The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHome Depot Focused Final EIR FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-082032 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY MAY 2006 ~'I~''''' CONTENTS Page I' R l':F ACE.......................................................................................................................... 17-1 ,"; ,()se of the Final Environmental Impact Report........................................................................................17-1 . 'F.ation of the Final EIR .............................................................................................................................17-2 of the EIR ....................................................................................................................................................17-3 .\i'.L Review Process ...........................................................................................................................................17-3 'VISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR....................................................................................... 18-1 l\llvl"FNTS AND RESPONSES........................................................................................... 19-1 cti on ............................................................................................................................................................ 19-1 . 'lefS .................................................................................................................................................. ....... .19- 2 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ........................................................19-3 .1, Y nf San Mateo Department of Public Works............................................................................... 19-7 .'. .d. ml1a Department of Transportation, District 4 .......................................................................... 19-11 ,ssidy Shimko Dawson Kawikami....................................................................................................... 19-15 i,hrnia Department of Transportation, District 4 .......................................................................... 19-29 tOr California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ...................................................... 19-37 W 11 of Colma .... ............................................................................................. ....... .......... ............... ......... 19-41 17 PREFACE 17.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIR for the Home Depot Project. The EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency for the Project, as defined by CEQA, is the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Final EIR consists of the responses to comments and revisions of those portions of the Draft EIR which have been modified in response to comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received within the 45-day public review period following publication of the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft EIR, and all such changes are reflected in this document. As required by CEQA, this document addresses those comments received during the public review period that raise environmental Issues. The EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR) is intended to be certified as a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project by the City of South San Francisco. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete must take place prior to any formal City action on the proposed Project itself, and EIR certification does not equate to approval of the Project. The EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their consideration of the Project. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: · inform governmental decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed activities; · involve the public in the decision making process; · identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-1 CHAPTER 17: PREFACE . prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures.1 The analysis in the EIR concentrates on those aspects of the Project that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR identifies reasonable and feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., reduce or avoid) these effects. The CEQA Guidelines define "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project ...."2 The determination of significance of potential environmental effects is based, in part, on the discussion of environmental effects which are normally considered to be significant found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This EIR does not address those environmental factors and effects that have already been determined to be "less than significant", except as necessary to establish a background for the Project. The social or economic issues associated with the proposed Project are not evaluated in the EIR, as these are not considered "environmental" effects. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this environmental review document. 17.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR consists of the following major sections: . Preface - outlines the objectives of the EIR and important preliminary information, . Revisions to the Draft EIR - contains revisions to the Draft EIR text, . Comments and Responses - contains letters of comment on the Draft EIR along with responses to these comments. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIR has been modified, with changes indicated as described in the previous paragraph. This EIR has been prepared for the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) by Lamphier-Gregory. The information in the EIR was compiled from a variety of sources, including published studies, applicable maps and independent field investigations. Unless otherwise noted, all background documents are available for inspection at the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Califomia Emironmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a). 2 Ibid, Section 15382. PAGE 17-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 17: PREFACE 17.3 SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR An initial evaluation of the proposed Project by City staff indicated that the development of the project site area as proposed might have several potentially significant environmental impacts (see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below: . Air Quality . Geology and Soils . Hazardous Materials . Hydrology . Land Use . Noise · Public Services · Transportation and Circulation and . Utilities Each of these topic areas is addressed in the DEIR in its respective chapter. 17.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on February 1, 2006. It is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, along with responses to comments on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period. During this time, the public and responsible agencies and organizations submitted comments on the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR in evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR have been prepared, and are presented in this document. The Draft EIR, with the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco for review and certification, in accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the proposed Project. This action only indicates that the record of potential environmental impacts and the available means of reducing or avoiding these impacts provided in the EIR is adequate and complete. Upon certification of the EIR, the City Council will make a separate decision on the approval, denial or modification of the Project as proposed. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete does not imply that the proposed Project has to be approved. In accordance with the HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-3 CHAPTER 17: PREFACE requirements of CEQA, where there remalO significant environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a level of "less than significant", the Project may be approved only where a statement of overriding considerations of social, economic or other benefit can be made and supported with substantial evidence.3 3 California Public Resources Code Section 21080(e) "".substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment." PAGE 17-4 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 18 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR In response to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, the following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR have been made. Additions are illustrated as underlined text, while deletions are illustrated as strikcthrough tcxt: On DEIR pages 2-17 to 2-22, the Executive Summary table has been revised to indicate the resulting level of significance after the implementation of mitigation measures for each analyzed intersection in Impacts 11-5, 11-6, and 11-9, and included at the end of this chapter. On DEIR pages 2-22 and 11-78, Mitigation Measure 11-10 has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 11-10 Left Turn Lane . Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines " . Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. . Dubuque Avenue shall be posted in both directions with a maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour in the vicinity of Home Depot. . Prior to any of the Home Depot driveway improvements along Dubuque Avenue the owner shall have a sight line study prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the City Engineer. The study shall analyze the potential for left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway. The study and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco City Engineer. . On-street parking along the Project's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage shall be prohibited. . Prior to 2010. at the owner's expense. an intersection control study shall be conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the South San Francisco City Engineer. The study shall analyze the need for intersection control at the Project's central driveway to minimize traffic conflicts and shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco City Engineer. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-1 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR · The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 rnilc3 per hour along Dubuque },';enue in the 'vicinity of I lome Depot for both travel directions. . Prohibit left turns out of the northerly Home Depot drivcway. . The City of South San Francisco shall prohibit on street parking along the Project's Cfitire Dubuque "^,venuc frontage. . If needed, considcr pro.;ision of "all ",vay stop" control at the Project's central driv'Cev'ay intef3ection. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. On DEIR page 7-9, the following underlined text has been added as follows: SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CW A, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. Amendments to the program as instituted by the RWQCB in February 2003 included provision C.3 which strengthens the New Development and Construction component of the STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) component requirements by identifying and implementing appropriate site design. source control. and stormwater treatment measures. On DEIR page 7-12, the following underlined text has been added as follows: Mitigation Measure 7-1b PAGE 18-2 Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7 -la cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. All runoff from the site must be routed to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet and must not be directed to the San Mateo County Flood Control District's flood control channel (Colma Creek watershed). or must be infiltrated at the project site. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of a vegetated swale and infiltration area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Any drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 11-2, the following text has been revised as follows: Southbound U.S. 101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-ramp connecting to Bayshorc Boulcvard Dubuque Avenue along the Home Depot site frontage (soon to be signalized). On DEIR page 11-2, the following text has been deleted as follows: Adjaccnt to thc castcrn boundary of thc Homc Dcpot sitc, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are underway to make Bayshore Boulevard a four-lane roadway adjacent to thc Homc Dcpot sitc. On DEIR pages 11-61 and 11-65, Figures 11-13 and 11-15 have been revised to show proper PM peak hour volumes at the project driveways. Updated versions of Figures 11-13 and 11-15 are included at the end of this chapter. In response to Comment E-1 from the California Department of Transportation, project-related turning movement volumes are provided in Figure A (AM Peak Hour) and Figure B (PM Peak Hour), included at the end of this chapter. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-3 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-4 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed Project would generate 100 net new trips more than existing site uses during the AM and PM peak hours (:t 185 more trips during the AM peak hour and :t350 more trips during the PM peak hour than the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) Projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.lOl Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to LOS P and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant queuing impacts during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 50th Percentile Queue. 50th Percentile Queue PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (rDM) plan consistent with the City of South San Prancisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management and acceptable to San Mateo City County Association of Governments (C/CAG). The TDM plan is required to be on-going for the life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM plan mea~ures that can generate trip credits to offset the :t 185 net new AM peak hour trips and :t350 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to the City, C/CAG and Home Depot. Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco Engineering Division to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. The impact would remaIn significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 11-5A: 50th Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Boulevard/Oyster Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane will reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. Therefore, this impact will be reduced to a level less-than- Cities Point Less than Significant Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant PAGE 18-5 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent Increase m traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. These would be significant impacts. 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the Project would result in significant queuing impacts during the AM and PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 95'h Percentile Queue. AM PEAK HOUR 1) Oyster Point Avenue/V.S. Ramp. Boulevard/Dubuque 101 Northbound On- The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. significant level. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco Engineering Division staff to reduce queuing to the Base Case conditions. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation 11-5B: 95th Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Boulevard/Oyster Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, which is the planned available storage length. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Cities Point PAGE 18-6 Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant HOME DEPOT PROjECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.IOl Northbound On- Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent. However, during the PM peak hour operation would also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.1 %), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.6%). These would be significant impacts. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions. Impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 11-6 Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard o Provide a proportionate share contribution to the same mitigations required of the Terrabay Phase III development. oRe-stripe the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide a second left turn lane. o Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe turn movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay The impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp . There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco Engineering Division staff to improve operation to the Base Case conditions or better. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Less than Signi ficant Significant and Unavoidable PAGE 18-7 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Impact 11-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. 50th Percentile Queue AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On- Ramp . The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a :!:4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Boulevard/Oyster Boulevard/Airport Cities Point Boulevard intersection. . The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a :!: 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queumg. . The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a :!:4.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On- Ramp . The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive a :!: 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queumg. 95th Percentile Queue AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque PAGE 18-8 Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50th Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) . Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. . Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures will not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp . There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco Engineering Division staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to the Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95th Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) . Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/ right turn lane. . Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/V.S.10l Northbound On-Ramp . There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable HOME DEPOT PROjECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Avenue/U.S.10l Northbound On- Ramp Less than Significant · The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 7.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Boulevard/ Oyster Boulevard/Airport intersection. Cities Point Boulevard . The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 4.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Boulevard/Oyster Boulevard/Airport Cities Point Boulevard intersection. · The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a :!: 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. · The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a :!:4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. · The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a :!:8.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.10l Northbound On- Ramp . The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a :!: 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/U .S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR Bayshore Boulevard/U .S.lOl Ramps/Terrabay Access Southbound . Provide a fair share contribution toward lengthening the Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in conjunction with Terrabay providing an additional lane on the eastbound intersection approach. The impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. PAGE 18-9 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EI R Access . The off-ramp lanes would receive a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-10: Impact 11-10: Project Access Impacts. The proposed Project would have three driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north and central driveway connections would be in the same locations as driveways now serving Levitz furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway would be in the same location as Levitz's most southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue just north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, allowing one inbound and outbound lane. The existing :!:150-foot-long left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection would be maintained. It would provide storage for about six to seven autos. Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through lanes and one southbound through lane at this location. However, on-street parking is now allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between the north and central driveways. If this parking is occupied, northbound flow is limited to a single lane. The central Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just south of this driveway and widens to 38 feet just north of this driveway. The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57 feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck turn movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide in the vicinity of this driveway. Left Turn Lane . Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines . Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. . Dubuque Avenue shall be posted in both directions with a maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour in the vicinity of Home Depot. . Prior to any of the Home Depot driveway improvements along Dubuque Avenue the owner shall have a sight line study prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the City Engineer. The study shall analyze the potential for left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway. The study and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Prancisco City Engineer. . On-street parking along the Project's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage shall be prohibited. . Prior to 2010, at the owner's expense, an intersection control study shall be conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the South San Francisco City Engineer. The study shall analyze the need for intersection control at the Project's central driveway to minimize traffic conflicts and shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Prancisco City Engineer. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant. Less than Significant 1 Intersection CbanneliZf1tion Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B. 2 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. PAGE 18-10 HOME DEPOT PROjECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR r "\ ~ !Xl ~ i III !Xl 456 350 -L 30 t t. ,,508 t ~ 284 170 -L 189 350395 219 ..J ~ L.. - 903 Sister Cities Blvd " 220 85 J 403 -+ 60 t Miller 6845 t t 8060 -L 1302 -n6 Oy~erPomtB/vd ,1272 255J ~ t ~ 240 -+ 536 178 400 t 15 1448219 5 ~ ~5 J ..J ~ L.. E.V 555J~t~ 0-+ 146316 0 129 t ~ ,-,~ ;:- * ::;:o~ - Project '" ----/ Site ~ !Xl 't:: o ~ <t ~ <t Q.l '" g -g Q L 93 27 _1895 120 ~ Grand Ave ~ ,} 72 ~ 386 '-- Home Depot EIR r ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP '- 'IDTTO SCALE A N r ""\ 235 113 'l. 127 I ~ ..7 t~ 335 6 202 40 -L 46 ~ L.. ,3 ~ t ~ ';:; 295 19 ~ g 223 2 ~ 'l.1 t t. ,1 t ~ 313 1 '- ~ ~ Figure 11-13 " Year 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ./ r -L 286 187 430 237 _ 345 _ _\ 688 ..J ~ t. .. 686 "'- 198 ..J Grand Ave I H ~ t ~ 99 -+ 75 122 145 t _ 465 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-12 r " ~ t 309 844 l -g 0 iii it: ~ .