HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 23-2014RESOLUTION NO. 23 -2014
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE BRITANNIA COVE AT
OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, HCP Oyster Point III, LLC owns property consisting of approximately
twenty and one -tenth (20.1) acres located in the Bay West Cove area of the City of South San
Francisco, San Mateo County, California, commonly known as Planning Area 1 of the Bay West
Cove Specific Plan, and located at the northern terminus of Gateway Boulevard ( "Project Site ");
and,
WHEREAS, Slough BTC, LLC owns property commonly known as Planning Areas 2
and 3 of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and located at 1100 -1170 Veterans Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, HCP Oyster Point III, LLC and Slough BTC, LLC are collectively referred
to as Owner ( "Owner ") and are both subsidiaries of HCP, Inc. ( "Applicant "); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant desires to develop the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project
( "Project ") with an office /research and development (R &D) campus, commercial, hotel, and
recreational open space uses; and
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Specific Plan Amendments, a Zoning Text
Amendment, Precise Plan, Use Permit, Design Review, a Preliminary Transportation Demand
Management ( "TDM ") Plan, a Tentative Parcel Map, Design Guidelines, Master Sign Program,
and a Development Agreement which would authorize the phased construction of an office/R &D
development at an FAR of 1.0 with up to a total of 884,344 square feet on the western portion of
Planning Area 1, construction of an internal open -space area, grading and site preparation of the
future hotel parcel, subject to the terms of the Project entitlements including the proposed
Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [ "CEQA "]) the City determined that a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR ") was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation on December 14, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft SEIR, which was circulated for 45 -day
public /agency review period from April 19, 2013 through June 3, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Notices of the Availability of the Draft SEIR were published in the South
San Francisco Examiner, mailed to property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the site, noticed
to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review
period on May 16, 2013 to take public testimony on the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the Draft
SEIR and prepared a Final SEIR for circulation, which consists of the Draft SEIR (incorporated
by reference), all comments received on the Draft SEIR, written responses to comments received
on the Draft SEIR, and revisions to the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR reviewed and analyzed the potential environmental impacts
of the Project, including environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, including the visual
character of the proposed Project, including light and glare; Air Quality, including construction
dust; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology & Soils, including ground shaking, soil
stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and expansive soils; Hazards /Hazardous
Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population & Housing;
Public Services; Transportation and Circulation; Utilities /Service Systems; and cumulative
impacts of the Project, growth- inducing impacts of the Project, as well as potential Project
Alternatives;
WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project
to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable noise
and transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less- than - significant level.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November
7, 2013, to consider the Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Text
Amendment, Precise Plan, Use Permit, Design Review, Preliminary TDM Plan, Tentative Parcel
Map, Design Guidelines, Master Sign Program, and Development Agreement for the Project and
take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council certify the SEIR and approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 11, 2013
which was continued to January 8, 2014 and February 12, 2014, to consider the SEIR, the
Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Text Amendment, Precise Plan, Use Permit, Design Review,
Preliminary TDM Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Design Guidelines, Master Sign Program, and
Development Agreement and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the SEIR, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in this
Resolution, and adopts the SEIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental
impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phase I
and 11 Precise Plan, as prepared by DES Architects + Engineers, dated February 5, 2014; the
Design Guidelines, prepared by DES Architects + Engineers, dated June 27, 2013; the
Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TDM Specialists, Inc,
dated May 31, 2013; the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Subsequent EIR, including
the Draft and Final SEIR and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting held on
November 7, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly notice public hearing on December 11,
2013 which was continued to January 8, 2014 and to February 12, 2014, and City Council
deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)
and §21082.2) ( "Record "), the City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
including the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR (attached as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings including
Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes
the findings regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, potentially significant
impacts, and less than significant impacts; makes the findings regarding the proposed mitigation
measures, and the Project alternatives; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts, for the reasons, and as further set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby certifies EIR12 -0002 attached as Exhibit A. including the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, attached as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12 lb day of
February, 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N Addiego Pradeep Gupta and Liza Normandy
Vice Mayor Richard A Garbarino and Mayor Kgal Matsumoto
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: N
ATTEST-
Anna Brown, Deputy City Clerk
Draft CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A
Environmental Impact Report
[Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports Previously Circulated]
FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
for BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN
at
�z
State Clearinghouse # 1996092081
A 15�5-7 3��
k. I
w r
Lij -ok
FINAL 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
June 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -I -1
II. LIST OF COMMENTERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- II -1
III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -III -1
A. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -III -1
B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR .................... ..........................III -1
IV. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -IV -1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Table of Contents
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 9 Page i
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Table of Contents
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 10 Page ii
I. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 15088 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco (City), as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments
received on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR) (State
Clearinghouse No. 1996092081) for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan and has prepared
responses to the comments received. The responses to the comments, which are included in this volume
of the Draft Subsequent EIR, together with the Draft Subsequent EIR, comprise the Final Subsequent EIR
for use by the City in their review of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan.
The Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed for a 45 -day public review period by the City of South San
Francisco on April 19, 2013. The comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR ended on June 3rd, 2013.
A Draft Subsequent EIR Public Review Meeting was held on May 16, 2013 at the City of South San
Francisco Planning Commission for the purpose of soliciting comments.
This Response to Comments document is organized into four sections:
• Section I — Introduction
• Section II — List of Commenters: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals
that commented on the Draft Subsequent EIR.
• Section III — Responses to Comments: Includes a copy of all letters received and provides
responses to comments included in those letters. These explain the Draft Subsequent EIR
analysis, support the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions, or provide information or corrections, as
appropriate. For reading ease, this section is organized with the responses to each letter
immediately following the letter.
• Section IV — Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR: Includes an addendum listing
refinements and clarifications, which have been incorporated into the text of the Draft Subsequent
EIR.
• Section V - Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP): Outlines the program for monitoring and
implementing the measure adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point I Introduction
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 11 Page I -1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point I Introduction
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 12 Page I -2
II. LIST OF COMMENTERS
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The Draft Subsequent EIR comment period was from April 19th, 2013 to June 3rd, 2013. Comments were
received from the following agencies and individuals:
Table II -1
Comments Received on the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Draft Subsequent EIR
Author Code
Date of
Correspondence
Commenter
Public Agencies
SFO
May 3rd, 2013
San Francisco International Airport
C /CAG
May 13th, 2013
City /County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County
San Bruno
May 21St, 2013
City of San Bruno
CSLC
May 30th, 2013
California State Lands Commission
CALTRANS
June 3rd, 2013
Department of Transportation
Private Entities
HCP
May 31st, 2013
Jon Bergschneider, HCP Life Science Estates
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Il. List of Commenters
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 13 Page II -1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Il. List of Commenters
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 14 Page II -2
III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
This section contains responses to all written comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Lead
Agency received six comment letters on the Draft Subsequent EIR during the 45 -day public comment
period. Each comment letter has been assigned an author code, and individual comments within the letter
have been bracketed and numbered.
The Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed for a 45 -day public review period by the City of South San
Francisco on April 19'', 2013. The comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR ended on June 3ra,
2013. The City provided the Draft Subsequent EIR on its website and in hardcopy format at the following
places:
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Planning Division
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
The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR including sending copies
of the Draft Subsequent EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies and posting of a
Notice of Availability for the Draft Subsequent EIR at the San Mateo County Clerk's Office with
information on where to view the Draft Subsequent EIR and submit comments. Additionally, a Draft
Subsequent EIR Public Review Meeting was held on May 16, 2013 at a City of South San Francisco
Planning Commission meeting for the purpose of soliciting comments. No comments were received from
the public at this meeting.
B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The comment letters, oral comments, and responses are provided on the following pages.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 15 Page III -1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 16 Page III -2
May 3, 2013
Mr. Billy Gross
Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
San Francisco International Airport
SFO
*^ MAYO X201
3
Subject: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Specific Plan Project — City of South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Gross:
Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the availability of the
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR) for Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point Precise Plan. We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the
City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility- issues that this and similar projects
may pose.
As described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the proposed project would implement the development of a
20 -acre R &D business park, including nine office buildings, new hotel, and ancillary retail, totaling
1,030,344 square feet of commercial development. The office buildings would be. four to five stories over
a podium level and the parking structure up to nine levels. Building heights are limited to 113 feet above
ground level.
The project site is located within Airport Influence Area B, as defined in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for SFO, adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C /CAG) in November 2012. Proposed projects within Airport Influence Area B are
subject to the ALUCP's policies for noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection.
This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Policy 2 -1 -22, which states: "Require
that all future development conforms to the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and
compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport."
A preliminary airport land use compatibility analysis indicates that the project as proposed would not
pose incompatibilities with respect to airspace protection, noise, or safety. The proposed project is
situated outside of the Airport's CNEL 65 dB noise contour. Additionally, the Project is not situated
within a runway end safety zone. Proposed building heights would not penetrate critical airspace
surfaces, which are at approximately 500 feet above the project site.
AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SFO -1
SFO -2
EDWIN M. LEE LARRY MAZZOLA LINDA S. CRAYTON ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME PETER A. STERN JOHN L. MARTIN
MAYOR PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT AIRPORT DIRECTOR
Post Office Box 8097 San Francisco, California 94128 Tel 650.821.507 Fax 650.821.5005 www.flysfo.com
Mr. Billy Gross
May 3, 2013
Page 2 of 2
The Airport requests the following corrections to be made to the Draft Subsequent EIR:
• Sentence should be corrected to read: "Proposed building heights would not penetrate critical I SFO-3
airspace surfaces, which are at approximately- 500 feet above the project site." (page IV.G -16)
• Sentence should be corrected to read: "The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or the Environs
of San Francisco International Airport allows building heights on the project site greater than 150 SFO-4
feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height." (page IV.I -14)
• The current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International s FO - 5
Airport was adopted by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission in November 2012.
(page. IV.J -8)
As noted on page IV.G -16, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires notification of proposed
construction for projects that may have a potential effect on air navigation facilities, pursuant to CFR
Title 14 Part 77.9. FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, may be submitted SFO-6
through the FAA's Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis website (http: / /oeaaa.faa.gov). A
Determination of No Hazard from the FAA should be obtained prior to project approval.
The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance as the City
considers airport land use compatibility as it relates to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at john.beraenernflysfo.com.
r-e W
John Bergener
Airport Planning Manager
Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs
cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs
Bert Ganoung, SFO, Noise Abatement Manager
Dave Carbone, C /CAG
110
City of South San Francisco June 2013
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFO)
Response to SFO -1
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the
proposed project description and the project's location within Airport Influence Area B. Further the
comment acknowledges that the project is subject to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport ( ALUCP) policies for noise compatibility, safety
compatibility and airspace protection.
Response to SFO -2
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and states that a preliminary
airport land use compatibility analysis shows that the project would not pose incompatibilities with
respect to airspace protection, noise or safety, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions.
Response to SFO -3
Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This revision
does not impact conclusions of Section IV.G- Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, Page IV.G -16
of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are
shown in underline):
Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not
penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately 500 5000 feet above the project site.
Response to SFO -4
Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. The building
height revision will not impact conclusions in Section IV.I- Land Use. Therefore, Page IV.I -14 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown
in underline):
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows
ne Sa* 44a4es r,.efit , ir-peA Land Use Plan Fes building heights on the project site greater than
150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. le fr-ei% 100 150 feet ..be-0 w r
Response to SFO -5
Adoption of the ALUCP information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter.
Therefore, Page IV.J -8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 19 Page III -5
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Pla .
Response to SFO -6
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and confirms that the FAA
requires notification of construction of proposed project, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR
conclusions. Further the comment confirms that a Determination of No Hazards from the FAA should be
obtained prior to project approval, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 20 Page III -6
C /CAG
/CAG
CITY /COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • HillsboroughWenlo Park • Millbrae
Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood Ci# • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County -South San Francisco • Woodside
May 13, 2013
Mr. Billy Gross, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Mr. Gross:
RE: C /CAG Staff Comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above- referenced document. The comments that
follow are C /CAG staff comments related to the airport/land use compatibility elements of the proposed
proj ect.
Project Description
As described in the DSEIR, the proposed project would implement the development of a 20 -acre R &D
business park, including nine office buildings, up to a 200 -room hotel with a restaurant, and ancillary C/
retail, totaling 1,030,344 square feet of commercial development. The office buildings would be four to CAG -
five stories over a podium level. The parking structure would include up to nine levels. Building 1
heights are limited to 113 feet above ground level. The project would also include an amendment to the
Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the Bay West Cove Precise Plan, an amendment to the Bay
West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District, and several other discretionary approvals.
Airport Influence Area (AIA) Boundary
The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) B boundary, as defined in the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for SFO, adopted by the City /County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in November 2012. Proposed projects within Airport
Influence Area B are subject to the ALUCP policies for airport noise compatibility, safety compatibility,
and height of structures /airspace protection. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan
Land Use Policy 2 -1 -22, which states: "Require that all future development conforms to the relevant
height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently
adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of
San Francisco International Airport."
555 County Center, f4h Floor, Redwood City, CA 92163 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAx: 650.361.8227
www.ccag.ca.gov
C/
CAG -2
C /CAG Staff Comment Letter on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
For Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Specific Plan Project in South San Francisco
May 13, 2013
Page 2 of 2
ALUC /CCAG Review /Action
As noted on the previous page, the project includes the following proposed land use policy actions: an
amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, approval of the Bay West Cove Precise Plan, and an C/
amendment to the Bay West Cove Specific Plan Zoning District. Since the project site is located within CAG- 3
the Airport Influence Area (AIA) B boundary, all of these land use policy actions must be referred to the
ALUC /C /CAG for a formal SFO ALUCP consistency review /action. Please coordinate with C /CAG
staff on the timing of the ALUC /CCAG review of these land use policy actions.
ALUCP Land Use Compatibility Policies
A preliminary airport land use compatibility analysis indicates that the project, as proposed, would not
be incompatible with SFO ALUCP policies related to airport noise, safety, and height of C/
structures /airspace protection. The proposed project is situated outside of the Airport's CNEL 65 dB CAG- 4
noise contour and is not located within any runway end safety zones. The proposed building heights
would not penetrate any critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately 500 feet above the site.
Corrections to the text in the DSEIR
Please make the following corrections to the text in the DSEIR:
• Sentence should be corrected to read: "Proposed building heights would not penetrate critical C / CAG - 5
airspace surfaces, which are at approximately 500 feet above the project site." (page IV.G -16)
• Sentence should be corrected to read: "The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows building heights on the project site C/
greater than 150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height." (page IV.1- CAG- 6
14)
• The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission adopted the current Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport in November 2012. C/
(page. IV.J -8) CAG- 7
If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 650/599 -1453, T -TH, or via
email, at dcarbone(,smc ov.org
Sincerel ,
Davi . Carbo e, C /CAG Staff
cc: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC)
C /CAG Board
John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager
CCAGStaffcomletSSFDSEIRBritanniaCoveSpecificP1an0513. docx
555 County Center, I" Floor, Redwood City, CA M63 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAx: 650.361.8227
www.ecag.ca.gov
City of South San Francisco June 2013
CITY /COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (C /CAG)
Response to C/CAG -1
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the
proposed project description and proposed project actions.
Response to C/CAG -2
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the
proposed project descriptions and the project's location within Airport Influence Area B. Further the
comment acknowledges that the project is subject to ALUCP's policies for noise compatibility, safety
compatibility and airspace protection.
Response to C/CAG -3
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely states that the
proposed project is subject to a formal SFO /ALUCP consistency review action. The City will coordinate
with C /CAG staff on the timing of the ALUC /CCAG review of proposed land use policy actions.
Response to C/CAG -4
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and states that a preliminary
analysis of the proposed project found that the project is compatible with SFO /ALUCP policies related to
noise, safety and height or structures /airspace protection.
Response to C/CAG -5
Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore,
Page IV.G -16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not
penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately 500 5000 feet above the project site.
Response to C /CAG -6
Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore,
Page IV.I -14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows
e San 44a4ee C,.efit , ir-peA Land Use Plan fes building heights on the project site greater than
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 23 Page III -9
City of South San Francisco June 2013
150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. �e f+effi 400 450 f e� abe ,e ffie n
Response to C/CAG -7
Adoption of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International
Airport information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.J -8
of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are
shown in underline):
Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Pla .
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 24 Page III -10
�4�a"'�6
�I
SAN BRUNC7
May 21, 2013
Billy Gross, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
P.Q. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
San Bruno
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT l)EP.AR'IMI:N'i'
Subject: Draft Subsequent EIR for Britannia Point at Oyster Bay, South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Gross,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report for Britannia Point at Oyster Bay Precise Plan in South San Francisco.
We understand that potentially significant environmental impacts could result from the project.
The DE1R indicates that the project would result in significant impacts to noise and
transportation. Based on our understanding of the DEIR, these impacts would not affect the
City of San Bruno. To the extent feasible, we encourage you to implement mitigation measures
that can reduce or avoid the identified environmental impacts.
Sincerely,
-1-/ sil"L
r
Mark Sullivan
Housing and Redevelopment Manager
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066 -4299
Voice: (650) 616 -7074 ?gax: (650) 873 -6749
hltp Jlci. san6-uno.ca. us
San
Bruno
-1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 26 Page III -12
City of South San Francisco June 2013
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Response to San Bruno -1
This letter acknowledges that the City of San Bruno received the Draft Subsequent EIR and that there
would be no impacts on the City of San Bruno. No response is required.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 27 Page 1114 3
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 28 Page 1114 4
Cam
life science estates
May 31, 2013
x
LU
r
z Billy Gross, Senior Planner
F City of South San Francisco Planning Division,
° Department of Economic Development
Q 315 Maple Avenue
L South San Francisco, CA 94080
HCP
3 Re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Britannia Cove at Oyster
a Point Precise Plan - SCH# 1996092081
m
o Dear Mr. Gross:
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (BCOP) Precise Plan URS (Draft
SEIR). We wish to commend staff and URS for the comprehensive analysis of the Britannia Cove at
+ Oyster Point Project (Project), and appreciate the time and effort you devoted to the environmental
t review process.
0
° In our review, we noted several minor comments and clarifications to the Draft SEIR for your
Ln
consideration. We request that the City of South San Francisco (City) Planning Department and URS
(SEIR consultant) revise the SEIR to incorporate the requested clarifications so that the Final SEIR
cn
m reflects our comments as follows. Also please update, as appropriate, the Executive Summary to
+ reflect the changes to the sections referenced below
Section III - Proiect Description
1. Page III -11: Table III -1 indicates that the Parking Structure is 8 stories and 78 feet in height.
We request that the height of the Parking Structure be revised to indicate that it is 9 stories at HCP -1
88.5 feet in height (to account for required grading adjustments at the lowest level) in order to
be consistent with the applications on file with the Planning Department (see attachment).
2. Page III -14: Table III -3, Footnote 2, child care facilities are not proposed in Planning Area 1.
Consistent with the Project Description, please delete reference to Planning Area 1 in the HCP -2
footnote and clarify the number of parking spaces as shown in the attachment.
