The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 Terrabay Phase III August Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 1997082077 TERRABA Y PHASE III \ / ( I, ~/~\ I \ '" /' _\~ y/ '~4\ 't);?S<~:/~-'~~:\~~I. #:.~'l\:o;~~( /. \' .. \.. ...... .-'1, "" Y..,-.\- ..'" \~ , \ '(,!''i .',...__h.i~ '\ . I .. \, .-"., A. '/'. \ " ' ! 'i~< '. '( ~... "']i · f~::, ~ _ _ ~:;:~;---- Lc City of South San Francisco August 2005 + TERRABAY PHASE III DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY S.1 Project Overview S.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigations S.3 Alternatives to the Project 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose and Use of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) 1.3 Environmental Review Process 1.4 Contents of this Draft EIR 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Sponsor's Objectives 2.2 Project Location 2.3 Project Site Characteristics 2.4 Project Characteristics 2.5 Project Approval Process 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Introduction 3.1 Traffic and Circulation 3.2 Air Quality 3.3 Noise 3.4 Public Services and Utilities 3.5 Aesthetics 4. ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Alternatives Not Selected 4.2 Alternatives Comparison 4.3 No Project Alternative 4.4 Hotel Tower Alternative 4.5 Two Residential Towers Alternative 4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative Page S-1 S-1 S-2 S-2 1-1 1-1 1-3 1-3 1-5 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-9 3-1 3-1 3.1-1 3.2-1 3.3-1 3.4-1 3.5-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-4 4-12 4-21 Terrab'!J Phase III ProJect Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port Table of Contents 5. OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5.5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 6. PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT PREPARATION 7. REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B. Comments Received on NOP /IS C. Project Traffic Tables D. Project Alternatives Traffic Tables E. Air Quality Model F. California Water Service Company Will Serve Letter LIST OF TABLES Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project Phase III 1998/99 SEIRLand Use Program 2000 Addendum Land Use Program Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project, AM Peak Hour 3.1-2 Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project, PM Peak Hour 3.1-3 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, AM Peak Hour 3.1-4 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, PM Peak Hour 3.1-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base and Year 2010 Base Case + Project, Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base and Year 2020 Base Case + Project, Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-7 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange (50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), AM Peak Hour 3.1-8 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange (50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), PM Peak Hour 3.1-9 Trip Generation of Approved Development Within South San Francisco East Of 101 Area Expected to Be Built and Occupied By 2010 3.1-10 Home Depot Trip Generation 3.1-11 Home Depot Site Net Change in Trip Generation, Home Depot Minus Existing Site Use (Levitz Furniture) 3.1-12 Lowe's Site Trip Generation S.1 S.2 1.1 1.2 2.1-1 3.1-1 Page 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-3 6-1 7-1 A-l B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 S-2 S-3 1-2 1-2 2-7 3.1-12 3.1-13 3.1-15 3.1-15 3.1-17 3.1-17 3.1-18 3.1-19 3.1-23 3.1-24 3.1-24 3.1-24 Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 11 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 3.1-13 Lowe's Site Net Change in Trip Generation Lowe's & West Marine Building Minus Existing Site Uses 3.1-14 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase III Approved Use 3.1-15 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase II-Remaining Residential Development (as of February 2005) 3.1-16 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research & Development 3.1-17 Project Passby and Diverted Linked Trips 3.1-18 Terrabay Phase III Change in Peak Hour Trip Generation Currently Proposed Versus Approved Project 3.1-19 Proposed Parking Spaces 3.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.2-2 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood, City, 2002-2004 3.2-3 Predicted Curbside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, in Parts Per Million 3.2-4 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day 3.3-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 3.4-1 Estimated Demand for Water and Wastewater 4.1 No Project Alternative - Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.2 Hotel Tower Alternative - Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.3 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Hotel Tower Alternative (ferrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) 4.4 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative, AM Peak Hour 4.5 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative, PM Peak Hour 4.6 Two Residential Towers Alternative -Land Use and Building Square Footage 4.7 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Two Residential Towers Alternative (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) 4.8 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative, AM Peak Hour 4.9 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative, PM Peak Hour 4.10 Comparison of Impacts of Project With Alternatives LIST OF FIGURES 2.1-1 2.1-2 2.1-3 3.1-1 3.1-2 3.1-3 3.1-4 Project Vicinity Map Project Site Plan Project Development Area Area Map Location of Intersection, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Page 3.1-25 3.1-25 3.1-25 3.1-26 3.1-36 3.1-37 3.1-51 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2- 7 3.2-8 3.3-3 3.4-13 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-10 4-11 4-13 4-13 4-18 4-19 4-22 2-3 2-4 2-6 3.1-3 3.1-5 3.1-7 3.1-8 Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impa.-t &port 111 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 3.1-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 3.1-6 2010 & 2020 Base Case (Without Project) Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 3.1-7 2010 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-8 2010 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-9 2020 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-10 2020 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay Phase III Project) 3.1-11 2010 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-12 2010 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-13 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-14 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-15 2010 & 2020 Base Case + Project Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 3.3-1 Noise Measurement Locations 3.3-2 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, 10-11 May 2005 3.3-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 4.2-1 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-2 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-3 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.2-4 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-1 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-2 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-3 2020 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.3-4 2020 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes Page 3.1-9 3.1-22 3.1-27 3.1-28 3.1-32 3.1-33 3.1-38 3.1-39 3.1-40 3.1-41 3.1-43 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-7 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port lV SUMMARY S.l PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco. The site fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II to the west. The Project site comprises 21.2 acres. The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking. Access would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard and one from Sister Cities Boulevard. Project development would conform to the Wetlands Mitigation Plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2002 for the Terrabay development. The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases. Phase A consists of an amendment to the General Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan and portions of the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B, following City action on the Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and potentially minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase B, actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. Table S.l presents a breakdown ofland use by type and building square footage. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port S-1 Summary S.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATIONS Table S.2 at the end of this section provides a summary of environmental impacts, the level of significance of those impacts, identified mitigation measures and level of significance after the implementation of mitigation measures. TABLE S.l: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use Phase A Retail 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex Cinema, Grocery Store Residential Market Rate 475,000 248 Dwelling Units Below Market Rate Service Areas 70,000 103 Dwelling Units Loading, Storage, Mechanical, Restrooms, Supervised Play Area Phase B Office Total 295,500 1,198,000 Office CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant. The Project would result in significant cumulative impacts. The 2005 DSEIR discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Unavoidable significant impacts relating to traffic and circulation and air quality have been identified in this DSEIR. Please see Chapter 5 for a discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts. S.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 DSEIR include: No Project Alternative (development plan approved by the City in 2.000); a Hotel Tower Alternative and a Two Residential Towers Alternative. Based on an evaluation of each alternative compared with the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative and a comparison of each alternative with the proposed Project is presented in Chapter 4. Terrab'!J Phase III Prrject Draft Supplemental Em-ironmental Impact &port S-2 J b ~ 0' ~ Cl.. Q ~ Cfl 0 Cl.. 0 ~ Cl.. ~ ::r: f-l ~ 0 ~ Cfl ~ ::> Cfl ~ ~ Z 0 ~ ~ t.:l ~ E-l ~ ~ Q ~ Cfl b -< Cl.. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ;: .il ~ ~ ~ ::> 0 Cfl "I::l ~ ;: ~ Cfl % ~ ~ ~ E-< ~ .... E-l ~ ~ u lZl .~ i:Ii (:l '" ~ '" '" '" J:! g. '" E-< ~ ~ .... .... ..rl '"d ~..... ~u u ~ c; (:l U d d ~'E . ~ (:l ~ ~ <U co'~ <U .!S E <U ",,,,u .GJ'"d.....:.a bIl a'~ a E u GJ 0 d ~ '" b 8 ~ s s. ~ ] ~ ~ 'E ~d...~So~~5~ (:l<;lOd"'J:l(:l bIlO <U bh bIl co bh~ . g.L:l 5 8'~ ~ 8 13..s ~ U ~ -a p., 0 '"d p., '... ..e- ~ ~ <U .s ~~ a ~ 8'0 s.;3;- ::a ~.~ 5 ~ g ~~ ~ ~ .L:lCO(:) GJ",(:)<;I~ ~ E a (:lcj.;3 <Uf-< ~g g ~ ~ ,g <Ii c; j.L:l ... ~ ~ ~ d ~ U ':',,~ ~ ~ (:l ~bIl<:<l ---.. '""::I <U""'1f) ~ '" CI) 8. U.$ s:o... (:) If) '" a-B '" 0 o ej-8f-< 00 U ~ ::l g ';; gf <Ii '"d '" +1 .... <U O....-.OUGJGJ<Ua:l 'O''"d CI) f-I.D <U :;; ,fl ..J:l .- ... g..... "'.D---"'U;P" 0 ~dO~O-....U~::l~d:: 00 ... 0 ';:l 0 .","d ::l GJ.D .~ ~ 8 t!, 8:; ~ d ~.~ g ~ ..8 .D ::g ;,: ~ "''"d 0" GJ~" 0;;> C:l'"d ~~ GJ GJ....... bIlGJ....~.... 0 ~g ~..8.;3 ~ ~-8 S~.B &13 ~ ~t: ~ -B..!d d g.j ~ U ej GJ ~ U ~'" '""'.... '<:<I co ... GJ d tt: "l GJ GJ <:l a:l a GJ -B o.'"d ~ '" ej ;;J d'O' <:l '-..J:l ~ GJ ';:j GJ ......,.< '" "'. - 8 ~ ~ ~ -B 00:-0 (:) U 5::a ~ E 1 p., .~p-< ..8 ~ '"d c3 8 ---.. ~ ~ A. S ~ 13 E GJ..!d -B g 0 p g ~f\'E ~ " '" ~13 '" '" <Ii N '-" I'< 'if 0 ~ 8. 1:j bIl & ~ .~ .fr..s ~ ~ '8 8 ~ '" 0 E ~ '3 ~... H 0 .... GJ '~~~'::lp., C"8.~'O go'B~ ~'"d t ~ GJ (:l '"d GJ ~,,, g (:l ,,'" ~ '" J:l ~ '" ~~o"'.-s"'v 0-"'.... .,0. \j ~ .~ bIl~ j ~ '~ E'g g..s .s.s .~ ~ g 8.!'l ---....... E S ~ 5~'"d d N~-BP-<~~U~SGJu::;:-a~t1 ~..... v 1::l"d a:l ~ U v ~.9 0 ::l l:llZl .~ -Ill ... lZl "'.- 0 ~ ";::! d .... ---...-. v.;:! e' il 0..... ~ O:::l ........ co '" '"d U (:l 5'0 ~ 0.; S o'E ~-8 ,E ,E ~.s a g ~'<il " <'i '"d .v ...s-e-B ...c:: ~ u '" 0 u ~~8""..s:.E o '" 8:;] ... ~ ~~"'13~~f ~.;; ~ v d (:l :> 0 'P d"d v GJ ... '........ ... S ~ p., U ..... ~ ~ c-d~'"dvO<li ~"'~~~S'" ~ ~ i:Ii'~ 0 ,~ 'p v '"d 8 ~ S t: '... ~ (:l p., ~ B '"d U C::l 'P I .... ... ~ 0 GJ.... 0 U ~ .D .D U .~ "'t:....0...J:l0 .~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ t;l ~ '" p., 1l ~I v '"d i:Ii ~.s ~,13~.....JJ'"d GJ1ld..80",~ ~ oj 0 '" v 0 U C :> GJ '" j .... ::l ~-3gE.Ds--g ll) 0'-' 0 ~ 'P 0 C;~Egu~~ ~"'.8~.L:l~.D :;.,9.... ~t:: o;:;l d:l & ~ <Ii g.E'~ . "d EJ o .D 13 ... o d ll) 13 (:l o 1:j..t:i ,!:! ~ E 8 .88:: ... oj ....."d ~ ~ '"d :> d ll) o~ U 0 ~~ oj t: v 0 !~ . '" "d d o u ll) '" N aci <'"l Q CI) o H ~ o :r: ..!<I oj v p., ~ p., C:i o 'p '" ... o p.,...: 03 .... <U d"d '" <U 1] ~ ~ ~ u Ll:l .~ i:Ii o ~ . ~ '" '"d ",CI)U GJE .... d (:l ... 0 i:E 13 '" u (:l .'" ::lGJO ::l ~H"'O GJ Ui-Q ",]3 .D~~""os'" ~~'"d.DB~~ sf-< :=1 -lS ~ ,S il 'p ,S'~ ~..... ~"d v ~ ~ o. ~ fr s & t:: ~ GJ S J:! 0 0 g .g '(il u ..ti ~ . u U ... 0 ~ ~ v bIlO ~ t> d ll) (:l CI) B U ... ll) Z .... GJ ... d 0 (:l ? '0' co .- v 0 0 ':l '" ::l.... 0... "d ,;:j 0 0..... 6'..J:l 0... 'P H s.. ~ 0 ~.... "l U ~ ~ N.p l!:l "<!"., ~ Sl U ..L:l O;;J GJ ... '"d '" ,...,..; '" ..... +-' V GJ ~ .... ..!d 0" 0 '"d ~ '"d GJ ... J:! '-" '" .... ~.s ~ ~ !\> (:l '''' V CI) .L:l"d ? 8 :> v GJ .... J:! ;;J '" 0 GJ '" .~ "<;I &.-s;j ~ g (:l ~ 8 g. a 5 GJ..8 ~ p., d 0- ,S ....---..GJ o....~...~u.D GJ...,;:jGJ ~"d~<Ii~p.,a:lla:lp.,;;J~~'"d~13~1l~"" "'is>~ p., ~ '" ~ '0' '" 0 :> p.,~ v .... >-. '" '" ~ ~ ~l.~J~~ g.d::..s~~ ~ ~;-g~~ ~ ~ ,.:j '" e (:l ",.L:l 13 g g. ~ :E p.,.p GJ 0 oj..... ;:g~p.,~~.s~~13~ojf-<~l:l~~B~ .~ 'P ~"d C" U 'J::! 0 p., "'" GJ., ., V U t: u ~ U bIlv15 ~::>.;3 o"gp.,13 '" t bIlg.... oUlZl i ~.~ &8 ~ ~ ~ ~l] ~.] '~'~ ~ ~ ~o .t .... d'"d e::;:.. ~~13 ",~CI)ollp.,'"d ~_---..---..H '" <:l ,;:j d p., v p., E v ';:l . 0Il'"d"d ll) -'"dov=J "d0~ 'H'"d"d~V",,,,~ll) <:lV, :>' v.... "0 ~&~'"d"'''''''.D ~N~-Bv '"d.-.GJbIlU. "'O~'"d:>~"''"d ~ ~ ~ -B ~ .!. ~ 11 .g .~ '8- ~ ~ p.,o ~ ~ -s ~ fr~ " d p.,'J::! 0 ... 0 v '-" ~ ... I':; co 0 ::> ~ 0 ~ :> ~ '"d p., ~ ,S ~:r: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "! ..... <'"l I:: ~ "l:: " ! -- "l " ~ " ,~ ;; '-1l -- "l " ~ t " '-0 ~ Ci 't; .; d:: E2 ~ 2: % ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '-1 ..-.. '1:l ~ ;:l ;:: .~ ;:: o U '-' t3 ~ 5' ~ ~ o ~ rn o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ f-t ~ o ~ rn ~ ~ ;:J rn ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ f-t ~ ~ o ~ rn t3 <: ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ;:J rn N rJ:i ~ ~ ~ f-t ... Cli ~ t:: ol ol >.U Cli d t:: ol Cli 0 ..::l 0 ~ "'..d U, ....:0 Cli ol-.:J(I1;3 ol Jj>QC)O~l:l ~ u, >-l '" 0.. S 0 Cli "1::l 0 ... ~.c1~~;3Cli~ UJ~(I1u~ilJS ;::J Cli 0 Cli""~';:l >. p.. >-l ~ U S !ib ~:;s Cli >Q ,S:!.. .... p..::OCli8~~ .S '" ~ ~ p.. ~ '" ~ 0 fr.c1 13 ~.s "':;SUO"'d::'" ~-<:~~& Jl oo.oE~SuOJ t:: ,\:J ~ o..S..c "1::l ~ ~ .~ Cli ol "1::l "3ol0813tl"3 0.c1...0.. dO ~ U t:: '" t::' ,.::l ~ ... ~ ,g ~.g ~ ~ U Cli oS Cli oS aJ U ,S:!.. ~ '" ~ '" '" ~, O!ibCli!ibCliU_ '"Clio..Clio..Cli~ p.. '" 0 '" 0 "1::l ,~ .-0 Cli '3 c:r Cli '" t:: o ':0 ~ ':0 '8 o Z "1::l Cli ~::o ... ol t::"1::l oS.... JS ~ .~ a U5;::J "t t":S Q) <t: Cli "1::lJ:l Cli ooCli13 !l ~ 1 Cli g ~ ~ Cli :! @ ~ . ~~l~~li~~~o~~!~~[ --... ~ Cli 0..11 U 0 Cli Cli Cli... '" -.:J Cli 0..;:1 !:l "1::l.,c:l"313 c:r l:l l't"1::l -: g...fl1l o.~ a:l..c ~ ~OOOOClio.. t::olCliOO",Clic:..c1",'O :> i1>Qu;"1::l.f3 B 8 ~'P t:: Cli~ Cli"1::l"1::l >. -3 ~ ,~ ';;;"] ~ 11 ~ ~ 5..!:l [J ...:] ~ ~ 0.... E..!:l '" Cli"1::l ol- uo;l;:l '" 0 '" ~ Cli >Q'-'UUP..dt:: ..d,"t::c:rCli-P!:lCli ~ :E '" -.:J Cli ~ -.:J Cli 0 ~ ~"'--"1::l ~ .~ ~ !l ~:5.B S'S:.8.B~ rB -~..!:l ~ ~~ ''''"3 :a (") Cli' S 8 Cli 0 "1::l 5 Cli - l:l-.:J U 0 en - 'U ~ 0 o..~ u; oS U ~ ~ 0 t:: ~ >Q "1::l ~ ';:l l:l ~ Cli' '<::' Cli "1::l l:l Cli '" tl 0 ... t:: t:: ol a:l 0 '" u"<:<..d "1::l o....d 0.. Cli .~ ~ "0 :> ..... V).~ . "P C';S "P ~ ...... OJ U (11000 "'oSc:.CliClio13 .=~~t:: --"'E'-t3~l:l"'" 'CliC::;;"'u;,So..!:l_.e! ~~'" o..Ob"'~"1::lCli~t::"'''1::l.c1.:a .,; --... aJ 0 t t ~ 'C5 E 0.t;J Cli.g g 3 gF"d ~lCliuJ:lJ:lla:laS~13ol",oo~ ]:>13 ~u;~ E &J<t: ~ 0 ~1l aJ;g.fj l:l >QCliaB~(")~~..!:l~~"1::l~S~"1::l~ ~gCli~-<:a~::O~ol>.O~~11t::3..!:l 0>Q~ol60 .~oSB~ Cli"'0"1::l0..c .c1 ... - 0 ~.:o Cli 0.. 0 '-" \:i 'U t:: ..c ..!:l ~,S E l't [J;-a [J Cli l't 00 .e-- 0 :E 8" 0 tl'< 0 t::-.:J -<: ~ ,g g Cli '" U g,ol ~ ~ ;:I Cli '" ';3 ..c l:l ~ Cli 8 ~.S g .......... . Cf) OJ ~ 0,:5 ~ ~g""l1 lI.) ~ Q) ~ "3'::00 o t:: '... ... >QO~~ ...."'O~Z3 .S 3"1::l '" & c ~ 8 ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ 'Cil ~ ~. 0 t:: ~ olz8u, ~ U i+l .~ U5 t:: oS ~ '" j 00"1::l .~ ~ J3 .S ~ "1::l ol ol '" Cli "1::l Cli.c1 ~ 0..t::'~;3 ~ S,S ~ ,g ~ ~ -oS '"olUP 8~~>'~~J!3 o..~a~o.....~ Cli 0.;3 Cli 0 Clio.. ..c::i)OCliU,t::~ t-< ~ :> ~ (11 oS,~ .;:i ~ ~ ~ o.E a ~ 5' ol 0 >-l "3 ':0 -e., '" ~ 13 ~ '" l:l J;d",,"olCliCli '~..::l ol 0 U '" 0.. '->"'>Qu, "1::l0 ~1! ;:J . ~;3 0.. ~~O]~~~~~ ""....c1 Cli '"", \:I' 0 ~. :> tl >. U j:\t::,,,, .,;Clioli+l ~ "1::lCli .e--.c1 '0' ~ 'a ~ ;30 ~'~ B d:: ~,~ <:;:)"<:<0.. ,"", _~p..ol"1::l"1::lU,t:: c~ u~~.~ <'\l~~Cli~OU13 .. .~ '<::' :>,~ o..S ~O,.<:<OOOol~ >=;d::-<:~ ~~tl..!:l ~ - <'i 1l..!:l ol..c ... ol t::"1::l ol '... JS ~ '~ a U5;::J '" c:: ~ ~.g Cli :E Cli 0..- "1::l Cli ;:I Cli Jl Cli ~ l> c:r l;;: Cli ~ o Cli..!:l Cli :> Cli ~ 8"~ Jl ~ ~ ~ . l:("'CliO~.c10 -o..:>..d ol 0- Cli Cli Cli -.:J j;'n'" 0 ..c:: lj ",,~ 5ll "1::l C"l t-< olgu . ol~,5' . '" "1::l U _n -\:l Cli '13;3 Cli "'-' ~ 5' ~ J:l 0 ~,~ . ~ "'..... ~ Cli Cli ~ .... E Cli..!:l ",;:I U ~'... l:l ~ J:j t:: c:r S. .l:: ;3 .c1 ... ~ ,g Cli ~ ;'l '" ~ fr ~ ol ~.~ ;:,: Cli '" U U U ... C)l'::g~tl.QCli~ ~ 0':0 ~ .S:!..o;l ~ JS ~ t:: oS' 8 l:l >Q ';:l .."1::l~ 0..l>Cli5'o ~ ;3 _'~ ..... Cli ;:: '... O......~\ool(l)~tn ~ ~ ol Cli ,g "" ~ Cli <:;:) ... ~..c;-a '" fr..c <'\l ~';3 "1::l "1::l Cli U "1::l ~ '0' Cli;3 ol [J ~"3 ~ d:: g.. ~.=l g.. g ~ u: - <'i -.:t , [fJ l:: ~ 'c " ! -.. -"l '" ~ .~ '" il-1 -.. -"l '" ~ ~ '-'l ~ Q " .~ 0.. t:: ~ " 2: ~, -<> ~ ~ ~' ~ '" '-1 .- '0 ~ ::: ;: .c ;: o U -- t) ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ en o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- ~ o ~ en ga ~ en ~ ~ z o I-< ~ t.::l I-< r-- I-< ~ o ~ '1:l S o .c iJ o I:: v .'19 '1:: o M 'i'~ vi .~t . r:r I:: i v .!l ~.!l , '1:l .c Iv .s ... 0.. o V .~ U ~ ~ ~ B 8-B '0 .. ~ ~ cl:;g< en t) < ~ ~ I-< ~ o ~ ~ ~ en N rJi ~ ...:l ~ r-- I:: .... .. ; !5il ~ .~ jVi . I I:: .... -- .. ; .",,J:l u ~E-<~ ;: V) ;:1 ~Q36b ~HVi . V"l I VJ ... 1! V) I> o , '1:l ... .. I> ~ 0'1:l1 1=0 ... V) ~ .~ (; .~ ;3 ~ ~Jc; t;; ~ ,~ 0 U) , '1:l' ... ~, v'1:l ;3 :;: c ~ j:Q;3 V 0 l51=O ..c::.... ~.S .. 0 1=00.. ] ~ V I> '0 '19 -B ~ :c 2~~ o I:: M'1:l ~;;> 1=Oi<j;:lI::~~V)" V) "O;:l Q ... .... V '" ... 0 V .. I:: :E ~'19 -9 .E ~ V vi u";:;ll~:l;3~tl ... S ... v.~ 0 > I> ~ E 1J V ~ 1=0 g '0 .~ r.n...s cu en ~ ""d U)..t: .. 0 '1:l .lj ~ .... '1:l .!l '1:l .....;;:." ~ I:: d V) 0 U '- ;:l 0 i<j 'E ... ... I 8 oevvo..~oo.. -9 v ; S o.~ J:l >. ~"Cl_v~U)...c V 'p:..c:: I> ..... V) '1:l vOM8'1:l0~v '19 l5..;:l 0..;3 V 0 tl vog.s..8~~.g !:l .... 't:1 V).c 0 d ~--8 ~ ~ --8 El ...." 8 Q eIl'~ .. cO U '1:l V oo:l-o.qv.c U ltu 8 It 1:: 11 ;:;l ~ g< ~ E g< g ~.~ '1:l g CXl 1 ~ d U) V 0 iJ H d El o 0 V . :::r:: j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... g. ;;g '-+'< '1:l 0.. ~ ~ .. >.. '1:l I> s-3 d V .~ '1:l 0;3 .. u 0 ~ ~ 1i "" V U .... 0.. ''!:l ..~o~ V 0 .... > !~ E~ ] s V U ~ 1i ,.!oll o o :::r:: '1:l @ o .c '19 ::: o U) .-; c .-; vi ::i ~ , v, '1:l U ... U ~-< V .... "3 i:l o ,- j:Q 8 V 0.. "" o V) ..c:: p, ~ ~ I=O~ V) +- V) U ';::l V 't:I ~ '0' V +0-1 0 ~ ~ .. 