<:: '" iU' Ell 576 -L 602 924 I 494 -1221 ..J t ~ .L 255 Sister Cities Blvd , 90 ~ 269 j 561 - 65 -. 58 546 440 ..J t ~ Terrabay Ph 3 Access 59 j 228- 112 -. 49 1510 Terrabay ..J t Ph 3 Access 83 j 232'") 23 1719 Terrabay ..J t Ph 3 Access 275 '") Mlffer 505 560 541 ..Jt~ -L 35 -141 .l 901 t ~ 543 384 ~ Qj 13 .e q: -L 2125 - 1175 Oyster Point Blvd ,1710 638 J ~ t ~ 284 - 903 384 386 t _ 200 1801 290 5 ':- 5 ~ ..Jt~,l 1050j ~ t ~ 5 - 310 432 0 215t ~ r-,~ ;:- * Home - ~;~:~t '-.---/ Site NOT TO leAL( ~ N r ") !!! q: Q] ::> o ::> -g Q 393 113 L 127 I ~ ,7 tr 615 6 360 40 -L 46 t ~ ,23 ~ t ~ q: 575 17 Q] ::J g- 381 2 ~ -L 1 .. L.. ,1 t ~ 593 1 '- j Grand Ave '- Home Depot EIR r I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP \.. -L 233 -404 .. 801 455 j Grand Ave ~t~ 130 - 95 101 100 -. _ 480 ./ "" Figure 11-15 Year 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes J HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-14 r B t .15 Terrabay t Ph 3 Access 2 23 Terrabay t t Ph 3 Access 2 ~ 23 II] Terrabay t ~ t ~ Ph 3 Access QI 2 !Xl t.2 23 -17 Sister Cities Blvd l. . 3 Oyster Point Blvd .5 23- r *(-3)_ ~t r 3 52")- 22 21 3 r ~ II] '1:: " ,g "t 2 l. 7- ""\ NOT to SCALE A. N 57J ~ t 26")- 26 46 r-,~ J:- * ~::o~ - Project \. ----/ Site "'\ J!' 24 ~ :. L.. ...f:2 0 ~ ,.. "t 15 tl> :J 0- '" -L1 ~ 2 l:) .1 L.. r 1 ../ ~ q: Q) '" g ~ l:) \... Grand Ave r 4 * Negative numbers reflect vehicles attracted from background traffic '- Home Depot EIR r I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ...... Figure A Home Depot Trip Generation AM Peak Hour J "' ../ HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-16 r , 18 t r 27 NOT TO .5C4LE Terrabey ~ Ph 3 Access t 4 N 45 Terrabay t t Ph 3 Access 4 ~ 45 l!l t ~ t Terrabay ~ Ph 3 Access ai' 4 l!l -L4 -L (-4) * 45 -48 - (-3)* Sister Cities Blvd L... . 10 Oyster Point Blvd .12 42- ~ 96. ~t~ 9 66 4 57 (-2) 110 ~ r "'"\ ~ t l!27 ~ t ~ .7 ~ 45. 47 127 r l!l 6 15 r-,~ 40 -L 46 .1} "t L... ~3 ;:- * Home Depot ~ ~ "t 19 - Project Ql :;, 0- " .--/ Site :::! -g -L1 2 Q .1 L... ~ ~ 1 "t Ql :::! g -g '- ../ Q 2 L... Grand Ave 11- ~ 4 * Negative numbers reflect vehicles attracted from background traffic '-- Home Depol ErR r I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ...... Figure B Home Depot Trip Generation PM Peak Hour .-/ "'\ J HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-18 19 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 19.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR for the Home Depot Project. Letters received during the 45-day public review period are listed in Section 3.2. Each letter is marked to identify distinct comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to these comments are provided following each letter. Throughout the responses to comments, where a specific comment has been addressed previously, a reference to the response in which the comment is discussed may be provided in order to reduce repetition. As noted in the PREFACE, in several instances responding to a comment received on the Draft EIR has resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text was not necessary. Responses presented 10 this document focus only on those comments which bear a direct relationship to the Draft EIR and raise environmental issues, as required under CEQA. While other comments that are not directly related to the Draft EIR or do not raise environmental issues are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, it is beyond the scope of the Final EIR to provide responses to Project merits. The letters received on the Draft EIR are listed below. Each letter has been marked to identify each specific comment in the right-hand margin (i.e., A-1, B-2, etc.). Following each letter, the response to each identified comment in that letter is presented sequentially (for example, the first comment on the Draft EIR identified in LETTER A is identified as A-1 in the right-hand margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is coded as RESPONSE A-1). In order to avoid repetition, where individual comments focus on the same issues raised in a previous comment or comments, the response to those comments may make reference to a previous response or responses. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-1 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 19.2 LIST OF LETTERS The following comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the Focused EIR'spublic review period: A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, March 17,2006. B. County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, March 3,2006. C. California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 16,2006. D. Cassidy Shimko Dawson Kawakami, March 17,2006. E. California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 30, 2006. F. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, April 13, 2006. G. Town ofColma, March 14,2006. PAGE 19-2 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR .... . '-lI1111.&',U U~'W.1. O....,U-CJc..;:J-I[)C~~ p..:: S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and;Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~Q'~ . (~ .~~~. Arnold Schwarzenegse.r Governor Seon Walsh' . Director MIl1'Ch 17,2006 Steve Carlson City of South Soo Francisco 3]5 Maple Avenue South Sun FrllllCisco, CA 94080 Lette r A Subject: Home DepotProjcct SCH#: 2005082032 . 'Dear Steve Carlson: The State Clearinghouse !lUbmitted the above f1Jltt1ed Draft EIR ID selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed DOCUIrumtDetrils Reportpleaaenote that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on Mnrch 16, 2006, llnd the comments fi'cm the responding agency (ics) is (are) enclosed. If this comment paclmge is not in order, please notify the State Cle~ghouse immediately. Please refer to the prDject's 1en-digit sCate Clearinghollse IILDDbcr in future correspondence 50that we may respond promptly, . A~1 PleElSc JlDte iliat Sec~~on 211,04(c) of~ California Public Resources c;ode Sla!:l:s that: ..' .. .- : .:"'A 'resp~ble or other public agency shall only make subs1Dntive comments regarding those . activities involved iD II project which arc within an area of expertise of thf3 agency or which IlIC required 10 be cllITied out or approved by the agency. Those eODJlJlen19 sbnD be supported by specmcdocumentation. n . These conunentS are forwarded for use in preparing your fmal environmental document. Should you Dced more infommtion or ctJuification of ~ enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the . commenting agency directly. This letter aclmowledges that you havc complied with the Slate Clearinghouse :review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Q~ty Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouseat(916) 445-0613 ifyoubave any questians regarding the environmental Icviewprocess. Sincerely, r.,.1i:(~". ~ .' . ~:: ~. ~~>.ren:yRob . . . Director, State Clearinghouse . Enclosures: ..' .' cc: Resources Agency '~ . _._ .. . \..': : .., : I .' :. . .. (~'-;" ' , 1400 TEN'rB. BTREEl' P.O. EOX 3Q4.4 SACRAMENTO, OALIFORNIA 96812--3044 TEL (918) 446.0618 FAX (91B) 323-8018 www.opr.Oll..gDV ,...... Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005082032 Project Tit/e Home Depot Project Lead Agency South San Franclsl:o, City of Type EIR Draft EIR DescriptIon The proposed project would Involve the demolition of an exlsUng 156,637 square foot levItz Furniture building and the construction of a 101,272 square fool Home Cepot home Improvement warehouse, an adjoining 24,522 square fOot Garden Center, and a two-Ievel parking structure providing 426 parking spaces. Lead Agency Contact Name Steve Carlson Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877-8535 emllil Addrnss 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Fax Slide CA ZIp 94080 .-._ ___ - ." .0".._"_. _. . Project Location County SanMaleo City RegIon Cross Streets 900 Dubuque Avenue, south of Oyster Point Boulevard Parr:eINo. 015-021~1'O Township Ran(19 Section Base Proximity to: Highways B2 AIrports SFO RaltwBys UPRR Walerways San Fmnclsco Bay Schools Spruce ES, Parkway Heights MS, Martin ESj Brisbane ESt Hillside Land Use Planned Commercial (P-C) I Business Commercial proJect.lssues Alr Quality; CumUlative Effects: Drainage/Absorption; Flood PlalnIF'oodlng; Geologic/Seismic:; Lenduse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks: Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading: Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water QualIty; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality CDntrol Board, Region 2: Department of ParIts and AgencIes Recreallon: Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; Califo rnla Highway Patrol; Caltrans. District 4; Caltran&, DIvision of Aeronaullcs; Department of Toxic Substances Conlrol DatlJ Received 01/31/2006 Start. of Review 01/31/2006 End of Review 03/16/2006 Nola; Blarlks In data fields rssult from Insufficient information provided by lead agency. CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, March 17, 2006. Response to Comment A-1: Comment noted. A letter from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 4 was received on March 16, 2006, and was the only comment letter received from a state agency within the state review period. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-5 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-6 IWIClr ~.... c..UUD .LJ..U.Lnn Lo..L I I ur .:3..-:Jr rLnll11.l11U U.LY.I. o-lU-gc.v-I;lC..:J..:;J ,....oe: ,--'''----' Department of Public Works RECEIVED MAR 6 8 2006 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY Hill ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE T1SS1ER NEIL R. CULLEN DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPT. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 555 COUNlYCENTER. 5'" FLOOR. REDWOOD CllY . CALIFORN1A94063-1665 . PHONE (aso) :163-4100. FAX (650) 361-8220 March 3, 2006 Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 'Planning Division P.o. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Lette r B Dear Mr. Carlson: Subject: Notice of Availability of Public Review for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Home Depot Development, City of South Son Francisco (APN 0]5-021-] 10) Thank you for the oPPoltunHy to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for th~ subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator ofthe San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) which; includes the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone), has reviewed the document and offers the following comments: . Since the Home Depot project site is located outside ofthe Zone boundaries and properties outside of the Zone boundaries do nol contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, existing and future slam) water runoff ITom this site must not be directed into the District's flood : control c~el (Calma. Greek). AnY re~sed s~onn 9.r~1 pl.a1ls (~tigatjon _ Measure 7-1 b) must include routing oftbe rilnoffto the Oyster Point BouLevard outlet and must be submitted to the District for review. B-1 .. Page 7-6 ofibe DEIR. presented a discussion on NPDES Phase I stann water program regulations and requirements, and page 7-9 briefly discussed the San . Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). ; However, requirements of the New Development and Redev~lopment Performance Standards (Provision C.3) ortbe STOPPP Pellnit amended by the - California Regional Water Quality Control Board in Febmary 2003 were not discllssed. B-2 I-~ Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division Subject:- Notice of Availability of Public Re"iew for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Home Depot Development, City of Soutb San Francisco (APN 015-021-110) March 3, 2006 Page 2 If you bave any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417. .. Very truly yours. AnnM. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:mmy P:\U5ERS\ADMIN\CmESlSSfUOO6\900 Dubuque Home Depol- OEIR Review.doc G:\USERS\UTlllTY\Colmn Crcck FCO\WORD\Revic'N Extcrnal Projecl\2005\900 Dubuque Home Depol - OEIR Review.doc File No: F-149 (9H) cc; Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter B: County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, March 3, 2006. Response to Comment B-1: The County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, San Mateo County Flood Control District will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Flood Control Plan. However, requirements of other agencies including the City of South San Francisco Public Works include the use of vegetated swales and infiltration areas for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Mitigation Measure 7-1 b will be revised as follows. Mitigation Measure 7-1b Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-1 a cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. All runoff from the site must be routed to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet and must not be directed to the San Mateo County Flood Control District's flood control channel (Colma Creek watershed). or must be infiltrated at the project site. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of a vegetated swale and infiltration area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Any drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval. Response to Comment B-2: The section describing the STOPPP shall be amended as follows to include information on the C.3 requirements. SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CW A, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. Amendments to the program as instituted by the RWQCB in February 2003 included provision C.3 which strengthens the New Development and Construction component of the STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) component requirements by identifying and implementing appropriate site design. source control. and stormwater treatment measures. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-9 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-10 ne, ..a.o c..uuo c... .0.......1 u..a. I. ur .::J.::Jr rL..nlll,..a.llU U.LV.L O....JU-Oc.v-oo""v p.c: B3/16/2BB6 13:34 51a28&5559 CAL TRANS PAGE IH STIlTFiQF CA1.lI'ORNlA llllc:n.n>t.. nA"!mRT^nON ANt> HPU~1Nr. A(;~!olCV ARNOLD SDfW ARZnNRRGPJl flaMUtwIJ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION III GRAND AVENUE P. o. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623.0660 PHONE (510) 286-.5505 L e tt ere FAX (510) 286-5559 Try (800) 735-2929 Q Flu 1011' pitWr,! 811""IY t.If~i."" MllrCh 16, 2006 Mr. Steve Carlson City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue Soum San Francisco, CA 94080 SMlO1415 SCHN200S082032 Dear Mr. Carlson: HOME DEPOT - DRAn ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for including the Caljfomi" Department of Transportation (D~llJ1ment) in the environmental review process for the Home Depot project. The faUowing cornmerus"ll{e based on the Draft Environmental Imp8.C1 Repon (OEm); addition81 comments wiJl be forthcoming pending final review of the DBIR. Since the Traffic Study Technical Appendices were received only lhis week, highway operations comments have been deJayed. Please note that since Callrans review requires supporting data contained in Traffic Study Technical Appendices, these .should be sent along with Ute environmental document. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsibJe for all project mitigation, including an)' needed improvemenls lb state highways. The project"s fEUI' share contribution. financing, schedllling, implementation .responsibilities and Zead agency monitoring should be: fully discussed for aU proposed mitigation measures. The projec('S specific traffic mitigation fee should be identified in bam the Traffic Impact Swdy aDd the OEm. Required roadway improvements should be compJe~d prior to i6Suance of the Certificate of Occupancy. An encroachment pennit is required for work in the State Riehl of Way (ROW). and the Department will not issue a penni. until Our concems are adequately addressed. Then:forc, we strongly recommend thai the City work witb both the applicant and the Depanment to ensure that our concerns lUe resolved during the CEQA process, and in any case prior to submittal of a Permit application. Further comments wlH be provided during the encroachment pennit process; see the end of this Jetter for more infonnation regarding encroachment permilS_ Travel Demand Foret:tUting I. Project trip generation estimatC8 for approved development in the City alC lower than the average rates cited in the Instirute of 1'ran~porratjo" Errcinee,.s Trip GeneraJion Manual, 1~ Edirion. These should be reviewed and explained. Page 1 J -36, TabJe 1 ]-11, DEIR.. C-1 'Cgll1ilh.J ,,"prrwu ""'bill/)' D(T11S1 Calilill7li~" e3/16/2BB6 13:34 Mr. S'~~e CarllllQ M..rcb 111,2006 ""aa2 51El28S5559 CAlTRANS PAGE B2 2. Figure 11-15 should represent the net change of 2020 trip generation. That is. rhe trips in and out should match those afTable 11-J5C rather rhan Table 11.lST:t. Page 11-51. DEIR. 3. Review the percentage of AM peak hour trips in and OUt sbown in Table Il-ISA. These !;hould be much higher than the values shown. Page 11-57, DEIR. Cullum' Resou'~es Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5 and PubHc Resources Code Section 5024..5, an)' ground- disturbing work in State ROW must be preceded by an archaeological record search at the Nonhwest lnfonnalion Center before an encroachment pennit can be issued. En~roachm~", P~rmll Work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that Is issued by rhe Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit uppJic:ation, environmental documentation, and five (5) SetS of plana clearly indiclIting State ROW must be submitted to the IIddn:SS below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into tbe COnst{Uction plans during the encroachment permit proceliS. See the website link below for mo~ infonnation. brrp:Jlwww.dot.ca.80Vlhq/traffoPS/devCJOJlScrv/pennitsl Sean NozZari, District Office Chief Office of POmLits California DOT, District 4 P.O. B()~ 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please (eel free 10 call or cmBiJ PalriC:ia Maurice of my starr' at (510) 622-1644 or Mtlitia [email protected],l!ov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ?~s~~ Districl Branch Chief IGRlCEQA C: Ms. Teny Robens, Slate Clearinghouse Mr. David Tail. The Tail Group .'CaIITO/IJ if7f{lrYJ~'J lllUf,ilily IIcrnu Cl!1/fOflll/J" 1""" C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter C: California Department of Transportation District 4, March 16, 2006. Response to Comment C-1: Trip generation presented in Table 11-11 of the DEIR for approved developments east of the U.S.1 01 freeway should not match what would be projected using ITE "average" trip rates. All developments in this area have "City" and County Congestion Management Agency (CjCAG) Transportation Demand Management plans which must be implemented to reduce peak hour trip generation. All business will be monitored (and penalties assessed, if required) in order to ensure compliance with the TDM programs. Response to Comment C-2: PM peak hour volumes shown at the project driveways in Figures 11-13 and 11-15 have been revised to reflect proper trip generation levels. Volumes change by about 10 percent. This results in no changes to project impacts or required mitigations at any location. Also, volumes at all intersections away from the project frontage are correct. Response to Comment C-3: Home Depot trip generation projections were obtained from Trtp Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Land use code 862, "Home Improvement Superstore" was utilized. AM peak hour average trip rates used in the EIR are directly from the publication (page 1601) and have then been increased by 2.5 percent to provide a conservative analysis. Response to Comment C-4: Comment noted. Response to Comment C-5: Comment noted. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-13 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-14 "ell ,I.'L..'-'UU""T.~...III' '-... " V r- u u ,- r L... n , 11 1 ~ . J U U..1. V .L 0 ...J U - 0 c:. OJ - 0 C .:J i:J A PHOFE.SSIOt.l""L CORFORA"fI.:l1l CASSIDY SHIMKO DAWSON KAWAKAMI Lette r 0 March 17, 2006 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Initial Study for Home Depot Project.. Apolication No. P05-0035 Dear Mr. Carlson: On behalf of our client, Home Depot, we wish to compliment the City of South San Francisco on a thorough and accurate Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") fur the construction ofthe.proposed Home Depot store (the "Project") to be located at 900 Dubuque Avenue in the City of South San Francisco. WhiJewe believe that the Draft ElR is legally sufficient under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQN'), we submit the following comments in order to clarify certain language and mitigation measures set forth in the docwnent. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 1. Hvdrology. a. }..'fitigatioll Measures 7-1a and 7-lb. Mitigation Measure 7-1a of the Draft EIR requires the applicant to conduct a hydraulic analysis oithe proposed storm drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain pipe has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project, based on the stonn drain plan that was previously submitted to the City. In the event that the storm drain does not have sufficient capacity to contain the additional flows, Mitigation Measure 7-lb must be implemented. Mitigation Measure 7-lb requires submittal ofarevised storm drain plan for the Project that will include drawings oflhe Dew system and calculations ofllie new system's capacity. Home Depot agrees that these mitigation measures are adequate for the Project as proposed, and would mitigate Impact 7-1 to a less than significant level. However, Home Depot plans to prepare and submit to the City a revised storm drainage plan for the Project that will closely follow the drainage patterns ofthc existing Levitz site (approximately half of the site cWTently drains to the railroad right of way, while the other half of the site drains to 20 CA.LtrORN!A ST. SUITE 500 SN~ FRANCISCO. CA 94 II Tt:LEPHONE. l4 I 5) 7 B B . " 0 <l 0 FJ\CSINILE: {4 I 51 78 B . ;: 0 3 g wWIV.r:::dklaw cnm f'.e 0-1 :Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior PlalUler City of South San Francisco l\.1arch 17, 2006 Pagc 2 Dubuque Avenue). Because the Project would have almost the same amount of impervious surfaces as the existing Levitz site (see the exhibits entitled "Existing Impervious Surfaces" and "Proposed Impervious Surfaces," attached) the site's drainagepattem would correspondingly remain consistent with the existing drainage patterns after the Project is constructed. Home Depot therefore proposes revisions to the Mitigation Measure 7-1 b to allow for fuat. possibility and to ensure that, in any event, the Project will not exceed the drainage capacity ava3lable for storm water runoff from the Project site and thus have less than significant storm drainage impacts. The proposed revisions are as follows (strikethrougbs indicate. deleted text and double underlines indicate added text): Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the Storm Drain Analysis described in ~tigation Measure 7-1 a cannot showtbat the existing storm drain bas capacity for Project flows, or in lieu ofimnlementinl! Mitieation Measure 7-1a. the applicant shall rrubmit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for Ole Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system, and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. If the revised plan shows drainage to any other.~l:!