3. Page III -16: Table III -4, Footnote 3, child care facilities are not proposed in Planning Area 1.
Consistent with the Project Description, please delete reference to Planning Area 1 in the HCP -3
footnote and clarify the number of parking spaces as shown in the attachment.
4. Page III — 14, Page III -19: Tables III -2 and III -4 - The total parking stated in Tables III -2 and HCP -4
III -4 is correctly stated as 2,670 spaces - however, note #1 in both tables refers incorrectly to
4,242 spaces.
Page III -22: Under the description of the various agencies that have authority over the
Project, the EIR lists the San Mateo County Flood Control District as having on -site approval
HCP -
5
29
Bilk/ Gross
FL o
May 31, 2f5
Page 2 of 5
life science estates
for flood control. In our experience, the City, not the Flood Control District will review and
approve on -site storm drainage improvements.
Section IV. B — Aesthetics
6. Pape IV. B — 23, Mitigation Measure IV. B -4.1: This mitigation measure indicates that "No HCP- 6
flood lights shall be utilized ". For the permanent development this measure is fine, however
HCP intends to use flood lights during some parts of construction.
Section IV. C — Air Quality
7. Page IV. C — 23, Second Paragraph: Please delete the reference to the provision of child care HCP - 7
in Phase 1.
8. Pape IV.C. — 27, 5th bullet: The discussion regarding inputs to the CaIEEMod appears to
summarize parking at a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces /1,000 sf. To maintain consistency with the HCP- 8
project description, we request that the description also reference the maximum parking ratio
of 2.83 spaces /1,000 sf.
Section IVY - Geology /Soils
Page IV. F -20: The Draft SEIR refers to the lowest floor being a structurally suspended
concrete slab given the settlement anticipated by the Bay Mud. As further clarification
regarding the proposed foundations, during the project planning, the lowest floors have
assumed structural grade /edge beams connecting the pile caps in all situations. For the R &D
buildings without podium parking and the Retail portion of the Parking Structure, suspended
structural concrete slabs tied to the grade /edge beams is contemplated. For the Podium
Parking and non - retail areas of the Parking Structure, asphalt in -fill between the grade /edge
beams is contemplated. The Project, however, may be designed to consider use of structural
slabs for the lowest floor level, throughout.
Section IV.G - Hazards/ Hazardous Materials
10. Pape IV.G -1.2 — Mitigation Measure IV.G -1.2: Mitigation Measure IV. G-1.2 Inspect, Test and
Remove Potentially Contaminated Soils and Groundwater provides that work would need to
stop in areas where suspected hazardous materials are encountered and not proceed until
after the Regional Board has approved the cleanup or mitigation work. This could introduce a
long and unnecessary delay during construction. Investigation, cleanup and /or mitigation
should be conducted in accordance with the updated Regional Board approved SMP prior to
re- commencing work, and is not expected to need an additional review and approval from the
Regional Board. It is anticipated that the SMP would address these issues so approvals
during construction would not be needed from the Regional Board. The revised SMP will
specify the notification /documentation requirements in the event that hazardous materials are
encountered. Consequently, we recommend that mitigation measure IV.G -1.2 be revised as
follows:
"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
30
HCP -9
HCP -10
IL
fife science estates
Billy Gross
May 31, 2013
Page 3 of 5
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
work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and
performed to verify the presence and extent of contamination at the site.
The investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the revised Soil Management
Plan. Water
The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and
quantifying contaminant levels within the proposed excavation and surface
disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall determine the appropriate worker
protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures. Areas with
soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste 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) with an approved plan for groundwater extraction, soil excavation, control of
contaminant releases to the air, and off -site transport or on -site treatment. Results of
the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal, disposal
and /or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work
will be documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site cleanup)."
Section IV. H - Hydrology /Water Quality
11. Page IV. H -21 — Impact IV.H -5: The last sentence of the third paragraph on this page should HCP -11
refer to "...the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H- 5.1..." instead of reference
to IV.H -1.
12. Page IV. H -24 — Mitigation Measure IV.H -10.1: Impact IV.H -10 concludes that the proposed
project would not expose people or structures in inundation by tsunami. Nonetheless,
Mitigation Measure IV.H -10.1 recommends that the project engineer submit data comparing
the tsunami inundation zone to the project design. Since the tsunami map included in the
SEIR does not provide elevation information and the program used to develop the inundation
line is not commercially available, providing this comparison may be difficult. SSFMC Chapter
15.56 refers to base flood elevations as determined by FEMA. As noted in Impact IV.H -8, the
proposed project is not located with the FEMA flood zones identified in this Municipal Code
section.
Consequently, we request that the Tsunami Inundation Impact/ Mitigation Measure be revised
to eliminate the requirement for further mapping and for the requirement that the project be
required to provide flood proofing or raising of structural elevations because the project site is
not located within the 100 year floodplain, and the information available in the SEIR does not
appear to reflect current topographic data. Consequently, the information contained in the
SEIR does not clearly demonstrate that the buildings would be subject to inundation, and we
request that the mitigation measure be revised or deleted.
31
HCP -12
Bilk/ Gross
FL
May 31, off
Page 4 of 5
life science estates
Section IV. J. - Noise
13. Pape IV. J -13, Second Paragraph: The Draft SEIR states that with a permit issued by the City HCP -13
Engineer, construction can occur between 8AM and 8PM (weekdays). Previously, the City
has allowed construction to start at 7AM in South San Francisco which is consistent with the
typical construction start on major commercial projects in the Bay Area.
14. Page IV. J -14, Last Paragraph: As described in the Project Description section, a child care
facility is proposed in Planning Area 2. Please revise the first sentence of the last paragraph HCP -14
on this page to delete the following: "...and potentially a child care facility on the project
site...."
Section IV. M — Transportation and Circulation
15. Paae IV.M -63 and 64: paae M -70: paae M -76 — Mitiaation Measure IV. M- 3/M- 5/M- 10/M -14
These mitigation measures recommend that the applicant provide its fair share contribution to
the intersection improvements. The required improvements, however, are included in the East HCP -15
of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Except for the requirement to adjust signal timing in
M -10 and M-1 4a, the mitigation measures will be funded through the applicant's payment of
the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program traffic impact fee. Consequently, these
mitigation measures should be revised accordingly to reflect the fact that the applicant's
payment of the traffic impact fee will fund its fair share contribution to the intersection
improvements.
16. Page IV. M -65 to M -87 — Mitigation Measures IV. M-8/M-9a-c/M-10a/M-14a-b/M-15/M-20/M-
21/M-22/M-23: Please confirm the methodology for calculating the amount of the fair share
contribution toward the funding of the mitigation measures and the phases to which the fees HCP -16
would apply in order to satisfy the applicable Mitigation Measures. We request that the fair
share payments shall be paid by the applicant prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the second phase of development.
Utilities /Service Systems
17. Page IV.N - 10 — Storm Drainage: The Draft SEIR states that there are no creeks or natural
drainages in the project area. There is a natural drainage channel on the property that runs HCP -17
along the railroad tracks just outside of the Project site boundary.
18. Page IV. N -23 — Impact IV.N -3: The second to the last and last sentences of this impact HCP -18
discussion should refer to Mitigation Measure IV.H -5.1 as opposed to Mitigation Measure
IV.H -1.
19. Page IV. N -26 — Impact IV.N -5: The last sentence of the first paragraph states that the sewer
system includes gravity lines and force mains that combine both wastewater and storm water HCP -19
runoff. The City of South San Francisco has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer
systems.
20. Page IV. N -27- Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 Wastewater Collection: The last sentence of the
first paragraph states the applicant would be required to dedicate Pump Station #14 to the City HCP- 2 0
of South San Francisco. This is not necessary as the City already owns and maintains this
32
Bilk/ Gross
May 31, 20
L 5
Page 5 of HCP 5
life science estates
Pump Station. Also, the last sentence in the last paragraph of Mitigation Measure IV. N -2, the
word "not" should be removed so the sentence reads correctly.
21. Pape IV. N- 26 -27: Impact IV. N- 5.1/5.2: The Mitigation Measure states "Before project is
connected to Pump Station #14 (and #2) the applicant shall pay fair share of improvement
costs." In this case, because the City is responsible for the upgrades described, we would HCP -21
anticipate that the City would be responsible for completing the work in a timely manner so as
to not delay HCP from completing the connections in time for building occupancy.
We look forward to receiving the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (BCOP) Precise Plan. Please feel free to contact us if you have any
questions regarding our comments on the Draft SEIR.
AG /CT
cc: Mike Swofford
Scott Bohn
Jeff Marcowitz
Matt Concannon
Alicia Guerra
Sincerely yours,
HCP LIFE SCIENCE ESTATES, INC.
Jon Bergschneider
33
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 34 Page III -20
City of South San Francisco June 2013
HCP LIFE SCIENCE ESTATES (HCP)
Response to HCP -1
Parking structure height and height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the
letter. Therefore, Table III -1 on Page III -11 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions
are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Table III -1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout
Phase
Buildings
FAR
Square
Footage
Floors
Building
Height
(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
B 1
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
—
-8-9
7-9-88.5
1,300
Surface Parking*
(459)
Total – Phase 3
.49
426,277
—
—
1,066
Total Phase 1, 2, & 3 **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,478
Total Phase 1, 2, & 3 * **
1.18
jl,030,344
—
j2,670
Response to HCP-2
The comment incorrectly states Table III -3 includes this information, which is included in Table III -2.
The existing footnote text for Table III -2 in the Draft Subsequent EIR refers to the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project and not the proposed project. For the 2000 Supplemental EIR it was assumed that
the childcare facility would be developed in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3; therefore
changes are not necessary to be made to the Draft Subsequent EIR text.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 35 Page III -21
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Response to HCPR3
The existing footnote text in the Draft Subsequent EIR refers to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial
Project and not the proposed project. For the 2000 Supplemental EIR it was assumed that the childcare
facility would be developed in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3; therefore changes are not
necessary to be made to the Draft Subsequent EIR text.
Response to HCPR4
Parking counts in Table III -2 and Table III -4 for Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster
Point have been revised to reflect the changes described in the comment. Therefore, Tables III -2 and III -
3 on Page III -14 and III -19 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 36 Page III -22
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Table III -2
mor Approvea rrolects ana
Use I Building
;annia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan (pr
D /Office
884,344
el w/Restaurant
126,000
ul
20,000
al
1,030,344
D Bay West Cove Commercial Project
2,503
D
620,000
el
296,000
ul
10,000
taurant
10,000
.d Care (100 children minimum)2
—
al
1 916,000
7 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
2.83
D Display Showroom
123,866
Tice/Reception
124,570
Wash 11,716
Customer Parking —
Service and Handicap Parking —
Additional Parking —
152
-a rrolect for manning Area i �project site
Area (sf)
Site
Area
(sf)
FAR
Parking
Ratio
(per
1,000 sf)
Parkin;
iposed project)
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
1 /room
2001
3.33
67
2,670
874,344
0.58
2.83
1,698
0.75
225
5.5
50
5.5
50
2,023
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A 280
N/A 82
N/A 11,459
874,344 N/A 1 11,821
Stalls II
1 100 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 442, 2.503 above.
Z Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was
assumed it would be part of of eeIR &D square footage in either Planning Area I or Planning Area 213.
3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area I would be covered
with car display lots.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 37 Page III -23
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Table III -4
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics
Use
Building
Area (sf)
Site Area (sf)
FAR
Parking
Ratio
(per 1,000
sf)
Parking
Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (proposed project)
R &D /Office
884,344
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant
126,000
1 /room
200'
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Total
1,030,344
2,670
Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3)
R &D
560,825
10.58
3.1
1,739
Retail (required under
current entitlements) -
10,000
3.33
33
Restaurant (required
under current
entitlements)3
0
—
0
Child Care-
8,000
3
24
Total
578,825 d974,527
1,763
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
R &D /Office
1,445,169
1,848,871
0.86
2.94
4,242
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Hotel
126,000
1.59
200'
Child Care'
8,000
3
24
Total
1,599,169
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, 2.503 above.
ZRetail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point proposed development plan.
3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not
provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/R &D square footage in either
Planning Area I or Planning Area 213.
Response to HCPR5
The list of responsible agencies for onsite approvals has been revised to reflect the changes described in
the letter. Therefore, Page III -22 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown
in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Ensure compliance with 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.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 38 Page III -24
City of South San Francisco June 2013
• San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance with
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.
Response to HCPR6
Mitigation Measure IV.B -4.1 in Section IV.B Aesthetics has been revised to reflect the changes described
in the letter. Therefore, Pages IV.B -23 and Page II -6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows
(deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
No fleed lights sha l be "liz°a Flood lights shall be used during construction phases only as
necessary, therefore impacts would be short term and temporary. Flood lights shall not be used
during project operation.
Response to HCP -7
Childcare center phasing has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. These changes do
not impact Section IV.0 conclusions. Therefore, Page IV.0 -23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as
follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
A child care center that would serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster
Point 1 project area would be constructed either- We in Phase 1 o during Phase 2. 441is aalyi
Response to HCPR8
Parking ratio in the methodology section of Section IV.0 -Air Quality has been revised to reflect the
changes described in the letter. The revision of available parking spaces was entered for completeness
and to gather the total acreage that is needed to estimate construction emissions. Since total acreage
would not change the estimated construction equipment list and schedule would not change. Thus
emissions would not change and the CalEEMod model does not need to be revised. Therefore, Page IV.C-
27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions
are shown in underline):
Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office /R &D space, a 200 room hotel, and 792
parking spaces. Phase 2 would 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
would include 426,277 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
would include 884,344 square feet of office/R &D space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail,
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 39 Page III -25
City of South San Francisco June 2013
395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and 1799 1990 parking spaces in a parking
structure.
Response to HCP -9
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR it merely clarifies construction
measures for building on potentially unstable soil like Bay Mud, which is present on the project site.
Response to HCP -10
Mitigation Measure IV.G -12 in Section IV.G- Hazards has been revised to reflect the comment in the
letter. As the comment indicates the approved SMP by the Regional Board would address potentially
encountering contaminated soil during construction actions. The change in the mitigation measure would
ensure that construction would be conducted in a timely manner and that unnecessary delays would not
take place. Therefore, Pages IV.G -12 and II -16 and -17 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as
follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Mitigation Measure IV.G -1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove 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
work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the
presence and extent of contamination at the site.
Fr-aneisee Regional Wa4er- Qua&y Cenifel Board (the lead r-egula4efy ageney for- gie site elean up) beferve-
The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying contaminant
levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall
determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures.
Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste 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) with an approved plan for groundwater
extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off -site transport or on -site
treatment. Results of the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal,
disposal and /or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work will be
documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory
agency for the site cleanup).
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 40 Page III -26
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Response to HCP-II
The last sentence in the third paragraph on page IV.H -21 has been revised to reflect the changes described
in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.H -21 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are
shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
If, however, the projected project runoff would be greater than the current capacity of the existing City
storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.1-14 5_1 would
be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Response to HCP -12
The comment incorrectly states that the Draft Subsequent EIR includes a map of tsunami impact area on
the project site. The map referenced on Page IV.H -5 and in the Impact IV.H -10 discussion was obtained
from the ABAG website and was not included in the Draft Subsequent EIR. The City of South San
Francisco will work with the applicant to determine mapping needs for the tsunami zone and to acquire
necessary data.
Response to HCP -13
Per City of South San Francisco noise permitting standards page IV.J -14 has been revised to reflect the
changes described in the letter. An Exception Permit Application from the City of South San Francisco is
necessary to extend construction hours for commercial hours. Therefore, Page IV.J -14 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in
underline):
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
weekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. An Exception
Permit would allow construction activities to extend beyond the noise provisions of the City of South San
Francisco. The permit would be obtained from the City of South San Francisco and approved by the City
Engineer.
Response to HCP -14
The last paragraph on page IV.J -15 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter.
Therefore, Pages IV.J -15 and II -30, -32, and -34 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows
(deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Development of Phase 1, which would include the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, rwd
petentially a , hil ear° f eili y on the project site, would have the potential to impact existing buildings
located offsite adjacent to the project site.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 41 Page III -27
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Response to HCP- 15
The applicant's payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee will fund the Project's fair share
contribution to the intersection improvements for Impacts IV.M -3, IV.M -5, IV.M -10 and IV.M -14.
Therefore, edits have been made to traffic mitigations IV.M -3, IV.M -5, IV.M -10 and IV.M -14 in Section
IV.M- Transportation and Traffic (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in
underline).
Mitigation Measure IV.M -3
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as detefmined by the
City E,,,.:,, °°r for the following mitigations.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -5
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
Program. This is the project's fair share contribution for a second off -
ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand
Avenue /Executive Drive. The fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included in the City's East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Mitigation Measure IV.M -10:
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as detefmined by the City E,,,.:,,° °r for the following
improvements as shown in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and
Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy by the City.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -14
The applicant shall be fespeiasible fef pfevidiiig provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the Project's fair share contribution as delefMined by *e
City E,,,.in for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Table 23 and
Figure IV.M -25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy by the City.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 42 Page III -28
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Response to HCP -16
The improvements listed in the applicant's comment are not included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee for this program. The
applicant will be responsible for implementation of the improvements. Therefore, edits have been made
to traffic mitigations IV.M -8, IV.M -9, IV.M -10, IV.M -14, and IV.M -15 in Section IV.M- Transportation
and Traffic, and Pages II -31 through -37 (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in
underline).
Mitigation Measure IV.M -8
The applicant shall be responsible for
providing the following improvement as shown in Table IV.M -22 and Figure IV.M -24, Year 2017
Mitigated Lane Geometries and Control prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the first phase of development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -9
• 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
less giaff sigiiifieaiit level while iiet er-ea4iffg a sigiiifiealit level ef sefviee ii%p The applicant
shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development.
• 9b. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard
Adjust signal timing.
less giaff sigiiifieaiit level while iiet er-ea4iffg a sigiiifiealit level ef sefviee ii%p The applicant
shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development.
• 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
less than sigiiifieaiit level while iiet er-ea4iffg a sigiiifiealit level ef sefviee ii%p The applicant
shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -10
Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
right turn. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 43 Page III -29
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Mitigation Measure IV.M -14
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the second phase of the development.
• 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes. The applicant
shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
the last building constructed in the second phase of the development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -15
• 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Flyover Off - Ramp /Project
Access
Adjust signal timing. The signal time will be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a less than
significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the second phase of development.
• 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development.
Response to HCP -17
The storm drainage information on page IV.N -10 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the
letter. The changes do not impact the conclusions regarding storm drainage patterns on the project site or
recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, Page IV.J -15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as
follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
There are no creeks in the project area, and one natural drainage channel runs along the railroad track just
outside the project site. ^ r- aa4ifal s,,faee drainages in the p eel
Response to HCP -18
The last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.N -3 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the
letter. This change does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N-
Utilities. Therefore, Pages IV.N -23 and 42 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions
are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 44 Page III -30
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Mitigation Measure IV.H -4 5_1 replaces mitigation measures imposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Response to HCP -19
The first paragraph in Impact IV.N -5 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This
change does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N- Utilities.