4:l 0.. 0 V) '1:l v..c:: Cd'19~ V;:l .. 6021=0 ~.c~gf o.S 0 0 6 M 4:l Ol ....,~ U d u. So .~ ..'p o ... ,tj u ~,~ '1:l V '1:l S fA ~ S V 0 u 0]-9 I>- -9 ~ ;:l ~ ;:l "0 V o d;::::l I> . V 0 .. 'tl '1:l ... 'p ... '1:l :;: .. U V I> J&'1iJ1Jv ... ~ ... ;3 . ~... 5 0 ~ ,S E- .... V .. l5 ;3 ,~ ..c:: 0 l>- V) 1=0 .. .. V ~ ~~~ 'p:..c:: , 8 ~~ 0.. j:Q '0 c vi V"l ~ '-. ~ U) o H 1:1 o :::r:: ~ v 0.. ;;g 0.. d ~ ..8 ~ ~ V 0- 0..;E 00 ... I> E~ ] 2 ~ ~ . 0'1:l V ~~::o d ... .. i<j d'1:l u t":S '- '-tl u 0 ';:1 '-tl I> 5'0';:1 .. Vi ,~~ U) -- ,'" ~ ~ ~ . ... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u.~ 1:1"';:l V ;:l;;;Z u 0 .- ... I:: ~ 0 ~ 0 :(j '19 .c '" .~ v'" S 8 6 0 El .c ..c:: 0 ..c:: ~ a M>L." c. I ~ ~ l5 ,S '1:l + >. 0.. 0 6 '-tl ~ ~ V ~ 'V ij ,;1 VJ c; ~ ..c:: ~ ;3 .c v ~ ~ >.'~ . ,~ 8. ~ ~ 8. ~ ~ 8 0 ~ ~ ~"~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~'19 g- ~~'Ul -\:l ~ ;;g -< vi;;g ~ '1:l H tl ~ ~ ~ 1=0 ~ d U 2:l ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ '~ 0.. ::i -< '0 ~ ... d 0.. V ;;> U .... I>- 0 V U " ..c::.. ~ 6 '1:l ti '-. "'1:l V) 5'@ 0 -; .$ II -< o'~ ~ ,S s..!<4 u 2:l ~ ~ dVVd"''1:lu6ed~d~~tll=O'1:l~g'1:lUo ~:g "'O';:l ,9.E d tl 2:l I::.;:::l . ,l:1 ;:l ... 0.. 0 ;3 ~ :::r:: ;3.E > ..~~...w... 00.. i<jMI::...O..O....o'1:l OV);;> ti ~ < 0.. ~ ~ >L. i:l V ~ '19 'E ,g g..c:: ~ '1:l" U ~ .. --g ~ 1:; 1i ~;;> '1:l-<~U)V)~0 ;3'"iU..!<4;3"'VJV)d;:ldijV ~ a a 1i V ~ 0 ~ 't:1 ~ ~ V) g. ~ 0 ~ 0 1:; >-< o.g - !5 -.: 0 'El & g..S H ... ... d.!l 2:l - 0..j:Q V H ij -?;5 ~ ~ . !l '~'1:l 8.E g-.~ g g ,g ~ -g" ~ .~ ~ .~ g 1i"O ~ ;:l 8.'19 ~ ;: ~ d o..;:l Cil 6 ~ ~ ~ 2:l '0 ... U V 'u~ (:Q J I> ci c55 o'~ ~ "'VOV~~V OUv..;:l..d ~ '1:l- "V"l 1~'fi'19~6~~~~.Eo..tl-g~tlo&~~8S~~ ,.,.;:::l ...'19 ... 0 --::j V V '1:l V .. ... "" ~ ~.. "w - .~ C/) w ~118.,<::! ~ 5 ~ ~ 1:1";3 ,a g.o...;1Vi~(:Q>L. ~0 i:lo ~ ..:; N 0 ~ V '1:l ~ V V 0 0 i3.):I:g El '-. '-. 6 C/) tl 0 ~ H tl ~ I>- V V);3 fA tl tl..c:: ~. V) ... ~ '1:l '1:l '1:l 0 0 0..'-. V 0 0.. ~Ol:a d 0 0 d V v~ V)~ ~ ~ V):;: "'~H 0 2:l S'" 0 vi ~ ; g,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 8. ~ Mil u.g ~ ~ ~ tl e ..8 'v) ~ e tl ~ J ~ 8 ~ z ~ 11 ~ ~ j :~] ] J J ~ ! J ~ ~ s J ,t ~ - <"'i l: ~ .,.. " ! -- <l " ~ ,~ " ill -- <l " ~ l '--l ~ " o .~ ~ d: t::i ~ Jl 0., % ~ ~ a " ~ '" '-'; ....... '0 Q) ::l c: 'C c: o U '-' b ~ 0' P:: ~ o ~ rJ) o ~ o P:: ~ ~ ::r: ~ P:: o ~ rJ) ~ P:: ;:J rJ) ~ ~ z o 1-4 ~ ~ 1-4 ~ 1-4 ~ o ~ 10'" ~ '" 0 .~ ~ ~ ~!-<~ I:: '" r:1 ~ ~ 0'.0 '->HVi . "0 ;~ 1.....0 "";~ .~ ~'o I:I'~ :>- I:: '" " 0 ~Vi::> . ~ .~ ~ ~ '-> 'd'~ S 5 o S -So 0- g ~ ~ ... s 6 O::::l "0 '" (/) sJl 9 o '" ..0 ; !3 .S ... 0 ';;;" F-< ~ :r: ~ <Ii ~ ~ U 0.. U 0 ~ s '" p., t ~ ~ ::E .~.!d '0' p., 00... P:..2:; ~ 0 El o.-s 0 ~ ~ ~ j l.s ~ g. B .. ;>. o '" .g~ ~ 0 0- 0..;.E o 0 ... :>- o '" .'S-g "3 0 '" U ~ ~ "" .~ ~ ~ '-> o .-s s o ~ '- B ~ o <:;:l "0 S o -S ::l o ~ "0 ~ ; 0 "0 .~ S"O 2 ~ .S ~ .~ : ... U q ,~ 'OJ 0 ;:2P: ;>. ~ ~ 'Q "0 ... U . 0"0 '[ tJ p., r; 0"3 .-s 0 o~ o ~ o 0 ;il - ;>. "0 '" ~~ '"..<:: o U "0 '" .~ 8 o 0.. P:~ "0 S ,~ o ;>. :B ~ ::l4!. o 0 '" I ... 0"<:: .-s,gp 04-< o .~ o.r:f ; U - '" E ~ B ~ "'''0 ~... 'Q ~ ~ 0 0"3 ..<:: 0 "'~ . '" 0 . ~Ci~ '~..<:: '" o ~~ ... '" :>- p.,~," ... 0.. ..<:: .s~ 8" ...~"'o~ ~] 0 0.. O';l 0 4-< ~ i:l ... \0 o "i 't:l 'a 0 ~ 0 0 ci U:J ,""O~o"';>.il 0- ~..21 [S~.s &.~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 0 0 2 ~ ... -g ~ ~ . (/) il 0 0 Ol .-s '-'-<..8 ,"'Q jj '" 0 o 0 'a ~::l jj 0 ~"d "'] H U 0 ~.~ 0'" ~ ~... '" U "i .~.~ ~ ~ ~ o. ~ ~ ~ ~ U '",~ "0 _... . ,~::::l 0 0 ;~g~o",008~it:r: ..._ '"-0..00p.,"0...!d CI-;.;J ~ t 0] ~ ~ 0 ~ '" a'l ; 't:l >-< '"::> ~ "0 .-s..<:: g p., (/) ~ t:l ~ 0..0 0"2 ... ~'a ;:2 .-s 0 o.~.-s ~:g ~..8 8 a:l p., ::l 0 g 0 l;l::l '""O';ii'o..~ .~ 'a !:i ~ 0"U 0 ~ 0.. 0.. ~ v, '" 0 -- 0 rr:1 ::l '" d 4-< tl <t: >. U "'!-<.S.!d O'~ oo..,"..<::~o.. ...UO"O .e- 0 ;>. 0.. '" 0 Q)"3] 'a l;l ,~,. '" 0 ~ ... i '" U:>- U~""Or.n-U' Q)~Q)Q) oO(/)~,g8$, S ~E"3 t5 H ~ -&.~ El S'~] ,E >8 .. ;>. o '" ,g ~ ~~ o U 0..;E o 0 ... :>- o '" .'S-g "3 0 '" U ~ ~ --d o '3 c:r o ... o o 'a .~ 's o Z ~ U Ll:l '~ Vi o '" t5 '" '" o H rJ) ~ U -< ~ ~ 1-4 ~ o ~ ~ ;:J rJ) N u5 ~ i-:l ~ ~ '" 01)0 0 ,~ Ci 0" ~ 13 ~'Q).8 ~o C/) C"I U .., ..\ ""- o " 0 :;;: l::; ... 0.. iJ ...,~ U ~ 8 0 0 ~ ,S ,~ o..~ gf ~ U tl 0_ ~"O$ ~ t5;:;-E"3~"O uioo"'"3 >:i::iE~i:l:; ~ ~'... 15 ~ ~ ~osotl... '-< ,"'0 ~ 0.. 0 ~ ,S p., 0 0 ~ ~ .., t CI) ~ @: .~ "3 ... 0 0 0 I:l '" '" Z 4-< '" ~o;>. Ot> ~ 0 . '" " ~ootJ.-s~ ~o.-s'"o~ ~"O...g.~~ r.r.;"3 a'l.):1 c!., 0 c:,~oi:l~.-s ~...i:l~.-s~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~.a ~ 0 0000'""0 ~ P: ~ ';;l.-s ; I-; - <ri \0 I C/) \: ~ ~ '" ! --.. .::! " ~ .~ " Lt1 --.. .::! " ~ 1 '" ~ c:: ~ '~ ~ :::: .... ~ ~ "'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ........ 'tl ~ ::l c: "-t: c: o U '-" t) ~ 0' ~ ~ o ~ rJ) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ :I: f-l ~ o ~ rJ) ~ ~ ~ ::E Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ E-t ~ ::E o ~ rJ) t) ~ ::E ~ ~ o :>-. ~ ::E ~ rJ) N en ~ ~ ~ E-t B c:: ~ .g ,-'" 8 l:J p.. 0.. "Cl 0 li ~ ~S~ iU >-'~ -S ~._ CSJ ~ '" ,9 ~ ~ ~CI..-S S"~::; o a:l.!!:l ~ '815 iU 0.. "Cl ~1l"3 "-"'1:>0 '" 0 !:!: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U iU 0.. ~ -s.s "0 c::.!!:l "'.0 "'" '" C::"Cl '" .- U 0 l+:l I:> '~ a U3;:J t'- I CI) '1:i iU '3 0'" l:l c:: o 'l:I &'b 'l:I '8 o z ... iU "'" '" :>- o ---. "Cl ... iU '" i=! ~ ~ "3 ~ re' o "Cl iU ~ ... u ~ ~'e 'l:I iU Q.J ug.: ... ~ 0 ~ t:; Q.J JJ~o~ ---. I "Cl' ~ ... '-'" ~ ---. '" Q.J "Cl '" "=' ... '" ;;> ~ "'" o iU Q ~"3Q.J Q.J 0 S ~ ~ ~ .0 "" 0 ~.S ~, '" 0 s:: ~ p.. ,:= . ~t:; "'d ~cdGJ~OJ ~~ OJ ,~ .!!:l 'B g e ,,; 0 0 ~ (/J ~ 5:l:I ;:l Q.J 'O!:!: ~ "OiU~~O"'~I:>,.... .'f> sC::iU"ClQ.J-.!!:liU ~ o~ 0..",'B E Q.J;j ~iU -B.e-s:g5E~8~~ ~"'~"'~iU~EBo ~ ~ iU B &"s E "" '" ~ "s ~"s ~"s.s' 0 ~ ~:E B ;:;s ~ .~ ~ B ~ 11 :;; i . "Cl "Cl iU 'l:I ~ ;:l CSJ I:> ~.ess;"s~~~g", .5$ 8 S~~] si!.s..s ~ Eg:8..s"CliU"ClO"Clofr E..sUSO"CliUC::S""iU <t:"Cl~.bS~B"Cloo~ iU ~ ... ,- S ,"" 0.. B.o c:: !::- - I:> CSJU O..z;;; 0 u "" "'" w ~~aiU~~~~~.E~ .r::; 5...... ~ OJ t:1 cd po 00" OJ iU~ t B S"s"-'" & "Cltii ~ ~ ~ ~ -R s; 0 ,13 ~ ~ II o 'l:I 0 Q.J 'Eil"O Q.J E uS'" ,,'" U'- 0 ;:l 5 c:: ~ iU iU iU c:: .... N 0"'.... '" r-< '" "Cl "Cl 0 """ o """ ui o ---. Q.J ;:l c:: ~ <t:: Q.J ;:l 0' ;:l .g o ---. 11 p, ~ S -3~ o c:: ~o """Cl ,~ S p.. 0 ....0 ~1i '" "Oc::t iU ..s ..s l:J UJ 0.. :Q "s .5 '" ;:l >-.. c:: 0 E 8 UJ '!3 "'..... Q.J ... 0 ;:l 5e-CT' S ,- "" iU U a:l I:> >- ,- 0.0 8 ~c::p.. l=: ,g 13 ,,; ,l;l u ;:l c:: ~ ~ "Cl.g ,~ l:J l:l;a ~"" B c:: .0 ,;1 4-< 0 0.. "'..... U o ';:l '" iU ~"tj~:a GJi-Io.f! ... ..s u 0-. cq Q) en GJ Q.) :0''0 u t.~ ~ ~ ~ "'... r-<~CI..B . ~ U l+:l '~ U3 ~ !5 '" .s "Cl iU ~;:o "'" ..s ~:Q u 0 ll:l ~ '~ a U3;:J iU .r~ iU ~ "Cl ..s '" ",,,s a:l iU.c: l:l 0.. ""Cl "'o..uSB'" Q S::.S ..s'l:I iU .... C<l "'..s c:: 8~~>.~~ 0..1O'~~&l:J 1ll~;3iUO..d !5 iUO iUCI..~ . ~l:>tiiUJiUU ~..... iU iU 0 .9 i:E "",>.CIltr.l cU ~c::"'OH"'ij 'S-.",u"sQ.J"3 ~'r'l GJ r.n U) d ......;::< '" ~ '" l:l ,;::< <-'~~CI..U"Cl ~ t",~ .&"3;j R:; l:l o'~ ~ ~.e ~o~] ~ t.!!:l "c::'<'! ..siU.o ""Cl iU e-.c: .- ..s t:"3 0..'0 0 8 ~ ~o;:;s..s"",p..", ~ ~ p.. ~"Cl "Cl a'l ~"''''u~&S C'\ja:loiUa:lOo ~ ._~ 1:>._ 0.. c:: ,," 8 .8 8 8 ... ..... p.. ..s 0.. 0.. 0 oq <'i "Cl M"3 ,~o ~ iU ~ U "0 ;:l '" t l+:l ~ 0'" Q.J iU'~ o ;:l ,- 50 ~~ ~ e 'Crl OJ 8:E CT'p.. 0 I:> 0 o-'iU.!!:l I::"'" 13 N III I:> U 0 '" 0 ~ iU:E'l:I iU 0 N r-<;:OiU;ae""'>- ..s 1:>"Cl ;:l1l.o ~o.iU..sO"''''''M ~ iU ~ C::.!!:l g." 'S-. ~ U >-J.u ~ ~ ~'..s iU ,,;:E iU ;:l c:: '" "" III .... ~;:l "'] I:> '" v ,i:! iU ~. iU B & ~ U iU ""'.l:I '" ~l;:l l:J.!!:l ~ ..s U '-'!"g.c:.o..sgiU ~ ~ ~ ~ gg~ ~ ~ O-.c:: fl"","E~ ,,,,,:g 0 U.... iU iU "'" ;;> 'l:I u v 1:>- O",..s"3iU-E! c:, ~ u .S 0 '" ~ ~.....9:s~~fl" C'\j g ~ 'J::! U '" U ~ '0' 0 ::> i:E '0 ~ ,,'" ... ... iU '" I:> c:: .....p....s.oij~;:l 0; ""'" <'i '1::. ct 'i: '" ! ---. ~ " ~ .~ ., '-!1 ---. ~ " ~ l "" ~ Cl '" .~ R. E:: ij if; i;'. "" g ~ --- "1j QJ ::l c: .~ c: o U '-" E-t U ~ 0- ~ ~ o ~ C/'} o ~ o ~ ~ ~ :I: E-t ~ o ~ C/'} ~ ~ o C/'} ~ ~ ~ z o J-ol ~ ~ J-ol E-t J-ol ~ o ~ ~ .... ~ .~ u '-J '+l 'g, U3 ~ F: '" '" Q) H C/'} E-t U ~ ~ ~ J-ol ~ o ~ ~ o C/'} N 00 ~ ~ ~ E-t .. 0.0<-8 ~ Q) I=l B ~ ,9 I=l" :::l.... 0.0 .-0 o ..c: ..c '" 0 'o:! 0 o:l .. 'p u S o:l i3.p .... ..c: tJ .. Q) ~ c.s c.s c.s Q) ';;j u ~ a:: '" o:l ~..c 0 > "8 ~ Q) -B ~ ~"O 1f ~ ~~ Q) Sl S-%1 '0 <-8 :g ~ ~ S ~ ~.... ~ ;.,g ~ ~ ,Q 0.0 ';3 0 0 >-<.... '" ~ """:::l ';l ..... :~ .~,~ 00 d..tl . 0.. g ~ Oo:! 0 l:l ;jl ;l;l ..d------S..Q)...!!l..c:....o I ..>'Q)..:::IQ)Q)-BQ)Q)"'s..c: 8 ';jl o:l::;l -B ~..a Q) -B""" S t 10.0 Q) >-. Q) o..,s -B ';l .... ..c 0 e..... .,g c.s ~-g~Q) cr"<:, ~C5S ~-E e-~'''' Q)>Q Q) U F1 0 ::> c.s 8 ~ u >'0 .... C/J"O 0 ~ .9 'P :; ~ ~ ~ bSl~ ~ ;:l ~ .':::1 ~ p ...... c.s 0 ..fl ;:<::=i u ';l OIl 00 0 8 ~ gJ ~ l;l ~ 0 ~ '>,<>:; ~ ~ ~ B'p 0.. .... ~"'o bSl~::s ct ~ . ~ ~ l;l ~ a:: :::l c.s Q) "'d OIl 0 o:! Q) "'..c:g " ., (:l ~ ""'r:l .g ~ ~...-.I c:l....-I ~ "" ~ -fil -B.S ~;l;l ~ B ~ u.o.~ ..,~ 0 .... S 0'0 l;l >, Q) > ~ ~ ~<-8"O u ~ c.s ~ ~ o..;:a l;l (:l ~ ~ ~ c.s ~ 0.0 ~ u!io (:l Q) ,.., .... Q) .... o:l ~..c ~ ~ % 8 ~ ~ -B ~.s i i3 ~ ~ 8.g:>< ~ g. 0.. .... <-8"""0 0.. '" '" ~ > d 5 i3 Q) '0 ..j...I~ ""'r:l->..tl'JcuCd ""'O~""C U l3-B 8 $l (:l ~ -a i3 -B 1l B >,<-8 ~ '~El >,'p ~ ~~ Q) so.... Q) ~"O Q) 8 Q) ~ a ~ OIl OIl '" 'bb .... in o.o;:l Q)'E 0.. ~;;> tlflfl ;:l ;1 "';;::l ~ cr'"O Q) ~ ~,~ <-8 ~:.s:.s ~ 'SJ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ r-< S"O ,9 -B ct a g.';jl 8 ~ 8 l;l ~ 8 ~ c.s u '+l 'g, U3 "0 ~ ~ ~ c.s ..c Q) u .~ ..j...I ~ ~ a ,9 ~ 0 ~ ~ ti..j...l . ..c:::s-B ~ '2 C ('d'~ 'C/j'.g c.s 2..0 t::u u " .... 0 Q) ;;::l Q) ""p t:: o..Q)t::ut:: g...c,~ Q) 8 ....Su@"O u ~ Q) 0 t:: .S:L tfJ a U ::1 8 Q) 0 Q) 0 p.. :g u l:l..c Q) Q) >,.,g ,9 .,c::....~'-"Q) r-< ';jl ~"E 8 .~>c.s'-" .~ ..:g t"E ~<-8...."Sg: i'lbSluOQ) .l:; .fl '8- >Q "S \j;l;l..Q)0 ~~p.,~>Q t;j o..:::l..c: '" I ~ c:J ~.~ o .,g .~ d3 u o ..-. ..-. t<'i ~ u '+l 'g, U3 t:: c.s F: '" j 00 I C/) .. OIl <-8 Q) OQ)d" ..c III t:: .... .....jj:j t:: :::l.... OIl .-0 .~ -B El ~ i3'~ .... .a g ~ Q) ~ l;l c.s c.s Q) ';;j u ~ a:: '" c.s ~..c 0 > "8 ~ Q) -B ~ ~ ~ ]" ~ ~ ~ III Sl El-%1 '0 <-8 :g ~ ~ El t:: ~.... ~ t::.,g ~ .s ~ Q) OIl 0.0';3 0 8 >-< 0.. C5 ~: '0 ~ Q) ,~ .;1.fl 00 S ~ A El El ,~ ~ ",..c: B ~ I SJ;l;l >, Q) ..:::I Q) Q) ';l Q) <il '" d 8 ';jl l;l::;l.,g ~ ~ Q).,g...... El t OIl l:j ~ Q) o..,\:l ..J:j ';l .... ..c 0 c.s _ ,~..J:j ~ "'tj'" ;:J":p(lJtfJ ~tfJU +:J ; ::l"Q) cr"~ 0.0 0 ~ o:l <il e- ~ ,.., Q) >Q ~ ] ,~ B Q) g ~ bSl~ ~'g ~ C/J ] B 'S .;:< '" OIl 0 .. fl 9 - u.,g bJJ 00 t:: ~ ~] ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ B ,~ .... ~ '0 o.o~:::l ct l;l . ~ ~ l;l \'l a:: ~ c.s Q)"O OIl 0 ~ .... ~ "',e'C 0.. III @ ~ -B ~ ~~ ~ B ~ u 8.ie"O ..,~ 0 .... El ~'cl;l >,Q) g:~'~ ~ ~<-8"O u ~ c.s ~ ~ o..;:a l;l t:: ~ ~ > c.s ~ M ~ u!io t:: Q) ,.., .... Q) .... o:l ~..c t:: ~ % 8 ~ ~.,g ~.s i l1o~ ~ 8 ,g:~ ~ g. 0.. .... <-8 '0 0.. '" '" c.s > t:: t:: i3 Ill'C ..j...IcC'l:S ""Oa3>"~QJc-:aJ"'d~""O a:: Q) -B .8 -E ~ t -a ~ -B ] B >,<-8 ~ '~El >, p > '-".... Q) .. 0 .... III ~"O Q) 8 Q) c.s c.s III M M '" ~ .... .;:1. M;:l III 'E " M ~ ~ -fl ,;::: ;:l '-"" '" ,'-"" o:l "0 ..... c.s III tl ~;l;l;l;l..>d ,;j ~;;::l ~ 2"'s ~ ~ ;.~ <-8 0 .. .. o:l SJ;:l ~ > Q) 0 t:: r-< S"O ,9 -B a a g.';jl 8 ~ 8 l;l ~ 8 .... t:: c.s u '+l 'g, U3 1: j ~ ! ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ t.? ~ o '<;;, ~ .<> .~ ~ --.. .?l " ~ ,~ ;; ~ --.. .?l " ~ ~ '-'l ~ l; Q ..-. ..-. ..-. t<'i " .~ Q.; t::: .... ~ ~ l ~ a 13 I> ~ '-'l ,-... ~ ilJ :I :: "::: :: o U '-' t ~ 0' ~ ~ Q ~ en o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ::r: F-t ~ o ~ en ga :::J en ~ :=g z o ...... ~ \.? ...... f-t ...... :=g Q ~ en t ~ :=g ...... ~ o ~ :=g :::J en N c15 j:il ~ ~ ~ u lz::l '~ U) c:: c<l p '" 3 ~ H ~ U) 0> 0> ...... 00 0> 0> .... Il) ..g ,S "0 Il) lz::l '1:1 c:: Il) :Q .... .n -o:t="1:i Il) Il) ~ ~ '" Il) c<l S Il) Il) ~'"a g .E '1:1 Il) gb..c '1:1 :::l :2~ g u lz::l '~ U) .~ 11 ~ ,~ ~ "0 0;3 .... 0 ~ ~ '1:1 '" ~~ o 0.. '" Il);;[ ..go.. 1l)"O . ~ d tJ ..c:: co c<l "0....0.. ;3 ~.E 0"0 .... ~ B ~ ~"OJ:j '1:1 ~'~ 'p: ~ 00 'B ~.~ c<lIl)B c:: u '.,j o ~ '1:1 '1:1 '" c:: u 'S Il) B c:: '0 '" Il) 0.. c:: '" c<l o ; Il) Uu..c <"l <"i .... N <"'i "1:i Il) '3 CT' Il) ... Il) c:: o Z .... c:: c<l u lz::l '~ U) ~ p '" '" Il) H +-l u c<l 0.. "0 ,E d Il) .... :] g Il) 0 U ~ g 1 '0 S,~ l> c:: '? u 0 ~ if!-B..g ~ El J, Il) 0/) ~ O/).~ - ~ c:: : ..c:: c<l ,,.. u..c:: '" u~ "0 . ;3$l Oil). "" l> '" ;> Il) c:: .... - 0 a:l C::'~ ,o,g i;j ... '" c:: 0.. ~ 1:l Il) c:: c:: ,.<:: 0 0 r-<uu C'l <"j t<) "0 Il) g- ....~ g:Q u 0 lz::l l> .~ a U)~ ~]"O ~ ~~]~E 0>"0 ;> 0/) Il) ~ ~ ~ .~ ..g 00 V'- 0 0 0>~8:=1"" ~",0....8] .s~].s8: '" c:: 0 . c<l .;:l 0 0.. ~ v "0 'P 8 o..c Jj gb o..~ 0 '1:1'1:1 v ... .... ~ '8 P ~ ~ .~ CI). t.n <"l:.E ~:::l c<l 0~~~st '<t "0 ~ '" c::.~ v ~'1:1 c<l 0 0 ~ c:: c:: ",'1:1'" ~ ~ ~ ~ gbo.. V I'i ,,.. ;j'1:I v ~ .a ~ ~ '8 ;: C::E"Ot)~o O. d...... '" '1:1 v co v 0 c:: gb..c v"O 'P 0 '1:I::;l u E ~ 'E ;.;:l..c::if!u"Oo ~ '" 0 ,S c<l 0.. "0 v g:a .... c<l ~:Q u 0 l1:l l> '~ a ,,.. ~ U) "0 c:: c:: o c<l .,.. '" ,~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~O'a:l c::~ ... o 0.. 'Ell v v i=Q c:: ... v 0 c<l..g ~ .S"O ... .... ~..8 ;3 u '" '" ~"O ~ u 'E u v "ii v "0 'p: o ... 0.. .... c:: v u c<l :.oil) c<l"O B'~ ]& ~ .~ g ~ u 0 . u .B 1:) c<l...... 0.."0 ... c:: o c<l ...... . "0 '" g~ '" '" ~ ,~ c<l '" ~ g -oi;j ,,.. . '" '" . v ~ ~ ~ ;j 0 0"0 e ... c:: v 0.. ~ c:: . . v ~ u ;E "0 ~ c<l u .Q -F 5 'El ~ c:: o u "0 c:: 01 ~ U V '" ~ 'P c:: ~ <Ii ~~ ~:E 0.. v v . v l> "0 2:l. "0 'p: ~ 'p:] 8 l5 8 "ii 0.. t:; o....a . . 1 ..?;- V ,i; c<l c:: ... ~ ~ ... o u 'E u v "ii ... c8 0/) ~ ... c<l 0.. - a .~ o '" c<l 'Ell c:: 0/) v 01 ,fl ... i;j ]..g'O ~'~ g ,;:l C::.,.. ~ ,g .~ ~ 01 0 ~ ~ ~ v ..."0 S g g ~u.13 ~ ~ ,g v lie c<l ;e 8'a '" 0.. o:l c<lO/)eP ~.fl 0 . ....;.Q 0/) c:: 5 ~ 'E .g s o:l c<l c<l ~ ~ ~ E g<~ ~ c8 ..:l.t1 't1.S . '" ;j ..c ...... '" .... ;j o ~ s o <t: '" '" ~ '5 c<l u g~ 'E 01 ","0 v c:: "0 01 V '" 0..0.. v 0 l> .... 'B .~ 01 <Il t! ; o:l i;j ~"' 2 c<l <Il '" v tf = ~ V"O c:: ~ ~ e ~ t g< ';;:.~"ii o 0 l> ... ... v 0.. 0.. "0 '" ;j ..c '" c<l ..c:: u ;j : u v t) '1:1 .~. 'a t< v ~ ~"ii ..c:: .~ en ~ ~. i;j.g .... c:: u v B ..c. g~ U..c . . v ..g v "0"0 c::;;: c<l 0 g A .~ '0 ... c:: V"O 5;3 0/)0 ,2" ~ i~ "0 . O.J~ ~~ "01 Il)lf') ... i>c~..c ... '" ;:l c:: ~ ,~ Sg ~ v 2C\1 o:l c:: Il) ,~ p ~ 0\ I C/J \:: ~ ". ~ ! - -'! ., ~ ., .~ t; ~ - -'! ., ~ ~ '-'l ~ ~ Cl 1:; .~ d:; t:: ~ ~ '" 13' .., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .--- '" cu = = .:: = o U "-' ~ u ~ 0- ~ ~ o ~ en o ~ o ~ ~ ~ :t ~ ~ o ~ en ~ ~ ::;J en ~ ~ z o ~ F-t cE ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ en ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ::;J rJ) N t15 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" "... ..... u 0 .~+-l ~ o u 0 p'; '5-'~ ~ ... ... ..sP-.5 ~ 5l 6 u "~ ~'E~ ~ E3.S O lQ ... ';:1 ~ ... 5lJ'" ] 'Uj ~ "2 ~ i:1 ~13~ a ~'a ,Q J:l .@:l ~.~ ~ 's ~.~ ~ ~136~ : ,S dl ~ ~ : (:l >"Cl c<l . ,Q J:l;l ~ tj c<l 0 Q ::I 0 ~ d ~ ~ f; .g ... u u c<l, ~ [[,~ ~.E.E '8 '" .~ ~ t<j l""i --d ~ '3 CT' ~ ... g '+;l ~ '+;l 'Ej o Z ... d c<l u lQ '~ U5 ~ t=: '" '" '" '" ~ ~ H H .S 1i '" ~ ... >-. ~ c<l ... o 0.. S ~ ... "Cl ;l ~ ~ '" . .... ~ o '" (:l '8 (:l d .g .;1 u '" g ~ '" c<l (:l ~ o u U ,;1 ..... <"i <"i ~ u lQ '~ U5 (:l c<l t=: '" '" ~ H 'S .~ 0 ... u u '" ~ '0 '8 ~ P-.d:; g ~ "'Vl 513 B g "ClVl ~'O fre- t.O ~"Cl --d ;: ~ ~ c<l ~ '3 ~ E CT' '" Vl ~ ~13 en B'~ 11 '" ~ t'l ~u"Cl ~ d ~ .~ ~ t) ::I 0.. ~ o 6,~ < 8 8 d o '+;l .~ '8 o z ... d c<l u lQ .~ U5 ... (:l c<l u lQ .~ U5 ~ t=: v '" '8 Z ~ ~ ~ o ... ~ ;:l '" o ~ ~ 13 ::I o ~Vl ..0..... "Cl 0 ;le- o .... ~u ~ i:1..s ~ OIl !~ . ~~i:1 > u ~ ~ ~ 6 ""CQ)~ cq.$~ '+;l ~ ~ 5 OJ,~ "'0--;;0 .~.~ z ~ 8 8 ... en U O''I'''''l ~ ... u '0''''0 ~ ... ~ ... P-.o>L. ~o..d ..c:: ~ c<l J:-<~Vl C'-l <"i <"i '" <"i <"i ~ u lQ .~ U5 ~ u lQ .~ U5 d c<l t=: ~ t=: '" j C'-l '" -.i ~ ;:l en c<l ~ :2 d o '+;l ~ '+;l ~ --; ,8- u 'g :2 ~ 13 ... ~ ~ s o ... '" ...., (:l ~ en l:l11 c<l t'l ~"Cl ~B g '" d tl o d u c<l ~ 8 '8 J3 d ... ~ ~ '3 ~ CT'"Cl ~ 0 rx:u ~ en '0 . d~ ...~ 5Vl so\ ~O\ ~ '- 0..00 ,g ~ ~: -sl13 tj,;1 .~"Cl o ~ "'lQ P-. 'P ~ d t=::9 ~ u lQ '~ U5 ~ u lQ '~ U5 v '" '0 d u i:E ~ .S ~ '" c<l ~ ... u ,S ~ v '" '8 Z ... d ~ 6 0.. 'S CT' ~ --; u '~ ..<1 u ~ :2 "Cl 2:! ~ ~ (:l ~ o ~ ..0 "Cl ;3 ~ ~ ... ~ t=: ... U ~ '0' ... P-. -.:t; r<') '" '<t <"i <"i '" '" ~ H ~ u lQ .~ U5 o c<l t=: '" '" ~ H o ....."Cl~G:: 0~--9~ e- '" ~ ~ . OE5t=:-g ~!-p"Cl . d ..r; '-'-' 0 ... 0 ~Oill~", ~ ~J:j'" 'i;i'~ d'-'-' & "'.:OO~ 5 0 .8 ~ ~ 0.. ~ 0.. ;=I d S 0 ::I 0 '-'-' OU 0..0 u ~ ~ ~ 2:! ~..s~~c<l ..<1 ... d"Cl en ~ ....., c:o:s Q) ... ""'...... d.!::l d 0 en '@ .J:i ~~J:ltJ~ ;=I '0 .u "Cl 13 2::~~d~ c<l ... > c<l,~ "'>L.~~ ~ d,U ,!::l .~ ill ;=I.J:i ~ SVlOOQ:J P-.13 ~:;:;"Cl Jjg~~~ J:-<Vl13 ~-sl oi ... d c<l u lQ .~ U5 .~ ~ :3 ~ l:: ~ ~ .'-" ~ '" "":l ~ ~ d: "<t l""i en ~ U 'E ~ '" ~ U ;=I o 0.. ... J3 "'0 ~ E "Cl "'0 ~ '" c<l <lJ ... U d ...... ..... ~ '" 51 '-'-' .... 0 ~i- e- ~ '@ ~ 0 ti 'Cil ~ -5 ~ 5 'E "'".S~ € 135~2:!c<l o'g 6 ~ fr <lJ d <lJ '" 0..0 'i;i ,,. > P <lJ ~ cu ~cu 00... ,";:;-,!:;j fr P-. 0.. . <lJ >L. 8 ~ Ej EH~"Cl .::1 Vl '0 ~ l;l ~ ~ <lJ U 0 ~ <lJ c<l13t)otJj:j -sl6~~00 ... o~ <lJ:-aP-. ~<t:...13c<l8 U CI) C":S 0 ~ CI) % 5 13 "Cl ~ '0 g<'P E ~ 0 ~ c<lOb-.o'" t) "'0 'p +-' 0 >L. ~ 0 c<l ~ 'P 0 '0' <lJ~ t c<l U c<l '-I rnpC/) P-. g- U l:l ..s Jj8"Cl~E::I J:-<~~tJ8c55 .ci ... ..... "0 o i:1 'q <lJ . (:l <lJ o....c:: ~06"ClJ:-< CU'~ 0.. OJ en U .;;: 'S .~ ... i:E 0 CT' d o ... <lJ ~u 5 ... ._f 1! !-E 'P ~ a:J '" ~ :-a ~.O' 8 ~ ~0P';2:!t) 0IlP-. <lJ ,,., L. ..r; "Cl ,- :.aVl~OS .;;: Vl .8 : P-. [ .s g.g g ... 0 P t:...... o ... a:J <lJ 0 ~l3.....,CI)Q) ~~St~ o ... 0..13 c<l U 11:l 0 :;1 ~ o;.:::1"Cl.~ t=:88.~B u '0 .-< I (/) "\: ~ .,. " ! --- <l " ~ " e 'S " i-ll --- <l " ~ l '-l ~ !! Ci '::l .~ c':: ~ ~ % ~ ~ c-, " Ii: ~ '-'1 ~ ~ ::I = .... ... ::: o U -- t3 ~ s ~ t:l. o ~ 00 o t:l. o ~ t:l. ~ :t f-l ~ o ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z o l-I ~ ~ l-I f-l l-I ~ o ~ ::l Il.l ~ E="O!:! c: ~ ~'~ OJ Il.l .::1 I-< '" ~ El ~ <-8 '0 P-< g. 40-/ a) :1 b.O ~Qj o .rJ '2 ~.rJ :> ll::al::' EIl.l I:: ~ Il.l. Il.l c:l S "'. ~"O !-< ~ ~ ~ ,fl ~13 11 ou;.o... Il.l I-<~~od~ 0. 0. blJ". .::1 s:1 0. '" I-< .::1 ~ '0 .;:: <-8 Il.l iJtlll.l@."o.s ..... ,SL ~ ~ "0 o 8 ~ Il.l.;:: ; l::P-<iilPo o OJ.~ . ~; :~ .s B ~ '" lS:: p >- ,- ~ 8.rJ~81l.l~ 0."0 '0 P-< .rJ '0 I-<'~ 0. Il.l::a Il.l <-8 o."O.s ~ J5" t:i QjQJQ)l...i,..jtl':l OJ ~.rJ~o~-aEl "OO~Il.lU Il.l Il.l ....rJ ""1': 0 Il.l ~ .~~t. lib ~~ ~-a1ilS-< 00 t3 -< t:l. ~ l-I ~ o ~ ~ ~ 00 N tIi ~ ~ ~ f-l ~ U l.l:l .~ i:iJ ; P '" j . 0 Il.l Il.l'" ,..d l..4..I.::t 40-/ Q) ":p O,.dO Il.l>- '" ......0 0/)!:i.rJ Il.l ~ 0 0.,5 'tj "0 Il.lpoll.lll~1l.l1l.l ~ .;:~+J"O.sa 'tj >-l.l:l"O I:: ~ I-< :3 '-";Il.l~o'tlll.l~ I:: 0. Q'~ El '" ~ ~ o El Il.l ';:l ~ Il.l -< Il.l :E 0.rJ.::I'", ~ :>-.rJ "'u"Oll.lo"'ClEl::::l &Il.l~.s...oll.lll ~ .~ ~ El g- ~"'g ~ ol::~o>-!ou~ ll.l~o.t:l;:Ju-<o "0 O/)::::l '" U U Il.l U fl fl '01 I- ~ 0 0 tI, t1l ci ::::l'0 EJ p., ~... "" Il.l U '01 U Il.l.... Q '" ..c:: l;l ,5 ~ El Q ~ 15 '0 "'... I-<'OO~ ~ ~JJ]~~1il-old: UIl.l"'OO~~ ~.s..."",,,,..c::Il.l~; 0. ; '0 tl P-<.s ~ (/) 0. I-< U Q 0...... I-< ~ ~<-8~Q.....oo ..s ~Q8::5l 0 a~-g g ._ Il.l ~ I-< ~.~ Il.l'o (/) 8 ~ tJ g.~ ~ ~ Il.l..... P-<Oll.lll.l 0.00.0 Il.l ",.0' Il.l Il.l El '" I-< e- .a tl I-< 1:1'~ 0 l:J ~ u'''' r-< 0. P-< +J::r:: u 0. >- ... I:: ~ u l.l:l '~ i:iJ oi Il.l u 'E OJ '" ~ I-< <-8 "0 ~ 5 "0 "0 Il.l '" ~ ~ u I:: .... N ~ <") "0 >-.. "OJl:::JJOJJ5'"i:lc: '0. ~OJ r-< 1:l JJ .s ::a 0 S Q' oi ~.rJ.......c::~ Il.l Q ~..;::j ~ 0 rJ) H CU 5l Il) 5 g ~ Il) <Il OJ lib tltlEll-<OJ~~~-< 0."0 Il) 0.rJ ~ '1': ..c:: ... -1 OJ "P 0. t. P-. Q ~ .rJ '~ ll::a >-. Il) >-. Il.l "'::::l I:: \:l ... \:l '" ~ d .001 OJ Il) "t:l ~"O.rJ a ~ ~ u El .... I-<'~ ~ 0 "'C{/)~QJdOCl)H--' "0 '" '0 :> 0:1 '-"'..... OJ ~ ~ElOJoullOt-<1l.l .