~1!ll I:h1bJJgue Avenue and the railroad right ofwav. or if the revised Dlan would exceed the storm water runoff caoacitv at the storm drain Dine(s) in Question. the fol1o\Vinl~ methods Methods such as OR site storm .....ater detoBtiofl, stOfiB draiB liRa upgrades, aod an. iBfiltratien area shaJl be incorporated into !:be Project dcsign~ . On-site stonn water detention: andlor . Storm water drain line uomades. - :Mitigatioll Mea5urB 7 :!b requires inearporatioR of vegetated s't/ale and infiltration arBa for treatment of stOImwater nmofffrom parking lot areas-: Prior to the appro...al of the Final Map issuance of a lITadine: permit for the Proiect, changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by tbe City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator ~d the City Engineer. b. Mitigation Measllre 7-2b. Mitigation Measure 7-2b lists certain design measures to be incorporaled into the stonn drain system, including a catcb basin at the end of the required vegetated/grass swale to direct runoff into an infiltration area. This method of infiltration is infeasible, because according to the geotechnical report for the sile, the upper 5- 7 feet of the soils underlying the site are primarily a clay and sill mix. This would prohibit any type of infiltration of stonn water into the ground. Home Depot therefore proposes the following changes to Mitigation Measure 7-2b (strikethroughs indicate deleted text and double underlines indicate added text), which would mitigate the identified impact to a less r-- 0-2 ~1r. Steve Carlson, Senior Plarmer City of South San Francisco March 17, 2006 Page 3 than significant level: Additional Storm Water Treatment Control Methods Shall Be Incorporated into the Project The Project shall incorporate one of the following design measures into the stonn drain system: · A vegetated/grass swale along the perimeter oflhe plITking lot wi1h_i! catch basin at 1he end of the swale which shall connect to the storm drain svstem:....m: · Another tvoe of mechanical filtration svstem that will clari fv storm water leavinQ the site to a delrree that is accenJllble to the City of South San Fr~cisco Citv EnJtineer and Stonn Wa[er Coordi..ruill1L · A notched {lW'b aloRg the parking lot perimeter to diroct flow from-the IJaflcing area into the swale · .\ caleh basin at the end of the GYrate shall direct rtHloff into an infiltratiofl area · :\11 maintenaooe yar~l5erviee areas sball be oovered The Drain Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. 2. Traffic. a. Overland Peer Review. Home Depot asked its consultant, Overland Traffic Consultants ("Overland"), to prepare a peer review of the traffic analysis tbat was prepared by Crane Transportation Group and included in the Draft ElR. A copy of Overland's review is attached hereto. Overland bas concluded that the Draft Em. adequately addresses the Project's potentially significant traffic impacts. Overland lIas suggested, and Home Depot now requests, that where certain mitigation measures require a "fair share contribution" toward traffic improvements, the Final EIR for the Project include additional information regarding the total cost of each improvement, the estimated percentage of the total cost for which Home Depot would be responsible and the resulting fair share cost for which Home Depot would be responsible. b. C01lservative Nature of Analysis. The traffic study prepared for the Draft EIR is based on certain "worst case" assumptions, which resulted in a very conservative scenario analyzed in the study. This is an effective method to use in preparing the Draft EIR, as it leads to the identification of every traffic impact that could possibly occur, but in reality the traffic impacts of the Project wi111ikely be far less intense. The three primary "worst case" assumptions are as follows: r- . -, 0-3 0-4 ~~~u I. .&._, I' l\k Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco March 17,2006 Page 4 · The Project's average trip generation rates were increased by 25% "in order to provide a safety factor for impact analysis." Thus, the impacts to affected intersections have been substantially inflated as compared to impacts based on trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003). . No "diverted linked trip capture" or "pass-by trips" were proj ected for the Project during the AM peak hour, and only a minor level of such trips were projected during the PM peak hour. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual allows for up to 40% of the trips to home improvement stores to be counted as pass-by trips, i.e.. vehicles that would still travel past the site even if the store did not exist. \\'hile llie maximum of 40% may not be applicable in the present situation, based Home Depot's experience with other stores in similar types of locations it is expected that at least 10% to 15% of the AM and PM peak hour trips to the store in question will be pass-by trips. Therefore. the number of trips that the Project would'actually generate is likely to be at least 10% to 15% lower than the number oftrips on which the Draft EIR analysis is based. and the actual traffic impacts of the Project would be correspondingly reduced. · An average of 30% of thc Proj ect' s AM and PM peak hour trips were expected to come from the San Francisco/Brisbane area, whereas in reality this number will likely 'be much lower due to demand from those areas being captured by the new Home Depot in Daly City and the proposed Home Depot in San Francisco. Therefore, traffic impacts resulting from traffic to and from areas to the north of the Project site (for instance. impacts at the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard! Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AveDuelU.8. 101 Northbound On-Ramp) are likely to be less than estimated in the Draft EIR. Weare not necessarily recommending that the City alter the conservative approach of the Draft EIR, but we do think that it is important for decision-makers to understand the conservative nature of the approaches selected, which likely overstate Project impacts. c. Miligation Measure J 1-1 O. Home Depot has the following comments regarding Mitigation Measure 11-10: . Home Depot supports the required widening of Dubuque Avenue to provide a southbound left turn lane into the Project's center Dubuque Avenue driveway. The preliminary layout ohms proposed mitigation is shown on two ofthe attached exhibits ("Center Left Turn Exhibit" t".... 0-5 L..o..... ..... __I 'IL-I,...I....,~ _...,.... ...............,. ....,.L.._ _loJ_,-, Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco :\-Iarch 17. 2006 Page 5 and "Site Plan No. CA-964n'). · This mitigation measure also requires the City of South San Francisco to post speed limit signs along Dubuque Avenue and to prohibit OD- street parking along the Project's Dubuque Avenue frontage. While Home Depot encourages the City to take these actions, and the City has indicated its intent to do so, mitigation measures must be feasible and must be directed toward the project sponsor, i.e. tbe applicant. Therefore. it is inappropriate for the mitigation measure to require that the City undertake any actions, and those requirements should be removed. · The mitigation measure would also prohibit left turns out of the northernmost Home Depot driveway along Dubuque Avenue, which appears to be inappropriate. The stated need for this prolribition is that "adequate sight lines [305-360 feet for travel speeds of 40-45 miles per hour] do not exist to allow for cars to safely turn left from the northern driveway" (Draft EIR, p. 11-77). However. the mitigation measure independently requires that landscaping be maintained to "aUow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway." Thus, the stated problems with the left turn movement would no longer exist wi1h the implementation of this mitigation measure. With adequate sight lines to the south, plus the proximity of the existing traffic signal at the Dubuque Avenue southbound off-ramp intersection to the north, limited - if any - traffic conflicts would occur at this location. As such, the proposed left twn would not result in any significant traffic impacts that required mitigation. Therefore, Home Depot requests that this requirement be removed. · The mitigation requires consideration of an "all way stop" control at the Project's central driveway intersection "if needed." This requirement provides no performance standard to establish when such a control would be "needed. I' More fundamentally, the other components of Uris mitigation measure (e.g, provision of sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions) will ensure safe traffic conditions at the Project's central driveway intersection such that installation of an all way stop control is unnecessary. Therefore. Home Depot requests that the "all way stop" component be removed from this mitigation measure. d. Mitigation Measure 11-11. Mitigation Measure 11-11 requires revisions to the parking layout for the Project to provide additional channelization and storage for inbound vehicles at the north Project driveway. Home Depot has prepared a preliminary t'.u D-6 Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City ofSoutb San Francisco March 17, 2006 Page 6 plan of the revised layout, which is shown in the exhibit attached hereto ("Site Plan No. CA- 964n") and will be submitted as an amendment to the Project application in the near future. As you can see, the revised layout changes the geometry of the ramp to the second floor of parking, so site circulation within the northern section of the parking garage will be adequately managed even wi thout the slriping/signing plan required by Mitigation Measure L 1-11. Therefore, once the Project application has been amended to reUect the revised layout, the second requirement under Mitigation Measure 11-11 will be inapplicable. 3. Alternatives. Home Depot believes that the alternatives analysis set forth in the Draft EIR includes a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, as required by CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.6. The alternatives analysis correctly concludes that the proposed Project provides the best balance between satisfaction of the project objectives and mitigation of environmental impacts to the extent feasible, as described and analyzed in the Draft ErR. As noted in the Draft ElR, neither the No ProjeclAlternative nor the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would meet the project goals and objectives set forth on page 3-2 of the Draft EIR. These goals and obj ectives include the following: (i) to comply with the objectives of the General Plan, the City PlaJUling Code and all applicable codes, plans and ordinances of South San Francisco; (ii) to provide new retail employment opportwlities to residents of South San Francisco and surrounding areas; (Iii) to provide a source of significant new sales tax revenue to South San Francisco; and (iv) to satisfY the home improvement needs for both do-it-yourself customers and local contractors in South San Francisco and the surrounding area by offering Home Depot's complete range of home improvement services and products. . 4. Revised Charts. The charts on pages 7-11, 7-16, 7-1 B, 9-2 and 9-3 of the Draft ElR were formatted incorrectly and are difficult to read. Please provide revised charts in the Final ErR. Thank you very much for your consideration afthis letter. We look forward to continuing to work ,vith you during tbe CEQA and entitlements process. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to can me at (415) 788-2040. Very truly yours, ~~s=- cc: Greg George Ann Jerhoff Frank Coda Caroline Shaw David Tait Jerry Overland r. . D-7 D-8 .- .. .... II l 1 1/ ~ )1< ro$ C-..l.: F2 00 Zr G>~ -i r" I c:::::l l==:J c::::::J c:=> DO DO r CD I I t : 00 r. DO r ~ . c:~ / L T 1: t ~ "0 f - "fT1 ~l)9 ~ <~> tJ) 6sr -t co!!] Z VIe"" G") VlUlP1 CUll> tJ) ;(leAl C ;!~~ ::u n >- .. ." ~o )> -. fT1 n ~ IT1 . lJ) ~ <0 (".olD .....,:.... . .;>- 2uo -lJI lJlOu 0.,,(..1 "'Tl~1'> -ilia: !U)0l <DOlll 0,00 ~~~ ...'.......1 R '1IiBI.e-. D . . I Q N ,. N c: EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACES HOME DEPOT. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TtlE HOME DEPOT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA PROJECT NO. HOD4B60 DATE: 03/14/06 BY: MAS SCALE: NTS SHEET NO. EX1 M6 sw w~,. Ot.lillllJO ~ 0*' 91ZU Till ~ezm - Fa blnO:!l2liC~ ___ a 0.... . ..