Therefore, Page IV.N -26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Wastewater from Cal Water's South San Francisco service area communities of South San Francisco and
Colma is treated at the South San Francisco /San Bruno WQCP.
„a f re° mains tha4 e w.b ine b ed wastewater- and steffn wa* °r , ovv The City of South San Francisco
has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer system.
Response to HCP- 20
Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This change
does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N- Utilities. Therefore,
Pages IV.N -27 and II -43 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 Wastewater Collection
Before the proposed project is connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall
upgrade and improve Pump Station 914, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall
pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, in accordance with General Plan policies and based on the project's contribution to
wastewater flows. hi addiiieii,
Response to HCP- 21
This comment refers to Mitigation Measure IV.N — 5.1 and 5.2 regarding pump station improvements.
The project applicant requests that all pump station improvements that the City would be responsible for
to be done in a timely manner as to avoid project delays. The City will work with the applicant on an
acceptable time table for pump improvements.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 45 Page III -31
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 46 Page III -32
Ciiv of South San Francisco HCP April 2013
would require from approximately 21 to 24 months for design and construction. The project would
require the use of pile driving equipment during construction. Impervious surfaces and landscaping would
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
Phase
Buildings
FAR
Square
Footage
Floors
Building
Height
(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
B 1
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 1, 2, & 3 **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,478
Total Phase 1, 2, & 3 * **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,670
*Reconfigured
"Ratio at 2.5 /1000 for R &D, Podium parking 285 spaces, Parking Structure 1, 798 spaces,
Surface Parking 395 spaces
** *Ratio at 2.8311 000 for R &D, Parking Structure—], 990 spaces (9 levels/ 88.5' high)
Source: DES Architects, Britannia Cove at Oyster Point, Design Guideline Submittal, and February
20, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 47 Page III -11
HCP ATT -1
Ciiv of South San Francisco April 2013
Table III -2
Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (project site)
Use
Building Area (sf)
Site
Area
(sf)
FAR
Parking
Ratio
(per
1,000 sf)
Parking Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan (proposed project)
R &D /Office
884,344
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
Hotel w /Restaurant
126,000
1 /room
200'
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Total
1,030,344
2,670
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
R &D
620,000
874,344
0.58
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)Z
—
Total
916,000
2,023
1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Auto Display Showroom
23,866
874,344
N/A
N/A
Service/Reception
24,570
N/A
Car Wash
1,716
N/A
Customer Parking
—
N/A
280
Service and Handicap Parking
—
N/A
82
Additional Parking
—
N/A
1,459
Tota13
50,152
F
1,821
1 100 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 4-444, above. 2,503
Z Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was
assumed it would be part of of ceIR &D square footage in either Planning Area I or Planning Area 213.
3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area I would be covered
with car display lots.
HCP ATT -2
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 48 Page III -14
Ciiv of South San Francisco April 2013
Landscaping on the project site would emphasize a natural and informal landscape using simple plant
materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants would be chosen considering the
climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 area and would be combined with variations in
landform and circulation routes to create a series of wind - protected spaces rather than being large
expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants would 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 Flowering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf Tristania, and Timber Bamboo.
Preliminary landscape and site materials are shown in Appendix B.
Table III -4
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics
Use
Building
Area (sf)
Site Area (sf)
FAR
Parking
Ratio
(per 1,000
sf)
Parking
Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (proposed project)
R &D /Office
884,344
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant
126,000
1 /room
200'
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Total
1,030,344
2,670
Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3)
R &D
560,825
974,527
0.58
3.1
1,739
Retail (required under
current entitlements)
10,000
3.33
33
Restaurant (required
under current
entitlements)3
0
—
0
Child Care
8,000
3
24
Total
578,825
1,763
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
R &D /Office
1,445,169
1,848,871
0.86
2.94
4,242
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Hotel
126,000
1.59
200'
Child Care'
8,000
3
24
Total
1,599,169
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 above. 2,503
ZRetail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point proposed development plan.
3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not
provided. It was assumed it would be p ^r* in either Planning Area I
or Planning Area 213. additional square
footage from R &D /office
HCP ATT -3
HCP ATT -4
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 49 Page III -16
City of South San Francisco April 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and unpaved, with the
exception of a City -owned sanitary sewer pump 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 west, Veterans
Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay to the north, and commercial properties and laboratories to the east.
This analysis assumes the project would be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of two
office buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project site roadways, site utilities, lighting, and
landscaping, and would be constructed by 2016. A child care center that would serve employees of both
ok with the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area would be constructed either late in
childcare in . This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of
phase 1? Phase 1. Phase 2 would 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 would also reconfigure surface parking on the site. In Phase 3, the project would 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 following 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 would result in any of the following:
• Conflict with 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 which the
project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors 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 with 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 50 Page IV. C -23
HCP
ATT -5
City of South San Francisco April 2013
Methodology
Construction Emissions
Emissions for the construction of the project were estimated using the California Emission Estimator
Model (CaIEEMod) version 2011.1.1. CaIEEMod is a statewide land use project emissions model
designed as a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as residential and
commercial facilities. CaIEEMod utilizes basic land use information to estimate default construction
equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. The construction emissions were calculated using 3
different CaIEEMod runs to estimate the emissions from each Project Phase (1 -3). The following
conservative inputs into the model were utilized:
• Location is San Francisco Air Basin.
• Project year is 2017 for Phase 1 and 2035 for Buildout.
• Climate Zone is 5.
• Utility is Pacific Gas & Electric.
• Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office /R &D space, a 200 room hotel,
and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 would 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 would 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 would 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. only reflects 2.5/1000 ratio
• Construction phases are shown in Table IV.0 -7. Start date for Phase 1 was assumed to
conservatively be 1/1/2014, Phase 2 start date was 1/1/2015, and Phase 3 start date was 1/1/2016.
• Off -road equipment is shown in Table IV.0 -8.
• Amount of material hauled off -site was assumed to be zero.
• The default trip lengths for worker (12.4 miles) and vendor (7.3 miles) was used.
• Default number of worker vehicle commuting trips was assumed.
• Default horsepower for construction equipment was utilized.
• Load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the maximum rated load) were
modified to reflect current load factors recommended by ARB which is a 33% reduction from the
model defaults.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. C. Air Quality
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 51 Page IV. C -27
IHCP
IATT -6
Ciiv of South San 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 every 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:
same comments as before about docks facing public streets and the Bay
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 widths adjacent to loading docks shall have a minimum width of 30 feet.
o Loading docks shall be set back a minimum distance of 60 feet from the northerly right -
of -way 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 walls and landscaping.
o Minimum aisle width adjacent to loading areas, without high dock doors, shall be 16 feet
for one -way traffic and 28 feet for two -way 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 within designated truck maneuvering areas.
o Truck dock and loading zones are subject to individual evaluation by the City Public
Works Department.
o Truck docks or loading areas shall not face San Francisco Bay.
Transportation Demand Management (Chapter 20.210.010): General Requirements — Planning Areas 1 a,
lb, 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 TV I. Land Use and Planning
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 52 Page IV.I - -13
HCP
ATT
-7
Ciiv of South San Francisco April 2013
Table IV.J -6
Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project
Impact IV.J -4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
Offsite Impacts
8or91e
Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would temporarily increase during the project - related
construction activities on the project site. These activities would include the construction of one_9-10 41
parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. The project
would be constructed in three phases and it is assumed that Phase 1 would be constructed by 2016, Phase
2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Since the construction would be phased, there is the potential for
construction noise to affect the buildings neighboring the project site as well as the occupied buildings on
the project site (newly constructed project buildings). There are no foreseen off -site construction activities
such as road improvements or installation of utilities that would contribute to a secondary noise impact.
The noisiest construction activities would be conducted during the initial phases of construction for
Phases 1, 2, and 3. These construction activities would include mass excavation, site grading and
foundation work. Other activities that would occur with construction of each phase would typically
include use of heavy diesel powered machinery such as impact hammers, compactors, front end loaders,
backhoes, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, trucks and concrete equipment. Later activities would 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 Courtyard 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 would 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.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV J. Noise
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 53 Page IV.J -12
HCP
ATT
-8
CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline, dBA
Existing
Existing + Project
Increaser
Roadway
Between Driveway a and Oyster Point
Boulevard
57.9
60.2
2.3
Source: URS Corporation 2013
Note:
1- 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 levels in the project vicinity.
Offsite Impacts
8or91e
Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would temporarily increase during the project - related
construction activities on the project site. These activities would include the construction of one_9-10 41
parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. The project
would be constructed in three phases and it is assumed that Phase 1 would be constructed by 2016, Phase
2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by 2019. Since the construction would be phased, there is the potential for
construction noise to affect the buildings neighboring the project site as well as the occupied buildings on
the project site (newly constructed project buildings). There are no foreseen off -site construction activities
such as road improvements or installation of utilities that would contribute to a secondary noise impact.
The noisiest construction activities would be conducted during the initial phases of construction for
Phases 1, 2, and 3. These construction activities would include mass excavation, site grading and
foundation work. Other activities that would occur with construction of each phase would typically
include use of heavy diesel powered machinery such as impact hammers, compactors, front end loaders,
backhoes, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, trucks and concrete equipment. Later activities would 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 Courtyard 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 would 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.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV J. Noise
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 53 Page IV.J -12
HCP
ATT
-8
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 54 Page III -40
City of South San Francisco June 2013
RESPONSE TO HCP ATTACHMENT
Response to HCP ATT -1
This comment is the same as HCP -1 comment. Please see Response to HCP -1 in the previous section.
Response to HCP ATT -2
This comment is the same as HCP -2 comment. Please see Response to HCP -2 in the previous section.
Response to HCP ATT -3
This comment is the same as HCP -3 comment. Please see Response to HCP -3 in the previous section.
Response to HCP ATT -4
This comment is the same as HCP -7 comment. Please see Response to HCP -7 in the previous section.
Response to HCP ATT -5
This comment is the same as HCP -8 comment. Please see Response to HCP -8 in the previous section.
Response to HCP ATT -6
The Loading and Service Areas requirements on Page IV.I -13 of Section IV.I — Land Use were extracted
from the City of South San Francisco Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, therefore no changes are
necessary.
Response to HCP ATT -7
Parking structure height was edited on Page IV.J -12 to reflect the changes described in the letter.
Therefore, Page IV.J -12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
These activities would include the construction of one 8 or 9 level parking structure, seven new
commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 55 Page III -41
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 56 Page III -42
Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5559; Jun -3 -13 1:08PM; Page 1/1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0.13OX 23660
OAKLAND, CAS 94623 -0660
PHONE (510) 286 -6053
FAX (510) 286 -5559
ITY 711
June 3, 2013
Mr. Gexy Beaudin
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA, 94083
Dear Mr. Beaudin:
CALTRANS 0
SM101472
SM -101 -22.8
SCI #1996092081
BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT -- DRAFT SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Flex your power!
Be enemy ociend
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in
the environmental review process for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project. The following
comments are based on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (WEIR).
IY.M. Transportation and Circulation: Roadway Improvements Planned by 2017, #3 Oyster
Point Boulevard/Sistcr Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, Page IV.M -3L It is- not clear. want
you intend to do in improvement # a. The existing approach already has an exclusive right turn
lane. Are you recommending a second exclmi•ve right turn lane? Please explain.
Fair Share Fees - Please provide the amount of Fair Share Fees the project will be contributing
to improvements to the state highway system.
Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan at (510) 622 -1644 or Sandra f neMCa dot.ca.goov_
with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
ERIK ALM, AICP ,
District Branch Chief
Local Development — Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
"Cato-am improves nw&hty across Cal!rormia -
57
CALTRANS
-1
CALTRANS-
2
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 58 Page III -44
City of South San Francisco June 2013
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Response to CALTRANS -1
The improvement to the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to the Sister Cities /Oyster Point
Boulevard intersection has already been completed and should not have been included in the list of
planned improvements for the year 2017. The text in the Draft Subsequent EIR has been edited to
eliminate this improvement as requested by the comment letter. Therefore, Page IV.M -31 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in
underline):
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 Boulevardh4irport Boulevard
3. 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 westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending
partway to Gateway Boulevard).
Response to CALTRANS -2
The City of South San Francisco will identify the exact Fair Share dollar amount required to be paid
during the Building Permit process, when the ultimate ratio of office /R &D square footage will be
determined.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IIL Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 59 Page III -45
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 60 Page III -46
CSLC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825 - 8202],
SUN - 3 2013
Our 75"' Year
1938-2013
May 30, 2013
City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Attn: Gerry Beaudin
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
(916) 574 -1800 Fax (916) 574 -1810
California Relay Service TDD Phone 1- 800 - 735 -2929
from Voice Phone 1- 800 - 735 -2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574 -1900
Contact Fax: (916) 574 -1885
File Ref: SCH #1996092081
Subject: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (Project), South San Francisco, San
Mateo County
Dear Mr. Beaudin:
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff has reviewed the subject Draft
SEIR prepared for the City of South San Francisco (City). The City, as a public agency
considering approval of the Project, is the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.). The CSLC will
act as a trustee agency because of its trust responsibility for projects that could directly
or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses,
and the public easement in navigable waters.
CSLC Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands
The CSLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands,
submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The CSLC also has
certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively
granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Res. Code §§ 6301, 6306). All tidelands and
submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are
subject to the protections of the Common Law Public Trust.
As general background, the State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all
tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its
admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of
all people of the State for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not
limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water - related recreation, habitat
preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways, the State's sovereign fee ownership
extends landward to the mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion
61
CSLC -1
Gerry Beaudin Page 2 May 30, 2013
or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or court decision. Such
boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.
After a review of the information contained in the Draft SEIR, CSLC staff has
determined that the subject area is located within Rancho Buri Buri and Rancho Canada
de Guadalupe La Visitacion y Rodeo Viejo. Ranchos, including Rancho Buri Buri and
Rancho Canada de Guadalupe La Visitacion y Rodeo Viejo, were confirmed into private
ownership and patented by the Federal Government. The State is precluded from
asserting that it acquired sovereign title interests by virtue of its admission to the United
States in 1850 pursuant to the holdings in Summa Corporation v. California, 466 U.S.
198 (1984).
Any remaining State interest at this location has been granted to the City of South San
Francisco pursuant to Chapter 345, Statutes of 1913, and as amended, with no mineral
rights reserved to the State. Under current policy, a CSLC permit is not required for use
of lands underlying the State's Public Trust easements. However, CSLC staff provides
the comments below in its capacity as a trustee agency under CEQA. Please contact
Sharron Guerrieri (see contact information below) for further information about the
extent of the CSLC's sovereign ownership and leasing requirements.
Project Description
HCP Oyster Point III LLC proposes a three phase buildout of nine buildings starting from
2013 and finishing in 2019. Compared to the Project reviewed in the original EIR, the
Project would increase the development of Office /Research & Development uses on the CSLC -2
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.
The building forms would be consistent in character (simple geometry) with different
exterior colors, and would vary in capacity, height, and shapes to create architectural
variety and individual building identity while maintaining a unified campus characters.
These buildings would be situated near the perimeter of the site by creating large areas
to accommodate open space, surface parking, and landscaping and pedestrian facilities
(where appropriate) along the Oyster Point and Veterans Boulevards.
Environmental Review
CSLC staff recommends that the City consider the following comments on the Project's
Draft SEIR.
Recreation
1. CSLC staff recommends including additional discussion on page II — 21 of the Draft
SEIR to discuss current uses of the site and the Bay Trail, possible impacts to CSLC -3
recreational activities, and the safety of the pubic during the proposed construction
from 2013 until 2019. The CSLC staff recommends measures such as, but not
62
Gerry Beaudin Page 3 May 30, 2013
limited to, placing signage (in advance) in and around the site notifying members of
the public of the necessary information needed about the possible closure of the
access to the Bay Trail and the San Francisco Bay. These notices should also
identify alternate access points and or use areas, with the appropriate rerouting
directions, during construction.
Biological Resources
2. Sea Level Rise. Under even the most conservative scenarios modeled by various
sea level rise experts, the San Francisco Bay will be subjected to significant
inundation and related ecological and economic effects as a result of sea level rise.
The Draft SEIR should include a "Sea Level Rise" section to consider the effects of
sea level rise on all resource categories potentially affected by the proposed Project.
Please send copies of future Project- related documents, including electronic copies of
the Final SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Notice of
Determination (NOD) when they become available, and refer questions concerning
environmental review to Afifa Awan, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 574 -1891 or via
e -mail at afifa.awan(aD_slc.ca.gov. For questions concerning CSLC leasing jurisdiction,
please contact Sharron Guerrieri with the Land Management Division at (916) 574 -1868
or via email at sharron.guerrieri@slc.ca.rov .
cc: Office of Planning and Research
Afifa Awan, DEPM, CSLC
Jennifer DeLeon, DEPM, CSLC
Sharron Guerrieri, LIVID, CSLC
Shelli Haaf, Legal, CSLC
Si erely
Cy R. Oggi hief
Division of Environmental Planning
and Management
63
CSLC -4
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 64 Page III -50
City of South San Francisco June 2013
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION (CSLC)
Response to CSLC -1
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and describes the CSLC's
jurisdiction and management authority over the project site.
Response to CSLC -2
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the
proposed project description.
Response to CSLC -3
As described on Page III -1, the site is currently vacant and there are no uses on the site. The Bay Trail
would be located in Planning Area 2/3 (analyzed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Supplemental EIR). As stated on Page IV.I -23, the project would not limit any access to the Bay Trail and
would be in compliance with BCDC policy Gov. Code Section 66632.4 to provide maximum feasible
public access to the bay and its shorelines.
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project is located across Veterans Boulevard from the Bay Trail.
Project construction would only occur on the project site and there would be no requirement for closure of
the Bay Trail due to public safety concerns.
Response to CSLC -4
Per BCDC's sea level rise policy for the San Francisco Bay Plan, risk assessments are only required
within BCDC's jurisdiction and 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 within existing
urbanized areas. Nevertheless, sea level rise is discussed on Page IV.H -23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
which stated that based on review of BCDC's Shoreline Areas Potentially Exposed to Sea Level Rise,
Central Bay West Shore; the project site is not located within an area of expected sea level rise.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IIL Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 65 Page III -51
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Responses to Comments
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 66 Page III -52
IV. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
This section presents corrections and clarifications that have been made to the text of the Draft
Subsequent EIR. These changes include revisions resulting from specific responses to comments. The
text revisions are organized by section and page number as they appear in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Text deleted from the Draft Subsequent EIR is shown in stFikethr-ettgh, and new text is underlined.
