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre and permit for deNvatering during construction, and approval of operational stormwater treatment • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Ensure compliance Nvith all traffic related standards relative to state highways • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) — ensure that all applicable federal and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained. • San Mateo County Flood Control District—Design approval for on-site flood control. • San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance Nvith regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans. • Federal Aviation Administration — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco International Airport. • GCAG Airport Land Use Committee — Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. • BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission — Review portions of the project that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Prolect Description Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page III-22 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The project site is located in an urban area and is not located on agricultural lands or in an area of mineral resources. Additionally, the project does not propose any residential uses and Nvould not directly increase the number of residents in the City resulting to impacts to recreation. As alloNved under Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section discusses whN- impacts to these environmental topics Nvere determined to be less than significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Impacts to agricultural and mineral resources Nvere not analyzed in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Draft EIR or the 2000 Ba_T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impacts to recreational resources Nvere less than significant in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Draft EIR and the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The project would not result in the conversion ofstate-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is designated as urban or built-up land and does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of stateNvide importance.' Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not result in any impacts related to the conversion of important farmland. No significant impact Nvould occur. The project would not result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. No lands on the project site are zoned for agricultural use nor is the site subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No significant impacts Nvould occur. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No lands on the project site are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No significant impacts Nvould occur. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use. As stated above, no forest lands are present on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed site Nvould not convert forest land to non-forest use.No significant impacts Nvould occur. The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland and forest land to non-agricultural or non- orest use. As C ahforrzia Division of Larzd Resource Protection, Farnrlarzd llappirzg arid Alorzitorirzg Program Overview, website:http: innj,.consrv.ca.gov'dlrp F_DIP overview survey area map.htm,Accessed August 21, 2008. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:A.Impacts Fourzd To Be Less Tharz S'igrzificarzt Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:A-1 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; stated above, development of the proposed project Nvould not convert anY Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of StateNvide Importance, or forest land to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not result in any impacts to agricultural resources as related to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.No significant impacts Nvould occur. MINERAL RESOURCES The Protect would not result in the loss ofavailability ofa known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the residents of the state nor would it result in the loss of availability ofa locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. The project site is not designated by the State, the South San Francisco General Plan, or East of 101 Area Plan as an area of mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould not result in the loss of availability of a knoNsn mineral resource that Nvould be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Furthermore, as the site is currentIv in a developed area, the project Nvould not alter its status Nvith respect to the availability of mineral resources. No significant impact Nvould occur and no additional analysis of this issue is Nvarranted in the Draft Subsequent EIR. RECREATION The protect would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed project does not include the development of residential land uses. Employees associated Nvith the project Nvould likely visit parks and recreational facilities near their places of residency and not their place of employment. Therefore, development of the proposed project Nvould not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing nearby recreational facilities, and no impact Nvould occur. The protect does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The project would include an amphitheater, along Nvith a bocce court, sports court, and outdoor dining areas in the center of the open space network of the project. The project does not include the construction of any publicly- ovmed recreational facilities. The recreational amenities Nvould be available to Britannia Cove at Ouster Point Project employees and hotel and restaurant visitors. Therefore, the project Nvould not require the expansion or construction of new off-site recreational facilities in the City of South San Francisco. The project Nvould also provide public access to the Bay Trail, thus improving bicycle and pedestrian network and accessibility in the City. Impacts associated Nvith construction of recreational facilities are discussed in Section IV.B Aesthetics, IV.I Land Use, and IV.H. Hydrology and Water Quality. Additionally, employees generated by the development of the proposed project Nvould likely utilize parks and recreational facilities near their places of residency and not their place of employment. Therefore, the project Nvould not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities Nvhich might have an adverse effect on the environment.No significant impacts Nvould occur. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:A.Impacts Found To Be Less Than Sigrzificarzt Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:A-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing aesthetic and visual resources in the project area, which includes the project site and neighboring properties, and evaluates the potential for aesthetic and visual impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on visual resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant visual resource impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant visual resources impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified visual resource impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, mitigation measures Nvere presented to avoid potential damage to visual resources. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. Descriptions of existing visual characteristics in the project area are presented and potential project- related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light and glare, or impacts to scenic views, are evaluated based on analysis of photographs, site reconnaissance, and project plans. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to the aesthetic treatment of the proposed project. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999); Section 20.210 (Bay West Cove Specific Plan) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC); and site photographs taken by Katrina Hardt-Holoch, URS. No comment letters related to aesthetics Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on visual resources. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create no significant visual impacts and five less than significant impacts. Table IV.B-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact(5.2.2)No Significant View Obstruction or No mitigation measures were required. Negative Aesthetic Effect.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that the project will alter views to the bay. It found that existing distant views from public streets in the vicinity of the project area would be blocked by proposed landscaping and parking facilities:while proposed buildings would be visible from U.S. 101 over existing storage facilities.Further,the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that views of the bav would be blocked from U.S. 101 and Oyster Point Boulevard. The impact was found to be less than significant due to the poor scenic quality of the views and the viewer's relative distance from the Bay. Impact(5.2.3)Minor Light and Glare Impacts.The No mitigation measures were required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that due to the absence of sensitive receptors, such as housing,and the preparation of a lighting and landscaping plans in compliance with East of 101 Area Plan,Design Element Policy DE-29,the project was found to have a less than significant impact on lighting and glare.Further,the SSFMC does not regulate maximum levels of outdoor glare,and specifies only a minimum level for parking lots near areas with heavy night time vehicular traffic,thus the impact would be less than significant. Impact(5.2.4)Consistency with Design Element No mitigation measures were required. Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project is found to be consistent with the Design Element policies in the East of the 101 Area Plan related to the principal visual features of the Project and therefore no significant impacts,thus the impact would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Visual Character The regional visual character of the project area has remained the same as the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:B.Aesthetics Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-2 00)of S'outli Sari Francisco April 2013 The project is located in the City of South San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco (see Figures III-1 and III-2 in Section III, Project Description). The project site is located near the Nvestern shore of the central San Francisco Bay in the eastern portion of the City. The project site is bounded by the San Francisco Bav to the north, ONTster Point Boulevard on the south, Veterans Boulevard on the east, and U.S. 101 to the Nvest. South San Francisco is located on the Nvest shore of the San Francisco Bav, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Union Pacific Railroad (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad), and the San Francisco International Airport. South San Francisco has been transforming for the past 30 Nears. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by Nvarehousing, research, development, and biotechnology uses. With some exceptions, land use in the City since the 1960s has stemmed from internal change rather than outright expansion. Infill development has occurred along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansions in the Westborough area and the East of 101 Area have been enabled respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill activities at the Ouster and Sierra Points. Aesthetic differences are noticeable Nvhere high-technology businesses have moved into older industrial areas (e.g., business centers have higher landscape standards than those of Nvarehousing and industrial areas). Local Visual Character Although the overall character of the project area has remained the same as the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, several new developments, discussed below, have improved the overall local visual character. The local visual character is presented below. As discussed in Section IV.I Land Use and Planning, the City of South San Francisco General Plan separates the City into fourteen sub-areas, Nvhich have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. The project site is located in the East of 101 Area,which is defined by the East 101 Area Plan as follows: The East of 101 Area represents an important economic resource to the City of S'oizth San Francisco and San Mateo County. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land in the City of South San Francisco east ofHighway 101,from the City's northern border with Brisbane to the southern border adfacent to San Francisco International Airport Land uses in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office, research &development, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light industrial uses. The San Francisco Bay is located to the north of the project site. The Oyster Point Marina is located to the northeast of the project site and includes marina slips, pier, park, and other marine facilities. The San Francisco Bav Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) operates a new ferry service between South San Francisco and the East Bav, Nvith a terminal at the ONTster Point Marina, since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequent Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Topography in the area ranges from sub-zero to approximately 180 feet at San Bruno Point Hill. Other major topographic features include a steep embankment around the Sanrio/See's building and the UPS facility, bluffs on the Marine Magnesium property betvyeen Point San Bruno and the Haskins property, a small ridge extending from the Cost Plus property to the Rouse's Gatevyay Office Park, and a cliff delineating the Hilltop Business Center betvyeen Grandvievy Drive and Forbes Boulevard. These topographic features create visual interest, alloNy for vieNys to the bay, and make some areas on slopes and high points visually prominent. Major landmarks in the East of 101 Area include San Francisco Bay. The East of 101 Area currently does not have a large number of attractive building landmarks. This can make it difficult to orient oneself in the area. There is no dominant building character or streetscape pattern in the East of 101 Area. The scale of the built environment ranges from one to seven stories, Nvith some larger ten- to twelve-story hotels and buildings in the area. The condition of the structures varies from dilapidated to virtually neNy. The local visual quality has improved since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvith the Nyidening of Oyster Point Boulevard and the development of Oyster Point Cove Business Park, on Veterans Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard noNy includes a landscaped median, Nyhile the neNy development has consistent massing,height, colors and materials, as Nyell as landscaping. Overall, the visual character of the surrounding area can be described as Nyide-ranging, non-descript, and lacking a cohesive visual identity. The visual experience of the area is dominated by expansive parking lots and the conspicuous contrast betvyeen shorter and taller buildings scattered throughout the area. Project Site Visual Character Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the exception of a City-ovmed sanitary seNyer pump located in the northern portion of the site. Although vieNys of the site have not changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, neNy developments are in place in the East of 101 Area and thus changing vieNys from Nvithin the project site, as presented beloNy. VieNys of the project site from on-site and off-site vantage points are as follovys (see Figure IV.B-1 for a map of the locations Nyhere photographs Nyere taken): • Oyster Point Boulevard Entrance. As shoNyn in VieNys 1 and 2 in Figure IV.B-2 (VieNys of the Project Site: VieNys 1-4), the most prominent characteristic of the site for vieNyers from Oyster Point Boulevard are of the vacant, undeveloped lot. Distant vieNys of the hotel complex north of the site are available from this viev,-point, as Nyell as neNy business commercial development along Veterans Boulevard. Centennial ToNyer is visible to the north-Nyest, a neNy addition since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Due to landscaping and distance, the San Francisco Bay is only briefly visible to Nvestbound motorists from Oyster Point Boulevard as vehicles exit the southbound U.S. 101 ramp. VieNy 3 and 4 in Figure IV.B-2 shoNys the pedestrian sideNyalk flanked by the chain link fence and vieNys of the vacant project site. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Northern Boundary View and Interior. Views 5 and 6 in Figure IV.13-3 (Views of the Project Site: Views 5-8) show views from the interior of the project site facing north toNvards and awa-T from the bay. Views of the hotel complex north of the site are more available from this viewpoint, as Nvell as Centennial ToNver, a new addition since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. • U.S. 101 View (Western Boundary View). View 7 in Figure IV.13-3 (Views of the Project Site: Views 5-8) shows the view along U.S. 101 and the Nvestern boundary of the project site. The project site is not readily visible from the freeway, as there are storage buildings separating the freeway from the project site. Views of the San Francisco Bay from U.S. 101 are limited because of the distance between the highway and the Bay, and intervening landscaping along the highway. View 8 shows the interior view of the project site facing east toNvards Veterans Boulevard. It is mostly characterized by an industrial/vacant lot character, Nvith views of Britannia Oyster Point development in the distance, Nvhich Nvas part of the initial 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR as Planning Areas 2/3/. • Offsite. View 9 in Figure IV.134 (Views of the Project Site: Views 9-12) shows distant views of the site from ONTster Point Boulevard, the vacant lot surrounded by landscaping and bounded to the east and north east by taller buildings and the highways to the Nvest. View 10 (Views of the Project Site: Views 9-12) shows the Britannia Oyster Point development on the Veterans Boulevard boundary, a new development since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Views 11 and 12 show the view from Oyster Boulevard immediately south of the project site and from a parking lot located across Gateway Boulevard. As shoN-,n by the photographs included in Figures IV.13-2, IV.13-3, and IV.134, the existing visual character of the project site from on- and off-site vantage points in the area can generally be described as vacant and surrounded by business parks and other commercial uses. Development in the area is composed of multi-storied buildings Nvith landscaping and parking lots, and has changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvith addition of new office parks. Overall, the visual character of the East of 101 Area is one of commercial, light industrial, office, and R &D uses developed over the last 50 years in a variety of styles and density depending on the time period that the buildings Nvere constructed and the use of the structures (warehousing or light industrial versus office or R&D), and is similar Nvith the overall visual character of the project area in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Lighting "Light spill" is typically defined as the presence of unNvanted and/or misdirected light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. Light spill can emanate from the interior of structures through Nvindows or from exterior sources, such as street lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Due to the lack of development on the project site there is no existing lighting Nvithin the project boundan-itself, similar with the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Light sources Nvithin the project site include light spill from the Britannia Oyster Point development,Nvhich is a new addition since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, and U.S. 101 as Nvell as street lighting along Oyster Point Boulevard. Lighting Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-5 r /r 1 ' ��� IVVIp�I„III 1 VVVlluuuul r � r r� y ! �V � //% /�t'�Itly"���' •�l/�� ��� r Gtr rj� ,,mm1V!k�!�'�o thyme 11 ll�'s% i�” 6.II oVV ir^my I�IU4� /fuVlVaa 1/Gi����� �u �41 `Q, („ fY�l, e� yriwr«�`IUmE f wmrrmiyml,a„ 1 f ' I wNm�m�Ww�mw,GmuffGfiu / v 4�0 f y « / Ilf ff 0 m ' Im Im City of South San Francisco II u III � Brrtrunria Cork(it Oyster Point Figure IV.B-1 Photo Location Map l View 1 View 2 Looking north from Oyster Point Boulevard Looking north at the Intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevard i View 3 View 4 View of pedestrian sidewalk and chain link fence View from Veterans Boulevard of eastern border project site °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o iSBrrtrunzia Co.rat OyStcr Point Figure IV.B-2 View of the Project Site, Views 1-4 / View 5 View 6 Looking north towards San Francisco Bay Looking west towards Highway 101 and storage facilities Ol / i / i /loll View 7 View 8 Looking west towards Highway 101 from Looking east toward Veterans Boulevard interior of the project site °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Con,rat OyStcr Point Figure IV.B-3 View of the Project Site, Views 5-8 trJJ,'fN�i�rti View 9 View 10 View from Oyster Point Boulevard View of Britannia Oyster Point development on Veterans Boulevard "NIMMIYA, r� sl°i 'a0 p View 11 View 12 Looking south towards Oyster Point Boulevard View from Gateway Boulevard parking lot °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Con,(it OyStcr Point Figure IV.B-4 View of the Project Site, Views 9-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; in the area is made up of interior lighting Nvithin each surrounding building, vehicle headlights, and nighttime security lighting at building entries, courtyards, and spaced along pathways and circulation areas. There are no light-sensitive land uses near the project site, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Perceived glare is the wiNvanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person when looking directly into the light source of a luminaire fixture. Glare also results from sunlight reflection off flat building surfaces, Nvith glass typically contributing the highest degree of reflectivity. Daytime sources of glare in the surrounding area include reflections off of light-colored surfaces, Nvindows, and metal details on cars parked in project site parking lots and traveling on nearby roadways, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Regulatory Setting No new regulation have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Federal There are no federal statutes or regulations related to aesthetics that Nvould apply to the proposed project. State There are no state statutes or regulations related to aesthetics that Nvould apply to the proposed project. Local Aesthetic and visual resource regulations must be identified on a project-by-project basis. Pertinent local aesthetic policies currently in place are listed below under their respective plan or ordinance. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future grov'th and development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of development Nvithin the East of 101 Area, including the project site. The City of South San Francisco General Plan designates the project site as Business Commercial. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are listed below: 2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards,not to circumvent development intensity standards. 2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1) 2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the community orientation of new development. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page II B-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; 2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. East of US 101 Area 3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of 101 Area. 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses. 3.5-I-4 Unless othenvise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. 3.5-I-7 Prepare signage and streetscape plan for the areas designated as Business Commercial and Business and Technology Park on the General Plan Diagram, treating the entire area as one large campus, Nvith unified signage and orchestrated streetscapes that make Nvayflnding easy and pleasant. East of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994) The project site is also located Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan, a detailed implementation guide for the area. The East of 101 Area Plan principally provides direction related to design and certain other facets of development in the area not othenvise covered in the General Plan or other City plans. The City Nvill use consistenev Nvith these policies in evaluating proposals for new development. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are listed below: Land Use LU-2 • New land uses that are similar to or compatible Nvith surrounding development are encouraged. • New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area. LU-23 Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria. Edges DE-2 Projects in the vicinit-,T of US 101 should be designed Nvith the freeway in mind. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page II B-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Visual Landmarks DE-5 Developments in the East of 101 Area should be designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill Nvith its "Windehime". Wherever possible, open space areas should be designed to provide views of these areas, and any new roadways should be laid out to provide vistas of them as Nvell. DE-6 Within each development a landmark building should be encouraged to mark the project approach for visitors coming to it. Such landmarks shall not include signs. Entries DE-7 The principal roadway entries into the East of 101 Area should receive special attention and enhanced entry treatment, including special planting, signage, and paving. A master plan of entry improvements should be developed by the City,Nvith special attention on the folloNving entries: • Oyster Point Boulevard. Treatments on Oyster Point Boulevard just east of the U.S.101 ramps could include monuments on the sides of the roadway and in the median, as Nvell as enhanced landscaping. [Additional entries Nvithin this guideline are omitted because they are not located near the project site] Entry landscape treatments should utilize elements such as plant materials, earth berms, low Nvalls or fences, lighting, paving, sculpture, and signage, to create distinctive, high quality gateways to the area, as shoN-,n on page 93 of the East of 101 Area Plan. The plantings should be dense enough and distinctive enough to clearly distinguish the entry from surrounding landscaping. Native plant species and other species that have low maintenance and Nvater consumption characteristics should be favored in these treatments to reduce long term maintenance costs. Vertical elements, such as trees, and color, both floNver and foliage, should be used to highlight the entry treatment. Signs identifi-ing the City of South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area should be simple, made of durable high quality materials, and attractively designed. Parkinz,Loading, andAccess Desizn DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings Nvhenever possible. The standard practice of placing the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should be avoided when possible, as shoN-,n in Figure B of the East of 101 Area Plan. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 DE-16 All loading and service areas shall be designed so that the maneuvering of vehicles can be accomplished on-site without special effort and Nvithout disrupting on-site circulation. DE-17 In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks and service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas. DE-20 Projects should be designed to minimize drivewa-Ts and vehicular circulation areas, while maximizing outdoor public spaces. For example, ovmers of adjacent properties could develop shared facilities such as driveNvays,pedestrian plazas and Nvallcways. Site Design and Open Space DE-21 Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the land use category, as shoN-,n in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. DE-22 Developments in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories should include on-site open space as a unifi-ing element and as areas for employee use. Open space should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites, especially in campus-like developments, as shoN-,n in Figure B. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms. DE-23 Open space should be located and designed Nvith consideration for sun exposure and Nvind protection. Where possible, open space should offer seating areas Nvith views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill. Landscaping and Lighting DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the design of the development. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align Nvith, be centered on, or othenvise coordinate Nvith the building elements. Buildinz Design DE-30 Utilities shall be underground unless the City finds it to be in-feasible. DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials, and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 Area. DE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated Nvith relief elements and changes in plane. Architectural elements used to provide relief could include avming projections, trellises, built in planters, integrated plazas, colonnades or arcades, expression of structural elements, Nvall/Nvindow recesses and/or projections, changes in materials and textures or elements/treatments that create patterns of shade/shadow. Blank Nvalls should be avoided. In addition to the specific policies mentioned above, the East of 101 Area Plan also lists guiding policies to control the design of individual buildings, sites, and streetscape, including policies related to parking, loading, and access design; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; open space; and signage. DE--l1 Building facades should- be constructed of durable materials such as those already used in the area, including stucco, Nvell-detailed tilt-up concrete or metal panels, and decorative masonry. Within a limited range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one material or texture. Highly reflective materials are discouraged. Building materials shall be chosen to Nveather the salt air in the area, and shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and the approval of the Chief Planner. Additional policies for the Light Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories are included in Section D of this Design Element. DE--l2 Building color pallets shall be as approved by the applicable City body Nvith the advice of the Design Review Board. Building colors may include earth tones and appropriate pastels. Bright colors and simple primary colors should be avoided, except as accents. Within a limited range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one color. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-14 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; DE--l3 Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Landmark design elements should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of the ALUC, as outlined in Polio*LV-23. Additional restrictions on building height in the Coastal Commercial category are included in Section D of this Design Element. Exceptions to this policy may be made if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller building heights are included in an approved Master Plan. Buildinz and Dei�elopment Siznaze DE--l5 Shopping and business center signage should be designed as an integral part of the overall center, and should be attached to buildings and other architectural elements wherever possible, as shoN-,n in Figure A. No sign should be taller than the building it serves. DE--l6 Each center or development shall have a unified signage program for the entire development, which should be reviewed and approved by the City. Miscellaneous signage shall be designed into the sign program for each site such that is Nvill be coordinated Nvith the major signage for the site and the building. DE--l7 Shopping center or development identity should be denoted through signs or logos integrated into the design of the buildings,rather than through freestanding signs. DE--l8 Tenants Nvithin shopping and business centers should have signs that are integrated into the centers' signs, or which are mounted on buildings. For building mounting, individual letters are preferred, and unified "can" signs shall not be alloNved. Lettering on buildings shall be individual letters painted or applied to the building or individually illuminated metal channel letters (8 minimally sized racewa-,T painted to match the building shall be permitted for internal illumination). No background shall be permitted other than the building material itself. DE--l9 Freestanding signs are discouraged, but may be installed as monument signs no more than 12 feet tall, as shoN-,n in Figure B on the previous page. Pole signs, as shoN-,n in Figure C on the previous page, and signs over 12 feet tall, are not alloNved. DE-50 Illuminated signs shall be designed so that they do not create glare. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-1 5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; DE-5 I Directional and informational signage Nvithin a center should be designed in a consistent style that reflects the design character of the shopping or business center as a whole. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low toNvers, as shoNsn in Figure A. If screening from all significant public viev,-points is not possible due to changes in grade, then the equipment should also be enclosed in a housing that is compatible Nvith the design of the main building. DE-53 Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the, color of the roof where it is located. South San Francisco Municipal Code Bay West Co>>e Specific Plan The project site is zoned as Ba-T West Cove Specific Plan. The Ba-T West Cove Specific Plan Zoning designation establishes permitted uses, development standards, and architectural guidelines and divides the district into six planning areas. Uses permitted in this district include, but are not limited to, office buildings for professional or business purposes, research and development, office/sales/service and lodging. Not all uses are permitted in the planning areas. The Zoning Code also establishes landscaping standards and open space standards. No development is allowed in Planning Area 5, while in Planning Area 4 oniv two hotels are allowed as development. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are listed: Development Standards (20.210.004) A. The maximum floor area in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and .5 for all other uses unless the Redevelopment Agency grants an FAR bonus in accordance Nvith the folloNving: • 0.4 for Hotels and Motels and 0.2 for all other uses for the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures. • 0.2 for the provision of off-site improvements. • 0.2 for Hotels and Motels and 0.1 for all other uses for projects meeting specified design standards. B. Building Height. Maximum building height, shall not exceed the maximum height limit established by the San Mateo County airport land use commission based on Federal Aviation Administration Regulation Part 77. C. Setbacks shall be provided in accordance Nvith the folloNving table: Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.B-2 Bay West Cove Specific Plan Setback Requirements cSetback-Fe[dure, Min a nut Building Minitnum Landscaped' - Alinintunt Parking :S`etback (r) � Setbaelt(�) � Setback(ft)(Y Oyster Point Boulevard 20 20 20 Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent 20 20 10 to freeway overpass structure West property line 20 10 10 East property line 20 6 15 Veterans Boulevard 20 20 20 Bay shoreline and marsh See Note 2 35 100 Surface parking Average of 20,minimum 15 n/a 10 ,rotes: I Activities permitted within building and parking setback areas include landscaping,pedestrian walkways,gathering areas, driveways,and utilities. 2.Bay Conservation and Development Conrnrission(BC.'DC)jra°isdicfional area developnrentwill comply with regrrirenrents established by the BC.'DC pertaining to the BC.'DC jra°isdictional area. The BC.'DC jra°isdicfional area is located within one hzrndred feet of the mean high fide line.Conrnrercial inrprovenrents located within the shoreline band are permitted by BC.'DC on a case-by-case basis. The City nray similarly permit inrprovenrents within the shoreline band and as permitted by the East(?/'101 Area Plan. Architectural Standards (20.210.000 The architectural standards dictate a need for building orientation in a manner that Nvould take advantage of view corridors, complimentary architectural style to create a cohesive look throughout the Bay West Cove Project Area, development of a pedestrian scale, use of materials to convey quality and permanence and discouraging highly reflective materials. The architectural standards also contain policies for parking structures, roof top mounted mechanical equipment, service equipment, refuse or storage enclosures and energy conservation. Landscape Standards (20.210.000) A minimum of 25 percent of the area Nvithin property lines of the development site shall be devoted to landscape materials, inclusive of required landscaped setbacks. This landscaping shall be evenly distributed throughout the site. Parking and Loading Standards (20.210.008) Lighting and Illumination Parking lots, driveNvays, circulation areas, aisles, passageNvays, recesses and ground contiguous buildings shall be provided Nvith high-intensity discharge lighting Nvith sufficient Nvattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe secure environment for all persons, property and vehicles on the site. Such lighting shall be equipped Nvith vandal-resistant covers. The folloNving minimum levels of illumination shall be achieved: 1. Open parking lots: One to t�vo foot-candles at ground level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequentEnvironnnentalImpactReport Page If:B-17 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; 2. Pedestrian path/bike path: One-half to one foot-candle at ground level. 3. Covered parking: Five foot-candles at ground level. Signs (20.210.013) Sign permits are required for all new signs and changes of sign face for existing signs. A sign permit application must be filed Nvith the Planning Division and must be signed by both the business owner or authorized agent and the property oNsner or authorized agent. All signs shall comply Nvith the Bay West Cove Master Sign Program. In cases not covered by the master sign program, Chapter 20360 ("Signs") and East of 101 Area Plan shall apply. (Ord. 1432 § 2, 20 10) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The analysis of changes to the project site Nvas based on a site visit and photographs of the project site taken in 2012 and 2013, therefore after the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Potential project- related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light and glare, or impacts to scenic views, are evaluated based on analysis of photographs, site reconnaissance, and project plans, Nvhich have been updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to visual quality and aesthetics if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloN ing: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. • Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare Nvhich Nvould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The CEQA Guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are different than those used in this Draft Subsequent EIR. This document uses the updated 2013 CEQA Guidelines that reflect more stringent standards and regulations Nvhen compared Nvith the ones used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For example, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not identifiT impacts on scenic resources. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-18 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant visual resources impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Due to new lighting standards in the BaY West Cove Specific Plan new mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts due to light or glare in the project area. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.B-1: The proposed project would not ha>>e a substantial adverse ef'f'ect on a scenic i4stu The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Nvould alter views to the bav, and that distant views of the BaY from U.S. 1010 and ONTster Point Boulevard Nvould be blocked by the development of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Scenic vistas may generally be described as either panoramic views (views of a large geographic area) or short-range views (views of a particular object, scene, or feature). Panoramic views typically include views of mountains, valleys, bodies of Nvater, and urban skylines. The proposed project Nvould result in a significant impact if it Nvould have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, as seen from a public vieNving point. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, there are no scenic vistas identified in the General Plan or the East of 101 Area Plan. HoNvever, the East of 101 Area Plan describes the San Francisco Bav as a major visual landmark. Views of an inlet of the San Francisco Bav near Veterans Boulevard are visible from the northern boundary of the project site, particularly the vacant areas near the northNvestern corner; but not from the southern boundary due to distance and landscaping, similar to the project site conditions in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The project would result in the phased construction of three 4-stony buildings,three 5-stony buildings, one 6-stony building and one 9-stony building. The project Nvould also result in the construction of one 8 to 9 stony parking garage located on the southNvest corner near U.S. 101, which as previously mentioned is an increase in density compared Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Construction of the project Nvould occur over three phases and changes to views available from surrounding areas Nvould Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-19 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; change Nvith completion of each phase, similar to the similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Upon completion of construction of all phases,the project Nvould block distant views of the San Francisco Bav available from ONTster Point Boulevard; however, the Bav is on1v minimallv visible from this view point and the impact Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Views of the Bay from the freev,ay Nvould generally be blocked by the new office buildings and parking structures constructed in Phase 2. Views of the Bav from along Veterans Boulevard and public sideNvalks around the project site on the northern boundary Nvould still be available to public vieNvers. CEQA defines impacts to scenic vistas based on public views, and the project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect on distant views of the Bay from public vievs-points. Additionally, in keeping Nvith Policy DE-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan, the buildings and open space areas Nvould be oriented to emphasize views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill. Occupants of the northern side of buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, as Nvell as users of the open space areas Nvould have views of the Bay. Therefore, overall impacts to scenic vista from implementation of the project Nvould be less than significant Nvith no mitigation warranted, similar Nvith the findings of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Impact IV.B-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction and operation on scenic resources. This impact discussion is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines requirements. There are no designated state scenic highNvays located in the project area. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to resources Nvithin a scenic highwa-,T and no mitigation is warranted. Impact IV.B-3: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing isual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Nvould not have a negative aesthetic effect on the visual character of the project site or its surroundings. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould alter views of the area,the poor scenic quality of the area Nvould lessen any impact to a less than significant level. The proposed project Nvould result in a significant impact if it Nvould significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the exception of a Cit-,T-oNsned sanitary seNver pump station located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bound by a chain link fence along ONTster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard, the San Francisco Bav to the north, a similar development to the east and train tracks and storage spaces to the Nvest. The project would result in the phased construction of three 4-story buildings, three 5-story buildings, one 6-story building and one 9- story building. The project Nvould also result in the construction of one 8 to 9 story parking garage located Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; on the southNvest corner near U.S. 101. As previously mentioned this is an increase in density from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Although construction phases are different between the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and the proposed project, the visual character of the project site Nvould change throughout the project phases in a similar manner. Phase 1 Nvould include the construction of two office/R&D buildings, the hotel, and surface parking. Undeveloped areas Nvould be fenced and hydro-seeded, but Nvould remain vacant. Construction of Phase 2 Nvould develop the vacant portion of the project site, Nvhile construction of Phase 3 would develop the surface parking area adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard. Demolition and construction activities may overlap as one phase begins and another phase is finishing. During construction, four basic types of activities would be expected, Nvhich are similar in scope Nvith the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction phases. First, the sites Nvould be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new building foundations. Next, new buildings and associated landscaping and project site improvements Nvould be developed. Visual impacts associated Nvith construction activities Nvould be temporary in nature as they Nvould oniv exist for the duration of construction activities. Such temporary impacts Nvould include exposed pads and staging areas for grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located on the project site during various stages of construction, within material storage areas, or associated Nvith construction debris piles. While these activities Nvould take place exclusively Nvithin the project site, these visual impacts could affect surrounding land uses to the north, south, and Nvest of the project site, Nvhich is comprised of office, R&D, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light industrial uses. In addition, automobiles traveling along Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, and U.S. 101 Nvould have short-term views of the project site during construction. Pedestrians and bievelists along the Bay Trail may also have short-term views of construction activity occurring on the northern side of the project site. However, this visual condition Nvould be a temporan- visual distraction typically associated Nvith construction activities and equipment. A Landscape Master Plan, Sign Plan, and Master Circulation Plan Nvould be implemented as part of the proposed project. Project site entrances Nvould be landscaped and properly signed Nvith distinctive landscape at project entries, to create a feeling of cohesiveness and to match the existing visual character of the surrounding areas. Landscaping on the project site Nvould emphasize a natural and informal landscape using simple plant materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants Nvould be chosen considering the climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 Area and Nvould be combined Nvith variations in landform and circulation routes to create a series of Nvind-protected spaces rather than being large expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants Nvould van-, but could include Afghan Pine, Cajeput Tree, European Hornbeam, Lombardy Popular, New Zealand Christmas Tree, Purple Leaf Plum, Purple Leaf Acacia, Ornamental Pear, Red FloNvering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf Tristania, and Timber Bamboo. Landscaping of the site Nvould be in keeping Nvith the character of the East of 101 Area, and Nvould enhance the color, texture and form of ONTster Point Boulevard. Therefore, the project Nvould enhance the visual character of the area by replacing the vacant lot and chain link fence Nvith a cohesive business commercial campus that fits the East of 101 Area, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-21 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Compared Nvith existing conditions, the visual quality of the project site's open space and pedestrian- oriented areas Nvould improve since the project Nvould create a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment Nvhere employees and visitors Nvould be able to connect to the entire system of buildings and outdoor spaces, and the San Francisco Bay on the north border. The project Nvould result in the removal of the chain link fence,the addition of landscaping, and contribute to an overall feeling of increased open space. The overall visual characterization of the site Nvould not degrade because the proposed project Nvould enhance the visual character of the area, by removing the empty- lot feel. Because it completes the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and the Sheanvater Development, the overall quality of the site and its surrounding Nvould improve Nvith the proposed project. Further, the project Nvould add cohesiveness to the East of 101 Area, by completing the proposed project, Nvhich fits in Nvith the vision of the East of 101 Area Plan and recent development in the area. The new development Nvould, at project completion, be surrounded by more open space and landscaped areas, and Nvould allow for public use and access to the San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the project Nvould not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site and impacts related to visual character or quality Nvould be less than significant Nvith no mitigation Nvarranted, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR finding 5.2.2. Impact IV.B-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversety af'f'ect day or nighttime>>iews in the area. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that light and glare impacts from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Nvould not be significant due to the lack of sensitive receptors in the East of 101 Area. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR required the implementation of a lighting and landscaping plan, similar to this Draft Subsequent EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of the proposed project Nvould create new sources of light from exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation paths. There are no residential land uses on-site or Nvithin the project vicinity in the East of 101 Area that Nvould be adversely affected by these new light sources, similar Nvith the conditions of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Lighting Nvould be designed to appropriately illuminate signage and Nvav finding system components to make information clearly legible at night. The project Nvould follow the lighting levels as recommended by the Engineering Society of North America for all pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, as Nvell as levels set in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan. This Nvould maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries, Nvalkvmys, courtyards, parking lots, and private roads at night consistent Nvith minimum levels required by building codes. Nighttime security lighting Nvould not be expected to substantially increase current conditions in the East of 101 Area. Lighting Nvould be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and Nvould be characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas. Preparation of a Lighting Design Plan, Nvith the elements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.B-1 below, Nvill establish policies required to reduce light and glare impacts, Nvill be required for project implementation. Overall, lighting Nvould be designed to avoid unnecessary light pollution by use of"cut- Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-22 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 off'fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light where appropriate and to consider ambient light generated by buildings in the design of site lighting systems to help prevent over lighting. Additional lighting Nvould not have the potential to create "spillage" onto sensitive land uses, as none exist Nvithin the project area. As the proposed project calls for development on a vacant lot, nighttime light Nvould substantially increase if inappropriate levels of light are used or inappropriate lighting plans are implemented. HoNvever,the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to lighting, specifically Guidelines DE-29 and DE- 50, and of the Bav West Cove Specific Plan. Impact related to substantial glare Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Implementation of the proposed project could create new sources of glare from reflective building surfaces, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. No residential uses are located Nvithin or near the project site and residential uses are not permitted Nvithin the entire East of 101 Area. Land uses in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office, R&D, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light industrial uses. HoNvever, the project site Nvould be visible from U.S. 101. As the proposed project calls for an increase in development at the site from vacant to visible four- to nine-story buildings, daytime glare Nvould increase if reflective materials Nvere used, which could adversely affect views by distant land uses, such as motorists traveling along U.S. 101 looking towards the project site. The building design Nvould incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and aluminum metal panels. This mixture of materials Nvould not create large blocks of glass or reflective materials that Nvould create excessive glare. Additionally, the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to building design, specificallY Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42, and Title 24 requirements. Therefore the impacts related to daytime glare Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.1 Lighting The folloNving mitigation serves to clarIA- the elements necessary that shall be included in the proposed project's Lighting Plan. In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by project site lighting, the applicant shall specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkway-s, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent Nvith minimum levels detailed in the City s building codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting, thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution. Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings constructed for the proposed project for each building phase, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the folloNving: • The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources Nvith the types of lighting and their locations. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztalImpact Report Page IT B-23 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Typical lighting shall include low mounted, doN-,award casting and shielded lights that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection systems Nvhere applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to the folloNving styles, as feasible: • Parking lots and roads—provide round fixtures on 22' poles on raised concrete footings not to exceed 25' total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. • SideNvallcs, pathways, and plazas—provide round hardtop on post top fixtures not to exceed 15'total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. • Accent pedestrian lighting—provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed 42"total height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. • No flood lights shall be utilized. • Lighting shall not"Wash out" structures or any portions of the site. • Lighting shall be limited to the areas that Nvould be in operation during nighttime hours. • Low intensity,indirect light sources shall be encouraged. • On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged. • Mercurv, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted except Nvhere their need is specifically approved and their source of light is restricted. • All light sources shall be fully shielded from off-site view. • All buildings and structures shall consist of non-reflecting material or be painted Nvith non- reflective paint. • Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of the property and should shut off automatically when the use is not operating. Security lighting visible from the highway shall be motion-sensor activated. • Use "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary light pollution Nvhere appropriate. • All lighting shall be installed in accordance Nvith the building codes and the approved lighting plan during construction. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.13-1 and compliance Nvith local regulations, impacts related to a substantial increase in light Nvould be less than significant, similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not require the implementation of a mitigation measure, it did require the development of a Lighting Design Plan. Mitigation Measure IV.13-1 supplements measures in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR as it lays out standards for the Lighting Design Plan. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:B-24 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project,in conjunction Nvith other development Nvithin the vicinity of the project in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco. The East of 101 Area is an appropriate geographic context for cumulative impacts on visual quality because this area is a distinct development area, isolated from the rest of the City by U.S. 101 to the Nvest and bounded by the Bav to the east. The buildings, although van-ing in height, Nvould be subject to the maximum height limits of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Development in the East of 101 Area is subject to varying height limits, depending on the proximity of the area to San Francisco International flight paths. The project is the final phase of the Britannia at Oyster Point Development. All future development of land uses in the vicinity Nvould need to be consistent Nvith the City s General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, and Nvould be subject to the City s Zoning Ordinance and review by the Design Review Board. Considering combined visual impacts from the cumulative projects and the proposed project, cumulative impacts on scenic vistas Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. As described in Impact IV.13-3, the proposed project Nvould not result in a significant impact on the visual character or quality of the existing site. The regulating policies and development standards pertaining to the design and aesthetics of the East of 101 Area Plan and policies of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District Nvould ensure that the project Nvould enhance the visual character and quality of the area. Additional development proposed in the East of 101 Area includes primarily office and R&D land uses. The Zoning Code promotes development consistent Nvith its surroundings, in terms of design, massing, and building heights. Each project in the East of 101 Area Nvould be subject to extensive design oversight as part of the Citv's entitlement process. Consequently, changes in land use that Nvould substantially degrade the area Nvould generally not be permitted to occur, thereby protecting the visual character of the East of 101 Area. Consequently, cumulative impacts on the visual character and quality of the East of 101 Area Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Construction of new development as part of implementation of the proposed project Nvould result in short- term impacts on visual character during the construction period. Other development in the East of 101 Area could result in significant impacts on visual character during the construction period. The significant impacts on the visual character or quality of the site and vicinity due to project construction (e.g., construction equipment, fencing, and debris) could exacerbate construction period visual character impacts of other projects. HoNvever,this visual condition Nvould be a temporary visual distraction typically associated Nvith construction activities and equipment. Therefore, the cumulative impact from implementation of the proposed project Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The East of 101 Area is high1v urbanized and nearby built out and contains numerous existing sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting. Residential land uses are not permitted Nvithin the East of 101 Area, and therefore sensitive land uses are not at risk by the potential accumulation of light and glare. As Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-25 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; described under Impact IV.13-4, the proposed project Nvould not create a significant impact by increasing daytime glare in a location visible from U.S. 101 as the building design Nvould incorporate a mixture of materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and aluminum metal sheets. This mixture of materials Nvould not create large blocks of glass or reflective materials that Nvould create excessive glare. Additionallv,the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to building design, specifically Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42, and the Bav West Cove Plan Zoning Code. Cumulative development Nvithin the surrounding areas Nvould be subject to the East of 101 Area Plan design policies and compliance Nvith development standards of the City's Zoning Code, as Nvell, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Development Nvithin the areas adjacent to the proposed project site could result in the creation of new sources of light that could create nighttime glare. As described in Impact IV.13-4, the proposed project could impact distant views by increasing nighttime lighting that could contribute to a diminishment in nighttime sky. Cumulative development in the East of 101 Area could result in some diminishment in nighttime sky. HoNvever, all uses in the East of 101 Area Nvould be subject to East of 101 Area Plan design policies and compliance Nvith development standards of the Citv's Zoning Code. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated Nvith nighttime lighting Nvould not be cumulatively considerable and Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.13-4.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to aesthetics. These impacts Nvould also be reduced to a less than significant level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:B.Aesthetics Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:B-26 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing air quality in the project area, Nvhich includes the project site and other properties in the vicinity, and evaluates the potential for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new significant air quality impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include any significance statements regarding greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, since the analysis of GHGs Nvere not required at that time. An analysis based on the project description for the same planning area used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project has been conducted in order to give an indication of how the GHG emissions and significance conclusions Nvould compare to the current project analysis. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes change in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. This is characterized as an increase in office space and a decrease in the size of the hotel. The changes also correspond to changes in the trip generation rates and effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program. There has been significant advancement in the state of the science of estimating air quality and greenhouse gases since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. In addition, there have been numerous air quality regulations that have been implemented since 2000 that brings further reductions to air quality emissions. This includes reductions in the amount of emissions from construction equipment, on-road vehicles, and architectural coatings. The proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant air quality impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts. New and supplemental mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised air quality analysis Nvhich considers the current project plan and current state-of-the-art emission estimates. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. No comment letters related to air quality Nvere received in response to December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Information Sources The section has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV-I City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Quality Guidelines,most recently updated in May 2012.' The air quality assessment considers "criteria air pollutants" (pollutants for Nvhich state and federal ambient standards exist), "toxic air contaminants" (pollutants that pose human health risks), and greenhouse gases. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on air quality as identified in Table IV.0-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould result in two significant adverse air quality impacts and one less than significant impact. With mitigation, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR determined that all but one of the significant impacts Nvould be reduced to less than significant. The operation of the project Nvas determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air pollution emissions and a cumulative significant impact. Although the BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. 1 R140-11D. 2012. C'alif'ornia Erivirorimerital Qualio)Aet:Air Qualio)Guidelines. t pdated_llay 2012. The BAAQMD's adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the BAAQMD to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the euviromnent under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The court's order permits the BAAQMD to develop and disseminate these CEQA Guidelines,as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-2 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-1 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 7.2.2—Potential Impacts Due to Mitigation Measure 7.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove Construction.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified Project Supplemental EIR identified project construction Mitigation Measure 7.2.2.which implements several generation of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust as a dust control measures for the construction site to reduce potentially significant impact because it could affect the fiigitive dust emissions,the impact would be reduced local air quality during construction of the project. The to a less than significant level. fugitive and exhaust emissions constitutes a potentially significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact 7.2.3—Increase in Regional Air Pollution Mitigation Measure 7.2.3—The 2000 Bay West Cove Emissions from Traffic.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified an Mitigation Measure 7.2.3 which implements a increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from project Transportation Demand Management(TDM)designed traffic during operation that would exceed the thresholds to achieve a substantial reduction in vehicular hips. established by BAAQMD. This constitutes as This mitigation was not sufficient to reduce the significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove emissions below the thresholds. Therefore the impact Commercial Project to the regional air quality. remains significant and unavoidable_ Impact 7.2.3—Cumulative Impact on Air Quality. Mitigation Measure 7.2.3—The 2000 Bay West Cove The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified Supplemental EIR identified a cumulative significant Mitigation Measure 7.2.3 which implements a impact on air quality since the project is significant. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)designed to achieve a substantial reduction in vehicular hips. Feasible mitigation measures cannot further mitigate impact. Therefore the cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact 7.3.1—Local Carbon Monoxide Impacts. The No mitigation measures required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR evaluated the potential of substantial changes in carbon monoxide levels due to traffic on the local street network. The analvsis showed that this would not increase emissions above the ambient air quality standards and would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Background Air pollutant emissions Nvithin the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) are generated by stationary*and mobile sources. Stationary* sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated Nvith manufacturing and industry*. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are Nvidely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial Nvater heaters, painting operations, laNsn moNvers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-3 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadvmys and highvmys. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the SFBAAB. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high Nvinds. Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) have been set at levels Nvhere concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and Nvelfare, and to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort Nvith a margin of safety. The air pollutants for Nvhich national and state standards have been promulgated and Nvhich are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Bay Area are knoNsn as criteria pollutants and include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PM,()), fine particulate matter (PM2 5), sulfur dioxide (SOA and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are of concern. Each of these is briefiv described below. • Ozone (O�) or smog is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOS) undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. The main sources of NOS and ROG, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels, and biogenic sources Ozone concentrations are generalIv highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light Nvind, and Nvarm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or Nvood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the Nvinter morning, when little to no Nvind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone,motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SFBAAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile are loNvest at about 45 mph for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin to increase again at higher speeds. • Respirable Particulate Matter(PM,()) and Fine Particulate Matter(PM2 5) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen are naturally occurring. In the SFBAAB most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-4 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a nitrogen oxide compound that is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as in internal combustion engines (both gasoline and diesel poNvered), as Nvell as point sources, especially poNver plants. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors. • Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When S02 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOS). • Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne Pb in the SFBAAB. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road motor vehicles, so the majorit-,T of such combustion emissions are associated Nvith off-road vehicles such as race cars. HoNvever, because it Nvas emitted in large amounts from vehicles when leaded gasoline Nvas used for on-road motor vehicles, Pb is present in many soils and can get resuspended in the air. Other sources of Pb include the manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and the use of secondary Pb smelters. • Toxic Air Contaminants JAC) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health including cancer. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. TACs are different than "criteria" pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be felt on a local scale rather than on a regional basis. • Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) refer to a group of compounds that are believed to affect global climate conditions. GHGs include carbon dioxide (COA methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFA Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. Other GHGs are less abundant, but have higher global Nvarming potential than COz. These gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, Nvhich are often referred to as GHGs, are necessary to life, because they keep the planet's surface Nvarmer than it othenvise Nvould be. This is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. • Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes,landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG emissions. There appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures. A number of scientists believe that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere has increased at a rapid rate due to the use of machines poNvered by fossil fuels and that these gases are increasing global Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-5 City of South San Francisco April 2013 temperatures. Among the potential implications of global Nvarming are rising sea levels, and adverse impacts to Nvater supply, Nvater quality, agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition, global Nvarming may increase electricity demand for cooling, decrease the availability of hydroelectric poNver, and affect regional air quality and public health.' State standards have been promulgated for other air pollutants, including SO4, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility reducing particles. The state also recognizes vinyl chloride as a TAC Nvith an undetermined threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects. Vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulfide emissions are generally generated from mining, milling, refining, smelting, landfills, seNver plants, cement manufacturing, or the manufacturing or decomposition of organic matter. The state standards for sulfate and visibility reducing particles are not exceeded any,vvhere in the SFBAAB. Pb is typically only emitted during demolition of structures containing Pb-based paint and materials. HoNvever, the project applicant Nvould be required to follow federal and state regulations that govern the renovation and demolition of structures Nvhere materials containing Pb are present. Further discussion on the presence and removal of Pb-based materials is included in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Health Effects of Air Pollutants Ozone Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people Nvith preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours)to ozone at levels typically observed in areas of high ozone can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. Elevated ozone levels are associated Nvith increased school absences. In recent Nears, a correlation between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as Nvell as mortality, has also been reported. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the above mentioned observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that include ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish Nvith repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist,which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes. bitergovernnierztal Parzel on Chmate Change. Climate C harzge 2007 The Physical,S'cierzce Basis, Sunmrary for Pohcyniakers, 2007. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-6 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Carbon Monoxide Individuals Nvith a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain Nvith exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of Nvorsening oxygen supply to the heart. Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering Nvith oxygen transport and competing Nvith oxygen to combine Nvith hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions Nvith an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients Nvith diseases involving heart and blood vessels,fetuses, and patients Nvith chronic hypoxemia(oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes. Reduction in birth Nveight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO,resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes Nvith exposure to elevated CO levels. These include pre-term births and heart abnormalities. Particulate Matter A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM,() and PM2 5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respirator* infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the Nvorld. In recent Nears, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respirator* disease. PM,() is of concern because it bypasses the body s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles, and can lodge deep in the lungs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) revised their PM standards several Nears ago to apply only to these fine particles. PMz; poses an increased health risk because the particles can deposit deep in the lungs and contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. Daily fluctuations in PM2; concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respirator*conditions in children,to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in respirator*lung volumes in normal children and to increased medication use in children and adults Nvith asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced Nvith long-term exposure to particulate matter. The elderly,people Nvith pre-existing respirator*or cardiovascular disease and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM,o and PM2 5. Nitrogen Dioxide Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated Nvith long-term exposures to NOz at levels Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-7 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 found in homes Nvith gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels. Increase in resistance to air flow and ainvav contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NOz in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals Nvith asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) rather than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub-groups. In animals, exposure to levels of NOz considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated Nvith high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NOz. Sulfur Dioxide A few minutes exposure to low levels of SOz can result in ainvav constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as Nvell as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SOz. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SOz. Animal studies suggest that despite SOz being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. HoNvever, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation),lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated Nvith fine particles show a similar association Nvith ambient SOz levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SOz from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear Nvhether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. Lead Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and loNver intelligence quotient. In adults,increased Pb levels are associated Nvith increased blood pressure. Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death, although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdovm of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-8 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. Manv TACs are confirmed or suspected carcinogens, or are known or suspected to cause birth defects or neurological damage. Secondly,many TACs can be toxic at very low concentrations. For some chemicals, such as carcinogens, there are no thresholds below which exposure can be considered risk- free. Existing Conditions Topography and Meteorology The SFBAAB regional meteorological conditions are cool and dry in the summers and mild and moderately Nvet in the Nvinters. A dad-mime sea breeze provides fresh air to the Bay Area, but also tends to cause temperature inversions, or the positioning of cool surface air underneath Nvarmer upper air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions. The project site lies Nvithin the City of South San Francisco in the southern peninsula region. The Santa Cruz Mountains run up the center of the peninsula, Nvith elevations exceeding 2000 feet at the southern end, decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco. Cities in the southeastern peninsula experience Nvarmer temperatures and feNver foggy days because the marine laver is blocked by the ridgeline to the Nvest. The blocking effect of the Santa Cruz Mountains results in variations in summertime maximum temperatures in different parts of the peninsula. For example,in coastal areas and San Francisco the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the mid-60's, while in Redwood City the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the low-80's. Mean minimum temperatures during the Nvinter months are in the high- Ws to low-40's on the eastern side of the Peninsula and in the low 40's on the coast. Two important gaps in the Santa Cruz Mountains occur on the peninsula. The larger of the two is the San Bruno Gap, extending from Fort Funston on the ocean to the San Francisco Airport. Because the gap is oriented in the same northwest to southeast direction as the prevailing Nvinds, and because the elevations along the gap are less than 200 feet,marine air is easily able to penetrate into the bay. The other gap is the Crystal Springs Gap, between Half Moon Bay and San Carlos. As the sea breeze strengthens on summer afternoons, the gap permits maritime air to pass across the mountains, and its cooling effect is commonly seen from San Mateo to Redwood City. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-9 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Annual average Nvind speeds range from 5 to 10 mph throughout the peninsula, Nvith higher Nvind speeds usually found along the coast. Winds on the eastern side of the peninsula are often high in certain areas, such as near the San Bruno Gap and the Crystal Springs Gap. Air pollution potential is highest along the southeastern portion of the peninsula. This is the area most protected from the high Nvinds and fog of the marine layer. Pollutant transport from upwind sites is common. In the southeastern portion of the peninsula, air pollutant emissions are relatively high due to motor vehicle traffic as Nvell as stationary sources. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build up in "urban canyons". Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants avmy before they can accumulate. Existing Regional Air Ouality There have been changes in regional air quality since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project due to continued development and implementation of air quality regulations in addition to changes in the ambient air quality standards and attainment designations. These changes are reflected in this section. Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants are used by the EPA and CARB to assess and classIA- the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data Nvith NAAQS and CAAQS, which are presented in Table IV.0-2. If a pollutant concentration in an area is loNver than the standard,the area is classified as being in "attainment." If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a "nonattainment" area. Areas that Nvere previousIv classified as nonattainment, but now meet attainment criteria are classified as "maintenance" areas. If there are not enough data available to determine Nvhether the standard is exceeded in an area,the area is designated"unclassified." Air quality in the SFBAAB is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the federal and state standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. The Bav Area Basin is considered "nonattainment" for ozone and PMz; federal standards, and is considered "nonattainment"for state standards for ozone and respirable and fine particulate matter(PM,() and PM2 A It is in "attainment" for the federal standard for PMio, and in "attainment" for both the federal and state ambient air quality standards for SOz, Pb, and NOz. The region is considered "maintenance" for the CO federal standard. The summary for the attainment status of the SFBAAB is presented in Table IV.0-2. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-10 City of S'oitth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standards Federal Standards Attainment Attainment Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Status Concentration3 Status Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm N N/A — (180 ttg/m) 8 hour 0.07 ppm N 0.075 ppm N (137 ttg/m) (147 ttg/m) Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A (23 mg/m) (40 mg/m) 8 hour 9 ppm A 9 ppm A (10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide4 1 hour 0.18 ppm A 0.10 ppm U (339 ttg/m3) Annual 0.030 ppm N/A 0.053 ppm A aritlnnetic mean (57 ttg/m3) (100 ttg/m3) Sulfur Dioxides 1 hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A (655 ttg/m3) (196 ttg/m) 24 hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A (105 ttg/m) (365 mg/m) Amoral N/A — 0.03 ppm A aritlnnetic mean (80 mg/m) Particulate Matter(PMio) 24 hour 50 ttg/m3 N 150 ttg/m3 U Annual 20 ttg/m3 N N/A — aritlnnetic mean Fine Particulate Matter 24 hour N/A — 35 ttg/m3 N (PM-s) Annual 12 ttg/m3 N 12 ttg/m3 U aritlnnetic mean Sulfates 24 hour 25 ttg/m3 A N/A — Lead6 30 day average 1.5 ttg/m3 — N/A A Calendar quarter N/A — 1.5 ttg/m3 A Rolling 3 month N/A — 0.15 ttg/m3 A average Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm U N/A — (42 ttg/m3) Vinyl Chloride6 24 hour 0.01 ppm — N/A — (26 ttg/m3) Source:C4RB2012..4nrbient.4irQuatit))Standards..4vailabletit t7,datedJ ume 7, 2012. ,rotes: Cal(fornia standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, szrlfzrr dioxide (I and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (P_vlj , P_vh;, and visibilii)) reducing particles), are valises that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air gzralit))standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the Cal(fornia Code ofRegurlations. lational standards (other than ozone,particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in till Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-11 City of S'oitth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standards Federal Standards Attainment Attainment Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Status Concentration3 I Status year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For RVIro, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hozrr average concentration above ISOµg'm3 is equal to or less than one. ForRVI,51 the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to or less than the standard. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference tenzperatia°e of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 tors°.,host measm°enrents of air gzralitj�are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressza°e(?1'760 torn;ppnz in this table refers to ppnz by volzmze, or nticronzoles of rolFurtant per mole of gas. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-.year average of the annzral 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site nrurst not exceed 100 ppb.Note that the national I-hoza°standard is in units of parts per billion(ppb). On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO,standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annzral primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-.year average of the annzral 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO,national standards (24-hozrr and annzral) remain in eff"ect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainnrent for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. C4RB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants'with no threshold level of expos°urre for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations speeyied for these polFurtants. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 gm 3 as a gzrarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that it areas designated nonattatrnzentfor the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 4 =attainment, l-=nonattainment; U=unclassified;X.4 =not applicable or no applicable standard;—=not indicated or no information available C4RB=C'al(fornia Air Resources Board µg/nr3=micrograms per cubic meter mg nr3=milligrams per cubic meter P_VIro=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns it diameter P_VII;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ppb=parts per billion rpm=parts per million SFB 44B =Scuz Francisco Bcry Area Air Basin SIP=State Implementation Plan SO,=sudfm°dioxide EPA=U.S.EniranmentalProtectianAgency Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft S'izbsegiient Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-12 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Existing Local Air Quality The average daily emissions inventory for the entire SFBAAB and San Mateo County is summarized in Table IV.0-3. In the Bay Area motor vehicles generate the majoriti<r of ROG, NOS, and CO emissions; stationary sources generate the most SO.,_ area-Nvide sources generate the most airborne particulate. Table IV.0-3 2010 Estimated Average Daily Regional Emissions Emissions in Tons Per Day Emissions Source ROG CO NOa SOa PMIO PM2s SFBAAB Stationary (Point) Sources 107.1 45.2 51.3 47.1 16.6 12.4 Area-Wide Sources 89.1 163.2 17.2 0.6 179.3 53.6 Mobile Sources 163.1 1,387.4 345.6 14.4 19.8 15.7 Natural(non-anthropogenic) Sources 106.5 49.4 1.6 0.5 5.1 4.3 Total Emissions 465.7 1,645.1 415.8 62.7 220.8 859 San Mateo County Stationary (Point) Sources 7.4 2.1 1.7 0.1 1.0 0.8 Area-Wide Sources 8.8 11.0 19 0.1 17.0 4.2 Mobile Sources 17.2 145.1 52.6 8.5 3.0 2.5 Natural(non-anthropogenic) Sources 6.9 -- -- -- -- -- Total Emissions 40.3 158.3 56.2 8.6 209 7.6 Source:C.4RB 2013a.A1matrac Emission Projection Data.Available at:website: http: app ernsilw ernssnrncot.iLhp. Vt)dated 2009.Accessed Febrrtatj)2013 ,rote: --=data not available. To identiA- ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates about 30 air quality monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco, approximately 10 miles from the project site. Table IV.0-4 identifies the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured at the Arkansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station through the period of 2009 to 2011. Monitoring Nvas not conducted at this station for SOz. Therefore, no site-specific data is available for those emission levels. Table IV.0-4 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station Year Emissions Source 2009 2010 2011 Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.113 ppm 0.150 ppm 0.115 ppm Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 11 8 5 Maximum 8-hour concentration 0.094 ppm 0.097 ppm 0.084 ppm Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-13 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-4 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station Year Emissions Source 2009 2010 2011 Days exceeding national 8-hour standard 8 9 4 Days exceeding State 8-hour standard 13 11 10 Respirable Particulate Matter(PMIO) Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 51.7 µg/m3 69.1 µg/m3 69.6 µg/m3 Days exceeding national 24-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding State 24-hour standard 1 1 1 Maximum annual concentration measured 19.5 µg/m3 20.3 µg/m3 19.7 µg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter(PMz,;) Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 45.7,ug/m3 46.5 jig/m3 54.2,ug/m3 Days exceeding national 24-hour standard 11 6 8 Maximum annual concentration measured 10.8 µg/m3 9.1 µg/m3 99 µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide(CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 4.3 ppm 1.8 ppm 1.8 ppm Days exceeding national 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 2.86 ppm 2.19 ppm 2.65 ppm Days exceeding national&State 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide(NOz) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.069 ppm 0.093 ppm 0.093 ppm Days exceeding State 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum annual concentration measured 0.012 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm Source:C.4RB 2013b.1lonitored AnibientAir Orralio)Concentrations.Available at: http: 7r7ni%ar~h.ca.gov udarrr tol)Four~tol)onrl.yhp.Accessed Febn tmy 2013 Note: 1. C'oncentr°ations in bold representvalzres that exceed the national standard CO=carbon monoxide ,10,=nitrogen dioxide R IJO=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter R II;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ppm=parts per million by volume pg/nr3=micrograms per cubic meter Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs Nvell against state standards for criteria air pollutants. Ambient ozone and PM,() concentrations have violated the state standards on occasion at the Arkansas Street station. PMro in the atmosphere is the result of many dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROGs and NOS. For carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete combustion, the air in South San Francisco meets state and federal standards; hoNvever, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersections and highway segments Nvould potentially be higher than the monitoring data indicates. Ambient ozone and PMz 5 concentrations have violated the federal standards at the Arkansas Street station through 2009 to 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-14 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Sensitive Receptors Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as "facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people Nyith illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas."Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors as Nyell because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. The area around the project consists of commercial developments, and there is a planned day care center across the street. There are also four existing day care centers in the commercial area near the project site. • The Early Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue; • Genentech 2nd Generation!d Allerton located at 444 Allerton Avenue; • Genentech's 2nd Generation located at 850 Gatevmv Boulevard; and • Gatevmv Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatevmv Boulevard Regulatory Setting NeNy and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Air quality Nsithin the SFBAAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies Nyork jointly, as Nyell as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality Nyithin the SFBAAB are discussed beloNy. Federal Federal Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) governs air quality in the United States and is administered by the EPA. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for atmospheric pollutants, which are presented in Table IV.0-2. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The EPA also has jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state Nyaters (outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state Nyith nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs Nyithin the timeframe identified in the SIP. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-1 S City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Climate Change The EPA does not currently regulate GHGs, a category that includes carbon dioxide and other pollutants that contribute significantly to climate change. HoNvever, in the 2007 case, Massachusetts v. The Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Supreme Court held that the EPA has a mandatory duty to enact rules regulating mobile GHG emissions pursuant to the FCCA. The court held that GHGs fit the definition of an air pollutant that causes and contributes to air pollution and may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or Nvelfare. FolloNving the Court's decision, President Bush signed Executive Order 13432 on Mav 14, 2007, directing the EPA, along Nvith the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme Court's decision. The order requires the EPA to coordinate closely Nvith other federal agencies and to consider the president's Twenty-in-Ten plan in this process. The Twenty-in-Ten plan Nvould establish a new alternative fuel standard that Nvould require the use of 35 billion gallons of alternative and reneNvable fuels by 2017. The EPA has recentIv Nvorked closely Nvith the Department of Transportation to develop new automotive efficienev standards. State California Clean Air Act California had already established its own air quality standards (CAAQS) when federal standards Nvere established, and because of the unique meteorological problems in California, there is considerable diversity between the State and national ambient air quality standards. The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS, Nvhich are presented in Table IV.0-2. The CAAQS are generally equal to or more stringent than the corresponding Federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. CARB The CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs Nvithin California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid) and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. To address diesel particulate and other TAC emissions, the CARB finalized an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. Furthermore, the CARB also oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, Nvhich in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-16 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) The CARB is the lead agency for implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act adopted by the Legislature in 2006. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan containing the main strategies that Nvill be used to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California. After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Proposed Scoping Plan released in June 2008, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008 and adopted the Plan on December 12, 2008. In August 2011,the Scoping Plan Nvas reapproved and includes the Final Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. This plan contains an outline of the State's strategies to achieve the 2020 GHG emission limits. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include the folloNving recommendations: 1. Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as Nvell as building and appliance standards; 2. Achieving a stateNvide reneNvables energy mix of 33 percent; 3. Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links Nvith other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system, 4. Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; 5. Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel standard; 6. Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on Nvater use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state's long- term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the State's emissions are subject to a cap-and-trade program Nvhere covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap. Emissions reductions Nvill be achieved through regulatory requirements and the option to reduce emissions further or purchase alloNvances to cover compliance obligations. It is expected that emission reduction from this cap-and trade program will account for a large portion of the reductions required by AB 32. ARB is currently Nvorking to prepare an update to the Scoping Plan to suggest additional measures that can be implemented. Senate Bill 97 In August 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), requiring the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. OPR submitted its proposed guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-17 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Agency undertook the formal rulemaking process to certIA-and adopt the amendments as part of the state regulations implementing CEQA and adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on December 30, 2009. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The CEQA Guideline Amendments do not specIA- a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do the Guidelines prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but rely on the lead agencies to make their own determinations based upon substantial evidence. The CEQA amendments also encourage public agencies to use programmatic mitigation plans and programs from Nyhich to tier N-,-hen they perform individual project analyses. Executive Order S-03-05 In 2005, Governor SchNyarzenegger issued Executive Order S-03-05, calling for stateNvide reductions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent beloNy 1990 levels by 2050. The Executive Order also called for the creation of a state "Climate Action Team," vyhich Nyould report to the Governor every two Nears on progress toward meeting the targets and the effects of GHG emissions on the state. Senate Bill 375 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 enhances California's ability to reach its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning Nyith the goal of more sustainable communities. Sustainable Communities requires CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the states 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control throughout the SFBAAB. To that end, BAAQMD Nyorks directly Nyith the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and local governments and cooperates actively Nyith all federal and state government agencies. The BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines,N-,-hen necessary. The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Ozone Attainment Plans and Clean Air Plans (Air Plans) that comply Nyith the FCCA and the California Clean Air Act, accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meet federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-18 City of South San Francisco April 2013 The BAAQMD 1999 CEQA Guidelines applied to the 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan SEIR. Since that time, the BAAQMD has replaced its former guidelines' by issuing the new CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance, in June 2010-'and updating them in Mav 2011' Nvith new risk and hazard thresholds for sensitive receptors. The guidelines include new thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in determining when potential air quality impacts Nvould be considered significant under CEQA. These guidelines include recommendations for analytical methodologies to determine air quality impacts and identiA-mitigation measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. BAAQMD's guidelines include procedures for evaluating Nvhether a project's construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions Nvould result in a significant air quality impact, along Nvith mitigation to reduce or eliminate any significant air impacts. BAAQMD's guidelines also include procedures for evaluating toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts resulting from project construction and operation. These procedures consist of a step-by-step approach for determining Nvhether a project's TAC emissions Nvould result in significant acute, chronic, or carcinogenic health risks. The 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines Nvere set aside pending the BAAQMD's preparation of necessary CEQA analysis for the Guidelines. HoNvever, as noted previously, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provides substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan The latest Clean Air Plan, Nyhich Nvas adopted in September 20106, is an update to the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy'. The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes comprehensive strategies to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics and GHGs from stationary, mobile and transportation sources. The plan builds on the main objective of the 2005 Ozone Strategy Nyhich Nvas to comply Nvith state air quality planning requirements as mandated by the California Clean Air Act. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is the BAAQMD's first ever multi-pollutant plan designed to protect public health and the climate. It defines control 3 BAA()_jID 1999. C EOA Guidelnres, Assessing the Air Qualio) Impacts of Projects arid Plarzs. Available at: httU: 7r7r7r.boo6�mclloti��inedioF'ile,ti Plarrrrirrl°o20arrd°o20ResearclrPlarr,tiC.EO,�°o20(nridecec�a luide.as�. December 1999.Accessed February 2013 a B 40-1IT) 2010a, updated allay 2010. CEO t: Air Oualio) Guidelines. Available at: htt): 7r7r7rAlmlmcllov-inedia Files Plarrrrirry°o20arr(I°o20Re,searcli CEQ4 Draft I3 4011D CE0A (nridehrres 1Iow_2010 Finol aslrs?lo=err.Accessed February 2013 B- 401IT) 2011, updated -flay 2011. CEOA: Air Oualio) Guidelines. Available at: httU: 7r7r7r.boo6�rncllov�inedio F'ile,ti Plorrnirrl°o20orrd°o20ReseorclaC.EO,�I3�.�O1ID°o20C.E0,�°o20(nridehrres Akw 0202011 .5 3 1 Lo,slrs.Accessed February 2013 6 R140-IID 2010b, adopted September 15, 2010. Bay Area 2010 ('learn Air Plarz. Available at: IrttU: 7i,7i,7i.boo6�rucllov Divisions Plorrrrirrz-ond I�e,tieorclr I'IorrsC.'Ieorr.fir-Plorr,5.osp�.Accessed February 2013 BA40-11D 2006, adopted January 4, 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Available at: httU: uuu.boo6�mcllov�inedio F'ile,tiPlonninl°o20ond°o20Reseorclr Plorrs200.5°o200zone°o20.Sb°otel� odo ted i mil volLoslrs.Accessed February 2013 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-19 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 measures that the BAAQMD, in collaboration Nvith other regional agencies, Nvill implement to accomplish three main purposes: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, Nvith an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BCDC) The San Francisco Bav Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) updated the San Francisco Bav Plan in October 2011 to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. The new and revised Bay Plan policies are summarized below: • Risk Assessments. Sea level rise risk assessments are required when planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects to ensure the project is designed to cope Nvith flood levels expected by mid-century or end of century if the project Nvill remain in place longer than mid- centurv. Risk assessments are only required Nvithin BCDC's jurisdiction and projects located only in the shoreline band need on1v address risks to public access. Furthermore, risk assessments are not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, and infill projects Nvithin existing urbanized areas. • Sea Level Rise Projections. Risk assessments must be based on the best estimates of future sea level rise. The California Climate Action Team's sea level rise projections, ranging from 10-17 inches at mid-century and 31-69 inches at the end of the century, currently provide the best available sea level rise projections for the West Coast. However, scientific uncertainty remains regarding the pace and amount of future sea level rise, and project applicants ma_- use other sea level rise projections if they provide an explanation. • Protecting Existing and Planned Development. Fill may be placed in the Bay to protect existing and planned development from flooding as Nvell as erosion. New projects on fill that are likely to be affected by future sea level rise and storm activity during the life of the project must be set back far enough from the shoreline to avoid flooding, be elevated above expected flood levels, be designed to tolerate flooding, or employ other means of addressing flood risks. • Designing Shoreline Protection. Shoreline protection projects, such as levees and seaNvalls,must be designed to Nvithstand the effects of projected sea level rise and to be integrated Nvith adjacent shoreline protection. Whenever feasible, projects must integrate hard shoreline protection structures Nvith natural features that enhance the Bay ecosystem, e.g., by including marsh or upland vegetation in the design. • Preserving Public Access. Public access must be designed and maintained to avoid flood damage due to sea level rise and storms. Any public access provided as a condition of development must either remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or equivalent access consistent Nvith the project must be provided nearby Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-20 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 • Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. Where feasible, ecosystem restoration projects must be designed to provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. • Encouraging Resilient Development. The policies encourage projects if their regional benefits, such as reducing carbon emissions by locating jobs and housing near public transportation, outweigh the risk from flooding. Projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety, such as repairs, small and interim projects, and parks, are also encouraged. • Preserving Undeveloped Areas. The policies encourage preservation and habitat enhancement in undeveloped areas that are vulnerable to future flooding and contain significant habitats or species, or are especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement. • Regional Strategy. The policies call on the Commission, Nvorking Nvith other agencies and the general public, to develop a regional strategy for protecting critical developed areas along the shoreline from flooding, enhancing the natural resources of the Bay by preserving existing habitat and identiA-ing areas where tidal Nvetlands can migrate landNvard, and improving the ability of communities to adapt to sea level rise in Nvays that advance economic prosperity, social equity and environmental protection. South San Francisco General Plan Local jurisdictions, such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police poNver and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the Air Plans. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy efficient streetlights, and svnchronized traffic signals. City of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies recognize community goals for air quality. Chapter 73 of the South San Francisco General Plan' identifies goals and policies that help the City contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts, and are consistent Nvith the Air Plans. These are outlined as follows: • Continue to Nvork toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and state ambient air quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources,where feasible. • Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation,including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. C't� q, S'ozIt/1 S'an Francisco 2013. General Plan. Chaptcr 7.3: Air Oualio> Available at. httU: 7r7r7r.s,tiFnetl)ocunzentC'enter Honze`T ie7r 602.Accessed February 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-21 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 • Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. • Cooperate Nvith the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PMio, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by federal and state statutes. • Use the Citv's development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. • Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. • Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and Nvood stoves. • In cooperation Nvith local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. In accordance Nvith CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The City does not, hoNvever, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality Nvithin the City and region Nvill meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the BAAQMD and utilizes the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals Nvithin its jurisdiction. The goals and policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan are generally consistent Nvith the General Plan, as Nvell as the Air Plans. The goals and policies detailed in the East of 101 Area Plan further refine some of the generalized policies contained in the General Plan and Clean Air Plans. These specific refined policies focus on improving air quality through enhanced transportation strategies,Nvater and energy conservation, and urban forestry. The specific refined strategies include: • Encourage and support transportation modes other than single occupancy automobiles including ridesharing bicycling Nvalking and transit • The City of South San Francisco shall support transportation demand management TDM and transportation system management TSM programs in coordination Nvith the Multicity Transportation System Management Agency or any other applicable transportation management agencies • Promote Nvater and energy conservation in all new development • New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City specifications for their frontages • Parking lots should be shaded Nvith trees and should also include shrubs in most cases. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-22 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and unpaved, Nvith the exception of a City--oNsned sanitary seNver pump located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bounded by ONTster Point Boulevard to the south, the Caltrain railroad tracks to the Nvest, Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco Bav to the north, and commercial properties and laboratories to the east. This analysis assumes the project Nvould be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 Nvould consist of two office buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project site roadvmys, site utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and Nvould be constructed by 2016. A child care center that Nvould serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area Nvould be constructed either late in Phase 1 or in Phase 2. This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of Phase 1. Phase 2 Nvould include two additional office buildings, a 3-story parking structure, a restaurant, retail space, and site utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and is assumed to be constructed by 2017. Phase 2 Nvould also reconfigure surface parking on the site. In Phase 3, the project Nvould consist of three additional office buildings, expand the parking structure from 3-story to 8 or 9-story,install additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting, and reconfigure surface parking on the site. Phase 3 is assumed to be constructed by 2019. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft SEIR,implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: • Conflict Nvith or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for Nvhich the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions Nvhich exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors such as ROGs and NOX). • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict Nvith an applicable plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-23 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds Although the BAAQMD has advised that air quality analyses should not rely upon the 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines, as noted previously, the City of South San Francisco has determined that substantial evidence exists to supports the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. Construction According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if daily average emissions of construction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors Nvould exceed any applicable threshold of significance listed below in Table IV.0-5,the project Nvould result in a significant impact. Table IV.0-_5 Thresholds of Significance for Construction-Related Activities Pollutant Daily Average Emissions(lbs/day) ROG 54 NO 54 PM10 82 PM,5 54 Source:13 40.IID 2011, ugpdated_clay 2011. CEQ4:Air Ouualio Guidelines.Available at: http: 'wwwAtagnud.gov -media Files Planning oo20andoo20Reseau°eh'C.'EO_4 BA4O_V1D°o20C.'E 040020Guuidelines �Vlay%202011 5 3 11.ashx.Accessed Februualy 2013 rote: NOx=nitrogen oxides R 110=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter RVII;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ROG=reactive organic gases The BAAQMD recommends implementation of best management practices for fugitive dust emissions from construction sites. The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR utilized the 1999 guidelines Nvhich did not have quantitative mass emission thresholds for construction. The 1999 guidelines recommended implementation of best management practices for construction projects. Operational According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if daily average or maximum annual emissions of operational-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable threshold of significance listed below in Table IV.0-6,the project Nvould result in a significant impact. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-24 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-6 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities Maximum Annual Emission Daily Average Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) (lbs/day) ROG 10 54 NO 10 54 PM1 o 15 82 PM,5 10 54 Source:B_140.VID 2011, utpdated flay 2011. C.'EO4:Air Ou alio)Guidelines.Available at: hap: iwwwAtagmd.govt -media FilesPlrnrlrilrg°o20alyd°o20Reseae°eh"C.'EO__4B_SAO__l1D°o20CEO4Yc,20Gitidelilres_ �lay%202011 5 3 ll.ashx.Accessed Februtaul�2013 ,rote: NOx=nitrogen oxides RV110=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter R II;=particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ROG=reactive organic gases The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR utilized the 1999 guidelines which used 15 tons per Near for ROG and NOx. PM,o remained the same while PMz 5 did not exist in the 1999 guidelines. Local CO Concentrations CO emissions are considered significant if they contribute to a violation of the State standards for CO (9 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). CO emissions are localized, and typically analyzed in terms of their impacts to specific roadvmy segments or intersections. These exhaust emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. The BAAQMD has also provided screening criteria to determine Nvhether there Nvould be less than significant CO impacts: 1. Project is consistent Nvith an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highvmys, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic Nvould not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic Nvould not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadvmy). The 2000 Bav West Cove SEIR had the same ambient are concentration thresholds, but did not include the screening criteria provided above. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-25 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 ToxicAir Contaminants(TACs) Projects that have the potential to emit TACs could also result in significant air quality impacts. As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that emits TACs and exceeds the folloNving criteria is considered to have a significant air quality impact: • Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million;" or • Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs Nvould result in a hazard index greater than one (1)for the MEL10 Greenhouse Gases(GHGs) The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines'include thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions from projects and plans and developed guidelines for assessing these impacts for direct and indirect operational emissions. These thresholds include a bright line emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons of COz equivalent(COze) per Near or an emission efficiency metric of 4.6 tons of COze per Near per service population. Service population is the sum of new residents and full time Nvorkers. The BAAQMD has not adopted any thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions from construction activities. Cumulative Impacts According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact. For a project that does not individualIv have a significant air quality impact, the BAAQMD requires that a determination of cumulative impacts be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project Nvith the local General Plan and of the General Plan Nvith the regional air quality plan. The appropriate regional air quality plan for this analysis is the 2010 Clean Air Plan. If a project is proposed in a city or county Nvith a General Plan that is consistent Nvith the Clean Air Plan, and the project is consistent Nvith that General Plan, the project Nvould not have a significant cumulative impact. If the cit-T or county General Plan is not consistent Nvith the Clean Air Plan, or the project is not consistent Nvith the General Plan, quantitative analysis is required to determine Nvhether the impact is significant. " An 11EI is a hypothetical off-site persoli, usually at or near the site boundary, who would receive the maximum exposure from a facilio)'s operations. 10 A hazard index measures the potential for lion-cancer health effects. It is the ratio of the estimated exposure level to the Reference Exposure Level, which is the level at or below which rzo adverse health effects are anticipated Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-26 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Methodology Construction Emissions Emissions for the construction of the project Nyere estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2011.1.1. CalEEMod is a stateNvide land use project emissions model designed as a uniform platform to quantiA- potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated Nyith construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as residential and commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes basic land use information to estimate default construction equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. The construction emissions Nyere calculated using 3 different CalEEMod runs to estimate the emissions from each Project Phase (1-3). The folloNving conservative inputs into the model Nyere utilized: • Location is San Francisco Air Basin. • Project Near is 2017 for Phase 1 and 2035 for Buildout. • Climate Zone is 5. • Utility is Pacific Gas &Electric. • Land Use for Phase 1 Nyould include 252,593 square feet of office/R&D space, a 200 room hotel, and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 Nyould include 205,474 square feet of office/R&D space, 20,000 square feet of retail, 122 additional surface parking spaces, and 498 parking spaces in a parking structure. Phase 3 Nyould include426,277 square feet of office/R&D space, a reduction of 459 surface parking spaces, 225 podium parking spaces and 1,300 additional parking spaces in a parking structure. At build-out the project Nyould include884,344 square feet of office/R&D space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail, 395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and 1798 parking spaces in a parking structure. • Construction phases are shoNsn in Table IV.0-7. Start date for Phase 1 Nyas assumed to conservatively be 1/1/2014,Phase 2 start date Nyas 1/1/2015, and Phase 3 start date Nyas 1/1/2016. • Off-road equipment is shoNsn in Table IV.0-8. • Amount of material hauled off-site Nyas assumed to be zero. • The default trip lengths for Nyorker(12.4 miles) and vendor(73 miles)Nyas used. • Default number of Nyorker vehicle commuting trips Nyas assumed. • Default horsepoNver for construction equipment Nyas utilized. • Load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the maximum rated load) Nyere modified to reflect current load factors recommended by ARB Nyhich is a 33%reduction from the model defaults. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-27 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-7 Construction Phases Construction Phases Phase Type Number of Days Site Preparation 10 Grading 30 Phase 1 Building Construction 300 Paving 20 Architectural Coating 20 Site Preparation 10 Grading 30 Phase 2 Building Construction 300 Paving 20 Architectural Coating 20 Site Preparation 10 Grading 30 Phase 3 Building Construction 300 Paving 20 Architectural Coating 20 Table IV.0-8 Off-road Construction Equipment Construction Phases Phase Type Equipment Number Hours per Day Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Excavators 2 8 Graders 1 8 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Phase 1 Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Pavers 2 8 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-28 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-8 Off-road Construction Equipment Construction Phases Phase Type Equipment Number Hours per Day Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Excavators 2 8 Graders 1 8 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Phase 2 Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Pavers 2 8 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Excavators 2 8 Graders 1 8 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Phase 3 Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Building Construction Welders 1 8 Pavers 2 8 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 Operational Emissions The project Nvould result in operational emissions from mobile sources of Nvorkers and customers utilizing the new buildings, area sources associated Nvith architectural coatings and landscaping equipment, direct and indirect emissions associated Nvith building energy use, indirect emissions associated Nvith Nvater use and solid Nvaste generation. These sources could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors, GHGs, TACs, and PM. CEQA Cnzidelines', if daily average or maximum annual emissions of Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-29 City of South San Francisco April 2013 operational-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable threshold of significance listed belov, in Table IV.0-7,the project N ould result in a significant impact. Table IV.0-7 Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related Activities Maximum Annual Emission Daily Average Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) (lbs/day) ROG 10 54 NO 10 54 PMi o 15 82 PM,5 10 54 Sofa°ce: B.140.IID 2011, updated _flay 2011. CEO : Air Ouali6 Guidelines. Available at: hap: www.baagmd.govt -media Fil esPlrnrlrilrg°o20alyd°o20Reseae°eh"C.'EO__4B_SAO__l1D°o20(EO4Yc,20Grridelilres_ allay%202011 5 3 ll.ashx.Accessed Febrrrarl�2013 ,rote: NOx=nitrogen oxides PMW=particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PMz 5 =particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ROG=reactive organic gases The operational emissions for Phase 1 and full project build-out were estimated using CalEEMod. The Phase 1 utilized emission factors from 2017 and full build-out utilized emission factors from 2035. The CTG traffic study" N as used to estimate total annual daily trip rates for the project along N ith estimates of trip reductions anticipated from the TDM program as quantifiable using CalEEMod12. The N ater use for the project reported in the utility section N as also incorporated to utilize a site specific N ater use estimate. Default estimates N ere used for all other inputs into the model. " CTG 2012. Britarzrua Cove Traffic Studj>.December 2012 CalEE_11od lias incorporated the methodologies described in CAPC OA's Ouaritib)irig Greenhouse. Gas_Mitigation Measures into the program to quarztzb)many of the mitigation measure including irz this document. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-30 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 ToxicAir Contaminants(TACs) It is unlikely that there Nvill be operational sources onsite that Nvill emit TAC emissions, since there are no diesel sources anticipated and gasoline related TACs Nvhich are emitted in smaller quantities and have lower toxicity compared to DPM are not anticipated to cause any impact to health impacts. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions could be emitted from the construction equipment. Because there are existing daycare facilities in the area and a daycare facility is included in the project and could be completed prior to the completion of project construction, a quantitative health risk assessment Nvas conducted to estimate the potential health risks to day care children during project construction. Health Risk Assessment The construction equipment Nvould emit diesel particulate matter that is classified as a TAC. Gasoline- fueled vehicles emit various TACs in much smaller quantities and health toxicity compared to DPM. Thus, gasoline fueled emission sources have not been included further in this health risk assessment. The emissions of DPM sources are used in the health risk assessment(HRA) Nvhich is based on the emissions from the off-road equipment category for exhaust PM,()emissions reported by CalEEMod. The maximum daily pounds per day for each construction phase Nvas multiplied by the number of days in the construction phase and amortized over a Near to determine the annual average emission rate. In order to evaluate the impacts of DPM on nearby sensitive receptors, a HRA Nvas conducted consistent Nvith OEHHA (OEHHA 2012, 2003) and BAAQMD guidelines (BAAQMD 2011) for determining local community risks and hazards. The HRA is a process folloNved to evaluate the health risks associated Nvith the project. The HRA evaluated project emissions associated Nvith construction equipment. The detailed information on the methodology and data used to conduct the HRA since air dispersion modeling Nvas required is summarized below. The dispersion of emissions Nvas simulated using the US EPA regulatory approved model called AERMOD. The model inputs and assumptions are summarized below. Meteorological Data: AERMOD requires meteorological data as an input into the model. This is typically processed using AERMET, a pre-processor to AERMOD. AERMET requires surface meteorological data, upper air meteorological data and surface parameter data. For this Project the data for San Francisco Airport Nvas utilized since it is one of the closest surface meteorological stations Nvith hourly data available. Upper air data Nvas obtained from Oakland International Airport since this is the closest upper air meteorological station Nvith data available. Five Nears of meteorological data from 2008 through 2012 Nvere utilized. Surface parameters: AERMOD requires estimate of the surface roughness, albedo, and BoNven ratio for use in AERMET. The US EPA has a surface parameter analysis model, AERSURFACE, that estimates these parameters based on the 1992 National Land Use Land Cover Dataset and other information about the project area. The details of the surface parameters utilized in AERMET can be found in Appendix F. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-31 City of Saiith San Francisco April 2013 Terrain: Terrain Nvas incorporated by using AERMAP to import the elevation of the project vicinity using data from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) Nvith a resolution of 1/3 aresecond. Receptors Nvere modeled using a Cartesian grid Nvith 25 meter by 25 meter spacing as Nvell as several discrete receptors. Receptors Nvere modeled at a height of 1.8 meters. Source Parameters: Volume sources Nvere utilized to model the construction Nvork areas. The Nvork area Nvas divided into adjacent volume sources Nvith a release height of 5 meters. Details of source parameters are available in Appendix F. Time of Day adjustment: The model utilized emission rates that assumed an 8-hour Nvork day and othenvise the emissions Nvere set to zero for the rest of the day. Exposure Factors: Potential sensitive receptors Nvere characterized as day care children. The maximally exposed day care receptor located at each of the existing and proposed day care center off of the project site is reported. The exposure parameters used for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) for all potentially exposed populations Nvere obtained using risk assessment guidelines from OEHHA. The inhalation dose is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical. The dose can be calculated as follows: 0"7,6" Where: Dose = Dose of chemical(mg/kg-day) Cone = Chemical concentration in air(µg/m) TAF = Time Adjustment Factor13 (unitless) DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) ET = Exposure Time(hours/day) EF = Exposure Frequency(days/Near) ED = Exposure Duration (Nears) AT = Averaging Time (days) CF = Conversion Factor(m3/L and mg/ µg) The TAF utilized is 1.2 to represent an adjustment in the modeling output from a 7 day a Nveek schedule to a 5 day a Nveek schedule. The 8-hour Nvorkdav Nvas already accounted for in the air dispersion model. The DBR Nvas set to the 95 percentile for 0-2 Nears as recommended by OEHHA. The exposure frequency 13 This adjustts the coizceiztratioiz to account for overlap iii time of sources aizd receptors. This is used for the daycare receptors. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-32 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Nvas 250 days per Near consistent Nvith a child being at daycare the same exposure frequency as assumed for a typical Nvorker. The averaging time is based 70-Nears. Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. For purposes of calculating exposure criteria to be used in risk assessments, adverse health effects are classified into two broad categories: cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values used to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment component of a risk assessment. In this HRA, diesel exhaust, a complex mixture that includes hundreds of individual constituents and is identified by the State as a knoNsn carcinogen is the only chemical of potential concern quantified. Under California regulatory guidelines, DPM is used as a surrogate measure of carcinogen exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a Nvhole. The estimated excess lifetime cancer risk for daveare child Nvas adjusted using the age sensitivity factors (ASFs) recommended by OEHHA (OEHHA 2009). This approach accounts for an "anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens" of infants and children. Cancer risk estimates are Nveighted by a factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to two Nears of age and by a factor of three for exposures that occur from two Nears through 15 Nears of age. No Nveighting factor(i.e. an ASF of one, Nvhich is equivalent to no adjustment)is applied to ages 16 to 70 Nears. Risk Characterization Excess lifetime cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual Nvill develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical- specific cancer potency factor(CPF). The equation used to calculate the potential excess lifetime cancer risk for the inhalation pathvmy is as follovys: Where: Risk, = Cancer Risk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen(unitless) Dose = Dose of chemical(mg/kg-day) CPF, = Cancer Potenev Factor for Chemical I(mg chemical/kg body Nveight-day)-' ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor(unitless) Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-33 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 The potential for exposure to result in chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air concentration) to the chemical-specific non-cancer chronic reference exposure levels (RELs). When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient (HQ). To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for all chemicals are summed, yielding an HL For evaluation of the Project, DPM is the only pollutant evaluated for chronic non-cancer risks;therefore the HQ for DPM is the same as the overall HI. The equations used to calculate the chemical-specific HQs and the overall HI are: CW1,Cy71fC'S1 Where: Chronic HQ, = Chronic Hazard Quotient for Chemical, (unitless) Chronic HI = Hazard Index(unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical, (pghn) REL, = Chronic Non-cancer Reference Exposure Level for Chemical, (pghn) No acute non-cancer impacts Nvere estimated since there is no acute reference exposure level for DPM. Odors Odors Nvould be considered significant if the project Nvould result in a frequent exposure of members of the public to objectionable odors Nvhich is typically defined as five or more confirmed complaints per Near averaged over three Nears. According to the BAAQMD, typical uses that may result in significant odor impacts include NvasteNvater treatment plant, sanitary landfill, transfer station, composting facility, petroleum refinery, asphalt batch plant, chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations,rendering plant, and coffee roasters. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction and operational GHG emissions Nvere estimated using CalEEMod as previously described. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-34 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant air quality impacts or substantial increase in severity of air quality impacts after mitigation. This Draft Subsequent EIR provides new mitigation measures consistent Nvith the revised air quality analysis. These equally effective mitigation measures replace or supplement those provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.0-1: Construction and operation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Construction Criteria pollutants Nvould be emitted during project construction through the operation of construction equipment, earthmoving activities, architectural coatings and Nvorker vehicles. As previously discussed, Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 Nvould be constructed by 2017, and Phase 3 Nvould be constructed by 2019. Project construction Nvould generate fugitive dust(including PM,()and PM2 5) during various earthmoving activities. Other criteria pollutants would be generated from the exhaust emissions of construction equipment and vehicles. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project SEIR did not quantitatively estimate the construction emissions but made a qualitative assessment and implementation of fugitive dust mitigation measures to result in a less than significant impact. The analysis presented here performs a quantitative analysis of the construction activities for the construction equipment exhaust emissions and compares them to a new quantitative emissions threshold. Fugitive emissions are evaluated in the same method by implementation of best management practices. For all proposed construction projects, BAAQMD recommends implementing the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-1 of the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidance to meet the Best Management Practice (BMP) threshold for fugitive dust, for impacts from fugitive dust to be less than significant. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco Nvould require as part of the project approval that the project proponent require that the construction contractor implement the folloNving BMPs: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads)Nvill be Nvatered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site Nvill be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads Nvill be removed using Nvet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry poNver sweeping Nvill be prohibited. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-35 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads Nvill be limited to 15 mph. • All roadvmvs, drivevmvs, and sideNvalks to be paved Nvill be completed as soon as possible. Building pads Nvill be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times Nvill be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage Nvill be provided for construction Nvorkers at all access points. • All construction equipment Nvill be maintained and properly tuned in accordance Nvith manufacturer's specifications. All equipment Nvill be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. A publicly visible sign Nvill be posted Nvith the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person Nvill respond and take corrective action Nvithin 48 hours. The Air District's phone number Nvill also be visible to ensure compliance Nvith applicable regulations. The proposed project's emissions during construction activities are presented in Table IV.0-9, and are compared to the daily construction significance thresholds. The average daily construction emissions Nvould be greater than the BAAQMD CEQA threshold for ROG due mainly to architectural coatings applied during construction and this impact Nvould be significant. Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1: Use of Certified Low-VOCPaint To reduce the average daily ROG emissions to less than the BAAQMD ROG CEQA thresholds during the application of architectural coatings, the City of South San Francisco Nvould require the construction contractor to use a certified low VOC paint Nvith a maximum ROG content of 50 grams/liter. This mitigation measure Nvould reduce ROG emissions from architectural coatings by 80 percent. The proposed project's mitigated emissions during construction activities are presented in Table IV.0-10. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the project's average daily construction emissions Nvould not exceed the significance thresholds, and its construction emissions Nvould not conflict Nvith or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, project construction impacts Nvould be less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-36 O U QI H N N N � QI H N N N a W O O O h a W 0 O O h ^ O O •'� O CC O O � •� O O O I��-II � � M � •� ~ � � M � U O YE O N v'� U S"•• O �O CO O r-� 1 r-� 1 ti cC cC cC p-0 cC cC cC p-0 ? City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Operations The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR evaluated only the traffic emissions. It concluded that the regional pollutants ROG, NOx, and PMio Nvere significant and unavoidable. The local analysis of CO emissions concluded that emissions Nvere less than significant. The current analysis evaluates only a portion of the Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Planning Area 1, but Nvith an increased building development for commercial uses but a decrease in hotel rooms. With the new trip generation estimates conducted for the revised Planning Area 1,there is a net decrease in trips projected for Planning Area 1. The analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR includes estimates of air emissions from area sources and energy use in addition to the traffic. The air quality analysis conducted for this Draft Subsequent EIR also includes an update to the emissions estimation methodologies including reflection of regulations that have significantly reduced the emissions from motor vehicles. Using equivalent methodologies the 2000 SEIR the air emissions Nvould be anticipated to be those shoNsn in Table IV.C-11. This Nvould show a less than significant impact for all pollutants except ROG. The ROG emissions Nvould be significant only under the reduced mass emission threshold and similar mitigation to implement low VOC paint Nvould reduce these emissions. Table IV.0-11. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Updated Operational Emissions (tons/year) PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust Exhaust Build-out Opening Year(2035) Area 9.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.13 1.21 1.02 0.01 0.09 0.09 Mobile 3.57 6.21 2790 0.12 0.50 0.44 Total 13.30 7.42 2892 0.13 0.59 0.53 Operational emissions typically represent most of a project's air quality impacts. After a project is built, operational emissions, including mobile and area sources, are anticipated to occur continuously throughout the project's lifetime. CO emissions are localized, and typically analyzed in terms of their impacts to specific roadway segments or intersections. HoNvever, these exhaust emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and are not expected to impede attainment and maintenance of ozone and CO standards in the Bay Area. Furthermore, since none of the intersections Nvould have traffic volumes greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour there Nvould be no impacts associated Nvith CO. The proposed project Nvould result in area source and indirect mobile source exhaust emissions. Operational emissions are presented in Table IV.0-12. Both opening year and build-out year Nvould be loNver than BAAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants,Nvith the exception of ROG. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page 38 City of S'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-12 Operational Emissions (tons/year) PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust Exhaust Phase 1 Opening Year(2017) Area 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.05 0.48 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 Mobile 1.78 3.38 15.78 0.03 0.14 0.05 Total 4.91 3.86 16.18 0.03 0.14 0.09 Significance Thresholds 10 10 NA NA 15 15 Build-out Opening Year(2035) Area 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.12 1.09 091 0.01 0.08 0.08 Mobile 1.94 3.33 15.32 0.07 0.28 0.11 Total 11.61 4.42 16.23 0.08 0.36 0.19 Significance Thresholds 10 10 NA NA 15 15 HoNvever, even after the building is constructed it Nvould continue to emit ROG from architectural coatings over the area of the building. These emissions Nvould contribute ROG in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds, a significant impact. To reduce the impacts of ROG, Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1 is required. After mitigation, the ROG emissions Nvould be 9.86 tons per year Nvhich is less than the BAAQMD significance threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1,the project's operational emissions Nvould not exceed the significance thresholds, and its operational emissions Nvould not conflict Nvith or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, project operation impacts Nvould be less than significant Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-1.1. In all cases the project results in a decrease in the estimated emissions for Planning Area 1 compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1. Impact IV.0-2: Construction and operation of the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction As stated above, the proposed project's construction emissions Nvould be below the significance thresholds Nvith the implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. These significance thresholds Nvere designed to prevent the violation of air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the proposed project's construction emissions Nvould not lead to violations of any air quality standards, and the impact Nvould be less than significant Nvith mitigation. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-39 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Operations As described above, the proposed project's operational emissions Nvould be below the significance thresholds Nvith implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Since none of the intersections Nvill have traffic volumes greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour there Nvill be no significant impacts associated Nvith CO based on the BAAQMD thresholds. These significance thresholds Nvere designed to prevent the violation of air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the project Nvould not lead to violations of any air quality standards, and the impacts Nvould be less than significant Nvith mitigation. This is consistent Nvith the conclusion reached in the 2000 West Bav Cove Commercial Project SEIR. Impact IV.0-3: Construction and operation of the project would not result in a cumulativety considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal, state, or regional ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions Nvould be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions. Construction As described in the section above, the project's construction emissions Nvould be below the daily significance thresholds Nvith the implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Emissions below the thresholds of significance Nvould not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, even if the project's emissions are combined Nvith other projects that occur at the same time as the proposed project's construction emissions, the project Nvould not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant. Operations As described above, the proposed project's operational emissions Nvould be below the significance thresholds Nvith implementation of the Mitigation Measure IV.0-1.1. Emissions below the thresholds of significance Nvould not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, even if the project's emissions are combined Nvith the emissions from other land uses in the area, the proposed project's operational emissions Nvould not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that cumulative impacts Nvere significant since the project emissions Nvere significant consistent Nvith BAAQMD significance thresholds. The conclusion is different for this Draft Subsequent EIR for Planning Area 1 since Nvith the revised analvsis,the project is no longer significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-40 City of S'oizth S'an Francisco April 2013 Impact IV.0-4: Construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting in cancer and noncancer risks. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an analysis of this impact. The construction of the project Nvould produce diesel particulate matter that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting in health impacts. A health risk assessment Nvas conducted to evaluate the increased incremental cancer risk to a daveare child located adjacent to the project site sometime after Phase 1 of the project is complete and to existing daycare facilities located in the project vicinity for the entire project construction. The cancer risk for a daycare child from Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction activities Nvas estimated to be 35 in a million located at UTM coordinates 553550, 4168600 meters (NAD 83 Zone 10), Nvhich Nvould be significant because it Nvould exceed the significance threshold of 10 in one million. There are several existing daycare facilities in the project vicinity. These Nvould be potentially impacted by all three phases of the construction activities. The cancer risk for these facilities is shoNsn in Table IV.0-13 and indicates that emissions Nvould be less than the significance threshold of 10 in amillion. Table IV.0-13 Existing Day Care Facilities Cancer Risk Unmitigated Mitigated Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Day Care Facility (in a million) (in a million) The Earlv Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue 0.5 0.1 Genentech 2"a Generation !d Allerton located at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 0.1 Genentech's 2"a Generation located at 850 Gatewav Boulevard 5.1 0.7 Gatewav Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatewav Boulevard 1.7 0.2 Mitigation Measure IV.0-4.1: Construction Equipment Filters All diesel fueled off-road construction equipment must use diesel particulate filters Nvith an 85%reduction in diesel particulate matter compared to Tier 2 engines. With mitigation, the impact to the future daycare child can be reduced to 5 in one million Nvhich is less than the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in a million. Therefore the impact to sensitive receptors Nvould be less than significant after mitigation. There are no significant sources of diesel particulate matter associated Nvith project operation. Therefore the impact to sensitive receptors Nvould be less than significant. Impact IV.0-5: Operation or construction of the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-41 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project SEIR did not evaluate odor emissions and related impacts. Construction equipment and material hauling vehicles using diesel fuel may emit objectionable odors associated Nvith combustion of the diesel fuel. HoNvever, these emissions Nvould be temporary. Therefore, odor impacts associated Nvith diesel combustion during construction activities Nvould be less than significant. The operational activities are associated Nvith building operation and Nvorkers commuting to the project site. The Nvorker vehicles are not expected to increase the amount of odors associated Nvith traffic along roads in the project area. Therefore, odor impacts associated Nvith operational activities Nvould be less than significant. Impact IV.0-6: Construction and operation of the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The 2000 Bav West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate GHG emissions and related impacts. The current analysis evaluates only a portion of the Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Planning Area 1, but Nvith an increased building development for commercial uses but a decrease in hotel rooms. With the new trip generation estimates conducted for the revised Planning Area 1, there is a net decrease in trips projected for Planning Area 1. Construction emissions for the Bav West Cove Planning Area 1 Nvould not be anticipated to be different than those estimated for the project since the same general area is being developed and construction equipment Nvould be anticipated to be similar and follow a similar time schedule. They Nvould therefore be less than significant on the same basis used below. The analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR includes estimates of GHG emissions from mobile, energy use, Nvater use, and waste generation. Using equivalent methodologies the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR the air emissions Nvould be anticipated to be those shoNsn in Table IV.0-14. This Nvould show a significant impact for GHG emissions using the same methodology and significance threshold. This is primarily due to the additional mobile source emissions associated Nvith the hotel. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-42 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-14 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) Phase Source Category CO2e Build-out Mobile 7,921 Energy 4,694 Water 73 Waste 400 Total 13,088 Efficiency Metric-(Service Population=2,656) 4.9 ,rotes: The service population is based on the following employee breakdown: Bzrdd-ozrt:2,000 from conznzercialR&D;592 fi°onz hotel;alyd 6d from retail. The construction activities associated Nvith off-road equipment and Nvorkers commuting to the site would emit GHG emissions. Table IV.0-15 shows the GHG emissions associated Nvith project construction. The construction GHG emissions are amortized over a 40-year project life which results in amortized GHG emissions of 104 metric tons per year. This is less than the bright line threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore the construction GHG emissions result in a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. Table IV.0-1_5 Construction GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) Construction Phase CO2e Phase 1 1,229 Phase 2 1,041 Phase 3 1,874 Total 4J44 Amortized over 40 year Project Life 104 The project operation Nvould result in both direct and indirect GHG emissions associated Nvith traffic to and from the project, energy use of the buildings, Nvater use of the buildings, and solid Nvaste generation. The project operational GHG emissions are shoNsn in Table IV.0-16. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-43 City of S'oirth S'an Francisco April 2013 Table IV.0-16 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric tons/year) Phase Source Category CO2e Phase I Mobile 1495 Energy 1,891 Water 157 Waste 119 Total 4,663 Efficiency Metric-(Service Population'=1,401) 3.3 Build-out Mobile 4,473 Energy 5212 Water 33 Waste 434 Total 10,151 Efficiency Metric-(Service Population'=2,595) 39 rotes: The service population is based on the following employee breakdown: Phase 1:1,221.1rom conmzerciallR&D;180.1rom hotel Bzrdd-out:2,358.1rom conmzercialR&D;180.1rom hotel;and 57.1rom retail. The GHG emissions are divided by the anticipated service population, which is the number of employees plus residents. For this project the service population is 2,595. '4 This results in an efficiency metric of 3.9 metric tons GHG per service population per year. For the Phase 1 portion of the project the efficiency metric is 33 metric tons GHG per service population per year based on a service population of 1,401. This is below BAAQMD's significance threshold of 4.6 for both Phase 1 and full build-out of the project. Therefore the project results in a less than significant impact. Compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Planning Area 1, the project in this Draft Subsequent EIR results in a decrease in emissions and changes the significance from significant to less than significant. Impact IV.0-7: Construction and operational emissions associated with the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Phase I service population is based orz 1,221 employees associated with offce,R&D arzd 180 employees associated with the hotel. Full build-out service population is based orz 2,385 employees associated with office-R&D, 180 employees associated with the hotel, arid 57 employees associated with the retail. The following land use size metrics to employees was utilized: office-R&D is 375 square feet per employee, hotel is 0.9 employees per room, arid retail is 350 square feet per employee. The hotel arid retail employee density was based orz Table C-1 corztairzed irz Trarzsportatiorz Impact Analysis Guidelines for Erzvirorznierztal Review which represents data front a cio)wide travel survey conducted iii the nearby cio)of,1a1z Francisco. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-44 City of,'oizth San Francisco April 2013 The state has implemented AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions as Nvell as SB 375. The project does not pose anv conflict Nvith the recent list of CARB's earIv action strategies nor is it considered one of the sectors at Nvhich measures are targeted because it does not have a significant amount of GHG emissions that can easily be regulated beyond improvements in vehicle emissions and low carbon energy. The project is not one that Nvould be required to report emissions to CARB since it is not an industrial source listed in the regulations. Therefore the specific emissions from this project Nvould not be expected to have a substantial impact on global climate change. The project Nvould comply Nvith BAAQMD required mitigation measures for construction and operational emissions, Nvhich Nvould reduce GHGs. In addition, the project includes a TDM program designed to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled. The project is an inflll project Nvhich helps to mitigate traffic in the region by placing the project near related and complementary land uses. Although the project is consistent Nvith the South San Francisco General Plan, the area does not yet have a Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) to determine if the project Nvould be consistent Nvith the land use planning for the region; hoNvever, as stated earlier the project is an infill project Nvhich is consistent Nvith the purpose and goals of SB 375 and SCS. Given that the project does not conflict Nvith AB 32 or SB 375,the impact Nvould be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would not have a significant air quality impact individuall�T would also not have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Since the proposed project Nvould not exceed the BAAQMD-recommended emissions thresholds for individual projects, the cumulative air quality impacts are also considered less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.0-1.1 through IV.0-4.1 Nvould adequately mitigate potential impacts related to air quality. These impacts Nvould also be reduced to a less than significant level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-45 City of Sauth San Francisco April 2013 This page intentionally left blank Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.C. Air Quality Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-4 6 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing biological resources on the project site and evaluates the potential for biological resource impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on biological resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant biological resources impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed (discussed in Section IVT Geologv and Soils) since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in anv new significant biological resources impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures are not necessary for biological resources impacts. For a summan- of impacts from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. No comment letters related to biological resources Nvere received in response to December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Information Sources URS Corporation conducted a reconnaissance level site survey for sensitive biological resources Nvithin the project site on Februan- 8, 2013. The descriptions of biological resources on the project site and the project impact analysis Nvere determined from the site survey, a review of Nvetland permitting and remediation that occurred previously on the project site', and a desktop review of the California Natural Josselyn, -ll 2011. Teclniical Alenroran(lrair Srnirrirar) of if'etlancl Per^nittirig aril Cap I'er^ficatiori. Tf'ildlif, Research Associates, Sari Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:D-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Diversity Database (CNDDB)2 and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on biological resources as identified in Table IV.D-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create no significant biological impacts. Table IV.D-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 12.2.2—Minor Disturbance of Wildlife Foraging No mitigation measures were required. and Nesting Activities Due to Daily Human Activities along the Shoreline. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that the project could cause a potential impact to wildlife which may become established in the revegetated sloping embankment that has been built along most of the shoreline and slot.Birds and small mammals that become established in the shoreline bank may be disturbed by people and pets entering the area from the asphalt path along the top of bank adjacent to the bay. Lighting from adjacent commercial areas may disturb habitats at night. The impact is less than sigrzificarzt because the project is subject to East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7,which includes requirements to protect wildlife and General Plan requirements to control invasive species along the Bayfront Linear Park. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Conditions The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR are due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap, as described in Section IVY Geology and Soils, which include fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction. California Department of Fish and if'ildlife (CT)Fif). 2013. Observation clata for USGS 7.5 minute quacls "Sari Francisco South," ",San Francisco Vorth," "Horztara Hourztairz,"arid "Hunters Poirzt."Accessed February 4, 2013. Califc)rriia lative. Plant Soeieo) (C'1PS). 2013. Iriveritory ofRare grid Eridarigered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). Accessed February 4, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 The project site consists of filled upland inhabited by sparse ruderal vegetation and is bounded entirely by chain-link fencing. This habitat consists of mostly Nveedy non-native forbs and grasses. There are no trees onsite. Outside of the fence, the project site is bordered by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, Veterans Boulevard to the east and north, and Caltrain tracks and U.S. 101 to the north and Nvest. San Francisco Bav borders Veterans Boulevard on the northeast side, and is visible from the project site. The project site is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to natural areas. It provides generally poor Nldlife habitat, due to lack of cover and proximity to human activity. Species observed during the 2013 project site visit Nvere limited to the folloNving common urban species: Canada goose (Branta canadensis), Nvestern meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), BreNver's blackbird (Eizphagus cyanocephalus), European starling (Stumus vulgaris), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and black- tailed jackrabbit(Lepus californicus). No Nvatenvays occur onsite, and no Nvetlands Nvere found onsite during the 2013 site visit. A potential jurisdictional feature is present just outside of the Nvestern project site boundan-Nvithin the Caltrain right- of-Nvay. This feature is a partially concrete-lined drainage ditch. The southernmost portion of the drainage ditch, approximately 285 feet, does not fall under Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction. The majoritA- of this area is flat and littered Nvith debris and contains moderate amounts of gravel (. Special Status Species State and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Nvith amechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state (see Regulatory FrameNvork below). A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "candidates" for such listing. Still others have been designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFW. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as "special status species." Special status plant and animal species, and their potential to occur on the project site, are listed in Table IV.D-2. A search of four U.S. Geological Society (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (San Francisco South, San Francisco North, Montara Mountain, and Hunters Point) Nvas conducted using the CNDDB and CNPS on-line databases. The occurrence records for special status species Nvithin these quadrangles Nvere used to develop a list of 35 special status plants and Nvildlife that have the potential to occur on the project site. To determine the potential for any of these species to occur on the project site, the folloNving criteria Nvere applied: • Habitat for the species has been identified Nvithin the vicinity. • The proposed project has potential to affect special status species on or adjacent to the project site. Josselyn, -ll 2011. Teclniical Alemoran(1tair Stnirrirar) of Tfetlarid Permitting acid Cap I'erificatiori. Tf'ildlif, Research Associates, Sari Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:D-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Application of the above criteria to the list of 35 special status species reveals that habitat on the project site is not suitable for any of these species. Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur Plants Arctostaphylos 1B.1 Coastal scrub with serpentine soil. No potential. Species is franciscana presumed extirpated from the Franciscan manzanita project area. Arctostaphylos montana FE, SE, Seipentinite outcrops in chaparral, -Vo potential. Species only ssp. ravenii 1B.1 coastal prairie,coastal scrub. occurs in the Presidio in San Presidio manzanita Francisco:presumed extirpated from the project area. Arctostaphylos Pacifica SE, Chaparral,coastal scrub. -Vo potential. Species is only 1B.2 known to occur on San Bruno Pacific manzanita Mountain. Centromadia parryi ssp. 1B.2 Chaparral,coastal prairie,meadows -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is parryi and seeps,coastal salt marsh and not present on the project site. pappose tarplant swamps,valley and foothill grassland(vernally mesic). Alkaline soil. Chloropyron maritimum 1B.2 Coastal salt marshes and swamps. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is ssp.palustre not present on the project site. Point Reties bird's-beak Cirsium andrewsii 1B.2 Coastal scrub,coastal prairie,coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is bluff scrub,broadleaf upland forest. not present on the project site. Franciscan thistle Mesic or serpentine soil. Clarkia franciscana FE, SE, Coastal scrub,valley and foothill -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Presidio clarkia 1B.1 with serpentine soil. not present on the project site. Collinsia multicolor 1B.2 Coastal scrub,coniferous forest in -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is San Francisco collinsia serpentine soil. not present on the project site. Dirca occidentalis 1B.2 Mesic broadleaf upland forest. No potential. Suitable habitat is Western leatherwood coniferous forest,chaparral, not present on the project site. cismontane woodland,riparian forest/woodland. Erioplhyllum latilobum FE, SE, Cismontane woodland in serpentine -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is San Mateo woolly_ 1B.1 soil. not present on the project site. sunflower Helianthella castanea 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest,chaparral, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Diablo helianthelia cismontane woodland,coastal scrub, not present on the project site. riparian woodland,valley and foothill grassland. Hesperolinon FT. ST. Valley and foothill grassland in -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is congestum 1B.1 serpentine soil. not present on the project site. Marin western flax Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur Horkelia cuneata var. 113.1 Coniferous forest,maritime -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is sericea chaparral,coastal dunes and scrub,in not present on the project site. Kellogg's horkelia sandy or gravel substrate. Leptosiphon croceus 113.1 Coastal bluff scrub,coastal prairie. No potential. Suitable habitat is Coast vellow not present on the project site. leptosiphon Lessingia germanorum FE, SE, This species occurs only in remnant -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is San Francisco lessingia 113.1 patches of native vegetation in the not present on the project site. San Francisco dunes. Malacothamnus arcuatus 113.2 Chaparral,cismontane woodland. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Arcuate bush-mallow not present on the project site. Plagiobotluys 113.2 Mesic chaparral,coastal prairie, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is chorisianus var. coastal scrub. not present on the project site. chorisianus Choris'popcorn flower Potentilla hickmanii FE, SE Coastal bluff scrub,coniferous -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Hickman's cinquefoil 113.1 forest,meadows.marshes,and not present on the project site. swamps. Silene verecunda ssp. 113.2 Sandy coastal bluff/scrub,chaparral, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is verecunda coastal prairie,valley and foothill not present on the project site. San Francisco campion grassland. Triphysaria floribunda 113.2 Serpentinite coastal prairie,coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is San Francisco owl's- scrub,valley and foothill grassland. not present on the project site. clover Triquetrella californica 113.2 Coastal bluff and scrub. No potential. Suitable habitat is Coastal triquetrella not present on the project site. Invertebrates Callopluys mossii FE Rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is bayensis scrub. not present on the project site. San Bruno elfin butterf1v Plebejus icarioides FE Forest clearings and edges,prairie. No potential. Suitable habitat is missionensis sagebrush,chaparral,and coastal dunes not present on the project site. Mission blue butterf1v where the host plant(lupine)occurs. Speyeria callippe FE Sagebrush,chaparral,diy woodland, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is callippe and prairie hill habitat. Restricted to not present on the project site. Callippe silverspot areas where I Iola pedurzculata grows. butterf1v Speyeria zerene FE Grasslands, sand dunes,chaparral,and -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is myr[eae coniferous forest. Only known from not present on the project site. Myrtle's silverspot four populations in northwestern Marin County-and southwestern Sonoma County. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species Species I Status Habitat Potential to Occur Amphibians and Reptiles Emys marmorata SSC Calm freshwater streams or pools with -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Western pond turtle vegetated banks.May utilize upland not present on the project site. habitat up to 0.5 km from water body for nesting and wet season refugia. Rana draytonii FT. SSC Humid forests,woodlands,grasslands. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is California red-legged and stream sides with plant cover.Most not present on the project site. frog common in lowlands or foothills. Breeding habitat is in permanent eater sources:lakes,ponds,reserti-oirs, sloe streams,marshes,bogs,and swamps. Thanmophis sirtalis FE, SE Grasslands or wetlands near ponds, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is tetrataenia marshes and sloughs. not present on the project site. San Francisco garter snake Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss FT Cold freshwater rivers and streams. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is irideus Although they can be found in cold not present on the project site. Steelhead-central lakes,they require moderate-to-fast California coast distinct flowing,well-oxygenated eaters for population segment breeding. Birds Geothlypis trichas SSC Salt marshes,nests in thick herbaceous -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is sinuosa vegetation. not present on the project site. Saltmarsh common v ellow throat Rallus longirostris FE, SE Salt marshes dominated by pickleweed -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is obsoletus (Sahcomia virgirzica)and Pacific not present on the project site. California clapper rail cordgrass(,S'partzrza fohosa). Riparia riparia ST Steep sand,dirt,or graN-el banks,where -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Bank swallow it nests in burrows near the top of the not present on the project site. bank. Mammals Corynorhinus SSC CaN-es,mixed conifer and pine forests, -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is townsendii desert scrub. not present on the project site. Townsend's big-eared bat Lasimus blossevillii SSC Riparian woodlands,agricultural areas. -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is Western red bat not present on the project site. Neotoma fuscipes SSC Evergreen forests with live oaks and -Vo potential. Suitable habitat is armectens other thick-leaved trees and shrubs. not present on the project site. San Francisco duskAy footed w oodrat Status Designations: FE=Federally Endangered FT=Federally-Threatened SE= State Endangered Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:D. Biological Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.D-2 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species Species I Status Habitat Potential to Occur ST= State Threatened SSC= State Species of Special Concern 1B=CNPS List 1B—Plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere. (1 =seriously endangered in CA, .2=fairly endangered in CA) Sources: California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). 2013. CNDDB obserti-ation data for USGS 7.5 minute quads "San Francisco South,""San Francisco North,""Montana Mountain,"and"Hunters Point."Accessed Febnaan-4, 2013. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. I iventory of Rare and Endangered Plants(online edition,v8-01a). Accessed February-4,2013. Regulatory Setting The folloyving discussion identifies environmental regulations that serve to protect sensitive resources relevant to the California Environmental Quality-* Act (CEQA) revieyv process. Neyv and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. California Endangered Species Act The State of California enacted the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align yvith the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), CESA created the categories of"threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare"animals into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus,these lay-,-s provide the legal frameyvork for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains the CNDDB, a computerized inventory* of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA revieyv process, CDFW also serves as a trustee agency and may comment on the potential of the project to affect listed plants and animals. Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern The classification of"fully protected" yvas the CDFW's initial effort to identIA- and provide additional protection to those animals that yvere rare or faced possible extinction. Lists yvere created for fish, amphibian and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (fish at §5515, amphibian and reptiles at §5050, birds at §3511, and mammals at §4700) dealing yvith "fully protected" species states that these species "...may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species," although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the "fully protected" designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the "take" of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing Nvith fully protected species Nvere amended to allow the CDFW to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species. Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to the CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing or historicalIv occurred in low numbers and knoNsn threats to their persistence currentIv exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers, consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly knoNsn at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA during project review. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 &3513 According to Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessIv destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Stumus vu garis)). Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falcomformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps Nvith the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory non-game bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "take" by the CDFW. California Native Plant Society The CNPS publishes and maintains an Inventon-of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California in both hard copy and electronic version (http://Ns-Nsw.rareplants.enps.org/). The Inventon- assigns plants to the folloNving categories: IA—Presumed extinct in California IB—Rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2—Rare,threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 —Plants for Nvhich more information is needed 4—Plants of limited distribution Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each taxa as follows: Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; 1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree of immediacy of threat). 2—Fairly endangered in California(20-80 percent occurrences threatened). 3 — Not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats lcnovm). Plants on Lists IA, 113, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualifiT for listing, and are given special consideration under CEQA during project review. Although plants on List 3 and 4 have little or no protection under CEQA,they are usually included in the project review for completeness. Local South San Francisco General Plan(1999)—Open Space and Conservation Element The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future grov th and development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of development Nvithin the East of 101 Area, including the project site. The City of South San Francisco General Plan designates the project site as Business Commercial. Policies pertinent to biological resources are listed below and included in Chapter 7.1. The Implementing Policies apply to the Project site shoreline at the mouth of the "slot"extending east along the shoreline band (as shoN-,n in General Plan Figure 7-2): 7.1-G-2 Protect and Nvhere reasonable and feasible,restore saltmarshes and Nvetlands. 7.1-1-2 As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Bayfront Linear Park and other City-ovried open space. 7.1-1-3 As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat ... require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment to the invasive species and restore the native species. 7.1-1-4 Require development on the Nvetlands to complete assessments of biological resources. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Multiple sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the biological resources of the project site. A new reconnaissance level site survey for sensitive biological resources Nvithin the project site was conducted on February 8, 2013 by URS Corporation. The survey Nvas conducted to update information contained in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-9 00)ofSoutbi Sari Francisco April 2013 The descriptions of biological resources on the project site and the project impact analysis Nvere determined from the site survey, a review of Nvetland permitting and remediation that occurred previously on the project site,' and a desktop review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)6 and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants'. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts on biological resources if the proposed project Nvould: • 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 CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Nvetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantialIv Nvith the movement of anv native resident or migratory fish and Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory Nvildlife corridors, or impede the use of native Nvildlife nursery sites; • Conflict Nvith any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • Conflict Nvith the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar thresholds of significance as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR. These thresholds differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR standards of significance did not include questions relating to federally protected Nvetlands and only included a discussion of disturbance to Nvildlife. ' Josselyn, -ll 2011. Tecbniical Hemoran(1ran Srnnrnar) of iTetlarid Permitting acid Cap I'erificatiori. Tf'ildlif, Researcli Associates, ';all Rafael, CA. October 3, 2011. 6 California Department ofFisb and Tf'ildlif, (C:DFT ). 2013. Observation data for USGS 7.5 minute. quads "Sari Francisco Soutlr," "San Francisco Vortlz," "Alorztara 1Iourztairz,"arid "Hunters Poirzt."Accessed February 4, 2013. Califc)rriia lative. Plant Soeieo) (C1PS). 2013. Iriveritory ofRare acid Eridarigered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). Accessed February 4, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:D-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant biological resources impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, no mitigation measures are necessary, as the project does not have any significant impacts on biological resources. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.D-1: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 35 special status species that Nvere revieNved for their potential to occur on the project site, based on the lack of suitable habitat and a review of occurrence records, none of the special status species Nvere found to have the potential to occur. Because the project site is dominated by non-native vegetation and the surrounding areas are highly disturbed, the site is not expected to be utilized by special-status species. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to special status species as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not directly analyze the impacts on sensitive or special status species, it did state that the only potential impact relating to biological impacts Nvould be on Nvildlife foraging. Therefore, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project there Nvould be no impact on sensitive and special status species. Impact IV.D-2: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site conditions, no riparian habitat is present on the project site; therefore, the project Nvould not result in any adverse effects to riparian areas. Additionally, no sensitive natural communities occur on-site and no sensitive communities Nvould be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, there Nvould be no impact to any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW, or the USFWS as a result of the proposed project.No mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.D-3: The proposed project Nvould not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Nvetlands 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. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze impacts on Nvetlands. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. No federally protected Nvetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal habitat) are present on the project site. No Nvetlands or Nvaters of the U.S. or Nvaters of the State occur on the project site. The proposed project does not involve any grading or development Nvithin the bed, bank or channel of the drainage ditch located Nvithin the Caltrain right-of- Nvav, as shown in Figure III-7 of Section III Project Description. Consequently, no jurisdictional features would be impacted at off-site locations due to construction of the project. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to federally protected Nvetlands or Nvaters of the U.S. and RWQCB jurisdictional features as a result of the proposed project.No mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.D-4: The proposed project Nvould not interfere substantially Nvith the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native Nvildlife nurser*sites. Habitat loss and associated species loss are primarily a result of the acceleration of land-use change. Habitat loss involves reducing the size of habitat and may result in the breaking habitat into patches; the latter process is referred to as fragmentation. The project site is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to natural areas. Consequently, no Nvildlife corridors Nvill be adversely affected by the proposed project. The site does not offer native resident or migratory fish or Nvildlife species Nvith regionally significant habitat and the habitat onsite is of poor quality. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that impacts to wildlife foraging and nesting activities due to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould be less than significant. Based on the 2013 project site visit and the new project site conditions (as discussed in Section IVY Geology and Soils), there Nvould be no impact to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or Nvildlife species or Nvith established native resident or migratory Nvildlife corridors or impede the use of native Nvildlife nurser* sites, as a result of the proposed project. This represents a decrease in impact significance compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,Nvhich found this impact less than significant. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not conflict Nvith local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There are no trees on the project site. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact to biological resources protected under local policies or ordinances as a result of the proposed project. As Nvith the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR,no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological resources impacts consists of San Mateo County. All future development that may occur in this geographic region Nvould be subject to existing federal, state and local regulations. The proposed project site is surrounded by a highly-developed urban landscape. The site is dominated by non-native species, and does not contain any special-status species or sensitive natural communities, or provide any connectivity to other natural areas. For these reasons, land uses and development consistent Nvith the proposed project Nvould not result in a significant loss of populations and/or essential habitat for special-status plant and animal species, loss of sensitive natural communities, or wildlife habitat or result in the obstruction of Nvildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, similar to the cumulative impact finding in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project Nvould be less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, because no impacts related to biological resources have been identified,no mitigation measures are required or recommended. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:D-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:D. Biological Resources Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:D-14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS E. CULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes historic and cultural resources Nvithin the project site and whether implementation of the project Nvould cause a substantial adverse effect on cultural resources from implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on cultural resources of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant cultural resource impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previousIv identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project, as discussed in Section IVT Geology and Soils, the proposed project Nvould not result in anv new significant cultural resources impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified cultural resource impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures Nvere presented to avoid potential damage to cultural resources. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analvsis section. Descriptions of existing cultural resources, both on and in the vicinity of the project site are presented and potential project-related impacts to cultural resources are evaluated based on previous archival research, and project plans. A regulator-frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to the historic and cultural resources of the proposed project. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999); information contained in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR prepared for development on the project site, and a review of technical inventon- reports prepared for the previous planning documents covering the project site. No comment letters related to cultural resources Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project as Nvell as the environmental impacts on cultural resources. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Project Nvould result in one potentially significant impact to cultural resources and one less than significant impact. Table IV.E-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 13.2.2—Potential to Damage Unknown Sites Mitigation Measure 13.2.2 Potential to Damage and Artifacts during Project Construction.The 2000 Unknown Sites and Artifacts during Project Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Construction-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial concluded that there is the potential that unknown Project Supplemental EIR identified Mitigation Measure cultural resources could be encountered and damaged 13.2.2,which required the following for the applicant to during project development.Prehistoric resources accomplish this mitigation,as summarized below. include chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points, . A potential resource find should be immediately mortars and pestles,and dark friable soils containing evaluated by a cultural resource consultant. If the shell and bone dietary debris,heat-affected rock or find is determined to be an important cultural human burials. The potential to encounter such resource,work shall cease in the vicinity- of the resources,however unlikely,creates the potentially site,pursuant to C EOA Guidelines, Supplementary significant adverse impact. Document J.Archaeological Impacts.Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. • In accordance with. General Plan Implementing Policy 7.5-1-5 requires preparation of a mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event archaeological resources are uncovered. • In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains,the developer shall immediately cease work and notify the county coroner. If the remains appear to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and other measures to protect the remains pursuant to CEQA shall be undertaken. The impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.2.2. Impact 13.3.1-No Cumulative Cultural Impacts.The No mitigation measures were required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the potential to damage cultural resources during construction of the project,when considered with potential disruption to other known or unknown cultural sites in the vicinity-would not result in a cumulative impact,thus the impact would be less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Physical Setting The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project SEIR are due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap, Nvhich include fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction. As previously discussed, the project site is Planning Area 1 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site is located in the East of the 101 Area Plan, in the City of South San Francisco. The East of 101 area is contained on the U.S. Geological Survey "San Francisco South" 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, and is in ToN-,reship 3 South, Range 5 West (Mt. Diablo M&B). The project site contains four parcels generally at 159 Oyster Point Boulevard. Access to the project site is from Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard. All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt roadways, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/lcnovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. These various impacts over recent history have significantly reduced the archaeological potential of the project site; see discussion below. Topographic Features The project site is located on Nvhat Nvas once a near-island in San Francisco Bay. In the 1800s the East of 101 Area Nvas a hilly peninsula. Point San Bruno, Nvith elevations reaching over 150 feet, surrounded by Bay marshlands at the northNvest, southNvest and south, and by open Bay Nvaters to the east, connected to the Peninsula by a narrow neck of dry land (Bache 1854; Hoffman 1873; Anonymous 1895-98; USGS 1897). The low marshy areas are now almost entirely filled and on the south side have been developed for over a century. The project site still has the generally northNvest aspect of the aboriginal landform, rising gently from south to north and east to Nvest; elevation is less than 30 feet msl along Oyster Point Boulevard. Any natural contours have been entirely altered by development. The project site is currently vacant and graded on a regular basis to maintain the soil cap. The project site consists of filled upland inhabited by sparse ruderal vegetation and is bounded entirely by chain-link fencing. This habitat consists of mostly Nveedy non-native forbs and grasses. There are no trees onsite. Geologic Features The original topography Nvas extensively altered beginning in the late nineteenth century, the upper soils, indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction and for use as bay fill (Anonymous 1895-98). In 1930 the project site had been extensively graded and filled and Nvas occupied by several heavy industries (Mark Group 1989). Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Historic Development and Resources Uses of the East of 101 Area have changed through time. The East of 101 Area Nvas initially the location of large meat processing and packing houses in the 1890s, folloNved by various other heavy and light industries (steel, ship building, paint factories) and succeeded by other uses, the latest being most notably biotech and information technology. For much of the 20"' century, the general area that includes the proposed project development site Nvas highly industrialized. Industrial facilities included a major steel production and fabrication facility operated by Bethlehem Steel and steel fabrication plants operated by Edwards Wire Rope and the American Bridge Division of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation). The Bethlehem and Edwards Wire Rope facilities Nvere located immediately south of the project site on property now knoN-,n as Gateway Center. United States Steel (American Bridge Division) reportedly operated at the project site from 1938 to 1978. Buildings knoN-,n to have existed on site include a main pipe and steel fabrication building, paint and fuel storage buildings, a blacksmith shop, machine shop, a dip kettle structure, and electrical substations. A ship launch basin, sometimes referred to as the slot, is located in the center of the site and Nvas used for material loading and for a brief time during World War II as a cargo ship repair facility. A number of above ground and below ground oil storage tanks Nvere also present on site. All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt roadways, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/knovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. Areas of the site have been re-graded to various degrees and several tens of thousands cubic yards of construction debris (predominantly concrete and brick) have been placed on the site. Recently, clean imported fill material has been stockpiled in selected areas of the site. The extensive Nvork at the site reduces the potential for historical and archeological resources to be present on the project site. Results of Records Search and Historic Resources Survey Records Search There have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR; therefore this assessment is based on the records and archival search for the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Record searches Nvere conducted at the Northwest Information Center, CA Historical Resources Information Systems and Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park CA. Numerous South San Francisco historic resources are recorded at various levels (Office of Historic Preservation Directorv, California Inventorv, State Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Resources Information Society (CHRIS) records, California Register of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places, County and City historic resources listings, etc.); however none are recorded inside or Nvithin 500 meters of the project site. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The searches have shoNsn that there are no recorded Native American resources on the project site that are listed. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR concluded that the shoreline characteristics of the East of 101 Area Nvould be favorable for Native American inhabitance, as a whole. HoNvever the CHRIS found that the extensive fill and modification of the shoreline on the project site Nvould make it unlikely that Native American sites Nvould be found in the project site. Regulatory Setting New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal National Register ofHistorical Places Primarily Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 governs federal regulations for cultural resources. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council's implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), . the nation's master inventory of knoNsn historic resources. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service. The NRHP includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering,archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over fifty years of age can be listed on the NRHP. HoNvever, properties under fifty years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included on the NRHP. A resource can be considered significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the NRHP, its historic integrity must be evaluated. When nominating a resource to the NRHP,the significance of that resource must be clearly evaluated and stated. State California Environmental Quality Act Historical Architectural Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource (including both built environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) is presumed significant if the structure is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission. A historical resource may also be considered significant if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequentEnvironnnentallmpactReport Page IT:E-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Archaeological Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not othenvise determined to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearIv demonstrated that Nvithout merely adding to the current body of lcnoNvledge, and it meets the criteria for inclusion. A non-unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Non-unique archaeological resources receive no further consideration under CEQA. Human Remains According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource. 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. These procedures are provided under Public Resources Code Section 5097. Paleontological Resources According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect if it Nvould directIv or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. California Historic Register The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is the State's authoritative guide to significant California historical and archeological resources. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) has designed this program for use by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identiA-, evaluate, register and protect California's historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural,historical, archeological and cultural significance,identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding, and affords certain protections under CEQA. Tapes of resources eligible for nomination for listing in the CRHR are buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts. All resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the NRHP are eligible for the CRHR. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 3, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850. The CRHR criteria are similar to NRHP criteria. Anv resource that meets the CRHR criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA. Local Planning Commission Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The City s Planning Commission designates historic resources, reviews applications for altering or demolishing historic structures, disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and areas deemed Nvorthy of preservation, and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. The City of South San Francisco's Planning Commission also maintains a Historic Resources Survey (1986), which focuses on historic buildings, architecture, and sites of significance in the City. The Historic Resources Survey does not list any resources in or near the project site,nor any in the entire East of 101 Area. South San Francisco General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan serves as an outline for the City of South San Francisco's long- range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community. The General Plan provides a detailed analysis of key issues in South San Francisco, and sets policies specifically designed to guide development Nvithin the City. The Open Space and Conservation Element establishes the goals, policies, programs, and guidelines to protect, manage and conserve natural and community resources. The folloNving are policies related to cultural resources: 7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identitA- and quality of life. 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archeological resources. 7.5-I-4 Ensure the protection of knoNsn archeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of knoNsn resources. 7.5-I-5 In accordance Nvith State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archeologist in the event that archeological resources are uncovered. East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-28 The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The methodology used in this Draft Subsequent EIR is similar to that used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Historic Resources PotentialIv adverse effects on historic structures or features are evaluated by determining the presence or absence of historic status Nvith respect to the feature in question, and then determining the potential for the project to affect the structure or feature if it possesses historic status. Archaeological Resources (including human remains) This analysis is based on the possibility that an archaeological resource or human burial Nvould be affected by activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface,including grading or excavation. Paleontological Resources This analysis is based on professional knowledge that paleontological resources could be affected by activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface, including grading or excavation. For the purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, impacts on paleontological resources are assessed in terms of significance based upon whether these resources meet the definition of a "unique paleontological resource" found in Section 21083.2(g) of the PRC. Thresholds of Significance In accordance Nvith Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project Nvould have a significant impact related to cultural resources if it Nvould: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; • DirectIv or indirectIv destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or • Disturb an-,T human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The CEQA Guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included thresholds of significance similar to the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant cultural resources impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, mitigation measures are necessar_- to reduce potential impacts to unknoN-,n historic, cultural, or archaeological resources, and unknoN-,n human remains. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. There have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR; therefore this assessment is based on the records and archival search for the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. As discussed in the 2000 SEIR,the project site does not contain any recorded historic resources. This area Nvas not part of the historic development either of the residential/commercial portion of the City (Nvest of U.S. 101), nor of the earliest industrial development east of U.S. 101. In addition, this area has been developed and redeveloped more than once in the twentieth century, processes that have virtually completely removed potential for and make the property quite unlikely to contain significant historic resources that Nvould be impacted by the proposed project. Further, a cap maintenance and soil remediation program Nvas in place for the site, which entailed removal of contaminated soil and replacement Nvith cap and fill. Although no historic resources Nvere found in the project site, the entire project site Nvould be subject to ground disturbance through various phases of the project and it is possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and could be uncovered during construction of the proposed project. Historic resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility*, however low, of encountering historic materials in this location. Historic materials older than 45 Nears—bottles, artifacts, privy* and disposal pits, structural remains, etc.—may- also have scientific and cultural significance and should be more readily*identified. Therefore, although the potential to impact historic resources is unlikely*, mitigation measures to reduce this impact are required, similar to the findings of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The mitigation measure would require the construction contractor to halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence of historic or cultural resources is discovered and bring a qualified archaeologist to the site to investigate further,thereby*reducing the possibility*of destroying historic resources. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:E-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or Cultural Resources In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural resources,if during the proposed construction of the project, any evidence of historic or cultural resources is uncovered or encountered, all excavations Nvithin 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. In order to protect these resources from damage, a qualified archaeologist approved by the City shall determine Nvhether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource," the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume .upon the completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, Nvork can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information Svstem NorthNvest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, folloNving accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information Svstem NorthNvest Information Center. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1.1, this impact Nvould be less than significant. This mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Other than cap maintenance activities, there have been no changes on the project site since the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point project site Nvas not found to contain any recorded archaeological resources. Although no archaeological resources Nvere found in the project site, it is possible that subsurface deposits may exist on the project site or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and Nvould be uncovered during construction of the project since ultimately the entire site Nvould be subject to ground disturbance, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Archaeological resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be made aNvare of the possibility, however low, of encountering archaeological materials in this location. In this area, the most common and recognizable evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources are deposits of shell and/or bones, usually in fragments, and usually in a darker fine-grained soil (midden); chert, obsidian and other stone flakes left from manufacturing stone tools, or the tools themselves or ground stone (mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, arrowheads and spear points), other artifacts (shell beads, bone tools, etc.), and human burials, often as dislocated bones. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Nevertheless, since archaeological resources could be located in the subsurface, and impacts to these resources Nvould be unknoN-,n until encountered during excavation, impacts to such resources Nvould be potentially significant. The mitigation measure below Nvould require the construction contractor to halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence of archaeological resources is discovered and bring a qualified archaeologist to the site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying unique archaeological resources, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown Archaeological Resources If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the project all excavations Nvithin 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. A qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to identiA- the presence of archaeological resources in the area surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, auguring, and monitoring construction activities as Nvell as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area. If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during any phases of construction, a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource"under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource," the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume upon the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, Nvork Nvill resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, folloNving accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-2.1 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than significant. This mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Impact IV.E-3: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The 2000 Bav West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate potential impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features. The project site is located in an area underlain by sheared rock of the Franciscan Complex,which is a very common geological feature. As described previously, the original topography of the project site has been extensively altered and the project site is primarily overlain by fill derived from Colma Formation materials that have been replaced Nvith construction and demolition activities on the site. The original topography Nvas extensively altered beginning in the late Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; nineteenth century, the upper soils, indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction and for use as bay fill. According to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History (LRCM), no vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist within the project site and this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.E--4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. While there is no evidence that human remains are present on the project site, there is still the potential that the construction of the proposed project could encounter human remains,Nvhich in turn could result in a potentially significant cultural resource impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The mitigation below Nvould require the construction contractor to halt ground-disturbing activities if human remains are discovered so that the Countv's Medical Examiner can investigate; thereby reducing the possibility of destroying cultural resources or Native American remains. Mitigation Measure IV.E--4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains In the event of the discovery of a burial,human bone, or suspected human bone during construction of the proposed project, all excavation or grading Nvithin 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notiA- the San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply Nvith the provisions of PRC Section 5097 Nvith respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary. Work may resume once the area is protected or the body is removed. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-4.1 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than significant. This mitigation measure replaces mitigation measure 13.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts related to historical resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The City of South San Francisco requires applicants subject to CEQA to assess, determine, and mitigate any potential impacts related to historical resources that could occur as a result of development, as necessary. Through compliance Nvith the existing laws and the mitigation measures listed previously, project impacts associated Nvith historic resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, and human remains Nvould be less than significant. The occurrence of these less than significant impacts Nvould be limited to the project site and Nvould not contribute to any potentially significant cultural resources impacts that could occur at the sites of future development subject to CEQA. As such, the proposed project Nvould not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural resources Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR finding. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2.1 through IV.E-4.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to cultural resources. These impacts Nvould be reduced to less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank Britauua Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:E. Cultural Resources Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:E-14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS F. GEOLOGY/SOILS INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes geology and soils in the project area, Nvhich includes the project site and properties in the vicinity, and evaluates the potential for geology and soil impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. A regulator- frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to the geology and soils. This section evaluates the potential impacts on geology and soils of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new significant geology and soils impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba_T West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant geology and soils impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts. New and supplemental mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised geotechnical report Nvhich considers the current conditions on the project site. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) the City of South San Francisco General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, and the Bav West Cove Specific Plan Zoning Code, (2) Geotechnical reports completed by Treadwell & Rollo; (3) Review of US Department of the Interior USGS Preliminary Geological Map of The San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle (USGS, 1998); (4) Review of Official California Geologic Survey (CGS) (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)) Maps, including the South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California (2010); (5) Review of government Nvebsites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) Nvebsite (v,-v,w.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; (6) Review of Project Description; Review of the California Geological Surveys Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment; (7) Review of the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2, USGS Open-File Report 2007-1437; and (8) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as Nvell as all other applicable ordinances and regulations. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; No comment letters related to geology and soils Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on geological and soil resources as identified in Table IV.F-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould result in three significant adverse geological/geotechnical impacts and two less than significant impacts. With mitigation, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR determined that all of the significant impacts Nvould be reduced to less than significant levels. Table IV.F-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 9.2.2—Potential Instability of Fill Soil.The Mitigation Measure 9.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified EIR identified project construction on fill or debris as a Mitigation Measure 9.2.2.which required compliance potentially significant impact because fill is subject to with Geoteclmical Safety Element policies GEO-1. GEO- settlement when buildings or other loads are placed on 1 GEO-3, GEO-6.and GEO-12 of the East of 101 Area it. The inconsistency and instability of fill constitutes a Plan,to reduce the impact to a less than significant potentially significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West level. Cove Commercial Project. Impact 9.2.3-Lateral Spreading Potential. The 2000 Mitigation Measure 9.2.3 -The 2000 Bay West Cove Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified identified lateral spreading as a potentially significant Mitigation Measure 9.2.3,which required compliance impact that may be triggered by strong ground shaking with Policies GEO-7, GEO-8, GEO-9, GEO-10 and GEO- or by liquefaction caused by strong ground shaking,due 11.to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. to presence of Young Bay Mud. Impact 9.2.4—Liquefaction Potential.The 2000 Bay Mitigation 9.2.4-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Project Supplemental EIR identified Mitigation Measure found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project 9.2.4.which required examination of the liquefaction site could be susceptible to liquefaction during an potential for individual buildings,and compliance with earthquake,undermining structures and resulting in a policies GEO-10 and GEO-I I.to reduce the impact to a potentially significant impact. less than significant level. Impact 9.3.1—Minor Potential for Damage due to No mitigation measures were required. Ground Shaking.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that historic earthquakes have caused ground shaking at the Bay West Cove site:therefore ground shaking should be expected.Ho ever,the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that compliance -ith the Uniform Building Code would reduce the potential for damage,and the impact would be less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geology),';oils Dra f t Subsequerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:F-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.F-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 9.3.2-Minor Health and Safety Impacts due No mitigation measures were required. to Dewatering during Construction.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that shallow groundwater is expected to be present at the Bay West Cove site,and below grade excavations would encounter groundwater and necessitate dewatering.Ho ever,implementation of Policy GEO-1 was found to address any potential impacts,therefore the impact was determined to be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Seismicity There have been no changes in regional seismicity* since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The nort iNvest trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa.Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary beN,-een the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, Nvith lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Within 15 miles of the project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas Fault, the San Gregorio Fault, and the Havvmrd Fault. The nearest knoN-,n active fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 3.5 miles (6 km) southNvest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hay-ward Fault located 15 miles (24 km) northeast, and the San Gregorio Fault (a.k.a. the Seal Cove Fault) located approximately 11 miles to the southNvest. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside Fault, the trace of Nvhich passes approximately 3 miles the southern portion of the project site. HoNvever, this fault is buried beneath Holocene age hillslope deposits and Pleistocene age alluvium that have not been offset by fault movements,therefore is not subject to development restrictions under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Seismicity of the project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake,the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently,the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. According to ABAG, violent ground shaking, Modified Mercalli Intensity Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:F-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; (MMI) IX is possible in response to a large earthquake along the nearby San Andreas Fault. A major rupture of the Hayward Fault is expected to produce strong ground shaking,MMI VIL' Regional Geology There have been no changes in regional geology since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The site is located near the Nvestern margin of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northNvest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Tertian* strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, Nvhich is composed of Nveakly to strongly metamorphosed gre«vacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits added onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of tectonic processes. Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits overlay these deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix Nvhich reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, Nvhich traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City. Several northNvest trending and structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation these valleys Nvere repeatedly incised and then backfilled Nvith sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene `Bay Mud" deposited during the past 11,000 years, during Nvhich time the Bay has filled Nvith seaNvater, can be found, as Nvell as marsh deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore. Site History and Environmental Issues For much of the 20"' century, the general area that includes the proposed Britannia Cove at Oyster Point development site Nvas highly industrialized. Industrial facilities included a major steel production and fabrication facility operated by Bethlehem Steel and steel fabrication plants operated by EdNvards Wire Rope and the American Bridge Division of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation). The Bethlehem and EdNvards Wire Rope facilities Nvere located immediately south of the project site on property now knoN-,n as Gateway Center. United States Steel (American Bridge Division) reportedly operated at the site from 1938 to 1978. Buildings knoN-,n to have existed on site include a main pipe and steel fabrication building, paint and fuel storage buildings, a blacksmith shop, machine shop, a dip kettle structure, and electrical substations. A ship launch basin, sometimes referred to as the slot, is located in the center of the site and Nvas used for 'Association ofBayArea Governments(ABAG)Shabng Interzsio)flap for Future Earthquake Scenarios Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorzmerztallmpactReport Page IT:F-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; material loading and for a brief time during World War II as a cargo ship repair facility. A number of above ground and below ground oil storage tanks Nvere also present on site. All structures Nvere demolished and removed in the 1980s, leaving only slab foundations, asphalt roadwa-,Ts, and numerous pits and sumps. All visible/knovri concrete foundation, grade beams and slabs Nvere removed as part of the 1997-1998 remediation effort. HoNvever, if pile foundations Nvere used, there may be remnants. Areas of the site have been re-graded to various degrees and several tens of thousands cubic yards of construction debris (predominantly concrete and brick) have been placed on the site. Recently, clean imported fill material has been stockpiled in selected areas of the site. Site Subsurface Conditions A geotechnical report Nvas prepared to reflect current site conditions, which have changed since the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, and specifically to address the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan project. The information in this section reflects the new information and changes in circumstances since the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial ProjectEIR. Treadwell & Rollo performed a geotechnical investigation for grading, surcharging and paving for this site as Nvell as other parcels to the northeast in 2011.2 A total of 26 borings Nvere drilled at or near this site, at the approximate locations. Of these, 19 Nvere drilled by Treadwell & Rollo using rotary-Nvash drilling equipment and Nvere advanced to depths of about 9 to 60 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs), respectively. The borings indicate that the site is underlain by about 2 to 9 feet of fill although the fill may be thicker due to grading operations after the borings Nvere drilled. The fill is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silt,Nvith some clay and gravel and occasional rubble. In 1997, as part of remedial activities, soil Nvith hydrocarbon and lead concentrations above remediation levels Nvere excavated and removed to several containment areas in the southern half of the project site. The lead affected soil Nvas stabilized Nvith Portland Cement and placed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The soil contaminated Nvith hydrocarbons Nvas placed and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. In addition, several thousand cubic yards of imported crushed concrete Nvas placed in the containment areas adjacent to the hydrocarbon-affected soil. Plans called for concrete pieces to be less than 12 inches in size and Nvere mixed Nvith soil as they Nvere placed. The thickness of the concrete layer Nvas approximately 2 feet. The fill is underlain by up to 12 feet of soft, compressible marine clay knoN-,n localIv as Bav Mud. The thickness of the Bav Mud generally thickens toward the northeast(in the direction toNvards the San Francisco Bay). Beneath the Bay Mud are lavers of medium dense to very dense sand Nvith varying amounts of silt and clay and medium stiff to hard clay, sandy clay and gravelly clay. GroundNvater Nvas measured at depths ranging from 1 to 6 feet bgs in the borings discussed above. HoNvever, these depths Nvere measured during drilling and do not represent stabilized ground Nvater levels. The full report is included as Appendix E. Treadwell&Rollo, Geotechrzical Investigatiorz for Feasibilio)Evaluatiorz, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page IT:F-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Due to on-site remediation of hazardous materials started in 1997, under cleanup orders issued by the Regional Water Control Board in 1996, and the implementation of a Cap Maintenance Program, the project site soil conditions have changed compared to the conditions analyzed in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. As described above, the site undenvent cleanup to criteria suitable for commercial/industrial development. The cleanup order Nvas rescinded in 2009 when the RWQCB concluded that no further action at the site Nvas necessary pursuant to post cleanup groundNvater monitoring that demonstrated there Nvere no significant groundwater impacts at the site.' In light of these changes to the project site conditions since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the impact analysis and mitigation measures for geology and soils are based on the current project site conditions. Site Geology and Soils As discussed above,the soils on the project site Nvere remediated after 1997. In addition,the project site is subject to ongoing maintenance activities related to the soil cap. Therefore, although the project site geology has not changed,the conditions of soils on the project site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. According to a map of bedrock geology, Holocene/Quaternary aged deposits are located throughout out the site.a The Quaternary Artificial (Qaf/tf) fill over tidal flat formation, characterized by clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris over tidal flats, cover the northern portion of the project area, near the San Francisco Bay. The area in the middle portion of the project area is characterized by artificial fill (Qaf), which is made up of Clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man—made debris, as described above. The southern portion of the project area is covered by Colma Formation soils (Qc),which are characterized by friable Nvell sorted fine to medium sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel. Project site and vicinity geology and soils are shoN-,n in Figure IV.F-1. The exposed and surficial bedrock in the area is generally Cretaceous sandstone and shale of the Franciscan Complete,Nvith some serpentine present. Geotechnical studies in the area have shoN-,n that project area is largely constructed of fill soil that Nvas placed during filling of the Bay during the last 150 years. Fill of unlcnoN-,n origin Nvas placed directly on Bay Mud,in Nvetlands and other depressions, and sometimes directly on rock. The quality of the fill varies considerably, as does the thickness although site-specific explorations of this and other sites have provided some data. The reports by Treadwell & Rollo specific to this site describe less than 2 foot to about 9 feet of fill consisting of sandy gravel that is medium dense to dense in consistency to clayey and silty sand that is very loose to loose. Approximately 2 feet of contaminated soil near the area called the slot(San Francisco Bay) Nvas removed to higher ground and the entire site Nvas capped Nvith 2 to 5 feet of 3 Treadwell&Rollo, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Cove. 2011. Bonilla, -ll G. Preliminary Geologic Alap of the Sari Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle acid part of the Hnaiter's Point 7.5'Quadrangle Sari Francisco Bay Area, California. Plot derived from USGS Open-File Report 98-354. 