-....orIO~ a-.-- r.- ........ R" ,;.",m ~e~ c:x ex -'~ ) @ .:> ttllllllD - . ." :r: o ~ m o m ""U o -I .i . i f " / I, , ~ ~~ ~ '., ~.~i -a - :.......m. ---B.....- ; - - ~; I-. = : =:C .,,' f:::: !:218l -I!....-. ~ --L.." . R -~- -+-~ =i= . -~ .,...; r-t::::l =i= =F;;;-l-'- : rei =:_@ : i!J:::E ~p;e' -~ =F(~ ~ E d=: =F~ 7 1= ~F ==-= C7 . - -,- -+- = c: --.- =r-'=r7 -,- C7 .f " .' r-' 'J' J' ~ .... . . . ; .' , ;' . t ./!;. . l '1)~-t "'D l"1'tJO ;0 ~.....~ 0 5~r "'D COI/) 0 fJ) c::; lJ) II) tIl m r"1 c Ul> 0 :.uc;o ~ ~;' l~ ~>.. ;0 II) (') .., .. :;J )> .. (') fTl ,lJ) '" \D ",10 >-)" _ t-J ......... ",to --J1I1 II)Ou O"T)lro ""11-t..~ ..../l0 B g:: to ..oQtIl in:-O ~~:l ""j''''' R I-'-~ D I! i!I . Q" 'N c. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES HOME DEPOT - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO . THE HOME DEPOT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA S41S0WWat;a.. Dr. Sl.. 'OD ~ M 1'7221 ToI. m1\lZillO faJ. WJAIJlli;lO ~._..~~.- PROJECT No. HOD4860 DATE: 03/14/06 BY: MAS SCALE: NTS SHEET NO. EX2 -... -. --. . -..........- -....... --- --- ---- r. . ~ Overland Traffic Consultants 27201 Toumey Road #I 206 . Santa Clarita, CA91355 PhDne: (661) 799 '- 8423 fax: (661) 799 - 8456 E'mell: lIZ@overJandtl1!lfflc.com March 2, 2006 Ms. Caroline Shaw Greenberg Farrow 15101 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Review of the Traffic Section of the DEIR for City of South San Francisco Home Depot (January 2006) Dear Ms. Shaw, Overland Traffic Consultants has prepared this overview of the traffic section contained in the DEIR dated January 2006 fur the proposed Home Depot located on Dubuque Avenue south of Oyster Point Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. Overall, the traflicsections adequately address the potential project_and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed new store as well as potential access and internal circulation impacts' on-site. AdeQuacv of AnalYsis -In our opinion, the traffic analysis correctly identifies short- term (2006) and long-term (2020) traffic impacts associated with the project and future cumulative developmenl Furthermore, the analysis methodology and supporting documentation appears to be adequate and thoroughly researched with staff approval; . Overall th~tramc impact analysis appears to be conselVative in .that . the estimated 'Project generated traffic volume has been increased by 25% above tlie ITE average traffic rates for home improvement stores. Furthermore, the project traffic impacts are based. on an unconstrained assignment of the estimated peak hour traffic flow, In other words, the routing of the project traffic to and from the project slle is not adjusted to account for the level of future intersection congestion. An unconstrained assignment of the projectlrafficflow does present a conservative ''worstcase'' analysis of the project traffic impacts at the adjacent study intersec~ons. A Traffic Em8neerlnt! and TransPDrtation Plannlnll Consultine Sell/Ices Company ."~r ,6" _....__ ........_.1. \-O.&. " ...... tt,.Jj-..l1 t _"'I"""'~ &.I.&."..L .....'-#"""" _L...... _'-'-..I...... Ms. Caroline Shaw March 2, 200e Page 2 We recommend that more specifiC details of the Home Depot proJect's fair .share contribution to the intersection improvements be included in the Final EIR so Home Depot can realize the financial exposure.of those improvements (e.9.; cost, fair share %, payment schedule, etc.). Access and Internal Circulation. We agree with the widening of Dubuque Avenue along the project frontage to provide for a left turn lane, the prohibition of on-street parking along the Dubuque Avenue frontage and the lowerin9 of the posted speed limit along '!his sBgment of Dubuque Avenue. We also agree that proper sight lines need to be provided for the projeCt's driveway locations. Left turn access from the northerly driveway should be evaluated with the recommended modifications to the streeHrontage along Dubuque Avenue (Le., street widening, lower posted vehicular . speed limits, and low height landscaping). Upon review ofthe sight lines with these recommen~ed modifications, a determInation should be made as to the adequacy of the sight lines and left turn egress at the northerly driveway: In summary,. we believe the traffic impact analysis prepared for the South San Frandsco.Home Depot project is adequate and provides the decision makers with the information necessary' to rule on the project. Please contact me if you need any additional information, have any' comments or questlons. . Sincerely, 9~ j-,O~ Jerry Overland A Traffic Engineerlne, ~nd Transportation PlannfnfI Consult/nit Services Comoanv f"". ... ..&. C~~;[:?j }:_-- y- ---~t~ .- ~,...~. ....-it.7-- ~~t~..~... ~~i~- ___..I~ -f-.- --..--.~F--" ----r~ . ~,~\"'. ..- ~': --~u-!7t--_. ----.--- ,'. . _ _:l~.__._ __.__f.___ t- ". j,j. PROJECT NO. HOD4860 DATt BY; SHEET NO. D3f14108 MAS T.' ~""I I 1...'"111.1.111,3 U.LV~ O...JU-Dc;..~-OOuu { i___f"- -, ~- j' ':l~ it. "'. I} I f- ! i, ': n -.' f f i !t.~..../ : . .. ".. ,} I ~ ; i ; ~ ::r (j) 0 .,. > .,. ]::I s: 0 m m 0 z m 0 '"tJ ~ 0 -i nt :D ~ ~ ~\ \ ..:; :f-- ~...~~- .-~ ..t:-. _k ._-;~ --- .;~--- -".;1;----- :.--t7 C7 "'... ] 5~ ,:I" n -= ." ~~ ~ ~~ 0 '" .c~ 5 '" " '" -< ~ is ~ Ii' s r. .. ;; c .. '" ~ & / /' -' / ." CENTER LEFT TURN EXHIBIT HOME DEPOT - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE HOME DEPOT SOUlH ~ FIWlCISCo. c.ot.JFOR"'.... I!l'lIIIirif'IEIII .... _ ...... _.01 oil: ..... 0llI JfZ:t ...-- 1'" 1C t". ...- ~ ~ ~ t: a t!j ~! ~ e-~;i:;;~ CD <~B ;II .- !!;:8 z 55 i~! ~ eo". U _ ;;i!i!: 0 ...... _....o.J. oJ ~~~ ~ j ~!:'~ ~ ~ ~ ! U ~b U i~! :z'nl ~_~;I Cl~' .c!F,..j ~;;; h~~ ~ ~ H ii~pl ~ I ~~ p~~ ~ u , ~i~ ~ . p u~. ~ ; V" ~ij~-l 3 Bi ~'~lli ~ ~ ~ ni~ I-~ !l -~ c ~~. ~ <:. ~I;.~ 0 ci' f 'hi J h loa '~a f:.ju I -~ qo .~!. . ,j! g '. Q!!! h ~ ~~ . ii U I ~^ ~o\l;; it CC _ wz..! -:I ~ ..~~n~ s~ 'i; fi :!~5! i! 0') ~$;~i :i!~! 11 ~ ~ ~ .~ II-~ I z."B~. j j .j. w<(~ i j_& <( ijiti~E ;i :iI i !&II ~~I n E1c 0 f!~;i ~~ !E;; i~ n~~ III I~ [8i ut -- -..\.0.. t:l HW'~ Ii :. ~ ;~2 ~ -:. ~ ~ j- #> ~ !5 ~ E i ; "' i ~~ ~ g ~. ~ at: .. lil ;; ~ ~ 5:ie ~ 51'~ ~ S. Ii ~ R 2 U "'lrz . !;iis ~ "~ l! i i !!f~ III 5 ~,~ ~ ;_r " ~-~! E f o ~ \j ~ 5 it. i 5-' i w:t5~ ~ l! g: ~ H ~ litH h!! i!~!h ~ ~ ~~ ~.=E ~==I= .LJ =ci=c '" := Ti-+- _ c . t.. - =r= ~ =+= -~li ~:~~'~!~ ~..3 :; kJ i~~=~,~,;~" ~ - - ~ ~1711~ 1.111 till ;~;, II ;';~;lll ~II~ ~~" ~ ~~~. c~: ~ . r: I- o:~: Eh=1:;'~ 00"'0 Lu - - ~ d o ~! J: i~;! UJ 9;:1 ~~e~ ~. l. ::~_.. _.::::::;~. u I~ y~ m ~~ !it . k. m 'f 1 ;-~~';~.:) h ! ;, ~~ ; r,!r,; I . ~......~.., ... . .-1 f -.""", " i: ....a.r;;: '.O\n.4 ....~- ._.~ ~ ii!~ ~I;! -.~i ~~~ic~ ~.:;;Il ~5~!lt Oleic. 1.,jf:l! 8~,~h II!!" lor-I:' fUU I- ,: ,-; "':'; '- .,.... , '. , ~ n~a X ~~i! ; li~ !~ '.a1G a... ~~i1 i- r e i , . ! . ~ \ 11f'~'! t . y ,}?':"rJ ...m..,.._-,- .':';:' 2';.. ~ '\ .~~:V" I\;~ l ", i nl ~ 1: .. , CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter D: Cassidy Shimko Dawson Kawakami (Applicant Attorneys), March 17, 2006. Response to Comment D-l: Comments noted. However, the eXlstlOg drainage system includes an unimproved vegetated swale at the toe of slope at the edge of the railroad right of way. This existing feature could be incorporated into a vegetated swale and on site detention/retention system as required by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department in a comment letter on the Administrative Draft EIR for the project. Additionally, the existing unimproved drainage system along the edge of the railroad right of way may not be sufficient to handle 50% of site drainage, and was observed to pond water in an uncontrolled manner. Any detention/ retention at the project site will likely also require an outlet pipe to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet because of restrictions on site runoff into the Colma Creek flood control channel and the low permeability of the site soils. Response to Comment D-2: Comments noted. However, no infiltration study has been conducted to determine if soils have permeability conducive to infiltration of storm water in a detention basin. Additionally, the existing site runoff at the slope adjacent to the railroad right of way includes an unimproved vegetated swale which channels water to the railroad right of way where water slowly infiltrates or evaporates. While silty clay soils, such as those detected in the geotechnical study, are not the best soils for infiltration in a detention basin, these soils do allow for infiltration of water over time depending upon the soil rate of permeability, the underlying soil permeability, and the depth to groundwater. Inclusion of an outlet pipe in a detention basin which channels overflow water into the storm drain system is a common feature in storm water treatment and management systems. As required in the Mitigation Measures for the project, the revised Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator, and shall also be reviewed and approved by the County of San Mateo Flood Control District. Any modifications to the requirements as set forth in the EIR shall be approved in writing by these public agencies. Response to Comment D-3: Comment noted. The City will prepare the "fair share contribution" calculations. Response to Comment D-4: The City has limited experience with traffic associated with home improvement centers. While the study may be viewed as more conservative in its assumptions, it is a prudent and legitimate approach and will ensure that the impacts are identified, analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures developed. The need to identify the impacts and develop corresponding mitigation measures is especially important for the following factors - more than one home improvement center is under review for Dubuque Avenue; the Oyster Point and the Grand Avenue Freeway Interchanges and the frontage road, Dubuque Avenue, have limited remaining capacity; CalTrans has commented on this and other related DEIRs regarding the need for greater specificity; and the City is considering the adoption of the HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-27 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES statement of over-riding considerations because of the lack of feasible mitigation measures. We concur with the commentators statement that it is an "effective method to use in preparing the Draft EIR ." Response to Comment D-5: Mitigation Measure 11-10 will be revised to identify that the posted speed limit should be no greater than 35 miles per hour and will not identify the implementing agency. The prohibition of left turn exiting movements needs to remain to reduce future potential traffic conflicts. This is especially appropriate given the increase in traffic on local streets generated by the rapid private redevelopment of the area east of U.S. 101, the increasing use of the CalTrain station on the southerly end of Dubuque Avenue and the proposed home improvement center adjacent to the station. While visibility will be improved, the "all way stop" should be left as an option to provide a high level of traffic safety. The condition will be revised to add that a traffic study to determine the need of the intersection control be conducted at the applicant's expense no later than 2010. Should the "all way stop" determined to be necessary by the City's Engineer the applicant would be obligated to install the intersection controls. Response to Comment D-6: To function efficiently and minimize on-site circulation conflicts, both the parking lot and the garage need to have a stripping and signing plan. The City's experience has been that such visual cues are important circulation controls that have proven effective and minimal cost. Response to Comment D-7: Comment noted. Response to Comment D-8: Comment noted. However, it appears to the EIR authors that the tables are written in plain language and use appropriate graphics so that the public can rapidly understand the document, consistent with CEQA Guideline 15140. It is unclear to the authors what is difficult to read or improperly formatted in the tables. PAGE 19-28 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR r.