Section III – Project Description
Table III -1 on Page III -11 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Table III -1
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phasing Buildout
Phase
Buildings
FAR
Square
Footage
Floors
Building
Height
(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
B 1
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
B7) es -B5, B6,
Parking Structure
—
-8-9
7-9-88.5
1,300
Surface Parking*
(459)
Total – Phase 3
.49
426,277
—
—
1,066
Total Phase 1, 2, & 3 **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,478
Total Phase 1, 2, &3
1.18
jl,030,344
—
j2,670
Tables III -2 and III -4 on Page III -14 and III -19 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows
(deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 67 Page IV -1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Table III -2
Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (project site)
Use
Building Area (sf)
Site
Area
(sf)
FAR
Parkin
g Ratio
(per
1,000
sf)
Parking Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan (proposed project)
R &D /Office
884,344
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant
126,000
1 /room
200'
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Total
1,030,344
2,670
2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
R &D
620,000
1874,3441
0.58
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
1 916,000
1
12,023
1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project
Auto Display Showroom
23,866
874,344
N/A
N/A
Service/Reception
24,570
N/A
Car Wash
1,716
N/A
Customer Parking
—
N/A
280
Service and Handicap Parking
—
N/A
82
Additional Parking
—
N/A
1,459
Tota13
150,152
11,821
1 100 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, 2,503 above.
Z Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was
assumed it would be part of of ceIR &D square footage in either Planning Area I or Planning Area 213.
3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area I would be covered
with car display lots.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 68 Page IV -2
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Table III -4
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Development Statistics
Use
Building
Area (sf)
Site Area
(sf)
FAR
Parking
Ratio
(per 1,000
sf)
Parking
Stalls
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point (proposed project)
R &D /Office
884,344
874,344
1.18
2.83
2,503
Hotel w/Restaurant
126,000
1 /room
200'
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Total
1,030,344
2,670
Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3)
R &D
560,825
1974,527
10.58
3.1
1,739
Retail (required under
current entitlements)
10,000
3.33
33
Restaurant (required
under current
entitlements)'
0
—
0
Child Care
8,000
3
24
Total
1578,825
1,763
Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
R &D /Office
1,445,169
11,848,871
10.86
2.94
4,242
Retail
20,000
3.33
67
Hotel
126,000
1.59
200'
Child Care'
8,000
3
24
Total
11,599,169
1
14,433
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, 2.503 above.
ZRetail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point proposed development plan.
3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not
provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/R &D square footage in either
Planning Area I or Planning Area 213.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 69 Page IV -3
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Page III -22 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Ensure compliance with 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 Department of Environmental Health — Ensure compliance with
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.
Section IV.B Aesthetics
Page IV.B -23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
No fleed lights sha4 be "liz°a Flood lights shall be used during construction phases only as
necessary, therefore impacts would be short term and temporary. Flood lights shall not be used
during project operation.
Section IV. C – Air Quality
Page IV.0 -23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
A child care center that would serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster
Point 1 project area would be constructed ref We iii Phase ' of during Phase 2. This analysis
Page IV.0 -27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office /R &D space, a 200 room hotel, and 792
parking spaces. Phase 2 would 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
would include 426,277 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
would include 884,344 square feet of office/R &D space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail,
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 70 Page IV -4
City of South San Francisco June 2013
395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and 1799 1990 parking spaces in a parking
structure.
Section IV. G —Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Page IV.G -16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not
penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately 500 5000 feet above the project site.
Page IV.G -12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Mitigation Measure IV.G -1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove Potentiallv 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
work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the
presence and extent of contamination at the site. Results shall zeviewe a „a a °awne
F-r-aneisee Regional Wa4er- Qua&y Cenifel Beafd (the lead rvgula4efy ageney for- the site elean tip) beferve-
eenstmelien is a4lowed to begin again.
The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying contaminant
levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall
determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures.
Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste 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) with an approved plan for groundwater
extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off -site transport or on -site
treatment. Results of the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal,
disposal and /or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SNIP. Results of this work will be
documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory
agency for the site cleanup).
Section IV. H- Hydrology and Water Quality
Page IV.H -21 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 71 Page IV -5
City of South San Francisco June 2013
If, however, the projected project runoff would be greater than the current capacity of the existing City
storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H4 5_1 would
be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Section IV.I —Land Use
Page IV.I -14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows
ne San 44a4es !`,.unty ir-peA Land Use Plan r-es building heights on the project site greater than
150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. le fr-ei% 100 150 feet ..be-0 w r
Section IV.J -Noise
Page IV.J -8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Pla .
Page IV.J -12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
These activities would include the construction of one 8 or 9 level parking structure, seven new
commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel.
Page IV.J -14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
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
weekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. An Exception
Permit would allow construction activities to extend beyond the noise provisions of the City of South San
Francisco. The permit would be obtained from the City of South San Francisco and approved by the City
Engineer.
Page IV.J -15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 72 Page IV -6
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Development of Phase 1, which would include the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, affd
potentially a , hil ear° f4ei ity on the project site, would have the potential to impact existing buildings
located offsite adjacent to the project site.
Section IV.M- Transportation
Edits have been made to traffic mitigations IV.M -3, IV.M -5, IV.M -8, IV.M -9, IV.M -10, IV.M -14, and
IV.M -15 in Section IV.M- Transportation and Traffic,and Pages II -31 through -37 (deletions are shown in
strikethrough and additions are shown in underline).
Mitigation Measure IV.M -3
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as delefMine by *he
City E,,, iaeer for the following mitigations.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -5
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as delefmiiied by the City Eiigiiiee for a second off -
ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand
Avenue /Executive Drive. The fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included in the City's East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Mitigation Measure IV.M -8
The applicant shall be responsible provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for
providing the following improvement as shown in Table IV.M -22 and Figure IV.M -24, Year 2017
Mitigated Lane Geometries and Control, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the first phase of development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -9
9a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On- RampAdjust signal timing.
while „e* ea4ing a signifieaf4 level of sefviee imp The applicant shall be responsible for providing
this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in
the first phase of development.
9b. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard
Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less
than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the first phase of development.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 73 Page IV -7
City of South San Francisco June 2013
9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
Adjust signal timing. 44te main er-i4er-ia is to adjust signal 14ning to fe"ee the qtie-uifig impael to a less
The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the first phase of development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -10
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as detefmined by the City E,,,.:,,° °r for the following
improvements as shown in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and
Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy by the City.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -10
Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
right turn. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -14
The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the Cites
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution as delefffiined by 4he
City E,,,.in for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Table 23 and
Figure IV.M -25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy by the City.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -14
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
than signifieant level while fiet er-ea4ing a signifieant level of sefviee The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the second phase of the development.
• 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes. The applicant
shall be responsible for providina this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
the last building constructed in the second phase of the development.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -15
• 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Flyover Off - Ramp /Project
Access
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 74 Page IV -8
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Adjust signal timing. The signal time will be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a less than
significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be
responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last
building constructed in the second phase of development.
• 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of
development.
Page IV.M -31 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough
and additions are shown in underline):
1. South Airport Boulevard /U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramp s/Won dercolor 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 Boulevar-diSister- Cities goulevar-dh4ir-por-t Boulevar-d
3. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp
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 westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard).
Section IV.N- Utilities
Page IV.J -15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
There are no creeks in the project area, and one natural drainage channel runs along the railroad track just
outside the project site. ^ r- fiaPdfal ff faee a ..,inag°s in the p eel
Page IV.N -23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Mitigation Measure IV.H -47 5.1 replaces mitigation measures imposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove
Commercial Project Supplemental EIR.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 75 Page IV -9
City of South San Francisco June 2013
Page IV.N -26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Wastewater from Cal Water's South San Francisco service area communities of South San Francisco and
Colma is treated at the South San Francisco /San Bruno WQCP.
'a f ~ee ,r s �ha4 i%bi ie b4 - ,.,.4,...,,.4,.. and stefm - a4e~ f e ff The City of South San Francisco
has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer system.
Page IV.N -27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and
additions are shown in underline):
Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 Wastewater Collection
Before the proposed project is connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall
upgrade and improve Pump Station 914, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall
pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, in accordance with General Plan policies and based on the project's contribution to
wastewater flows. in addition, the pr-ejeet appliea*t would be r-equir-ed to dediea4e Pump Sla4ien 414 to the
City of c,,,,* San r,.,,„,,; —
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 76 Page IV -10
-5-
room rates (34.0%) and properties with more than 125 guest rooms 35.9%). The average of these four
categories (all of which equate to a greater or lesser degree with the subject hotel development site)
equates to a 35.3% NOI.
In addition to the above -noted exception, the PKF projections include a developer- provided category of
Fixed Expenses titled "Direct Assessments" which is an exceptional expense not normally associated
with or incorporated in a traditional hotel projection. In this case (the third or stabilized year) the Direct
Assessments amount totals $111,000. As I understand it, this expense is being researched by the City.
Summary: In general the PKF projections are reasonable. However, were we to use the 35% NOI from
the STR Host Study vs. the PKF 34% NOI (which results in an increase in NOI of $76,200 in the third or
stabilized year) and were we legitimately able to remove the developer - provided $111,000 Direct
Assessment, this yields a potential additional increase in NOI of $187,000. (Note — the potential for
room rate premiums due to water views and compression from expensive downtown San Francisco
hotels also support this slight increase in N01.) Capping this potential NOI increase at the PKF
reversionary cap rate of 8.5% yields a potential $2.2 million increase in project value from $30.1 million
up to $32.3 million or from $200,667 /guestroom to $215,333 /guestroom.
5. Construction Costs Iteview Select Service..150-roomL wood frame construction
In completing my review of the PKF construction cost estimates, two categories of expense stand out as
exceptional: 1.) land cost of $9,750,000 provided by the developer, and 2.) Site infrastructure costs of
$2,700,000 also provided by the developer.
in the case of land cost, this amount is not itemized by PKF in either of the other two construction cost
estimates apparently because both hotel products are situated "on the podium ". It's not clear to me
why the two podium construction projects would eliminate land costs so a similar reasoning could be
used to eliminate the land cost for the wood frame hotel product as well. Additionally, perhaps the City
could entitle additional FAR allotments in other buildings within the Cove to allow for some type of land
cost offset at the 81 pad. The other aspect of the land cost is whether the $3.25 million /acre price
provided by the developer is reflective of the current market rates.
As regards site infrastructure costs we would need to see an itemization of these as they appear to be
extraordinary, especially given the site as inspected requires no demolition and is currently vacant.
Summary: In general the PKF construction cost estimates are reasonable. However, the developer -
provided land- and site infrastructure-costs are areas where reductions in construction costs possibly
could apply up to a potential total of $12.4 million. Were these to be legitimately removed it could
reduce the development costs in 2011 dollars from $38.4 million to $26 million or $28.4 million inflated
at 3.0% to 2014 $'s.
391
IPM
& Select Service Woad Frame Hotel Proiect Valuation
PKF has applied a discount rate of 10.5% and a reversionary capitalization rate of 8.5% to their projected
cash flow (NOI), giving the project a value upon opening of $30.1 million or $200,567 per guest room.
Generally speaking, in comparison with recently published investor surveys (e.g., CBRE, HVS, RERC, and
PWC for limited- or select service- hotels) the PKF discount- and cap -rates do not appear to be
unreasonable. From an appraisal perspective the PKF investment criteria implies an Overall Cap Rate of
8.0% which, applied to inherently risky future projections, could be considered slightly aggressive.
However, because the SFO lodging market has remained one of the most resilient markets in the
country throughout the recent economic woes, it is viewed as an acceptable rate.
7. Financial Feasibiiity Summary/RecommendltiQn_s
In their report, PKF indicated the following for the Select Service Hotel (wood frame construction):
PKF Estimated Construction Costs (2014 $'s) $42,000,000
PKF Estimated Value upon Opening $30,100,000
PKF Resulting Shortfall (Not feasible) ($11,900,000)
My analysis of the PKF report, as discussed above, indicates a potential (not necessarily probable)
adjustment to these conclusions:
SHC Estimated Potential Construction Costs (2014 $'s) $28,400,000
SHC Estimated Potential Value upon Opening $32.300,000
SHC Resulting Feasibility Premium (Feasible) $ 3,900,000
Using the PKF estimate of 6S% L7V (b /f financing costs) suggests that these figures have the potential to
allow for a development financing of $11.3 million equity and $20.9 million debt — a much more
attractive financing ratio than the one determined by PKF ($22.4 million equity and $19.6 million debt).
In summary, the PKF report (for obvious reasons) suggests in rather draconian terms that none of the
possible hotel development scenarios are financially feasible. However, in examining the most probable
hotel product (select service hotel), a case can be made for economic/financial viability particularly with
a successful negotiation between the City and developer regarding the treatment of (i.e., reduction in)
land costs. Also it should be noted that, in all likelihood, not every component of my analyses can or will
be fully captured in the negotiations.
392
-i-
Ra mmendations: While the lodging industry In the SFO- and SSF -sub- market is quite strong, for the
present at least, the hotel development /capital markets are not interested. This is because, in large
part, California still has a significant inventory of existing under - performing hotels in good locations that
can be acquired at below or reasonably close to replacement value. Because of these factors, the
financing community right now is more favorably disposed to these (existing hotel) transactions than the
much higher risk (but not necessarily higher yielding) hotel development projects. Additionally other
uses (particularly industrial and R &D spaces) currently are able to generate a higher and better return
than hotels, residential projects or, in the case of SSF, first class office space. That said, values of existing
hotels for sale are on the rise now and have been for a couple of years and, considering the historical
cyclical nature of the hotel business, at some point in the future hotel development financing will regain
appeal and interest.
Therefore, assuming the City's appetite for new hotel development remains strong, it is worthwhile to
pursue the select service hotel concept on pad 61 and in the timetable suggested by the developer (i.e.,
Buildings 3 & 4 in October 2014 and B1 and B2 in April 2016). It is anticipated that the land cost will be
the primary issue facing the City.
Regarding the choice of the select service hotel product, depending on the level of participation by the
City, a consideration of an upgraded alternative product such as a boutique hotel with signature food &
beverage operations could be made. Additionally, a multiple use of the B1 pad could be considered to
include a fitness center /spa with specialized retail in addition to the boutique hotel. These potential
alternatives require study and analyses but only if the City's participation is confirmed as the upgrades
more than likely would require the City's financial support to be considered economically /financially
viable.
It has been my pleasure assisting the City as it studies and analyses The Cove at Oyster Point. Please
contact me should you have any questions regarding the content of this executive summary letter
report.
Sincerely,
& Principal
Scott Hospitality Consultants
393
194
Awl W 43 ~ ro W
c Ui
0 2 6
4,1
+ +
t� ai K
Xm [il N N
LL
C, N
4
t
0
a
m
0
0
r'1 �
0
h
W �d?f�0 aim SmV
°—
%� W O°m �4s
NAM
ti
—
Ma7S�Sd�
OCR 411eNd
aaqq g!�
y
g
�mm m � itl
�3avva v
v
goai��f�i �S
r
Asfli1 169 a�
anvAaON^ m
�rQ,ov�
a Og� m®
mmn�°r'�n ,
�W ���� W m
8i eon�$m
mo@
MESH 9
a°; �i mapp
E°nan_oo{�r�non �'.,ai8i
ffipmap�vo
ai o
pn °r�n�i�
901 W °m aq O� �
11E
N N
Wgc�7p7S_�
Z N a7 M M
i
O7
ZZ
N
R W
$pg� �y$�A �y�i, omo,
N
wo
mim:l(y'n_cd dS �S
pm ��QD
p� S�
12m{ �1ilm ��
f'1
pp{�{��
WO�000�0
r0 NN if"w
ca4i$�i
Qc9i Rif"
[N4 P1 �� W ��
O
_ggY
o
VY
e�ivY V a "amy
O v m O h r A m
W m t VO °
O m m N to f 0u
m m W 0 S S W
a �D 07 o SV
n
�m o+ W O
E$w$a°o$$°m
Eor nAV W
00 1`
Eoiove@+'urmr
EWmm @Wm @m
e:n rrr�
MmMw
8 r� m$P7$
ar m
m
m
°W
afaisfvaTvvei
m
,r- �{{v��'e�, prppp yo.'ram
W m m t0 W W W m
'p�rrai, ao c�pps aq mryry °N.
a~6 0 N - — —
44
j
��rrn �'[�'_app p$pocp°p+.
�N NHp�wwmnm
� i7 P@i
w��N� vWa 2i3pp3
9 m 9 0/ �i ari ag
�Nry m
i�l mAV v0
S�N h cq 0 9i
i�`j,m NQ1m W u 16
N N W m Y r M v
A a (!�I N M 10 V
7 W s 4 fY 1� O
? m m m a� g
'� W M i V 0
mom
pvi�aeo"
7 fV W (V W �0 P CI 1D
$$mmiao$�
�.r
@9$�'8$T.N-
�a�mma
m ®o'
�crv��c w
e�o° iMMMM
a
�ig9;f >asV*9
aim �q �v
ci vi v a at ai �e ei
CIS and V roN W
m�p�1
O0/P� mai .� -r*7, vN{
�aamfOO Cf �mn,mvWi.
[bO�OI W O
y
° v 4� ?m
a m
yx��Y7mt�vpa
i�c°p�o@on���
Nm M ai 4 OS pl PS Cl
•
r Pe
�c�dm�clCR �i
;AAA NIV.
rGr Vol�m
mi�� EAO�
99 9€3o�O
���s'0ai$�Fo'
mNA mA
oWimmc@itRW�Fi
�Cli9 'iN�i °mw
ai addO��bc�
N N V QfV 07 ifW
N
' i
'oo0 cmCyq�
_
@%a;
'ie�
'Padm
N
ffi
g
nRo
Sno�� s�
mmn�c,7iig��o@
to
im�
ia3aB
i�r°vnV
—.DCOo°.W°i-g
Q
NnwIV
Vl /q fV CIW of
hor
le 9 9 n % n
`a.�- Y70 v10 W
� � l+l
o� a� c
nM gi98- V0
m rz
♦
�fl+_ �1v+1_N
p �p �p a�
�a S�7�A 1�Jr h
,e� r�
(Ay app mN
v �R W m
a W Q m
f0: g9g�9
L
g
W
ae�r �
���.$ rmm
pfgg i �i9
aA9;ANcVi9gmv
�.� �dS25vr
�
of of ai of t+l' of ai pi
CD
o�� n �amo.
pmi,aa�do
eqq
gg g� ��[[
IN 93d;�� H
gg��
$a°B�So��$
-
a$8�r�0 -9
,-
.3 0Pr�r
�
a'�3'�3'$�'p3'.R�3'�3
a
��iCq
a
v;vfNea
{{� 8
Z'm 1m�lii Pl W (4�1b N
W N9 a�mQ
e0 Op7 m�11 o6$J
�aT
(gf q$Qg�
C•_�•• " "m.j'�
Z'rN wpm rm aWDr om
♦'Lap eOp�Yy�1y���
a�C1�.1
Cep yy Q imp
9 E
±
�Cm
' W R T OO
R
G m m W fa fD�
m7
10 W 0@7 oai e@7 bJ
7
(Y CI SV NNN
' p@
j+,9w IlA
cJ rd C+i on N N of cr
�a
i
go
13id1HU :4
Sdi3 S3
via
N a 1 N
396
Draft CEQA Resolution - Exhibit B
CEQA Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
L Introduction
The Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project ( "Project ") consists of the development
of an approximately 20.1 acre Office /Research & Development (R &D) business park, located in
the Bay West Cove area of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California,
commonly known as Planning Area 1 of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and located at the
northern terminus of Gateway Boulevard. The proposed project consists of the phased buildout
of eight buildings including 884,344 square feet of Office /R &D use; a 200 room hotel; 20,000
square feet of retail space; and a 9 story parking structure. Business /commercial development on
the site would total 1,030,344 square feet.