~,~ :- g.~'~ .~O/) .s ~ ;.0 I-- 0';:: 0 +J 8El~8.rJ~8t..11 "0 .g-. g 0."0 \:l 0. '" ~ d ;:J ~ I-<'~ ~ Il) ~ \:l O:Io"...oO'...p"O~ {/)QJ~~ ~ 11)"- "0 .'''' Il) Il).... ~ P-< 1l)<Il0;3.rJ0..:' u ~~-:::--oB:::~ ~ Jl ~ ,g.s :{ ,g J ~ g, r-< :> 0. '" "'" 0._"0 (/) ~ u l.l:l .~ i:iJ I:: ~ P .... .... rh <Il <Il Il) >-1 <Il 0 ~ ~ '5 U) ~~~~ 0~0/)~~d: 5 ... .rJ 'g 5 I:: d El ... _ ... 0 0:1 OJ I:: u ~ .~ (/) u OJIl.l"O. ~ ~ 0.0 El~"O d::::l-Bo. 0. Il.l ~ '01 ::l Il) ~ 'a "'3 ~ "OJ ~ a ~ o u 9 '" .::1..... Q I-< ~ 1;j.51 Il.l 0 ~ ~ OJ~ Il.l::a-B e-Il) .g] U.rJ ~ El'''' l:j .;:: Il.l a ~ '" 0 u ~ o I-<.~..c:: ... o.t:l v 5 I-<"O~",g",-B... 0. g 'a +-' u I-< ..~ ::a 1-<;3 5%~-g d ..c:: Il.l ~ d 0. p.,'tl ~ rJJ~ ~~QJq)4-4 +-' Il.l .g-. +-' Il.l 0. 0 ~0.0;:J~1:11-<'" U ~ U g<,_+J ~ ~ ~",::::l 81-<1(0 0.1:: ~ ap-<<-8 0 ~ ~ ,g ~':O v +-' v v tJ ~ ~ .~ P 5.5 ~ '['@ ~ @~ < .~iJ ~ p-.Elo 1il0"I-<;; vel ~v~~ A 0 ~ o~.....'+<..c:: r--. 1l.l.rJ o.v El ,~ .... '" 'i:: ~ 1:; " ! --. s. " ~ " ,~ ;; 'l1 --. S. " ~ l '--1 ~ Ci 1:; '~ 10., ::: --. ~ ~ ~ "'" ~ ~ '" ~ ".; ~ ~ ::t '--l ,-., "tl qJ :I C '';::: C o U '-" t) ~ 0- ~ ~ Cl ~ en o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ::r: E-4 ~ o ~ en ~ ~ en <: ~ ~ Z o ..... ~ c.::l ..... E-4 ..... ~ Cl ~ en E-4 U ~ ~ ..... ~ o 1 ~ ~ en ~ en ~ ~ ~ E-4 t: :::: +-J"~ ~ tJi' o . I=i I=i en I-< .~ ~ '0 .SO 8 ~ ~ U p..~ en en 0 >, I=i '8 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ U 0 ~ ;3 ~ oo~ ~ d' ~ ::l ~ r-" Ei ~ ~ ~'~ ,.8 5.-s. q C\ S";l~ ' ~"'l-<aC\ 8 d '::I C .gtl.q ~ Ei: !:i.o 0 o. a.......... ,g ~ ";l .~ 11 8 Ei "'1 o"g ~ .~ ~ ,u b""'O "'0 .fJ ~ U rn I-< 0.", 8 I-< d g ~ 0 0 Ei ~ -B.~ ;3 0.. '" <-El "t:l u.~ ~ to~Ei-g~~gt~~ ::I 'g's Ei ~ ~..d 'P :> ,;3 c/) "t:l I=i O"t:l I'! en ~ 0 l:1 I=i I=i OujO"...=:lOOO o 0 0 '!:i 1=i'~.!<I """ 'P U ... "t:l :.!:i a. ~ en 't<i:.::l U =:l 0 0"0 ... U d ... 't<i 0 't<i "t:l gj ~:=l 0;.::1 ,;:j =:l U ... ~ 8.0 ~..a t g;ll..a I-< 8 ... en en.-s~"enop.. ~~~E~OtEien--g::l u ~ ~ of-l (l:S ... QJ 0 ~ :s..;..I :.::l ~.... ,S J:l ~ .O'~ ~ ... ~ o....d t:: en 0.. I=i I-< ~ t::.... g-p.. ,0 "t:l 0.. I=i p.. ~ 0 ~ 0 ooPI=i~~o~ I'! 0 tg~~...t::.t::O~OOoU o"~ U ~ r< >', U ~ '8"t:l ;3~]-[~f~ ~"9i~ p..>, enp..~o'tl,ol-<q o"t:l 0 "0 "t:l 'a ~~84343.8~.B43~~ en ,~ ~ en I-< t:: B o U '[5 o en U 00 ::l .g "t:l:.a ~ ~ t~ I=i ~ ~ ~ ~~ 50"9 .~ ,.c I-<"t:l o 0 &0 >,0.. =:l 0 ~ I-< 'p 0.. t:: .S ~.-s ~ .~ .q- ~ t'<') ~ U ~ '~ U3 ~ ~ ~ .~ -i .-s... ,S _ 0 en ~ o'~ 3"t:l "t:l ~ ;:::: t .~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Jj ..8 0 u ~ ~ c.J ~ ~ 8'~ ~ 0 J:l ~ o'a 0 ... 0 0.. 0 "t:l g en S S ~] ~ g-:-Q ~ i:: g 0 0~~1=ii=Qp..0<t:;i=Q"t:l~ ::C...<Zlo~u$l .d~" ..... I-< 0 ..... ~ I=i '" N 0 o en 0 !;hC/)..... 0 ~ c/) ~ "t:l .-s>,... 01-<-"t:l..d0 ~ .S ~ O.t:: ~ p.. d.... U "0 0.. d .~ -B r< $l U t-<.-s ,q U ~do...~t::O~::::I=i~o ","'..d~1=i 0001'!'" U Ei'" en 'p 'p ~ en ~ 0 00 ~ F's a j E z..a t ;; ~ g- 0 t U 0.. ~ "t:l p...ot t::o t:: ~ ~ ~ 8 U I-< ::I 0'''' "'.0 I-< q U .~ 0...0 ~ ~ U '" ~ ol 'a ~ S \-l 0 ~ 't;1 ~ ~ t 0 ~ 1" p.. 0 0 0 0 ... 'P L.. 0 I=i ,,,,,,,~I-<Et::,,,,,,,,::I ;!"t:l '';j0~'''0' 00 r< ~ SS .0 J:l ::c o...-s ~ ~ !;h .... I=i ~ u ~ .~ U3 "0 t:: ~ ,~ ] .... g. 3 0 ~~ o 0 ~ 0 i=Q ~ I=i 0 ~ 0.. c/) [1 "'" 0 ~J:l 0"," I-< 0 ~ . "O~t ~'Q.~ !:::l..d0 "0 00 I-< ~:E~ I=i ~.-s o en.... o..~ 0 o 0 en o en 0 .t:: ::l "t:l J:-1 ~'V:: If) -i <"i ~ o '3 cr o I-< o I=i o Z .... I=i ~ U '-l:l .~ U3 ~ .-s '" '" o H 00"0 .~ ~ ~Q tc/) .S i=Q " 0 ~.-s ~ ,S Btt: en ~ ~~ I=i ~ 'I) ... en ~ Ei ~ g ~t'{ "t:l ~ ;3'U ~ g t-gd ,~~ c/) 8 Ei::C p..0::J o "0 0-, ~4343 \0 ~ t'<') ... t:: ~ u ~ '~ en ~ ~ '" '" 'I) H '" I-< 'I) ... ~ I=i ~ .0 ~ 0 OIl ~=:l 0.. " :=I '<;l 00'" ~ ~ d- 0 oSol.....d .::1 ~ """ o"O'e; -B I=i en E ~ :::t ~ QJ lU >-..~ 1:: ~ ~ 1=i..a"S.-s c go~ B ~~';:~88o't,o .~ ~ 50 ~ ::l.S I-< "g ~ gj '<;l fr'~ J:l.S Q3 ~ .-s """ ::l d8"t:l~en~~~]~ ..;::j d ~ ~ QJ CI) po ~ (/}.......t .... ,;:j U ~ U ~ . "t:l ::l ~ ;3 =:l .~ t ':g ~ ~ d 0 'I ~ ~ 0 0 ~ I'! 'I) ",.0 I-< ~ p:: '0' I-< I=i Ei en =:l ' ....... I-<p..oo..o~ 8 :d II p.. i:1 'p .Q .~ ~ "t:l _ .~" II 0 ~ ~ 'I) t:: t:: ...80"Ei......."Oo~ g p.. ,$ u" ~ ~ ~ ...'~ ~ ~ 43 ~ g; t! 8 43.B ~'5 t ~ p (l:S 0 ~ ~ . .~.i- 51 u ~ t '0 "t:l q Ei ~ o 0.. ~ ..d ....... q 0 ,;:j ...o..o,,"'~q~ut::o.. p.. ::l S'~ ~ .g "," I-< 0 [J 43 :: t:: t:: '" gf ~ tl ~ ,E .0 ~ ..8 ,.8 u '~ tJ ~ ~ '0 ~ ~~E~~~c<Zl~~- g 'I) '1);3 u fr 8 ~j S ::J .S .-s.-s c c 'I) 8"O~ 0 oj] ~ 8 8 8.-s ,S ~ 8 Ct ~ ~ ... t:: ~ U ~ '~ en ~ .-s ~ .i- 0.. g. '" I-< o ~ 'I) :a ~ 'a :> ~ I=i o "t:l q ~ 5 "t:l "t:l o '" ~ o I--< r- ~ t'<') 'N ,-< , C/) ~ ~ 'i:l " ! --.. ~ '" ~ .~ " U-l --.. ~ '" j ~ '-0 ~ " '" .~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c., .- "d ~ ::l = .~ = o U '-" t3 w 0' 0:: ~ Cl W en o ~ o 0:: ~ W :r:: f-t 0:: o IJ" en W ~ ::J ~ W ~ Z o >-l ~ ~ >-l t: ~ Cl ~ en t3 < ~ ~ >-l IJ" o ~ ~ ::J en N vi W ~ ~ E-t ~ u \z:l '~ i./3 o to !5 '" '" Il) ...l l-<'dfl"1:l Il) 5b 0 :::l 1l)0dOIl)"1:l,., '..."...." ''" ~ '';l to,.t:: 0.... OIl ~ ~ "1:l P ..r:: ~ ~ '-0 Il) t-< to ~ ,13 "1:l 0 Il) ~ ~ "1:l '" , l-< .... 0 , '" ... "'.... ..d:;' Il)...... e;-. .e- Il) ~ ~ 0 'th 'X 0 ~ +:J Il) Il) " t: '<3 tO~-S Il) ,!=i ,0 ~ Il) >,+:J 1l);3-S o..o..l:j ,~ :.a ..... -S:..a ~ 0 Il) U ~ ~ 0..... 0 ~ Il) ~ '(il 0 d 0 U 4:l -S ~ 1-4 - P=l 0 l-< 0.. '" to bIl';:/ \z:l 0 ;::l <U 0.. '" .e- 0.."1:l OIl -Sll) ~,~ ~ -Sll) bo,gf'o tl ~ ~ ,1j '0 -g ~ ,fj _ 0 0 0 P '" to ... :::l '... to OJ bIl:..a " 04:l '0 '" ,,'" U 0.. to d ....... ..... ',., p Il) e-..r:: to Oil 0 1-'- ,;:/ i5 '13 Oil 0 B ~ 0 -S '... '" l-, '0 0 S,~ 0 O..c:: 5b,~ ~ g,i./3 ~ 'X '1:1 ~ ~ 8 ~ Il) ~ ~ ~ '5 fj ;: ~ S ~ ~ ~ '0 U ~ ~ Il) 0 ~ ~"1:l ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ Il)..r:: 1'1 -S ~ 4:l '" "1:l ~ '0 "1:l 4-< 1 0 0 c: ~ .: 0 Q).~ 4J ~ ~ ~ 4) en 0 ~ C':t g. ~ <9'~ ~ ~ ~ to B 't -S j ~ Il) ~ Q)u~a~~c.~~oo~ ~~~.~ 1l ~ 0.. Il) J:l ~ '" '" Cl.::1 0 ~ Il)Il) ~ . 0 ..... ....+:J.....tOll)ll)"'ll)~ ..",'" ,~ ~~ ~ '~ itO ~ ~ S'~ S Il) J5,~ ~ t: Il) .....r:: 0 ' 0 +:J 0.. l-< 0.. '" .... 0 '... l-< U '" e- 0 v 0 e;-.c;l4::4:ll-< .s ,~ ~ :: U l-< ~ -S Q:l -S Q:l to ~ ;:l l-<: S ~ g< ~ Il) ~.s'~ ~ ~ ~ 'E u ~ ~ ~ ..E O,J 0 ~ ~ 'Eb O,J ~ ~ vi p.., ~ ~ ~ o -S ~ e;-..g o.~ ~.E ~.E 0il1 ~ e;-. S o ."1:l~'r-oU1t:<o..tOgtO.oZ tOo U en ,- po It) d ~ ~.zj 00" u Il) Il) ;:I 0 1::' 0.. 1'0 l-<, l-<, '" Il) Il) ';:I o Cl..c: Cd l-<.... ;:l 0 Il) '" Il) X J:l 0 Cd Il) f-; ~ t-< '" o..U '" u f-; Il) f-; Il) +:J ~ ",.0 'i:1 to U \z:l '~ i./3 o o 'P u Il) :::l o U l-< Il) ~ ... '" to ' ~1l Il) !:: -S Il) 0;3 o 0 "1:l>Q o ~ to 0 ~,t 13 ,S ~ S ~ ~ u '" o >, .... '" 00 ~ <'"i --d Il) '3 cr' - bIl~ ~ Il) ,~' ~"'(/)~s ~]~Oba ;:l Il) U Il) to ..o;;8<Zli5ii: Il) , ;:J "1:l U ,fj ~ '" ~ \z:l ~ ~.~ 2"g 4:l Il):.a 0.. Il) :;. '" ~ (/) ~ 'B to..9 ~ -g ~ :B o.~ - Il)~ Il)... U l-< ..!4'" ,S ~ Il) "1:l ~ ... 0 Cl ' OClOtOll)6' ClIl);:;"1:l-S0 ~..o8~-S~ ~ ~ '" g'~ 0 ......r::tOc: ~ U '" 0 0 ~,... Il) '" '" U Ci U '0' ~ "1:l Il) to ~ P:: .g 1j .0 %cl:: Il) ,::1 'E ~ s Cl !5~lQ~8J5 ~ U \z:l '~ i./3 Cl to ~ .... Ci '" U \z:l '~ i./3 '" '" Il) ...l dS Oil '" ,~ l-< Q E o .... (/) g "1:l Ci '" S <U "1:l "1:l Il) '" to ~ U Cl .... dS ,~ '" ... U Il) '0' l-< 0.. Il) -S .~ '" ':I:: ~ ~ ... to "1:l Il) U :::l "1:l o tl .S Il) .0 "1:l ;3 o ~ OIl ,13 ~ ~ i z C\ ~ <'"i 111 c<J .... lI'i <'"i .... Ci to U \z:l '~ i./3 ~ r:: c<J .... I [/) '" '" Il) ...l .... U Il) '0' '" l-< to 0.._ Il) to -S ~ l-< ... 0.. <90.. to "1:l"1:ldS ~ c: ~ to OJ to ~~~ 0..';; l-< Il) Il) 0 ..0 ::; 5b ~ ~.~ ..r:: .e- '" ~,...~ (;!u,... bhll)u o-S~ ... 0 +:J p.....>, Ci"1:l.o Oil Il) l-< '... :t: 0 (/) '8 '-'" ~..o13 '" ;:l "1:l to ""I> ~"1:l0 <'< ~ (t ~ u \z:l '~ CiJ c;l 'P Cl Il) 11 '" Il) l-< Il) ,t:: '" I Ci o -S '~ ~ ~ >- is ~ " '" " ~ ,iC ~ " ~ " '" " Iii l '-0 ~ a '" .... u i::E Cl o u Oil ' 'B 'i:1 ..r:: Il) OilS ~o.. I 0 iQ:l ,"" :;. z.g 1:: .~ It t2 ~ Q'; i;\ "'" g ~ "l Lf') <<') This Page Intentionally Left Blank INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The proposed Project is the third and ftnal phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase I Terrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single- family residences in townhome and detached configurations. The Village and Park was completed in 1997 and is 100 percent occupied. Phase I also includes the construction and furnishing of the Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for day care services, Phase II consists of Terra bay Woods (Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family detached units; Peninsula Mandalay, 112-unit condominium; Mandalay Pointe consisting of 70 paired units (35 side-by-side duplexes). Mandalay Heights, Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe are constructed and fully occupied, Phase II includes the conveyance of the 26-acre "Preservation Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004, Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6.22-acre "Recreation Parcel" to the City of South San Francisco. Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have been installed and include: geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches, hydroseeding and creation and compaction of a development pad. The conveyance of the Recreation Parcel is anticipated to occur in 2005. Phase III, the proposed Project, is a mixed use development. The entirety of the Terrabay /Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. 1. In 1982, the Terrabqy Development Prfiject Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan, Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em,;ronmental Impact &port 1-1 1, Introduction 2. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the TeTTabqy Speczfic Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR a supplement to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the Terrabay Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. In 1998/99, the TeTTabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Pinal EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III, the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment and impacts and mitigations for wetlands and cultural resources.. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial development including a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use. Table 1-1 shows the proposed commercial development program for Phase III. TABLE 1.1: PHASE III 1998/99 SEIR LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage Land Use Hotels (3) Restaurants (4) Retail (3) Mixed Use Parking 235,000 - 280,000 12,000 -18,000 6,000 - 10,000 30,000 - 35,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms 450 Seats Service Retail Retail, Restaurant, Office 1,760 Parking Spaces Total 283,000 - 343,000 4. An Addendum to the 1998-99 TeTTabqy Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR (2000 Addendum) resulted in the City entitling the Phase III site as shown in Table 1-2. TABLE 1.2: 2000 ADDENDUM LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage Land Use Office 657,500 Office, 150-seat performing arts theatre, 100-child day care center 7,500 Ground floor support retail 1,785 Parking Spaces Retail Parking Total 665,000 Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR and approval of the 2000 Addendum, approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 1-2 " I ntroductio n City of South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. 1.2 PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR) This 2005 DSEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project that could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program from what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The Initial Study (2005) prepared on the proposed Project focused out environmental topics that needed no further analysis from that in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to the current development proposal for Phase III. This 2005 DSEIR identifies potential new or intensified effects which are specific to the proposed Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Additionally, this 2005 DSEIR identifies effects that are anticipated to be less than those that would have resulted from the project proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. This DSEIR tiers off of the 1998/99 SEIR. As allowed under Section 21093 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports will avoid repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports. The CEQA Guidelines and statutes encourage tiering. The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous environmental documents from Terrabay, in particular the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 DSEIRis intended to be used as an informational document and is subject to public review, agency review and consideration by the City of South San Francisco. The purpose of this 2005 DSEIR is to identify potentially significant effects of the Project on the physical environment, to determine the extent to which these effects could be reduced or avoided and to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives to the Project. The EIR need not be exhaustive in its analysis of a project (Section 15151 CEQA Guidelines) but should analyze important issues to a sufficient degree that permitting and approving agencies can make informed decisions. The EIR is an information document that in itself does not determine whether a project will be approved. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study (2005) on the Project (Section 15063 CEQA Guidelines). On the basis of the Initial Study, the City determined that a SEIR was required. A copy Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 1-3 ,. Introduction of the Initial Study is included in Appendix A. Effects found not to be significant in the Initial Study and thus omitted from analysis in the SEIR addressed aesthetics (except for light and glare); agricultural resources; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; population and housing; and recreation. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this DSEIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse and Responsible Agencies on May 9, 2005 in accordance with Sections 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines and is included in Appendix A. The NOP was circulated to local, state and federal agencies and other interested parties. The responses to the NOP helped to identify the major environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR. A copy of the public comment letters in response to the NOP is included in Appendix B. PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT SEIR The 2005 DSEIR will be distributed for public review for 45 days, during which time comments on its accuracy and completeness may be submitted by local, state and federal agencies, public interest groups, and concerned individuals, Written comments should be submitted to: Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, California 94083 All comments on the 2005 DSEIR received during the public comment period will be addressed in a Response to Comments document, That document and this DSEIR combined will form the Final SEIR (FSEIR) to be considered by the City for certification as complete and accurate. PROJECT APPROVALS Approval of the Project, as proposed or revised, would be accompanied by written fIndings for each significant adverse environmental effect identified in the DSEIR. Findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each fInding and will indicate that: 1) mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect; 2) mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and either have been or should be adopted by that public agency; or 3) specific impacts are unavoidable and substantially unmitigable, but Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 1-4 1, Introduction are considered acceptable because overriding considerations indicate the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects. The City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at the time the City makes fIndings to approve the Project. The MMRP identifies all the mitigation measures required to construct, implement and operate the Project in order to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The MMRP will be prepared in conjunction with the FSEIR. This program is not required to be adopted until the time of approval of the Project. The Project would require City approval of the following: . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000 . General Plan Amendment · Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) . Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site · Approval of vesting tentative, fInal subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III · Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 · Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components . Design review for Phase III · Grading Permits for Phase III Approvals, actions and permits would be needed from State agencies and regional utility providers in addition to City actions. For more information regarding Project approvals, see Chapter 2, Section 2.5. 1.4 CONTENTS OF THIS DRAFT EIR This DSEIR contains the following chapters: · Summary chapter presents a Project overview including the Project description, environmental consequences and mitigation measures, Project alternatives and issues of public concern. A table is included which summarizes DSEIR findings. · Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the DSEIR and the review and certification process. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impaft &porl 1-5 1, Introduction . Chapter 2 provides a description of the Project, its location, the applicant's objectives in proposing the Project, specific land planning features and required approvals. . Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the environmental effects of the Project. The "Setting" sections of this chapter identify existing conditions relevant to each topic (e.g. traffic, air quality, etc.). The "Impacts and Mitigation" section includes a discussion of potential impacts. Each impact has been numbered to correspond to the mitigation measure. . Chapter 4 discusses alternatives to the Project. . Chapter 5 provides CEQA-required discussions regarding cumulative impacts; growth-inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; and effects found not to be significant. . Chapter 6 identifies persons involved in the DSEIR preparation, . Chapter 7 lists references and persons consulted during the DSEIR preparation. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 1-6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of Terra bay, the third and final phase of a planned mixed use community. The Project sponsor's objectives are to: . Develop one of the most important and highly visible sites in South San Francisco into a high quality gateway Project. . Create a genuine community gathering place that promotes synergy of living, working, shopping and playing. . Anticipate and meet specific market demands for real estate, while being responsive to City policy objectives. . Derive ecological and transportation benefits and other efficiencies inherent in a mixed use Project. . Meet residential and employee lifestyle needs in the geographical areas served by the Project. . Foster a comfortable and traditional experience by creating a sense of place. . Deliver a destination mixed-use Project that serves both local and regional needs. . Produce a Project that is consistent with the objectives of the South San Francisco General Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco at the base of San Bruno Mountain. The site fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-1 2, Project Description by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II to the west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. Access to the Project site is from Bayshore Boulevard (see Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map, and Figure 2.1-2 Project Site Plan). 