- 03/3E1/2eB6 14:33 51El2BG5559 CALTRANS PAGE Cl STATE OF CALIPORNIA 8USTNfiSS. TIlAWSppRTATlOtll AND HOOSnm AGENCY ARNOLD ~Clt"JfARZf'NI!C'.GlIll- Ciay""", DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA TJON 111 ORAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND. CA 94623.{)6150 PHONE (510)286-5505 Lette r E FAX (SIO) 286.5559 TrY (800) 735.2929 (t Flu YClUr pD""tr! Bt tit"" !/!It/Uti' March 3D, 2006 Mr. Steve Cad!;on City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 SMI01415 SCH#2005082032 De31 Mt. Carlson: HOME DEPOT - DRAFI' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Jetter provides supplemental COmmenlS on the Home Depot Draft Environmental Impacl Report (DEIR) to OUf March 16, 2006 tener. Additional c~rnrnent8 may be forthcoming pending review of Synchro ron files received Marcb 29, 2006. HirhWGY Opemlioftt I. Please provide project-related turning movemCJIt volumeSl only- wilham base CDse volumes. This will show the amount of project-related traffic. E-1 " 2. The capacity of an auxiliary lane is the lesser of the on- or off-ramp. Page 11.15, Freeway Operations, Analysis Methodology. E-2 3. Since Slated capacilies in the OEIR are passenger car equivalents (pee), lruck volume data should be adjusted to pee throughout the DEIR. Bod the analYllis shouJd be fe-run. Page I I. 21, Freeway Ramp Operations, Analysis Melhodology. E-3 4. The project should be required 10 pay fair share fees to mitigate Ihe projectts impact to the northbound off-ramp at the US lOl/Dubuque Avenue intersectioo. The Base Case + Project volume of2.01 L vehicles pcrhour (vph) at Ihe northbound Dubuque AventJe off.ramp would requi(e a two-lane off-ramp. Page 11-23, T~ble 11.6. E-4 5. Will Base Case + ProjeCt queues at ,he northbound leg of the OYSlor Point Boulcvard!DubuqlJe Avenue intersection back up beyond the US 101 Ramps al Dubuque Avenue onto the us 101 mainline? How will this affect off-ramp traffic? Mitigation should be recommended for projcl:t-related impaCISj Ibis I:ould include paying fair share fees. Were the Dubuque Avenue i1)tcrsccti(ms at Oyster Point Boulevard and US 101 Ramps tmalyzed as independent frcebody inlcTScctiOJJS 01," were they analyzed togetller1 They should be analyzed E-5 "Car/nl~r Irnprwn IIUlbiJily tJc",.. Calif"",i..- B3/38/2Ba& 14:33 MI. s~"" C-..bDlI MlIc:h 30. 200(; P.s" Z 51a2BEi5559 CALTRANS PAGE D2 119 a coordinated system and not DS independent frcebody intersections as queues from one intersection can impacllhc intersection upstream. Pages )).25 to 11-28, Tables 11-7 to Il- Ia. 6. Why isn't the nonhbouQd legoftbe US 101 RampslDubuque A"enu~ interchange included in the analysis in 'fables 11-7 to 11.101 Pages 11-25 to It-2B. 7. Will the Base Case + Project in Year 2020 queues at me US 101 Southbound RampsIBayshore Bouleyard irue{5ection extend back onto southbound US 101? Mitigation should be recommended 10 reduce an)' significant impacts to ~ less lhan significant level. Aga;n. thb could include payment of fair shate fees. Page 11-28, Table 1 ]-10. 8. Adding just one vehicle to an existing 9S'" percentiJe queue that is operating unacceptably will result in a significant iropact that requires mitigation. No. 8 under Impact Analysi8 on Page 11-5S is not Ii Ca!lfans criterion. 9. Mitigati()n to reduce projeGt impacts to a less than significant level should be identified. An explanation should ~ provided where mitigation is detennined to be infeasibLe. Page 11-68, MitigatiOD Measure 11-2. 10. The City 39 lead agency, and Home Depot as project applicant are respollsible for'ensUring tha', sufficient mitigation is implemented. The DElR should recommend mitigation to reduce project impacts lo a less than significant level, aJ)d the applicant should be required to conbibute fajr share fees. The DEm States that project volumes would be the same or less tnan the OfficelR&D uses projected f(tf the site. What miti8ation was required 10. the OfficeIR&D use? Has Ihis mitigation been implel)lenled? Page 11-73, Impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramp Impaccs, PM Peak RoUt. 11. The DEIR should identify aU intersections currently opcmting with Significant 95111 percenrile queues, and all intersections where project traffic \\IiJI resuJt in significUlt 95'" percentile qlleues. Mitigation should he recommended for at! inte1'8e'X:tions operating with sjgnjficaot 95th percentile queues wilh the addilion of any project trips. Since even one addi lional vehicle would couse a significant impact, a volume increase of two pescent is not required to cause a significant impact. Signal Op.raJitln:l 1. Unless new signal phaSing is proposed, use existing phasing. ~isting phasing is nol reflected in the Synchro models. 2. The Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard jnle~ction should be included in Ihe Synchro models. 3. Mitigation should be recommended for queuing problems at the northbound US 101 off-ramp during the PM peak. 4. Mosl intersections EU'e over capacity in the Year 2020 scenarios. MItigation. including payil1g fair share fees., should be recommended forme project's conlribution ro these impacts. "CaJlralts ''''",..,,,,,r mtlbiUry aCrrJu Ctrlifomig" ....~ E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 E-10 E-11 E-12 E-13 E-14 E-15 I L.,.II.......I.U &.I~"'~ u<ttJu uc.-u '-'u~<ttJ !B/3El/2b 1 '1,33 5182865559 CALTRANS PAGE: e3 Mr. SIc'. n 1100 Marth Y lOU6 rage 3 rrtW 1. lj;'".,tiC the resulting' level of significance lifter mitigation in the column for each analyzed II,..-r(':clion. Page 2-18, Mitigation 11-5A for 501h Percentile Queue. 2. h '! darity, recommended mitigation measures and resulting level of ~ignificance should C(,,',; ,~spond to the respective potential impncis for each analyzed intersection. Page 2-18, Mifigation 11-5B for 9SI~ Percentile Queue.. 3. Trlt resulting level of significance should be idenlified in the column for each analyzed "I'lsp.clion. Page8 2-19 through 2-21. 4. ~yshore BoulevlU'd i& not located along Home Depot frontage; Dubuque Avenue is the only " ,ulway that fronts the project site. Page 11.2, Indc)l. 11,2 Setting, 2t1d Paragrapb. 5. "0 ('!iSlem boundary of the project sitei:s tile railroad, not Bayshote Boulevard. Page 11-2, hAe" II ,2 Selting, 4i11 Paragraph, ( ,\< l" !$ the Veteran's Ro8dJOyster Point Boulevard intersection'? It is not included under ';', I'l,lersections on Page 11-5. The DEIR should describe how (his intersection ,~f~lent will help mitigate projC(;1 impacts, Provide SUpporting data and analysis for , ! (''';l1deni verifi<:8tiol),. Page 11-30, Planned Transportation System Improvements, 2"d ,!,h . '< \'2\1 Boulevtu'dlEast Grand Avenue intersection is not included under Study (!,~ on Page 11-5. The DEIR should describe bow 'his intersection improvemenr !,,;IP mitigal.c pJojecr impacts. Page 11-30, Planned TransponatioJl Syskm " . ,,,rments, 2t1d Paragraph. .'lIy planning to widen tbc: Orand Avenue approaches at the Orand AvenllelAirpon ,"afd intersection to accommodate the proposed addltionallmes? The DEIR does not analyze the inte1s~jon, oor to recommend mitigation. Please clarify this apparent ,r !i.i.ge 11-33, Figure 11-7, Year 2020 Lane Geometries and Intersection Cannol. U~tu", movement proposed for eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard at the Ilayshore .i1diAirport Boulevard inten:ection? Is illlccessary to provick an eastbound V-turn at . ,b iile,,,,ection" There is not enough widlh on Sister Cities Boulevard 10 allow U-turns "1.11" City plans 10 widen this street. Please verify and explain this proposed , . (' '.:ment. Provide sUPPoIling dala and analY5is for independent verificalion. II '. iie City should revise the General Plan to develop a miligation plan for traffic problems in ,'1(:.. plojecl vicinity. While the DEIR found traffic impacts lit several study area intersections he significant and unavoidable, Ihe long delays at these intersections should not be ,\"Of"ed. Moreover, operations at inlersections east of US 101 will degrade even further as development conlinues and land uses intensify. 'Car'tlfft. imp/Vyu mubilil)' t1C'OSl CalifomiaW t'o"T E-16 E-17 E-18 E-19 E-20 E-21 E-22 E-23 D3/38/2~a6 14:33 Mr. SIc\oc Culton Mon:h 11). 2006 Pa:c 4 5192865559 CALTRANS PAGE 94 HydNulics 1. Grading and drainage plans should be submitted for review when Iheyare available. 2. New development lit the project site sholild not alter existing drainage patterns, 3. Table 7-1 and 7-2 and Figure 7.3 should be revised so that they are readable. Encroachment p""," Work that encroaches Onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Dcpanment. To apply, a completed encroachment pennit application, environmental documentation, and fjve (5) seu of plane clearly indicating Slate ROW must be submitted to the addxess below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated jnm the construction pJans during the encroacbment pennit process. See the webr;ite link below for more jnfonnBtion. http://www.dot.ca.govlhq/tmfropsldevelopserv/permilsl Scan Nozzari. District Office Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P,O. Box 23660 Oakland. CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or ~tricia [email protected] with any questions regarding this letter. [~~ District Branch Chief IGRlCEQA. C: Ms. Tcn'y Roberts. Slate Clearinghouse Mr. David Tait, The Tail Group .C4l11'd~J lmp~fI m~b;ljry IZ("U/ C4J/fo....//J'. I""'~ E-24 E-25 E-26 E-27 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter E: California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 30,2006. Response to Comment E-1: Project-related turning movement volumes are provided 10 Figure A (AM Peak Hour) and Figure B (PM Peak Hour), which have been added to Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-2: It is agreed that an auxiliary lane idealized capacity is that of the on- or off-ramp it connects to. With single lane on- / off-ramp capacities of ::1::2,000 vehicles per hour, this would indicate an auxiliary lane capacity almost the same of the adjacent freeway lane. If there were no weave movements to/from the auxiliary lane, this capacity would be appropriate. However, with weave movements, a lower capacity is likely. The year 2000 highway capacity manual freeway analysis methodology has been utilized to determine the added capacity to be considered for those segments of the U.S. 1 01 freeway analyzed in the study that also contain an auxiliary lane. This produces a lower added increment of capacity due to the auxiliary lane than would be the case assuming the auxiliary lane has the same capacity as the on- or off-ramp it connects to. Potentially, this lower capacity reflects the impact of weave movements to/from the auxiliary lane. The analysis presented in the EIR is more conservative (and potentially realistic) than just assuming the auxiliary lane capacity is the same as the connecting on- or off-ramp. Response to Comment E-3: It is agreed that capaClt1eS for freeway ramp operations 10 Tables 11-5 and 11-6 are stated in passenger car equivalents (PCE). Volumes presented in Tables 11-5 and 11-6 are the same as those shown on the figures in the EIR. However, footnotes are provided to each table detailing the adjustments to be made to the volumes for truck to auto PCEs. Results for over or under capacity reflect conversion of truck volumes to PCEs. Also, for all Synchro evaluation of the Oyster Point interchange, the percent trucks is included in the analysis. Response to Comment E-4: The City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.l0l freeway. This fee goes towards a long list of circulation system improvements found to be needed with area buildout traffic (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001). Also, please note that the proposed project reduces the AM peak hour traffic on