The objectives of the project are as follows:
• Develop the site with 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 working campus environment with 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 with 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 with well- designated 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.
• Provide connection from the Bay Trail, bordering the project site, to bicycle network.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
( "CEQA "), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be
approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or
substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations
which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts.
When an environmental impact report ( "EIR ") has been completed which identifies one or more
potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make
one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact:
1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or
2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
7
3. Specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081).
A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less than
significant. (See ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 716.) As lead agency under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section
15367, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") hereby adopts the following CEQA findings
relating to the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan Project environmental review
documents, including the 2013 Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft SEW)
and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( "Final SEIR ") certified by the City on
2014. The Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR are collectively referred to herein as the
«E�»
II. General Findings
The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 - 21178,
and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000- 15387, to
address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by
Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts
resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means
of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the
environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and
supervision of the City.
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same
statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources
Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant
environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must
issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such
finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch
changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).)
The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines
"feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors."
CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens
of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "' [F]easibility' under CEQA
encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the
relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid, see also Sequoyah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to
substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible
or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened,
a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the
agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable
adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of
approving... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are
responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those
decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
These Findings constitute the City Council members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and
policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements
of CEQA. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts
listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council
believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be
substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City
Council recognized that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse
environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the
extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and
other considerations that support approval of the Project.
9
III. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less - than - significant level, even
with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that
would mitigate these impacts to a less -than- significant level. The City has determined that the
impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other
considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below.
Impact IV.J -5: The proposed project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (on site).
Finding: Due to the proximity of the buildings located onsite with 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 work would exceed FTA vibration criteria. Even through the
construction vibration represents a short -term impact, this could still represent a potentially
significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation.
Impact IV.M -11: The project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the U.S. 101
Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard by 4.7 percent,
where 2017 "Without Project" volumes would already exceed capacity limits. The off -ramp
volume of 1,655 vehicles under 2017 "Without Project" conditions would be increased to 1,732
vehicles under "With Project" conditions at a location with an off -ramp diverge capacity of
1,500 vehicles per hour.
MM IV.M -11: City Public Works staff has determined that providing a second off -ramp lane
connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline for the southbound flyover off -ramp to the Oyster
Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection would not be feasible due to the limited
distance between the flyover off -ramp diverge and the southbound off -ramp diverge to Airport
Boulevard. The southbound flyover off -ramp connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline is
located about 880 feet south of the southbound off -ramp connection to Airport Boulevard.
Provision of a second off -ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a separate
deceleration auxiliary lane at least 1,250 feet long.
Finding: The improvement to the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp diverge to the Oyster Point
Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection cannot be completed due to the limited distance
between the flyover off -ramp diverge and the southbound off -ramp diverge to Airport
Boulevard. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M -14: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes and
would result in a significant level of service operational impact at two study intersections under
2035 "With Project" conditions.
MM IV.M -14: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements, which are described below.
10
The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy by the City.
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -
Ramp. Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this
improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building
constructed in the second phase of development.
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide three exclusive
through lanes (during commute peak traffic conditions) and an exclusive right turn lane.
Also, provide overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn
movement and prohibit right turns on red from the U.S. 101 southbound flyover off -
ramp.
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS F -107.9
seconds control delay during the AM Peak Hour, which remains greater than 2035
"Without Project" conditions (LOS F- 95.8 seconds control delay). During the PM Peak
Hour, the intersection would operate at LOS F- 99.5seconds control delay, which is also
greater than 2035 "Without Project" conditions (LOS E -76.6 seconds control delay).
• 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard. Provide overlap signal phasing for
the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes. The applicant shall be responsible
for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
last building constructed in the second phase of development.
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS E -67.0
seconds control delay during the PM Peak Hour, which is less than 2035 "Without
Project" conditions (LOS F -80.5 seconds control delay).
Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 14a and 14b are feasible. However,
the project's impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound
Flyover Off -Ramp intersection could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, while the
measure proposed for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard intersection would reduce
the impact at this location to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -15: Implementation of the proposed project would increase volumes by more
than 1 percent on the approaches to two intersections under 2035 "Without Project" conditions
that would already be experiencing unacceptable 95th percentile queuing. Project traffic would
also increase acceptable "Without Project" queuing on one approach to one of these same
intersections to unacceptable lengths. Resultant queuing would exceed acceptable levels
established by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -15: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share
contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in
Table 23 and Figure 25. The fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
11
• 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Flyover Off -
Ramp /Project Access. The measures recommended to improve level of service (that are
listed below) have also been evaluated to determine their ability to reduce vehicle queues.
Adjust signal timing. The signal timing will be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a
less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact.
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide three exclusive
through lanes (during commute peak traffic conditions) and an exclusive right turn lane.
Also provide overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn
movement.
These measures would reduce the amount of queuing storage for eastbound through
movements from 2,825 feet down to 1,900 feet (due to reducing the number of through
lanes from four to three). "With Project" AM peak hour 95th percentile vehicle queuing
demand in the eastbound through lanes would be 2,586 feet with 1,900 feet of available
storage. However, after the level of service mitigation, the eastbound through lanes queue
demand would be 36 percent higher than available storage, while with four eastbound
through lanes (the unmitigated condition), the eastbound through lanes "With Project"
queue demand would only be 12 percent above available storage. Therefore, these level
of service measures would not be beneficial for queuing. No other measures are
considered feasible at this intersection due to right -of -way and cost constraints.
15b. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp.
Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the
second phase of development.
This measure would reduce "With Project" AM and PM peak hour vehicle queuing in the
eastbound through lanes to a shorter distance than "Without Project" conditions (AM:
358 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue per lane versus 381 feet
"Without Project" unmitigated queue demand; PM: 321 feet 95th percentile mitigated
"With Project" queue per lane versus 412 feet "Without Project" unmitigated queue
demand). However, this measure would not be able to reduce "With Project" AM peak
hour vehicle queuing in the northbound right turn lanes to a shorter distance than
"Without Project" AM peak hour vehicle queuing. Also, this measure would not be able
to eliminate any of the significant PM peak hour queuing impacts in the Oyster Point
westbound approach left, through or right turn lanes. No physical improvement measures
are considered feasible due to right -of -way and construction cost constraints.
Finding: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 15a are feasible, but would
not reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level at the Oyster Point Boulevard/
Gateway Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measure 15b, which applies to the Oyster Point
12
Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp intersection, is feasible to reduce
some, but not all queuing impacts. Therefore, both impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact IV.M -16: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the frequency of
backups extending to the freeway mainline at two U.S.101 off - ramps.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -16: The improvements that would be necessary to mitigate the
potentially significant impacts to the off -ramps are not feasible for the reasons discussed below.
Therefore, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
• 16a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard
Intersection. In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are
no other mitigation measures considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works
staff that would reduce 95th percentile offramp queuing within available storage beyond
those recommended for 2035 unacceptable surface street queuing (Mitigation Measure
15a). Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an
additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard
(through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101
Southbound Off- Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard.
Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be
infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the
southbound flyover off -ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off -ramp widening would also
require expansion of bridge structures, which would result in additional environmental
impacts such as the need for additional right of way, and be prohibitively expensive.
Provision of additional lanes would require acquisition of additional right -of -way along
Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster
Point and Flyover off -ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the
complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the
intersection.
• 16b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue /Southbound On -Ramp
Intersection. There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San
Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection
with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would
provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the
U.S. 101 freeway mainline.
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of
less - than - significant, and therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M -17: Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to
three U.S. 101 off -ramp diverges with the mainline freeway under 2035 "With Project"
conditions.
13
Mitigation Measure IV.M -17: Improvements necessary to mitigate the potentially significant
impacts to the off -ramp diverge areas are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. Therefore,
the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
17a. U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) Diverge to the Oyster Point
Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. No improvements are considered feasible
by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate this impact. In order to provide a
second off -ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off -Ramp
(flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would likely be necessary to move the Southbound
Off -Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation
between the two southbound off - ramps. A second off -ramp lane connection to the
freeway mainline would require a long (1,000 -foot or longer) deceleration lane with only
300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed by
the location of the northbound off -ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard.
There is insufficient right of way for the provision of this lane.
• 17b. U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to the E. Grand Avenue /Executive Drive
Intersection. No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public
Works staff to mitigate the impact. A second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101
mainline will already have been provided and no additional measures to increase diverge
capacity are considered possible.
17c. U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to the Dubuque Avenue /Southbound On-
Ramp Intersection. No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco
Public Works staff to mitigate the impact. A second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S.
101 mainline would require approval by Caltrans, which is not considered likely given
the constrained off -ramp diverge geometrics.
Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 17a and 17b are not feasible, and
that Mitigation Measure 17c would require approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. There
are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less -than-
significant. For reasons presented above, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M -18: Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to
two U.S. 101 On -Ramps to the U.S. 101 freeway under 2035 "With Project" conditions.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -18: Improvements necessary to mitigate the potentially significant
impacts to the off -ramp diverge areas are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. Therefore,
the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
• 18a. U.S. 101 Northbound One -Lane On -Ramp from the Oyster Point
Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Provision of a second on -ramp lane would
increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would
accommodate the 2035 "With Project" volume of about 2,653 vehicles per hour, it
would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed.
14
• 18b. U.S. 101 Southbound One -Lane On -Ramp from the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101
Northbound Off -Ramp Intersection. Provision of a second on -ramp lane would
increase capacity to about 2,800 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would
accommodate the 2035 "With Project" volume of about 2,193 vehicles per hour, it
would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed.
Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 18a and 18b would both require
approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Therefore, it could not be guaranteed that impacts
at either location could be reduced to a less than significant level. For reasons presented above,
this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M -19: Implementation of the proposed project would result in operational impacts to
one U.S. 101 freeway mainline segment under 2035 "With Project" conditions.
U.S. 101 Southbound Freeway (North of Oyster Point Interchange). During the AM
peak hour, project traffic would increase volumes by 1.63 percent on southbound U.S.
101 north of the Oyster Point interchange (from 9,965 up to 10,127 vehicles per hour,
where 2035 "Without Project" operation would already be an unacceptable LOS F. This
would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -19: Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current
freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its
close proximity to surrounding development, and impacts on existing land uses, such mitigation
is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the
types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 19 is not
feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining "feasible" as
"capable of being accomplished ... taking into account economic... and technological factors. ").)
Under CEQA, the City in this matter must balance public objectives, including specific
economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd.
(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, § 15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular
mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources
Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Finding: For reasons presented above, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
IV. Less- Than - Significant Impacts With Mitigation
The Final SEIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in
the areas discussed below. The Final SEIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or
substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the
information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it,
including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Conditions of Approval, the City finds that for each of the following project impacts, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and in the Final EIR,
the following impacts will be less than significant with identified feasible mitigation measures.
15
Impact IV.B -4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measure IV.B -4.1 Lighting: The following mitigation serves to clarify 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,
walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with 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 following:
• The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the types of
lighting and their locations.
• Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded lights that do
not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion detection
systems where applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to the following
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.
• Sidewalks, 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 would be in operation during nighttime hours.
• Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged.
• On- demand lighting systems shall be encouraged.
• Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be permitted
except where 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 with
nonreflective 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 where appropriate.
16
• All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes and the approved
lighting plan during construction.
Finding: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.B -1 and compliance with local
regulations, impacts related to a substantial increase in light would be less than significant.
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.
Mitigation Measure IV.0 -1.1 - Use of Certified Low -VOC Paint: 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 would require the construction
contractor to use a certified low VOC paint with a maximum ROG content of 50 grams /liter.
This mitigation measure would reduce ROG emissions from architectural coatings by 80 percent.
Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the project's average daily
construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds, and its construction
emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan. Therefore, project construction impacts would be less than significant.
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.
Mitigation Measure IV.0 -4.1 - Construction Equipment Filters: All diesel fueled off -road
construction equipment must use diesel particulate filters with an 85% reduction in diesel
particulate matter compared to Tier 2 engines.
Finding: With mitigation, the impact to the future daycare child can be reduced to 5 in one
million which is less than the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in a million. Therefore
the impact to sensitive receptors would be less than significant after mitigation. There are no
significant sources of diesel particulate matter associated with project operation. Therefore the
impact to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
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.
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 within 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 whether
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
17
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, work can 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, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted
to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
Finding: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E -1.1, this impact would be less than
significant.
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.
Mitigation Measure IV.E -2.1 - Unknown Archaeological Resources: If an unidentified
archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the project all excavations within 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 identify 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 well 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, work will 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, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted
to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.
Finding: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E -2.1 listed above, this impact would be
less than significant.
119
Impact IV.E -4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
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 within 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find
shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notify the San Mateo County
Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PRC Section 5097 with 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.
Finding: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E -4.1 listed above, this impact would be
less than significant.
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
off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Mitigation Measure IV. F -4.1 Construction measures for differential settlement. The
project applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures during project design. The
City shall review plans for all project phases for compliance with these measures, prior to
issuance of building permits.
Building
Building floor slabs shall be structurally supported (span between deep foundations) and entry
walk ways shall be hinge slabs to reduce the potential for differential movement at the building
entries. Flexible connections shall be used for utilities where they connect to buildings. Within
the building footprint, it would likely be necessary to hang the utilities from the structural slab.
Away from the building, the design of gravity -flow utility lines would take the potential for
future settlement into account. Periodic maintenance would 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 Sewer and Storm System
The thickness of Bay Mud varies beneath the existing sanitary sewer and storm drain lines that
cross the site. If grades are raised, differential settlement would likely be induced across the
alignment. However, the impact of these settlements is unknown at this time, and would 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 sewer and storm drain lines would not be impacted by the project construction.
Measures would be tailored for submittal after site specific evaluations.
Foundations
19
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 with consolidation of the Bay Mud, building floor
slab shall be structurally supported between grade beams and piles caps. Although the ground is
expected to settle, it would be in contact with the floor slab for some time. If water vapor
transmission through the floor slab is undesirable (e.g., where floor covering would be placed), a
capillary moisture break and a water 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 waterproofing membrane could
be used in lieu of a capillary moisture break.
Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure IVY-4.1 and adherence to state and
City codes outlined above (Policies GEO -I and GEO -2, CA Building Code) the potential impact
of differential settlement due to unstable soil and seismic hazards would be substantially lowered
and this impact would be less than significant.
Impact IV.F -5: The proposed project would result in soil erosion.
Mitigation Measure IV.F -5.1 Soil Erosion: A Soils Management Plan (SMP) was prepared for
the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project site (Geologica, 2000). This SMP covers the
previous development plan proposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Specific Plan. The SMP
shall be modified to correspond with 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 SMP to accommodate the new
development. These modifications would be subject to review and approval by the SF Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The updated or new SMP will address the following
elements associated with 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 whether the originally proposed contaminated soil placement area in the
southwest 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 with Section IV. C, Air Quality.
20
Finding: Adherence to existing City codes and implementation of Mitigation Measure IVY-5.1
would 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.
Impact IV.G -1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
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 workers 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 will help protect the public and
workers by providing procedures and contingencies that will help reduce the exposure to
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure IV.G -1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove 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 work in the affected area shall stop and an
investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the presence and extent of contamination
at the site.
The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying
contaminant levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface
investigation shall determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material
handling and disposal procedures. Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous
waste 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) with an approved plan for groundwater extraction, soil excavation, control of
contaminant releases to the air, and off -site transport or on -site treatment. Results of the
investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal, disposal and /or
mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work will be
documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead
regulatory agency for the site cleanup).
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 with 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 will include:
21
• Updating and /or identifying 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
who may come into contact with groundwater or subsurface soil at the project site. This
includes a HASP for all grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future
subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required
personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure.
The HASP will be reviewed 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
workers and future users of the site.
• Updating and /or requiring site - specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment
and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations,
trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay RWQCB
guidelines.
• Reviewing, 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.
• Identifying restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the
subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development.
The updated Plan shall be reviewed 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.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G -1.1 through IV.G -1.3 and compliance
with state and local regulations would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials would not create a public hazard, and this impact would be reduced to less
than significant.
Impact IV.11-5: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
Mitigation Measure IV.H -5.1: The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts
associated with alteration of drainage patterns, increase in calculated peak flood discharge and
localized flooding.
The project on -site stormwater runoff shall be collected in a network 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 with sufficient capacity to
accommodate the peak runoff from a 10 -year storm. The existing 48 -inch line, which will be
relocated as part of the proposed project, shall provide sufficient capacity to accommodate a 25-
year storm.
22
The project applicant shall prepare a final drainage study for the drainage basin to which 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 downstream City storm lines. The final drainage study shall
demonstrate the adequacy of on -site and downstream storm drainage lines to transmit post -
project flows without 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 stormwater flows into the City's 48 -inch line
would exceed the 25 -year design storm event, then the project would either (1) provide
additional detention on the project site to offset the project's contribution to the flows, or (2)
upsize the downstream pipes and within the project site boundary when that pipe is relocated as
needed to accommodate the project's contribution to the flows that are conveyed through the
City's existing 48 -inch line.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.H -5.1 the impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Impact IV.H -10: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measure IV.11-10.1 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 will not be subject to tsunami
inundation. As necessary, the report will recommend grading or structural project improvements
that will comply with 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 will not increase
potential flood hazards in other areas. The report and recommended improvements will be
certified by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City's floodplain administrator prior
to the City's issuance of any development or building permits for the project. Following
approval of the report, the project applicant will implement all recommended flood protection
improvements as part of the project design and construction.
Finding: Compliance with the SSFMC requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.H -10.1 would reduce potential impacts resulting from tsunami inundation to a less than
significant level
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 general plan 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.
23
Mitigation Measure IV -J.1- 1 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 between 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 specify 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. Following 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, with a letter from the designer
and a copy of the report showing that the mechanical equipment has been designed to meet the
City's Noise Standards.
Finding: Mitigation Measure IV.J- 1.1 would 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
City's Noise Standards.
Impact IV.J -4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
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 would 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 with equipment and techniques that can be used to reduce construction related noise.
The plan must include, but is not limited to, the following measures:
• Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction
schedule, including the various types of activities that would 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
away from sensitive uses, where feasible.
• Schedule high noise - producing activities when they would be least likely to interfere with
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 currently allows construction activities until 8 p.m. during week 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 8.32.50 d (1) or d (2), then they could be used
during off - hours. If construction hours were too late then these levels could potentially
impact the existing hotel. Similarly, 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
24
when 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 with 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 with operation of earthmoving equipment within the project site be located as
far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall
be included 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 away 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.