2.3 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point Flyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping, 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases. Phase A consists of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The development standards applicable to the Project will be contained in the Terrabay Specific Plan. Should the City Council adopt the Specific Plan by Ordinance, the development standards will govern the Project and will serve to amend the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. The environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B, following City action on the Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and any remaining minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase B, actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. In general, in response to the Project site's topography, the development would be stepped into the hillside. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard. All vehicular entrances would access the parking garage. A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard. Mandalay Terrace would be accessed from two separate entrances at each end of the development. Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way, At its north end, Mandalay Terrace would include one traffic lane providing ingress (13 feet wide) and three 12-foot wide traffic lanes providing one right turn, one through and one left turn lane. As Mandalay Terrace continues to the south, it becomes a 26-foot drive aisle with surface parking on both sides, then a 23-foot wide drive aisle with parking on one side, and then returns to a 26-foot wide drive aisle with parking on both sides where it then enters the lower level parking structure. Two entrances (located south of the Mandalay Terrace entrance) along Bayshore Boulevard provide direct access to the parking structure. The first of these two entrances consists of two traffic lanes providing ingress Terrab'!J Phase III Pro;ect Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-2 //~ r,\, \' c."'-;;"------ 1\\ \ \ ""'( t:--:c~---~-),_'J)'Y) i " ....'.....,..., ~~... ,j - ----",..''-,'-, ~-- L I/'~)."",,- "", 1"----.. ,I) ',,---- _J ,_--_ ~ j" i' III --.J~ ;~0 1/", I ( " 1<,'Y--_,~'\~., " \ \1" J W \ I '\--..___",/' )) /..,' - j Ilr.) '---':~, ,-," < (, ~ - '- !-c.~,,:,--::: ~::.~, "J I 1\ '-'" ~'- \. "---i/'''I'\ \ \ -J \----~Y2;;(1~ L,,___ Project Site N ~ ~ a ~ T errabay Preservation Parcel dedicated to County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain County and State Park - August 11, 2004 o 1000 2000 --- Scale in Feet Source: Placemakers + Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map "',/' '" ",/ // w ~ (' . >id , ,...~.3 ;/' f 7'~',,1 ,,!' I .'~ .1, ! , \ \ \ , \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ .J C------- \ , \ 0'- \ ' \'., ' , . ,) .'(,.~ .)' _', f ~\~. ' I , i~i 'Ii~.,. iliA ;~I \" .,...' " . ~. \ I , L- - ------ \ . ".... .J 11 N ij ~p:: r-J2 + (II.... 1-lrJ) Sou .... IV ~.o I-l ~ i!l a: '~ I-Q ~ j 2, Project Description (26 six feet wide) and two traffic lanes providing egress (26 feet wide) separated by a median. A second entrance located farther to the south consists of one traffic lane providing ingress (13 feet wide) and one lane providing egress (13 feet wide) separated by a median. Figure 2.1-3 Project Development Area shows Mandalay Terrace and the vehicular entrances. Project development would conform to the Wetlands Mitigation Plan (WMP) for the Terrabay development. The WMP was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 3, 2001. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency with respect to implementing the WMP. The WMP mitigates the 0.10 acre of wetlands on the Project site that would be filled and the 0.68 acre of wetlands that was filled as a result of the City's Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp improvement project. The wetlands are being mitigated on the Preservation Parcel As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters are currently being mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the Preservation Parcel which was evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. The current site plan indicates a small area of approximately 500 square feet of newly establishing potential wetlands could also be affected by improvements at the Mandalay Terrace intersection with Bayshore Boulevard. This small area of potential wetland was created following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where surface water was diverted along the base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings and rushes were planted in the area. Because access improvements at Mandalay Terrace would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would be relocated during installation of the created wetlands on the Preservation Parcel as part of implementing the WMP. The loss of this small area of newly forming potential wetlands is not considered significant. It is worthy of note that the plantings were to have been placed entirely on the Preservation Parcel and while plantings were made there, some were inadvertently planted on the Buffer Parcel, the location of the 500 square feet in question. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR require a wetlands mitigation plan and salvage plantings. These mitigation measures apply to the currently proposed Project. Therefore, the plantings placed on the Buffer Parcel will, in compliance with the mitigation measures, be placed on the Preservation Parcel as a part of the WMP. Table 2.1-1 presents a breakdown ofland uses. RETAIL COMPONENT Restaurants would be located near the central plaza which includes a garden and water feature. A multiplex cinema and a grocery store (below the cinema) are proposed south of the central plaza and retail space is situated along a north-south axis. Typical retail Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 2-5 \ ./~iHj"1 !.I'."". a, ; "', ,'" ~t - : -:V - \.~ i ! \!~'( .\"".,..,."'.'..,.,:,.,,.'.2..,,' ',' ," "''','' '" ",.,'.,""'~"",', /, ',' , if "" ' ". "" ,S; """;""<0, ':_~ I ! ti fj ffie l!l ~ n Si ... x ::l I I Ii ; ~ i'; , J , 1 , ~ !l \ \ '-, '--... ~,,~ "* ~\ ~\\ r)~ )!(.' ~ V"'~.... . "" ,/ 6'-, / ( 'X ~~ Si :\.. ;:r'",,-, '" I! III CIJ -< 1: ct:l CIJ ~ S 'p.. N 0 +1. ~ a) bO~ ~Cl tJ CIJ "0' !-< p... 1 ~ ~ ~ <Jl 2, Project Description TABLE 2.1-1: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use Phase A Retail 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex Cinema, Grocery Store Residential 475,000 Market Rate 248 Dwelling Units Below Market Rate 103 Dwelling Units Service Areas 70,000 Loading, Storage, Mechanical, Restrooms, Supervised Play Area Phase B Office Total 295,500 1,198,000 Office spaces would be 20 feet from floor-to-floor with 24 to 28 feet of street frontage. Sidewalk widths would vary from 20 to 25 feet and provide tenants with an opportunity to join the streetscape with display, planting and seating. Streetscapes would be rendered primarily in glass, fabricated metals and stone. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The residential component of the Project would include a 22-story high-rise tower containing 180 market rate condominium units, The tower would rise to a height of about 250 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 360 feet above msl due to its hillside location. The tower would be constructed of concrete, glass and metaL The base of the tower would include retail space and possibly a restaurant. The residential tower would be located at the northern portion of the site, Two low-rise residential buildings would be located at the westerly portion of the Project site. The south building would contain 68 market rate Townhome units. The units would contain two and three bedrooms. The townhome units would be of a contemporary architectural design in four, five and six-story arrangements over one- story of retail and one level of parking. Visually, these units frame the west side of the development and would appear as five- to six-story buildings. The north building would contain 88 one and two bedroom flats of which 67 would be priced and available for moderate income households. The 21 market rate units would be income restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180 residential tower. The flats would also be a Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7 2, Project Description contemporary architectural design in one four-story building over retail. The north wing would be adjacent to and at the heart of the town center. A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower, OFFICE COMPONENT A 17-story high-rise building containing office space would be located at the southerly portion of the Project site. The top of the building would be approximately 220 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level (msl) due to its hillside location. The fa<;:ade would be comprised of a glass curtain wall system with metal and stone detail. Project Phasing Mter Pinal Legislation and Entitlement Actions Project construction would be organized into two phases after successful completion of all legislative, entitlement and environmental requirements, Phase A would include retail and residentiaL Phase A would include some parking for the future Phase B. Specifically, below the Main Street level, four floors of parking for the office, together with the service/loading area for the grocery store would be constructed in Phase A Therefore, Phase A would need to include the structural foundations supporting these Phase A uses, as well as the subsequent Phase B Phase A is estimated to start construction in mid 2006 with completion in the end of 2009. Phase B would start construction within one year of the completion of Phase A with completion in 2010. Project Amenities Phase A . A Public Art Program; . Water Features and Fountains; . An Outdoor Performance Area; . A 150-seat Performing Arts Center shared with a cinema use; . 67 Moderate Income (Below Market Rate) units; . Transportation Demand Management Plan; . Childcare fees for the retail and residential elements; . A V alley Trail; . Supervised play area for children; Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-8 2, Project Description . An emergency operations/training facility shared with the lobby of the Phase B hotel, office building or residential building . History markers at various vantage points within the Project site; and . A history walk along the western boundary of the site. Phase Bwould include one of the following amenities: . Childcare fee associated with the Project; or, . A childcare center developed with the office building (if desired by the office building user). 2.5 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Phase A . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000 . General Plan Amendment . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) Phase B · Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site · Approval of vesting tentative, fInal subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III · Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 · Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site componen ts · Design review for Phase III . Grading Permits for Phase III ACTIONS BY THE STATE Department of Fish and Game · Stream Alteration Agreement Caltrans . Encroachment Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board · NPDES General Permit . Approval of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan T,rrab'!J Phase III Projed Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-9 2. Project Description ACTIONS BY UTILITIES California Water Service Company · Water main and access easements San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 2-10 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCTION This chapter of the 2005 DSEIR addresses specific topics to be evaluated in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines, For each topic discussed (e.g., Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality), the following two subsections are included; "Setting" and Impacts and Mitigation Measures." Under "Setting" the text provides a discussion of existing conditions. Under "Impacts and Mitigation Measures," the text includes sections on: 1) Significance Criteria; 2) Impact Overview; and 3) Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures section includes numbered impacts which correspond to specific mitigation measures. Unless the impacts are noted as significant and unavoidable (SO), the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the identified impacts to less than significant. Thus, after each mitigation measure, the reader will find (LTS). The specific criteria for determining if the impacts would be significant are identified under "Significance Criteria." These criteria are taken from the CEQA Guidelines, City of South San Francisco standards and responsible and trustee agencies. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3-1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It ftrst describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project on this network in contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum), and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses, Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group. For the analysis of the currently proposed Terrabay Phase III Project, local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: . Existing (spring 2005) . Year 2010 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development on the Terrabay Phase III site) . Year 2010 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently proposed Project replacing the approved project) . Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development on the Terrabay Phase III site) . Year 2020 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently proposed Project replacing the approved project) For year 2010 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Terrabay site: . Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005 to 2020 for analysis purposes unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All specific future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after each impact. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-1 Local Circulation System 3,1 Traffic and Circulation SETTING The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated on Figure 3.1-1 and described below, u.s. Highway 101 (U.S.I0l) is the principal freeway providing access to the Project area. U.S.l0l has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco with auxiliary lanes provided between some interchanges. Access to U.S.101 in the Project area is provided by the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange and by select on- and off-ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard (to the north) and Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue (to the south). The Oyster Point interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north- and southbound U.S.l0l, as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp extends north as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Southbound U.S,101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard along the Terrabay Phase III site frontage (soon to be signalized). Northbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is stop sign controlled at this location as is off-ramp traffic. A northbound U.S.l 01 off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is provided just north of the Project area, U-turns are prohibited on northbound Bayshore Boulevard well into the City of Brisbane. A new southbound on-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at the existing off-ramp intersection is under construction and will be open by mid 2005. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.l0l both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.1 01 south of Oyster Point Boulevard, U.S.1 01 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard, Hillside Boulevard is a four-lane roadway in the Project area along the base of San Bruno Mountain. The roadway intersects Sister Cities Boulevard about one-third of the distance along the Terrabay Phase I and II site boundary and then extends to the southeast as a two-lane roadway through a residential neighborhood towards downtown South San Francisco. It ends at an intersection with Linden Avenue which connects directly to Airport Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard has signalized intersections with Stonegate Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Linden Avenue. It also has an all-way-stop intersection with Lincoln Street. From just east of Lincoln Street to Sister Cities Boulevard, the four-lane section of roadway with a raised median located immediately adjacent to the Terrabay Phases 1 and 2 sites is designated the "Hillside Boulevard Extension." The two-lane roadway running just south and parallel to the extension (adjacent to the single family units on TeTTab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-2 r ~ iXi Ql ~L1% ~,I;: I- 0 '0 Z z '-- "\ + ~ 10-. '1 lIS ~~ GJ ~ lIS SoGJ .... < ~ ~ 2 0:: ~ ill .,8 <") .. Gl 1:: 81 8- ~ a > I- 2J ~ ~ II Gl I- -- ..I] Study Intersections 3,1 Traffic and Circulation the south side of the street) is designated Hillside Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard Extension has signalized intersections with Jefferson Street/South San Francisco Drive (the Terrabay Phase I site access) and Sister Cities Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevardis a four-lane divided arterial roadway located along the southern Terrabay Phase II site boundary. It extends from its signalized intersection with Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard on the east to its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension/Hillside Boulevard on the west. The one intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard (with South San Francisco Drive) is signalized and provides access into the Terrabay Phase II site, South San Francisco Drive extends west from this Phase II intersection into the Phase I site where it is paved and intersects with Hillside Boulevard Extension at Jefferson Street. Bayshore Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway extending north from South San Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west side of U.S.101. South of Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard, Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Terrabay Phase III site, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the U.S.l0l southbound off- ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are underway to make Bayshore Boulevard a four- lane roadway adjacent to the Terrabay site. Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway located parallel to and west of U.S. 101. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area. Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the U.S,101 ! freeway and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median. Dubuque A venue is a frontage road running along the east side of U.S.l 01 from Oyster Point Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two to three travel lanes along its entire length except from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp, where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised median are provided. It has signalized intersections with Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps, and Oyster Point Boulevard. In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project, the AM and/ or PM peak hour operations of seven existing or future intersections in South San Francisco and two existing intersections in the City of Colma have been studied (see Figure 3.1-2), Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impa,t &port 3.1-4 r >~] ~,g ~ <Il~(ij <Il 0 t: W::..J<( II . Jd z c, . e ....'O,ga ~€ ~E eno",,,, ::IZIXlD:: 1\1 " S (;) o Q,.