the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue from volume levels resulting from office development already projected for this site by 2020. It is unknown what capacity level Caltrans is using to judge that the northbound U.S. 1 01 off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue needs to be widened from one to two lanes. Capacity levels used for evaluating ramps at the Oyster Point interchange have stayed the same in studies submitted by the City to Caltrans for review over the past five years. Response to Comment E-5: The Home Depot EIR traffic analysis of the Oyster Point interchange, its ramps and the U.S.101 freeway was based upon the same analysis methodology, software assumptions and significance criteria as utilized in the recent Terrabay Phase 3 DEIR analysis, which has been reviewed by Caltrans District 4. Given that no significant written HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-33 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES response was received from Caltrans District 4 during the course of review of the Terrabay Phase 3 project in regards to any changes they wanted to see in the Terrabay traffic analysis, the exact same procedures were used for the Home Depot traffic evaluation. In addition, a meeting with Caltrans staff was held at District 4 headquarters during the course of the Terrabay review. No changes in analysis procedure were requested at this meeting. Finally, in Caltrans response to the Notice of Preparation for the Home Depot EIR, no direction was given in regards to changes in the analysis procedures for the Oyster Point interchange, its ramps and the U.S.101 freeway from that contained in the Terrabay DEIR analysis. As noted above in Response to Comment E-4, the City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U .S.l 01 freeway to account for fair share fees. Response to Comment E-6: The northbound approach to the U.S.l0l Ramps/Dubuque intersection was not requested for evaluation by the City, as it is a City controlled approach. Response to Comment E-7: Operation of year 2020 southbound cumulative off-ramp flow at Bayshore Boulevard has been fully evaluated as part of the Terrabay Phase 3 and Home Depot EIRs. A Synchro/SIM traffic presentation was made to Caltrans staff by the City, Crane Transportation Group and Fehr & Peers showing how signal timing adjustments could be made to more readily clear traffic from the off-ramps at the Oyster Point interchange, if needed. Response to Comment E-8: The indication that significance criteria #8 was associated with Caltrans reflected the fact that the Caltrans queuing criteria was the 95th percentile vehicle queue, whereas the City of South San Francisco queuing criteria (in #7) was the 50th percentile vehicle queue. The additional two percent volume increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing had been used in the Terrabay EIR with no comment from Caltrans Response to Comment E-9: It is unknown what additional explanation Caltrans would like provided detailing why the City of South San Francisco considers improvements at the Oyster Point/Dubuque intersection to be infeasible. Response to Comment E-10: Office/R&D uses that have been projected by the City for the site now being considered by Home Depot would be required to pay the City's off-site traffic impact fee. The previously referred to study (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001) has already evaluated year 2020 cumulative volumes with office/R&D development on the project site and developed needed mitigations, where feasible. The proposed Home Depot project will also pay the City's traffic impact fee, but will have year 2020 volumes decreasing or remaining about the same at the on-/ off-ramps with previously projected unacceptable Base Case traffic volumes. Response to Comment E-l1: The EIR evaluates 95th percentile queues for the Home Depot project in the same manner as analysis conducted in the Terrabay Phase 3 EIR. Caltrans had no comment regarding the use of the same significance criteria for the Terrabay project. PAGE 19-34 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment E-12: It is highly unusual to maintain eXlstlOg signal timing for planning level analysis of traffic conditions in future horizon years, particularly where significant volume increases are expected, as in South San Francisco. For year 2006 and 2020 evaluation, revised (optimized) signal timing was developed by the Synchro software program for Base Case conditions (AM and PM). This same timing was then maintained for Base Case + Project evaluation. Use of existing timing for future horizon conditions would produce nonsensical results and result in significantly poorer levels of service and queuing results than presented. The more idealized signal timing (which Caltrans and the City would have employed by the different horizons in any event) would then just need to be listed as a mitigation measure in the EIR. Response to Comment E-13: The Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point intersection was not requested for analysis by the City of South San Francisco nor by Caltrans in their response to the Notice of Preparation. It also was not evaluated in the Terrabay Analysis. Response to Comment E-14: There is no northbound off-ramp queuing problem projected during the PM peak hour. Response to Comment E-15: As noted in Response to Comment E-4, the City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.I01 freeway, which will account for fair share fees related to the project's contribution in the Year 2020 scenarios. Response to Comment E-16: Table 2-1 has been reformatted to indicate the resulting level of significance after mitigation for each analyzed intersection and to correspond to the respective potential impacts for each analyzed intersection. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-17: The reference to frontage along the Home Depot site has been revised from Bayshore Blvd to Dubuque Avenue. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-18: References to Bayshore Boulevard's adjacency to the eastern boundary of the site have been removed. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-19: The Veterans Road/Oyster Point intersection is along Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Gateway intersection. Planned improvements at this intersection will not impact operations at the Oyster Point interchange, but were requested for listing by South San Francisco staff, as they are part of an approved development projected for completion by the end of 2006. Response to Comment E-20: Planned improvements at the Gateway/Grand intersection will not help mitigate project impacts. However, they were requested for listing by South San Francisco staff, as they are part of an approved development projected for completion by the end of 2006. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-35 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment E-21: Planned widening of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection is part of the City's CIP program and will be funded by fees from developments east of the U.S.l0l freeway. These improvements are projected by the City to be in place before 2020. Response to Comment E-22: A U-turn movement is shown on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard since the Terrabay Phase 3 development is proposing a right turn in/right turn out access along Sister Cities Boulevard west of the intersection. A median along Sister Cities Boulevard precludes direct left turn inbound access by eastbound traffic at the driveway intersection. If this entrance is ultimately eliminated, then there will be no U-turns. Any needed widening to accommodate U-turn movements would be provided on the Terrabay Phase 3 site. Response to Comment E-23: As noted in Response to Comment E-4, the City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U .S.l 01 freeway. This fee goes towards a long list of circulation system improvements found to be needed with area buildout traffic (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001). Response to Comment E-24: Comment noted. Response to Comment E-25: Comment noted. Response to Comment E-26: Comment noted. However, it appears to the EIR authors that the tables and figure are written in plain language and use appropriate graphics so that the public can rapidly understand the document, consistent with CEQA Guideline 15140. It is unclear to the authors what is difficult to read or improperly formatted in the tables or figure. Response to Comment E-27: Comment noted. PAGE 19-36 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR AP.r 1~..,200_6 . . . . . 1:49PM CITY Or ~~r ~LHNN!Nu UIVl bOU-~C~-DO~~ ~.<:. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and. Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~"f~ f~ ...,e .} 'l;,ltl>FCAr:;; Arnold ScbwBnC1legger GOVBI1lDr Sean Wwsn' Din:cloT April 13, 2006 Letter F llECElVEn APR 1 8 2006 . PL~G 1[)~ . ...\. Steve Carlson City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco. CA 94080 Subject: Home Depot Project SCH#: 2005082032 ._~ --'-De.arSteve Oirlson: ,_'__'__-"!""_.=:':~I"__'____________~__:';_':"":'":=:'-__"_.~""~~___-'-':'. "_ ,._0_.- _ _ The enclosed comment (5) on your DrafiEIR WLIS (were) received byilie State Clearinghouse after the end of the slate review period, which dosed on March 16,2006. We are forwarding these comments toyau . because they pro~de information or raise issues that should be addressed in yoUr final environmental do~enl - F-1 - . . . . The California Environmental Quality Acl does not require Lead Agencies to re~nd to laIc comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments iino your [mal environmeotal dOl..'umcnt and 10 consider thc;m prior 10 taking final action on the proPQs.ed project Please cont1l;Ct the Stat~ Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any'questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, pleasc refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2005082032) when cD!l1actlng this office. Sincerely, c.":~~. ~ ;""~.;. . ~!r~ 7ri::, Terry rts . Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX SQ44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044 TEL (916) 445-061S FAX (916) 828-8018 ~.opr.Cll.guv HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-38 Letter F: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, April 13, 2006 Response to Comment F-1: Comment noted. Letters dated March 30, 2006 and April 12, 2006 from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were received following the end of the state review period of March 16. Responses to the comments in the March 30 letter (Letter E) are included in this Final EIR. While not included in the Final EIR, responses to comments in the April 12 are being reviewed by City of South San Francisco staff, and will be incorporated into the staff report for the project. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-39 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-40 IIClIo::J ........ c.."U,", v....,.. r I'll w ~ I 1 ....... '0.6....,1 t L..IIIIII ~ I 'f.2 U.L.".1. U~U -- U,,"--.J U'-'~...J t'.~ TOWN OF COlMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1190 EI Camino Real- Colma, California 94014 Phone: (650) 985-2590 . FAX: (650) 985-2578 March 14,2006 Le.~~e · G RECEIVED MAR , li 2006 PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South san Francisco, CA 94083 RE: - .. Draft EIR - Home Depot Project Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Home Depot project on Dubuque Avenue In South San Francisco. At this time, the Town of Calma has no comment. Please keep us Informed of the project as it progresses through the development review process. G-1 Si~C?rely . . - W% " a J. ~se, AICP C tv Planner HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-42 Letter G: Town of Colma, March 14, 2006 Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-43 HOME DEPOT PROjECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-44