Finding: Since the mitigation measure would 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 would be less than
significant after mitigation.
Impact IV.J -5: The proposed project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
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 will depend on which method of pile installation will be used. The
following are different pile installation methodologies that can be used:
• Implementation of either the impact or vibratory pile driving method would 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 would result in a preconstruction
survey of vibration sensitive equipment of at least 300 feet from the construction site.
Implementation of the pushing method, if feasible and consistent with the
recommendations of the geotechnical study would not require a preconstruction survey of
vibration sensitive equipment. Vibration levels from the pushing method would not
generate vibration levels high enough to effect vibration sensitive equipment near the
construction site.
25
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 would occur during times when vibration sensitive equipment would 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 continuously 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.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J -5.1 would reduce the impact of off -site
groundborne vibration to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -3: The project would result in 95th percentile vehicle queuing impacts at one
location under Existing "With Project" conditions.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -3: The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by
the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution
for the following mitigations.
• Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue — Provide a second right turn lane on the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. This measure is included in the City's East
of 101 Capital Improvements Program.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, the westbound right turn 95th percentile PM
peak hour "With Project" queue would be reduced from 840 feet down to 92 feet.
Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M -3 is
feasible and would restore "With Project" vehicle queuing to a length less than "Without
Proj ect'' queuing. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -5: The project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the U.S. 101
Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive by 9.4 percent, where current
volumes already exceed capacity limits. The off -ramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing
"Without Project" conditions would be increased to 1,770 vehicles under Existing "With
Proj ect'' conditions at a location with an off -ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -5: The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by
the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution
for a second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -
Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive. The fair -share payment shall be paid by the
applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included
in the City's East of 101 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
26
Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M -5 is
feasible and would restore off -ramp diverge operation to an acceptable level, and therefore the
impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant level of
service impact at one study intersection under 2017 "With Project" conditions.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -8: The applicant shall be responsible to provide a fair share
contribution as determined by the City Engineer for providing the following improvement as
shown in Table IV.M -22 and Figure IV.M -24, Year 2017 Mitigated Lane Geometrics and
Control, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in
the first phase of development.
Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -
Ramp — Adjust Signal Timing.. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the
queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of
service impact.
After implementation of the mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS F -88.3
seconds control delay during the AM peak hour, which is less than "Without Project" operation
at 88.8 seconds control delay.
Finding: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure IV.M -8 is
feasible and would restore "With Project" operation to levels better than "Without Project"
operation, and therefore the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase volumes by more than
1 percent at three intersections which would have unacceptable "Without Project" vehicle
queuing as determined by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -9: The applicant shall be responsible for providing fair -share
contributions as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in
Figure IV.M -24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The fair -share
payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the
City.
• 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp.
Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the
first phase of development.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the
eastbound approach through lanes would be reduced to the same distance as "Without Project"
conditions (318 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue versus 318 feet "Without
Project" unmitigated queue).
27
9b. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjust
signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to
a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The
applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of
development.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the
westbound approach through and through /right turn lanes would be reduced to the same distance
as "Without Project" conditions (514 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue versus
514 feet "Without Project" unmitigated queue).
• 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp.
Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the
first phase of development.
After implementation of this mitigation measure, "With Project" vehicle queuing in the
eastbound approach through lanes would be reduced to less distance than "Without Project"
conditions (2,928 feet 95th percentile mitigated "With Project" queue demand versus 2,948 feet
"Without Project" unmitigated queue demand).
Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above in
Mitigation Measure IV.M -9 are feasible and would restore intersection queuing to or less than
"Without Project" operation. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the
City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 Area to construct these
improvements. With the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the
project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -10: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes by
more than I percent on one freeway off -ramp that would have "Without Project" queues
extending to the freeway mainline and would extend queues back to the freeway mainline at a
second off -ramp where 2017 "Without Project" queues would not otherwise extend to the
freeway mainline.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -10: The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by
the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution
for the following improvements as shown in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane
Geometrics and Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
10a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -
Ramp Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach from three through lanes
and a shared through /right turn lane to three through lanes and an exclusive right turn
lane.
Prohibit right turns on red from the Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp right turn.
Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster
Point Boulevard right turn. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this
improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building
constructed in the first phase of development.
10b. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Southbound On- Ramp- Northbound Off -Ramp.
Provide improvements as detailed in Mitigation l0a above at the Oyster Point
Boulevard /GatewayBoulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp intersection.
Measures at this intersection will allow eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard traffic to clear
from both the Gateway and Dubuque intersections and facilitate flow from the
northbound off -ramp to Dubuque Avenue.
Finding: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above in
Mitigation Measures 10a and lob are feasible and would eliminate AM peak hour "With Project"
traffic on the U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard and on the U.S.
101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue from backing up to the freeway mainline. The
City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future
development in the East of 101 Area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the
project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the project's impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level. There should be no significant secondary impacts due to this measure.
Impact IV.M -14: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes and
would result in a significant level of service operational impact at two study intersections under
2035 "With Project" conditions.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -14: The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by
the City's East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project's fair share contribution
for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Table 23 and Figure
IV.M -25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
• 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -
Ramp Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this
improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building
constructed in the second phase of development.
Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide three exclusive
through lanes (during commute peak traffic conditions) and an exclusive right turn lane.
Also, provide overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn
movement and prohibit right turns on red from the U.S. 101 southbound flyover off -
ramp.
29
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS F -107.9 seconds
control delay during the AM Peak Hour, which remains greater than 2035 "Without Project"
conditions (LOS F- 95.8 seconds control delay). During the PM Peak Hour, the intersection
would operate at LOS F -99.5 seconds control delay, which is also greater than 2035 "Without
Project" conditions (LOS E -76.6 seconds control delay).
14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard.
Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes.
The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of
development.
With implementation of this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS E -67.0 seconds
control delay during the PM Peak Hour, which is less than 2035 "Without Project" conditions
(LOS F -80.5 seconds control delay).
Finding: The City has determined that Mitigation Measures 14 a and 14b are feasible.
However, the project's impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101
Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp intersection could not be mitigated to a less than significant
level, while the measure proposed for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
intersection would reduce the impact at this location to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M -20: Project driveway intersections along Veterans Boulevard should operate
acceptably as proposed.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -20: The applicant shall be responsible for providing the following
improvement.
• Veterans Boulevard/Project's western driveway intersections. Provide stop sign
control on the Veterans Boulevard southbound to eastbound approach to the intersection
with the project's western driveway.
Finding: With the provision of Mitigation Measure IV.M -20, the impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Impact IV.M -21: The Proposed Internal Circulation Plan is acceptable, with the exception that
long, straight parking aisles would potentially lead to higher than desired vehicle speeds.
(Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Mitigation Measure IV.M -21: The project applicant shall adjust the Internal Vehicular
Circulation Plan to include the following measures.
Provide traffic calming measures along all straight parking aisles longer than 200 feet. Speed
tables, landscaped chokers and /or small landscaped traffic circles should be considered rather
than speed bumps or speed humps. All measures shall be approved by City Public Works,
Planning and Emergency Services.
9M
Finding: With the provision of Mitigation Measure IV.M -21, the impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Impact IV.M -22: The project internal pedestrian access plan lacks detail regarding safe
pedestrian flow from the parking garage to the buildings lining Oyster Point Boulevard,
especially across parking aisles that will have significant volumes. (Potentially Significant; Less
than Significant with Mitigation)
Mitigation Measure IV.M -22: The project applicant shall adjust the Internal Pedestrian
Circulation Plan to include the following measures.
Provide landscaping, signing and /or other design features to prevent pedestrian flow between the
parking garage and buildings B5, B6 and B7 across the traffic circle at the Oyster Point
Boulevard project entry /exit. In addition, speed tables or similar measures are recommended at
each of the pedestrian crossings of the parking aisles just east and west of the traffic circle at the
Oyster Point Boulevard project entry /exit.
Finding: With the provision of Mitigation Measure IV.M -22, the impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Impact IV.M -23: The project will not provide any specific bicycle paths or routes internal or
adjacent to the project site.
Mitigation Measure IV.M -23: The project applicant shall work with the City to provide either
a Class I or Class II bicycle connection between the Bay Trail and the existing Class II bicycle
lanes along Oyster Point Boulevard
Finding: With the provision of Mitigation Measure IV.M -23, the impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Impact IVA -4: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources and no new or expanded entitlements are
needed.
Mitigation Measure IVA -4.1 Water Conservation: In order to reduce water demands of all
phases of the project, the project applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the
proposed project's buildings and landscaping for each phase of the Precise Plan. These methods
shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Install water - conserving dishwashers and washing machines and water - efficient
centralized cooling systems in all new buildings (this method would not apply to process
development or research development laboratory equipment);
• Install water - conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and evapotranspiration -
based irrigation controllers);
• Design landscaping with drought - resistant and other low- water -use plants; and
• Install water - saving devices such as water - efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads.
31
Finding: Although the proposed project would have sufficient water supply, the implementation
of Mitigation Measure IV.N -4.1 could further reduce the propose project's contribution to total
water demand.
Impact IV.N -5: The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 Wastewater Collection: Before the proposed project is
connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall upgrade and improve Pump
Station 914, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall pay its fair share of
pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works Department, in
accordance with General Plan policies and based on the project's contribution to wastewater
flows.
To mitigate the impact to Pump Station #14, the following improvements shall be implemented:
• The relocated force main will be sized to serve the flow characteristics of the new pumps.
• Upgrades made to pumps /wet well /SCADA /Generator.
Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.2 Wastewater Collection: Before the proposed project is
connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall upgrade and improve aged
Pump Station 92, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall pay its fair
share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works Department,
in accordance with General Plan policies. The following improvements shall be implemented:
• Upgrade pumps and generator. Per Sewer Master Plan, 3 -850 gpm pumps shall be
installed.
• Relocate force main from Pump Station 914 around proposed Building 3 into the
easement.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.N -5.1 and 5.2, the impact to waste
water collection would be less than significant.
V. Findings Regarding Alternatives
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same
statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects."
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that
cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as
32
mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project
alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may
ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead
agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project (City of Del Mar v. City of
San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses
`desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715). Thus, even if a project
alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the
project, the decision - makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific
considerations make the alternative infeasible.
Chapter VI of the Draft SEIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a
reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative
Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative
The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in
the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic
objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project
objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is
not unduly limited or narrow. The City Council also finds that all reasonable alternatives were
reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the SEIR and the ultimate decision on
the Project. (See Draft SEIR, Chapter VI.)
A. No Project Alternative
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative (Alternative A). In
this case, the No Project Alternative consists of a "No Project/No Build" alternative, which is
defined as the circumstances under which the project would not proceed (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15126.6(e)3)(B)). Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of
approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project and
maintenance of the existing environmental setting on the project site.
The No Project Alternative would be a feasible alternative, but it would not meet the project
objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment,
emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, and connecting
to various transit modes.
Impacts: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce environmental
impacts in almost all categories to less - than- significant levels, as no development would occur
33
under this alternative. However, traffic in the area would continue to increase due to other
development. This increase in traffic would result in a decrease in intersection LOS, and
unacceptable vehicle queuing at some intersections, off - ramps, and freeway mainlines.
Therefore, although there would be no new trips generated under the No Project Alternative,
traffic congestion would increase in the area to unacceptable conditions, and some impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most basic project objectives, would
still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic, and is incapable of fully
promoting the City's underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City Council
finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible.
B. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative
This alternative would allow development of the project site at a FAR of 0.75, assuming a 40/60
split between office and research and development (R &D) uses, resulting in a reduced project
due to the reduction of building mass and employees on site. This alternative assumes that
development on the site would be phased and that total buildout would occur by 2019. Under
this alternative, buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 305,854 sf
of R &D uses; 203,903 sf of office uses; 126,000 sf of hotel uses; and 20,000 sf of retail uses.
Buildout would result in approximately 1,460 employees on the project site. Parking would be
provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of office /R &D development, 200 hotel spaces, 100
of which will be shared with office and R &D uses, and 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sf of retail for a
total of 1,709 spaces. The overall FAR would be 0.67.
Impacts: Reducing the development intensity to 0.75 FAR would primarily reduce vehicle trips
and to some degree construction -period impacts due to an anticipated reduction in the
construction period. However, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would
continue to be significant and unavoidable due to project phasing which would require
construction activities in proximity to buildings constructed during previous project phases. In
addition, although this alternative would generate fewer trips, it would not reduce all of the
significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation.
Finding: The Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 would be a possible alternative to allow
redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives, including
creating a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment,
encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the
incremental and phased development of the site. However, this alternative would continue to
result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise and traffic, would generate less
revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible, and is incapable of
fully promoting the City's underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City
Council finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.75 Alternative to be infeasible.
C. Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative
34
This alternative would allow development of the project site with office and R &D uses at a FAR
of 0.5, assuming a 40/60 split between office and R &D uses, resulting in a further reduction in
building mass and employees on site. This alternative would also assume that development on
the site would be phased and that total buildout would occur by 2019. Under this alternative,
buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 174,703 sf of R &D uses;
116,468 sf of office uses; 126,000 sf of hotel uses; and 20,000 sf of retail uses. Buildout would
result in approximately 935 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio
of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of office /R &D development, 200 hotel spaces, 100 of which will be
shared with office and R &D uses, and 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sf of retail for a total of 1,091
spaces. The overall FAR would be 0.55.
Impacts: Reducing the development intensity to 0.50 FAR would primarily reduce vehicle trips
and to some degree construction -period impacts due to an anticipated reduction in the
construction period. However, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would
continue to be significant and unavoidable due to project phasing which would require
construction activities in proximity to buildings constructed during previous project phases. In
addition, although this alternative would generate fewer trips, it would not reduce all of the
significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation.
Finding: The Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 would be a possible alternative to allow
redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives, including
creating a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment,
encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the
incremental and phased development of the site. However, this alternative would continue to
result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise and traffic, would generate less
revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible, and is incapable of
fully promoting the City's underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City
Council finds the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative to be infeasible.
D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed
project be selected. The State CEQA Guidelines also note "if the environmentally superior
alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In
general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment,
while still achieving the basic project objectives. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative
that best meets the goals or needs of the City.
Under the No Project Alternative, the site would remain vacant and no development would
occur, and would have the least environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative
would not meet any of the key objectives of the proposed project with respect to development of
the site. CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project"
alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the
other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). Based on the analysis provided
35
above, it has been determined that the Reduced Intensity FAR of 0.50 Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative, because this alternative would result in the next greatest
reduction in significant project impacts to noise and traffic.
The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either no development on the
site, or reduced FAR of 0.75 or 0.5 on the site. However, although all of these alternatives would
result in some reduction in employees and vehicle trips to the project site, none of the
alternatives would reduce impacts to a level that would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts
to noise and traffic. Therefore, none of the evaluated alternatives is superior in this regard and,
similar to the project, all alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts.
VL Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations
for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan EIR (SCH No. 1996092081; Certified , 2014 by Resolution No. ), as
further identified and described in Section III of these Findings. The City Council has carefully
considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the
economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant
and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The City Council has also examined
potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the
project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project's significant and
unavoidable impacts. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and
the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project.
The Project will strengthen the City's economic base with by providing an additional
2,595 employees, many of which will be high - quality long -term jobs, as well as shorter
term construction jobs.
The Project is expected to provide for and generate substantial revenues for the City in
the form of one -time and annual fees, taxes, exactions and other fiscal benefits.
The existing physical environment consists of a vacant lot, with limited sidewalks and
minimal site improvements, and which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the
property to uses consistent with research and development uses, including additional
amenities and improvements. The proposed project will promote campus -style office and
research and development uses with employee - serving amenities, will develop
infrastructure and services that reinforce the City's competitive advantage, and enhance
the quality of life for South San Francisco employees by providing features such as
outdoor recreation, site - serving retail and child care. The proposed project will also
provide site improvements that will improve the overall aesthetic character of the site and
will provide additional public amenities including construction of a multi -use path
connecting the Bay Trail to Oyster Point Boulevard and an enhanced bicycle trail system
along Oyster Point Boulevard.
The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies for the East of 101 Area,
which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non - residential uses and
9M
promotes high - technology and research and development uses, provides an opportunity
for continued economic growth, and is in keeping with the design and urban character of
the East of 101 area.
• The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally
promote research and development uses, to the exclusion of residential and more
traditional industrial uses.
• The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the use of public transit by
adopting a Transportation Demand Management Plan that provides incentives for
employees to use alternative modes of transportation other than single - occupancy
vehicles trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for
carpools and vanpools. The TDM also uses a lower parking ratio to increase ridership on
BART, Caltrain, the ferry and other transit services. Further, pedestrian walkways
linking the project site to adjacent shuttle stops will help encourage alternative forms of
transportation.
• The Project's building design and construction and the open space and landscape areas
have all been designed with sustainability as a priority, and the Project will also comply
with the draft Climate Action Plan.
37
Draft CEQA Resolution - Exhibit C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
109
V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Mitigation Monitoring Program
[MMP], §15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or
reporting). The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency and the project sponsor for the Britannia
Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan project and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring most
of the mitigation measures in this mitigation monitoring program.
The Draft Subsequent EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project. Where appropriate, this document identified project design features or recommended mitigation
measures to avoid or to mitigate identified potential impacts to a level where no significant impact on the
environment would occur. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the mitigation measures
identified for the project in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
The MMP for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan project will be in place throughout all
phases of the project. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing all mitigation measures
unless otherwise noted. The City's existing planning, engineering, review and inspection processes will
be used as the basic foundation for the MMP procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation
for the reporting program.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point V Mitigation Monitoring Program
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 110 Page V -1
City of South San Francisco June 2013
This page left blank intentionally.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point V Mitigation Monitoring Program
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 111 Page V -2
M
O
N
O
U
bA
a
°w
ro C)
Uv�P�Q
O
y
.�.
U �
U cz
cz 4.1
U cz C bA
0
bA PL�
U ccz O
O
r-- U
�"
cz
u p bA �S"•'
U cj
'C
O �'
'C O
U
cz
Ct
N w
'�
sue,
z u
.8 mow°
o
cz
o
cz o o
o
o u u
u
u' O' .�
'�
on o
�� 7 —
��
U
ro
o
U p
ct
5
•O
O
Py
U O
U N
4
eC
U U
.�i
CZ CZ
u
u C
¢" .
u
bA
o f
0 O v'I
cz
cd U
CII
'
Abp
N
a C
•�
cz
U- cz u s0. � b0�A :� �
++ O !�-' bA O `�' pA
• "" v ,� U � �
� � O
c� bA
�� •� � ,�
� o u
,�
•
.U. �.'