1998 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequent Environnien tal Impact Report Page If:F-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; clean fill. These reports also indicate that some of the fill Nvas placed recently and may have been spread from mounds of fill dumped on site.' Landsliding and Slope Stability Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of Nvealc soil and/or bedrock. The site is relatively flat, ranging in elevation from 6 feet above mean sea level near the slot to 10 to 14 feet near the southwest corner of the site; therefore landslide risk at the project site is low, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site conditions. Expansive Soils As described above, soil conditions on the project site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Soil expansion is a phenomenon in which clay and silt soils expand in volume as a result of an increase in moisture content, and shrink in volume upon drying. Changes in soil volume as a result of moisture fluctuations, including seasonal fluctuations, can cause damage to concrete slabs, foundations and pavements. Expansive soils are generally identified by use of soil tests. According to Treadwell &Rollo 2011 geotechnical assessment,the site is underlain by about 2 to 9 feet of fill although the fill may be thicker due to grading operations after the geotech borings Nvere drilled. The fill is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silt, Nvith some clay and gravel and occasional rubble. Therefore, expansive soils are of minor concern on the site. Primary Seismic Hazards— Surface Fault Rupture There have been no changes in primary seismic hazards since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvas evaluated. A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface rupture Nvithin the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults Nvith displacement Nvithin Quaternary time — the last 1.6 million years). According to the program, active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across the development site. Active and potentially active faults along the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results from many of these studies to quantiA- the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located Nvithin an EFZ. The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest of the site. The Hillside Fault is mapped as passing through the southern portion of the site (See Figure IV.F-1). HoNvever, this fault has not shoN-,n evidence of rupture in at least the last 2 million years, and is not Treadwell arzdRolo, 1990a,19901). Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 considered at risk of surface rupture, therefore the risk of ground rupture Nvithin the project boundaries is considered very low. Secondary Seismic Hazards Ground Shaking Although there have been no changes to ground shaking potential in the vicinity of the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, new information regarding shaking potential and probability Nvas published by ABAG and is analyzed in this document. The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The project site and region Nvill likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking Nvithin the design life of the development. According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 63 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater Nvill strike between 2007 and 2037. 6 The intensity of ground shaking Nvill vary Nvith the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site Nvould be a Modified Mercalli Intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas Fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Ha---Nvard fault Nvould be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to Modified Mercalli Intensity VII.' 6 The Unzifornn C'alif)niia Earthquake Rupture Forecast, I-ersion 2, 2007 TTorking Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008. obtained fronn http: pubs.usgs.gov'of 2007'1437' Association ofBayArea Governnnents, u�u�u�.aha�.cayov, 2005. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft,SubsequentEnvironnnentallnnpactReport Page IT:F-8 Qaf Qm 0 500 ,000 2,000 c- Feet 1 G UCJ\\\ \ / I _ Qaf Qaf 1 Q !�\\„ --- Qaf uU tf . . Qaf Qm z \ KJsk j � � d �sk af/ Q i � ,�lpf/� ,^a Qaf/fit — - aft/� Qsr r s Qa � � 1 C � � ♦ �Q � � Raf Qsr Qsr QC a\" V y Qsr _ Qaf J /Q_, - G = Qaf a ,.. Qsr af/tf_��tl i�J , �..i ;y Q \ of QC KJu Jr 1 c � `v \ Qa Qaf y 9 KJS �� �� {Us- `wu ^^" �` ."✓ '""_."^�"���"'*,,. -. - � {�. Qsr yf Geology _]Qc Colma Formation In northwest and central parts of area of Water friable well sorted fine to medium sand containing a few beds of sandy silt,clay, �\q /, \ QUATERIARYHolocene and gravel.In southeast part of area,mostly Qaf:Artificial fill sandy clay and silty sand;yellowish orange to gray. —Clay,silt,sand,rock fragments,organic matter, CRETACEOUS AND JURASSIC Franciscan Complex and associated rocks ° and man-made debris. \ - Q KJu:Sheared rocks:Franciscan Complex af/tf:Artificial fill overtidal flat Small to large fragments of hard rock in matrix Qsr Clay,silt,sand,rock fragments,organic matter, of sheared rock.Matrix generally coherent and and man-made debris,placed overtidal flats. firm,but soft in places,especially where weathered. e * Qafs:Artificial fill,Native American shellmound Dark gray where fresh,yellowish brown where Dark silty to sandy soil containing shell fragments weathered.Derived mostly from shale and sandstone and rare intact shells. of Franciscan Complexand serpentine. a - Qal:Alluvium KJc:Chert:Franciscan Complex Mostly sand and silt but locally contains clay,gravel, Hard chert interbedded with firm shale; \ or boulders;generally gray to brown. chert layers generally two or three inches ° thick,shale layers less than one inch thick; Qb:Beach deposits generally grayish red. Predominantly well sorted medium-grained loose gray sand; locally consists of sand,gravel and cobbles. KJs:Sandstone and shale:Franciscan complex Interbedded sandstone and shale,hard where \ QI:Landslide deposits fresh and intact,soft where weathered or sheared. Composition and structure depend on the geologic Commonly medium dark gray where fresh,olive gray Qaf/tf formation involved and type of landslide. to yellowish brown where moderately weathered, Qm:Bay mud and yellowish orange to yellowish gray where highly weathered. Soft(moist)to firm(dry)clay and silt;locally contains sp:Chert:Franciscan Complex shell fragments,plant remains,and thin beds of sand. Hard to soft,generally greenish gray; Pleistocene contains small bodies of grabbro and diabase. KJsk:Sandstone and shale:Franciscan Complex Qaf/tf tt Qsr:Slope debris and ravine fill Sandstone generally containing more than two percent / Stony silty to sandy clay;locally silty to clayey sand potassium feldspar. m Qaf or gravel;yellowish-orange to medium gray, unstratified or poorly stratified.Where it overlies KJg:Cheat:Franciscan Complex the Merced or Colma Formation it is commonly a silty to clayey sand,or gravel Altered volcanic rocks,fine grained,mostly basalt; qaf/tf hard where fresh,butweathered and firm to soft in Source:Bonilla,1998,Geologic Map of the South San Francisco7.5' most exposures;commonly grayish olive to moderate Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5'Quadrangle,US Geological. olive gray where moderately weathered,dark yellowish f/tf•r'-e "" :-w..., orange to light brown where highly weathered. m ° Im Im City of South San Francisco I I Figure IV.F-1 u Ip I Britannia Coua�at Oilstcr Point Projcct Sitc Gcohoay 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Peale ground accelerations for the site Nvith a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-Near period are approximately 59 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (g).$ Actual ground motions resulting from ground acceleration may be amplified or dampened depending on the underlying geologic materials. Deep soft soils tend to ampliA- Nvaves whereas shallow soils overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking intensity. With relatively dense soils at the project site,no amplification of seismic waves is anticipated. Seismically Induced Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading There have been no changes in soil liquefaction and lateral spreading potential at the site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, although new information regarding these conditions has been published by ABAG and is analyzed in this document. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences a temporary loss of strength during strong cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by earthquakes. Soil types most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, and uniformly graded, fine-grained sand and non- plastic silt. The consequences of liquefaction include ground surface settlement, sand boils, and lateral spreading. Previous test borings encountered isolated zones of loose, potentially liquefiable sand at the site. The loose sand is generally Nvithin 10 feet of the ground surface. According to ABAG liquefaction potential at the site is very high on the northeaster portion of the project site, adjacent to the Bay and Veterans Boulevard, low in the center portion of the site, and very low for the southern portion of the site adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard. Lateral spreading is a failure Nvithin a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction), Nvhich causes the overlying soil mass to move toNvard a free face or doN-,n a gentle slope. According to Treadwell &Rollo, because the potentially liquefiable sand lavers are generally thin and discontinuous, the potential for lateral spreading is low.'° Differential Compaction Due to placement of fill soil at the site as part of soil remediation activities, the potential for differential settlement at the project site is likely different that that analyzed for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. During an earthquake compaction settlement can occur in loose and medium-dense sand and gravel. Compaction settlement occurs when non-saturated sand is densified by earthquake vibrations. Sand above the Nvater table at the project site is loose to dense and may undergo minor densification during a major earthquake. Seismically Induced Landslides Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove s C alif)niia Geologic Survey, htt): CGS i°llun.I)shrnnal) UShanzain.htnzl. 9 Association ofBayArea Governnrerzts, u�u�u�.aha�.cayov, 2005 10 Treadwell&Rollo, Geoteclnzical Irrvestigatiorz for Feasibilio)Evaluation, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:F--10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Commercial Project, the likelihood of landslides at the project site is relatively small due to the flat topography of the site. Regulatory Setting New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I (General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance Nvith an NPDES Permit describes the project site, erosion and sediment controls, runoff Nvater quality monitoring,means of Nvaste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non stormwater management controls. Dischargers are required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identIA-and implement controls Nvhere necessary. State California Buildin6 Code Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also lcnoN-,n as the California Building Standards Code, sets minimum requirements for building design and construction. The 2010 version of the California Building Standards Code are effective as of January 1, 2011. The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins: • Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes; • Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and • Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns." In the context of earthquake hazards, the California Building Standards Code's design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and folloNving seismic events. The 2010 version of the California Building Standards Code differs significantly from the previous versions of the code. The 2010 code assigns a seismic design category (SDC) to each structure. The SDC is assigned as a means of capturing both the " California Building Standards Commission��ebsite athtt�:`inni%bsc.ca.yov title 2-1 defardt.httn Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IT:F--11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; seismic hazard, in terms of mapped acceleration parameters (spectral values), site class (defining the soil profile), and the occupancy category (based on its importance or hazardous material contents). The SDC affects design and detailing requirements as Nvell as the structural system that may be used and its height. The previous versions of the code captured these requirements simply based on the location's seismic zone and proximity to active faults.12 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. 13 The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses oniv the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toNvard other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the city or county Nvith jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings Nvould not be constructed across active or potentially active faults. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2690- 2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may Nvithhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated Nvith seismicity and unstable soils. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act became effective in 1991 to identify and map seismic hazard zones for the purpose of assisting cities and counties in preparing the safety elements of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations that reduce seismic hazards. The intent of this Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, the California Geological Survey's Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects in designated zones of required investigations. Local City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California Bonneville, David -ew Building Code Provisions and Their Inrphcatiorzs for Design arzd Corzstructiorz ill Calif)ni is (abstract), 2007, ob tairzed front httU.' cls smij docti senzirrar.SAIIP07 Pages Paper12 Borureville.asjxy 13 California Division of-Wines arid Geology, 1997 revision, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, DlIG Special Publication 42. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:F--12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San Francisco. The California Building Code Vol. I and 2, 2010 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2010 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in Title 15 Nvas adopted by reference as the building code of the City of South San Francisco on January 1, 2011. City of South San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City by resolution 65-2006, on August 16, 2006, and annexed in 2010. The HMP has been designed to identifv the areas Nvhere people or structures may have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, Nvildland fires, and other natural hazards. The Plan identifies policies and actions that may be implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage in these areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes,floods,Nvildland fires and landslides in terms of frequency,intensity,location,history, and damage effects. The Plan serves as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of natural hazards. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update Nvas completed in October 1999. The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Health and Safety Element contains policies designed to minimize the risks associated Nvith development in areas of seismic hazards. As such, the South San Francisco General Plan, Health and Safety Element, has set forth specific guidelines Nvith respect to site treatment and building design and the unique geological hazards of the area. The South San Francisco General Plan,Health and Safety Element,policies are as follows: Policy 8.1-I-1: Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. Polio* 8.1-I-2: Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Implementing Policies 8.1-I-1 and 8.1-I-2 refer to Figure 8-2 (General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands), of the South San Francisco General Plan,Health and Safety Element. East of 101 Area Plan In 1994 the City of South San Francisco adopted the East of 101 Plan Nvith the overall goal of recognizing the unique character of the East of 101 Area and to guide and regulate development in a manner which protects and enhances the area's physical, economic and natural resources, while also encouraging Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; appropriate development in the area. As such, the East of 101Area Plan Chapter 10, Geotechnical Safety Element, has set forth specific policies Nvith respect to site treatment and building design and the unique geological hazards of the area. The East of 101 Area Geotechnical Safety Element policies are as follows: GEO-1 The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on a project-by project basis on sites in areas of fill shoN-,n on Figure 17 (of the East of 101 Area Plan), and shall require such investigations Nvhere needed. GEO-2 Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. GEO-3 Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and Nvaste disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers to determine if landfills exist under the project site prior to construction. GEO-4 Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal safely Nvith gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried garbage. GEO-5 If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. HoNvever, other uses may be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. GEO-6 Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. GEO-7 New slopes greater then 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer. GEO-8 The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved or other parts of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--14 00)of S'out/Sari Francisco April 201; GEO-9 Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. GEO-10 In fill areas mapped on Figure 17 (of the East of 101 Area Plan), a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development. GEO-11 Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated Nvith liquefaction. GEO-12 Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice, which specIA- procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures. GEO-13 Development Nvithin the preliminary boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area, as depicted on Figure 15 (of the East of 101 Area Plan), shall be revieNved by a geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual development sites Nvhere feasible and determined necessary by the engineer. No structure for human occupancy shall occur Nvithin 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active branches of that fault underlie the surface. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology As described in the introduction section, sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the local geology and geologic risks on the project site included City of South San Francisco plans and policies, geotechnical reports for property conducted in 2011 by Treadwell & Rollo, USGS Maps, review of government Nvebsites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) website.'-' A new geotechnical report Nvas prepared to identIA- and analyze site specific geology and soils risk associated Nvith the project compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. As outlined in the Site Subsurface Conditions section, the project site has changed since preparation of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The project site changes are reflected in the new geotechnical report, cap maintenance reports, and a Phase I environmental assessment. In addition, updated information regarding earthquake risks developed by ABAG has been provided. According to the CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is a significant adverse impact. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of impacts is Nvhether construction of the project Nvill create, or be founded, on unstable geologic conditions that Nvould last beyond the short- term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is primarily based on the degree to Nvhich the 14 -----.abal.lov Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--1 5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; site geology could produce hazards to people, structures, and the environment from earthquakes, fault rupture,landslides, soil creep, expansion and settlement or other geologic events. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from geology and soils if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 Rupture of a knoNsn earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a knoNsn fault. 0 Strong seismic ground shaking. 0 Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction and landslides. • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that Nvould become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternate waste Nvater disposal systems where seNvers are not available for the disposal of Nvaste Nvater. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR, Nvhich differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR standards of significance included questions regarding deNvatering and ground Nvater quality-, Nvhich are now discussed in Section IV.H Hydrology and Water Quality of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Further, the 2013 Draft Subsequent EIR includes discussion of soil erosion, expansive soils and septic tanks that Nvere not included in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geology))Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant geology and soils impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. This Draft Subsequent EIR provides new mitigation measures consistent Nvith the revised geotechnical report; these equally effective mitigation measures replace those provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.F-1: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh ing rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR did not evaluate impacts related to the Alquist- Priolo Zone, it did state that no active faults traverse the Bav West Cove site; therefore, the impact of the proposed project Nvould be similar to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project and according to the latest available fault maps, the site is not contained Nvithin an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps show the Hillside Fault near project site; however this fault shows no evidence of activity for at least the past 2 million Nears. Therefore rupture of a knoN-,n earthquake fault has no impact on the project and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project Nvould not result in an increase in the severity of impacts related to active faults compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.F--2: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef'f'ects, including the risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh�ing exposure to strong seismic ground shaking. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR noted that the Ba-T West Cove Project area is subject to periodic, strong seismic ground shaking, similar to the findings of this document. The proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and there is a high probability that the proposed development Nvould be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life,which is considered a potentially significant impact. HoNvever,the City requires that all plans for buildings on the project site adhere to the requirements of the California Building Code provisions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. In addition, the City requires that all foundation engineering and construction performed during all construction phases shall be in accordance Nvith the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--17 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. As development occurs on the project site over Phases 1 through 3, the City of South San Francisco Building Division Nvould inspect construction during development to ensure it meets the current requirements existing at each phase of the project. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, due to existing City codes and regulations, this impact Nvould be less than significant and the project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts related to ground shaking. Impact IV.F-3: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh ing potential seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and landslides at the Bav West Cove Project site. According to the geotechnical report prepared by Treadwell &Rollo for the proposed project in 2011, the likelihood of liquefaction and landslides at the project site is considered to be low. ABAG found the potential of liquefaction on the northern side of the project site, bordered by the Bay, to be ven- high Nvith the rest of the site at low risk. The fill underlying the site is anticipated to be erratic in nature, and erratic settlement of shallow foundations bearing in the fill has the potential occur. Therefore, additional settlement resulting from liquefaction could occur on the project site during a major earthquake. Landsliding unrelated to lateral spreading is not likely at this project site because of the level topography. As stated in the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the risk of additional settlement resulting from liquefaction Nvould be reduced by the use of a deep foundation system consisting of driven piles or auger cast displacement piles, such as driven precast, prestressed, 14-inch-square concrete piles and proprietary piles such as auger-cast displacement piles (ACDPs). The City Nvould require that building plans for all phases of the project adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report and Nvould review all plans for compliance Nvith the requirements of the California Building Code provisions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, prior to project approval. Due to existing Cit_T codes and regulations,the impact from seismic ground failure Nvould be less than significant. This impact Nvas considered significant for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The mitigation provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included compliance Nvith City General Plan policies requiring the preparation of a Geotechnical Report and implementation of recommended measures. These actions are incorporated into the current project description;therefore,this impact is less than significant and the project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR for this impact are no longer required. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--18 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.F-4: The proposed project would not be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or (?11-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The likelihood of landslides at this project site is relatively small because of the flat topography, which has not changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Landslides are also unlikely here because the area appears to be underlain by bedrock that is part of the ridge extending from San Bruno Mountain. The applicant may propose to construct a high retaining Nvall adjacent to the proposed parking garage. Landslides are not likely in any fill slopes to be constructed as part of the project because no high fills are planned. Differential Settlement Changes in subsurface conditions have taken place at the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvas evaluated. Based on reviews of the available subsurface information, as provided in the 2011 geotechnical report, it is anticipated that primary consolidation of the Bay Mud layer beneath the site is essentially complete. HoNvever, ground surface settlement is still expected to occur under the existing loads due to secondary compression of the Bay Mud layer. Treadwell & Rollo estimate secondary compression settlement over the next 50 Nears could range from about '/4 to %inch Nvhere the Bav Mud laver is 5 to 10 feet thick respectively. Secondary compression Nvould occur even if no new fill is added to the site. Further, placement of new fill at the site Nvould begin a new cycle of consolidation settlement in the Bav Mud. The amount of differential settlement that Nvould occur at the site due to new fill loads Nvould depend on the differences in thickness of new fill and the Bay Mud layer and the properties of the Bay Mud. Differential settlement is also expected to occur due to liquefaction-induced settlement. If grades are raised, the ground surface around the perimeter of the buildings may settle several inches relative to buildings supported on deep foundations due to consolidation of the underlying Bay Mud. Liquefaction- induced settlement after an earthquake Nvould add to this subsidence. Therefore the impact of differential settlement could be potentially significant at the site. The City requires that all foundation engineering and construction performed during all construction phases shall be in accordance Nvith the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Further, the City Nvould review plans for buildings for Phases 1 through 3 to adhere to the requirements of the California Building Code provisions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Further, Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2 govern placement of structures on fill soils. These policies call for geotechnical investigations specific to the proposed construction, foundation design specific to fill conditions, and structural requirements for buildings to be constructed on fill. The City requires that these policies be met for each structure on the site and construction phase; the remediation site borings and studies done for the Conceptual Remedial Action Plan (2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--19 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Supplemental EIR) do not remove the requirement to conduct site specific geotechnical reports, therefore site specific investigations Nvould have to be performed. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project's potential for differential settlement is apotentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV. F-4.1 Construction measures for differential settlement The project applicant shall implement the folloNving mitigation measures during project design. The City shall review plans for all project phases for compliance Nvith these measures, prior to issuance of building permits. Building Building floor slabs shall be structurally supported (span between deep foundations) and entry Nvalk Nvays shall be hinge slabs to reduce the potential for differential movement at the building entries. Flexible connections shall be used for utilities Nvhere they connect to buildings. Within the building footprint, it Nvould likely be necessary to hang the utilities from the structural slab. Away from the building, the design of gravity-floNv utility lines would take the potential for future settlement into account. Periodic maintenance Nvould be required to raise site grades and/or re-level the slabs and replace flexible connections for utilities over the life of the buildings. Sanitary SeNver and Storm Svstem The thickness of Bav Mud varies beneath the existing sanitary seNver and storm drain lines that cross the site. If grades are raised, differential settlement Nvould likely be induced across the alignment. HoNvever, the impact of these settlements is unknoN-,n at this time, and Nvould be evaluated at the time of site specific geotechnical studies. Therefore, the project applicant shall submit an evaluation by a Civil Engineer that recommends measures to ensure that the existing sanitary seNver and storm drain lines Nvould not be impacted by the project construction. Measures Nvould be tailored for submittal after site specific evaluations. Foundations A deep foundation system consisting of driven piles or auger cast displacement piles are the most appropriate method for support of the proposed buildings and floor slabs. Piles should gain support primarily in end bearing in dense sand and below the Bay Mud. The pile types considered for this project are driven precast, prestressed, 14-inch-square concrete piles and proprietary piles such as auger-cast displacement piles (ACDPs). Floor Slab Because of the potential settlements associated Nvith consolidation of the Bay Mud, building floor slab shall be structurally supported beN,-een grade beams and piles caps. Although the ground is expected to settle, it Nvould be in contact Nvith the floor slab for some time. If Nvater vapor transmission through the Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; floor slab is undesirable (e.g., Nvhere floor covering Nvould be placed), a capillary moisture break and a Nvater vapor retarder may be installed beneath the floor. A capillary moisture break shall consist of at least four inches of clean, free-draining gravel or crushed rock. Before the floor covering is placed, the contractor shall check that the concrete surface and the moisture emission levels (if emission testing is required)meet the manufacturer's requirements. If over-excavation is required to install the capillary moisture break, but over-excavation is undesirable because of the presence of contaminated soil, then a Nvaterproofing membrane could be used in lieu of a capillary moisture break. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 and adherence to state and City codes outlined above (Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2, CA Building Code)the potential impact of differential settlement due to unstable soil and seismic hazards Nvould be substantialIv loNvered and this impact Nvould be less than significant. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 Nvould reduce all impacts to a less than significant level, and the project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in severitY of impacts. Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 Nvould replace Mitigation Measures 9.2.2, 9.23 and 9.2.4, which Nvere identified for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, and the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are no longer necessary as they are now part of the project design. Impact IV.F--5: The proposed project would result in soil erosion. All construction phases of the project Nvould involve mass grading in an ecologically sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading Nvould disturb soil and displace any topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and Nvould eventually impact the Bay. This Nvould be a potentially significant impact during site construction activities for undeveloped areas during Phase 1 and during construction of Phase 2 and 3. The project applicant Nvould ensure that dust, erosion, and pollution control measures including soil stabilization techniques and other best management practices would be folloNved during construction activities to reduce the potential for loose soils impacting nearby drainages. The City requires an Erosion Control Plan be submitted in conjunction Nvith the Grading Permit Application for all phases of the project. The Plan is required to include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Nvith sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan is required to describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction Nvater runoff. Further, along Nvith the Grading Plan a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required as part of the application process. The SWPPP is required to include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated Nvith Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Project impacts on soil erosion could be potentially significant due to construction activities at the site. These impacts Nvould be not be any greater than under the 2000 Bav West Cove Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--21 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.1 Soil Erosion A Soils Management Plan (SMP) Nvas prepared for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site (Geologica, 2000). This SNIP covers the previous development plan proposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. The SNIP shall be modified to correspond Nvith the proposed project and the new soil conditions on site. Prior to commencement of the proposed project grading, the project applicant shall submit to the City and the all other responsible agencies an updated or new SNIP to accommodate the new development. These modifications Nvould be subject to review and approval by the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The updated or new SNIP Nvill address the folloNving elements associated Nvith the proposed project: • the order of building construction and staging of soil; • soil management in areas of proposed grading and development of the project site; • soil volumes generated by the proposed project; • confirmation of Nvhether the originally proposed contaminated soil placement area in the southNvest corner of the project site (below the parking garage) can be accommodated based on final site grades; and • revised monitoring methods to address small particulate monitoring which may be required in accordance Nvith Section IV. C, Air Quality. Adherence to existing City codes and implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.17-5.1 Nvould ensure that soils disturbed during construction would not be mobilized by either storm- or construction-related runoff,reducing the impact of soil erosion to a level of less than significant. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of expansive soils, and as described previously, soil conditions on the project site have changed since 2000. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Impact IV.F--6: The proposed project would be located on expansive soils. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of expansive soils, and as described previously, soil conditions on the project site have changed since 2000. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 (-'EQA Guidelines. The geotechnical investigation performed by Treadwell and Rollo did not identify expansive material in the sand and sand Nvith clay native site soils. HoNvever,the report identified fill material in the project area that may have expansive properties. This impact Nvould be mitigated through adherence to foundation, pavement and slabs on grade design recommendations put forth in the Geotechnical Reports prepared for each phase of the project as well as adherence to City policies and adopted building codes, as discussed in Impacts IV.F-1 through F-5. Incorporation of the measures as specified in the Geotechnical Report Nvould reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--22 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Impact IV.F--7: The proposed project is not located in an area where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternate waste water disposal systems where sewers are not aiwilable for the disposal of waste water: The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of septic systems, but the prior project Nvas also expected to connect to the sanitary seNver system. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The project Nvould be connected to the existing sanitary seNver system and alternate waste Nvater disposal systems Nvould be unnecessary. Therefore,there is no impact and no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Geotechnical impacts related to future development in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco Nvould involve hazards associated Nvith site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground- shaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site Nvould be specific to that site and its users and Nvould not be common or contribute to (or be shared Nvith, in an additive sense)the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site Nvould be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, similar to the cumulative impact finding in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, cumulative geology and soils impacts Nvould be less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.F- 4.1 and IV.17-5.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to geology and soils to a less than significant level and there Nvould be no new significant impacts or increase in severity of impacts as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:F. Geolog))'Soils Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:F--23 00)of S'out/Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank. 2072184.1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:F. Geology))Soils Draft,Subsequen t Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:F--24 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes the potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions that could be encountered as a result of implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on hazardous materials of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers Nvhether the project Nvould result in new significant hazardous material impacts not identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Ba_T West Cove Commercial Project, due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant hazardous materials or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified impacts. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR the proposed project Nvould result in one potentially significant impact, Nvhich after mitigation Nvould become less than significant. A new mitigation measure is designed as part of the proposed project to account for the more stringent 2013 CEQA Guidelines and the new site conditions and supersedes the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. For the purposes of this analysis, hazardous materials include inorganic and organic chemicals and products containing such substances as defined by California laws and regulations. Potential effects include those associated Nvith contaminated sites and the potential exposure to hazardous materials used, stored,transported, or disposed of during construction activities or project operations. Potential impacts to Nvater quality from construction-related surface Nvater runoff that could contain hazardous materials and/or from groundNvater deNvatering during construction or operation of the proposed project are discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to toxic air contaminants that could be emitted during operation of the project are discussed in Section IV.0 Air Quality. Seismic activit�T that poses a potential hazard to the project site is discussed in Section IVT Geology and Soils. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) information provided by the project applicants; (2) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project site, dated Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft SubsequentEnvironnzentallnzpactReport Page IT:G-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; March 3, 2011, prepared by Treadwell & Rollo; (3) Deed Restriction for the project site; (4) Cap Maintenance Plan for the Cove Property (project site), dated December 3, 2007, prepared by Iris Environmental; (5) an Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Radius Map Report Nvith GeoCheck of hazardous materials sites located Nvithin a half-mile of the project site; (6) Geotechnical reports completed by Treadwell &Rollo,2011. A comment letter regarding hazards Nvas received from the San Francisco International Airport in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The letter found that the project is compatible Nvith the San Francisco International Land Use Plan, and that FAA notification is required for a No Hazards Determination. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the hazardous materials and hazard-related impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the proposed project Nvould create one significant adverse impact to human health and two less than significant impacts. The significant impact to human health Nvould be reduced to a less than significant impact if it Nvere to comply Nvith the recommended mitigation measures. Table IV.G-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact(10.2.2)Exposure of Sensitive Receptors, Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 Exposure of Sensitive Including Construction Workers.The 2000 Bay West Receptors,Including Construction Workers -The Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental that based on the 2000 environmental conditions at the EIR identified Mitigation Measure 10.2.2.which site,the only significant adverse impact will be from required the implementation of a Soil Management Plan, potential exposure to the lead contaminated soil in which shall include a section dedicated to Health and Planning Area 1 during the construction activities related Safety that will address,as appropriate to this project, to the project development.Upon completion of the issues related to the project to reduce the exposure of construction activities,the project will no longer have a humans to hazardous materials. The impact would be significant impact as the entire site will be capped.The reduced to less than significant with implementation of potential to encounter lead during construction phases Mitigation Measure 10.2.2. creates the potentially significant adverse impact. Impact 10.3.1-Minor Hazard Associated with No mitigation measures were required. Handling of Contaminated Groundwater.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that if construction dewatering is required for site development,contaminated groundwater would have to be appropriately handled and discharged to minimize adverse effects to construction workers and the euviromnent. This would not be a significant impact because the project would have to comply with the site- specific Health and Safety requirements in the Soil Management Pl,thus the impact would be less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If G. Hazards Hazardous1aterials Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:G-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.G-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 10.3.2-Minor Potential Contamination No mitigation measures were required. Associated with Pile Driving.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Pile found that pile support is required for certain project structures located in areas where soil contamination remains. The potential for downward migration of contaminants is considered a less than significant impact. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site History As described in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the project site Nyas historically used for industrial purposes, which resulted in total lead and hydrocarbon soil contamination issues. As a result of these contamination issues,the RWQCB issued a cleanup order in 1996 and established cleanup requirements for the site. The cleanup order did not require groundwater remediation because very* few contaminants Nvere detected in the groundwater prior to issuance of the cleanup order. HoNvever, the Order did require post-remediation groundwater monitoring. In response to the 1996 cleanup order issued by the RWQCB, subsurface conditions Nvere characterized and a cleanup Nyas conducted at the project site in 1997. The RWQCB found that subsurface groundwater conditions, based on eight quarters of post-remediation groundwater monitoring at the project site, indicated no significant groundwater quality impacts and concluded that no further action Nvas required.' In addition, the RWQCB oversaw the cleanup to ensure it Nyas conducted to criteria suitable for commercial/industrial uses and rescinded the order in 2009.2 The project site cleanup included placing soil containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and total lead, and crushed concrete at the project site and covering them Nvith two feet of clean soil cover. The hydrocarbon placement areas and the lead placement area are located in the southwest area of the project site. As part of a Deed Restriction placed on the project site, land uses on the site are restricted to commercial and industrial uses and must adhere to a Soil Management Plan. In addition, the Deed Restriction requires ongoing inspections and maintenance of the two feet of clean soil cover as described in the Site Cap Maintenance Plan for the site.' A Soil Management Plan that includes the project site Nvas prepared in Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California. Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,Sari Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011. Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California. Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011. 3 Treat/well & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California. Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California-1Iarch 3, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1Iaterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 2000 and approved by the RWQCB in February 2001. In 2007, a Cap Maintenance Plan for the project site Nvas developed to formalize the repair and subsequent periodic monitoring for the clean soil cover ("cap") at the project site until redevelopment of the site occurs. The project site currently is vacant and undeveloped Nvith the exception of the sanitary seNver pump station. The project site is not listed on any of the hazardous material release site databases, including those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List), searched through an Environmental Data Resources Inc. records search. Site Subsurface Conditions The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap in 2007, which included fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction. The site subsurface condition discussion is based on the new geotechnical investigation conducted by Treadwell &Rollo in 2011. Treadwell &Rollo previously performed a geotechnical investigation for grading, surcharging and paving for this site as Nvell as other parcels to the northeast.' The borings indicate that the site is underlain by about 2 to 9 feet of fill although the fill may be thicker due to grading operations after the borings Nvere drilled. The fill is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silt, Nvith some clay and gravel and occasional rubble. In 1997 as part of remedial activities, soil and hydrocarbon and lead concentrations above remediation levels Nvere excavated and removed to several containment areas in the southern half of the site. The lead affected soil Nvas stabilized Nvith Portland Cement and placed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The soil contaminated Nvith hydrocarbons Nvas placed and compacted to 90 percent. In addition, several thousand cubic yards of imported crushed concrete Nvas placed in the containment areas adjacent to the hydrocarbon-affected soil. Plans called for concrete pieces to be less than 12 inches in size and Nvere mixed Nvith soil as they Nvere placed. The thickness of the concrete layer Nvas approximately 2 feet. Groundwater Nvas measured at depths ranging from 1 to 6 feet bgs in the borings discussed above. HoNvever, these depths Nvere measured during drilling and do not represent stabilized ground Nvater levels. The full geotechnical report is included as Appendix E. Vicinity Hazardous Material Sites There are numerous hazardous materials sites throughout the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco, reflecting the long and intense industrial history of the area. The Phasel Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site includes information for hazardous materials historically associated Nvith the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project site and, as typical for a Phase 1, a records review of sites in the vicinity of the project site. The direction of groundNvater flows is northerly toNvards San Francisco Bay; therefore, areas directly to the south of the project site across Oyster Point Boulevard are Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South San Francisco, California. Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,San Francisco, California Alarch 3, 2011. Treadwell&Rollo, Geotecluzical Investigation for FeasibiliO)Evaluation, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:G-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 upgradient of the site. The three sites that Nvere historically associated Nvith the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project site, which included the current project site, Nvere: 103, 105, and 159 Oyster Point Boulevard. The 103 Oyster Point Boulevard site had two underground storage tanks (USTs) that Nvere located approximately 60-feet south of the project site under the Nvidened Oyster Point Boulevard and have since been removed. The 105 Oyster Point Boulevard site Nvas listed in the StateNvide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST, EnviroStor database, the California Facility Inventory Database, the Historic Cortese list, and the San Mateo County Business Inventory databases. HoNvever, three USTs located at 105 Oyster Point Boulevard Nvere removed in approximately 1990 and Nvere hydraulically cross gradient to the project site. At the 159 Oyster Point Boulevard location, three USTs Nvere removed and the RWQCB issued a no further action letter for this site in 2008. The Phase 1 report prepared for the project indicates that all nearby database listings of the project site had no violations, Nvere closed by the regulatory agency, Nvere hydrologically crossgradient or doN-,n- gradient, or Nvere determined to be a significant distance (greater than a'/4 mile) from the project site. The project site's extensive soil and groundwater characterization did not identIA- any impacts resulting from off-site sources, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR findings. As a result, these off-site database listings are not expected to pose a significant environmental risk to the project site and are not further discussed. Regulatory Setting Summaries of federal and state laws and regulations related to hazardous materials management are presented below. California law allows for certain hazardous materials regulatory programs, including those pertaining to USTs, hazardous materials storage, and hazardous materials management, to be delegated to local agencies. New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal Federal and state laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injun-to health or the environment. Primal*federal agencies Nvith responsibility for hazardous materials management include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA]), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Major federal laws and issue areas include the folloNving statutes (and regulations promulgated hereunder): • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) • Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act(HSWA) 6 Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- The Cove South Sari Francisco, California. Prepared for:Project-IIanagementAdvisors,Inc. South,Sari Francisco, California Alarch 3, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnien tal Impact Report Page If:G-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA) • Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA) • Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know(SARA Title III) State Primary state agencies Nvith jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other state agencies involved in hazardous materials management are Cal/OSHA, the Department of Industrial Relations (State OSHA implementation), California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Highwa-,T Patrol (CHP), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA—Proposition 65 implementation) and Ca1Recycle. Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the folloNving statutes (and regulations promulgated there under): • Hazardous Waste Control Law • Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ("Proposition 65") • Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act • Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting ("Tanner Act") • Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) • California Medical Waste Management Act Local The primary local agency, knoN-,n as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), Nvith responsibility for implementing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials management is San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. The Unified Program is the consolidation of six state environmental regulatory programs into one program under the authority of a CUPA. A CUPA is a local agency that has been certified by Cal EPA to implement the six state environmental programs Nvithin the local agency's jurisdiction. This program Nvas established under the amendments to the California Health and Safetv Code made by SB 1082 in 1994. The six consolidated programs are: • Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory (Business Plans) • California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)Program • Underground Storage Tank Program • Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 • Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs • California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements' As the CUPA for the County of San Mateo, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division maintains the records regarding location and status of hazardous materials sites in the county and administers programs that regulate and enforce the transport, use, storage,manufacturing, and remediation of hazardous materials. By designating a CUPA, San Mateo County has accurate and adequate information to plan for emergencies and/or disasters and to plan for public and firefighter safety. A Participating Agency (PA) is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs Nvithin their jurisdiction on behalf of the CUPA. The City of South San Francisco Fire Department maintains a special program that regulates hazardous materials through disclosure and risk management plans as Nvell as above ground storage tank referral in cooperation Nvith the County of San Mateo. Thus, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is a PA Nvith the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division as the CUPA. Regulations Operational and Disposal Regulations Worker Safety The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are the agencies responsible for ensuring Nvorker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the Nvorkplace. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe Nvorkplaces and Nvork practices. Hazardous Waste Handling Cal-EPA and DTSC regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous Nvaste under RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose "cradle-to- grave" regulatory systems for handling hazardous Nvaste in a manner designed to protect human health and the environment. Hazardous Materials Transportation The USDOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers who transport hazardous Nvaste on public roads. California Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. t,'niified Program Fact Sheet. Alarch 2012. Available.: hap: iwwwxalepa.ca.gov cupa.Accessed:February 12, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Emerzency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents California has developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local government and private entities. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one component of this plan. The State Office of Emergency Services administers the plan, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal-EPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Game, the RWQCB, and the Radiologic Health Branch of the DHS. In 2011, the County of San Mateo updated its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The County's EOP describes at a high level what the County s actions Nvill be during a response to an emergency. Additional appendices and annexes to this plan are being prepared to describe in more detail response actions and hazards specific to the county. As such, the plan Nvill be a living document Nvith existing departmental plans and hazard specific annexes remaining in effect until the updated appendices and annexes are completed. The EOP describes the Emergency Operations Center's role and the coordination that occurs between the county EOC, cities,toNsns, and other agencies in San Mateo County in an emergency.$ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The analysis in this section considers the use, generation, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials, the potential of accidental release of hazardous materials, and exposure of people to hazardous materials. As discussed in the introduction, the analysis in this document is based on newly released information since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, like the 2011 Treadvvell & Rollo Geotechnical Report, and the 2008 Cap Maintenance Report. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 (-'EQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials if the project Nvould result in any of the folloN ing: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • 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. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. San Mateo Coulio) Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services and Homeland SecuritJ>. Snn Mateo CountJ> "Operational Area"Emergency Operations Plarz.January 28, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • 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, Nvould it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • For a project located Nvithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, Nvithin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Nvould the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or Nvorking in the project area. • For a project Nvithin the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or Nvorking in the project area. • Impair implementation of or physical interference Nvith an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Nvildland fires, including where Nvildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed Nvith Nvildlands. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a hazards and hazardous materials discussion section. The impacts analyzed in this section correspond Nvith the Human Health Section of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Further, the CEQA Guidelines used in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Nvere different than the 2013 CEQA Guidelines used in this Draft Subsequent EIR. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of handling hazardous materials near sensitive uses, impact of the project on airport land use plans, private air strips or emergency response plans, and Nvildland fires. With the enactment of new federal, state and local laws the 2013 CEQA Guidelines are more stringent than the guidelines used in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The project impacts discussion below represents these updates. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to due to construction activities on the project site. These new mitigation measures supersede the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Mitigation Measure 10.2.2. For a summary of impacts and Mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.G-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the en>>ironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould develop the project site Nvith office/R&D and hotel uses and Nvould not involve the routine transport, use, or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials. Further, all transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous Nvaste to and from the site shall be in accordance Nvith Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identIA-ing information. These regulations shall be folloNved during the construction of all phases and operation of the proposed project to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials and Nvaste to and from the site. Construction Activities Impacts Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial construction activities, employees and visitors could be exposed to hazardous materials at the project site during construction activities and potentially experience adverse health effects due to improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, particularly by untrained personnel. Comparing the proposed project site plan Nvith draNvings of previously conducted cleanup operations, it is apparent that construction activities Nvould take place over previously contaminated areas. Although the placement of buildings on the site may vary, the development area for the proposed project and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project are the same. This impact finding is similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR impact finding 10.2.2. Although a 1997 soil cleanup plan actions, as Nvell as a Soil Maintenance Plan and a Cap Maintenance Plan Nvere implemented at the project site, construction activities such as excavation and soil handling on or near sites that are potentially contaminated or contain hazardous materials increase the risk that Nvorkers and the public may be exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Nvorkers or the public may be exposed to hazardous materials if knoN-,n or unknoN-,n contaminants are encountered or an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials occurs during construction activities. As previously discussed the project site Nvas historically used for industrial purposes, which resulted in total lead and hydrocarbon soil contamination issues. As a result of these contamination issues, the RWQCB issued a cleanup order in 1996 and established cleanup requirements for the site. The project site Nvent through multiple rounds of cleanup, and the clean-up order Nvas rescinded in 2009, after the publication of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, when RWQCB found that the project site Nvent through a clean-up process suitable for commercial/industrial uses development. A Cap Maintenance Program has been in place, Nvith the latest cap performance inspection in 2012. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; During the 2012 cap performance inspection the cap Nyas found to be in good condition, and it did not exhibit signs of degradation,penetration or erosion. Due to soil conditions at the project site, as discussed in Section IV.F Geology and Soils, development activities that may expose soil Nyith elevated lead and hydrocarbons include: • Removal of buried obstructions and foundation elements. • Predrilling at pile locations, as needed. • Excavations for neNy pile caps. • Excavations for utility trenches. • Excavations for belovy-grade pits Nyithin the building areas. A Soil Management Plan and a Cap Maintenance Plan are in place for the project site. Prior to development of each phase of the project, the City requires that an Erosion Control Plan be submitted in conjunction Nyith the Grading Permit Application for the proposed project. The Plan is required to include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Nyith sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan is required to describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction Nyater runoff. Further, along Nyith the Grading Plan a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required as part of the application process. The SWPPP is required to include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated Nyith Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Implementation of a Soil Management Plan, Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP at each phase of the project Nyould minimize impacts from fugitive dust during construction. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the potential exposure of sensitive receptors, including construction Nyorkers, to previously contaminated soil and contaminants is considered apotentially significant impact. Operational Impacts Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, upon completion of construction activities, the project site soil Nyould not have a significant impact as the entire site Nyould be covered. Operational impacts due to future uses of the proposed office buildings Nyere not considered in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. This impact is analyzed consistently Nyith 2013 CEQA Guidelines The proposed project Nyould include construction of office uses, a hotel Nyith a restaurant, retail space, parking structure, and research and development facilities in three phases. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for Nyhich detailed information has not yet been provided, future businesses at the project site are required to check the state and federal lists of regulated substances 9 Roux Associates. 2011. C.'ap Per fornzarzce Irzspectiorz Fall 2011. The Cove Site. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. If handling of hazardous materials Nvould be required during the research and development process businesses are required to determine which list to use in consultation Nvith the SMCEHD and to apply for all applicable permits and comply Nvith all applicable state and local regulations. Further, in the event that hazardous materials Nvould be used during research and development activities, registration in the San Mateo County Environmental Health Hazardous Material Business Plan Program Nvould help to ensure safe and responsible handling of hazardous materials by site tenants. The City requires that building space thorough all phases of the project are designed to handle the intended office use, Nvith sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance Nvith the guidelines laid out in Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Compliance Nvith state and local regulations Nvould ensure that buildings are equipped Nvith safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. The City further requires that at the end of construction of each proposed project building, occupancy is not alloNved until a final inspection is made by the Fire Department for conformance of all building systems Nvith the Fire Code and NFPA Requirements. The inspection will include a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Finally, compliance Nvith DOT regulations Nvould ensure that all necessary safety precautions would be taken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project. Therefore,this impact Nvould be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.1 Health and Safety Plan The current Soils Management Plan (SMP) includes a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) as further discussed in Section IV. F Geology and Soils. The HASP shall be modified and updated to address the proposed project. The HASP hall be prepared for the proposed project prior to initiation of construction activities. The Plan shall describe the practices and procedures to protect the public and all Nvorkers in the construction area in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials (for example, fuels or solvents during construction) or if hazardous materials are encountered during construction. The Plan shall include items such as spill containment and Nvill help protect the public and Nvorkers by providing procedures and contingencies that Nvill help reduce the exposure to hazardous materials. This mitigation measure replaces the HASP requirement of Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project as it represents updated Cal-OSHA requirements for HASP plans. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 Inspect, Test and Remo>>e Potentially Contaminated Soils and Groundwater During excavation at all construction areas during each phase of the project, the contractor shall inspect the exposed soil for visual evidence of contamination, particularly near the areas identified during site reconnaissance. If contamination indicators (e.g., obvious soil staining, odors, etc.) are encountered during excavation or grading activities outside of the lead or petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas, all Nvork in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verIA- the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 presence and extent of contamination at the site. Results shall be revieNved and approved by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site clean up) before construction is alloNved to begin again. The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantiA-ing contaminant levels Nvithin the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall determine the appropriate Nvorker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures. Areas Nvith soil and groundNvater determined to be hazardous Nvaste outside of the lead and petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the OSHA- recommended 40-hour safety program (29 CFR 1910.120) Nvith an approved plan for groundNvater extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.3 Soil Management Plan Update Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall review and, as necessary, update the existing Soil Management Plan to ensure compliance Nvith the most current BAAQMD and OSHA standards, including but not limited to standards related to dust control and air quality monitoring as discussed in Section IV. C, Air Quality. Modifications to the Soil Management Plan Nvill include: • Updating and/or identIA-ing new specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment. • Requiring site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPS) to be prepared by all contractors N-,-ho may come into contact Nvith groundwater or subsurface soil at the project site. This includes a HASP for all grading and excavation on the site, as Nvell as for future subsurface maintenance Nvork. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP Nvill be revieNved and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. • Updating and/or describing protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction Nvorkers and future users of the site. • Updating and/or requiring site-specific construction techniques that Nvould minimize exposure to anv subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for anv contaminated groundNvater removed from excavations, trenches, and deNvatering systems in accordance Nvith San Francisco Bay RWQCB guidelines. • RevieNving, updating, and/or producing a sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. • IdentIA-ing restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The updated Plan shall be revieNyed and approved by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits for the project. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project this impact Nyould be less than significant Nyith implementation of the neNy mitigation measures and compliance Nyith state and local regulations. The mitigation measures presented in this Draft Subsequent EIR replace Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, as they reflect updated regulations and standards. Impact IV.G-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the en>>ironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions in>>oh ing the release of hazardous materials into the en>>ironmenz As described in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the project site contains a lead stabilization area and a hydrocarbon containment area. The foundations of the proposed project's buildings Nyould be located Nyithin the lead stabilization area and the hydrocarbon containment area. Similar to finding 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, during construction for the proposed project, hazardous materials could be released as contaminated dust during construction of each phase, Nyhich could affect the health of construction Nyorkers. Although a Soil Management Plan Nyas prepared for the project site in 2000, the Plan Nyould need to be updated Nyith the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and OSHA standards to protect Nyorker health and safety, minimize exposures of contaminated soils, and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 listed above, this impact Nyould be less than significant. The mitigation measures identified in this Draft Subsequent EIR supersede Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, as outlined in the Prior Analvsis and Conclusion section, and the 2000 mitigation measure Nyould not be necessary. Impact IV.G-3: The proposed 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. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not discuss impacts related to schools near the project site. This impact is analyzed consistent Nyith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. There are four existing day care centers in the commercial area near the project site. • The Early Years located at 371 Allerton Avenue; • Genentech 2"a Generation located at 444 Allerton Avenue; • Genentech 2"a Generation located at 850 Gatevmv Boulevard; and • Gatevmv Child Care Center-Preschool located at 559 Gatevmv Boulevard In addition, a proposed daveare Nyould be established as early as Phase 1 of the proposed project. Phase 2 and 3 of construction Nyould consist of the development of additional office buildings, reconfiguration of Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-14 00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013 above ground parking and expansion of the parking structure from 3-stories to 8 or 9-stories, and installation of additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting. The project currently contains buried hazardous materials that could be released during site grading activities through construction related dust. Therefore,the proposed daycare Nvould be in existence during construction of Phase 2 and 3 of the project and could be exposed to construction dust, along Nvith the other identified childcare centers in the area. Section IV.0 Air Quality further discusses the impacts on schools and child care facilities in the project area. Implementation of the mitigation measures previously discussed Nvould incorporate management procedures related to hazardous materials, like soil erosion and fugitive dust control measures, during the construction and operation phases of the project, thereby minimizing the potential for the emission of hazardous materials to nearby school facilities. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 listed above,this impact Nvould be less than significant. Impact IV.G-4: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Goi ernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the eni ironment. The project site is not included on the "Cortese List," similar to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR finding.1' However, portions of the project site contain knoNsn hazardous materials (lead and hydrocarbons), which could present a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment if they Nvere disturbed during project construction, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. An updated site Soil Management Plan Nvould ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized by site grading activities, and thus protect exposure of sensitive receptors. Implementation of an updated site HASP Nvould ensure Nvorker protection, decreasing Impact IV.G-4 to a level of less than significant. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through 13 listed above, this impact Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Impact IV.G-5: The proposed project is located within an airport land use plan area, but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards related to airport land use plans. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project Nvould be located Nvithin the jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (Airport Land Use Plan)." 10 Treadwell & Rollo. 2011. Phase I Erzvironnierztal Site Assessment- The Cove South Sari Francisco, California. Prepared for:Pr(oject-IIanagenierztAdvisors,Irzc. South Sari Francisco, California Alar^ch 3, 2011. 00)Courzo)Association ofGovernnierzis ofSari Mateo Count). 2012.('oniprehensiveAirportLarzd Use Conipatibilio)Plaii for the Erzvirorzs of Sari Francisco Inteniatiorial Airport. October 2012.Prepared by: Ricorzdo &Associates Ili association with:Jacobs Corzsultarzcy, Clarion Associates.Accessed:February 7, 2013.Available:http: 'www.ccag.ca.gov plans reports.htnil. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:G-15 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 According to Policy LU-23 in the East of 101 Area Plan' maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAA). The FAA establishes building height limits in the project area between 120 and 140 feet surface above ground (AGL). Buildings heights in the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Project are limited to 113 AGL and 128 above mean sea level. As such, building heights Nvould not exceed the maximum height for the project area. Nonetheless, the project applicant Nvould be required to notiA- the FAA prior to project construction. A Determination of No Hazards from the FAA Nvould be obtained prior to project construction approvals by the City The San Francisco International Airport, in response to the December 14, 2012 NOP (included in Appendix A), found that the proposed project Nvould not be incompatible Nvith respect to airspace protection, noise or safety. Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights Nvould not penetrate critical airspace surfaces, Nvhich are at approximately 5000 feet above the project site. The project Nvill comply Nvith all FAA requirements, therefore the impact of the project on an airport land use plan is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.G-6: The proposed project is not located within the>>icinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard.for people residing or working in the project area. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards related to private air strips. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. Review of area maps shows that the project site is not located Nvithin the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementing the project Nvould not result in a safety hazard for people residing or Nvorking in the project area as it relates to aviation issues. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no mitigation is required. Impact IV.G-7. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ei�acuation plan. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards related to emergency access plans. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. Construction-related employee vehicle trips and truck trips for the project Nvould potentially increase traffic on U.S. 101, ONTster Point Boulevard, Veterans Boulevard, and Gateway- Boulevard during the construction of the project phases. In addition, construction of the six access entrances to the project site may cause temporary traffic disruptions on Oyster Point or Veterans Boulevards during construction of the phases. An increase in traffic or roadway construction activities has the potential to impair emergency responders. Emergency access to and from the site Nvould be available at all times during construction. 00)of South Sari Francisco. 1994. East(?f101 Area Plan.Available.:littp: ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com i1idez.aspi?SID=366.Accessed:February 5, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:G. Hazards Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:G-16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Traffic impacts Nvould be temporary and Nvould not significantly interfere Nvith an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. FolloNving the completion of construction activities, the project's operation-related traffic Nvould increase local traffic levels from existing conditions, as described in Section IV.M Traffic. Impact on public services, including fire and police, are discussed in Section IV.L Public Services. HoNvever, traffic is required to yield Nvay to emergency vehicles, and traffic congestion and delay does not normally affect their ability to respond to emergencies. The project site Nvould include adequate access entrances, one main entrance located on ONTster Point Boulevard, and four additional access points located on Veterans Boulevard, to the project site during all phases of the project to allow for emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, the project Nvould have a less than significant impact relating to an adopted emergency response plan and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.G-8: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh ing wild land fires,Tres, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of hazards related to Nvildland fires. This impact is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The project site is generally bordered by urban land uses, including U.S. 101 and Caltrain tracks, which do not contain vegetation conducive to Nvildland fires. The San Bruno Mountain range, located approximately 700 feet to the northNvest of the project site, is the nearest Nvildland area and is designated as a high fire severity zone.' HoNvever, given the distance between the mountains and project site, the relatively unvegetated nature of the project site, and the urbanized features (i.e., U.S. 101 and Caltrain tracks) separating them,the project Nvould not be exposed to a significant Nvildland fire risk. The project site is vacant and covered by ruderal or grassy vegetation. The area is urbanized and there are no Nvildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project site is bordered on all sides by urban land uses, Nvhich do not contain vegetation conducive to Nvildland fires. Use of the project's construction equipment in vegetated areas Nvould present a potential ignition source and fire hazard. HoNvever, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the PRC requirements for construction activities at sites Nvith forest-, brush-, or grass-covered land described above, which Nvould minimize the project's potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk involving Nvildland fires. Therefore, this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project Nvould be one of numerous sites, some of which are also existing hazardous materials sites, which are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The project 13 California Departnrerzt of Forestry arid Fire Protection. 2007. ,San Mateo C.'oulio)Fire Hazard Severio)Zorzes irz ,SRA (State Resporzsibilio) Areas). Adopted l ovenrber 7, 2007. Accessed: February 5, 2013. Available: hap: ii,>>,ii,.fnre.ca.govfre_preventiorz,fhsz maps sannrateo.php. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:G-17 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; could contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, depending on future research and development activities, both in the vicinity in general as Nvell as near a school or child-care facility, and Nvould result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to and/or accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Accidental hazardous materials release during use and transport during construction may have a slight cumulative impact in that because there Nvould be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially hazardous materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City, there is a potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials could occur from accidents during use or the transportation of hazardous materials through the City. HoNvever, compliance Nvith state and local regulations and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. Other sites under redevelopment Nvithin the project area have demolition requirements and future uses of hazardous materials. This could create a potential cumulative impact. HoNvever, compliance Nvith state and local regulations and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. The project site is an existing hazardous materials site. The project development Nvould include exposure to potentially contaminated soil during project site development and construction through construction related dust. Releases of hazardous materials could occur during construction if not properly executed; this could have a cumulative effect on the surrounding area, Nvhich contains a number of hazardous materials sites. HoNvever, compliance Nvith state and local regulations and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through 1.4 Nvould reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. The increase in cumulative impacts associated Nvith hazardous materials is expected to be slight and identified project-specific mitigation measures Nvould reduce this impact to a less than significant level Nvith no additional mitigation required, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.3 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. These impacts Nvould also be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:G. Hazards'Hazardous 1laterials Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:G-18 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS H. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing flood and inundation hazards, including dam and levee failure, and tsunami- or seismically-induced flooding, Nvithin the project site and describes whether implementation of the proposed project Nvould cause a substantial change in the characteristics of local flood and inundation hazards. In addition, this section discusses surface Nvater drainage, Nvater quality, and other Nvater resource issues, including storm drain system deficiencies in the project area, which includes the project site and neighboring properties. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to hydrology and Nvater quality. This section evaluates the potential impacts on hydrology/Nvater quality of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant hydrology and Nvater quality impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The proposed project Nvould result in one new potentiall�T significant impact relating to potential flooding due to tsunamis and project site runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-4 and IV.H-10 these impacts Nvould be less than significant. New mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised 2013 CEQA Guidelines and the current conditions on the project site. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analvsis section. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include (1) the City of South San Francisco's Standard Development Conditions (2009), (2) Preliminary project drainage plans; (3) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments; (4) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Hazard Maps; (5) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of South San Francisco; (6) The Western Regional Climate Center Nvebsite; (7) San Mateo County-vide Water Pollution Prevention Program's (SMCWPPP's) C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance document; and (8) City of South San Francisco's Municipal Code. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H.Hydrology Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; One comment letter related to flood and inundation hazards from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Nvas received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project as Nvell as the environmental impacts on hydrology and Nvater quality. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould have two potentially significant adverse drainage and Nvater quality impacts and two less than significant drainage and flooding impacts. Table IV.H-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 11.2.2-Potential Water Degradation during Mitigation Measure 11.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove the Operational Phase of the Project.The 2000 Bay Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measure 11.2.2.which required compliance found that development of the 2000 Bay West Cove with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Commercial Project would substantially increase the (NPDES)standards and implementation of a Storm amount of storm water runoff from the project site. This Water Pollution Prevention Plan(S WPPP),to reduce the additional runoff could also increase the discharge of impact to a less than significant level. non-point source pollutants into San Francisco Bay, causing a small but significant degradation of water quality and would constitute a potentially significant adverse impact of 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact 11.2.3-Potential Water Quality Degradation Mitigation Measure 11.2.3-The 2000 Bay West Cove during the Construction Phase of the Project. The Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental Mitigation Measure 9.2.3,which required compliance EIR identified that during project construction there with NPDES,the implementation of a Soil Management would be an increased likelihood of soil erosion and Plan and other project—specific measures,to reduce the sedimentation in San Francisco Bay.Erosion would be impact to a less than significant level. expected to increase as on-site soils are excavated, stockpiled and regraded,exposing them to wind and water erosion.Excavated soils could include buried hazardous materials. There would be risks of fuel oil spills. This would constitute a potentially significant impact of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact 11.3.1-Minor Cumulative Water Quality No mitigation measures were required. Impacts.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site could cause significant degradation of water quality. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project plus other related projects or conditions in the vicinity should not cause cumulative impacts,because measures to control runoff through the site will also mitigate for any cumulative impacts resulting in a less than significant impact. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If H. Hydrology Water Oualio) Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:H-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.14-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact(11.3.2)Minor Potential Change in Existing The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Flood Hazard Conditions.The 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR recommended that that the Project Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that sponsors prepare an application for a Letter of Map Federal regulations require local goverrunents to notify Revision. This application,which must be submitted to FEMA of any changes in flooding conditions within FEMA by the City,would describe the physical their borders so that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps can conditions(ground surface modified through fill be updated to reflect actual flood hazards. This placement)that now protect all Project building notification also provides a mechanism for the removal improvements from flooding during a 100 year storm or of flood hazard designations from individual properties. high tide event Upon receipt of a completed application.. The 2000 filling of the project site represents a change in FEMA would issue a final Letter of Map Revision. flooding conditions and should trigger the City's removing the entire site from the flood zone. responsibility for FEMA notification;and the impact would be less than significant. Environmental Setting Similar to the project site conditions analyzed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, the project site is undeveloped and unpaved. The only changes on the project site since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR are due to activities undertaken to maintain the cap,which include fill soil importation, surface grading, and compaction. Climate and Topography Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the project site is located near the eastern shoreline of the City overlying artificial fill and Bay mud. The East of 101 Area generally slopes doN-,award to the east, toNvard San Francisco Bay. The project site is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the exception of a City-oN-,ned sanitary sewer pump located in the northern portion of the site. The topography of the project site is relatively flat Nvith elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD 29) along the northern boundary* of the site to approximately 19 feet NGVD29 in the southeast area of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry,mild summers and moist, cool Nvinters. Average annual precipitation is approximately 20.9 inches per year Nvith the most precipitation received between November and April.' Regional Hydrology Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project regional hydrology, the project site is located Nvithin the Colma Creek Nvatershed, which is located in the southern portion of the East of 101 Area.2 The il'esterrz Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Irzformatiorz, 2008 Local Climate Data,SUnmraries for the TFestern U.S., Sari Francisco Irzternatiorzal Airport, website: http: www.wrcc.tJri.etJu suniniarys/o.ca.litint, Accessed February 1, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Colma Creek Nvatershed is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the Nvest by the ridge traced by Skvline Boulevard.' The Nvatershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as Nvell as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of Colma Creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works that discharges into the San Francisco Bav south of the project site and north of the San Francisco International Airport. Runoff in the hills of the Colma Creek Nvatershed is relatively rapid because of the steep slopes, and is slower in the flat lowland areas. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the Nvatershed is largely developed Nvith a high proportion of impermeable surfaces, runoff is relatively high. Runoff throughout the City of South San Francisco is collected in the Citv's storm drainage system, which discharges to Colma Creek or directly to the San Francisco Bay. Site Hvdrolo6v and Storm Water Draina6e Storm Nvater runoff from the project site begins as overland sheet flow and either infiltrates into the site's pervious surfaces, flows overland toward the Bay, or is captured in the site's existing 48-inch storm drain that conveys runoff eastward to the City s storm drainage infrastructure, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site conditions. The City s storm drainage s�Tstem in the project vicinity consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations. The pipes are reinforced concrete pipe or high-density polyethylene. The City of South San Francisco does not have a storm Nvater master plan and does not have information regarding the existing runoff flows or the existing capacities of the storm Nvater infrastructure near the project site.4 Currently there is a 48 inch culvert traversing the project site, but information is not available regarding the remaining capacity of the existing storm line for accommodating additional runoff flows. There are no creeks or natural surface drainages in the project site. Groundwater The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site overlies the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. This basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. The primary Nvater-bearing strata in the basin are the "' Givler, R.TF., Sowers, J 1l, arzd I'orster, P., 2006. Creek& iiatershed flap of Daly 00) & I zcirut,>. Oaldarzd Aluseuni of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. Available: http: 'museunica.wy creeks'1590- RescC.'olnia.htnilu.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013. 3 Givler, R.TF., Sowers, J.11., arid I-oyster, P., 2006. Creek& iiatershed flap of Daly 00) & I icillio—. Oakland Aluseuni of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. Available: http: 'museunica.wy creeks'1590- RescC.'olnia.htnilu.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013. Chuck, Dennis, ,S'erzior Civil Engineer, 00) of South Sari Francisco. 2013. Personal Coniniunicatiorz via telephone with Alegari Giglini of URS Cor^poratiori on February 12, 2013 regarding the absence of a 00)storm grater piaster plan arid urzcertailio) about the existing capacities of or runoff flogs to the existing storm grater irz frastructure. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-4 City of South Sari Francisco April 2013 unconsolidated materials comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, Bay Mud, and fill materials.' Groundwater levels in the basin have remained relatively stable and typically occur Nvithin a few feet of the surface in the project site. Typical groundNvater quality impairments in the basin are generally elevated nitrate and chloride concentrations. However, as discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, extensive groundwater quality monitoring of the project site indicated no significant groundNvater quality impacts.6 Floodin6 and Tsunami Inundation Although a portion of the project site Nvas located Nvithin the 100-year flood hazard zone of the San Francisco Bay as delineated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for the City of South San Francisco, CA in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, a Letter of Map Change (LOMCs) Nvas issued to the City changing the status of the project site The letter for case number 07-09-1035 V revalidated the determination that removes the project site from the 100 year flood zone. The letter is included as Appendix XX. The northern area of the project site is also located within a tsunami inundation zone.' [ Regulatory Setting The proposed project is subject to several laws and regulations that aim to protect surface Nvater resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations Nvith respect to hydrology and Nvater quality and how they relate to the proposed project. New and updated regulations have been enacted the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. (ahforrzia DeparrInerzt of fT ater Resources. 2004. California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Sari Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, I'isitacion Groundwater Basiri (2-32). Ljvlate. February 27, 2004. Available.: hap: ivww.water.ea.gov grourzchvater%bulletirz118 sari frarzeiseo_bay.efni.Accessed:February 12, 2013. 6 (ahforrzia DeparrInerzt of fTater Resources. 2004. California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Sari Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, I'isitacion Groundwater Basiri (2-32). Ljvlate. February 27, 2004. Available.: hap: ivww.water.ea.gov grourzchvater%bulletirz118 sari frarzeiseo_bay.efni.Accessed:February 12, 2013. Federal Emergency _llariagemerit Agency. 2013. _llappirig Iriformatiori Pla(fc)rrir. Available.: haps: liazards.fenra.gov feriraportal iipsportal.lutp ci 04 O FGcLA2cjdir-llrnr>>,ADK�4DKR2LKnrxrDifHrT gfZlil8 TIB4HcT)TO9 PIzO3I j9SP_1Lscii,xSLABGZKZEigenrJy plSBboRBlkmol T)u1T1 f9 dl-3 d3'LOIJS7dna21Dt,'I EliL1;9JRGpB()t;'150t;JFt,7clKRIFiiLZR(7R2dzbzBTI diiph0 Z,7B0iT'9JO,SEhLzdf_llDgyTT�3t,FlT)ODBD�Ilkc>>Qjh(_)lT)�>>_11I)�>>_11I)�v�110i 2RH_l1-1�11I)�3�11DE>>1j�9z��S' 52aT17 3=uc3IlbT170TUT v--7 082-1167PS(80('2GOB8P40000000.Accessed:February 21, 2013. s (ah f ornia Ener g erzc) Alarza�yenerzt A erzc) arid Courto) o Sari Alateo. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Ala pf r Eniergerzcy Planning Sari Francisco South Ouadrangle (Sari Francisco Bay). Julie 15, 2009. Available: http: ivww.corzservatiorz.ca.gov cgcgeologic hazards Tsunami Inurzdatiorz AlapcPages;Statewide_Alaps.aspz. Accessed:February 6, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))hater Oualit)> Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) Nvas enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating Nvater quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate Nvater pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal Nvaters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as Nvell as set minimum Nvater quality standards for all Nvaters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of Nvater quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related federally mandated Nvater quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed the Federal requirements. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identIA- waters that Nvill not achieve Nvater quality standards after application of effluent limits. For each Nvater and pollutant, the state is required to propose a priority for development of load-based (as opposed to concentration-based)limits called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The TMDL determines how much of a given pollutant can be discharged from a particular source Nvithout causing Nvater quality standards to be violated. Priorities for development of TMDLs are set by the state, based on the severity of the pollution and uses of the Nvaters. The San Francisco Bav and Colma Creek are listed on the 2010 CWA 303(d) list as impaired Nvater bodies. The various pollutants and stressors listed as impairing the LoNver and Central San Francisco Bay are chlordane, dichloro-diphenN-1-trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds, furan compounds, invasive species, mercury, mercury (sediment), polveyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium. Causes contributing to impairment include urban runoff, other non-point sources, atmospheric deposition, ballast Nvater (exotic species), municipal point sources, industrial point sources, and resource extraction (mercury). Colma Creek is impaired for trash caused by illegal dumping, and urban runoff/storm seNvers.� National Flood Insurance Program FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on US Army Corps of Engineers studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the FIRMS, Nvhich are used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). San Mateo County participates in the NFIP. FIRMS identIA- the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-Near and 500-Near floodplain. Federal v Uliited States Erivirolunerital Protection Agency (USER t), 2010 C'alif'ornia 303(4) List of iT ater Oualit> Limited S'egrnents, Category j, Central Bashi, Sari Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower), website: http: ii,irin.ii,aterboards.ca.gov water issues programs r1ndl'2010state it reports'category�5 report.shtnrl. Aaccessed February 7, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology hater Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 regulations governing development in a Zone A and AE (100-Near) floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Nyhich enables FEMA to require municipalities that participate in the NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and development Nvithin floodplains. MudflOwS are also covered under the NFIP in Nyhich San Mateo County participates. State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling Nvater quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing Nvater quality control plans (Basin Plans), Nvhich set forth the state's Nvater quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses of surface Nvaters and groundNvater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permit must be consistent Nvith the Basin Plan for the site region. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of Nvater quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface Nvaters and groundNvater within its region and specifies Nvater quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these Nvaters. The proposed project is required to adhere to all Nvater quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface Nvaters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. According to the 2011 Basin Plan, South San Francisco falls under the South Bay Basin, Nvhich includes Colma Creels. Beneficial uses of South Bav Basin, to Nvhich the project site ultimately discharges, include municipal and domestic Nvater supply, freshNvater replenishment, cold freshNvater habitat, estuarine habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spav'rang, Nvarm freshNvater habitat, Nvildlife habitat, Nvater contact recreation, non-contact Nvater recreation, and navigation Nvater for shipping, travel, or other transportation.1) Colma Creek's beneficial uses, Nvithin San Mateo County,include Nvarm freshNvater habitat,Nvildlife habitat, and contact and non-contact recreational uses. 10 C'ahforrzia Regional iititer Qualio) C.'orztrol Board ,Sari Francisco Bay Region, 2011. hater Qualio) C.'orztrol Plarz (Basin Plan), Table 2-1. December 31, 2011. Available: hap: iwww.sij,rcb.ca.gov sarzfrarzciscobay basin_planning.shtml.Accessed:February 19, 2013. C'ahforrzia Regional hater Qualio) C.'orztrol Board ,Sari Francisco Bay Region, 2011. hater Qualio) C.'orztrol Plarz (Basin Plan), Table 2-1. December 31, 2011. Available: hap: iwww.sij,rcb.ca.gov sarzfrarzciscobay basin_planning.shtml.Accessed:February 19, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology hater Qualio) Draft SubsequerztErzvironmerztallmpactReport Page If:H-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 The existing beneficial uses of groundNvater in the Visitacion GroundNvater Basin include industrial process supply and industrial supply. Potential uses of the groundNvater basin include municipal and domestic supply, and agricultural suppIv.12 NPDES Permit Requirements The NPDES permit system Nvas established in the CWA to regulate both point source discharges and non- point source discharges to surface waters of the US from municipal separate storm seNver systems (MS4s), and from deNvatering, construction, and industrial activities. For point source discharges, each NPDES permit contains limits on alloNvable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. For non-point source discharges,the NPDES program establishes a comprehensive storm Nvater quality program to manage urban storm Nvater and minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum extent practicable. As permitted under the CWA, authority for issuing NPDES permits has been delegated by the EPA to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted an NPDES deNvatering permit (Order No. R2-2012-0060, NPDES No. CAG912004) that is applicable to three discharge categories, including long-term structural deNvatering resulting in greater than 10,000 gallons per day and requiring treatment before discharging. It is not anticipated that this deNvatering permit Nvould be applicable to the project. HoNvever, the MS4 permitting program is applicable to the City of South San Francisco and Nvould be applicable to the project. In addition,the General Construction NPDES permit Nvould be applicable to the proposed project. Municipal Permit EPA adopted rules in 1990, Nvhich established Phase I of the NPDES storm Nvater program. This program requires NPDES permits to be adopted for cities and other institutions because storm Nvater discharges from these urbanized areas are considered sources of pollution. To comply Nvith the Phase I NPDES regulations, the RWQCBs adopted Phase I storm Nvater permits for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 people) municipalities.13 Most of the Phase I permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The SFRWQCB issued the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit (MRP) (Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES No. CAS612008) for the discharge of storm Nvater runoff from the MS4s of numerous entities. San Mateo County, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the 20 cities and toN-,ns Nvithin the County, including the City of South San Francisco, are some of the jurisdictions and entities that are joint permit holders responsible for implementing the MRP. The MRP identifies discharge prohibitions, receiving Nvater limitations, and a variety of control measures to comply Nvith the identified prohibitions and limitations. Although individual permit holders are responsible for complying C,'rided States Erivirolunerital Protection Agency (USER t), 2010 Califc)rnia 303(4) List of iT ater Oualit> Limited Segments, Category j, Central Bashi, Sari Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower), website: http: ii,irin.ii,aterboards.ca.gov water issuesprograms r1ndl'2010state it reports'category�5 report.shtml. Accessed February 7, 2013. 13 State hater Resources C.'orztrol Board 2013. Storm iT ater Program _1I1,11ucipal Program. Available: hap: iwww.sj,rcb.ca.gov water issues programs storm water Inurzicipal.shtml.Accessed:February 21, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology hater Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Nvith and implementing the MRP, the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) Nvas formed to assist MRP permit holders Nvithin San Mateo County to collaborate on count---Nvide initiatives that benefit all members, as described further below. General Construction Permit The NPDES General Construction Permit requirements apply to clearing,grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation for construction activities that disturb more than 1 acre of land. The project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) Nvith the SWRCB's Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that Nvill occur on the site. The applicant Nvill also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the SWPPP for construction activities. The SWPPP Nvill include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. ,Van Francisco Bay Conservation and Dei�elopment Commission (BCDO BCDC updated in 2011 its San Francisco Bay Plan to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. Sea level rise risk assessments are required Nvhen planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects that are Nvithin BCDC jurisdiction. If sea level rise and storms that are expected to occur during the life of the project Nvould result in public safet-T risks, the project must be designed to cope Nvith flood levels expected by mid-century. If it is likely that the project Nvill remain in place longer than mid-century, the applicant must have a plan to address the flood risks expected at the end of the century. The new plan provides best practice guidelines for developing Nvithin BDCD jurisdiction and preparing for climate change induced sea level rise.' Local San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each incorporated city and toNsn in the county, and the County of San Mateo. The SMCWPPP includes the folloN ing: • Provisions for a model ordinance • Identification of BMPs, including street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill clean-up, and annual catch basin maintenance • Measures for extensive public education and public awareness • Pollutant source identification and Nvater quality measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges BC'DC website. htt): plattrtirtl chnzate change.S'LRfact.Slreet.slrtnzl.Accessed April 12, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 • Structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrial facilities • Controls for new development and construction sites and other elements In addition, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Storm Nvater Technical Guidance document is a BMP plan meant to assist developers, builders, and project sponsors include post-construction storm Nvater controls in their projects, in order to meet local municipal requirements and the post-construction storm Nvater control requirements under Provision C.3 of the MRP.15 San Mateo County Flood Control District The San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) is a county-vide special district that Nvas created by state legislation in order to provide a mechanism to finance flood control projects. The legislation requires that a flood control zone be formed over an entire Nvatershed and a proposed funding source is determined before a flood control project is undertaken. Proposition 218 requires an election if a flood control zone is to be financed Nvith property assessments or taxes. There are currently three active flood control zones: Colma Creek, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisquito Creek. The project site is outside of the San Mateo Countv Flood Control Distriets.16 City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of Storm Nvater Pollutants for issuance of an NPDES permit, including methods for managing pollution sources. Applicable control measures include storm Nvater pollution prevention devices, management of refuse areas, reduced pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping, use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm drains. City of South San Francisco Standard Development Conditions The City Engineering Division's Standard Development Conditions (2009) document provides design and construction guidance for all new commercial, residential, and industrial developments Nvithin the City. Requirements identified in the Conditions document are related to utilities (storm Nvater, sewers, etc.), street improvements, grading, site improvements, slope stability, fire protection, soils reporting, frontage improvements, and development fees." S'IICiTPPP. 2013. C.3 Storm T Ater Technical Guidance.. Available.: hap: iwww.jlowstobay.org'bs riewtIevelopnierztphp.Accessed:February 21, 2013. 16 Sanchez, America. 2013. Associate Erzgirzeer, Public iT arks azd Parks Departnierzt, San Alateo CoulioJ> Phone corzversatiorz with Megan Giglirzi, tiRS Corporation, regarding the project sites location outside of arty coulio) flood control districts. 00) of South Sari Francisco. 2009. Standard Development Corzditiorzs. January 2009. Available: littp: 'ssf..riet iridex.aspx?llD-470.Accessed:February 13, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; City of South San Francisco General Plan The City s General Plan contains policies designed to protect people and development from damage associated Nvith flooding. Policies applicable to the project are as follows. Open Space and Conseri�ation Element: Water Ouality 7.2-G-1 Comply Nvith the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface Nvater and groundNvater resources. 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface Nvater resources and prevent their contamination. 7.2-G-3 Discourage the use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances Nvithin the city. Health and Safety Element: Flooding 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. 8.2-I-2 Use the City s development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-Near flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04(Storm Water Manazement and Discharze Controls) Chapter 14.04 Nvas created to ensure the future health, safety, and general Nvelfare of the City and to protect and enhance Nvater quality pursuant to the CWA. The controls include measures to eliminate non- storm Nvater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; control discharges to the municipal storm sewer from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm Nvater; protect watercourses from modifications to natural flow; and reduce pollutants in storm Nvater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Chapter 15.08(California Buildinz Code) Under Chapter 15.08, the City adopts and modifies the 2001 California Building Code for application to developments Nvithin the City. This chapter contains construction standards for Nveather protection, foundations, drainage, and grading. Grading activities require a permit from the City Engineer. To obtain the grading permit, a soils engineering report and engineering geology report must be approved by the City Engineer. Recommendations in these reports must be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. Under Section 15.08.170, construction Nvork is restricted during the rain* season (November 1 to May 1) so as to minimize erosion. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Chapter 15.56(Flood Damaze Prei�ention) The purpose of Chapter 15.56 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)" is to promote the public health, safety and general Nvelfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: • Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to Nvater or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities. • Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. • Control the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters. • Control filling,grading, dredging, and other development that may increase flood damage. • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which Nvill unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. The provisions contained in SSFMC Chapter 15.56 are applicable only to development in special flood hazard areas as identified by FEMA. East of 101 Area Plan The project site is within the East of 101 Area. With respect to hydrology and Nvater quality, the East of 101 Area Plan (1994) aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of Nvater quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that projects comply Nvith NPDES permit requirements.' The Public Facilities Element of the East of 101 Area Plan includes the folloNving policies applicable to the project: Polio*PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage and flood protection requirements. Polio*PF-9 All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply Nvith the NPDES discharge program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm Nvater discharge 18 00) of,South Sari Francisco. 2013. ,South Sari Francisco Alurucipal Code ,South Sari Francisco, California Available:litty s,sfriet hide .aspi?lID=220.Accessed:Alarch 6, 2013. 19 00) of South Sari Francisco. 1994., East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. Available.: litty 'ca- southsarzfrarzcisco.civicplus.coni i1zdez.aspi?SID=366.Accessed:February 5, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 permit from the NPDES, Nvhich may require inclusion of on-site treatment of storm Nvater from parking areas. Polio*PF-10 During the rain*season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences, hav bales, etc. during construction activities to minimize the amount of silt directIv entering the Bay or other Nvetlands. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts on hydrology and Nvater quality if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: • Violate any Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements. • Substantially deplete groundNvater supplies or interfere substantially Nvith groundNvater recharge such that there Nvould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loNvering of the local groundNvater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby Nvells Nvould drop to a level Nvhich Nvould not support existing land uses or planned uses for Nvhich permits have been granted). • SubstantialIv 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 Nvould result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. • SubstantialIv alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantialIv increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which Nvould result in flooding on-or off-site. • Create or contribute runoff Nvater, Nvhich Nvould exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm Nvater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. • Substantially degrade Nvater quality. • Place housing Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. • Place Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area structures Nvhich Nvould impede or redirect flood flov'-s. • 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. • Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow. The CEQA Guidelines have been revised and updated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. For example, although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; EIR studied potential project site run off and potential on site flooding, federal, state and local regulation updates impose more stringent requirements. Therefore, the analyses for the proposed project reflect the more stringent thresholds of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. Further, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not study the project site's vulnerability to tsunami, seiche, mudflow or flooding due to failure of a levee or dam or sea level rise. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould result in two new significant hydrology and Nvater quality impacts due to the potential for tsunami flooding and project site run off. The impacts Nvould be mitigated to a less than significant level Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-4 and IV.H-10, outlined below. There are no other increases in the severity of the previously identified hydrology and Nvater quality impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the proposed project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.H--1: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not i4olate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project's construction activities could potentially affect the Nvater quality of the surrounding and receiving Nvater bodies. Grading and excavation activities Nvould disturb soils and remove vegetation. These activities Nvould increase the potential for the site's soils to erode and be transported via storm Nvater runoff to Colma Creek or the San Francisco Bay. Although a cap maintenance program is in place for the project site, left unmitigated, construction activities could also expose the onsite hazardous soils thereby alloNving for the transport of soils contaminated Nvith lead and petroleum hydrocarbons to local Nvater bodies (see Section IV.G,Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion and mitigation measures). The use and maintenance of construction equipment for the project Nvould require the onsite use and storage of hazardous materials (fuels, lubricating oil, grease, and/or hydraulic fluid). Similar to construction conditions of the 2000 Bay Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-14 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; West Cove Commercial Project, accidental spills or improper use, storage, or disposal of these hazardous materials onsite could result in the transport, particularly during storm events, of hazardous materials to the San Francisco Bay and subsequent environmental effects. Construction Nvorkers could generate trash that,if improperly disposed of, could be transported to the local Nvater bodies. HoNvever, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project would be required to comply Nvith the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code Ordinance, the MRP, the City s Standard Development Conditions, and the City s Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance. In addition, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the NPDES General Construction Permit because the project's construction activities Nvould disturb more than one acre of land. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, compliance Nvith these regulations and permits Nvould require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, including spill prevention and control measures, an erosion control plan, a grading plan, and a storm Nvater management plan for the project. These plans Nvould collectively require the project to implement BMPs during the construction period to prevent and control the transport of pollutants, including sediments, trash, pathogens, sanitary waste, and hazardous materials. Implementation of these plans and their BMPs Nvould ensure that the project's construction activities Nvould not violate any Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.1, Soil Management Plan Update in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials,Nvould include measures to contain hazardous soils onsite. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, development of the project Nvould intenslA- the site's land uses and increase the site's impermeable surfaces, Nvhich Nvould potentially increase non-point source (NPS)pollution to receiving Nvaters.NPS pollutants are Nvashed by rainNvater from roofs,landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical new development NPS pollutants include sediments, nutrients, metals, bacteria and viruses, organics, pesticides, and trash (floatables). The proposed project's design Nvould include the use and maintenance of bioretention areas and other onsite storm Nvater treatment facilities,which are discussed below in Impact IV.H-6 and detailed in Appendix C. The mitigation provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included compliance Nvith the NPDES general construction permit policies requiring the preparation of SWPPP and implementation of recommended BMPs. In addition, the proposed project Nvould comply Nvith the MRP, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, and the City s Standard Development Conditions. These actions and the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the current project description; therefore, the project's construction and operation Nvould not violate the Nvater quality standards or Nvaste discharge requirements associated Nvith the MRP and this impact Nvould be less than significant. The project Nvould not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR for this impact are no longer required and no new or additional mitigation measures would be required as these measures are now part of the project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-1 5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Impact IV.H--2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer>>olume or a lowering of the local groundwater table lei�el (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a lei�el which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits hai,e been granted). The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project construction and operation on groundwater levels. This impact discussion is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines requirements. Due to the shallow nature of groundwater at the project site, dewatering ma_- be required during certain construction activities. The volume and length of time of deNvatering necessary Nvould be established during subsequent geotechnical borings for the development. Nonetheless, deNvatering for the construction activities Nvould be temporary and Nvould have a very low potential to adversely affect the Basin's volume or levels because Nvater levels have remained relatively constant since 1990 due to higher than average rainfall and operation of Nvells at less than 60% of total capacity T.20 Any lowering of groundwater levels Nvould be limited to a localized area (Nvithin an approximately 100-foot radius) near the excavation activities. Thus, potential effects on groundwater levels Nvould be temporary and groundwater levels Nvould return to the existing levels folloNving completion of the deNvatering activities. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and recharge, and no mitigation measures are required. FolloNving project construction, dewatering may be required for below-grade elevator pits, utility lines and other localized excavations.2 1 DeNvatered groundwater Nvould be collected and discharged in accordance Nvith the Soil Management Plan that Nvould be prepared for the site as part of Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.1 Soil Management Plan Update,in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials. GroundNvater recharge opportunities at the project site would potentially be reduced as a result of the impermeable surfaces associated Nvith the proposed project's buildings, roads, and parking areas. HoNvever, the project site is capped and measures are taken to maintain the cap and reduce the potential for seepage of Nvater from the surface into the capped area. Therefore, the project site is not currently contributing to any recharge of groundwater, a condition that Nvould not change Nvith construction of the project. In addition, the proposed project's operation Nvould not include any groundwater Nvells and the pumping that may be required for project operation is negligible. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and recharge and not mitigation measures are required. '0 SB 610 Britaruzia Cove Oyster PoirztProject,March 6"" 2013, Fame&Associates. 'I Treadwell&Rollo, Geotechrzical bivestigatiorz for Feasibility Evaluatiorz, 2011. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.H--3: The proposed project would not substantially after 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. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included mitigation measures related to erosion and sedimentation. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. There are no existing Nvater bodies or drainages on the project site and the project site is flat. Therefore, surface elevations on project site Nvould only be minimally altered to accommodate construction of the project. HoNvever, the proposed project's construction activities, including grading and relocation of the site's existing 48-inch storm drain Nvithin the 20-acre project site, Nvould be required and Nvould potentially result in soil erosion or siltation. The project Nvould comply Nvith the MRP, the NPDES General Construction Permit, the City s Standard Development Conditions, and the Citv's Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance. Compliance Nvith these regulations and permits Nvould restrict construction activities during the rain*season and require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, an erosion control plan, a grading plan, and a storm Nvater management plan for the project. Implementation of the erosion control and grading plan Nvould minimize the potential for the project's construction activities to alter the existing drainage pattern during the construction period such that it Nvould result in substantial erosion or siltation. Onsite storm Nvater infrastructure for the proposed project folloNving construction would capture runoff flows and direct them to the relocated 48-inch onsite storm drain, in the new location shoN-,n in Figure IV.H-1, and the City of South San Francisco's storm drain network. The project's storm Nvater infrastructure Nvould be designed, constructed, and maintained in compliance Nvith the MRP, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code Ordinance, and the Citv's Standard Development Conditions. Due to existing City codes and regulations and compliance Nvith state regulations, the existing drainage pattern during construction or operational activities Nvould not be substantially altered in a manner that Nvould result in substantial erosion or siltation either on- or off-site. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-17 �===a_seWOOOOo i VII I f /r p .o iµ1 e " t — s 0 e r Py o 1 m °j \\,��. ......... '3 9 o , °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Coua�ritOyStcr Point Figure IV.H-1 Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.H-4: The proposed project would not substantially after 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. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an impact conclusion regarding alteration of existing drainage patterns creating project site runoff and impacts to existing City runoff infrastructure. The impact discussion in this Draft Subsequent EIR is consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines requirements. The project site is flat, and there are no streams or rivers on the project site. Impacts from runoff during project operation are discussed in Impact IV.H-5. Similar to Impact IV.H-5 Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 the impact Nvould be less than significant. Impact IV.H--S: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or pro>>ide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR assumed that the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project projected runoff Nvould be conveyed to the existing main line storm drain system and discharged into the temporary outfall in the slot, or to the future, permanent City outfall at the edge of the San Francisco Bay. At the time of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, a drainage plan Nvas not completed; therefore for the purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR analysis, it Nvas assumed that the designed drainage system Nvould connect to the main line storm drain that Nvould allow for an inflow to accommodate a 25 Near storm event. Regarding Nvater quality, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included mitigation measures related to source control and treatment programs. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. Buildings, parking areas, and driveNvays associated Nvith the proposed project Nvould substantially increase the project site's impervious surface area by 636,910 square feet when compared to existing conditions, thereby potentially increasing project site runoff by 15,621 gpm. In comparison, development of the Parcel 1 of the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Nvould increase impervious areas by 643,942 square feet, Nvith a projected increased runoff of 15,755gpm. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have a loNver projected run off than the 1997 BaY West Cove Commercial Project as applied to Parcel 1. The analysis below reflects the projected change in runoff. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:H-19 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.H-2 Comparison of Projected Run Off Description CxA Cxa L30 Q9 Q (per) (imp) (cfs) (gpm) 1997 Auto Nation Project,Planning Area 1 1.32 13.30 2.40 35.10 15,755 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan 1.34 13.15 2.40 34.91 15,621 Source: Wilsey Hani, 2013. Notes: Rational Method Q=CiA C-values(pervious)C=0.25 C-values(impervious)C=090 Storm Frequency 30 year Ranifall Duration(min) 10 minutes Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)2.4 in/hr As shoN-,n in Figure IV.H-1, runoff from the proposed development site Nvould be captured in onsite infrastructure, including bioretention areas. Runoff is normally* infiltrated into the ground from bioretention areas. HoNvever, due to the existing conditions on the site that must be maintained (the soil cap), runoff Nvould be captured, treated, and directed to the City of South San Francisco's offsite storm drainage infrastructure. As discussed above, the proposed project's storm Nvater infrastructure Nvould be designed, constructed, and maintained to comply* Nvith the MRP, the SMCWPPP's C.3 Technical Guidance, the City of South San Francisco's California Building Code Ordinance, and the City's Standard Development Conditions. Compliance Nvith these regulations Nvould ensure that the proposed project Nvould not result in onsite flooding. The project proposed bioretention areas would be built to accommodate or exceed the standards of the SMCWPPP. By regulation, areas draining to the bioretention area cannot exceed 2 acres, areas draining to the bioretention area shall not contain a significant source of soil erosion, areas immediately* adjacent to bioretention area shall have slopes more than 0.5%for pavement and more than 1%for vegetated areas, and bioretention areas may* be sized to 4%of the impervious surface area on the project site. A complete list of requirements is included as Appendix C. The proposed project bioretention areas Nvould be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the SMCWPPP. Although rates and amounts of surface runoff resulting from the project have been calculated and the sizing of bioretention areas are within the limits prescribed by the SMCWPPP; runoff Nvould be released to City storm drains in the area. The capacity*of the existing City storm drainage infrastructure in the area has not been determined, due to the unavailability* of a City Nvide StormNvater Study.22 Thus, based on Chuck, Dennis: Senior Civil Engineer, 00) of South Sari Francisco. 2013. Personal Coniniunicatiorz via telephone with-llegari Giglirii of URS Cor^poratiori on February 12, 2013 regartlirig the absence of a 00)storm grater piaster plan arid urzcertailio) about the es-istzrzg capacities of or runoff flows to the existing storm water irz frastructure. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:H-20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; final design findings the project's impervious surfaces and onsite storm drainage infrastructure may require offsite improvements to the City s storm drainage infrastructure to accommodate the project's increased runoff contribution. The precise runoff rates for the proposed project Nyould be determined during the final design calculations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 Nyould require preparation of a final drainage study to determine Nyhether the Citv's infrastructure Nyould be able to absorb the increase in runoff from the proposed project If the existing infrastructure can accommodate the increase in runoff from the project,this impact Nyould be less than significant and no further mitigation Nyould be required. If, hoNvever, the projected project runoff Nyould be greater than the current capacity of the existing Citi<r storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H-1 Nyould be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 The folloNving mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated Nyith alteration of drainage patterns, increase in calculated peals flood discharge and localized flooding. The project on-site storinwater runoff shall be collected in a netv,-ork of detention basins that discharge into the existing 48-inch storm line that traverses the project site. Project storm lines connecting to the existing 48-inch storm line shall be designed Nyith sufficient capacity to accommodate the peals runoff from a 10-Near storm. The existing 48-inch line, Nyhich Nyill be relocated as part of the proposed project, shall provide sufficient capacity to accommodate a 25-Near storm. The project applicant shall prepare a final drainage study for the drainage basin to Nyhich the project site contributes, subject to approval by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading permit for the project. The final drainage study shall confirm the total and remaining capacity of the existing 48-inch and doNsnstream City storm lines. The final drainage study shall demonstrate the adequacy of on-site and downstream storm drainage lines to transmit post-project floNys Nyithout causing flooding. The final drainage study shall demonstrate that post-project flows are attenuated to the maximum extent practicable criteria defined in the best management practices prior to the City storm line's release into the Bay. If the final drainage study indicates that the total storinwater flows into the City s 48-inch line Nyould exceed the 25-Near design storm event, then the project Nyould either (1) provide additional detention on the project site to offset the project's contribution to the floNys, or (2) upsize the doNsnstream pipes and Nyithin the project site boundary N-,-hen that pipe is relocated as needed to accommodate the project's contribution to the floNys that are conveyed through the City s existing 48-inch line. With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 the impact Nyould be reduced to less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-21 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.H-6: The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Due to more stringent regulation for Nvater quality standards that the project is designed to meet, the proposed project includes measures that Nvould minimize previous potentially significant Nvater quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, previous mitigation measures have become part of the project design and are no longer required as mitigation measures as impacts Nvould be avoided. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project's subsurface construction activities (ex., excavation activities) could degrade groundNvater quality by providing a direct pathway for pollutants to enter the underlying aquifer. Potential pollutants could originate from accidental hazardous materials spills or leaks from improperly maintained construction equipment. In addition, the proposed project's construction could affect the underlying groundNvater quality if it resulted in the discharge of contaminated deNvatered groundNvater to the bioretention areas or other onsite storm Nvater runoff features. As discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the NPDES General Construction Permit regulations, implement a SWPPP, and implement spill prevention and control measures. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project Nvould be required to comply Nvith extensive federal, state, and local hazardous materials-related regulations that Nvould ensure implementation of plans and measures to prevent, control, and clean-up any accidental hazardous materials releases. Compliance Nvith these measures Nvould minimize the potential for leaks from construction equipment or accidental spills to affect the underlying groundNvater quality, similar to measures employed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. As discussed in Impact IV.H-2 the proposed project ma_-require deNvatering of groundNvater. As such, the project Nvould be required to comply Nvith the NPDES General Construction Permit, which allows for the discharge of uncontaminated groundNvater from deNvatering assuming compliance Nvith specific BMP, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The project could result in the discharge of contaminated groundNvater if the project's construction activities or equipment transported pollutants into the deNvatered groundNvater. HoNvever, per the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the project Nvould implement BMPs related to equipment maintenance and use, and spill prevention and control measures that Nvould minimize the potential for construction activities to contaminate any deNvatered groundNvater, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Therefore, this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Impact IV.H-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, no housing is proposed and as such there Nvould be no impact related to placing housing Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area. According to the FEMA LOMC letter dated October 12, 2012, the project site is not located Nvithin a 100 Near flood zone as defined by FEMA. Further, the project development Nvould consist of office and research facilities and a hotel, Nvith no permanent housing planned. In addition, as described in Impact Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-22 00)of South Sari Fr^aricisco April 2013 IV.H-8 below, the project Nvould not significantly alter the floodplain boundaries and thus Nvould not result in an expansion of the floodplain such that it Nvould affect any existing housing that is currently located outside of the floodplain. Therefore there is no impact associated Nvith housing in a flood hazard area and, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.H--8: The proposed project would not place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found this to be a less than significant impact and initiation of the LOMC process Nvas recommended as Mitigation Measure 113.2 for the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The process Nvas completed by FEMA and documented in its October 12, 2012 letter, therefore,this mitigation measure is no longer required. According to the FEMA LOMC letter dated October 12, 2012 the project site located at community panel number 060811C0042E, is not located Nvithin a 100-Near flood zone (Case number 01-09-916A). Therefore,the proposed project Nvould not place structures Nvithin a 100-Near flood hazard area and Nvould not impede or redirect flows in the project area. Therefore there is no impact associated Nvith placing structures Nvithin a 100-year flood hazard zone. Impact IV.H-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death in>>oh ing flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a leiee or dam. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project on exposure to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. This impact discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Guidelines. According to maps published by ABAG, the project site is not subject to inundation due to failure of a dam,nor are there any levees near the project area.21 The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of sea level rise flooding on the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial. This impact discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith 2013 CEQA Gruidelines. As previously mentioned, BCDC requires that any projects within its jurisdiction prepare a sea level rise risk assessments when planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects. Per BCDC sea level rise predictions the proposed project site is not within expected sea level rise areas,therefore there Nvould be no impact related to sea level rise. `� Association of Bay Area Gover^nnrerits (ABAG). 1995. Earthquake acid Hazards Irifc)r^nratioll Dam Failure. Inuridatiori, Dam Failure. Inuridatiori Ala s. Available.: http: quake.abq�yxa.gov dam failzn^e'. Accessed: llar^cli 6; 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio) Draft SubsequerztErzvironnrerztallmpactReport Page If:H-23 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.H--10: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow on the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. This impact is analyzed consistent N ith 2013 C'EQA Guidelines. A seiche is a very long surface Nvave that oscillates from shore to shore Nvithin an enclosed body of Nvater. While a seiche could occur in the San Francisco Bay, the topography surrounding the San Francisco Bav marina near the project site Nvould likely reduce the potential seiche magnitudes compared to more open areas of the Bay. In addition, the proposed project's distance from the marina Nvould reduce the potential risk of seiche-related inundation. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have less than significant impacts related to seiche inundation. The San Bruno Mountain slopes are located approximately to the northwest of the project site and could be susceptible to mudflows. HoNvever, U.S. 101 is located between the project site and the San Bruno Mountain and Nvould act as an impediment to slow or block mudflows from reaching the project site. In addition, the project site's distance from the hillside Nvould minimize the potential for mudflow inundation of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have less than significant impacts related to mudflow inundation. The proposed project is located approximately 60 feet from the San Francisco Bay marina area across Veterans Boulevard. Based on the State of California's Tsunami Inundation Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle, a portion of the site along Veterans Boulevard Nvould be located Nvithin a tsunami inundation zone. Thus, development of the proposed project could potentially expose people or structures to inundation from a tsunami and result in a potentially significant impact. As such, the proposed project could expose people and structures to the risk of inundation by tsunami. HoNvever, buildings constructed in flood hazard areas are required to comply Nvith the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC. Specifically, Section 15.56.140 identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high hazard areas,which include areas subject to inundation by tsunami. Developments shall be elevated above the flood level, anchored, and constructed of materials resistant to flood damage. The City has emergency services in place to respond to natural disasters. The Citv's emergency services are established in SSFMC Chapter 2.72, which also provides for the preparation and implementation of plans for protection of people and property in the event of an emergency. Under the General Plan, the City's Emergency Response Plan serves as the guide for emergency management. Considering site location the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact due to tsunami flooding. Mitigation Measure IV.H--10.1 Tsunami Inundation Evaluation As part of the final map approval, the project engineer shall submit data comparing the tsunami inundation zone to the project design in order to confirm that project buildings Nvill not be subject to tsunami inundation. As necessary, the report Nvill recommend grading or structural project improvements Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Qualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-24 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; that Nvill comply Nvith SSFMC Chapter 15.56, Flood Damage Prevention. Compliance may include but not be limited to raising structural elevations or flood proofing the proposed structures, as detailed in SSFMC Section 15.56.160, Standards of Construction. Recommendations included in the report and implemented as part of the project Nvill not increase potential flood hazards in other areas. The report and recommended improvements Nvill be certified by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City s floodplain administrator prior to the Citv,s issuance of anv development or building permits for the project. FolloNving approval of the report, the project applicant Nvill implement all recommended flood protection improvements as part of the project design and construction. Compliance Nvith the SSFMC requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H-10.1 Nvould reduce potential impacts resulting from tsunami inundation to a less than significant level CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Assuming concurrent implementation of the project Nvith other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and Nvater quality could include construction impacts related to increases in storm Nvater runoff and pollutant loading to Colma Creels and San Francisco Bay. The project and other future projects in the City Nvould be required to comply Nvith drainage and grading ordinances intended to control runoff and regulate Nvater quality at each development site. New projects Nvould be required to demonstrate that storm Nvater volumes could be managed by dovristream conveyance facilities and Nvould not increase flooding. Therefore, the impact of the project on Nvater quality and hydrology, in combination Nvith other foreseeable projects, Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Compliance Nvith federal, state and local regulation and implementation of BMPs and identified Mitigation measures Nvould reduce the level of significance for proposed project impacts on Hydrology and Water quality to a less than significant level. The long-term mitigation measures in the SWPPP are important to mitigate the potentially increased non-point source pollution due to the intensified land-use. The short- and long-term mitigation measures and BMPs outlined above Nvill serve to reduce the potentially significant impacts of increased non-point source pollution and increased sedimentation to receiving Nvaters during construction activities to a level of less than significant. Further, the proposed site drainage plan, proposed bioretention areas and Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 Nvould reduce the impact from project run off to a less than significant level. Implementation of BCDC policies and Mitigation Measure IV.H-9 and IV.H-10 Nvould reduce the impact from potential flooding at the site from tsunami or sea level rise to a less than significant level. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:H-25 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page left blank intentionally. 2072375.1 Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:H. Hydrology))Water Oualio) Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:H-26 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I. LAND USE AND PLANNING INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing land uses in the project area, which encompasses the project site and surrounding areas, and evaluates the potential for land use impacts associated Nvith implementation of the proposed project. A regulator- frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to land use. This section evaluates the potential impacts on land uses of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant land use impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the proposed project increases development on the project site, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant land use impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified land use impacts. Due to changing of land use regulations in the project area and design features, one previous potentially significant impact in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvas found to be less than significant in this Draft Subsequent EIR. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999), the City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR Amendment (2001), the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan (1994), the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.210 (The Bay West Cove Specific Plan), San Francisco International Airport Master Plan(2012), and photographs of the project area. Comment letters Nvere received from the San Francisco International Airport, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the land use impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould create one potentially significant and seven less than significant impacts on land use. Br^itaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I. Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.I-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact(4.2.2)Proposed Square Footage of Mitigation Measure(4.2.2)Proposed Square Footage Development Exceeds the Allowed Square Footage in of Development Exceeds the Allowed Square Footage the General Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove in the General Plan-The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the square footage of 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Mitigation Measure 4.2.2.which required the following Project proposed development exceeds the maximum for the applicant to accomplish this mitigation,as base floor area ratios and square footage of development summarized below. allowed by the General Plan for Business Commercial e Implementation of TDM Measures uses. The 2000 proposed development in Planning Area e Implementation of Off-Site Improvements I would exceed the allowed development of offices and e Implementation of Specified Design Standards. hotel space by 358,600 gsf.Proposed The impact would be reduced to less than significant office/R&D/technology space in Planning Area 2/3 would exceed allowed space by 98,484 gsf. These with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.2. inconsistencies would be a potentially significant impact of the project,unless the applicants were to reduce the scope of the project,and/or qualify for "bonus"floor area ratios specified in the General Plan. Impact(4.3.1)Consistency with General Plan No mitigation measures were required. Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 which Promotes Campus- Style Development,and East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-22 Which Encourages Open Space as a Continuous Unifying Element.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project is consistent with the basic objectives of General Plan Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 to promote campus-style office, high technology and research and development uses. The project is also consistent with Design Element Policy DE-22,thus the impact would be less than significant. Impact(4.3.2)Consistency with General Plan Policy No mitigation measures were required. 3.5-1-8 and East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-4a, Encouraging Development which serves the East of 101 Area.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that since the project would be consistent with City objectives to provide 30,000 gsf of commercial serti-ices(including a minimum of two restaurants)and day care facilities,and to encourage shoreline-oriented recreation,the impact would be less than significant. Impact(4.3.3)Conversion of Open Land to No mitigation measures were required. Development.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that although the project would convert open land to development the impact would be less than significant because of the past uses of the site and the accessibility it will create to the Bai-Trail. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--2 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.I-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact(4.3.4)Land Use Compatibility with Adjacent No mitigation measures were required. Properties.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project proposes a project which would have similar site improvements as high quality projects like Gateway Center and Sierra Point business parks,thus the impact would be less than significant. Impact(4.3.5)Inclusion of the 100ft.Shoreline Band No mitigation measures were required. Open Space in FAR Calculations.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that since the project includes a discretionary permit to allow the applicant to include Open Space in FAR calculations pursuant to LU-1 Ob,the impact would be less than significant. Impact(4.3.6)Consistency with the Airport Master No mitigation measures were required. Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that The Project is consistent with the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan,because it is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan,with respect to airport development and operations, thus the impact would be less than significant. Impact (4.3.7) Cumulative Land Use Impacts Land No mitigation measures were required. use impacts of the Project are site-specific.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the East of 101 Area Plan anticipates in its development policies,the build-out of the Area which includes the 2000 project site,and the transportation and utilities infrastructure necessary-to accommodate build- out. Therefore,no significant cumulative land use impacts are anticipated,thus the impact would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional and Local Setting The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project site is located in the East of the 101 Area Plan, in the City* of South San Francisco (the City), approximately 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and approximately 10 miles south of dOy-,ntOy-,n San Francisco. The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size and it is currently vacant and un-paved, yvith the exception of a City*-ovried sanitary* server pump located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, Caltrain railroad tracks to the yvest, Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay to the north, and commercial properties and research and development buildings to the east. The regional and local setting of the project site are similar to those described in the 2000 Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Land uses in the area consist of hotels, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies (Research & Development [R&D] uses), and other light industrial uses. Hotels, including Courtyard San Francisco and Residence Inn, are located directly to the north corner of the project site. Several other hotels and the South San Francisco Conference Center are located further south, although Nvithin the East of 101 Area, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Several R&D uses are located directly to the east and south of the property. Land uses to the east and south of the project site are generally housed in several-stony buildings surrounded by parking lots. The property to the east is located in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, Nvhile properties to the south are located Nvithin the Gateway Specific Plan District. The property to the east is a new addition since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and it Nvas developed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Office building development in the East of the 101 Area Plan and near the project site add to the overall character of the site. The project site is bounded to the Nvest by railroad tracks and several public storage buildings and U.S. 101. The northern border of the project site is bounded by the San Francisco Bay and hotels . New R D development occurred in the project area since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Additionally, the Gateway Master plan Nvas developed to further development in the project area. Local access to the project site is currently available from Oyster Point (major arterial) and Veterans Boulevards (primary roadway), similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Regional access is primarily provided by U.S. 101 via the Oyster Point Boulevard East exit, Nvhich is directly connected to Oyster Point Boulevard and the project site. The South San Francisco Caltrain and San Bruno BART Stations are located approximately 1 mile and approximately 2.8 miles southNvest of the project site, respectively. The project site is not directly accessible to transit, but is currently served by several shuttle services to connect employees Nvith area BART and CalTrain stations, Nvhich are new additions compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority is operating a new ferry terminal at the ONTster Point Marina Nvith Nveekday only commuter service between Oakland's Jack London Square or Alameda Main Street terminals in the East Bay, that opened since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Therefore the project site benefits from higher regional and local connectivity than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. No residential uses are located in the East of 101 Area, consistent Nvith the City's planning goals and policies for the East of 101 Area and similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Planning History The project site Nvas originally part of the Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area, established by the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Beginning in 1997, the approximately 55 acre (on- shore portion) Sheanvater Redevelopment Project Area (170 acres, 118 located offshore) has been redeveloped in phases. The proposed project is part of the Bay West Cove Commercial Development Project. The original site Nvas composed of three parcels previously developed Nvith steel and pipe fabrication facilities, ship repair facilities, loading docks, and Nvarehousing. Approximately 118 acres of the original site are located offshore and are not subject to development. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The on-shore area of the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site has been redeveloped in phases. In December 1997, the City certified an EIR for Bav West Cove, a proposed mixed use commercial project. The Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project site Nvas divided into five planning areas, Nvith each planning area proposing a different development scenario. The proposed project site Nvas defined as Planning Area 1 in the 1997 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. One planning area (Planning Area 5) Nvas located offshore in the San Francisco Bav and the only development proposed for Planning Area 5 Nvas to create tidal Nvetland, as required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup Order. By 2000, oniv Planning Area 4 had been developed Nvith the hotel uses proposed under the original 1997 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. In 2000, a development application Nvas submitted for the remaining undeveloped Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. The development application included a subsequent amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan dividing Planning Area 1 into two sub-planning areas: la and lb. Land uses permitted in Planning Area la included office/R&D, Nvhile land uses permitted in Planning Area lb included hotel. The City certified a Supplemental EIR for the Bay West Cove Commercial Project in 2000. Subsequently, Planning Areas 2 and 3 Nvere developed Nvith office and R&D uses. The current project is the last phase of development that began Nvith the original Bay West Cove Specific Plan in 1997. BST developing Planning Area 1, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point(project) is intended to complete development of the former Sheanvater Redevelopment Area and specifically complete the development objectives related to the adjacent Britannia Oyster Point. Project Site Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project site consists of six parcels and is approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and un-paved, Nvith the exception of a City- ovmed sanitary seNver pump located in the northern portion of the site. REGULATORY SETTING New and updated regulations have been enacted since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal There are no federal land use regulations applicable to the proposed project. State San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) The San Francisco Bav Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) updated the San Francisco Bav Plan in October 2011 to deal Nvith the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. The new and revised Bay Plan policies are summarized below: Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Risk Assessments. Sea level rise risk assessments are required when planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects to ensure the project is designed to cope Nvith flood levels expected by mid-century or end of century if the project Nvill remain in place longer than mid- centurv. Risk assessments are only required Nvithin BCDC's jurisdiction and projects located only in the shoreline band need only address risks to public access. Furthermore, risk assessments are not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, and infill projects Nvithin existing urbanized areas. • Sea Level Rise Projections. Risk assessments must be based on the best estimates of future sea level rise. The California Climate Action Team's sea level rise projections, ranging from 10-17 inches at mid-century and 31-69 inches at the end of the century, currently provide the best available sea level rise projections for the West Coast. However, scientific uncertainty remains regarding the pace and amount of future sea level rise, and project applicants may use other sea level rise projections if they provide an explanation. • Protecting Existing and Planned Development. Fill may be placed in the Bay to protect existing and planned development from flooding as Nvell as erosion. New projects on fill that are likely to be affected by future sea level rise and storm activity during the life of the project must be set back far enough from the shoreline to avoid flooding, be elevated above expected flood levels, be designed to tolerate flooding, or employ other means of addressing flood risks. • Designing Shoreline Protection. Shoreline protection projects, such as levees and seawalls,must be designed to Nvithstand the effects of projected sea level rise and to be integrated Nvith adjacent shoreline protection. Whenever feasible, projects must integrate hard shoreline protection structures Nvith natural features that enhance the Bay ecosystem, e.g., by including marsh or upland vegetation in the design. • Preserving Public Access. Public access must be designed and maintained to avoid flood damage due to sea level rise and storms. Any public access provided as a condition of development must either remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or equivalent access consistent Nvith the project must be provided nearby. • Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. Where feasible, ecosystem restoration projects must be designed to provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. • Encouraging Resilient Development. The policies encourage projects if their regional benefits, such as reducing carbon emissions by locating jobs and housing near public transportation, outweigh the risk from flooding. Projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety, such as repairs, small and interim projects, and parks, are also encouraged. • Preserving Undeveloped Areas. The policies encourage preservation and habitat enhancement in undeveloped areas that are vulnerable to future flooding and contain significant habitats or species, or are especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Regional Strategy. The policies call on the Commission, Nvorking Nvith other agencies and the general public, to develop a regional strategy for protecting critical developed areas along the shoreline from flooding, enhancing the natural resources of the Bay by preserving existing habitat and identiA-ing areas Nvhere tidal Nvetlands can migrate landNvard, and improving the ability of communities to adapt to sea level rise in Nvays that advance economic prosperity, social equity and environmental protection. Local The South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides a vision for the long-range physical and economic development for the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging Nvhether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent Nvith the City's plans and policy standards. The South San Francisco General Plan contains the folloNving chapters: • Land Use • Planning Sub-Areas Element • Transportation • Parks,Public Facilities, and Services • Economic Development • Open Space and Conservation • Health and Safety • Noise These chapters include six of the seven elements required by state law and other optional elements that address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh required element is the Housing Element, Nvhich is updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan and published under a separate volume. According to the City's 1999 General Plan, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, Nvith industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city and single-family homes to the north and Nvest. The City encompasses 4,298 acres of Nvhich single-family residences occupy approximately 33 percent of the land, industrial uses such as Nvarehouses and business parks occupy approximately 25 percent of the City's area, and parks and open space occupy approximately 10 percent of the land. The General Plan noted that business parks for high-technology research and development is one of the City's highest priority land uses. HoNvever, business parks occupy only 173 acres or 14 percent.' Commercial areas in the City total approximately 8 percent. Limited vacant land in the city requires new grosth to take the form of redevelopment and intensification. 'All percentages are net arid do riot include streets, water, arid other rights of 1j'ay. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The General Plan contains a Planning Sub-Area element. Policies in this element complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. Some of these sub-areas have detailed area plans, specific plans, or redevelopment plans. Where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to hoNy these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction provided by the General Plan. The sub-areas, 14 in all, Nyere collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. The project site is located Nyithin the East of 101 Sub-Area. The General Plan governs the amount and intensity of development Nyithin the East of 101 Sub-Area and establishes specific policies and goals for the area,including the project site. The project site is designated as Business Commercial District in the General Plan. As shos-,n in Figure IV.I-1 General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site are also Business Commercial, Nyhile on the shore of San Francisco Bav it is Park and Recreation. General Plan land use designations in the vicinity to the east of U.S. 101 include Business and Technology Park, Park and Recreation, Coastal Commercial, and Transportation Center. General Plan land use designations to the Nyest of U.S. 101 include Logy, Medium, and High Density Residential; Open Space, Community Commercial, DoN-,ntoN-,n Medium Density Residential, DoN-,ntoN-,n High Density Residential, and DoN-,ntoN-,n Commercial. Business Commercial The Business Commercial land use category is designated for business and professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gatevmy, and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce Avenue corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increase may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 Nyith increase to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. East of 101 Area Plan The East 101 Area Plan is one level beloNy the General Plan in the South San Francisco land use hierarchy and sets forth additional and more specific land use policies for the East 101 Area, in addition to those in the General Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan, Nyhich Nyas adopted by the City Council in 1994, contains a Land Use Element that designates the East of 101 Area into Planned Commercial, Light Industrial, Coastal Commercial, Airport-Related, Mixed-Use Categories, and Planned Industrial. The project site is designated Planned Industrial in the East of 101 Area Plan. HoNvever, General Plan Implementing Polio* The East of 101 area is (which is considered a single neighborhood because it corztairzs rzo residents) is further divided into jour areas for calculations related to approved arzd future developnierzt. For calculations related to approved arzd future developnierztpurposes, the project site is within the Gateway subarea. 3 00)of South Sari Francisco, South Sari Francisco General Plarz, Larzd Use Elenierzt(1999). Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:I--8 1 o aoo 1,000 2,000 � 4 ax NFeet Olk rn � a P���� V, Dy '" '� °'° + �i�rt�`� ♦aaA°� � ""� � . ���� � V�@tya-Atn,�, OR/" Ir, i 9 viii 01 tlm m A �a w'ir .." �:+Fr'nv� � J ...:...:.:.... Oo NO 0i�ah�n°` rrw9u"0r0Umu�Nr Y r •nriw�-�. 4 D +1 G� � I�pyu��,ru a?r tFP � ub " �� '✓�� apu � pr� u ry. � P � ts n w aw w � �'BaP 'Yw IIIIN4":Ig' W d V � m NY , lary g "q p� � ti0 a b r a ' tion "�"� �r , ti fR5a1M�i4�;+rt�t'p'm ta`a aq u 1L M r� �_� ,� �mman�mras aa0mt"Cw�rNttnur9ar kmw�'� —__ f� � � ��. Per E ans'paacmad(in cell ter d� Lott Oveday District � 0", `i f � aAA Existing�t,Yi�ndaatlA�Lrq��aWL eltect!nm � � �A � ed Street O"WZU Prop � V , InzteTchauurge0mtx n sectuaxrcn Study k,ea p 71 cl • �m 0B I� � aa�� ray r W�°v i xr ;. � its* f �VB9 44 °° City of South San Francisco Br,tru In Figure IV.1-1 nria con,(it Oyster Point Project Site General Plan Designations 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; 3.5-I-1 states "Maintain the East of 101 Area Plan as the detailed implementing guide for the area; amend it as appropriate for consistency Nvith the General Plan."Accordingly, where the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan conflict, land use policies and designations of the General Plan supersede those outlined in the East of 101 Area Plan. The City has, however, retained the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element policies to be the design guideline for development in the East of 101 Area. The land use plan Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan designates the majority- of the East of 101 Area as Planned Industrial. As discussed above, the project site is designated as Business Commercial in the City's General Plan, and the General Plan designation supersedes the East of 101 Area Plan. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Policies set forth Nvith the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are implemented through enforcement of the City s Zoning Code. The Zoning Code prescribes the alloNvable uses Nvithin specified zoning districts and imposes standards on those uses. Under the Citv's existing Zoning Code, the project site is subject to the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), Chapter 20.210 (Bay West Specific Plan District), Sections 20.210.00 through 20.210.14. As shos-,n in Figure IV.I-2, the project site is zoned as Bay West Specific Plan District. Zoning designations immediately surrounding the project site are GateNva-T Specific Plan District (GSPD) to the south, Business Commercial (BC) to the east, and Freewa-,T Commercial (FC) to the Nvest. Parks and Recreation (PR) and Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District (OPMSPD) zoning designations are located northeast and east of the project site. Zoning designations to the Nvest of U.S. 101 include Terrabay Specific Plan District (TSPD), Medium Density Residential(RM-15), and BC. Bay West Co>>e Specific Plan District The project is located in Bay West Cove Specific Plan Redevelopment District within the East of 101 Area Plan. The Bav West Cove Specific Plan serves to refine and to implement the General Plan Nvith respect to the specific plan area and to combine the concepts, procedures, and regulations of the General Plan,redevelopment plan, zoning ordinance, and certain aspects of the subdivision ordinance. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District is a redevelopment district created to refine and implement the City's General Plan for a specific area Nvithin the East of 101 Area Plan. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District is intended to provide for comprehensively planned development, long-term development of land uses, efficient extension of services and infrastructure, and coordination of planning efforts Nvith other agencies. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan establishes the type,location,intensity, and character of development to take place in the Specific Plan District. Uses categories include commercial and offices (not permitted in Planning Area 4); day care centers; restaurants; hotels and motels (not permitted in Planning Area la, 2 and 3); research and development (not permitted in Planning Area lb and 4); food and beverage sales and service (convenience market not permitted in Planning Area 4); maintenance and repair services, and personal services uses are permitted. Specific development standards and requirements for development Nvithin the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District include: Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--10 ��, ,G D/wmq, y ,i�� Bc sw ,,,,� FC Jame %% %/ of GSPD %i /////� U%� a � o ijr oo,6iu„ /J.06<;, ; " iw MISS" i i ia� eff GG„ ',�i% 'ii/% i, ///� j %%/lfll 0/0% Bc - m" Zoning Mi lJORM BC OPMSPDu BTP PQP PR GC BWCSPD i 1� RL-8 FC GMP TSPD a GSPD m IIII Cite./o f South San Francisco ll II IIII 0 II� i� � Br,/,,,,,,,a con,„/o„stcr roz„/ Figure IVJ 2 Project Sitc Zoriiri Desi riatior'rs 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Building Height: Maximum building heights shall not exceed the maximum height limit established by the San Mateo County airport land use commission based on Federal Aviation Administration Regulation Part 77.` Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area in Planning Areas la, lb, 2 and 3 is 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and .5 for all other uses unless the Planning Commission grants an FAR bonus in accordance Nvith the folloNving: • 0.4 for Hotels and Motels and 0.2 for all other uses for the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures. • 0.2 for the provision of off-site improvements. • 0.2 for Hotels and Motels and 0.1 for all other uses for projects meeting specified design standards. Setback and Yard Requirement: Setbacks shall be provided in accordance Nvith the folloNving table. Table IV.I-2 Setback Requirements Minimum Minimum Building Lan scAppd Setback Minimum Parking Setback,Feature Se back(ft)(1) 00 Setback(ft)(1) Ovster Point Boulevard 20 20 20 Ovster Point Boulevard adjacent to freeway 20 20 10 overpass structure West property line 20 10 10 East property line 20 6 15 Veterans Boulevard 20 20 20 Bav shoreline and marsh See note 2 35 100 Surface parking Avg of 20,minimum 15 n/a 10 ,rotes: I Activities permitted within building and parking setback areas include landscaPing,pedeste°ian walkways,gathering areas, driveways,and zrtilities. 2.Bay Conser-vation and Development Commission(BC.'D()jurisdictional area development will comply with requirements established by the BC.'DC pertaining to the BC.'DC jurisdictional area. The BC.'DC jza°isdictional area is located within one hzrndred feet of the mean high fide line.Commercial improvements located within the shoreline band are permitted by BC.'DC on a case-by-case basis. The City nzay similarly permit improvements within the shoreline band and as permitted by the East(?/'101 Area Plan. Parking Requirements (Chapter 20.210.008): Location of Parking: Parking may not be located Nvithin required setbacks. a Building heights in the project site area are limited to 1 j0 feet per airport-related heiglit restrictions. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorzmerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Handicap Accessible Parking: Designated"accessible parking" spaces and signs shall be provided to meet current CA Administrative Code regulations, Title 24, Part 2. In addition one in even* eight handicap accessible stalls required must meet van access standards. Shoreline Access Parking: Parking spaces required for public shoreline access shall be convenient to the shoreline and shall be properly and clearly marked and posted per the California Vehicle Code. Loading and Service Areas: o All loading facilities and maneuvering areas shall be located on the same site as the use it serves. o Loading and unloading shall only be permitted in the rear or side yard areas and shall not face the Bay or be visible from any public streets. o Aisle Nvidths adjacent to loading docks shall have a minimum Nvidth of 30 feet. o Loading docks shall be set back a minimum distance of 60 feet from the northerly right- of-Nvav line of Veterans Boulevard. o Loading facilities shall be adequately screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner through the use of screen Nvalls and landscaping. o Minimum aisle Nvidth adjacent to loading areas, Nvithout high dock doors, shall be 16 feet for one-Nvav traffic and 28 feet for N,-o-wav traffic. o Provisions shall be made on each site for necessary vehicle loading. On-street vehicle loading is prohibited. o No street parking, staging or maneuvering of delivery trucks shall be permitted in order to access loading docks unless Nvithin designated truck maneuvering areas. o Truck dock and loading zones are subject to individual evaluation by the City Public Works Department. o Thick docks or loading areas shall not face San Francisco Bay. Transportation Demand Management(Chapter 20.210.010): General Requirements —Planning Areas la, Ib, 2 and 3. 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Project sponsors shall implement a TDM plan to reduce vehicular trips, and shall be required to achieve a minimum 35 percent alternative mode use by tenant employees. 2. TDM Monitoring Report. The project sponsors shall prepare an annual TDM report to document a minimum 35 percent alternative mode usage as identified in the Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR. Transportation Demand Management Prozram(Chapter 20.400) The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Britannia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Manning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: • Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's police poNver and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and Nvelfare. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from grovlh in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco Nvill be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peal-,traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in Nvays to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan Because the project site is located in an area of the City subject to flights from San Francisco International Airport, the project site is also subject to airport-related height limitations of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan restricts building heights on the project site to from 100-150 feet above mean sea level. Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC Nvas updated in 2012 addressing specifically the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. Policy Consistency Analysis Conflicts beN,-een a project and applicable policies do not constitute a significant physical environmental impact in and of themselves; as such, the project's consistency Nvith applicable policies is discussed separately from the physical land use impacts associated Nvith the project. A policy inconsistency is considered to be a significant adverse environmental impact only when it conflicts Nvith a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is anticipated that the inconsistenev would result in a significant adverse physical impact(based on the established significance criteria). Conflicts Nvith a General Plan do not inherentIv result in a significant effect on the environment Nvithin the context of CEQA. As stated in Section 15358(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, "[e]ffects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change." Section 15125(d) of the Guidelines states that EIRs shall discuss anv inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable General Plans in the Setting section of the document(not under Impacts). Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--14 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Further, Appendix G of the Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) makes explicit the focus on environmental policies and plans, asking if the project Nvould "conflict Nvith any applicable land use plan, policy*, or regulation . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect" (emphasis added). Even a response in the affirmative, however, does not necessarily* indicate the project Nvould have a significant effect,unless a physical change Nvould occur. To the extent that physical impacts may* result from such conflicts, such physical impacts are analyzed elsewhere in this Draft Subsequent EIR. The General Plan contains many* policies, which may in some cases address different goals, and thus some policies may compete Nvith each other. The Planning Commission and City Council, in deciding whether to approve the proposed project, must decide whether, on balance, the project is consistent (i.e., in general harmony*)Nvith the General Plan. A comparison of the project characteristics Nvith applicable regional and local plans and policies is provided in Table IV.I-1. A similar table Nvas not provided in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, although the document found that the 2000 Bay- West Cove Commercial Project Nvould be consistent Nvith land use policies in the area. Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies Policy Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program Consistent:Development of the proposed project would that provides opportunities for continued economic result in the creation of a higher density business growth,and building intensities that reflect South San commercial campus,providing professional research and Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent development,administrative.commercial and regional access. construction related employment opportunities. The project would increase the site's existing FAR to 1.18, increasing the zoning potential by blending FAR across the project site for a total 0.86 blended FAR at build out, allowing for more business and employment opportunities. The proposed project also plans to connect and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain,BART, shuttles and Fern- seixice. Policy 2-G-3: Provide land use designations that Consistent: The proposed project would provide a large maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will employment center near transit routes including the result from BART extension to the City and adjacent existing and future BART, Caltrain, SamTrans(San locations. Mateo County Transit Authority)seixice routes as well as the San Francisco Bay Area Water Authority (WTA) fern terminal. This would assist in improving mobility access,bridge the geographic distance between housing and jobs,and support compatible land uses wid"the East of 101 Area. EAST OF 101 SUB AREA Policy 3.5-G-1: Provide appropriate settings for a Consistent: The proposed project guides development diverse range of non-residential uses. for research and development uses within a life sciences Britannia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If-1-15 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies Policy Consistency Analysis oriented campus and tourism and commercial uses. It does not include a residential land use component. Policy 3.5-G-3: Promote campus-style biotechnology, Consistent: The proposed project includes the high-technology,and research and development development of a higher density,contemporaiv,high uses. quality,life sciences oriented campus,which would promote research and development and commercial uses. Policy 3.5-I-4: Unless otherwise stated in a specific Consistent: The project proposes structures from three to plan,allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to nine stories in height. The San Mateo County Airport the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Land Use Commission height contours for structures Aviation Regulations Part 77. located in the project area allow for up to 150 feet above sea level.Building heights within the proposed project area would be within these maximum height limits, although it would require FAA notification. Policy 3.5-I-5: Do not vary permitted maximum Consistent:Development intensities would not vary: development intensities based on lot size. they would be consistent with blended FAR requirements across the sites for Britannia Cove at Oi-ster Point and Britannia Oi-ster Point. Policy 3.5-I-8: Encourage the development of Consistent:Project amenities on the site would include employee-seining amenities with restaurants,cafes, various employee amenities such as cafes,restaurants, support commercial establishments such as dry and a day-care facility and a hotel. cleaners,to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses. PARKS AND RECREATION Policy 5.I-G-3: Provide a comprehensive and Consistent: The parking structure and building integrated network of parks and open space:improve placement allow for the creation of a series of outdoor access to existing facilities where feasible. spaces on the project site. The open space and landscape zones would include a central commons, sheet frontage, arrival areas,and parking structure frontage. These open space areas would contain outdoor amenities,gathering spaces,passive use areas,and landscape screens,and would be approximately 242,282sf. The Bay Trail would be accessible from the project site. TRANSIT Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient uses of existing Consistent: The East 101 Area is not directly seined by transportation facilities and,through the arrangement transit. The area relies on supplementaiv shuttle seivices of land uses,improved,alternative modes,and to connect employees to BART, Caltrain,and SamTrans. enhanced integration of various transportation systems Shuttle seivices are operated by Peninsula Traffic seining South San Francisco,strive to reduce the total Congestion Relief Alliance and include the Utah-Grand vehicle miles traveled. and Oi-ster Point shuttles. The Oi-ster Point Shuttle runs between South San Francisco Caltrain Station and Oi-ster Point Boulevard offices.An existing shuttle stop is located along Veterans Boulevard,on the east side of the proposed project. The existing and proposed transit and shuttle stops provide employees with the option to take alternative modes of transportation and help to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, Consistent: The existing shuttle stops along Oyster Point continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Bled and Veterans Bled near the project site would be Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point If:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies Policy Consistency Analysis maintained under the proposed project. Policy 4.3-I-3: Require provision of secure covered Consistent: A Transportation Demand Management bicycle parking at all existing and fixture multifamily (TDM) study conducted for the Britannia Cove at Oyster residential,commercial,industrial,and Point Precise Plan area identified measures to be taken in office/institutional uses. order to promote alternative modes of transportation and reduce total vehicle miles traN-eled.The TDM specifies that on-site bike storage including racks,cages,lockers and inside storage be required as site design features for development of the proposed project. Policy 4.4-G-1: Promote local and regional public Consistent:Existing transit seixice in the East of 101 transit seii-ing South San Francisco. area includes Caltrain,BART, SamTrans seixices,and the San Francisco Bai- Area Water Transit Authority (WTA). Policy 4.4-G-2: Explore mechanisms to integrate Consistent: The TDM has identified several strategies to various forms of transit. promote the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduce the total vehicle miles traveled. Some of these strategies include provision of bicycle parking,direct routes to transit,free parking for carpools and vanpools, designated passenger loading zones,pedestrian connections,preferential carpool and vanpool parking, shower and locker facilities,installment of transportation information boards and kiosks,designation of a TDM coordinator to promote TDM strategies,carpool/N-anpool matching sen-ices,etc. A complete list of TDM strategies can be referenced in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE Policy 1.1: Promote planned industrial,office,and Consistent: The project proposes office,commercial and commercial uses in the East 101 Area,and research and development uses and would complement discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with existing industrial,office,and commercial uses in the these uses. East of 101 area. Policy 1.2: Encourage development that enhances net Consistent:Development of the Britannia Cove at revenues to the City. Oi-ster Point Precise Plan would stimulate the local economy by increasing the amount of high quality research and development oriented jobs in the East of 101 area. Policy 1.3: Promote development that creates quality Consistent: The employment positions that will be jobs for South San Francisco. provided through development of the proposed project include a mixture of high quality office and research and development jobs. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION Policy 2.4: Provide for adequate amounts of parking Consistent: The project would include 2,670 parking in the East of 101 Area. spaces upon completion of all three construction phases. The project includes a TDM plan to reduce vehicles on the site. The number of parking spaces provided would be supportive of the recommendations of the TDM plan and would be consistent with the City's expectations for parking on the site since they will meet City parking requirements. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--17 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.I-3 Comparison of Project Characteristics to Applicable Regional and Local Plan Policies Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 2.5: Encourage and support transportation Consistent: The proposed project will include a variety modes other than single-occupancy automobiles of transportation amenities,connections,and seixices to including ridesharing,bicycling,walking and transit. support alternative modes of transportation such as transit,bicycling,and walking. The proposed project includes a TDM plan to promote and encourage alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. Policy 5.1:Promote high quality site,architectural and Consistent:Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan landscape design that increases a sense of identity in includes a master sign,architectural and landscape design the East of 101 Area. element that would ensure a coherent space that matches the identity of the East of 101 Area. Policy 5.2: Improve the streetscape quality of the East Consistent: The Oyster Point BouleN-ard frontage of 101 Area through planting of street trees and buildings at the corner of Gateway and Oyster Point provision of entry monuments. Boulevards would provide an iconic gateway defining the campus.Further, streetscape would be improved with new landscaping around the perimeter of the project area. Policy 5.3:Protect visually significant features of the Consistent: The project is bordered by the Oyster Point East of 101 Area,including views of the Bay and San inlet part of the Bay. The positioning of building would Bruno Mountain. allow for views of the Bay of open space users,as well as office building occupants:therefore,the project would not block those views. Further views of San Brno Mountain would be aN-ailable to users of office buildings located on the west side of the campus. Although the project includes buildings from three to nine stories in height due to the campus style position and the relative distance of the views from surrounding land uses the project would not hinder views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain. TRANSPORTATIONDEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM(SSFMC, CHAPTER 20.400) Policy 2.6: Promote the use of public transit to and Consistent: The proposed project would promote and within the East of 101 Area. provide transit seivice within the East of 101 Area. Presently,a variety of supplementary shuttle seivices connecting employees from BART, Caltrain,and SamTrans,operated by Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance,operate in the project area The shuttles travel along Oyster Point Boulevard,and seine the Oyster Point Boulevard offices. Further,the proposed project includes a TDM plan to promote and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Source: URS,2013. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The analysis in this section focuses on the compatibility* of land uses identified in the proposed project area v ith existing and planned land use adjacent to the master plan area, as v ell as consistency*with any* Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--18 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The analysis presented in this Draft Subsequent EIR is based on similar information as the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, but it also considers new project site information and updated regulations. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from land use and planning if the project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: Phvsicallv divide an established community. • Conflict Nvith any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency Nvith 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. • Conflict Nvith any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance as the 1997 Bav West Cove Commercial Project EIR, which differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include questions regarding established communities. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant land use impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified land use impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Due to new regulations and design features the proposed project does not require mitigation measures and Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR is no longer required. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analvsis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--19 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impact IV.I--1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not analyze the impacts of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project on established communities. This impact discussion is consistent With 2013 ( A Guidelines requirements. The East of 101 Area has been previously developed and is reserved by the City for non-residential development.No residential structures currently occupy the existing project site, and residential structures are not permitted in the East of 101 Area, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Existing and future uses developed on the project site Nvould include office and R&D activities. These uses are consistent Nvith existing land uses in the surrounding area Nvhich include industrial, Nvarehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Currently the site is vacant; therefore no existing business or residential community Nvould be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project Nvould not divide an established community. There Nvould be no impact and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.I 2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction o>>er the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted with the purpose of aiwiding or mitigating an en>>ironmental ef'f'ect. Local Regulations As shossn in Figure IV.I-1, the City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) designates the proposed project site as Business Commercial, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project site is also located Nvithin the BaY West Cove Specific Plan District, Nvhich provides zoning for the coordinated development of planned areas Nvith various commercial and research and development uses in the District. The Bay West Cove Specific Plan District allows for an FAR of 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and .5 for all other uses. The Bay West Cove Specific Planning District zoning provides for the coordinated development of comprehensively planned areas Nvith various commercial and research and development uses in the District. The project proposes the development of a contemporary, high-quality, high-density business park in three phases. Surface parking Nvould be reconfigured on the site to accommodate parking during all phases of construction to continuously provide parking at a ratio of not to exceed more than 2.83 spaces per 1,000 s£ All land uses proposed by the proposed project Nvould be consistent Nvith uses alloNved under the site's General Plan and Zoning designations, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould require amendments to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance. The amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District would maintain the FAR on Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 at 1.2 for Hotels and Motels and increase the FAR to 1.0 for all other uses (unless the Planning Commission grants an FAR bonus for use of TDM, off-site improvements, and specified design standards). The project Nvould be constructed at an FAR of 1.18 on the Britannia Cove at ONTster Point site; hoNvever, Nvith the blending of FAR from one Planning Area to another across the Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; original Britannia Cove and Britannia Oyster Point(Planning Areas 2 and 3) planning areas, the FAR on the site Nvould be aggregated to an FAR of 0.86. This aggregated FAR Nvould be consistent Nvith the FAR for the project site adopted Nvith the Specific Plan amendment. As previously discussed, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR proposed for Planning Area 1 (the proposed project site) 620,000 sf of office space and a 296,000 sf hotel. The proposed FAR for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould be a 1.0 FAR for office/R&D and 2.0 FAR for hotel. The proposed project Nvould maintain the 1.2 alloNved FAR for hotel uses and increase the FAR for office/R&D to 1.0, from the 0.5 alloNved. Although development on the site Nvill be at a greater intensity under the proposed project than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, in comparison the proposed project proposes a smaller increase in FAR than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area 1. With the approval of the Specific Plan and zoning amendments, the project Nvould be consistent Nvith the Bay West Cove Specific Plan and Bay West Cove Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance regarding building coverage, setbacks, parking requirements and circulation requirements. Total parking provided for the project at ultimate buildout Nvould be 2,670 spaces, provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project The project Nvould also include the adoption of Design Guidelines, vesting tentative subdivision map approval, approval of a TDM Plan, and a Sign Application approval. The proposed project Nvould include a change to Planning Area 1 to consolidate sub-areas IA and 1B into one planning area, and text amendments to clarIA- the aggregation of FAR across Planning Area 1. Table III-2 outlines the development standards in the City's Zoning Code and any changes that Nvould occur under the proposed project. Table VLI4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan and Municipal Code Changes Existing Bay West Cove Specific Proposed Bay West Cove Specific Plan and Municipal Code Zoning Plan and Municipal Code Zoning District District Building Limitations Life-Science/Office/R&D FAR is 1.0 FAR may be blended across Planning Gross FAR and the Hotel FAR is 2.0.Hotel will Areas within the Bav West Cove not be counted against the 1.0 Specific Plan District provided that Office/R&D FAR and the Life the maximum development allowed Science/Office/R&D FAR will not be for the Bay West Cove specified in applied against the hotel FAR. the Bay West Cove Specific Plan is not exceeded. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Lalid Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--21 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Planning Area 1 Divides Planning Area 1 into la and Planning Area 1 would be amended lb. to(1)eliminate the alternatives considered for Planning Area 1 in the prior 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan: (2)consolidate Planning Areas la and lb: (3)allow for the development of both Life Sciences/Office/R&D uses and Hotel uses within Planning Area 1:and(4) allow for density- to be transferred from Planning Area 2 within the Bay West Cove Specific Plan to Planning Area 1. Lead Agency City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco due to Redevelopment Agency elimination of Redevelopment Agency authority under state law. Source:Bay Nest Cove Specific Plan,Jztly 26, 2012. Development of the currently* vacant site at an FAR of 1.18 Nyould be more intense than the current zoning on the site, and then the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The City-has been approving zoning amendments in the East of 101 Area to increase development in the area. The 1.25 FAR alloNyed under the Gatevyay Specific Plan District zoning in the vicinity* of the proposed project Nyas adopted for the purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gatevyay Specific Plan District at a higher density*. Therefore, the proposed blending of FAR on the site Nyith the Britannia Cove development and the FAR of other parcels in the area Nyould be consistent Nyith recent City*action and amended zoning regulations in the project area. As surrounding properties are redeveloped,it is likely that they Nyill also be developed at increased densities as Nyell. Therefore, the project's density* is consistent Nyith the City's vision for development in the area and Nyould not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found, as shos-,n in the Prior Analysis section, that development at a greater FAR than Nyhat Nyas alloNyed under City regulations Nyould be a potentially* significant impact(Impact 4.2.2). Due to recent City* action, the redevelopment in the project area and the proposed zoning amendments, this Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that the project Nyould not conflict Nyith any applicable land use plan, policy*, or regulation adopted Nyith the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and this impact Nyould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Further, Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR is noNy part of project design as outlined in Section III Project Description. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project is no longer necessary. BCDC Regulations A permit from BCDC is required before engaging in any project Nyithin 100 feet from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay. BCDC Permit No. M98-66 Nyas issued in 1999 to permit Auto Nation to construct a used auto dealership on the Cove Property*, as outlined in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR. This permit has lapsed. Currently*the site is under BCDC Permit No. M98-41, Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning Draft Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--22 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 which BCDC granted to Bay West Cove for the construction of Veterans Boulevard (formerly Parcel 7 of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project site)that lies Nvithin the 100 feet of the shoreline. Although the proposed project does not include any improvements to Veterans Boulevard in its NOP comment letter BCDC stated that a portion of the proposed project may partially be located within the Commission's jurisdiction. The proposed project does not include any improvements to the shoreline band or any development on the shoreline band. Further, as discussed in Section IV.D Biological Resources no Nvatenvays occur onsite, and no Nvetlands Nvere found onsite during the 2013 site visit. Therefore,the proposed project Nvould have no impact on any Nvater features under BCDC jurisdiction. The proposed project site does not contain anv Nvater oriented priority land uses and although the project site is near the ONTster Point Marina,it is not expected to have any impacts on the Oyster Point Marina and its users. Therefore,the proposed project Nvould have no impact on Nvater oriented priority land uses The proposed project includes providing higher accessibility to bicycles and pedestrians to the adjacent Bav Trail. This Nvould be in compliance Nvith BCDC policy Gov. Code section 66632.4 to provide maximum feasible public access to the bay and its shorelines. Therefore the proposed project Nvould have no impact on public access to the Bay Trail, and Nvould enhance access to the Bay Shore recreational opportunities. Further, as discussed in Section IV.D H Hydrology and Water Quality the project site is not Nvithin BCDC expected sea level rise areas, therefore there Nvould be no impact related to sea level rise, and the proposed project Nvould not require a public access risk assessment. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR included an analysis of impacts to the Bav Trail under BCDC jurisdiction. These impacts, as summarized in the Prior Analvsis section, related to Planning Area 2/3 and Planning Area 4, not Planning Area 1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project included a 8 foot Nvide path in Planning Area 2/3. Further, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found the impact on the Bay Trail to be less than significant. Impact IV.I--3: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conseri�ation plan or natural community conseri�ation plan. There is no natural community plan or applicable habitat conservation plan that applies to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Impacts to potential biological resources are addressed in Section IV.D Biological Resources. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no mitigation measures are required, similar to the 2000 Ba-NT West Cove Commercial Project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction Nvith other development in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco, unless othenvise specified. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative gros-,th Nvithin this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development of the East of 101 Area. Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use aril Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--23 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a discussion of the project relative to planning policy is included in the environmental setting section. Implementation of the project Nvould require Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments. HoNvever, once these amendments Nvere made the project Nvould be consistent Nvith the General Plan and Zoning Code and there Nvould be no impact, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. . Cumulative development Nvithin the City could have a potentially significant effect on the environment by conflicting Nvith an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency Nvith jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental affect. Cumulative development in the East of 101 Area Nvill include by Near 2035 over 5 million sf of office and 12.7 million sf of R&D uses. The City has designated the East of 101 Area as an area reserved for non-residential uses and has implemented planning policies and zoning to provide for the transformation of the East of 101 Area to a denser office/research and development center. Therefore, the City has planned and accounted for development of the proposed project in conjunction Nvith similar projects in the area in the applicable regional and local plans and policies. Cumulative development Nvould be consistent Nvith existing plans and polices, and the desired future outcome of the East of 101 area and cumulative impacts to land use and planning policies Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Because no impacts related to land use and planning have been identified, no mitigation measures are required or recommended. 2072143.1 Britaririia Cove.at Oyster Point IT:I.Land Use acid Planning Draft Subseguerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:I--24 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS J. NOISE INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft SEIR describes noise in the project area, Nvhich comprises the project site and neighboring uses.. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to noise. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, therefore the proposed project Nvould result in new significant impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified noise impacts. New and supplemental mitigation measures are provided consistent Nvith the revised noise analysis, Nvhich considers the current conditions on the project site. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the East of 101 Area Plan, San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, and data from measuring and modeling existing and future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. Traffic information contained in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project Nvas used to prepare the noise modeling for vehicular sources. No comment letters related to noise Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on noise as identified in Table IV.F-1. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Nvould result four less than significant impacts. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra f t Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.J-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 8.2.2—Short Term Construction Noise.The No mitigation measure required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified project construction noise as less than significant impact because it will produce noise above existing ambient levels. Impact 8.2.3-Minor Increase in Noise Levels from No mitigation measure required. the Project,Vehicular Traffic and Trains. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the developed project would increase noise levels in the vicinity,and would constitute a less than significant impact on the existing land uses in the area. Impact 8.2.4—Consistency with Noise Element No mitigation measure required. Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would be consistent with noise element policies in the area and would have a less than significant impact. Impact 8.2.5—No Cumulative Impact.The 2000 Bay No mitigation measures were required. West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would have a less than significant impact on cumulative noise in the area,as there are no other planned projects at the same time and the existing industrial land use in the area would not be impacted. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The environmental setting consists of a revised analysis of existing noise levels in the project vicinity and on the project site. Since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project the Britannia Oyster Point (Planning area 2/3) Nyas developed and the Gatevmy Master Plan Nyas implemented. Therefore, baseline conditions have changed and are presented in this section. Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Noise Noise can be defined as miNvanted sound. It is commonly measured Nvith an instrument called a sound level meter Nyhich senses sound Nvith a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB). To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the Nyay humans perceive noise, the A- Nveighting filter is used. A-Nyeighting de-emphasizes logy-frequency and very* high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-Nveighting is required by most local agencies as Nyell as other Federal and State noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often used N-,-hen the A-Nveighted sound level is reported. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. -N-oise DraftSubsequerztErzvirorznzerztallnzpactReport Page If:J-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantiA- the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fulIv describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies;the Lm, Leq, L,,o and La„(or CNEL). The maximum instantaneous noise level (L,,,,,) is often used to identIA- the loudness of a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level, the equivalent noise level (Leq) is used. Leq is the energy average noise level that is equivalent to a perfectly constant sound pressure level containing the same acoustic energy over a given time interval. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway- traffic. It can be quantified Nvith a descriptor called the Lqo which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantiA- the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (La„ or DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include, by definition, a ten dBA "penalty"for noises that occur during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for people's sensitivity to intrusive noise during these hours. The CNEL also includes a five dBA "penalty" during evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) to account for peoples' increased sensitivity during these hours.' In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable and a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of loudness. Existing Noise Environment The major noise sources affecting the project site are vehicular traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard, , and aircraft overflights from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). U.S. 101 and the railroad tracks that support Caltrain and freight train operations are also located to the Nvest. The project site is currently vacant. Various commercial buildings adjacent to the project site are located to the north, south and east. Noise measurements Nvere conducted near the project site to quantiA- the existing noise environment. These included four 1-hour short-term noise measurements (Locations 1 through 4). Each measurement location represents an area adjacent to the project site that may be impacted adversely by project related noise. Short-term measurement Locations 1 through 4 represent the noise exposure at the closest noise receivers to the project site. Locations 1 and 2 represent the noise environment at the commercial buildings to the south and east of the project site. Location 3 and 4 represent the noise environment at the two closest noise sensitive receivers. The noise measurement locations are shoN-,n in Figure IV.J-1. Results of the noise measurements can be found in Table IV.J-2, which includes the Leq and L percentiles noise levels at all four noise measurement locations. 'American Vatiorial Standards Institute,Al;SI S1.1-1994,Acoustical Terminology, 1994. 'C.'oweliHarzdbookoffrzvironnzerztalAcoustics, 1994. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironmerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--3 m r t N r ii/ I� m 11 N, r r i r 9 �e ST 1 U ,lr r' Nwl� Ar ' ✓Li wn irim� u ";jJ��� ',. A ���/ '� o V,. �� 0� � f ni, � ✓� �'/l �� it � r xr f Y a r/ l , ✓ �` � % �mf% r;r ,; �r ,i��V� � w*r,�' 1%1SI �fM1a ���� �IM �Di ��� e Gib �r� �r,!e"'a r� 'Yf0 it ��y ✓���Itao'... /, �,o���i IN s r. � ° �� rp r 1�S��VD1, � r✓!Y �f'r �� )�r r JNnr,' �� %11�rr, � �uI010� / ,,,,,��Ad� l tl�l(4iN m ° Im Im City of South San Francisco II II III I Britannia Cosa'(it Oi�stcr Point Figure IVJ-1 Noise Measurement Locations 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 The project environment is dominated by traffic noise from U.S. 101. No long-term noise measurements wvere conducted because there wvere no nighttime land uses near the project site. To determine the CNEL at each of the noise measurement locations, the traffic noise from U.S. 101 wvas propagated out to each of the short-term noise measurement site locations to determine their respective CNEL noise level. Table IV.J-2 shows the CNEL noise levels at each noise measurement location. The traffic noise CNELs wvere propagated using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise prediction equations. The area surrounding the project site is dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101 and Caltrain operations, which adds up to an exposure level of 70 Leq dBA. During the short-term noise measurement survey*, train operations along the Caltrain rail line produced noise levels of up to 81 dBA L,,,,, at Location 4 and as low as 56 dBA L,,,,, at Location 2. Recorded aircraft overflights noise levels ranged between 62 and 71 dBA L,,,,,. Additional noise sources included landscaping activities and car horns/alarms. Table IV. J-2 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results A-weighted Sound Level,dBA Location Time Ley Lio L, Lvo Lmin 1 Corner of Oyster Point Boulevard 10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. 65 68 64 60 55 and Gatewav Boulevard Veterans Boulevard 2 (East side of site 90 feet to 11:05 a.m. - 12:05 p.m. 55 57 54 51 49 centerline of roadway) Airport Boulevard 3 (West side of site on the other end 12:40 p.m. - 1:40 p.m. 70 72 70 69 66 of U.S. 101 90 feet to centerline of roadway) Veterans Boulevard 4 (Courtyard Marriott Hotel parking 1:50 p.m. -2:50 p.m. 60 61 57 56 54 lot 100 feet to centerline of roadway) Source: URS Corporation 2013 Noise Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Area Land uses surrounding the site are mostly* limited to offices, commercial and light industrial. Noise sensitive land uses are typically* defined as residences, schools, places of worship, hospitals, care centers and hotels. The nearest noise sensitive land use is an existing hotel (Courtyard Marriott) located to the north that is approximately* 420 feet from the northern property* line. Another hotel (Residence Inn Marriott) is located 900 feet to the north. The nearest residential land uses are located to the southwest of the site. These residences are located along the west side of Airport Boulevard, west of U.S. 101 and are approximately*750 feet from the project site. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. DraftSnbsegnerztErzvirorznzerztallnzpactReport Page If:J-5 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.J-3 CNEL Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Locations A-weighted Sound Level Location dBA CNEL Coiner of 01-ster Point 1 Boulevard and Gatewav 62.4 Boulevard Veterans Boulevard 2 (East side of site 90 feet to 622 centerline of roadway) Airport Boulevard 3 (West side of site on the other 72.8 end of U.S. 101 90 feet to centerline of roadway) Veterans Boulevard 4 (Courtyard Marriott Hotel 70.1 parking lot 100 feet to centerline of roadway) Source: URS Corporation 2013 Regulatory Setting New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Local Noise Guidelines The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project is located in South San Francisco which has noise standards in its General Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed project is subject to the noise policies of the East of 101 Area Plan and County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. City of South San Francisco General Plan The Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan contains policy statements Nvith the goal of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout South San Francisco. The City has guidelines for noise and land use compatibility*in the noise element. These guidelines are summarized in Table IV.J-4. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.32.030 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies maximum permissible sound levels to be generated by any property*Nvithin the City. The maximum alloNvable noise level is determined by the land Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft,SubsegnerztErzvirorznrerztallmpactReport Page If:J--6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; use category of the receiving property. These levels are summarized in Table IV.J-4. The levels shoN-,n in Table IV.J-4 are applicable for noises that occur up to 30 minutes per hour. Higher noise levels are alloNved, but for shorter periods of time. Chapter 832.050 (d)identifies a Special Provision Nvhich allows construction activities Nvith a City permit between the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nveekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. A permit must be obtained from the City before construction begins. Other hours may be authorized by obtaining a permit, provided the construction meets at least one of the folloNving requirements: 1. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed Nvithin a structure or trailer on the property,the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. 2. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. Table IV.J-4 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas Land Use CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Residential Less than 65 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed Over 70 Development should not be undertaken Commercial Less than 70 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 80 Airport-related development only: special noise insulation should be provided Industrial Less than 75 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 85 Airport-related development only: special noise insulation should be provided Open Less than 75 Satisfactory:no special insulation requirements Over 75 Avoid uses invoking concentrations of people or animals Source:City of Sorrth Saar Francisco General Plan Noise Element,SFO Air portLand Use Plan East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan applies to the areas of South San Francisco bounded by the City limits to the north and south, the San Francisco Bay to the east and U.S. 101 to the Nvest. The Plan's Noise Element provides policies to ensure anticipated land uses in the plan area Nvill not be exposed to unacceptable Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft SubsequerztErzviroznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:J--7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; noise levels. For commercial development, Policy* NO-2 states that the daytime interior hourly* average noise levels (Leq) should not exceed Leq 45 dBA and instantaneous interior noise levels (Lmj should not exceed 60 dBA. The East of 101 Area Plan indicates that office and retail buildings located between Colma Creels and Oyster Point Boulevard are required to provide a minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27 dBA. This minimum attenuation is based on an aircraft noise level of Lm, 87 dBA which is comparable to the airplane Lm,values measured for this analysis. Table IV.J-5 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level(dB) R-E,R-1 and R-2 zones 10 p.m. -7 a.m. 50 or any single-family or duplex residential in a 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60 specific plan district R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family 10 P.M. -7 a.m. 55 residential or mixed residential/commercial in 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60 any specific plan district C-1,P-C. Gateway and Oyster Point Marina 10 p.m. -7 a.m. 60 specific plan districts or any commercial use in 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 65 any a specific plan district M-L P-1 Ani-time 70 Source:City ofSozrth Saar Francisco Vbtnicipal Code San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan The current San Mateo Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Nvas adopted by the San Mateo County* Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in December 1996. It contains the same standards that are presented in the Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element (Table IV.J-3 of this analysis). Chapter V of the San Mateo County*ALUC Nvas updated in 2012 addressing specifically*the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines contains a checklist to identiA- whether a proposed project could result in potentially* significant impacts Nvith respect to either noise or vibration. These guidelines have been adopted as thresholds of significance. A potentially* significant impact Nvould occur if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft,SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:J--8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity* above levels existing Nvithout the project. • A substantial temporary* or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity existing Nvithout the project. • For a project located Nvithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, Nvithin N,-o miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or Nvorlcing in the project vicinity*to excessive noise levels. • For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or Nvorlcing in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels. Neither the CEQA Guidelines nor the City's General Plan define what is considered to be a "substantial increase." In general, an increase 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable and a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving). Therefore, the folloNving increases in noise are considered to be significant: • 5 dBA or greater if the future noise is Nvithin the normally acceptable range (CNEL 65 dBA or less for residences,hotels and child care; CNEL 70 dBA or less for offices and retail). • 3 dBA or greater if future noise level is above the normally acceptable range. CEQA, the City and the State do not speciA- acceptable vibration levels from construction activities. For the purposes of this assessment, the methodology described by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is used.' These FTA criteria are based on the potential for annoyance and interference Nvith vibration sensitive activities which is much more stringent than criteria for structural damage. The FTA specifies an impact criterion of a vibration level of 80 VdB-'for residences and hotels, and 83 VdB for offices. These criteria are for "infrequent" events (i.e. transit train passbys). Although more stringent criteria are recommended for"frequent"or"occasional"events,these are not used since construction activities Nvould generally occur during the day-mime and Nvould not be permanent. The methodologies used in this section have not changed from the noise analysis conducted in 2000 Supplemental EIR and the current analysis. s Transit Voise arid I7bratiorz InrpactAsses/neat,Federal Transit Administration,May 2006 4 VdB—The vibration velocity level expressed in decibels re one micro-inch per second. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Impacts Impact IV.J--1: The proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local generalplan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Operational noise at the site, such as that created by HVAC equipment, would exceed the noise generation standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code. The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the project buildings Nvould be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. At this time the details of the HVAC system are not lcnoN-,n and therefore, precise predictions cannot be made regarding the noise levels at the nearby land uses. It is possible that HVAC noise levels could exceed the limits of the Municipal Code at adjacent noise sensitive land uses such as the Courtvard Marriott Hotel and the child care center located approximately 350 feet east of the project site. The child care center located approximately 700 feet south of the project site Nvould likely not be impacted by the HVAC equipment due to its distance from the site. ? This is considered to be a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J- 1.1 Nvould reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring the project's HVAC design to include noise control measures adequate to meet the Citv's Noise Standards. Mitigation Measure IV-J.1-I Operational Noise As part of the application to the City for each phase of the project design, the project applicant shall prepare an analysis of the noise generated by the project's mechanical equipment to confirm that the proposed equipment meet the standards of 60 dBA at the property line beN,-een the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 65 dBA at the property line between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The analysis shall specIA- the noise control measures required to meet these noise levels for all buildings constructed in each phase that includes mechanical equipment. Specific measures cannot be outlined at this time because of the lack of detailed information on the HVAC equipment design and location. Typical noise control measures include barriers or enclosures around rooftop equipment. Other measures include duct silencers and acoustical louvers at the ventilation openings. FolloNving inclusion of the noise control measures in the building design, the project sponsor shall submit a letter to the City Building Division, prior to the issuance of a building permit, Nvith a letter from the designer and a copy of the report shoNving that the mechanical equipment has been designed to meet the City s Noise Standards. Impact IV.J--2: The proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local generalplan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The proposed project would not expose persons to traffic-related noise leiels greater than the upper limit of satisfactory noise leiels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA. Proposed project buildings for each phase Nvould be exposed to an exterior noise exposure level of up to 60 dBA CNEL from traffic along Oyster Point Boulevard, resulting in an exterior level of 69 dBA CNEL due to traffic along Veterans Boulevard. This noise exposure Nvould be below the upper limit of satisfactory exterior noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA; therefore, the City Nvould not require an analysis of indoor noise reduction as the future traffic noise along Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard Nvould meet the exterior noise standard and Nvould by default meet the interior noise Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; standard as the buildings provide a minimum of 20 dBA outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Impact IV.J--3: The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise lei�els in the project>>icinity abo>>e lei�els existing without the project. The effect of project generated traffic Nvas calculated using traffic noise prediction equations derived by the Federal Highwa-,T Administration. Table IV.J-6 shows the calculated existing and project generated traffic noise levels along the roadwa-,Ts in the project vicinity. The greatest effect on ambient levels Nvould occur at the existing commercial land uses along Veterans Boulevard where the increase Nvould be up to 4.4 dBA. The nearest residential land use potentially affected by project generated traffic is on the Nvest side of U.S. 101 near Airport Boulevard. The noise level along this roadwa-,T is expected to increase by less than 1 dBA due to project generated traffic. Therefore,this is considered to be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Cumulative traffic noise increases are assessed in the Cumulative Impacts section of this noise section. Table IV.J-6 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline,dBA Roadway Existing Existing+Project Increase' Airport Boulevard North of Terra Bav Access 62.6 62.7 0.0 Between Terra Bay Access to Sister Cities Boulevard 6L8 6L8 0.1 Between Sister Cities Boulevard and 62.5 62.5 0.1 Grand Avenue Gateway Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard to East Grand 63.5 64 0.4 Avenue Grand Avenue Between Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard 63.1 63.2 1 0. Oyster Point Boulevard Between Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue 64.3 64.4 0.2 Between Dubuque Avenue and Gateway Boulevard 66.6 67.6 09 Between Gateway Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard 64.7 65.4 0.7 Veterans Boulevard Between Drivewav d and b 51.1 55.6 4.4 Between Drivewav b and a 55.3 57.2 2.0 Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-11 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.J-6 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline,dBA Roadway Existing Existing+Project Increase' Between Drivewav a and Oyster Point 579 60.2 2.3 Boulevard Source: VRS Corporation 2013 ,rote: -Noise levels are rounded to the nearest one tenths Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise lei�els in the project vicinity. Offsite Impacts Ambient noise levels in the project vicinit-- Nvould temporarily increase during the project-related construction activities on the project site. These activities Nvould include the construction of one 8-level parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. The project Nvould be constructed in three phases and it is assumed that Phase 1 Nvould be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Since the construction Nvould be phased, there is the potential for construction noise to affect the buildings neighboring the project site as Nvell as the occupied buildings on the project site (nevdv constructed project buildings). There are no foreseen off-site construction activities such as road improvements or installation of utilities that Nvould contribute to a secondary noise impact. The noisiest construction activities Nvould be conducted during the initial phases of construction for Phases 1, 2, and 3. These construction activities Nvould include mass excavation, site grading and foundation Nvork. Other activities that Nvould occur Nvith construction of each phase Nvould typically include use of heavy diesel poNvered machinery such as impact hammers, compactors, front end loaders, bacichoes, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, trucks and concrete equipment. Later activities Nvould include the construction of the building and may require a crane and smaller equipment such as generators, compressors,power tools, and hand tools. The nearest noise sensitive building adjacent to the project site is the Court--ard Marriott Hotel located along Veterans Boulevard which is approximately 413 feet north of the project site. Another hotel (Residence Inn Marriott) is located approximately 900 feet north of the project. Several office buildings are located near the project site. The closest office building is located approximately 150 south of the project site, and the second closest office building is located approximately 217 feet east of the project site. The project includes a proposed child care facility, which Nvould be constructed as early as Phase 1 which is expected to be located indoors approximately 350 feet east of the project site. Additionally,there is an existing child care facility located approximately 700 feet from the project site, which has an outdoor play area. Britaririia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft,Subsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--12 00)(?fSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.J-6 shows the expected noise levels from various pieces of construction equipment at the nearest land uses and at the proposed child care facilities, when construction activities are occurring at their closest point to these land uses. The table includes noise levels from various types of pile driving equipment since pile driving Nvould be required during construction and Nvould be one of the highest noise generating activities. The noise level standards of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are not applied to construction activities because of a Special Provision that allows construction activities between 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nveekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Although the construction activities are allowed by the Citv's Municipal Code, they Nvould cause a short- term substantial increase in noise levels at the nearest land uses adjacent to the project site. For example, the existing daytime noise level near the center of the site is 65 dBA Leq (see noise measurement at Location 1). Maximum noise levels from the nearest construction activities could result in a roughly 5 to 10 dBA Leq increase over the existing Leq The increase in Leq Nvould depend on the duration that the equipment Nvould operate and the number of simultaneous activities. Table IV.J-7 Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses Maximum Noise Levels(L,,,aa) for Typical Construction Activities,dBA Construction Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Child Care Southern Marriott Building on djacent Facility(In Outdoor Play Hotel A Property Door) Area Auger Drill Rig 66 74 47 56 Backhoe 60 68 41 50 Compactor 65 73 46 55 Compressor 60 68 41 50 Concrete Pump Truck 63 71 44 53 Crane 63 71 44 53 Bulldozer 60 68 41 50 Dump Truck 58 66 39 48 Excavator 63 71 44 53 Front End Loader 61 69 42 51 Grader 65 73 46 55 Jackhammer 71 79 52 61 Paver 59 67 40 49 Pile Driving-Impact 83 91 64 73 Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra ft Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.J-7 Construction Noise Levels at Existing Land Uses Maximum Noise Levels(Lm x) for Typical Construction Activities,dBA Construction Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Child Care Southern Marriott Building on Adjacent Facility(In Outdoor Play Hotel Property Door) Area Pile Driving- 83 91 64 73 Vibrator- Pile Driving-Pushing 63 71 44 53 Pneumatic Tools 65 73 46 55 Source: URS Corporation Construction noise has the potential to be high enough at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel to be disruptive during impact pile driving at the project site. The loudest noise level due to construction activities is projected to be 83 dBA L,,,,,at the building face Court-Tard Marriott Hotel,which exceeds the noise limits set by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Currently, there are no external areas of frequent human use such as a patio or a swimming pool at this hotel. A child care facility may be constructed as part of Phase 1 to the east of the project site across Veterans Boulevard. Construction noise at the child care facility, which is scheduled to be in operation after Phase 1,Nvould be high enough to disrupt sleep. The loudest noise level due to construction activities at the child care facility east of the project site is projected to be as high as 64 dBA Lm, inside the building, which exceeds the noise limits set by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Additionally, construction noise at the child care facility located to the south of the project site on Gatewa-,T Boulevard has the potential to interfere Nvith speech communication in the external play area. The loudest noise level due to construction activities at the day care facility located to the south of the project site is projected to be as high as 73 dBA Lm,which exceeds the noise limits set by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. This is a significant temporan- noise impact and implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 is required. Mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant. Onsite Impacts The project is assumed to be developed in three phases. Development of Phase 1, which Nvould include the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, and potentially a child care facility on the project site, Nvould have the potential to impact existing buildings located offsite adjacent to the project site. When Phases 2 is developed, which includes Buildings B L B2, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and the first three floors of the parking structure, noise generated by construction activities associated Nvith Phase 2 Nvould have a short-term, but apotentialty significant impact on the onsite structures existing at that time. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra ft Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:J-14 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; SimilarIv, when Phase 3 is constructed, it Nvill have a potentially significant impact on the onsite structures constructed during both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Mitigation Measure IV.J--4.1 Construction Generated Noise The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise control plan that identifies detailed, site-specific noise attenuation measures that Nvould be used to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. The construction noise control plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant or person experienced Nvith equipment and techniques that can be used to reduce construction related noise. The plan must include, but is not limited to,the folloNving measures: • Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that Nvould be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. • Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas avmy from sensitive uses,Nvhere feasible. • Schedule high noise-producing activities Nvhen they Nvould be least likely to interfere Nvith the noise sensitive activities of the neighboring land uses. When near office buildings evening hours may be preferable because the buildings are not occupied. The Municipal Code currentIv allows construction activities until 8 p.m. during Nveek days, and between 9 a.m. and 8 P.M. on Saturdays. If construction equipment can meet the noise limit requirements of Municipal Code section 832.50 d (1) or d (2), then they could be used during off-hours. If construction hours Nvere too late then these levels could potentially impact the existing hotel. SimilarIv, when near the existing hotel late morning and afternoon hours may be preferable because rooms may be vacant. • Where possible and practical, the project sponsor may use driven or drilled piles based on the results of further geotechnical investigations. If the drilling and casing method is used Nvhen driving piles pursuant to further geotechnical recommendations, the level of noise to adjacent buildings may be further reduced. • Designate an on-site construction noise complaint manager for the duration of the project. • Post signs around the project site to inform persons of the construction hours and the name and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the event of a noise related problem. • A pre-construction meeting shall be held Nvith the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation practices (including construction hours,neighborhood notification,posted signs, etc.) are completed. • The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along Nvith operation of earthmoving equipment Nvithin the project site be located as far avmy from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--1 5 00)of Sotah Sari Francisco April 201; in the construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. • The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks should be routed awa-,T from noise and vibration sensitive uses, to the extent possible. Contract specifications shall be included on the construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Since the mitigation measure Nvould reduce construction noise where feasible, minimizing the potential for disturbance, and considering that construction noise is exempt from noise limits by the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the construction noise impact at the existing office buildings located to the east and south, existing hotel located to the north, and child care facility located to the east and south of the project site Nvould be less than significant after mitigation. Due to the proximity of the buildings located onsite Nvith the other project related structures, and depending upon the type of pile driving that Nvould be conducted in the second and third construction phases, it may not be possible to mitigate all of the noise impacts from construction activities during Phases 2 and 3 on the building constructed during the previous phases. Even though the construction noise represents a short-term impact, this could still represent a potentially significant and unaiwidable impact even after mitigation. Impact IV.J--S: The proposed project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ibration or groundborne noise lei�els. Construction equipment could generate noticeable vibration at adjacent buildings on and off the site. The greatest potential for vibration generation Nvould be during the excavation and foundation construction activities. Pile driving often generates the highest vibration levels at a construction site. As required by future geotechnical recommendations, where piles are required they Nvill be specified as less invasive drilling,not driven,piles,where feasible. Table IV.J-8 shows the vibration levels for different construction equipment at their closest point to the Courtvard Marriott Hotel and commercial buildings adjacent to the site. As the equipment moves farther away, the vibration level drops rapidly, due to absorption from the ground through which the vibration propagates. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft,Subsequerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--16 00)ofSonth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.J-8 Vibration Levels at Nearby Receivers Construction Maximum Vibration by Receiver,VdB Equipment Courtyard Nearest Office Nearest Commercial Marriott Hotel Building South of Building East of the the Project Site Project Site Pile Driver—Impact 75 89 84 Pile Driver—Vibratory- 68 82 77 Large Bulldozer 50 64 59 Loaded Trucks 49 63 58 Jackhaimiter 42 56 51 Vibratory-Roller 57 71 66 Hoe Ram 50 64 59 Caisson Drilling 50 64 59 Pile Driving—Pushing 42 56 51 So ..e:e: tW Corporation 2013 With the exception of impact pile driving, construction activities yvould result in vibration levels that are yvithin the FTA's impact levels of 80 VdB for residences and hotels and 83 VdB for offices. Impact pile driving yvould exceed the FTA impact criteria at its closest point to the commercial land uses near the project site. There is the potential for nearby buildings to contain vibration sensitive research equipment such as electron microscopes. This equipment could be affected at loyver levels than those discussed above. Therefore,groundborne vibration is considered apotentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 Groundborne Vibration Off'Site Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities for each phase of the project, the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the locations of vibration sensitive equipment near the construction site. If it is determined that no vibration sensitive equipment is present, then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken. The distances for a preconstruction survey yvill depend on yvhich method of pile installation yvill be used. The folloyving are different pile installation methodologies that can be used: • Implementation of either the impact or vibratory pile driving method yvould result in a preconstruction survey of vibration sensitive equipment of at least 500 feet from the construction site. • Implementation of the drilling and casting method yvould result in a preconstruction survey of vibration sensitive equipment of at least 300 feet from the construction site. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-17 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • implementation of the pushing method, if feasible and consistent Nvith the recommendations of the geotechnical study Nvould not require a preconstruction survey of vibration sensitive equipment. Vibration levels from the pushing method Nvould not generate vibration levels high enough to effect vibration sensitive equipment near the construction site. If the project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to be affected, the applicant shall implement a construction schedule to ensure that construction activities Nvould occur during times when vibration sensitive equipment Nvould not be in use. If it is not feasible for the applicant to change or adjust the construction schedule (i.e., if the use of vibration sensitive equipment is used continuousIv throughout the day), the applicant shall install mitigation measures at the location of the vibration sensitive equipment. This may include the installation of vibration isolators sufficient to isolate the sensitive equipment from the building structure. If there is vibration sensitive equipment located near the project site and the geotechnical study concludes the pushing method of pile installation is suitable for the soils on the project site, it is strongly recommended that the project sponsor implement the pushing method when installing piles. Implementation of this measure Nvould reduce the impact of off-site groundborne vibration to a less than significant level. On Site Due to the proximity of the buildings located onsite Nvith other project related buildings, it may not be possible or feasible to mitigate all of the vibration impacts from construction activities during Phase 2 and 3 on the buildings constructed during Phase 1. Vibration levels from the pile driving (i.e., including the pushing method) and other construction activities such as backhoe Nvork Nvould exceed FTA vibration criteria. Even through the construction vibration represents a short-term impact,this could still represent a potentially significant and una>>oidable impact after mitigation. Impact IV.J-6: The proposed project would not result in exposure of people residing or working at the project site to excessive noise lei�els from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public or public use airport. The proposed project site is located Nvithin two miles of the San Francisco International Airport. Noise contours prepared for the airport indicate that the project site is located 2,700 feet outside the CNEL 60 dBA contour. Therefore, the proposed office buildings Nvould be exposed to an aircraft generated CNEL below 60 dBA which is considered satisfactory for commercial development by the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. The policies of the East of 101 Area Plan indicate that office and retail buildings located in the project vicinity are required to provide a minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27 dBA to reduce indoor maximum instantaneous noise levels (L,,,,,) from aircraft to the goal of 60 dBA (i.e., to achieve an indoor Lm, of 60 dBA, aircraft overfights cannot exceed 87 dBA L,,,,,.) (Policy NO-2). None of the noise measurements conducted in the vicinity of the project site measured an aircraft overflight greater than 87 dBA Lm,. Therefore, airport noise is a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures Nvill be required to reduce indoor Lm,to 60 dBA. Impact IV.J-7. The proposed project would not result in exposure of people residing or working at the project site to excessive noise lei�els from a private airstrip. Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. DraftSubsequerztElivironnrelitalImpactReport Page If:J--18 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The proposed project site is not within the vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore no impact Nvould occur and no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Noise level increases due to increased traffic are summarized in Table IV.J-9. In the future, cumulative traffic Nvill increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Airport, Gatevmy, Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards, and East Grand Avenue by 3.5, 3.9, 3.9, 2.8, and 4.4dBA CNEL, respectively. Cumulative traffic Nvould increase the traffic noise levels at the closest residential land use along Airport Boulevard by 1.7 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Although the project contribution is as high as 2.8 dBA CNEL along Veterans Boulevard and less than 2 dBA CNEL evervv,-here else, this contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. Therefore, the increase in traffic noise is a significant and unaiwidable cumulative impact. Mitigation of the traffic noise along any of the roadvmy segments analyzed in this section Nvould not be feasible or effective. This is because all of the land uses in the vicinity of the project are commercial and do not have anv external common uses areas that need protecting. Additionally, cumulative impacts Nvould oniv be due to traffic grov th and not project operation. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.J-1.1, IV.J-4.1, IV.J-5.1, IV.J- 5.2 and IV.J-6.1 identified in this section Nvould adequately mitigate potential impacts related to operational noise, construction noise impacts to off-site office uses, groundborne vibration, and aircraft noise. These impacts Nvould be reduced to a less than significant level. HoNvever, even Nvith implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.J-4.1, IV.J-5.1, IV.J-5.2, construction noise and vibration for on-site uses Nvould remain significant and una>>oidable. Additionallv, the increase in traffic noise Nvould be a significant and unaiwidable cumulative impact. Table IV.J-9 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases Traffic Noise Level 100 Feet from Centerline Existing to (dBA CNEL) Future+ Project Project Contribution Future+ Increase to Future Roadway Existing Future(2035) Project (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) Airport Boulevard North of Terra Bav Access 62.6 65.3 65.3 2.7 0.0 Between Terra Bav Access 61.8 65.2 65.3 3.5 0.1 to Sister Cities Boulevard Between Sister Cities Boulevard and Grand 62.5 64.1 64.2 1.7 0.1 Avenue Britannia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Dra ft Subsegnerz t Erzvironnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:J-19 00)ofSotrth Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.J-9 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases Traffic Noise Level 100 Feet from Centerline Existing to (dBA CNEL) Future+ Project Project Contribution Future+ Increase to Future Roadway Existing Future(2035) Project (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) Gateway-Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard to 64 67.1 679 39 0.8 East Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue Between Airport Boulevard 63.1 65.5 67.5 4.4 2.0 and Gatewai-BouleN-ard Oi-ster Point Boulevard Between Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue 6 .3 67.0 67.1 2.8 0.1 v Between Dubuque Avenue 66.6 69.5 70.0 3.4 0.5 and Gatewai-BouleN-ard Between Gateway- Boulevard and Veteran's 64.7 68.2 68.6 39 0.4 Boulevard Veterans Boulevard Between Driveway- d and b 51.1 51.1 52.8 1.7 1.7 Between Driveway-b and a 55.3 55.3 57.3 2.0 2.0 Between Driveway a and 579 579 60.7 2.8 2.8 Oi-ster Point Boulevard Source: URS Corporation 2013 ,rote: 'Change in noise levels are rounded to the nearest tenth of a dB Britaririia Cove. at Oyster Point IT:J. Voise. Draft,Snbsegnerz t Erzvirorznrerz tal Impact Report Page If:J--20 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K. POPULATION AND HOUSING INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes existing population, employment and housing in the project area, which includes the project site and other properties in the vicinity, and analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on population and housing resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This section evaluates the potential impacts on population and housing of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project(project), and it specifically considers whether the project Nvould result in new significant population and housing impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant population and housing impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts. Similar Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, mitigation measures are not required for the project. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The Subsequent Draft EIR analysis is limited to those socioeconomic issues that could result in a direct change to the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). In light of this, the effect of the proposed project on property values and its economic effect on surrounding businesses are not considered environmental issues, and thus Nvill not be analyzed. A regulatory frameNvork is provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to population and housing. Information Sources Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") and the City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element ("Housing Element"),updated in June 2009. No comment letters related to population, employment, and housing Nvere received in response to the December 14, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Subsequent Draft EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on population and housing as identified in Table IV.K-1. The 2000 Bay Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing Dra ft Subsequen t Environnzen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts associated with employment and population groN-,th or increase demand for housing, because these increases Nvere anticipated in build out of the City in 2020. Table IV.K-1 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 17.2.2—Minor Employment Growth Effect No mitigation measures were required. upon City Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the project would lead to an increase in employees in the City of South San Francisco,which would utilize City facilities and seixices. The impact would be less than significant. Impact 17.2.3-No Population Growth Effects on No mitigation measures were required. City Services. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on population growth and city seixices,as no new housing would be built as part of the project,and no direct demands on City seixices are associated with the project. Impact 17.2.4—Balance of Jobs/Employed Residents. No mitigation measures were required. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the project would add jobs to the city faster than employed residents:nonetheless the project is consistent with the City General Plan of promoting*'continued job growth in the City will promote greater regional balance between jobs and housing." The impact would be less than significant. Impact 17.2.5—Impacts on Availability of Affordable No mitigation measures were required. Housing.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the project does not include housing and that the project's failure to provide onsite housing for households with a range of incomes is not an adverse impact.Development of housing on the project site would be inconsistent with the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. Although,the lack of housing supply in the City would make it difficult for future employees who might wish to live in South San Francisco to do so,the impact was not found to be adverse on the East of 101 Area Plan. The project would create a mix of land uses consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan. The impact would be less than significant. Impact 17.2.6-Cumulative Impact.The 2000 Bay No mitigation measures were required. West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that since the project would have no impact,there would be less than significant impacts on population and housing. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point If:K. Population aid Housing Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page If:K-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Physical Setting Although population has groN-,n in the City of South San Francisco (City) since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, grov,th is in line Nvith ABAG projections for the City. Population, housing, and employment data are available on city, county, regional, and state levels. Table IV.K-2 shows updated population, housing, and employment data at the City and County level, in order to focus the analysis on the Citv of South San Francisco. Table IV.K-2 Current and Future Population,Employment and Housing South San Francisco and San Mateo County South San Francisco San Mateo County 2005 2015 2020 2005 2015 2020 Total Population 61,700 66,600 69,700 721,900 766,900 801,300 Total Jobs 42,240 45,350 48,290 337,350 373,370 404,400 Total Households 20,130 21,750 22,840 260,070 275,680 287,350 Source:ABAG Projections, 2009. Population According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the City of South San Francisco had a population of 63,362 in 2010, Nvhich is higher than the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project population. ABAG Projections 2009 shoNved the total population of South San Francisco as 61,700 in 2005. As these numbers indicate, the City is primarily built out and no new substantial residential uses are anticipated. Table IV.K-3 shows the projected population grov,th in the City, surrounding communities and the County from 2005 to 2020. The three most populous cities in San Mateo County are Daly City, Redwood City, and the City of San Mateo. South San Francisco ranks as the fourth most populated city in San Mateo County. Based on the ABAG Projections 2009 data, the population in the City of South San Francisco Nvould increase by a total of approximately 13.0 percent from 2005 to 2020, Nvhich recorded a population of 63,362 in 2010. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Dra ft Subsequerz t Environnzerz tal Impact Report Page IT:K-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.K-3 Population Projections: South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities 2005 to 2020 Jurisdiction 2005-2020 Increase in 2005 2015 2020 Population South San Francisco 61,700 66,600 69,700 8,000 DaIv CitN- 104,800 111,700 118,000 13,200 San Bruno 41,400 45,600 48,600 7,200 Colma 1,500 1,700 1,800 300 San Mateo County 721,900 766,900 801,300 79,400 Source:.4BAGProjections, 2009. Households As defined by ABAG, "household" is another term for an occupied dvyelling unit. A household includes all persons Who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a group of rooms or a single room occupied as separate living quarters Nyhere occupants live separately from other persons in the building and have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. A household can include more than one family. Regional Housin6 Needs Allocation Since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, ABAG released the 2009 Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Therefore,the discussion belovy reflects the neNy data. The State of California's Housing and Community Development Department Nyorks Nyith regional Councils of Governments (COGS) to determine the amount of housing needed Nyithin the region. ABAG is this region's COG. The determination of housing need is based on existing need and estimated population grov,th. Need is determined for households in all income categories: very-logy, logy, moderate and above-moderate incomes. Once the total regional need is determined, ABAG Nyorks Nyith local governments and others to allocate the total need to individual cities and counties. Local governments are then required to plan Nyhere and hoNy the allocated housing units Nyill be developed Nyithin their communities. This is done through the Housing Element of each local government's General Plan. Based on a methodology that Nyeighs a number of factors (e.g.,projected population grov,th, employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determines quantifiable needs for housing units in the region according to various income categories. ABAG publishes an annual report that discusses housing issues of importance to the San Francisco Bay Area. The 2012 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is scheduled to be released in JuIv 2013; therefore this analysis is based on the 2009 report, San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014. The Plan explains the RHNA process and outcomes. The San Francisco Bav Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014, allocates 1,635 housing units to the City of South San Francisco (General Plan). Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft,Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page If:K-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The Citv's current Housing Element Nyas adopted in June 2009 and addressed ABAG's previous RHNA. The planning horizon for the Housing Element extends from 2007 to 2014. Betvyeen January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2009, South San Francisco built 815 neNy units. In addition there Nyere 15 housing units that Nyere substantialIv rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing. Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805 units Nyhich it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period. According to the General Plan Housing Element, South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need betvyeen 2007 and 2014. There is sufficient land to support the production of more than 1,195 neNy housing units. Potential Future Housin6 Development The General Plan Housing Element includes an analysis of residential development potential. A total of 30.8 acres Nvithin the City of South San Francisco are considered opportunity sites (Transit Village, South El Camino Real, and Dovmtovm), upon Nvhich a total 1,244 residential units could be built (Table 40, South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element). Jobs/Housing Balance Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project conditions,the City of South San Francisco has a job/housing imbalance. This section discusses neNy information released since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. According to the General Plan Housing Element, the Cit_T has a history of imbalance in its jobs/housing ratio. South San Francisco is a "Jobs rich" City Nvith substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions. In 2007, there Nyere approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per even*Nyorlcing resident of the City. By comparison,in 2007 San Mateo County had a much closer balance betvyeen the number of employed residents and total jobs Nvith approximately 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per even* Nyorlcing resident of the Countv. Given that much of the land in the City, including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for residential development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful. On the other hand, continued job grovlh in the City Nyill promote a greater regional balance bet�yeen jobs and housing. As an inner Bav Area community Nyell served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART and fern* service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City Nyill have varied means of reaching employment sites. The Citv's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on infill sites. The intent is that increased residential development Nvithin the City Nyill help alleviate traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential opportunities to those that Nyork in the City but currently live elsevyhere. As South San Francisco's employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million square feet [sf] to about 17.4 million sf), overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in 1997 to 42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020). Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Consistent Nvith this, ABAG Projections 2009 projects the City's total employment number to be 48,290 in 2020. Both the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and the ABAG Projections 2009 are based upon existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are approved, the projection numbers Nvould also change. As such,the employment buildout projections are not treated as limits,rather they project the employment for the region based upon the best available data. Regarding the City s jobs-housing balance, although the jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use planning purposes,the City does not currently have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal. Regulatory Setting New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project. State There are no state regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project. Local Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide governs regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. California's Housing Element Law assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need and for allocating a share of this need to localities Nvithin the region to regional councils of government. For the San Francisco Bay Area, these determinations are prepared by ABAG and documented in its San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan(Plan). The plan documents the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Bay Area. The RHNA process is a state mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of housing across a range of affordability and in all communities throughout the state. Each jurisdiction Nvithin the Bay Area (101 cities, nine counties) is given a share of the anticipated regional housing need. The Bay Area's regional housing need is specified by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and finalized through negotiations Nvith ABAG. The timeframe for this RHNA process is 2007 through 2014 (a seven year planning period). South San Francisco General Plan and Municipal Code The General Plan Housing Element and the SSFMC govern regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. The City's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on inflll sites. The intent is that increased residential development Nvithin the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; City Nvill help alleviate traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential opportunities to those that Nvork in the City but currently live elsewhere. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology As described in the introduction section, sources Nvere consulted to document and analyze the population and housing in the project area. This analysis considers employment growth, and the resulting increase in overall population groNsth and housing demand that Nvould occur Nvith implementation of the proposed project and whether this growth is Nvithin local or regional forecasts. The analysis is based on new information released since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, including the 2010 Census, the 2007 RHNA, and ABAG 2009 population projection information. In addition, this analysis determines whether it can be considered substantial Nvith respect to remaining groNsth potential in the City as articulated in the East of 101 Area Plan. Further, this analysis considers whether groNsth and development Nvere previously assumed to occur in the project area. Specifically, population, employment, and housing impacts Nvere analyzed by comparing the proposed project Nvith groNsth projections for the Cit-T from ABAG. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Subsequent Draft EIR,implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to population and housing if the proposed project Nvould result in any of the folloNving: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR used similar standards of significance as the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR, which differ from the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include an analysis of housing displacement. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant population and housing impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts in the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR or the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are not required. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.K-1: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area by proposing housing or increased employment. Since the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, new information regarding population and employment grov,th in the City of South San Francisco Nvas gathered and published. The discussion below analyzing the impacts of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan is based on the new information. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the project does not propose any housing. Current1v the site is vacant. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout of eight buildings including 884344 square feet of Office/R&D use; up to a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space; and a parking structure. Total business/commercial development on the site Nvould be 1,030,344 square feet. The project proposes the construction of a maximum of 884344 square feet of Office/R&D by 2019. As shoN-,n in Table IV.K-4, this Nvould result in 2,595 employees Nvorlcing on the site by the Near 2019. Considering that the site is vacant at present time, overall, the project Nvould result in a total net increase of 2,595 employees Nvorking on the site by 2019. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, the proposed project's contributions to the increase in employment in the City Nvould be Nvithin ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the Nears of 2015 and 2020, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The increase in employees in the City could result in an increase in demand for housing. As described previously, the City is primarily built out and any housing constructed Nvithin the City limits Nvould most likely be infill housing. Therefore, the project could result in an increased unfavorable jobs/housing ratio in the City Nvhich Nvould increase over the implementation of the proposed project. A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide both Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs housing ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to 1.5 is generally considered balanced (so that there is little in-or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and housing can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates environmental effects, such as those associated Nvith transportation, air quality, and noise. As discussed above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7; this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing. Table IV.K-4 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project Projected Employees Land Use Total Phase 1 Total Phase Total Phase Projected Projected Projected Type (sf)* 2 3(sf)* Employees Employees Employees (sf)* (Phase I)** (Phase 110** (Phase III)** Office 251593 458,067 884,344 L221 L137 2358 Hotel 126,000 1 so Retail 20,000 57 Total Employees 2,595 * sf=Square Feet ** Full bzedd-ozetserviee population is based on 2,385 employees associated with ,lice R&D, 180 employees associated with the hotel,and 57 employees associated with the retail. The folloivfirg land zese size mete°ics to employees was zetilized: office/R&D is 375 sgzeare feet per employee,hotel is 0.9 employees per room,and retad is 350 sgzrare feet per employee Source:City of Sorrth San Francisco, 2008. Based on ABAG's projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City for 2015 Nvould increase to approximately 2.09 by 2015 and to 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability relative to the amount of jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected to be out of balance, Nvould decrease Nvith implementation of the proposed project. Assuming that not more than one person per household Nvould be employed by the project, the project Nvould add a total of 2,595new employees. This Nvould create the need for 2,595 new units of housing in the City, Nvhich cannot all be provided for by the City. Consequently, the potential employment increase resulting from the project Nvould result in direct and indirect grov,th that may not be accommodated by existing or proposed housing projections for the City. Although the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project projected a smaller number of employees for Planning Area 1, resulting impacts Nvere similar to the project. HoNvever, continued job grov,th in the City Nvill promote a greater regional balance beN,-een jobs and housing. The City is a strategically located inner Bay Area community Nvell served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART and fern* service. Therefore, future employees commuting to jobs in the City Nvould have varied means of reaching the project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poilzt IT:K. Population alzd Housing Draft Subsequelz t Elzvironneelz tal Impact Report Page IT:K-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Given that the number of employees generated by the project Nvould be Nvithin the ABAG projections, the fact that the City does not have an adopted*obs/hou sing ratio goal, and overall the project would promote a greater regional jobs balance, implementation of the proposed project Nvould not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Impact IV.K-2: The proposed project would not displace existing housing, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of housing displacement. This discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. The project site is located in the East of 101 Area. According to the General Plan, the East of 101 Area, the traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, Nvas originally developed Nvith meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. In the post-Nvar Nears the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drasticalIv reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City for the first time. Residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. As South San Francisco's employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non- residential development. Since no residential uses exist in the project area, implementation of the proposed project Nvould not displace existing housing. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.K-3: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR did not include a discussion of housing displacement. This discussion is analyzed consistent Nvith the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. No residences exist in the project area. Thus no residents Nvould be displaced, and construction of replacement housing elsewhere Nvould not be necessitated. Therefore, there Nvould be no impact and no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project proposes the redevelopment of the site Nvith office and research & development uses, at a greater intensity that proposed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, population growth Nvould be induced in the South San Francisco area. Other future development in the City Nvould have the same effect as each project Nvould create new jobs and/or homes Nvithin the Citv. Although the employment generated by the project fits Nvithin the ABAG estimates for employment growth in the area, the project Nvould generate demand for additional housing in the area, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project in conjunction Nvith existing and future area Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population and Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; projects could be cumulatively considerable creating a significant impact on population grov,th in the South San Francisco area; hoNvever, continued job grov,th in the City Nvill promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. The General Plan Housing Element Nvas adopted in June 2009. According to the General Plan Housing Element, South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need between 2007 and 2014. As an inner Bay Area community Nvell served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART, and ferry service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City Nvould have varied means of reaching employment sites. The Housing Element determined that the City can accommodate its share of the regional housing need, and continued employment grov,th Nvithin the City Nvould serve to balance regional needs between jobs and housing. Although the analysis for the project is based on new and updated information regarding population, employment and housing in the City of South San Francisco, the cumulative impact Nvould be less than significant,Nvhich is similar to that of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, because no impacts related to population and housing Nvere identified,no mitigation measures are required or recommended. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft Subsequent Environnnen tal Impact Report Page IT:K-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; This page intentionally left blank Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT:K. Population azd Housing Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page If:K-12 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS L. PUBLIC SERVICES INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes public services Nvithin the project area,which includes the project site and surrounding areas, and whether implementation of the proposed project Nvould cause a substantial adverse effect on public services. This section evaluates the potential impacts on public services of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project (project), and it specifically considers whether the proposed project Nvould result in new significant public services impacts not identified in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1, as compared to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Although the project increases development on the project site and conditions on the site have changed since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould not result in any new significant public services impacts or substantial changes in the severity of the previously identified public services impacts. Due to the implementation by the City of some of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, and new available technology, some impacts of the proposed project are not as severe as the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. For a summary of impacts from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. This section evaluates potential project impacts to police and fire protection and emergency services. The project does not include any residential uses and Nvould not result in a direct increase in residential population; therefore there Nvould be no impacts to schools, libraries, or other public services. The project Nvould improve access to the Bay Trail that is adjacent to the project site, but Nvould not directly impact the Bay Trail. Information provided in this section is based on the City's General Plan and on communications Nvith local service providers. A regulatory frameNvork is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to public services. No comment letters related to public services Nvere received in response to the December 12, 2012 Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Prior Analysis and Conclusions The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified the impacts of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project on public services and identified mitigation measures for significant impacts. The proposed project does not include the Bay Trail and Shoreline Park analyzed in the 2000 Supplemental EIR, but it does provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Bay Trail. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Dra ft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Table IV.L-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 15.2.2-Increased Demand For Police Mitigation Measure 15.2.2—The 2000 Bay West Cove Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified Supplemental EIR identified that the proposed project Mitigation Measure 15.2.2,which states that the would create a demand for about one new police officer applicants should provide finds for the purchase cost of in the City and an additional one-half of a police car. one-half a police vehicle. The applicant should submit a This impact would be potentially significant. Security and Safety Plan for the project at the time of application for approval of precise plants)to the City. The plan should make provision for private security guards to be on the site commencing with the construction phase. The Security and Safety Plan should make provision for emergency access for fire and police vehicles.Fire department keyed entry (Knox Boxes)will be required during construction for all structures that do not haN-e personnel on-site for 24 hours.Knox entry systems will also be required at any locking gates or barriers across enftyways. With the implementation of these mitigation measures the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 15.3.2-Blockage of Emergency Mitigation Measure 15.2.3-The 2000 Bay West Cove Communication Signal in the Shadow of San Bruno Commercial Project Supplemental EIR identified Mountain. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Mitigation Measure 15.2.3,which required developers of Project Supplemental EIR identified that the 2000 Bay affected projects in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain West Cove Commercial Project creates a demand for to make a fair share contribution to the cost of a small communications equipment that would need to rooftop enclosure containing radio equipment on the overcome a signal-blocking effect of San Bruno tallest and/or northern-most building in the Bay West Mountain. Interruption or loss of a signal would be a Cove Project,to reduce the impact to a less than potential obstacle to fire-fighting or other emergency significant level. seivice vehicles operating on the Bay West Cove site or in the vicinity,and would constitute a potentially significant adverse impact of the project. Impact 15.2.4—Need for Bay Trail Maintenance.The No mitigation measures were required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that although this could be a potentially significant impact it is less than significant due to compliance with the Bay Conseivation and Development Commission(BCDC)issued Permit 10-98, Amendment One,on Juli- 16, 1998. Impact 15.3.3—No Significant Increased Demand for No mitigation measures were required. Fire Fighting or Emergency Services.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would be consistent with the 1997 Bai-West Cove Commercial Project EIR discussion of the original project.Development of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would not create any significant increase in demand for fire protection seivices, according to the City Fire Marshall contacted in 2000, and the impact would be less than significant. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:L. Public Services Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:L-2 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.L-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Impact 15.3.4-Compliance with Fire Safety No mitigation measures were required. Requirements.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that through compliance with various fire protection standards,the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would have a less than significant impact on fire safety requirements. Impact 154.2-Need for Bay Trail Maintenance.The No mitigation measures were required. 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the proposed Bay Trail and its immediate surroundings(excluding planting areas related to wetland remediation)will require maintenance. This is not a significant impact because the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project includes private development, ownership and maintenance of the trail. The Bay Conseii-ation and Development Commission(BCDC) issued Permit 10-98,Amendment One,on July 16, 1998 for development of public improvements within the shoreline. The permit required that improvements be complete by December 1,2000,and the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project area be permanently maintained by the permittees or assignees. The developers of Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2/3 should share in the maintenance of common facilities (such as landscaping along public roadways)through such mechanisms as a property owners association or Covenants Codes and Restrictions(CC&Rs),therefore the impact was determined to be less than significant. Impact 15.5.2-No Significant Impact on School No mitigation measures were required. Facilities.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project would not create any significant direct demands upon public schools and seivices because it would not include anti- residential development. Impacts upon transportation of students are less than significant because the district does not provide transportation for any of its students,whether they-are from within the district or outside of it, therefore the impact was determined to be less than significant. Impact 15.6.1-No Cumulative Impacts to Public No mitigation measures were required. Services..The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that cumulative impacts to fire and police protection, schools and maintenance of street improvements would not be significant.The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project in combination with other development projects in the City would not necessarily result in increased police calls beyond the number that would be generated by the individual projects. The Police Department estimates the demand for additional personnel and equipment for each project as it is developed. The 2000 Bay West Cove Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt If:L. Public Services Draft SubsequerztErzvirorznrerztallnrpactReport Page If:L-3 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.L-1 2000 Supplemental EIR Impact Finding Summary Impact Mitigation Commercial Project alone Avould not create any unanticipated demand for fire protection and emergency medical services,and therefore Avould not contribute to cumulative demands. The project Avould not create any direct demand for school facilities,because no housing is proposed,therefore the cumulative impact Avas determined to be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Availability of police and fire services and communication capabilities have changed in the project area since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The environmental setting discussion below presents the updated conditions as they pertain to the proposed project. Existing Conditions Police Police service Nvithin the project area is provided by the South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD). The SSFPD includes two divisions: Operations and Services. The Operations Division includes Patrol, Investigations, and Traffic. The Services Divisions includes Communications, Records and Community Relations.' Each Division is commanded by a Captain. These divisions include special sections and units staffed by both civilians and sworn officers for a total of 37 civilian staff and 83 sworn officers employed by the SSFPD. One chief of police, two captains, five lieutenants, 11 sergeants, 15 corporals, and the remaining 49 sworn personnel are police officers. The SSFPD is currently allotted to have a total of 83 sworn personnel. Under the Operations Division, the Patrol Division is the primary* provider of police services for the residents of South San Francisco. The Patrol Division consists of over 40 officers who cover the 11 square miles of the City* on a 24-hour basis. Patrol Division personnel are prepared to respond to both emergency and non-emergency calls for service in each of the City's four patrol "beats." The Patrol Division provides continuous availability of field units to respond to calls for service, provide visible patrol throughout the City*, detect and apprehend persons actively involved in criminal activity, recover and return lost and stolen property, provide for the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, investigate criminal offenses, and attempt to reduce both immediate and potentially hazardous situations 'Cio, of South Sari Francisco, Departinerzts, Police, The Departinerzt. it ebsite: httU:`iru u.ssfnet inde .atips?SID=283.Accessed January 18, 2013. Sergeant Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crinie Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Departinerzt. 2013. Personal coniniuriicatiori via e-mail with Vicole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvirorznierz tal Impact Report Page If:L-4 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 to the community. The Criminal Investigation Bureau is responsible for the investigative follow up of all incident reports generated by Patrol,to ensure every report written receives the proper case closure. The Criminal Investigations Bureau is allotted for one Detective Sergeant and eight Detectives. Five of the Detectives are generalist investigators, who may investigate both Crimes against Property and Crimes against Persons. The remaining three Detectives can be assigned to the folloNving Task Forces: San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force, San Mateo County Vehicle Theft Task Force, San Mateo County Gang Intelligent Unit and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Task Force. In addition to protecting life and property as peace officers and public officers, the Traffic/Motor Unit's duty is to enforce the street traffic regulations of the City of South San Francisco, enforce the State's vehicle laws applicable to traffic, make arrests for traffic violations, and to investigate traffic accidents. The Unit cooperates Nvith the traffic engineer and other Departments in developing wa-,Ts and means to improve traffic conditions and traffic safetv.'Under the Services Division, the Communications Center provides 24-hour answering of all emergency and non-emergency police, fire, and medical calls (including 911 and non-emergency telephone service for the hearing and speech impaired).a The Citv's officer-to-population ratio is currently at an acceptable level of 1.4 officers per 1,000 population. HoNvever, due to fact that the City serves as an employment center, the dad-mime population rises to over 75,000 individuals during business hours. The officer-to-population ratio is currently at an acceptable level and consistent Nvith other bay area law enforcement agencies.' Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities Nvithin the Citv's Municipal Services Building. The nearest SSFPD station is located at 33 Arrovo Drive, approximately 3 miles Nvest of the project site. The SSFPD is generally able to respond to priority one calls Nvithin the City in three to four minutes time. The SSFPD responds to all calls for service on a priority basis,which is in keeping Nvith the department's performance standards. Police response to reported crimes are continually monitored by department management and supervisors to ensure appropriate response times. The project site is located Nvithin Beat 4 reporting distriet.6 Crime statistics for this reporting district are generally low Nvith calls for service including, but not limited to, false alarms, vehicle burglaries and grand thefts. 3 S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crinie Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Departinerzt. 2013. Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013. Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013. Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. e S'ergealit Scott Campbell, Plawiirzg& Crime Prevention; S TF..A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013. Personal cornrnraiication via e-mail with 1'icole. Keeler of URS Cor^poratiori on January 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Fire Protection Fire protection and emergency services Nvithin the project area is the responsibility of the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD is staffed by 95 full-time and 7 part-time members organized into seven divisions: Administration, Suppression, Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement, Training, Disaster Preparedness, Emergency Medical Services, and Health and SafetA .7 There are currentIv five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to the paramedics, the rest of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) EMT-D (defibrillation certified to help those who have cardiac related emergencies that need to be defibrillated as soon as possible). SSFFD has 30 paramedics on staff. Each day there are two paramedics on the two full time ambulances and on as many engine companies as possible creating an Advanced Life Support (ALS) engine company.' In addition SSFFD has a Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance which provides non- emergency transport for persons who are non-ambulatory or bed confined. The BLS crew is available to transport patients to and from scheduled doctor appointments, dialysis centers, hospital-based treatment, and diagnostic centers, etc. The BLS ambulance is designated for those who do not require sophisticated medical therapy." The Administration Division is responsible for providing administrative support to all Fire Department Divisions, to allow for accurate planning, budgeting and execution of the mission of the Fire Department. The Suppression Division is responsible for providing response to, management and mitigation of all emergency incidents including fires, natural and man-made disasters, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues and medical emergencies. The Prevention and Code Enforcement Division is responsible for the annual inspections, plan review and construction inspection. This division also conducts Municipal Code enforcement for the City. The Training Division is responsible for the acquisition of new and maintenance of existing skills, lcnoNvledge and abilities. The Disaster Preparedness division is responsible for preparing the City for major emergency events, including natural disasters, nuclear, biological and chemical Nveapons of mass destruction. This division is also responsible for training of CERT members. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) division is responsible for providing timely advanced life support (ALS) medical care and transport of the sick and injured. In addition, this division is responsible for ensuring up to date EMS training and techniques for all Fire Department Personnel. The Health and Safety Division is responsible for providing high quality safety training to civilians and local businesses alike. Examples of training include: First Aid/CPR, hazardous materials response, fire extinguisher training and building evacuation. The Health and Safety Division also operates a Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance transportation service, Nvhich provides high quality*, low cost non-emergency ambulance transportation service. Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. �CitJ> of South Sari Francisco, Departnierzts, Fire, KlIS—ALS. TFebsite: htt):`7r7rw—sf.net indes.asj).Y."7D 432. Accessed January 28, 2013. 9 00) of South Sari Francisco, Departnierzts, Fire, DlIS BLS. TFebsite: htt): 7r7rw-sf.net indes.asps''��7D=133. Accessed:January 28, 2013. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-6 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Station 462,located at 249 Harbor Way, Nvould provide first response to any emergency at the project site during the construction phases and upon project completion. Currently, Station 462 houses one fire apparatus that is both a truck and an engine. This type of apparatus has a ladder like a truck and also carries Nvater and has a fire pump like an engine. Currently, Station 462 has three full-time personnel. Station 465 is the second responding station to the project site, located at 480 North Canal Street. Station 465 is physically closer to the project site but U.S.101 presents a possible obstruction to reaching the site. Currently there is one Engine Company located at Station 465. Daily staffing levels can fluctuate between two to three personnel. Estimated emergency response times from Stations 462 and 465 to the project site are approximately 4 minutes and 3.5 minutes,respectively.The SSFD has an adequate level of staffing for the City of South San Francisco's population served and is able to respond to calls Nvithin the prescribed response time. 10 Regulatory Setting New and updated regulations have been promulgated since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and are reflected in this section. Federal There are no federal regulations related to fire protection or police services applicable to the proposed project. State The 2010 California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises. The Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. Local The City's General Plan contains implementing policies regarding public services of Nvhich the applicable policies are discussed below. Police General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1 calls for the Police Department to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. While there are no response time goals, the current average response time throughout South San Francisco (which is roughly 1OLuis Da Silva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irz)(orniatiorz. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft SubsequerztErzvironnierztallnipactReport Page IT:L-7 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; eight square miles, geographically) are approximately 5-7 minutes depending on priority of calls for service. Fire and Emer6ency Services Citv of South San Francisco General Plan Poliev 8.4-G-1 calls for minimization of the risk to life and property from fire hazards in the City, and Policy 8.4-G-2 calls for fire protection that is responsive to citizens' needs. The fire response goal is 3.5 to 4 minutes for engines and quints, and 4.5 minutes for medical or rescue vehicles. Health and Safety Element: Fire Hazards Policy 8.4-1-1 Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those management units identified in Figure 4.12-2,in the South San Francisco General Plan. Policy 8.4-1-2 Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their property. Policy 8.4-I--3 Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire Nvithin the City. South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco Fire Department adopted an amended version of the 2010 California Fire Code, as Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the SSFMC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR , the assessment of whether the project Nvould result in a significant adverse impact related to public services or utilities Nvas determined by first evaluating whether for a given public service, additional resources Nvould be required to serve the project at acceptable service standards, or if serving the project under current resources Nvould reduce services to the existing public below accepted or current standards, and second, by evaluating whether construction of new facilities Nvould result in potentially adverse effects. The assessment is based on new baseline information gathered for the proposed project, as Nvell as new regulator- information as presented in the Environmental Setting and Regulatory Framework Sections. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-8 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The project does not include any residential uses and Nvould not result in a direct increase in population; therefore there Nvould be no impacts to schools, libraries, or other public services and the analysis focuses on the potential impacts to SSFPD and SSFFD. Thresholds of Significance The folloNving thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts on public services, including police and fire protection if the proposed project Nvould result in anv of the folloNving: • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated Nvith 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,including the folloNving: 0 Police protection; and 0 Fire protection. The 2000 Supplemental Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR thresholds Nvere similar although they did not include an analysis of other public facilities. Project Impacts The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan (project) Nvould be located on only a portion of the area covered by the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project,namely Planning Area 1. The Britannia Cove at ONTster Point Precise Plan proposes an increase in building development for Planning Area 1 as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Nvould increase the development of office/R&D uses on the site by 264,344 square feet, provide the same square footage of commercial uses, decrease the number of hotel rooms (from 350 to 200), include a parking garage, and provide parking at the same ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet as compared to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. The project Nvould not result in any new significant public services impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified public services impacts in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. This Draft Subsequent EIR does not provide any new mitigation measures as none are necessary, consistent Nvith the revised environmental setting. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures are not necessary as the potentially significant impacts have been reduced through implementation of City policies and new technologies. Therefore, the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project mitigation measures are superseded by the impact analysis and findings presented below. For a summary of impacts and mitigation from the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR, see the Prior Analysis section. The impact analysis below discusses impacts from the project and compares them Nvith the impacts of the 2000 BaY West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-9 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Impacts Not Analyzed Further The proposed project Nvould not create any significant direct demands upon public schools and services because it Nvould not include anv residential development. Therefore, the proposed project Nvould have no impact on schools and services. The nearest park to the project site is the Bay Trail and Shoreline Park located across Veterans Boulevard. This open space area Nvas a project component of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and Nvas analyzed in the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. The 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that although there is the potential for significant impacts to the park and compliance Nvith the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) issued Permit 10-98, Amendment One,Nvould reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The Bay Trail is not part of the proposed project although better connectivity to the bike and pedestrian paths Nvould be provided. The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan includes its own recreational facilities and as such Nvould not impact the usage of the Bay Trail. Further, the increase in population from the proposed project is expected to be mainly from employees that Nvould utilize parks near their places of residence. Shoreline Park consists of a paved footpath adjacent to the sideNvallc, but no other recreational facilities. It is unlikely that the project Nvould substantially increase the use of this paved footpath and open space area in a manner than Nvould degrade the path or require the need for new facilities. Further, the proposed project includes open space amenities for office buildings occupants' usage. Therefore, the impact to recreational resources is not discussed further and the proposed project Nvould have no impact on parks in the project area. These impact findings are in line Nvith the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR that found impacts to schools and parks to be less than significant. Impact IV.L-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. As described earlier, the project site is currently served by the SSFPD. The SSFPD's jurisdictional area includes the entire City. Two unincorporated pockets,including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's office. The entire City is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area. Implementation of the proposed project Nvould increase development on the project site. The proposed project consists of the phased build out of eight buildings including 884344 square feet of R&D/Office use; a 200 room, 126,000 square foot select service hotel Nvith restaurant; 20,000 square feet of retail space; and a parking structure. Total business/commercial development on the site Nvould be 1,030,344 square feet. As discussed previously,the City s officer-to-population ratio is currently an acceptable level of 1.4 officers per 1,000 population. The total population of the City of South San Francisco is 63362." The dad-mime population of the City of South San Francisco Nvas 76,141'2, as of 2011. U.S. Census Bureau, Anrericarz Fact Finder, Table: B01003, Total resident population, 2009-2011 Anrericarz Conznzu11io) Survey 3-dear Estimates. ii ebsite: Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page If:L-10 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Overall, the proposed project would generate 2,595 new employees." This increase in new employees on site would constitute a minor increase (approximately 3 percent) in the Citv's dad-mime population, and it is in compliance Nvith the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The SSFPD is generally able to respond to high priority calls Nvithin three to four minutes, and can accommodate the increase in day time population Nvithout loNvering response times. Further, these times are Nvithin the department's response time goals. With implementation of the proposed project, police surveillance at the project site Nvould be adequate for routine patrols and responses to calls for assistance and Nvould not lead to a change in response times and/or requirement for construction of new facilities.'-' At the time of the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR the SSFPD employed 80 sworn officers. The 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR found that the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project, which included both Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2/3, Nvould result in an increased demand for about one police office and one half a police car. This constituted a potentially significant impact and Mitigation Measure 15.2.2 Nvas recommended to reduce the impact to a less than significant level (please see the Prior Analysis section for a summary of impacts). In 2013 the SSFPD employed 83 sworn officers, and increase of three, thus accommodating the increase in day time population generated by the proposed project. Therefore, as opposed to the 2000 Ba-T West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project Nvould have a less than significant impact on police resources in the project area. Further, the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) establishes guiding policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. Implementation of the proposed project Nvould constitute a minor increase in the City's dad-mime population, and Nvould not result in SSFPD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.'' Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new facilities that Nvould result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore,the impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. htt�fact/inder2.cerrsrr,ti.yov face,titable,tier�Yice,ti i,ti'f` a e,v productLYie7i.�httnl''Uid.�('S 11 3�T� DP03. Accessed January 29, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau, People arid Households, Conmiutirzg (Journe)) to cork) AIairz, Data, Daytime Population. TFebsite:hap: www.celisus.gov lilies conmiuting data daytzniepop.htnil.Accessed January 29, 2013. 13Full build-out service population is based orz 2,385 employees associated with office-R&D, 180 employees associated with the hotel, arid 57 employees associated with the retail. The following land use size metrics to employees was utilized: office-R&D is 37-square feetper employee, hotel is 0.9 employees per room, arzd retail is 350 square feet per employee Setyealit Scott Campbell, Plarzrzirzg & C rinse Prevention 'S.ii'.A.T., South Sari Francisco Police Department. 2013. Personal conimurzicatiorz via e-mad with Vicole Keeler of CARS Corporation orz January 22, 2013 regarding service ililbrination. "Ibid. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page If:L-11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Impact IV.L-2: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire or emergency services facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire and emergency seri�ices. As discussed in Section IV.I Land Use and Planning, the land uses Nvithin the project area include commercial, manufacturing, and research and development activities. Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazards,two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: Vegetation As discussed in Section IV.G Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project area is urbanized and there are no Nvildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity*of the project site. The project site is bordered by urban land uses including U.S. 101 and Caltrain tracks, which do not contain vegetation conducive to Nvildland fires. Therefore, the project area site does not have a significant fire risk. Infrastructure Public infrastructure, particularly* site access and Nvater supply*, affect the CityT's ability*to respond to fire. Currently*the project site is vacant. Adherence to the fire code that contains regulations pertaining to fire hN-drants, automatic sprinkler systems,fire alarm systems,fire and explosion hazards safety*, and other fire safety* requirements for new buildings and premises Nvould reduce any significant building specific impacts. The proposed project Nvould result in approximately* 1,030,344 square feet of total business/commercial development and Nvould increase the number of people on the project site, presenting new fire and life safety*risks to people. The proposed project Nvould generate 2,595 employees at build out. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, through implementation of fire flow policies as outlined in Section IV.N Utilities, as Nvell as implementation of site lay* out plans the impact Nvould be less than significant. Further, as described in Section IV.K, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed project Nvould constitute a minor increase in the City s daytime population and Nvould not result in SSFFD's inability*to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project.16 Current response times and service ratios are adequate, and no new facilities that Nvould result in potential significant impacts Nvould be required. Therefore, the impact Nvould be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project required the implementation of Mitigation Measure 15.3.2 to alleviate the shadow effect of San Bruno Mountain on emergency*communication in the area near the project site. This impact has been mitigated through new technology*available since the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and the mitigation measure is not necessary*. 16 Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshall, South Sari Francisco Fire Departnierzt. 2013. Personal coniniurzicatiorz via e-mail with Vicole Keeler of URS Corporation orz February 22, 2013 regarding service irzforniatiorz. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnierz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-12 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project,in conjunction Nvith other development Nvithin the City of South San Francisco. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative groN-,th Nvithin the City and the proposed project's contribution to a cumulative impact on public services. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, as additional development occurs in the City, there ma-,T be an overall increase in the demand for police protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. Providing adequate police protection services is of critical importance to the City and funds are allocated to these services to ensure that police protection services are responsive to changes in the City. Staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFPD during the annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services are provided. Therefore, the cumulative impact, on police services in the City Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. Similar to the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project, the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is also less than significant because current response times are adequate and not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. There Nvould only be a minor increase in daytime population as a result of the project, which ensures that the officer to population ratio Nvould remain adequate. In addition, existing City programs, practices, and procedures Nvould continue to ensure the adequate provision of police protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on police protection services Nvould not be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a less than significant impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Further, as additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for fire protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. Providing adequate fire protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services to ensure that fire protection services are responsive to changes in the City. In addition, staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFFD during the annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that adequate fire protection services are provided. The cumulative impact, therefore, on fire services in the City Nvould be less than significant, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. The proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is also less than significant because current response times are adequate and not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project, the same as the 2000 Bav West Cove Commercial Project. There Nvould only be a minor increase in da-'-time population as a result of the project, which ensures that the officer to population ratio Nvould remain adequate. In addition, existing City programs, practices, and procedures Nvould continue to ensure the adequate provision of fire protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on fire protection services Nvould not be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a less than significant impact, similar to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-13 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; MITIGATION MEASURES Because no impacts related to public services have been identified, no mitigation measures are required or recommended. Britannia Cove at Oyster Poirzt IT:L. Public Services Draft Subsequerz t Erzvironnrerz tal Impact Report Page IT:L-14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS M. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the traffic and circulation impacts resulting from development of the 1,030,344- square-foot Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project along the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard and along the Nvest and south sides of Veterans Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco (see Figure 1). Existing, year 2017, and Near 2035 conditions Nvere evaluated by Crane Transportation Group at 10 nearby intersections and at the nearby U.S. 101 freevmv interchanges that serve the project that Nvould be most affected by project traffic. Project impacts to intersection level of service and vehicle queuing as Nvell as impacts to U.S. 101 freevmy ramps and mainline operation Nvere determined, as Nvere impacts due to project access, internal vehicular circulation, and pedestrian/bicycle circulation. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the folloNving EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this section: Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR(Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, 2011), the Revised Draft Report of the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area(TJKM Transportation Consultants, April, 2012),the 494 Forbes EIR(Impact Sciences and Crane Transportation Group, 2012)and the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR (Knapp Consulting and Crane Transportation Group, ongoing). CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION This analysis evaluated six scenarios of local circulation system operating conditions. They included Existing Conditions; Existing "With Project" Buildout Conditions; 2017 "Without Project" Conditions; 2017 "With Project" Phase 1 Conditions; 2035 "Without Project" Conditions; and 2035 "With Project" Buildout Conditions. The Existing Conditions scenario Nvas used to describe the current operating conditions in the project area. Phase 1 of the project is not anticipated to be completely constructed until 2016 and fully occupied until 2017. Therefore traffic impacts from the project Nvere evaluated by comparing 2017 "Without Project Phase 1" Conditions to 2017 "With Project" Conditions. Cumulative impacts resulting from project traffic are evaluated for 2035 Nvith and Nvithout full Project buildout development. Also, an"Existing With Total Project"development scenario is presented and compared to existing conditions in order to satisA- CEQA requirements. Traffic operations Nvere evaluated at 10 intersections during Nveekdav AM and PM peals traffic hours. Four freevmv mainline segments, three off-ramps and two on-ramps of the U.S. 101 freevmv Nvere also evaluated. The study area is shoN-,n in Figure IV.M-1 and locations are identified below, Nvhile locations of analysis are shoN-,n in Figure IV.M-2, Study Intersection Existing Lane Geometries and Control. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IT-Al. Transportation Dra f t Subsequen t Environnzen tal Impact Report Page IT--11-1 Not To Scale 101 NORTH Sister Cr . Project Veterans Site Bivd O ster Point Blvd Dr E Grand _ast �rq ���° Mitchell Ave a �ro a l)taY�Fwe c% 101 �n a iE 380 3 °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa,(It OyStcr Point Figure IV.M-1 Area map 1 n US 101 Not To Scale SB Ramps NORTH n 4Te,,13 -)t t � � m� nom- Jter ' owt Sister er OystePt omt 101 Mi Veterans aim / Blvd onram Sister Cities Blvd, 4. N B 101 I / �PROJEC Offram �A SITE Pit o� yster Point Blvd Grand 1 tF ��� ��� �`► Drivewa d 0 0� °' a +o . E Grand � ��`� � � Drivewa b o ® T r' Grand Ave : East Eli Grand Ave = Signal 101 = Side Street Drivewa a Stop Sign Control g n Britannia Cove EIR 41 City of South San Francisco u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Copa�(It OyStcr Point Figure IV.M-2 Existing Intersection Lane Geometries and Control 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Intersections 1. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound On/Off Hook Ramps (Signal) 2. Airport Boulevard/Terrabay Access (Signal) 3. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard(Signal) 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal) 5. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp (Signal) 6. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp/project Access (Signal) 7. Oyster Point BoulevardNeterans Boulevard (Signal) 8. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (Signal) 9. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive (Off-Ramp not Signal or Stop Sign Controlled, East Grand Avenue stop sign controlled right turn) 10. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard(Signal) Mainline Segments of U.S. 101 Freeway 1. North of ONTster Point Boulevard,northbound direction 2. North of ONTster Point Boulevard, southbound direction I. North of I-380,northbound direction 4. North of I-380, southbound direction U.S. 101 Off-Ramps 1. Southbound off-ramp flyover to Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd. 2. Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive 3. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue U.S. 101 On-Ramps 1. Southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue 2. Northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue SETTING Roadway System The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, Nvhich is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 1.75 miles south of the project site and the U.S. 101 freeway is almost immediately Nvest of the site (separated from the site by the Caltrain rail line and a public storage facility) (see Figure IV.M- 1, Area Map). Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-I 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; The project site is served directly by Oyster Point Boulevard on the south and by Veterans Boulevard along the north and east sides of the site. Regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. A single access connection Nvill be provided along Oyster Point Boulevard as the (new) north leg of the existing Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound FIN-over off-ramp intersection, while six driveway connections Nvill be provided to Veterans Boulevard. Access to U.S.101 Nvill be provided primarily by Oyster Point Boulevard, Nvith additional route options available. Each roadway is briefly described below, Nvhile a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and controls are presented in Figure IV.M- 2. Major Regional Roadways US. 101 Freeway. U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area and extends from doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the study area, U.S. 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Oyster Point Boulevard. Northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue. Southbound off-ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard, and at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S. 101 both north and south of Ouster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S. 101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2010, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 232,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 220,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 216,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Local Streets Oyster Point Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the East of 101 area in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange Nvith the U.S. 101 freeway,four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard, and two lanes near Gull Road. Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard is a four-to six-lane,north-south arterial street that runs parallel to and Nvest of U.S. 101. This roadwav continues north into the Citv of Brisbane and the CitA- of San Francisco, Nvhere it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. Gateway Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue Nvith South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue. Dubuque Avenue is a two- to seven-lane roadway running parallel to and east of U.S. 101 in a north-south direction. This roadway extends from East Grand Avenue Overcrossing to Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 ramps Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-5 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; intersection and up to seven lanes between the ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector roadway. Veterans Boulevard. Veterans Boulevard is a two- to four-lane collector roadvmv extending north and then Nvest of ONTster Point Boulevard. It ultimately makes a 90-degree turn to the north (adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-Nvay) and provides access to two hotels, Nvhere it ends. Four lanes are provided in the vicinity of ONTster Point Boulevard. Veterans Boulevard is intersected by three driveway connections on the north and east sides of the street near Ouster Point Boulevard. These driveways serve the Britannia ONTster Point office development and public parking for the Bay Trail. A fourth driveway is located just east of the 90-degree turn at the Caltrain right-of-Nvay and serves a parking lot used jointly for hotel and Bay Trail parking. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Volumes Existing traffic counts Nvere obtained from the City Public Works Department for all but one analysis intersection. Counts Nvere conducted in March 2008 or June 2009. In addition, counts at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand Avenue-Executive Drive intersection Nvere conducted by Crane Transportation Group in June 2009. Year 2008 & 2009 counts Nvere considered reflective of Near 2013 conditions by the Public Works Department due to the minimal local area development experienced over the past five Nears. Figures IV.M-3 and IV.M- 4 present existing Nveekday AM and PM Peale Hour volumes at all analysis intersections. Weekday AM and PM peals hour counts Nvere also conducted by Crane Transportation Group in early December 2012 at all driveNvays along the north and east sides of Veterans Boulevard opposite the project site. These volumes are presented in Figure IV.M-5. CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION METHODOLOGY & STANDARDS Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodolo6v Signalized Intersections Intersections, rather than roadvmy segments between intersections, are almost alvmys the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service(LOS)Nvhich ranges from LOS A,indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers,to LOS F,indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The LOS scale is also associated Nvith a control delay tabulation (TRB 2010) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control dela-T relationship is provided in Table IV.M-1, Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--6 434 n L 3 1 54 0 204 Not To Scale US707 /� SB t Ramps NORTH 228 14 oo 638 n 0 TerraBa ccess t 242 1_ 12 r 286 74 0 19 m 3 1 204 n 4-42 7 0 210 302 4• ointr 176 258 1 4 ° ` 162 �—107 `58 258 t f Sister ry Oster Oster S 137 Oyster Pt 1460 0 8 hies Point om 743—► (� 0 101 �1 t r► 498 , a t (*' 296 —h 2 94 0 d 997 —► 27 I 281 626 —►� 274 41 �� 881 \, 27 99 412 ° 38 ��� 368 P�tQ� 101 48+_7 5 e pr �0 Veterans Blvd NB Sister Cities 8/vd Ofram 471 111 56 102 332 F 67 02 8 255 �— 266 G1 • rand 4 183 • 4 52 Pit o yster Point Blvd L 0 233 t �► 162 m t (� 59 0 r 4 174 —► 35 161 1213 —► 47 286 4 Drivewa d 86 337 61 ° 71 G q 49 12 414 Q� p� gNd 2 a ���� 64 1 10 • E Grand I Drivewa b tr* 556 1062 Q` j 60 98 Grand Ave • East 1 Grand Ave 73 1 20 101 4 Drivewa a ° t g 157 113 Britannia Cove EIR °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point Figure IVA-3 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 497 Not To Scale l 64 �� US 101 SB NORTH Ramps 230 9 11 1 0 TetraBa ccess t 243 1_ 17 0 1414 226 12 c 5 337 n 64 i 906 1582 �► O r oint 416 158 -+--720 F 625 58 1 L► °� 229 iv 72 t (� Sister Oster Oster S ` 1002 Oyster Pt 354 0 0 ities Point Point 223� (� 0 ,a 61 j f 178 (� 46 i vh 75 0 �Qj 301 —► I ° 951 22 41118127 140 --►� 388 129 e� 127 ��p° 268 �.� 100 ��o� 27,i P 101 L 2 Veterans t �► Blvd 0 Sister Cities Blvd 134 306 4 186 7 340 93 F 1070 145 160 _ Grand � 574 . � 159 Per ° yiter Point Blvd 1 L � 0 165, t �► 93 , m t (� 30 0 ` 8 49 45 I 110 286 --► 66 54 I Drivewa d 76 333 74 ° 45 54 6 4-9 2 E Grand O �� 41 0 ` 87 4 Drivewa b `O 65 471 °� �0 + c 1 (� 61 11 ° Grand Ave ; 1 East p iE Grand Ave 128 p ` 110 101 T'. Drivewa Ta tr*. 72 17 3 Britannia Cove EIR °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point Figure IV.M-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale /O NORTH 4 59 • 1� CF 12 Veterans 49 Blvd 1 2 10 1 98 --& . US101 63 0 60 Southbound • 64�► Flyover ' Offramp � 73 �► � 20 .�� e►�d f Oyster Point 157 113 � > (Dm AM Peak Hour 8 30` �I • C6 Veterans Veterans 54 Blvd Blvd 4 • �► 2 87 1 Z3 ``l 11 US101 37 0 61 Southbound • 41 I-IL OffraP m / %% 128 �— 0 % 0 110 Oyster Point Blvd f* 72 17 � m g PM Peak Hour °1 Cihy of South San Francisco Britannia Cope(It0y5terPoirzt Figure IV.M-5 Existing AM&PM Peak Hour Volumes at Driveways along Veterans Blvd 00)(?fSoutlr S'anFrancisco April 201; Table IV.M-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Average Control Level of Delay Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable < 10.0 progression and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 35.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0 progression.. long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression- long 55.1 to 80.0 cycle lengths, and high VIC ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to >80.0 oversaturation,poor progression,or very long cycle lengths. Source:2000 Highwgy CapacityMarrrral(Transportation Research Board). Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically*graded using the LOS A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-Nvay stop intersections are determined using a methodology* outlined in the year 2010 TRB Highway Capacity* Manual. Under this methodology*, all-Nvay stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay* values are also calculated. Intersections Nvith side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay* scales using a methodology*outlined in the year 2010 TRB Highway Capacity*Manual. HoNvever, unlike signalized or all-Nvay stop analysis N-,-here the LOS and control delay* designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay*designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Table IV.M-2, Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria, provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Minimum Acceptable Standard LOS D is the minimum acceptable operation for signalized or all Nvay stop intersections, while LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements at a side street stop sign controlled intersection. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--10 00)of 1;outh S'an Francisco April 201; Table IV.M-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Average Control Delay Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little or no delays <10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Veiv long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all-way stop), or with approach/tum movement F capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled 'S�'� intersection) Source:2000 Highway Capaci6).lalntal(Tt°anspor°tation Resear°ch Board). Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis Methodolo6v The Synchro software program has been used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues at the folloNving signalized freeway off-ramp intersections and at the adjacent or nearby intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersections: • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Airport Boulevard intersection and the adjacent Airport Boulevard/Terrabav intersection • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue intersection and the adjacent Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection • U.S. 101 Southbound FIN-over Off-Ramp/ONTster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection and the adjacent Oyster Point BoulevardNeterans Boulevard intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Dubuque Avenue intersection and the adjacent Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection and the nearby Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection In addition to Synchro software queuing evaluation, the SIM Traffic analysis program Nvas utilized to determine if freeway off-ramp queues Nvould extend to the freeway mainline. For locations Nvhere an auxiliary lane becomes the off-ramp lane, the storage distance to the freeway mainline is based upon the location Nvhere the auxiliary lane separates from the adjacent mainline travel lane. Oueuin6 Standards The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95"' percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated Nvithin available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to or nearby off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off- Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--11 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is alloNved to back up to the freevmy mainline during the entire AM or PM peals traffic hour. The 95"' percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups Nyill only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for Existing, year 2017, and year 2035 Nyithout and "With Project" conditions. Off-ramp queuing Nyas evaluated using both the Synchro sof fare output, Nyhich details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the peal.traffic hour, as Nyell as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program, Nyhich evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peal.traffic hour. Freeway Ramps Off-Ramp Diverge from Freeway Mainline Analysis Methodology and Minimum Acceptable Standards Caltrans uses a volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freevmy. This threshold Nyas used in this EIR. On-Ramps Analysis Methodology and Minimum Acceptable Standards On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning-level methodology contained in the Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity is dependent upon the free-flovy speed of on-ramp traffic. For single- and double-lane diamond on-ramps Nyith higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 and 3300 vehicles per hour, respectively. For single-lane button hook or curving on- ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. Freeway Mainline Analysis Methodology U.S. 101 freevmv mainline segments Nyere evaluated based on the Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S. 101 existing traffic conditions Nyere evaluated for the Nyeekday AM and PM Peal. Hours. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis Nyere derived from year 2009 U.S. 101 mainline counts from Caltrans as provided by TJKM Associates as part of their Nyork for the updating of the City's East of 101 Traffic Modeling. Minimum Acceptable Standard LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for the freevmy mainline. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--12 00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013 EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Level of Service Table 3, Existing Intersection Levels of Service, shows that all analyzed intersections currently operate at good to acceptable(LOS D or better)levels of service during both the AM and PM peals traffic hours. Intersection 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Table 4, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queue, shows that only one intersection evaluated in this study currently has 95"'percentile queues exceeding available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue — AM & PM Peak Hours: The northbound Dubuque Avenue approach through/left turn lane currently has queues exceeding the 150-foot available storage during both commute peals traffic hours. Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing to Freeway Mainline Table IV.M-5, 95th Percentile Off-Ramp Queuing, shows that no off-ramps evaluated for this study currently have off-ramp 95th percentile queues extending to the freeway mainline. Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline Table IV.M-6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway off-ramps evaluated in this study serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peals traffic hours, Nvith the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM Peale Hour (Nvith 1,618 vehicles per hour). On-Ramp Operation Table IV.M-7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway on-ramps evaluated in this study serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area are operating acceptably and have volumes Nvell below capacity during the AM and PM Peale Hours. Freeway Mainline Operation Existing LOS on the freeway segments in South San Francisco Nvere based on analysis of year 2009 volumes. Table IV.M-8 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation, Nvhile Table IV.M-9 shows details of the existing freeway LOS results. Currently, all U.S. 101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the Nveekday AM and PM Peale Hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S. 101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, in both the northbound and the southbound directions during the AM Peale Hour, and in the northbound direction during the PM Peale Hour. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--13 00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013 Table IV.M-3 Intersection Level of Service Existing &Existing+Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing+ Existing Existing Existing + Project Project 1. Airport BIN-d./U.S.101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps C-23.2(1) C-23.3 C-26.6 C-26.7 (Signal) 2. Airport BIN-d./Ter7abay Access NA(1) NA NA NA (Signal) 3. Airport Bled./Sister Cities BIN-d./Oyster Point Bled. C-31.6(1) C-31.7 C-24.5 C-24.7 (Signal) 4. Oyster Point BIN-d./Dubuque Ave./ C-23.2(1) C-23.8 C-25.1 C-25.3 US 101 NB On-Ramp(Signal) 5. Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB B-20.0(1) B-20.0 B-12.3 B-12.3 On-Ramp(Signal) 6. Oyster Point Bled./Gateway Bled./ C-27.7(1) C-36.0 C-219 C-24.1 US 101 SB Flyover/Off-Ramp Project Access(Signal) 7. Oyster Point BlNANeterans Bled. B-109(1) B-16.8 B-12.6 C-259 (Signal) S. Airport Bled./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.6(1) D-41.4 C-31.8 C-319 9. NB US 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ C-17.7(2) C-17.7 B-10.2 B-10.3 E. Grand Ave(E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn) 10. E. Grand Ave./Gateway Bled. C-25.0(1) C-25.6 C-22.4 C-229 (Signal) Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds. (2, Viisignalized level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds. Westbound E. Grand.4venrre stop sign controlled right till-r. Fear 2010 Highway Capacitj��llrn�zral.lnalysis�llethodolo��Source:Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-14 00)of 1;otrth S'an Francisco April 201; Table IV.M-4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Existing &Existing+Project (Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service Intersection Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Distance* Existing Existing Existing +project Existing +project Airport Blvd./US 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps Off-Ramp Left&Left/Right Turn 1275 194 194 378 378 NB Thm&Thm/Right Turn 920 222 222 254 258 Airport Blvd./Terrabay Access SB Right Turn 220 NA NA NA NA SB Thin 460 NA NA NA NA NB Thin 850 NA NA NA NA NB Left Tum 350 NA NA NA NA Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. WB Left Tum(total for 2 lanes) 310 128 146 228 248 WB Thm & Tllln/Rlght Turll ( 440 154 190 424 394 total for 2 lanes) WB Right Turn NA NA NA NA NA Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue EB Thin 225 132 146 68 74 WB Tlnn 840 27 38 155 173 WB Left(total for 2 lanes) 1360 118 170 728 960 WB Right 520 39 51 427 840 NB Left Turn 270 167 166 254 254 NB Left/Tlnu 150 166 164 260 260 NB Right Tum 1 270 99 142 25 31 Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off-Ramp/Left/Tlnn (total of 2 1740 414 458 284 300 lanes) SB Right Tum 300 4 5 15 28 Oyster Point Blvd./Gatevvay Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access SB Off-Ramp Thm 3350 318 551 72 94 SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 322 453 46 46 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--1 S 00)of 1;outh S'an Francisco April 201; Table IV.M-4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Existing &Existing+Project (Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service Intersection Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Distance* Existing Existing Existing +project Existing +project EB Thiti 875 235 280 63 86 Oyster Point Blvd.Neterans Bled. EB Left Turn 515 129 286 54 lqq Bolded results=significant project impact. *Storage and queues measured in feet per lane unless noted. S\•nclu-o softie are used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV..M--16 00)of South Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-5 Off-Ramp Queuing Back to U.S.101 Mainline (SIM Traffic Evaluation) AM Peak Hour Do Off-Ramp Volumes Extend to Freeway Mainline? Existing Year 2017 Year 2035 W/O With W/O With W/O With U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Project Project Project Project Project Project SB to Airport Bled. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 900 ft. storage (0%)* (0%)* SB to Oi-ster Point Bled./ No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Gateway Bled. (4.7%)* (6.9%)* 3100 Ft. storage NB to Dubuque Ave. No No No Yes Yes Yes 1275 ft. storage (4.6%)* (4.8%)* PM Peak Hour Do Off-Ramp Volumes Extend to Freeway Mainline? Existing Year 2017 Year 2035 W/O With W/O With W/O With U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Project Project Project Project Project Project SB to Airport Blvd. No No No No Yes Yes 900 ft. storage (0%)* SB to Oi-ster Point BIN A/ No No No No No No Gatew ai-Blvd. 3100 Ft. storage NB to Dubuque Ave. No No No No No No 1275 ft. storage Bolded=significant project impact(1%or greater) (XX%)*=percent increase in off-ramp traffic due to project Source:Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft S'izbsegiient Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--17 00)of South S'an Francisco April 201; Table IV.M-6 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing,Year 2017 &Year 2035 Without &With Project Volumes Year 2017 Year 2035 Capacity Existing Without + Without + * Existing +Project Project Project Project Project U.S. 101 Off-Ramp (Veh/Hr) AM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Ovster Point/Gatewav 1500 1249 1411 1655 1732 2361 2523 NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./Executive 1500** 1618 1770 1747 1791 2157 2309 Drive NB Off-Ramp to 1500 716 802 1392 1455 1816 1902 Dubuque Ave. PM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Ovster Point/Gateway 1500 154 204 296 325 404 454 NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./ Executive 1500** 536 576 520 534 630 670 Drive NB Off-Ramp to 1500 494 533 613 640 741 780 Dubuque Ave. Bolded results=significant project impact *Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. ** Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway by Nvill increase capacity to 2,300 vehicles per hour. Source: Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft S'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--18 00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 201; Table IV.M-7 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing,Year 2017 &Year 2035 Without &With Project Volumes Year 2017 Year 2035 U.S. 101On- Capacity* Existing W/O + W/O + Ramp (Veh/Hr) Existing +Project Project Project Project Project AM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from 2000 495 552 578 610 1172 1229 Dubuque Ave. NB On-Ramp 2200 746 789 897 923 1220 1263 from Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. PM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from 2000 1263 1499 1530 1620 1957 2193 Dubuque Ave. NB On-Ramp 2200 1184 1350 1896 1965 2487 2653 from Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. *Planning level capacity: Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Exhibit 13-10,Transportation Research Board Bolded results=significant project impact Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--19 00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-8 Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operations AM Peak Hour Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp(just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp(just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. PM Peak Hour Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp(just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp(just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. LOS=Level of Service Source: Crane Transportation Group Table IV.M-9 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Existing &Existing+Project Existing Existing+Project Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7452 D 31.2 7491 D 31.4 Southbound 6774 D 27.1 6936 D 28.0 North of I-380 Northbound 9713 C 25.5 9951 D 26.4 Southbound 6421 B 16.1 6478 B 16.3 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7530 D 31.7 7680 D 32.7 Southbound 6314 C 24.7 6364 C 25.0 North of I-380 Northbound 7605 C 19.2 7684 C 19.4 Southbound 8377 C 21.3 8613 C 22.0 LOS=Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--20 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service, fern* service and regional rail service. Figure IV.M-6,Public Transportation Routes, and Table IV.M-10, Public Transportation Service, shovy the type and frequency of transit service east of the U.S. 101 freevmy in the project vicinity-, Nyhile Table IV.M- 11, Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service, lists the shuttle services available in the study area. Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. HoNvever, currentIv there is no SamTrans service east of U.S. 101. Bus routes running just Nyest of the U.S. 101 are described beloNy. Bus Route 34 Tanforan Shopping Center—Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard betv,-een Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on Nyeekdays Nyith headvmvs of about 2 hours. Bus Route 130 DaIv City/Colma BART—South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco Nvith the Colma BART station and Daly City. This route operates Nvith 20-minute peals period headvmys and 30- to 60-minute non-peals headvmys on Nveekdays, 30-minute headvmvs on Saturdays and 60-minute headvmvs on Sundays. Bus Route 132 Airport/Linden-Arrovo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. Bus Route 132 operates on 30-minute peals period headvyays and 60- minute non-peals headvmys on Nyeekdays and 60-minute headvyays on Saturdays. Bus Route 292 San Francisco—SF Airport—Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. Bus Route 292 operates Nyith 20- to 30-minute peals headvmys and 25- to 60-minute non-peals headvmys on Nyeekdays and 30-to 60-minute headvmvs on Saturdays and Sundays. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--21 Not To Scale An NORTH 4 miles to west ft ..® t veterans Project ''�•••+... 101 .� Blvd It Sister Citie®''®'••+.. U) .♦ ® Blvd ®s ®ys er Point ®e ®,• b b �`' ® J¢s 'eta\ � ® •®®® Forbes B)vd; AfillerAv :� r r •,•• / ; East Grand Av Grand Ave E L ----- CalTrain Shuttle BART Oyster Point Shuttle ®. SamTrans Routes 101 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION Between Mission/El Camino at Lawndale/McClellan FRANCISCO"a SOUTH SAN CALTRAIN STATION Shuttle stops nearest Project Site 1120 Veterans Blvd g Brittania - Oyster Point 200 Oyster Point Blvd °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point Figure IV.M-6 Transit and Shuttle Routes 00)of South Sari Francisco Apri12013 Table IV.M-10 Public Transportation Service Frequency AM/PM Services Route Peak Hour T Midday Area Served Airport/Linden-Daly City and Colma 20/20 30 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave BART Stations(130) South SF BART Station(132) 30/30 50 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave Sam Trans Airport/Linden-Serramonte(133) 30/30 60 Airport BIN-d./Linden Ave Palo Alto-Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 Redwood City-Colma BART Station 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF (391) BART Station San Mateo-SF(292) 15115(a) 30 Airport BIN-d./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilrov-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15115 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly- City- 15115 15 Daly City-BART Station Riclunond-Daly- City- 15115 — Daly- City-BART Station FDublin-Millbrae 15115 15 South SF BART Station Gateway-Area 15115 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech Caltrain Bldgs B9,B5 Shuttle to Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 SSF Oyster Point Station Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Court Utah Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton Sierra Point Area 35135 5000 Shoreline Court BART Genentech 15115 — Genentech Bldgs B5,B54 Shuttle to SSF Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Station Oyster Point Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton Alameda/Oakland (Jack London 30-60 mins -- From Alameda/Oakland San Square) (3 runs AM) 1 run Francisco To Alameda/Oakland Bati-Fern- 1 runA AM/60 PM min (3 runs PM) Soza°ce:�lletr°opolitan Transportation Commission (Sll.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief.411iance (conznzzrte.org), Caltrain 2013.Frequency of transitserviee is presented in mirrzrtes.Saar Francisco Bay Ferry Schedzde 2013. SF=Saar Francisco (a) =average jregrreney period. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--23 00)of I;outh S'an Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-11 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served Oyster Point BART eight AM&nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd.,Gull Dr.,Eccles Ave.,Forbes Caltrain seven AM&seven PM trips Blvd.,Veterans Blvd. BART rune AM&rune PM trips E. Grand Ave.,Utah Ave.,Harbor Way, Utah-Grand Caltrain seven AM&seven PM trips Littlefield Ave. Gateway. Millbrae BART ten AM&twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd.,BART Caltrain six AM&five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office BART four AM&four PM trips Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline Caltrain four AM&four PM trips �otlishitttles oza°ce:Peninsula Tt°affic Congestion Relief 4llianee(Conrnnrte.org), Caltrain 2009. alternate between 15-and 30-minzrte headways dzn°ing both peak hours. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. During the AM commute period there are northbound trains at 7:05, 7:25, 8:05, 8:25, 9:05 and 9:25 (then hourly), while all trains southbound are on an hourly schedule. During the PM commute period there are northbound trains hourly, while southbound there are trains at 4:48, 5:08, 5:48, 6:08, 6:18, 7:08 and 7:48 (then hourly).. San Francisco Bay Ferry The San Francisco Bay Ferry provides Nveekday service between South San Francisco and Alameda & Oakland (Jack London Square). During the AM commute period there are three ferries to South San Francisco (leaving the East Bay at 6:25, 7:25 and 7:55 AM) and one ferry from South San Francisco (leaving at 7:20 AM). During the PM commute period there are three ferries from South San Francisco (leaving at 4:20, 5:20 and 6:20 PM) and one ferry to South San Francisco leaving the East Bay at 4:55 PM). There is also tourist service between South San Francisco and doN-,ntoN-,n San Francisco and Fisherman's Wharf on Wednesdav and Friday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides van shuttle service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S. 101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles also provide service to and from the Colma BART station. As shoNsn in Figure IV.M-6, a shuttle Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-24 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; stop is located just east of Veterans Boulevard internal to the Britannia Oyster Point office complex (across the street from the proposed project). The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule, and provided at no cost on Nveekdays during the commute periods. Seventy-five percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint PoNvers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments. Twenty-five percent of operating costs are borne by area employers. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities SideNvallcs extend along the project site's entire Oyster Point Boulevard frontage and along the majority of the project site's Veterans Boulevard frontage. The exception is a±350-foot segment at the Nvest end of the project site's Veterans Boulevard frontage. Proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element and the Bicycle Master Plan (February, 2011). The Bicycle Master Plan updated and amended the Transportation Element of the General Plan in 2011 to include new routes and facilities. The Bicycle Master Plan is on a two-year, as needed, update schedule and is anticipated to be updated in 2013 (Dennis Chuck, August 8, 2012). Numerous bicycle facilities are available in the study area. The Bay Trail paved bicycle/pedestrian recreation pathway is located on the north side of Veterans Boulevard across the street from the project site. Bike lanes are available along Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Veterans Boulevard), Gull Drive, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and Shoreline Court. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over improvements proposed as part of any project that are Nvithin 100 feet of San Francisco Bay. Some parts of the project frontage along the south side of Veterans Boulevard are Nvithin this 100-foot limit. The applicant, City and BCDC Nvill be in discussion regarding any required improvements. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Plans and policies that pertain to the traffic conditions affecting and affected by the project include: (1)the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Standards; and (2) the City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--25 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; San Mateo County CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county line, the LOS standard Nvas set as LOS E in order to be consistent Nvith the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 Nvas F, the standard Nvas set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS Nvas or Nvill be E, the standard Nvas set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard Nvas set to be one letter designation Nvorse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change Nvould either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or Nvould significantly affect the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental, or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if by eliminating from the evaluation the traffic volume that is traveling on the route between San Mateo County and an adjacent county, operating conditions Nvould be acceptable on a CMP route the deficiency Nvould not occur. City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: • Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's police poNver and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and Nvelfare. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from grovlh in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco Nvill be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peal-,traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in Nvays to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this section. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--26 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. Calibration of the City s traffic model for existing traffic conditions indicated that land uses to the east of the U.S.101 freevmv in South San Francisco are now generating Peale Hour traffic at levels Nvell below those that Nvould be expected using fitted curve equation trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008). Based upon this data and the City s requirement of an aggressive TDM Program for the project,it Nvas projected that Project Peale Hour trip generation Nvould be 20 percent below fitted curve equation trip rates for Near 2017 conditions and 25 percent below fitted curve equation trip rates for Near 2035 conditions. These conservative reductions are smaller than the 33 to 35 percent below average Peale Hour fitted curve trip rates found for existing model calibration. The objective of TDM programs Nvill be to reduce vehicle trips at research and development, office and manufacturing developments by incorporating program components such as having a TDM coordinator, encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. South San Francisco has a"menu"of potential TDM programs, each Nvith a specific number of points that relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. FUTURE "WITHOUT PROJECT" OPERATING CONDITIONS The proposed project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to both year 2017 and year 2035 Base Case conditions. Year 2017 reflects a horizon year that Phase 1 of Britannia Cove at Ouster Point Nvould be completed and occupied, Nvhile Near 2035 reflects the most distant horizon Near currentIv utilized by the City Public Works Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes. The project Nvould be expected to be completely constructed and fully occupied by 2020. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operation for Near 2017 and 2035 conditions. YEAR 2017 "WITHOUT PROJECT" CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION Year 2017 "Without Project" conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved, and proposed development in the study area, as Nvell as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Projects and their associated trip generation are provided in Table IV.M- 12, 2017 "Without Project" Trip Generation, and have been utilized by TJKM Associates to develop local area intersection and freevmy volumes for use in the City s updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2017 "Without Project" Peale Hour conditions Nvere developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to existing traffic volumes. Year 2017 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such as the first part of the Gatevmy Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, 213 East Grand, 328 Roebling Road, 494 Forbes Boulevard, Home Depot, Terrabay full development, the ferry terminal and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2017 "Without Project" AM and PM Peale Hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures IV.M-7 and IV.M- 8. The TJKM near term horizon projections Nvere originally for the year 2015. HoNvever, due to economic conditions and lack of development over the past four Nears,the City Planning and Public Works Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--27 597 k3l 1 64 5 Not To Scale US707 SB Ramps NORTH 118 794 a o TerraBa * CCR- � I 45 217 296 `k g r 409 74 1 18 m 3 286 ��— 4- 185 214 0 L 324 fJ i 4 t O s t 176 377 F 478 oint �—235 195 ` 162 r 95 258 J 1 r Sister Oster Oster Oster Pt Oyster Pt 2063 90 3 Cities � Point Point 13431 "i 3 102 O �► � �► 411 � (* 523 a 537 '1063--o. 45 226469 881 —tea 359 999 �e� 12 5 243 164 o�0�y 505 50 ���° 430 ° P��e 101 563 101 3 L 3 .� 1 L* 1 e�o� `0 pram 1313 o� (� 0 a 14 0 Veterans 79 / Blvd NB 101 92 Sister Cities Blvd Ot(ram� 481 69 55 4 � 1713 252 110 48 ��/ 140 -4) I L �— 306 0 Point Blvd Grand ` 229 i 159 Pit yster � L 0 248 1 �► 226 m 1 (� 59 0 4 317 1632 —► m �� Drivewa d 35 213 47 636 m a �► 86�, 421 95 � °i 419 Q� � _ v j 49 12 14 O� B�Jd 2 as \� E Grand 64 1 10��J �a I 4 Drivewa b 5431204 Q ? 98 60 Grand Ave East 1 Grand Ave 73 1 20 101 4 Drivewa a g 157 113 Britannia Cove EIR °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunria Copa,(It OyStcr Point Figure IVA-7 Year 2017 without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 721 SB On/off Not To Scale 734 Ramps 1 �► L 12 `500 NORTH 451 13 20 1201 n ,J 0 Terra Ba Access 1 109 38 151 355 17 2 ,-1971 277 2 490 n 202 z 1581 229 7 m 2 �0 44 0 46 753 -+--2275 4 OOint r 1144 423 67 �1 1 f Sister Oster O sler O ter Pr hies Point Om } 334 Oyster Pt 511 498 5 4 ��d 305—i 202 , I 164— ' �1 r► 75 �0 23 74128 274 317 —�� 472113181 22� 1203 96 P 101 502 o e m ��� 73 1493147 6 2 _�7o7 0 Onram Veterans 565 �� 1 �► Blvd 0 "-35 0 Sister Cities Blvd / 48 199 NB 109 0 Offram 14535 183 215 150 65 89 92 P �—446 �—1493 1 4 1 728 554 Point Blvd Grand P yiter 1 173 J 1 f* 164 o c 1 � i 0 110 45 138 388 --► 75 I 196 \� 30 p g 76 522 103 ° 160 P� o��� 4 Drivewa d 1 r 9 � 54 6 � � d E Grand Q� g'v i 2 41 p ` 87 Q �G} °�� 4 Dfrivewa b 49 471 I Q ate` 61 11 Grand Ave ; 1 East 01 iE D Grand Ave 128 p ` 110 1101 1 � Drivewa a 'T 1 lrl� 72 17 3 Britannia Cove EIR 41 City of South San Francisco u o �IIIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point Figure IV.M-8 Year 2017 without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes M � O oo 0 h C, n cn o O co co O Ln �n ti co c, ti ti c l O G� N � M � c0 '� � V '� V c-I M M c-I c-I c-IV c-I M N oo M N �--� N co C1i h0 O c c-I O M N L h M cl M M — N h `� Q l� Lr) oo N � M O ti O i--i N Ln Ln co h M c-I Ln "o Lr) CQ Ln O L M F+I Q Lr) O cl oo tM Lr) V D Ln a 'a O O N O O O V In M N ♦+ O l� W co oo M V' co V h M o h �' N 4 M c-I Ln M M c-I Ln cl c0 G O M Ln lfl� Ln S.i Q M � N M V .N-i F� cc "o c0 c0 N cc lf� 11 cc cl Ln f cl N N cy M M oo .N-i cl lf� cl O F+H o co cn "o cn "o co co t� C G W Ln lo In i V o t �n co cn Ln t" N co N N N N a CA M N N co M h M u 0 cl Q ti ti b G cl N O C1 M O '" W pl, p O .� co c-IV C1i � V N p ti w u H O N � o ° u u u a u W a° z oo b b a p o b 4,0 a d a b U ti a 0 O a O Q V x O H H V U � Q 00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013 Department determined that the original 2015 projections Nvould now better reflect year 2017 conditions based upon current development schedules for approved and pending projects. Also, the year 2015 modeling had included full development on the project site Nvith a development called Genentech Triangle. It included 248,000 square feet of office development, 372,000 square feet of R&D development and a 350-room hotel. This development and its associated traffic has been removed from the 2015/2017 "Without Project"projections. Roadway Improvements Planned by 2017 The City's East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection improvements in the City s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In accordance Nvith the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development projects in the East of 101 Area,held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from Nvhich the fees Nvere collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 Area, the project Nvould pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of updating its capital improvement program list for the East of 101 Area; a new list is tentatively scheduled to be available in early 2013. Based on currently available funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department expects that the folloNving intersection improvements Nvill be funded and constructed by 2017. Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2017 Base Case traffic modeling for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital Improvement Program. The improvements are: 1. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramp s/Wondercolor Lane a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane. b. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline. 2. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp a. Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach. b. Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through/right turn lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard a. Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through/right turn lane as an exclusive through lane. 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp a. Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right turn lane on the Nvestbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard). 5. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing a. Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound East Grand Avenue approach. 6. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue/Executive Drive a. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--31 00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013 Figure IV.M-9, Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control, provides a schematic presentation of Near 2017 intersection approach lanes and control, while Figure IV.M-10 presents the sequencing of improvements along Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard in 2017 Nvithout and Nvith the project. Year 2017 "Without Project" Intersection Level of Service Table IV.M-13, Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections Nvith Near 2017 "Without Project"volumes Nvould operate at acceptable Levels of Service Nvith the folloNving exceptions. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--32 ;k US707 Not To Scale SB /� Ramps NORTH 4cr,.,B C) TerraBa � cn m F- m oint Sister fO ster O ter Oyster Pt 4� ��,d ities� Point oa�� `1 trr- �• Pie 101 Z� ��� Veterans / Blvd Onram Sister Cities 8/vd a- � pp �+ NB 101 �o PROJEV Offram SITE b Pit 0 Blvd � yster Point �`► Drivewa d � � V z o a a E Grand T:t t*- a�0 • Drivewa b o tj o ® ?r' Grand Ave East EIJ Grand Ave = Signal 101 = Side Street Drivewa a Stop Sign �� Control 3 El Britannia Cove EIR 41 City of South San Francisco Q(� u o ii�lll@ BritanniaCopa,atOyStcrPoint Figure 1V.M- / Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control Veterans Veterans t1 Veterans w E a m E °' CO = 0 t7 a o 0 2 4 IIII II a tit ° �i� o m CL (7 oQ o 3 J o J o O d m J N V N r C) m ° E * m a���4 Gatewa d iii4 Gatewa 0 '���� Gatewa s t y� a� r M 111 1 M LO T 1 ��� N N T 1�� a N a i _� m a m OZ Qa o � Oao `�1TTf' Tf� �� fftt IL Veterans Veterans v Veterans 0 0'1`1t t'' 01`1t tl' Tt E O1'l '' E m 0 m 0 0 Z- Q- y J J a'S J > J OO w Ln O �.. N rn I W k K a�h * o 'r 0 W N * d d WL, Gatewa -44L,- Gateway t ML, Gatewa 0 p 2 C m 1�1 w II II o m a m m w �tt� `�iTt� �f t� 3 °1 Cihy of South San Francisco u o ii�IIIIU Brrtrunzia Co�a�ritOyStcr Point Figure IVA-10 Oyster Point/Gateway&Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd Lane Configurations-Existing,2017 and 2035 With and Without Project 00)ofSoutlr Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-13 Intersection Level of Service-Year 2017 Without&With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Without Without +Project +Project Project Project 1. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps C-23.8(1) C-23.8 C-29.6 C-29.6 (Signal) 2. Airport Blvd./Ter7abay Access B-11.7(1) B-11.0 B-10.2 B-10.2 (Signal) 3. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. C-31.7(1) C-319 D-42.7 D-42.0 (Signal) 4. Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./ C-22.4(1) C-24.3 C-32.1 C-36.0 US 101 NB On-Ramp(Signal) 5. Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp C-21.1(1) C-21.4 B-11.0 B-11.0 (Signal) 6. Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ F-88.8(1) F-104.1 C-339 D-47.4 US 101 SB Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access(Signal) 7. Oyster Point Blvd./Veterans Blvd. C-31.7(1) C-31.4 F-91.2 E-56.7 (Signal) 8. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-42.0(1) D-42.3 D-44.8 D-45.5 9. NB US 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ B-10.8(2) B-10.8 A-8.6 A-8.6 E. Grand Ave(E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn) 10. E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. D-48.1(1) D-48.6 D-38.0 D-38.4 (Signal) Bolded result=significant project impact. Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds. ''' V'nsignalized level ofservice-vehicle control delay in seconds. IFestborrnd E. G°and.4venrre stop sign controlled right ta,r. Fear 2010High�ayCapacitjllrn�rral.lnalysisllethodolo� 'Soza°ce:Crane TransportationG°ozrp AM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal)- LOS F PM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (Signal)-LOS F Year 2017 "Without Project" Vehicle Queuing at Intersections Table IV.M-14, Year 2017 95"' Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the folloNving off-ramp intersections and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95"' percentile year 2017 "Without Project"queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--35 00)of 1;otrtli S'an Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-14 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2017 Without &With Project (Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service) Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Distance* Without +Project Without +Project Project Project Airport Blvd./US 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps Off-Ramp Left & Left/Right 1275 280 280 504 504 Turn NB Thm&Thm/Right Turn 920 208 220 292 300 Airport Blvd./Terrabay Access SB Right Turn 220 5 5 1 1 SB Thii 460 113 114 121 122 NB Tlllu 850 3 1 26 27 NB Left Turn 350 209 217 60 60 Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. WB Left Turn(total for 2 lane) 310 222 226 270 272 WB T1llU & Thm/Rlght Turll (total for 2 lanes) 206 206 51 522 Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp EB Thiti 225 318 329 105 114 WB Tlllu 840 120 117 177 118 WB Left(total for 2 lanes) 1360 176 228 1272 1326 WB Right(total for 2 lanes) 1040 142 144 516 1026 NB Left Turn 270 79 85 234 234 NB Left/Tlnu 270 23 24 129 129 NB Right Turn 270 70 81 15 16 Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off-Ramp/Left/Tlnu (total for 2 170 858 918 370 386 lane) SB Right Turn 300 31 60 37 47 Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Project Access SB Off-Ramp Thiti 3350 546 650 109 137 SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 434 470 91 103 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'izbsegczent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--36 00)ofSout1i Sari Francisco April 2013 Table IV.M-14 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2017 Without &With Project (Intersections At or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service) Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Distance* Without +project Without +project Project Project EB Tlnu(total for q lanes) 2825 2948 3168 932 764 Oyster Point B1vd.Neterans Blvd. EB Left Turn 515 108 161 30 99 Bolded results=significant project impact. *Storage and queues measured in feet per lane unless noted. Svnclu-o software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group AM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement Nvould have 95"' percentile queue demands greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: The off- ramp approach right turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach Nvould have 95"'percentile queue demands greater than available storage. PM Peak Hour • Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard: The Oyster Point Boulevard Nvestbound approach through and through/right turn lanes Nvould have 95"' percentile queue demands greater than available storage. Year 2017 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Queuing Back to Freeway Mainline Table IV.M-5 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project" queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peals traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program (unless noted). • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard—AM Peale Hour: Backups to mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard — AM Peal. Hour: Backups to mainline. Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--37 00)of South Sari Francisco April 201; Year 2017 "Without Project" Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline Table IV.M-6 shows that the folloNving off-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project" volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection-AM Peale Hour: 1655 vehicles per hour using off-ramp. Year 2017 "Without Project" On-Ramp Operation Table IV.M-7 shows that no on-ramps Nvould have year 2017 "Without Project"volumes exceeding ramp capacities. Year 2017 "Without Project" U.S. 101 Mainline Freeway Operation Table IV.M-15 shows that no mainline freeway segments Nvith year 2017 "Without Project" volumes Nvould be operating at an unacceptable LOS. Table IV.M-15 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2017 Without &With Project W/O Project +Project Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8076 D 35.0 8099 D 35.1 Southbound 7283 D 29.6 7360 D 30.1 North of I-380 Northbound 11186 D 30.7 11293 B 31.2 Southbound 6662 B 16.6 6694 B 16.7 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8100 E 35.1 8163 E 35.6 Southbound 6758 D 26.6 6787 D 26.8 North of I-380 Northbound 8308 C 209 8349 C 21.0 Southbound 9520 C 24.6 9616 C 24.9 LOS=Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV.M. Transportation Draft,'ubsequent Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M--38 00)ofSoutli Sari Francisco April 2013 YEAR 2035 "WITHOUT PROJECT" CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION The year 2035 "Without Project" conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2017 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point Redevelopment area, the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as Nvell as other increases in manufacturing, commercial, office, and R&D uses as determined by the City Planning Department. The daily and Peale Hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 Area by 2035 is presented in Table IV.M-16,Year 2035 "Without Project"Trip Generation. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as Nvell as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the Nvest of the U.S. 101 freewav Nvere projected to grow from 2017 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model (after alloNvance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway). Year 2035 intersection AM and PM Peale Hour as Nvell as U.S. 101 freeway segment traffic volumes Nvere developed by TJKM Associates for the City's Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 "Without Project" AM and PM Peale Hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures IV.M-11 and IV.M-12. Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035 All roadway improvements currently listed in the City's November 21, 2012 Traffic Impact Fee Update' Nvere assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 "Without Project" evaluation except some improvements immediately adjacent to the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point site. Figure IV.M-13, Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometries and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control, Nvhile Figure IV.M-10 presents the sequencing of improvements along the project's Oyster Point Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard frontages in 2035 Nvithout and Nvith the project. Year 2035 "Without Project" Intersection Level of Service Table IV.M-17, 2035 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections Nvith year 2035 "Without Project"volumes Nvould be operating at acceptable levels of service Nvith the folloNving exceptions. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale Hour: LOS E • Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale Hour: LOS F • Airport Avenue/Grand Avenue (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS E • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal)-AM Peale Hour: LOS F and PM Peale Hour: LOS F ' Willdan Financial Sei