A rA
H �a cz -0 a-o-0 a
a U a.ww
CN
b0
I
rA rA cz
U Ij
E
° co, l to i +..
cz
,s.' ..U. r--' U ,ap
cz
U a • ti
v.+
U
OU x cz
M
O �
b4 �
O
bq
O
0
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O �
ILI O
W
z
U �
O �
M
O
N
U
O
U
U an
� O
� O
7A
i."
U
U
S.
�I
U
i."
U
i."
SOS.
i."
W
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
O
bq
M_
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
cz
p
O
Cd
N
N
4 y
SU,
cC O
O
"�"
cz
N
p
N '�
eC
O
z
bA ¢
v
O O
O
;4
0
r--�
U
� >C
+�
'," �-.
bA
O
O
cn
Ln
ct
"�"
},
cn
c� G �bA
O
O
5
s0-i+
O
R
c
N O,
c
oF
5
ao
n
a
Ln
Ln o
o
o
o
cz
��
ate.
u
ro
o�ct
o
bAo
d cz
O
0 5
7-,��
'n
OLn
O
'n
O
O
ji
U
i."
U
i."
SOS.
i."
W
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
O
bq
M_
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
G� bA
O
O
O
p ,r-I " C
U
O
O
cz
cz
cz
U O U
O
U
o o
0 0
S.
cz
I
U
O'
U U
C-1
O' U
G'
U
O O
cz "C W
O
�
cz cz
WO
U
—cz w
CZ
U
U
�U
¢"
'�--,
Gt .�
U
c� ct
_
O O W
•� U O
U
p
•� p
'" '� U
cz
N
s."
ms p ��.
�'
O
W
0
W
O
O
O
U
NW
W
0
a
a
U
U
H
W
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
0
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
oW
0 O C
U
.�
p ,r-I " C
U
.�
cz
O
U O U
O
U
� S..•
U U Fr
S.
cz
I
U
O'
C-1
O' U
G'
U
cz Py
O
�
cz
U
—cz w
CZ
U U
cz a
S"
cz
'�--,
Gt .�
U
c� ct
O O W
•� U O
U
p
•� p
'" '� U
cz
N
s."
ms p ��.
�'
0
U u P
O
N
U O
4= O
sO' cz
U
U U
'C
C=l
4
,� U
O
u
U
oc
U
cz
Ocd"
ri
U
14
V
Q'
a � ..
V
'cz W
u
�.
�C
lcnz 0001
�
�
up�o
°'
o�
IX
cz
u U c
,sct�"r
0
bA U
c
Ln
C
CC
'n
In Ln
CZ
U0
°
Ln
=o
�I
cz
o
w
d
NW
W
0
a
a
U
U
H
W
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
0
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
oW
0 O C
U
.�
p ,r-I " C
U
.�
cz
U O U
O
U
U U Fr
i—' V U �'r
cz
I
U
C-1
O' U
G'
U
S-. cz .�
p ,5
�
cz
U
—cz w
CZ
U U
cz a
S"
cz
'�--,
Gt .�
U
c� ct
O O W
•� U O
U
p
•� p
'" '� U
cz
�_�
s."
ms p ��.
�'
U u P
4= O 'C
cC
U O
4= O
4
,� U
O
u
U
NW
W
0
a
a
U
U
H
W
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
0
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
oW
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
� O
W
O �
U U
.gyp;
w
cz
o�
o o
o
U
U
� U
S.
4-y
cN
,si
O
,�
c
s-i
U W
U
�-i N cz
U '�
O •,-� i.' '�'..
,—�i
cz
•,�' -�
s-. 4-y � :' � ,-O 'r""
cr ..U.
'� O � Lam. • � � 4-y
, :'
O
CZ
U .�.
�" 4-i � �
`�
'�
O �
•,
.y
u "in
U"C
O '� O
U+
�--�
o
U ct
O
•�
}'
CC
O U O U bA �'
y ;� M
U a U cz _
u
,r0-I
OO
O U O
o Z
O
r- O
Fy
..U. N cz
cz �". "�'.
� � �
,
N
� O O �"
U
i�' � N �
N
U
O
�� o
� , z
'A
cC �'
0-4
to O�
U d O
o o °
=
4,
"O
V , O
,�' cz cz U
•�
ct
U n
U O
o
u o
roUc
o
o
ct
U i '"
°�' O o
u
o
o ro U
°�'
° u w
Ct �.4, o U
u u 00 U
U
o
Ln
U
u
cz a.
o
an t
°°
°
};
Ln
U
o i o
� P. = R � �
� �4 9 cz cz w o �
�
cz
U � U
H � cz
sue,
cz
'n
cz ..Lni U 0 u
U ..�i
U
cz
cz
Ln
Ln
N
00
'C
cz
• O p bA �,
•
U
D OM
�-- V'� Ln
cz
Ste.
Ln
U �
ro W
W
U
cz
U �' > .0
o
U yU,i w
cz
U
U
2
U
cz
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
� O
W
O �
U U
M
O
N
O
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O �
ILI O
W
U �
O �
O
a
cz
O
U
7A
CC
S.i
�I
cz
U
p
C, O u •.V.
U
O
O'+
U
C cz
U
1
N
cz
p
cOi
d M U
W p
U
p
c.,
^�
p p
rU-
O
U
4-i
C U U O
O
U
sU- C
O
cF
sp.'
cz U
' cam,
Ri
U
c� ',�., U " ' O sU-�
cz
sU-�i
-
ccct
ro U
o
ro
U
U cz U
oc
°�'
6b
p
• •-�
,r•" 4-i
° U o
' U U U U ,--� �--i 4-i
�
U
O 5n
°
C
yp
CC CC U
0
0° 0
'� ro
.Ui
o
iU•i �/
o °o °
cz
o w°
��
o
.p
cz
o
cz
" O
i
U U�
o
-cz ¢
U u
U
ca
p
•c°
�-
w �U
U
ay
�U �
p
� 0cz 0 z cns0' s-
¢pU
p
� 0
c
t
p O
U p
spi
spi v U 4-i p a'.' O
�A
"C s••i
O
cn '� U
�
r--
� 'C�r•I N
'C �
•..
'~"
0
,,..•, O
O
'C
�
,r"., O � O � 6' �. U ..U.S -. O
� O ' O N � � '+='
N
U
U � �
U
��-' �' '.O
�
�
U
U
� .4: O NS-.
O
O' O �
� oc
�
U � �
yp., �;
U
� �
cz
�
N
cC
ct
U
"C
s
U cz
U
C C cz N-0 O
PaU
H cz-0paU
Cam?. O U
cz
.�
O Z
G�
.� ,'�•� zt
�N
CZ W
W
_>
zt
� p ypi vim.,
N ti
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O �
ILI O
W
U �
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
G� bA
O
= °U
as�a
ow
°w
cz
U C/]
cz
U U
U U
cz
Q U
i••'
U O 'C � 'C l
'�
U
LU�i
U
cz
0
CZ
�"
4-y �". U
°
Uj
bA
c��
O �C
U
4.
cz
0 cz
•U U •� U
N
0
0
U '
f.d
"
O U
O
O
4-i
� �+"
O
N U
cz
N
�
rA p
U 'C
cz
cz
o °
U
" U
cz
Uct
o
p"
O U
U°
O
w
"
y
`z
ro
Z
o
?
=
CZ
^'O U �
p
+-'
p
s. ¢
�
eC
05 e�
y ¢
cz �
U s.
4-� � '� ,�
cz U U 'C
�-r'
U
^'O '
=1 cz
,Q¢-', c0�
C U U
i— 40
O p .�
�O • °�" "
ct
•�
U
U 0
O pp
ct
Ln
cz
'C
u
CZ
°
•..
O
U •.-I
U
U
�y
CQ
O ..U.
a + U U
4--I U i•r
cz
z
O
,�
� .�
O
C +� p
V]
bA
y
L
0 >
bA
p
'"
C^ U
c�
zt
.
cz
O
'C
'C U
'C
C
O
i
cz
W
O " O
FTy
a
'C
C H
.� O U
W
jg
O
U
CJ
M
C a4 cj
�: S
OU
'C
bCA •
0
O
4
It
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
0
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U �
o �
M
O
N
U
0.� an
� O
� O
7A
i."
S.
�I
O
U
U
i."
i."
SOS.
i."
W
cz
•� U U ' •p .� .. -8 CZ C) =ova a�o� a�0 -0C)a)
cz
U bA U G U P. �' fix° . U� U C) ct-r � C 5 0
cZ U c�
U U U p U U °U
.�
b p U o p o a� „ s U o. p- ',n cz
cz
O �
b4 U
O
bq
O
O
bq
00
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
0
ti
U
bA
°w
a.oa
cz
U V] CC U U
i."
.�. cz
CC U
O 'C 0
P 8. N O
cz c)
..
U
'
� �
�
� �
O
�U �
,�
.0 O . �
,rbAIr�•'
N,
�p
0 U
N •�
cz
U
U
ct
N
U U U U
Cz"
yUy
,..�
f"Ur
cam/] CZ ��' �"'
OU
"C
U N
O
C.
rl
c
U
0
U
cz
U U
bUA
•�
y..i ,
�.
' �".,
�
O
Ste, �+ •
W
�
�
c 6 �
�"
�
U
�
� "�C
4.
O �
O �.
cC Py ° �
,U�•,
U �• ° � ^'O O
�
O OO
U
� O
"�
i"i
Q,
N•
O
0
u u
u u
a.uon
,�,
'°�3
.
-'
a�
0 c
ao0�,� a�
"
c
�°�
cz
o
°'
a
w
cz chi U
"
°'
cz
°a.
H
°'
rA
cam' E
= a
a U
° o
°
°'
°
U°
ro
U a
U
w
ro O.
o
ono
�,
ro
ro
o
o o
o�
o
°�'
O
° °' ° ct *.
°
U '"
C
0
0
O°
ro '� a.
o
o U
o
o cz
o
0
bn
0
U
�N
0
c0)
cz
U O
U cz
CC
O O U +. s.•
ICI
zt
�cz
CC U U
Ll
cz
�>> O U
ICI V U � ..' ".
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
o �
� o
W
U U
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
cz
.° cz
�" rte• � U U U
a cz U
Ocz O
Fz o ro o
cz 0
ct In
P••i U U U P••i Q U
0 o ro o u ° 'P H ro
cz s." O "'C r••� O ' �""
In 0
rl
In
N cC � � •� G' cd U "C cz ,r"., cz
11 N ct
O . y c U cz 7
rpp c °' cd O o U = 'C O O s- A �+ 0 s- ct
0 o C7 z .o ro 8 ° 'o ° o 1-4
`a.. ro c o O � c a ° ��
U cz
U
CO) ° cz a
eC�y O cC O 0 zt
cz
ct
70
W H O rA P.
cz
U
•S. Ui cz N
CZ
N cz C7
o?
O
O b4
bq
O
0
0
N
O
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
OW
z
U° �
M
O
N
U
O
U
U
i."
i."
SOS.
i."
W
N
O
O b4
bq
O
0
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
cz
o
o
cz
O
N
cd •� 8
o
cz
� N
�- U'
cz CZ
cz
U
N p O a
s- a
y0
O
"C N
M U
cz a a U N !=o U
� cz a
Ste.
U
N 'C N ¢"
U O 'C
U u cz
° ¢, c ct O 4�-i
�.'
' U
ct
pp C
Q O C
U°
`�
—
CZ N P�
° o
ro
° .
oz u
o o ' °' 'ro
'
i cz
ro o
v o c°v o° o.
°
U
eC
.- 0 ��� �
� O"ct
O � ���- � � � �
� 0���
��� �
ro°
o° °° o o
ro •2
`t
°
�, o
00
0 o
ro o
o
°�' °
0
cz
cz
U
° CZ
c� °
y..
=o
° • p� O
a.
0 o
° c
w°
U
i."
i."
SOS.
i."
W
N
O
O b4
bq
O
0
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
0.� an
� O
� O
7A
i."
S.
�I
O
U
CZ
ct
N ��' cC 0 'C o P . � 0 � � 'C � U U ;� N � � cct U ,rye• O 4O
'C Ln O P. ., U yam., n U M, ¢" O§ y 4 U N y.., >C M
CZ — �U �'. 0, � c�' �" O i-i C/� � �'"-r yy N i-i � �,, U U � ' � • � � R c� � `i' O'��+,i V s-� �
U ,0 cz_ a 0 ,y V bA N ',..�. O c�T-� 0 '� cz N O
eC O ' = c0
'� U
C cC z .
U N s � � U � � 10 U CZ 0 C
o ct
rod " o a o -o U U a. a) � � u 22
V-0 cz
CZ U
coil 9
o ro.o ro o o o a
cz
cz
U
i."
U
i."
SOS.
i."
W
M
O
O b4
bq
O
O
to
N
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
N
0
U
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
boa
ow
o o
•� cz
° °
U
cz
• cfi}r. z 0 U
8.
0
U
C
+
"C
O •,�
U O �'
bA
U
��-
O
O
r-
O
,U cz
O O cz
� O
r�
bpA
'U
"o
0 O 4 cz
"o U bA �" :�-
,r,, N U
a.
�., t
U
cz t
cut
C9. °
cd
N - � ° 2 =
�.0 •..��
�'
bA'
�� .ro 9
'
°
a
y
C
O
cz ..0.
U =- N '>C U O O
•� W
0
s�
�� cC
'�
� a� `*
'C u c4�
4=y 0 u
s..
by cz i
i.; i p • .'
cz
cz
Ln
�O u
j
cz 'C bOA •,r�I ct + 0
v
O C�
u F U
rbA 0
I
0
C
U
' p
¢- 0
U
O cz
O C "
cyi °
° a
yy
�" U ° ° ° U
CZ Ln
a a
ct
°
+ a
° o.
to O
=� °a.
bin
o. o'
o
cz
a. o
ct ,.o p ° °
�, o
.
°
;� bA
ct
°
O °��' O O °� `n
z 0
a
u
bO
�
c 0.
°
O
ro � � � ° cv
- �
p cz
0 cz
u
0
'o
•o
o
ro bA bn o
°
°
0 In
�c
cz
' p
cz
U' U
O p
°'
o
o o
b cz
H v�
p w
H c� U H a� P c� a�
H w U
i�
cz rC I
C
cz
O O
c •' Ln o
b
�
o
P
a
ct
x
ct
c
U
M
N
0
U
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
ILI O
W
U U
O �
boa
°w
o
�
S.i
O
y
U
O �
Ste.
to
cz
to
U
O C cd
O P. cz C
0
., �"
-=
N cz ct
ct
s-
cC �.
cz
'�
a.
=• 0
° o�
o � o P. 1 o= 4. 0
ct
0
o
u o
U U
�, ,� O
a. U
U
4; U �U ct
U O 'C U y,,, �, cC
oA ...
-
Ln
�W
�
� �.
� � ° a a.�
a.��.
� ��N� � �v�U
� �v��,. �.� caw a•..
Nr�
e,C
O
O cz b O
cz
cz
S.
~
CA
• .E
En
U
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
ILI O
W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
N
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
O �
cz
ro O O
an
� u
U
U
� U
U �'". U c
U U CC
CZ 0
cz
�.
cz
U C 0 0 0 0 O
cz Ct
V H
0 C U N U U•
'cz o on i O ° �°�
�'"
�, ° U ° ° to ...
s, ° ° + ° cz
cz b O Ln 0 0 0+ O O O
y CZ `cz c
a.
o o o
O -o � • � ° � �. � -o U ° U ° � ° o .
Ln
0 o =o zn)
u ~'
y
IX
a. ° a.
°'�
o• o
C) °
o CZ
'� O
C) cC
H"
Enz
cz .O ¢� r-i
�U
�' cC
�. U CZ
U m.
zt
cz
-cot U 0 u
O
'n '
.. bA N O c� cC N w U
00
U
N
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
U
U
N
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
z
U U
U U
O �
a
� C
7A
S.
�I
z
ct '�
O
+�
C yU
C C
0
N L�. 00
U O Q
'� C
s- pp
C
O U
cd
cN
U U
to
O
U
U .0
C �.
a"'
U
, b O C �" ""
�.'
O 0
Ln
SC U
U
U • U
Ln
• C
�, cC
C
U O
U bA
U
.� �' '�'
n
,r-
..
cd
cC"
C U
�,
U
• p ,s." `+�
O O
U
O U•
C U
O
cz
N sU-i
c° "C
U C
'� c�
0
U
O C
O U
r
f
O
C
r-- Y cz
U
N
U
C
U'
"
= bA
cz N
'C
U
U
U
U
4
U U
CZ
U
•o 0
0 .0
o
U
°�.
o
°
o�
°?
o on o
o
0 C)
Fn
cz �, �' O
C
..� O U
U U U U� }..,'' . �"
.0 '
a
i"' O N U
U cC
�" • °
:C %
oG U
Ln chi
•.. p
o
4
2
5,
'
U
N O
O
U I
C O
C
C �
cM O
C w
U w G
e�
i."
i."
SOS.
i."
W
�
,aD
U
N
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
z
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
N
O
�i
U
ti
ti
O U
� O
W
U U
is
p�
O
cz
U
bA U
�+
CZ
S.i
O U
U p
U
rA = bA
Ste.
•''� O
cC
CZ
m cz
0
cz cz
U
y
rA
•
U
U
U
U O
U '9 i
U
p
N
U
,-U
ct
m
U ct
U
"C
O
v O
Cl
0
uCZ
N
,� c
bA
Ct
u
"r"" N N
cz
p p
,r".,
„
+-' O ��•
,sU.'
,Or., N
• O p U 'C
,rU.'
pNp
cz
u
cz
0 �
O
U
^
U
N ¢ .
0 U U
U
cz
cz O
a 4
4 U
cz
O
bA
, •
O
U p U
CZ
s-
.,� O
U
U.
U •�
r ct
U O U
a C
/
U
s-�
U�
O
• bA U • O
O
U �O
U ,�
'�
cC
U
•r, cd U c�
U
cd G'
U U
,�.,
p U
�.
cd U
': +� —'
r.'
cC i••i c}.iS -'.
�"•• p O
cz
0
0
cz
U
e,C
0 U
bA O
cz
4-y
00
'�
yU
U + Ct
U U
cz
U
000
bA •� . �n
U
N
O
�i
U
ti
ti
O U
� O
W
U U
M
O
N
O
U
00
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O �
ILI O
0 W
U �
O �
a
� C
7A
S.
�I
cz
ct
�
� �'U. �
� U �
� O �
'� O
O � �
� � sNsyy
i� � � �.
�••� F" �
L��i
ct
U
'C O
��.
•� U
cry
,�
'C
'60
bA �.
U O
V cUC
p
U U
G' U U
.,
O
U N bUA ,r".,
O
"O
� 'C �.' U
O ct ch
>
N
�.
U
c�
r� ��
U r
0
4?
�.' �
. � ,r"., �
U � • �
ct
'C �
¢, s-�
6' ' '~•' yam„
U
•�, � U
ct
G'�••
U U
�
�
�
� O
.� 4�
U c� •cam �
G'
� ,�'
�
U ,�„
�
O U O
�' �,
U
•�
O �"
O"
O
'� �' U
U
O. 0 N
U W
.O Ct
O
cC
"�"�'
O �'
.
4W�U.
p �-' " U
rA cz
U
.
Wi
U ct
U
N O
ct
N
O
U
C cUi
U
C
0 0
U cn
O O
U O
U
O � O
cz W U
Ln
5 cz
U O
Ln
U O
U
N
c�r-�
Ln
O O
Ln
N
U
O
cUC
H w
�. W
U
N
• W
bA W Li
a" ,
U
O
U
cC p
In rA
U
CC
O
.U.
�
W
�
U
,aD
00
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O �
ILI O
0 W
U �
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
U U
O �
o
�
0
cz U
0
4-y
O
•7:$
0�
O �, OH
u'C
y
�.
cz
O
v s-
N s.„ U
Icnt
W p U
O ,�•,
` U U
U U Q
O CO
m
cz U
cz.'
- U
by a O
O '�,
O
cz
Ct
0 cz to
O
cd
U
7Fi,
O
O
U.
7s U
o
�—
F� O
cd
o o
o `� w`
a
cz
N
,- � i O
4-i
,�
��'"
U
' �i N
Cd ,� cz
cz
0
O
o
O
CZ -g
� p ro
o
CZ
p ¢ U ;..,
cz
o
°
o °a.
on t .5;
cz
U
o °'
�
on u cz
w
° o
o �oI O Q o
it
S.
p bA
U
cz
P.
U CZ
O
0 C)
U
+' F.• U ,� ' cn
.ty
U U ,� U
ll�i
C
C�
w
U
oA
--ICI.)
a a..
O W a.
U
N
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
O
M
0
U
O
ti
O U
� O
W
U U
O �
0
O � �y
cz
cz
U
�p
p
U
cz
=
bA W
U
cz
U
rte--
cz
cz ' cz
L
4 U
d0
r- 9
p
c�
U U
r-
P�
bA'a U
'�
U
ro U U U
o
on
a. N
�
o
y
0
o
o y
a. O+ o
" O
o
(21
an
� °' N
y �
cz
U U
o U
U o~ U
91.
o 0
0
U oA O
cz
U
ro U `°
'
U
In In
In
°
ti
p cz
u
o
� �
� � U o
o
• � � �
cz
� 0
0
0 � � o � �
� o
It
`
`
v
o
a.�" o
o
°�' 0 ��
cz
cz
o � '�
� •
'" `'
CZ
°' � ° w
•
'n
71
0
cz
CO)
U
U ~
bt-0 y
> y N cz
U
O
M
0
U
O
ti
O U
� O
W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
O
U U
U U
O �
a
� C
7A
S.
�I
U cz ^C
U
CZ 'C
p
'C cz
cf-
fir' U
,ri V
U
O
¢" O
O
G
¢" CR O
O D U
U to
�.
cz
to
U
.��. to
�"
CZ
U
U U �""
U U �
U
U ct
y
cz
r-
O
W
O
U
O
CO
cz , z
.U.
Ct
bA O CO U
. U
" • �+" ,�
bA U O
a�
" • �." ,�
�
pp O N
��yI
"C O
�
�
=
U
' O
U U �U,
O
bA
^�-
v p
U
CV
U U .O ...
cC
U U U
•p 0
0cz
U U V U
Ln
CC
00
i."
U
i."
SO.
�
W
,aD
C
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
O
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
N
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
z
U U
O
�
U
O
O
y
O
cz
U O U
U❑
U
i
oc
cf�
r U
cz
y°
O
to to 4
cz
4s-
C7 4,
cv
a one
ct r
w
cz � U U
O
:; �,
�0 3 U
-o
cz cz
0 - o °
ro to
o
o 0
o a.
o
w P. ro o
o
o �°
o-;5
v 4;
cz
U
cz ct
cz
U ct cz
�° cz
��
v�
° p
° o cz
°
0°
Q
u a. o U [�
o
'
8, ro° a.
� '
w
U
cz
CZ
U
ct U U
U
p, .
0 cz
U
�' U o
Q°
U cz chi
o
wO
a 0 a
Z
� �° cz
w
ct a-
U
N
O
O
• O C �U U U
+�
cz
U C N Li N cz
ICI
cz 0 U CUC
U
cz ..
Cl
U N r--� C-)
.aD
ct U ^C
U
N
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
z
U U
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
M
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
O
4y
°
�
U
O
O
y
O
-cot
N
CZ
e�C
clt
o'
cC O 0 cC c
bA
'C
.�
.�
cz
cn
U O
U
144 .s•• O
cU
N U r
cd
.4 0
O
N 0
�'
U
I
•'" '
'¢ C �. 'U C
n°
cz
uOff' �f•'�
^"
U U N
' °�+"
"r'i
N o ct U cz U 0 CO O
U ' 0
i•• ' "
cp
F:. U y�
ct
O
O M U u
E 0 U
CF 'l
O
c ,��
o
'�
U U c
.y
x U U
N U
'�
sU.' s0-i ¢,
'o
U
`�
O ° o ° °
ro
E�
O
c�i a°
CZ
cj Ln
Ln ¢
�
�
�w�
U Ln � En
4. c
cz
o
¢ 'ro
CZ
+; -o 'ro
o
O O cz
'>
cz
a
o- s CZ U
U o
o
s u o
8
I'tn cz cz
U
0
U
0 '6 i�
•
H o 'c °
cad
sU•�
•� 'c •�
a
u L o� O W
°� °� + �n
�
�
U
�
cz
U
� °' P
00
o o 0 °' U U U � U �
P" 0. u u o u o =o
� � � '� � �
ro
U.
0°
ct
cz
cd U O
�'
U
O U H It
O
bA U
U 0 .
O
a- o O O
cn 35
g
U
U
M
M
0
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
U U
O �
O
�
U
O
O
y
O
�
N O
U �N",
"t
O bA
N
Ct U O
u
cz
' � M
ct
CO
.� .,� �..�
�"r
.ti
.� M
CZ
N
cz 0
to
�U
N i-i
W
cz
,Sti
U ro
O U
O U. U O
0 0
_
Fy
C9
CZ a
M U U
U 0 '4
O
Vo
l N
U
in
"' cz
to
a • U
b
cz o
"C
U
U O pn
O DC N ' �"+
, O r, .
�' P-i �' W
�'
,-O
U
, O �, U
cz P U
So cz O
=
' n C) O O
=
O
�
N
C"
N U O U�
U 0
N °"
P-i
u
,�
ct d?
N O �. �r
U
U P„I
sU- P
CZ
O �".,
"C O
•� bA O
bA c� O
Ln
�. �.' �.' M
U
N U U
P ..i 'C
'C U
O O cUC
N
V
� �
/� cz
Ln
O'
O
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
W
U �
a
� C
7A
S.
�I
NONO
U N N O
0
V]
O
bA
N
'�--, U
N N_ O�-�
N
,.O
O
cz
O "C
�'' U
0
"C
'
,�-�
O � u
,�
U tO
In
�
U
U
sU bA
cz i."
N
O U O� "C U
76b U
cz
bA
ct
bA C
Ste.
c�
cC Ln
(:) U
cz
= 0
U •c N +-s
U
U N V� cam.
O
O 'C O N
U
e�C
U
a� U•
=
�" r
U
Z
ct
U O ^ U
,-O �••� ,r"., O O �.
cz
O
ct O
cz
u
ct
sU.'
N 0
cz
CC
U
U
Li t
U U U
U cC �
��JJ
U y..� 'C a
cz U"Z ,rU-I
cz U U U
4-y U
p
^
cz cz .y
In
• �
U
cd bA
O O
y M
c� p
G'
U U' cz
cz
N
cz rA
U
S O
O
U
,�
yU.,
.
cz
a�
ro
U
y� s-
a °
U . O
U C aj bA P c � sU-
sU-
kn
o�
g cz
w w
s c�
ct
n
cz u
En
cz
iVi �'
U U
�' O
.
U
N cz
O
0 -C
kr)
cz
d? O
•0
• �
U U U Fes-
Di
'
ct
s- U
U C U H
C'
U
U
cz
CZ ?
zt
cz
co)
.y
v�
c-n zt
W
U a
U
O=
a�" Q
O +� +� p
=
V U
,fi.
n
�=-' G' U
En
' c� N V') C'
U .
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
W
U �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI o
W
z
U U
a
� C
7A
l
S.
w
O
Z
cz
O U
x••0.0 �N N•0•�"+•0 O �.p
C)
+U-
U �
¢ 0
G' ,r_i "O s•. s•. U ,� � s•. -p s•. �
cz bA � P P••i C) N �
� �, ,-C
� �
cd v U
� � � �
, �'
O
U
GA
PL,
+--U
Py
O
cz v
Ir O C
i
U
O
N O U = -
P. = � cz
cz "t
�
c
cz
cz U
u
°U PC"
O
c
ro
o
•� s °M°
Ctto
U o
cz
O
C) � a+ .4 C a'
cz 0 � -=
• - p U
�' U =
,��.
U
bA • ¢, O
'O = U 'O 0 U
cUC G'
O
U C
O U a +-' U ^'
shy
,��. s'r U
n
,ry' . to cz
O
icy'
O
a
o
°3
�
_ O
cz
cz
r
pbA
O
N
P� s.
cz s� CO U 'C- v �, .
N cn c� u �
a
'
cz U
0 '�' 'o s O
Vj ��
4
O
U
p cz cd
= 0 U '
im+ N , a� H
c�
i cz N •�
�-�,.
U �" r- O C
rU-
cz
cz 4y
~
U cz
�
,�
'
G
00
_ U U
C'
cz 7
p
N U
I ,ap
u
cC
Z
U UDC cz
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI o
W
z
U U
M
O
N
U
O
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
a
� C
7A
S.
�I
y..i UN
p
44
cz
cz
cC U
,r".,
O 2
O�p`+-�
U
"C-.) O
O
U
pp
�.N U
O,� O bAppO O O'C
�P-i
cz
N p
cUC
ccz-0
O cs� O U
cC
c�C
er.'
" OU rip ' o ,� '0 "�
O ,^�
4-i
0 O
C �
0
p CO)
,r0-I
O
rA cd
.�
C
•�
r- 4?
y V
V u O
O
4"
U O
cz
U
s."
6'
U
U
U
U
U CZ
U
V
a
�, ��r-
cz
U a �.' ,7,
U cz s- N bA �' O y
a"
N
I
0 CZ CZ
s
s0-
on
cz
O PN�
cC
O t
O
C
am-
~• ct
cz
cd
' ro O ro U °'
`�
ro ro
o w o
°' °�' '
41
cz U
w
a
°vim' �n °�' i o ? '�"
one o
°
w
�— ct owe
U
rA
°
o
o cz �, p
�v� ct
o0
o
v.
n ° �s o
U •p
c� O ,rU -'�. �-' p � O UO '9'
•.. �
�
bA � bA �
O O ,sU.' ,sU.'
� �
,s." �, � �
�
cd ,sU.'
00
i."
i."
SOS.
i."
W
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
U U
O �
M
O
N
O
U
00
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
O �
ILI O
W
z
U �
O. •C".
�
a
� O
7A
�
w
O
Z
N
�
CZ
cz
u
ct
cz
cz
'U
U
ct
J
¢
CZ bA
cz c� •.�
czcz
s••i
¢"•O
O
O O
U U'
U O
U
O
O N
cz 4�.
U O ° o o
N
°' °'
°?
cz
°
on
O
p
°
on
o
cz
ro
c
o
ct
CZ
o
cz
° ct
C7
° p
uwwv°�
��° °
p O °.
�q°_'ccz o
a°
Ij
o
° 'o cz
O
° u O
U °o t v¢ °�' U
'C
U
p
�
�
�ij
�'� p ."�,�'
O �
U �
0 O •� � � U
� � � H �
OOH, �
°U
�
,�
ruA
m
SOU",
U U m N,
O 0 .� cZ O
O U
c�
U
N
u
cz
cz
cz
U
U H
•�
O O
�' O
�
O" , p sN-
O O
p N
N
.O
'
Z
o� °��'
w
ro
°
w
°
o
°
kr)
4.
a) ` l
own
ct
CZ O
00
zt
N
S.i
~
U U CZ U
cz
c
N N .
In
U S
CZ
N c
00
P. �: v
W
00
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
O �
ILI O
W
z
U �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
U U
O �
a
� C
7A
l
S.
w
O
Z
N
' CZ
cN U
4� �.
' "��' i"'
�.. �"..
cn
.,-may
x•, iy ,Or".,
M
U
,�
,r-
�I
r- 0
"
U
p
;..
O 'n
O
I-. �O �O
•� U i
U
O ct
C
r
O p cC cC
C
N
cz
o
�O
y�
O O U
¢
."
'C
U •,
cz
0 5
�
= cz
U OO
r�c"z
� c�
O
O
O
C)
O
�17 p
p
N = O U
O
U
;�
�'
U
U
U r-- cC U
O O O 'C
O =
� 6'
'C
��.
�r
~
U
.� U ~�
N
.�
U
'1
0
° 80
�
� �
O�
a �
o
'
7�
o
oW
czo
Q
O ct U O O
Z
O
UO 4 0
0
,
j C
CC
O U
Z
U
M
O
�i
U
O
ti
O U
ILI O
0 W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
O
IZT
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
O
cz
W U
�
U
O
O
y
N o O O cz
O O C
U C
C
"� U U
CZ U U 'o U U
N ct "�" P~ W �-r pip � � ��
X 0 0
= .--I CZ
" U N
U
.--I
CO
U
O N
U
0
.� N 44 a
O
cz cz
"�"
U
y
O W O. bA V N U Ur '� CC
U a
N V
N N>>
p
CC
CUC
O
bA V to a to
�
� P�
�.
O 'C
�
.
U N O O
U
O
00
y
o N :i `�
y �y
cz
�^
O
;.. U
cz
cz
Ca u
bJ�
Vim]
cC O .O i'" �.' �".
a ,— ,� N
N
O
N
'c� �"'„� �' >C N•, O U U �•.
O' N N "C
�c �"'•. cd
�" O
9
O .0 cz
cz
O
ct CC U iUr
Q
ct
Ct
N O
•�
00
jg,
M rA
U
cut
>�
¢� O
C U
.0�.
N U cz U
0 N
O
cz
o' O
O c4=d
U O 'C c
e,C
O U N _� �"
O U
eC U cz bA
.
U
O
IZT
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
W
z
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
O �
O
U
U
U
0
'C
T
, z •c� ��
CZ
,d? •� "C 'r, O
•� O, O
U �' ,�-� �,
N bA "C ,U u
0
bA O
U
U U
U U
y U
U CZ
U
�I
4� O U
4�
fir' CUC . d, • U
s,�''•. U c�C
CZ
bA ¢. u
b�A
CZs s. 7C lcnz bA
��
`� ct
v•�
Ste.
bA
�
,-i
U O D U ,�
'� CZ O
� •,�
.
O c�
N
y
'�
U U U
W)
eC
CZ Ln
U
,r-
Cd ,��,
O
U
_ O
cC p
¢
cC p
-p �. bA O !. N
CC `n
U bA Cd
'� �"
�
:'C 'O7' O d
�
bA �. � � _N 'C •.U.
'C
¢, �
� � ,,O
a?
bA
�., �" U
bA �
U N
cz
U �
c L N N
•
�
P-i
/-i H
P-i
�
/-i
H U
/-i
It
0 CZ
. p
O
cd
U
Or� N
•bA
O
Ln=
O cC
cz .
O
-0
U
O
�
O
L
H c� U cn ct
y
'C U U
cz.
G
cz
�- •'. U
E�
�O p �.Vy
[� U
N ¢ +�•
M
.. CC �.
U
W
-- U
p r- L:
v
L: .0
u C)
O ¢
y.
— — U N�
cz O
'
CC 'C N
u
'C 0 U
cz
a
p• N 0 ¢" tt
�
0 0
CZ p
�
�
�
�..,��. �
ICI �. �
bA � '� U � �
�. •'~.:' •.`i' -� � +'�.,
�
�I � U
U
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
O U
� O
0 W
U U
O �
M
O
N
U
O
ti
U
0.� an
� O
o
O
4-y S.i
o w
U
i."
i."
SO.
W
coil
In
° ro
an
Lw"
U F U
cz
�
O
U iUi
¢.
�
O,
c�
O O
C,�
5
O
b�A
cz
U
¢, O
i."
i."
SO.
W
coil
In
ct
U
Oc
U iUi
�
cN �-•
c�
O O
C,�
5
O
b�A
cz
U
¢, O
U
P••i U
iii U n ...
n
�
O
cz
CZ
O
a
z
�.1
�
� 5- 0 0
~
a
i^
� -
•�
s� � o
o
4
coil
G�
O
cz 'C p
c
ccz
v ct
CZ tj)
=
�I
U
5
U O� N
�
;
ct
i."
i."
SO.
W
coil
In
ct
Oc
U iUi
�
cN �-•
c�
O O
C,�
¢, O
� Li
Cd
iU•i � N
�
U .U. � p •'" U O �
U
ct
O U
ct
cz
W N •z N --i • ND
Z' IZ
cz
00
M
M
O
O b4
bq
O
O
N
O
U
O
ti
ti
O U
ILI O
OW
z
U �
M
O
N
U
0
ti
U
O
G� bA
O
O
boa
�w
�w
0
N
CZ
C
,�s-y
cC
_UUti
O
_UU�
cC
' U "" U
c
cz
s- O � r- • r
r-
�
O 7� cz ct U
U
�-
V]
N
C-t lo Ln CZ
Clt
CZ CZ
cz
U
'un OU U
~ O
cz
U
O
N- cct U
U U
0
8
O �
MbA
Q+
o N
v
ct
SU,
o�
�. V] • �, O U
"C O Q
c�
cz
O
"�"
¢,
ES-'.
O
r-, u
rl
cz U
U
U c� " U
�I U
/-� p� � v� ¢, U C7
O p 0
H
�/-�
�I
p 4-� U
p� � cv O U CJ
r�
•.�
U w
�,
•.� �
cn
S
O ,y'
u cz
'
'C O
0
7s U
v„
CC N rA U
N
cz E
U
V V U
U
M
IZT
O
�i
U
O
ti
ti
.o
0 W
U U
O �
Ciiv of South San Francisco HCP April 2013
would require from approximately 21 to 24 months for design and construction. The project would
require the use of pile driving equipment during construction. Impervious surfaces and landscaping would
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
Phase
Buildings
FAR
Square
Footage
Floors
Building
Height
(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
B 1
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 1, 2, & 3 **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,478
Total Phase 1, 2, & 3 * **
1.18
1,030,344
—
—
2,670
*Reconfigured
"Ratio at 2.5 /1000 for R &D, Podium parking 285 spaces, Parking Structure 1, 798 spaces,
Surface Parking 395 spaces
** *Ratio at 2.8311 000 for R &D, Parking Structure—], 990 spaces (9 levels/ 88.5' high)
Source: DES Architects, Britannia Cove at Oyster Point, Design Guideline Submittal, and February
20, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point III Project Description
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 47 Page III -11
HCP ATT -1