\"....._ ~ E l;(() :ie~UJ:J ~5U:2'O ." C ~ l! ....~C)~ en>-o~ ::10........ ~ ]<( :l<1le. ,gg.e €.&l! ,w'OKII5ffb7fijiia ~ is 8 ~' ,', - ~-- ,.,',~i'oj ,'~ Y'M !.........: ~""""'''''' '--- ,-,,", ~f'f'4_"" -g ",f""A"" :J CD O'-e. ,.Qoe -sit'! :l >-... 0",'" en III 0 '0 I: :J CD O'-e. .coe &;&; .,.CI)I! :l >- I: ~alo PAIS ~e. :l E O"l! 15.&c o ::J C 11I00 ------ ---- --- ---- ------- --- ------ '- Ill' ~g ,go:: '" (J ~ = ... lii - "'Cc ., ~- ~ ~M 0", e.lll S! a e (Q ~ 0.. It../ ~ ", ~ <3 '- -!l ., Ci; ~o 13<0 t' vv ~ "-- . PAle :3p!SIl!I-I .5 Q) I ISUO~ PAIS JJ IV' "'~ q~ ~n ~cS8 -0 C1> <Il >. 1ii c:: <{ <Il c: o ~ l!! ~ c: II . (I) II) C C .- 0 "2= .- cu cu Co) ::&0 ...1 >'11) CU._ ~~ e C'lI LL C <( II) C c.. .2 E.... cu cu ~g >....1 cu II) ~.- (I) II) (I)~ ... C'lI LL C <( II) C o C+i o cu .- Co) ....0 ~...1 II) II) ....- (I) II) ....>. c_ -cu C <( "" ~ () a::: 0: ill .~ '$ i Jg ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ II ~ " ..of] + 0:. ~ en ~ -;j >'>, CUca ~~ l-< >, N~cu ~ d ~ . 0 Q) M '.!:l Q) ClJ U l-< l-< Q) ~ 5h en Q) .... !ii1 ~.... . ~. C>:;E ~"'d ..g a cu u o ,....J ],/ Traffic and Circulation City of South San Francisco Intersections Signalized . Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension . Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque A venue/U.S. 1 01 northbound on-ramp . Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l northbound off-ramp/U.S.101 southbound on-ramp . Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound U.S.l0l freeway on- and off-hook ramps/Proposed Terrabay Phase III North Access (to be signalized)t,2 . Bayshore Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III Central access (to be signalized- proposed)l AII-wcry-stop Controlled (About to be Signalized) . Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.10l southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard2 Side Street Stop Sign Controlled . Bayshore Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III southern access (driveway right turn only approach to Bayshore Boulevard to be stop sign controlled) City of Colma Intersections Signalized . Lawndale Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard . Lawndale Boulevard/Mission Road Traffic Volumes Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were conducted for this study at all existing analysis intersections within South San Francisco in February 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp from the U.S.l01 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection was in full operation. In addition, PM peak period counts were conducted at the two City of Colma intersections to be evaluated in June 2005. Only PM counts and analyses have been conducted at the Colma intersections as the proposed Project would only produce a measurable change in traffic (compared to the currently approved Phase III Project) at the Colma intersections during this time period. Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 3.1-3, while existing PM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 3.1-4, Figure 3.1-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed intersection. 1 The proposed Project provides for two signalized intersections with Bayshore Boulevard (the northern and central entrances) and a third un signalized right-tum-in/ right-turn-out entrance located farther south on Bayshore Boulevard north of the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection, 2 Same intersection, Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Entoironmental Impact &port 3,1-6 ~ e .2~ o5/":' C?';?~~ ~~~cft ~ "'ia 0) 0 ~~?-I~ ~t-' ~ D ~~~ 'ffi .~ \i:I r "'\ (z 10 (') -I'- I'- t..~~ "' t.. 0 _ l2 010 0 - g ,8 I ~l ,f5 ~l'" ~ ~~t ~ IOj Qj ~108 N~CO S d: ... ~ ~ o o ex> _N ex> 10 0 0 o t8 ~ .J~C o <D _0 (l) ~- I'- -:g t-- ,~ PlIJe aJOljS fle Q '" !!l OJ -" 10 o-g,'- N NMOJ r-o ~ t.~ T I'- ~ aAlf an nqno o t r T"T"(") 10 1:1 5~ .8~ €ltk ~o g- N co 010 ~::2~ ~~t. ,r5 PAle POW!v :2 J ~ t ~ '<t :e _ 101010 (') I'-~(") ~ --.] M :a ~( :2~8 It;' ..J ,0:- t~ ~j;l ~.. ..-:; Mg ~ Qj ~ 'u t:: ~ t:: <tl CIJ :E a CIJ ~\..o 10 ;Kt.. ';:? .~\~00 M 10 y..~ ~ ~ N ~ t. f": ,~ t ~ ., 10 c: 10 <D ~ ~..- ~ 10 <Il o ~ t..1O !:!2 ~ o~ "lI <r"":::::O...- 1.0 .J~~,~ ?;: j ~ t ~ JS lIOSJ9jJar 0_ 0 10 10 (l) ;i; T" r5--. 10 ~- ~ c: ~--. -q; ~ ~ 10 OJ (")-J o g~ .J~t. '-- gj 10 o _ N g--. ~~ 00 MN .- t..0 C\I 10 _ 0 ION ,~ - IS IJO!SS!W ~t~ 10010 NO"- T" T" ~ID go e 0:: (j W g C') 'J:l 3l t ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ tJ I- iJ ./ g <rl + CIl Q) S ::l ....o~ 'f :> 0 '8 ~U~('f) ('f)tP .. a.l~~U? Iol Iol Q) 0 6h r-< P-l ~ .... bO::;E ~ ~:SP-l .... CIl ">< ~ r ~d z 0' 7, t.- -+- -LJ ..-.. ~l t.-t.- ~ PAle tiJoqs,{ee ~': j ~tt~ ..-.. ..... ") 't:l ~ .8 'S ::> o CJ) ~ ii3 0) .!l,! (j "- ,!Jl '" iii -+- -+- r --..g~~ Tt: -J j! ~ ~Hl.! t !.~t:"_!W .. '0\.../> Hl.~ ,~ t t ,. t: ,!Jl Lti ~ .(;; J '\.. PlIJe llodJl'rf c Ol U5 0. o U) - U) Su iii c .2' " ~ ...... o ~ o U I=: o i3 OJ It) ~ ~ b.O.& ~ o.@ ~ ~. ~ o~ "0 ~'x ~ .... ~ en ~ u ] OJ S o OJ l? OJ ~ ~ P-. ,= e C) c::: 0: W :8 <") t! 3l'&. 1! ; ~ ~i~ 2li~ '" iu ~ : e ..Ig tJl Existing Circulation System Operating Conditions ],1 Traffic and Circulation Intersection Operation Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [fRB] Highwqy Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix C Table C-l. Unsignalized Intersections. Un signalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated, Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two- way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Appendix C Table C-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Level of Service Standards The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from private driveways. The City of Colma also considers Level of Service D to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized intersections. Existing Intersection Levels of Service All intersection analysis within the Oyster Point interchange has been conducted using the Synchro software program, which evaluates the coordinated operation of a system of intersections. Intersection operating results (levels of service) are typically a little poorer with Synchro analysis than would be the case if each intersection were evaluated on a "stand alone" basis. Intersections within the City of Colma as well as at the Sister Terrah'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-10 ],1 Traffic and Circulation Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension intersection in South San Francisco have been evaluated as individual "stand alone" locations. Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the existing AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All operations are either LOS A, B or C LOS D is considered acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. Freeway Operation Analysis Methodology Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwcry Capact!J Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.l0l freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange (where peak hour factor and truck percentages were obtained), the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.l 01 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles. The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles. San Mateo eMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard has been set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to fmancial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Terrab'!J Phase III Prqject Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impat1 &port 3.1-11 ],1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U,S.101 NB Off- A-9.11 D-36.5 C-29.0 D-46,6 D-36,O Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-I06,l F-81.3 F-I00A F-80,9 Ave./U.S,101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-29,31 C-29.3 C-30.3 C-29,6 D-44,8 Blvd./ Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd, (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd, A-8.51 A-9.6 B-I0.l B-12,3 B-12,8 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-10,22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (AIl-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./D.S,101 SB On- NA B-13.91 NA C-24,1 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U,S.101 SB On- NA NA C-30.11 NA C-30.0 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-24.11 A-8.8 B-19,5 A-7,6 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA NA B-l1.63 NA B-12,1 (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds, 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds, 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn, Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 3.1-12 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 C-23.4 C-29,S B-46.3 D-S1.S Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-137 F-137 F-269 F-264 Ave./U,S,101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-30.51 C-26,7 F-273 C-26.1 F-248 Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./ Airport Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8,71 A-9,6 B-10,1 B-12,3 B-12,1 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U .S,l 01 SB Off- B-13. 92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S,101 SB On- NA C-22,SI NA D-48,l NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S,101 SB On- NA NA D-SO,SI NA F-101 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.71 B-13.1 B-19,9 B-13.2 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-19.23 NA C-24,9 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd, A-S,91 A-9.4 A-9.S B-11.8 B-12.0 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd, B-17.11 C-30,2 C-31.7 D-3S,3 D-36,7 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds, 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds, 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn, Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-13 ],' Traffic and Circulation Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions, A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance, Existing Freeway Operation Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the US.101 freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.l0l freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Figure 3.1-2 shows the freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study. Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005 traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes, Results are summarized below. AM Peak Hour Southbound: LOSE LOSD LOSD LOSD Northbound: PM Peak Hour Southbound: LOSD LOSD LOSD LOSE Northbound: North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers, July 29,2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.I0l between the San Francisco County Line and 1-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San Francisco and the Peninsula. Freeway Ramp Operation Analysis Methodology Freeway ramps have been evaluated based upon the methodology contained in the year 2000 Highwcry Capacity Manual, where ramp capacities have been set at 2,100 vehicles per hour for diamond (slip) ramps and 1,900 vehicles per hour for any ramps with sharp curves (such as the southbound buttonhook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard), 3.1-14 Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-3: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North ofSB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9930 F -111 -1.1% 9819 F Bayshore Blvd.! (A) Oyster Point Blvd, (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (199) (196) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8860 E 11 +0,1% 8871 E On Ramp and Grandi Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (177) (A) (177) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave, 8195 D 9920 E -212 -2.1 % 9708 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (7043) (C) (6893) (C) North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D 2 +0,02% 8722 D On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!YJ (6191) (C) (6193) (C) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-4: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Project Percent Total Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS Southbound North ofSB Off-Ramp 6965 D 7570 D 26 +0,3% 7596 D to Bayshore Blvd.! Oyster Point Blvd, (San Mateo Origins On!J) (303) (A) (304) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 9435 E -192 -2,0% 9243 E On-Ramp and Grandi Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins OnlY) (377) (A) (370) (A) Northbound Between Grand Ave, 8280 D 9355 E 6 +0,06% 9361 E On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins OnlY) (8045) (D) (8050) (D) North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -93 -,9% 10,517 F On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins On!J) (9125) (D) (9045) (D) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-15 3,1 Traffic and Circulation These capacities reflect LOS E operation, the same service level, which is acceptable for freeway operation. Existing Freeway Ramp Operation Figure 3.1-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows that all ramps at the Oyster Point interchange currently are operating under capacity during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Vehic1e Queuing Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the approaches to all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange during each peak traffic hour, Projections are provided for each turn and through lane for the 50th percentile queue. Existing Transit Service Queuing Standards Based upon direction from South San Francisco staff, vehicle storage should accommodate the 50th percentile queue. Existing Queuing Conditions It should be noted that existing observed queuing between intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange should be improved with the opening of the new southbound freeway on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard. This will eliminate southbound Brisbane/San Francisco traffic on Bayshore Boulevard traveling through the entire Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue. The elimination of these vehicles should free up additional green time within the interchange to provide greater accommodation of other movements. Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, field observations conftrm that the theoretically predicted queuing intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain movements. Local Bus Routes The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. There is currently SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Bayshore Boulevard, but not east of the U.S.l01 freeway. Local area bus service is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-16 3, 1 Traffic and Circulatio n TABLE 3.1-5: EXISTING, YEAR 2010 BASE AND YEAR 2010 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)! :->EAK HCUR Year 20tO Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Under/ Under/ Under/ Over Over Over U.S.tOt Ramp Capacity2 V olume2 Capacity V olume2 Capacity V olume2 Capacity SB Off-Ramp to 1900 300 Under 590 Under 486 Under Bayshore (455) (Under) (590) (Under) (706) (Under) SB On-Ramp 1900 NA3 NA 465 Under 468 Under From Bayshore (930) (Under) (827) (Under) NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 945 Under 952 Under From Oyster [2600]4 (1325) (Under) (2135) (Over) (2104) (Over) Point NB Off-Ramp to 2100 870 Under 2145 Over 1938 Under Dubuque (545) (Under) (880) (Under) (948) (Under) SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Under 770 Under 785 Under from Dubuque [2600]4 (1710) (Under) (1855) (Under) (1856) (Under) 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour, 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents, Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents, 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacity with two-lane on-ramp, Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-6: EXISTING, YEAR 2020 BASE AND YEAR 2020 BASE CASE + PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)! PEAK HOUR Year 2020 Existin~ Base Case Base Case + Project Under/ Under/ Under/ Over Over Over U.S.tOt Ramp Capacity2 V olume2 Capacity V olume2 Capacity V olume2 Capacity SB Off-Ramp 1900 300 Under 725 Under 619 Under to Bayshore (455) (Under) (960) (Under) (1077) (Under) SB On-Ramp 1900 NA(3) NA 660 Under 667 Under From Bayshore (1155) (Under) (1052) (Under) NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 1230 Under 1239 Under From Oyster [2600](4) (1325) (Under) (2990) (Over) (2963) (Over) Point NB Off-Ramp 2100 870 Under 2220 Over 2011 Under to Dubuque (545) (Under) (1200) (Under) (1270) (Under) SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Under 815 Under 815 Under from Dubuque [2600](4) (1710) (Under) (2098) (Over) (2114) (Over) 1 # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour, 2 Capacity in passenger car equivalents, Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. 3 NA = Not applicable. 4 [2600]=Capacity with two-lane on-ramp, Source: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S IIpplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-17 3.1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-7: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 queues Year 2020 queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case (in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps WB off-ramp left turn 600 69 127 161 182 WB off-ramp left/ right 600 69 129 161 186 Bayshore/Central Project Access NB left turn 300 207 34 327 35 NB through 945 19 10 16 16 SB right turn 300 2 5 28 4 SB through 540 257 194 260 224 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 29 110 134 189 240 SB left turn 325 154 43 135 149 250 SB through 660 52 9 64 58 132 SB right turn 310 0 0 19 21 49 WB left turn 80 18 62 69 57 74 WB through 255 44 92 162 79 161 WB right turn 255 209 10 167 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 58 87 58 132 110 EB through 255 128 402 447 467 525 EB right turn 255 70 27 46 50 136 NB left turn 135 43 257 198 273 195 NB left/ through 255 46 281 215 296 211 NB right turn 210 190 633 665 575 619 Dubuque/101 Ramps Off-ramp left turn 700 35 415 335 496 358 Off-ramp left/through 700 35 415 335 496 358 SB right turn 255 0 SB through 255 13 100 99 187 163 * All capacities and demand are per lane, Source: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 3.1-18 3,1 T raffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-8: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing (in feet) (in feet) Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case (in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps WE off-ramp left turn 600 85 207 276 449 WE off-ramp left/right 600 85 213 276 464 Bayshore/Central Project Access NB left turn 300 53 171 48 205 NB through 945 69 10 100 36 SB right turn 300 1 SB through 540 225 68 168 81 Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport EB left turn 55 50 91 319 101 404 SB left turn 325 154 133 213 94 247 SB through 660 115 147 200 112 343 SB right turn 310 100 113 287 80 664 WE left turn 80 33 93 59 133 160 WE through 255 151 65 482 367 657 WE right turn 255 37 57 15 112 Oyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 75/255 92 224 196 314 370 EB through 255 67 82 50 88 110 EB right turn 255 124 160 159 202 161 NB left turn 135 155 357 350 437 586 NB left/through 255 166 384 375 468 624 NB right turn 210 31 40 38 60 75 Dubuque/l0l Ramps Off-ramp left turn 700 37 118 171 282 262 Off-ramp left/through 700 38 118 171 282 262 SB right turn 255 19 13 32 126 116 SB through 255 13 65 74 131 126 * All capacities and demand are per lane, Source: Crane Transportation Group Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-19 Planned Transportation System Improvements ],1 Traffic and Circulation Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30- minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue, Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 397 (297): San Francisco-Palo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour headways each direction between about 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per week Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. The City of South San Francisco has completed construction on the final ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replaces the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound u.S,101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound u.S.l0l from the same intersection. The hook ramps significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard (change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-striping the westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional through/left lane to an optional right/ through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-20 Base Case (Without Project) Traffic Analysis Approved Development Trip Generation ],1 Traffic and Circulation Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these are the only improvements that were assumed in place at study intersections by 2010. Figure 3.1-6 presents year 2010 and 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control. The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to non-project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the years 2010 and 2020. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes South San Francisco. Trip generation was estimated for approved indus trial/ office/R&D developments in the Project area (see Table 3.1-9). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff In addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's home improvement stores recently proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Tables 3.1-10, 3.1- 11,3.1-12 and 3.1-13). It should be noted that 2010 Base Case development includes construction of the approved 665,000-square-foot office/lO,OOO-square-foot retail development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant trip generation from this approved use is presented in Table 3.1-14. Finally, trip generation projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase II residential development at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 highrise condo units (see Table 3.1-15). Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D/hotel development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001), Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand management (IDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Brisbane. Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year 2010 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-21 r <z .... ~ '-..:f::. (- p/l/f:J 9 wuq~/l1:!f:J8 J ::: ~,.. :::: .. c Al~ @C j ~tt~ ... i P/1/f3 podJ!V C- .9 CI'J co ~ g, $: en <( @CU ~ ~ r #~,. -J ~ ~ -1l~~ t i~;:--w .. ~ co '" ~ ~ ~\.i> <Il j. '0'0 u~W .~ tt ~ c:: .!!1 in ~ ~ :r ~ c: OJ <i5 C- .9 CI'J '-- " - ........ 0 tltJ .~r:: o 0 '"'u ~ r:: ;::i 0 o ..0 .fi ~ .... CIl 1.0>,", I ;> OJ l""'l ......... .. ct:iOJ.E 4. ~ ~'"d , So ~ ~ .... CIl CIl ~ tll U 1=0 .... otJ C"l OJ o S C"l 0 ~cJ o OJ 8 ~ C"l....J ~ e 0:: ~ W ..g (') .. 4) 1:: <II &. ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4) t:l F " ./j 3,1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-9: TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2010 Project Size 1. 333 OYIter Point Blvd. Office/R&D (replacing light industrial) 315,444 sq.ft, (-94,990 sq,ft.) Resultant Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Pm Peak Hour 445 (- 46) Net 399 426 -C:22). 374 2. EaIt Jamie Court Office/R&D 3. Britannia EaIt Grand Office/R&D Retail Child Care Fitness Center (replacing light industrial) 133,000 sq.ft. 783,530 sq.ft. 8,000 sq,ft, 8,000 sq,ft 5,000 sq,ft, (-354,880 sq,ft.) 4. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 garage 5. Genentech Building 31 Office/R&D 6. Bqy Welt Cove (part alrea4J conItructed) Office Retail Restaurant Hotel 7, 180 OYIter Point Office 8. 200 Oyster Point Office 9.345 Eart Grand R&D (replacing warehouse uses) 125,000 sq,ft, 150,972 sq.ft. 600,000 sq.ft 10,000 sq,ft, 10,000 sq,ft. 350 rooms 105,000 sq,ft, 155,000 sq,ft 210,560 sq,ft 188 180 1,207 1,201 ( - 170) Net 1,037 ( - 191) 1,010 131 61 234 225 1,623 1,636 100 90 147 133 124 115 ( - 31) ~ Net 93 Net 70 122 111 DID -C=-W Net 84 Net 83 10,285 EaIt GrandAve./ 349 Allerton Ave. Office/R&D (replacing existing site uses) 11. 249 EaIt GrandAve. Office/R&D 540,000 SQFT, 756 729 1, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004 Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) Feoruary 2005 2. East ramie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mi~ted Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002 3, Britannia East Grand Prtlject (Fuller 0 'Brien PropertY) Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse AssoClates) February 2002 4, Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37 Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003 5, Genentech Building 31-Admin Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005 6, B'!)I West Cove Commercial Report Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002 7" 8, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Prtljects Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 9 . Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001 10. Traffic Impact Report 285 East GrandAvenue and 349 Allerton Avenue R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002 11, 249 East Grand Avenue Administrative Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory/Crane Transportation Group) June 2005 Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3,1-23 ],1 Traffic and Circulation TABLE 3.1-10: HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION Daily Am Peak Hour Trips Pm Peak Hour Trips 2-Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Home 125,794 29.8 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164 Depot sq,ft, (40) + 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41 TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-11: HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION, HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE (Levitz Furniture) Use AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Home Depot Existing Site Use Net Change in Site Trip Generation 103 4 99 86 2 84 181 20 161 205 19 186 Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-12: LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 2-way trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Lowe's 148,749 29,8 4434 .65 97 ,55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193 sq. ft. West Marine 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 ,48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12 Bldg,-North sq,ft. Area Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205 + 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51 + Existing West Marine NAI 2 0 14 12 Store (No Change) GRAND TOTAL 59082 130 106 243 268 I NA = Not surveyed for daily trip generation. 2 Does not include existing West Marine store, Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005, Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TeTTab'!J Phase III Project Draft S upplementa/ Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-24 Regional Traffic Growth on D.S.10l Freeway 3, 1 T ralfic and Circulatio n TABLE 3.1-13: LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg,) Net Change in Site Trip Generation 130 - 42 +88 106 - 37 +69 243 - 108 +135 268 ~ +182 Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-14: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III APPROVED USE Use Daily inbound + Outbound trips Rate Vol Am Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Rate Vol Rate Vol Pm Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Rate Vol Rate Vol Size Office 665,000 sq,ft, 7322 L23a 818 ,17a 113 .23a 153 1.12a 745 11,01 a 95% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program, Planning level trip rates for office development used in the above table (rather than fitted curve equation trip rates) are projected to also reflect the minor level of traffic associated with 10,000 square feet of office serving retail use on ground level of building, Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 3.1-15: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAY PHASE II-REMAINING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (AS OF FEBRUARY 2005) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use # Units Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Townhomes 12 .07 1 ,37 4 .35 4 .17 2 Condominiums 61 .07 .1 .37 23 .35 22 ,17 10 TOTAL 5 27 26 12 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003, Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.l01 freeway not associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2010. Terrabq Phase III Projet't Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-25 Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution ],1 Traffic and Circulation The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D/hotel development traffic was based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994), The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 3.1-16. New Terrabay Phase II residential trip distribution was based upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing Terrabay Phase I and II developments. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2010 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-7 and 3.1~8, TABLE 3.1-16: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION, OFFICE/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Direction South San Francisco Development Year 2005 US 101 North/San Francisco US 101 South South San Francisco (central area) Daly City / Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. Daly City / Colma via Guadalupe Parkway Brisbane Airport area via South Airport Blvd, Local east of US 101 TOTAL 29 48 3 8 o 7 3 2 100% Year 2020+ US 101 North/San Francisco US 101 South South San Francisco (central area) Daly City / Colma via Sister Cities Blvd, Daly City / Colma via Guadalupe Parkway Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) via Railroad Avenue Extension Brisbane Airport area via South Airport Blvd, San Bruno/ south via San Mateo A venue Local east of US 101 TOTAL 29 48 2 1 o 8 7 2 1 2 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. Tmab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-26 r !( z ~ o o l"- N Ll) ~ Ll) ~ -~ o ~j Ll) _ CO CO \.. Ll) t.~ o N _r-. CO o Ll) t.::! '- t. Ot,{) '-<'> o t() .,.... _Ll) 0 0 tl2 t ~ I ~ ~ ~ aMlanbnqna -ii"-4t ~ j ~ t ,... ~ lO 'It lOOO Ll) ON co - ~ 0 N'ltlO ~ N'- c: lO 0 0"")- '" .- ~ ~ Ij I'- ... .Ea ~ o ';; -... ./9"OAi.:t I'- .- ~- a> :3l. N U'l -gJ tLO ~ PillS QJOl/S;.eS LO I"- -~ 0_ ~ co ~ ,... U'l 0 co LO o I'- 't> 5 2 -S ::. c55 'g~ ::. '" 20: 'Eli: ~o " g. e n:: t:l [j 5 M il ~ [ a: ~ ". ~ 1l 9l ~ la iu U f- " 1J .J] o 01'--1,() CONa> 'It ~ + ~ .'!J ~ t ,... P/lf8 IJOW!1I ~j 0_ I"- e:,"")- LO .- It) It) It) ma>..,. N.- ... ~ iO tl (3 ... ~ '" 0; ~\,,6 t. It) \~l) ,-~p ~ 5 t ~ 'li; 10 N a:; ':ff ~ ~ -8 ~ J: o 0 ':ff N ~ L.. .J+ -- tJ CIJ .S:!., Cll 0 S l-< ;:;P-. -1:::1 0_ >- (lJ (lJ CIJ CIJ Cl:l at r:-. (lJ >. , CIJ Cl:l ~Cl:l~ Cf')J:Ol-< (I,j l-< l-< l-< ;:; (lJ &b0E-< .... ~ "0 ~ ~ ~ Cll 0 P-.g. ~~ o 5 g-B C'l ..... ~ r \z o CD _0 ..- '" t-- _"t CO ~~~ ,~oo - ~ 0'" 0 - h f"~ .Jtl..f"~ """I t ~ \ U') j """I allvan nqna ~ooU') t,. ~ ~~~I~-: ~o~ ~~ & .- ... 5 E to- ,.... 0 (\1 .e ... -Cl 0:: ~ €~ o ~o U') 0 0 &1 ~ ff5 ~tC U') l.O _<'J C]) 0 g 0 ~ III U') ll'l -~ 0 0 0 <0 0 <'J _0 ,.., ll'l III ~ ..- N N ..J l.. U') f"~ t f"~ _ <0 ..J l.. "t pille aJOlfslfeg 0 0 """I ,. 0 """I t ,. Pille podJ!V co j N - ~j M 0 l.O 0'" g- ~8g - I()t <'J'- u:; "t<'J "t '-"t It) lilt ~ ~- LO t-- +-~ co f"~ ~ as cr. ,2: D ... ~= tI; 1. ~.Jo '- ~ '00 ~ :yo -(.~\":J~ ;:!: ~ f"N t ~ ,. ,~ f 0 Cf.:- 0) c: 0 .- ~ ;g <1:- ~ ,!2 :f t/ It) ~- IS> t .5 to <ll ~ ~ o '" oo-J g"t"t .J + l,. ~J ~- N ~t '- """I" o O"t C])N ~o <"l I() _ m It)N f"~ - IS UO!SS!W """I t ,. lO It) 10 N (l) co N..- '"'\ p.. ::l 2 0:: " W g C'l '.0 ~ t &. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ./J +1+ .- ..... u C/J C1J e '[ ::ip... 'oS :> C1J C1J C/J C/J ctS ctS..c: Up... op C1J ;::... t""l C/J ctS ~Ill,.o "'!:O III QJ I-< t: I-< ::i C1J 6boE-< .... :r: "d ~~~ C1J 0 p...g-. ::;E~ p........ o ::i ...... 0 0-:8 C'l ..... ~ ........ 3,1 Traffic and Circulation Year 2010 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2010 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours with one exception, The Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I01 northbound on-ramp intersection would be operating at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Operation Table 3.1-3 shows that during the AM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of southbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange where operation would be LOS F. Table 3.1-4 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of northbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F. Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Table 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year 2010 with two exceptions. During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off- ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the PM peak hour volumes on the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would also be above theoretical capacity limits. Year 2010 Vehic1e Queuing Table 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM Peak Hour · BC!)shore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than available storage distance (one to five car lengths longer for the left turn and combined left turn/through movements; 17 car lengths longer than available storage (per lane) for the right turn movement. In addition, the eastbound through movement would have a storage demand (per lane) about six car lengths longer than available storage. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-29 3.1 Traffic and Circulation PM Peak Hour . Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point westbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand at most one car length longer than available storage, . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left and combined left/ through lanes would have storage demands from five to nine car lengths greater than available storage. Year 2020 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes The year 2020 Base Case (without Project) conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, traffic generated by projects which are completed or under construction and not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or under- utilized land in the study area. Appendix C Tables C-3 and C-4 present new development in South San Francisco and Brisbane expected by 2020. Evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon traffic projections from the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report {DSEIR)for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, with project description and improvement updates based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see Table 3.1-9 reference list), The proposed Project in the 2001 DSEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (fDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the East ojl0l Transportation Improvements Plan (IIP). Preliminary year 2020 Base Case volumes were obtained using AM and PM peak hour projections from the City's East of 101 traffic model developed as part of the year 2001 Transportation Demand Management DSEIR. Year 2020 projections developed in 2001 were then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development proposals. Specific projects include: . 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco) . Home Depot store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use (South San Francisco) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impat'l &port 3.1-30 3.1 Traffic and Circulation . Lowe's Home Improvement store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use (South San Francisco) . Baylands Phases I and II (Brisbane) A traffic study was prepared for the City of Brisbane in 2004 evaluating the circulation impacts of a revised plan for the Baylands Phase I and II developments, It was determined that South San Francisco's East of 101 model had included a land use scenario for the entire Baylands project somewhat more intense than the current Phase I proposal, but somewhat less than the current Phase I + potential Phase II plan, Since Brisbane Planning staff indicated that all of Phase I would likely be built and occupied by 2020, but that it was unknown how much, if any, of Phase II would be constructed by that horizon, South San Francisco staff concluded that the Baylands development proposal within the East of 101 model presented a conservative estimate of the likely development potential of this property by 2020. Because the Brisbane model is three years more current than the East of 101 model, Brisbane year 2020 (with Baylands Phase I and II development) projections for Bayshore Boulevard near the Brisbane/South San Francisco border were used as guidance to adjust future projections along Bayshore Boulevard in the vicinity of the Terrabay project. Year 2020 Base Case traffic projections also include development of the approved 665,000-square-foot office development on the Project site, in a manner similar to 2010 Base Case conditions. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-9 and 3.1-10, Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with one exception, AM Peak Hour · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation PM Peak Hour · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year 2020 with three exceptions, During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off- ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the PM peak hour volumes on the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard and Teffab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-31 r 1< z % .t.~~ ,~o~ o 00 o~~ -<0 -'-1 .~ ~ r l:. ii! ...J. l. ~v on """0 .J ~tr-" ~J ~t,. 1J ~ \0 \Oo~ ~ 120S:! ~-.. ~ N ... <0 It) ~ <') :s ~ ~1- Ii r-- ~ i o o~ ;:: ,- .IGIIOAj"" 0 0 t.~ -;1; \0 ~ 0 It) .~ r-- -~ Pltffl aJo!/~Aeg .,.J ~ 0 -+~ ,. It) ~j N ~ ~1- ~ -+ N 00 00),- ~ N ~ .J+~ It) .6. $..7 It) -+ '" ""Ot r-- ,- =' I , . [is ~ t ,. g~8 (')~.... ~ Cii '" (l) ~ ... Q) ii5 ii5 ~\..o t. \0 '00 ,-iP ~g ;;: + ~ ,. 5 t 0 '0; 0 ~ ~ ;! ~ .... ~ 'ii; :::: i -g~ '" I'll .80: .c:ll!; 30 <: "\ ~ o ~ ~ pltffJ podJ!1:/ ~ a: ~ jjj ,9 ~ .i '" ; III >. ff. ~ ~ !-< ~ ~ i!!- Ll ~j '-- .J. t CIl.~ Q) 0 S 1-1 ;:sP-. .......~ 0_ > Q) Q) CIl CIl co d'f 0'\ Q) 0 I CIl ".. ~co~ rf) ~ 1-1 ~ 1-1 1-1 '"';:s ~ &hoC' .... :r: "d ~~~ Q) 8- P-. 0 ~~ o 6 ~i1 C'l ..... ~ r "" 10 10 -L 0 10 I'- 0 10 CO 10 0 10 N -- CO ~ ~ 10 -"" (') m to .... N N ...J l. 10 .~ + .~ ...... (0 .J l. 10 ptl/g QlOl/s,{eg 0 lt1 "'1 ~ "'1 t ~ ptl/g JJOWIlf 10 J (f) - "" "" .... 010 10010 10 - 10. (').... I'-I'-CO CO ""(') LO ~IO 10 (z -L~a ,-L 00 ...... ~ 10(').... ...... tf .~ ...J+l.t~ "'1 t ~ \ lt1 J "'1 eAIr' en nqna ~IO LOO t~ Cii~~~~_ O(OIO~ c: N & ~. en N '- .S:! ~ o 1.0 0 0 (') '<t N .... ~ I'- N ,.- ,- .J+l. " s~ Cctl -<:lQ: 'E:a:: ~o ~- cc O' ,91 C ... ~~ .~. cr.- LO -+-~ ~ -L LO ~.JO (') , 66 ~ ~~~\'i>l ~ as .~ + l. ,~ t ~ ., N c: L() N ! 10 dj I'- ~ ~ ~ f"'~ ~ 1.0 ~- 10. .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ctl o~LO--.1 I'- '<t .J+l. ';iJ LO 1'-- N ~. \.. "'1~ 00 '<t1O ~ (') -LL() ('t) L() -+- (0 0(') .~ ~UO!SS!W "'1t~ LOOO N .... It) "" N ID g. e 0:: C) W S M :tl lD {!l ~ 8. ~ ] ~ ~ ~ lJ ~ ../ Jl + t C/J QJ E([ ::l~ 'oS :> QJ QJ C/J C/J (\:l (\:l..c:: oU~ 'f""l QJ >. I C/J (\:l 'f""l(\:l,.o cf)J:O(\:l QJ I-< l::: I-< ::l QJ &boE-- ..... ::c "'Cl ~ ~ QJ (\l C/J QJ 0 ~ g.. ::E~ ~..... o ::l C'l 0 o-B C'l ..... ~ '-' Standards of Significance for Project Impacts 3.1 Traffic and Circulation on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical capacity limits. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM Peak Hour . Bcryshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand about five to six car lengths longer than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than available storage (six car lengths longer for the left turn lane; two car lengths longer for the through/left turn lane and 15 car lengths longer (per lane) than available storage for the right turn lanes). The eastbound through lanes would have a storage demand about nine car lengths longer than available storage. PM Peak Hour . Bcryshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a demand about five car lengths greater (per lane) than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about two car lengths greater than available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and combined left/through lanes would have storage demands from nine to 12 car lengths greater than available storage, IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: . The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system, This is the trip generation threshold utilized by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County to determine when their Congestion Management Program policies and guidelines must be followed for new projects, Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-34 Project Trip Generation 3.1 Traffic and Circulation . Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and volumes would be increased by at lest two percent. . Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and volumes would be increased by at least two percent. . Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. . The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F. . The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels. . The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more. . Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.l01 freeway or a freeway ramp from LOS E to LOS F, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. . The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. . The Project would not provide City code required parking. . If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. · If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant safety concern would be created. Project trip generation was developed using a multistage process standard to the traffic engineering profession when evaluating impacts from a multiuse development. The proposed Project will contain the following uses. . 2,038-seat multi-screen movie theater complex . 307,710 gross square-foot retail center . 295,500 gross square-foot office . 171 townhouse units . 180 highrise condominium units (condo tower) Project trip generation projections were developed as follows. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-35 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Gross Trip Generation Projections Gross trip generation was determined from each Project component using trip rates from the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Please see Appendix C Table C-5 for Project gross trip generation. Movie theater trip rates for a Friday rather than a midweek evening were used in order to provide a conservative evaluation. /ntemal Trip Capture A projection was next developed of the likely number of gross trips from each project component that would not occur as people would walk between uses rather than drive (i.e. residents going to/ from retail/ movie/ office uses, etc.). Elimination of some trips due to internal capture results in net new external trip generation due to the Project. Appendix C Tables C-6 and C-7 present the Project's AM and PM peak hour internal trip captures estimates as well as resultant net new external trips. Overall, after allowance for internal trips only, the proposed Project would be expected to result in the following net new trips traveling external to the Project site. AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 533 242 PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 762 989 Passby and Diverted Linked Trip Capture A certain level of traffic from some of the Project uses would likely be attracted from traffic already on the local surface street system or the U.S,101 freeway. The amount of capture would vary between the AM and PM peak hours. Based upon data contained in the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Qune 2004), Table 3.1-17 shows the levels of passby and diverted linked trip capture were used in the analysis. Passby capture would come from vehicles traveling along either Bayshore Boulevard or Sister Cities Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, while diverted linked trips would come from the U.S.101 freeway or other surface streets within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. TABLE 3.1-17: PROJECT PASSBY AND DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips % Diverted % Diverted % Passby Linked Trip Net % Passby Linked Trip Net Use Capture Capture New Capture Capture New Movie Theater 0 0 100% 3 30 67% Retail 10 13 77% 20 35 45% Office 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Residential 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Source: Crane Transportation Group/Trip Generation Handbook (2004) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em,;ronmental Impact &port 3.1-36 Project Trip Distribution ],1 Traffic and Circulation Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 show details of Project passby and diverted linked trip estimates. Net Change in Terrabay Phase III Net New Trip Generation: Proposed Versus Approved Use Table 3.1-18 presents the change in AM and PM peak hour net new external trip generation from the Terrabay Phase III site when comparing the currently proposed Project to the 665,000-square-foot office development previously approved. As shown, the currently proposed Project would result in an overall reduction of about 160 two- way trips during the AM peak traffic, but an increase of about 855 two-way trips during the PM peak hour. TABLE 3.1-18: TERRABAY PHASE III CHANGE IN PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CURRENTLY PROPOSED VERSUS APPROVED PROJECT AM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 240 773 762 989 1751 Approved Project 818 113 931 153 745 898 Net Change- Proposed Versus (-285) +127 (-158) +609 +244 +853 Approved Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 present AM and PM peak hour distribution patterns for each component of Project traffic. Project office traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101 office/R&D development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 3.1-16), Project residential trip distribution patterns were based upon current AM and PM peak hour counts of traffic flow to/ from the existing Terrabay Phase I and II residential developments served by Sister Cities Boulevard and the Hillside Boulevard Extension, Project commercial and movie theater traffic distribution patterns were based upon market area projections by the Project applicant. Resultant weekday year 2010 Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-11 and 3.1-12, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-13 and 3.1-14, respectively. Terrab<!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3,1-37 r (z oco<Xl N Ol ~ ..J+ I. N N _t-- <Xl -l.$ 10 _ 10 N N _ Ol N Ol ,;:: ~j~t~ O)N _ t--~'<t to 'r L() <c- ~. ~- 0) ~. PlI/fI Q/ol/s,{eg M . ~ ~ ~- ~ C'\I 'f"'" 'C"'-" '" N<D S-!.t-- 0:;: <b ~ ~ '" ..J + I. o t-- _ t-- t-- ~ 1i'i .S ~ ... .'!l ~ I ~. "0 3 ,g :S :::s t55 " g. e a:: (j ill r:: r? ..g 2l t ~ &. 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~o~ 1cn '- :2- ~ ~- o co 10 '" N 10 ~ '<t _ 10 Ol Ol ~ ..J + I. ,:B <D f)~t ~ ~j ~- 0 i'-MLO <D <D0l'O;j' M ~N~ 10. ~ N ;;;~ NIO ..J + ~ CQ II) ,92 <3 ... ~ i'i3 g 'O;j' 10 M -l. 10 'C\~o t-- ~oe ,-~? ~ ,~ t r: '" 0 0 ~ ro N ~ :;! ~ ~ :t: ~ ~ PAffI pod/fV 4. tCll .~S 8.8 t""lP-.o ~+> ~ QJ J-< rf) CIl ::s QJ <<l 0 J-<U~ .[0 ~ ~ ~~QJ oP-. ~~ r (z LO a) 0 ~ Si ,~ .J+C ~ ~1 N lXl M M,.. - "" N"" '~ 0.. .. .Ie ~ o , t. ON OLOO +-;;; 1.J + l. f" ~ L().l "" all 17' an nqnQ ((]-:r- It~ ~- 0 R ;:. ~ ,... ,.. O~LO (Y)~~ .J+l. ~J~t~ O>a)l'\I d; _ LO N,.. "" N,.. 12. o ~- l2+.5 .9l {g S o <Ii r---NM-J co"""" .J+l. ~J o "" - N ~+ I'- co +-co a)lno LO 0>0", 0) (W')"C'-N f"g I pille Q/Ol/s,{ee .J t l. ~- ~ ~ g- ~ ~ j ,... C") ('\l"'" L() ~. lX)~ ~. N ~- ~. co r--- ~ +-;? t.~ +- ,.. N "" -~ 0> f"~ ~~ 012 O>N t.<') <') +- ~ LON f"~ - IS UO,ISSWV ""1t~ In 00 to NCOCO N,.. M +-~ a) ::0- '" ,... L() ~~ .J t ~ lXl '" .91 <3 .. .~ ~~ "" '" 0 12 r--- co ,.. I'- f" N t l. ~ ,~ t 0 ., 0> tii ~ ,.. ,t co ~ ~ ::t Ly +-~ N f"~ f)~t~ g ~a;~ N<') 'gs. :;, :: -8& €~ ~o 't:l s; .8 ~ ~ pille po 1\1 g. 2 n:: " ijj 5 (") '-Ii Ql ~ ~ &. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ell " .:+ ~ gJ '[~ NP-t'O 7+> ;;i & ~ GJ Cd 0 ~U:r: EhGJ .... ~ ~ ~~QJ oP-. .-l~ ~P-. r " ~,( < ~ z (: z ocoo NOllO ...J!~ ....~ N -"" l') GO _M lO Ol (";: pille aJo4S,{ee (";J, fl~t~ co ~ t ~ ~- ~ ~ ~- ~ (0 ~J N C') ;:.J ~ r-- r--~"" N~ r-- (0_ co - ~LO~ ~+ N(o ~+ r-- ~ r-- ~. gJ+ N ;;;10 NlO ...J ! '- 8:;;~ LON-r .J!l. ~ 1ii :<: ~ ... * 6 =i LOIllO ~~;: .J!l. ~- M ~+ r-- pille jJoWIV "" a:: e iIi ~ ~..8 <II .. lQ 1:: .s::: 8. ~j ~ ~ ~ lJ I- Jj g~~8 f")~'I"'"" ~ 1ii ~ ;e; (.) ... J!! ,~ U) -L III <&.Jo g;l l'} ;J!"GO y..'{.\<i,I00 III -r ("N + l. ~ .~ t 0 ~ g fj J!! r-- .t ~ ~ ~ ~ .f+ ... Ul U Q) "5- ~ (f)~'O ~+> ~ Q) ~ (f) Ul ;:j cu III 0 ~U~ .~~~ ~~Q) oP-< ~~ ,r " <z ~ ~ ~ ..- ..- ,... N""" 1'"'" ..J+t. ~ ~t lO 1i'i l3 ~~ ~ N a. .... .Sl '" o ~ t.O li)C'l..- - ~ ,..J . t. r ~ , Ii) j ~ ar ~ nqna g- gli)~ N ~ N 'O~ o. ~E ~ ..o~ €ll!: ~o =~ '0 5 .8 :S ::. o CI) '<t Ii) ~ ..- t.~ -~ N Ii) 0 N C'l ..- m 0 N LO _C'l 0> lO ..- N ..J . t. '<t rg . to ..J t. pille QJOl.{s,{eg 0 ~ t ,. 0 ~ ,. ~- ~j ~j Ui- ,... ,. (j) CON ..- C'lN ..- Ii) lO - l/) N..- ~. coC') ,... [e- '<t N.- N ~. N to l/) flS. ~. m -~ N r~ f\~t,. PllffI JJod.J!\f o 0>..- Ii) 0> lO lO lO Nl/) co NCO co"- .-N ..J + <Xl -~ .- ~ 1i'i '" ,91 (5 ~ t. N <o\.JO ,l!! lO ,60 E NCI)~y..~"'~ N 0> r~ + t. ,. ,~ t 0 Ol N i al N Uj co ~ ~ ~ r~ 1/ o :g- ~. .5 .- -91 {g c :l: o Cll ,...tOco-J ,...to'<t ..J . l., ~J to ,... - N ~. \... ~,. OC'l '<t<Xl "-C'l t.<Xl <"> to __ ro 0<"> r~ - IS UO!SS!W ~t~ l/) C'l0 N C'l 10 '<tN ~ 0: ~ [jj ~ '" 0 '.0 ~ i ';. ~ ~ ~ ~ ij ~ u ~ ./j ~. ~ gj '[ ~ ~~o ~ ~+> tt5~~ <II III 0 ~U::r:: bI)~~ .... III III ~~QJ o~ N;:E ~~ Year 2020 Base Case + Project Intersection Geometries and Control Impact Overview 3,1 Traffic and Circulation Figure 3.1-15 presents year 2020 Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and controL As shown, intersection geometrics and control are projected to remain the same at all locations with the exception of the three Project access driveway intersections along Bayshore Boulevard and the Project inbound access intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard. The proposed Project would generate more than 100 additional vehicular trips than the approved project. Approximately 855 .:t more trips would be generated during the PM peak hour. This would exceed C/CAG thresholds and would be a significant impact However, this impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level through a TDM plan acceptable to C/CAG. For year 2010 conditions, the project would degrade operation at one intersection to unacceptable levels. This would be a significant impact, but conditions could be mitigated to a less than significant leveL At the only intersection with Base Case LOS F operation, the project would reduce AM peak hour volumes and result in less than a two percent increase in PM peak hoU1: volumes. This would be a less than significant impact In addition, no freeway segment or ramp would receive a significant impact due to project traffic. The Project would, however, aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 and to produce unacceptable queuing at one location with acceptable Base Case queuing, These would be significant impacts, Mitigation would not be possible to reduce Project queuing impacts to a less than significant leveL For year 2020 conditions, two intersections would receive significant impacts during the PM peak hour. Mitigation could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level at one, but not at the other location. In addition, the Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at one location where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits and aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation would not be possible to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The Project would not result in significant impacts to either freeway mainline or ramp operations. A plan for on-site circulation management has not been proposed by the Project applicant. This could result in inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking, which is considered a potentially significant impact However, mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. The Project would meet City parking code requirements, but without an on-site circulation management plan, various parking levels could have high demand and congestion while other levels would be consistently underutilized. This would also be a significant impact that could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S upplementaf Environmental Impa"t &port 3,1-42 r (z ..... o +I...J= 7 ~ All.. E "1~~'~~~:fJ~ ~tt~ --r ., P^J8 J,Jodl!'v' .of-- .of-- , -+g~,. -r-<: -J .91 i'5 ~ ~ll.~ t !.~ }:'"'Sjw ., c: Ol (ij en .~ 0- CI) ..9 CI) @[] \.. " ..... o tJ r:: ~8 .or:: !-< 0 p.., ..0 + ~ ~ & ~ I t1i Cl> ~U~ _, (f') Cl> ~ ~. (l,lUl'1j ;; ~ ~ .~o CI) ~ ~ .S{ C'ltJ ~ S o 0 ..-i Cl> ~C) cu ~ ,...J ~ () 0:: c:: W .g <') '" (I) 1:: ~ 8- ~ ~ 2l ~ ~ 1J ~ .. 2J .J l 3,1 Traffic and Circulation Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures YEAR 2010 Impact 3.1.1 Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During the PM Peak Hour (5) The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than the approved 2000 Office Project during the PM peak hour (::!: 855 more trips during the PM peak hour than the approved 2000 Office Project). This requires that the proposed project follow C/CAG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of net new trips, Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/ or tenants will mitiga,te all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.1.1 The Project applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20,120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix C Table C-I0 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the::!: 855 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. (L TS). Impact 3.1.2 Year 2010 Intersection Levelof5ervice Impacts (5) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a ::!:25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4%) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. . Provide a second left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities approach. Adjustments should also be provided, if needed, to the north curb line of Sister Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em>ironmental Impad &port 3.1-44 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Cities Boulevard near the intersection to allow safe U-turn movements, which will be conducted by project drivers. . Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach, Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-38.2 seconds vehicle delay (L TS) Impact 3.1.3 Year 2010 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS) The proposed Project would not result in any U.S.I0l freeway segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F. For those segments projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in a net decrease in traffic. AM Peak Hour Southbound U.S.l0l (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 1,1 %. PM Peak Hour Northbound U.S,101 (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 0,9%. Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1.3 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.4 Year 2010 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS) The proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in a net decrease in traffic. AM Peak Hour U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,145 down to about 1,940 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. PM Peak Hour U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes decreased from about 2,135 down to about 2,105 vehicles per hour, with operation remaining LOS F. Freeway ramp operation impacts would be less than significant. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-45 3,1 Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 3.1.4 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.5 Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU) The proposed Project would not result in any unacceptable vehicle queuing at locations where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits, with one exception, In addition, project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010, AM Peak Hour . Bc!yshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a 1 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing, PM Peak Hour . Bc!yshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a 1 135% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a 16 percent increase in traffic and Base Case queuing would be extended beyond available storage. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through/left turn lanes would receive a 1 12% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing reduced due to the proposed Project, Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.l01 Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard and the left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I0l Northbound on-ramp. Mitigadon Measure 3.1.5 . Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City may also desire to add additional length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue and some vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes. The other proposed measure to improve level T,rrab'!J Phase III Project Draft SJlppl,mental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-46 ],1 Traffic and Circulation of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SO) · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SO) YEAR 2020 Impact 3.1.6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts (SU) All but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S,101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F but driver delay would decrease by about 20 seconds and volumes would decrease by about three percent, During the PM peak hour, operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent (1.1 %) during this time period, resulting in a less-than-significant impact at this location, However, Project traffic would produce significant impacts at two locations during the PM peak hour, At Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard, operation would change from Base Case LOS C to Base Case + Project LOS F, and volumes would increase by more than two percent (10.7%). In addition, at the Bayshore/U.S.l0l Southbound Hook Ramps/Project access intersection, operation would change from LOS D to LOS F, with volumes increasing by more than two percent (5.6%). These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.1.6 · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard 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 U-turn movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay (LTS) · Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.l0l Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access Scenario 1 Eliminate outbound Project movements at this intersection, while maintaining inbound flow. Transfer all outbound traffic flow to the Project's central driveway connection along Bayshore Boulevard. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3,1-47 },1 Traffic and Circulation Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection approach, if right-of-way is available, Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D /E-55.0 seconds vehicle delay (L TS) S cmario 2 Eliminate all Project access (inbound or outbound) opposite the hook ramps. Transfer all movements to the central Project access. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-50.9 seconds vehicle delay (L TS) S cmario 3 Maintain inbound and outbound flow to/from the Project access driveway, Provide a third lane on the Project driveway approach to Bayshore Boulevard. Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard approach, if right-of-way is available. The City of South San Francisco shall accept LOS F operation at this location one hour each weekday afternoon. In conjunction with this philosophy, provide actuated signal operation that will always clear the U.S.l0l southbound off-ramp traffic to preclude backups to the freeway mainline. The added green time for the off-ramp will result in reduced green time (and potential longer backups) for the Project driveway intersection approach as well as the Bayshore Boulevard intersection approaches. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS F-90.6 seconds vehicle delay (SU) Impact 3.1. 7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS) The proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact. No segment would receive more than a three-tenths of one percent traffic increase, and half the freeway segments would receive volume decreases (when comparing the proposed Project to the approved project). Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1. 7 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS) The proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in either a net decrease or no measurable change in traffic. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-48 ],1 Traffic and Circulation AM Peak Hour . U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,220 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. (L TS) PM Peak Hour . U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes decreased from about 2,990 down to about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. (LTS) . U.S,101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes increased less than one percent (0,7%) with the proposed Project. Operation would remain LOS F. (LTS) Mitigation Measure 3.1.8 No mitigation required. Impact 3.1.9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU) The proposed Project would produce unacceptable vehicle queuing at one location where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues to significant levels at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. AM Peak Hour Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection . The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a ::t 9% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection . The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a ::t 10.5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. . The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would receive a ::t 24% increase in traffic and would experience unacceptable queuing, . The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ::t 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 1 01 Northbound On-Ramp . The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined left/ through lanes would receive a ::t 9% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.1-49 Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 Impact 3.1.10 3.1 Traffic and Circulation It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing reduced due to the proposed Project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.I0l Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as left turns on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. . 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, Make each lane at least 200 feet long to accommodate the 50th percentile queue. The City may also desire to add additional length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue and some vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes, The other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US. 101 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 acceptable conditions. (SO) On-Site Circulation (S) The Project applicant has indicated that parking for all site uses will be equally accessible via all Project driveway connections to either Bayshore Boulevard (three connections) or to Sister Cities Boulevard (one inbound connection). Project residents and employees should quickly learn the easiest and most direct routes between their assigned parking areas and the driveway connections to the local street system. However, retail customers, movie patrons and visitors to the residential and office uses who may not be that familiar with the multi-level parking garage will be confronted with numerous decisions when entering the site (by any driveway) in regards to which levels of the garage are available for parking (for their activity) as well as which level(s) of the garage will have the most available spaces. No plan has yet been provided by the applicant in regards to the type of "easy-to-read" and "real time information" system that will be provided along each entrance driveway and at each garage entry location to provide decision-making input to drivers. It is probable that a disproportionate number of drivers may opt to initially access surface (top level) parking rather than proceed into one of the lower garage levels. This could lead to a situation whereby the overall site has a sufficient number of parking spaces, but inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking may lead to pockets of congestion along certain parking aisles, while other areas of the garage remain mostly empty. This would be a significant impact. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-50 3.1 Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 3.1.10 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS) Impact 3.1.11 Provision of On-Site Parking (S) Table 3.1-19 shows the parking to be provided by the proposed Project, which would meet City Municipal Code and/ or Terrabay Zoning Ordinance requirements. TABLE 3.1-19 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES Project Use Total Spaces Provided Total # of Vehicles Parked With Valet Parking Retail/Movie Theater Office Residential Units TOTAL 1,440 411 562 2,413 1,870 570 650 3,090 There is no available on-street parking within easy walking distance of the Project Therefore, valet parking has been incorporated into the Project plan for peak use time periods. Valet parking would be expected to increase total on-site parking supply by about 28 percent In addition, for times of peak parking demand, valet stations will be in contact with each other to provide real time information about space availability. In the rare instances when demand will exceed parking supply (even with valet parking), the valet service shall immediately inform drivers that no parking is available on the site (on a temporary basis) to prevent drivers from wandering from floor to floor in the parking garage. The different Project uses will have their peak parking demands occurring at different times of the day and evening on weekdays and on weekends. For example, office activities will have their peak parking demand on weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, with little use on weekday evenings or on weekends; retail uses will have their peak parking demands on weekday afternoons into the early evening and on weekend afternoons; while the movie theater will have its peak parking demand during evenings, TeTTab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.1-51 3, 1 Traffic and Circulatio n particularly on Friday and Saturday night. This will allow shared use of the same parking stalls for office, retail and movie activities. As previously detailed within the "Internal Circulation" section, no plan has yet been provided by the applicant detailing how retail and movie patron drivers will be quickly guided to the various levels of the parking garage to find available parking. Even with the total on-site parking supply meeting City code and Terrabay ordinance requirements, if clear and real time parking space information is not transmitted to drivers, there is the possibility that certain levels of the garage (particularly the surface parking) will always have high demand and congestion (even during non-peak parking demand times), while other areas of the parking garage will be consistently underutilized. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.1.11 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS) Tmab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em,;ronmenla! Impact Report 3,1-52 Air Pollution Climatology Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality ], Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.2 AIR QUALITY SETTING The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine, Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution, Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up, Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents, The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EP A) to identify air quality standards. California has also adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for some pollutants. Table 3.2-1 summarizes current state and national standards, The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) , The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 3.2-2 summarizes Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.2-1 3.2 Air Quality exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. Table 3.2-2 shows that TABLE 3.2-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Averaging Federal Primary Pollutant Time Standard State Standard Ozone I-Hour 0,12 PPM 0.09 PPM 8-Hour 0.08 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8- Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM I-Hour 35,0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0,05 PPM i-Hour 0.25 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.Q3 PPM 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM i-Hour 0.25 PPM PMIO Annual Average 50 flg/ m3 20 flg/ m3 24-Hour 150 flg/ m3 50 fig/ m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 flg/m3 12 flg/m3 24-Hour 65 flg/ m3 Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 flg/ m3 30 Day Average 1.5 flg/ m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 fLg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide i-Hour 0.03 PPM Vinyl CWo ride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM PPM = Parts per Million li-gl m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards \l 19/03) htt;p: / /www.arb.ca.gov.aqs/aaqs2.pdf most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception of the state standard for PMIO and ozone. The federal ozone standard is also exceeded in other parts of the Bay Area air basin. Attainment Status The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay is currently a nonattainment for I-hour ozone standard. However, in April 2004, U.S. EP A made a fInal fInding that the Bay Area has attained the national I-hour ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has been reclassified as an attainment area for the I-hour standard, The region must submit a re-designation request to EP A in order to be reclassified as an attainment area. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3,2-2 Standards of Significance 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-2: AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD, CITY, 2002-2004 Days Standard Exceeded Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site 2002 2003 2004 Ozone Federal 1- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 1 Ozone Federal 8- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 PM10 State 24-Hour San Francisco 4 1 1 Redwood City 1 0 1 PM2.5 Federal 24- San Francisco 4 0 0 Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Carbon State/Fed. San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2005, (http://www.arb.ca.gov./ adam/ cgi-bin/ adamtop/ d2wstart) The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM2,s standards, Under the Califorriia Clean Air Act San Mateo County is a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (pMJO and PM2,s). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) provide the following defmitions of a significant air quality impact: . Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site . A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. . A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/ day for Reactive Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &porl 3,2-3 3.2 Air Quality Organic Gases (RaG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PMI0, Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. . Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. . Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact, Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PMz,s (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PMz.s impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PMIO exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO, If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. Impact Overview Air quality impacts of the project were analyzed in Chapter 4.5 of the 1998/99 SEIR and in the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. This chapter re-examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds based on the current Terrabay Phase III Project description, utilizes updated methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic forecasts that reflect changes in roadway improvements and travel patterns that have occurred since certification of the earlier EIRs. This supplement also accounts for changes in the regulatory standards since certification of the previous EIRs. The Project would generate air pollutant emissions during construction and operation, Operational emissions would primarily be from the generation of vehicle trips, This analysis is intended to meet the requirements of the BAAQMD's guidance for environmental documents (BAAQMD 1996), It addresses the impacts of the project during construction as well as operational impacts on both the local and regional scale. Carbon monoxide concentrations would slightly increase but would not exceed state/ federal ambient air quality standards. The Project would result in regional emission increases that are significant and unavoidable as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Impact 3.2.1 Construction activities would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PMJO' (8). Construction activities would generate dust, especially during excavation and grading of hillsides and hauling of material. This type of activity has the potential to affect local air Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enzironmental Impact &port 3.2-4 3.2 Air Quality quality temporarily, as well as create a nuisance to existing and new residents. The primary pollutant of concern is PMlO which is a component of dust. Dust emissions would be generated primarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movement of material (both on- and off-site). This would be a potentially significant impact. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR required the implementation of the following construction mitigation measures: . All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. · All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to mmntain at least two feet of freeboard, . All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers, · All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). . Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. · Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. · Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph) . Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. . Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). · Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. · Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction TefTabf!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.2-5 3.2 Air Quality site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or installation of wind fences). . Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions warrant, to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site. . The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at anyone time, . A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. According the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. (LTS) Impact 3.2.2 The Project would change traffic volumes and congestion levels~ changing carbon monoxide concentrations. This is a less-than-significant impact. (LTS) On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles, Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site. Carbon monoxide concentrations under worst-case meteorological conditions have been predicted for the two signalized intersections most impacted by project traffic. Peak hour traffic volumes were applied to the a screening form of the CALINE-4 dispersion model to predict maximum l-and 8-hour concentrations near these intersections for existing conditions and project conditions in the years 2010 and 2020. Appendix E provides a description of the model and a discussion of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis. The model results were used to predict the maximum 1- and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Terrab'!J Phase III Projtel Draft S upplemenlal Entironmenlal Impacl &porl 3.2-6 3.2 Air Quality Table 3.2-3 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak I-hour and 8- hour traffic periods in parts per million (pPM). The I-hour values are to be compared to the federal I-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8- hour values in Table 3.2-3 are to be compared to the state and federal standard of 9 PPM. TABLE 3.2-3: PREDICTED CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS, IN PARTS PER MILLION Forecast Concentration I-Hour 8-Hour Scenario Concentration Concentration Existing (2005) 8.1 5,8 Base Case (2010) 7,2 5.1 Base Case + Project (2010) 7.4 5,2 Base Case + Alt 1 (2010) 7.4 5,2 Base Case + Alt 2 (2010) 7,3 5,2 Base Case (2020) 5.5 3,9 Base Case + Project (2020) 5,6 4,0 Base Case + Alt 1 (2020) 5,6 4,0 Base Case + Alt 2 (2020) 5,6 3,9 Existing (2005) 6,1 4,4 Base Case (2010) 6.5 4.6 Base Case + Project (2010) 6,2 4.4 Base Case + Alt 1 (2010) 6.2 4.4 Base Case + Alt 2 (2010) 6,1 4,3 Base Case (2020) 5,0 3,6 Base Case + Project (2020) 5.2 3,7 Base Case + Alt 1 (2020) 5,2 3,7 Base Case + Alt 2 (2020) 5.2 3.7 20,0 9,0 Intersection Sister Cities/ Bayshore/ Airport/ Oyster Point Bayshore/ SB 101 Ramps Most Stringent Standard Table 3.2-3 shows that Project traffic would increase concentrations by up to 0.2 PPM, but concentrations would remain below the most stringent state or federal standards. Concentrations with project would not exceed the state/federal ambient air quality standards. Since project traffic would not cause any new violations of the 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide, nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation, project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less- Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.2-7 3.2 Air Quality than-significant, confirming the conclusions of the 1998/99 SEIR and the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.2.2 None required, Impact 3.2.3 The project would result in a regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMJo. (SU) Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model. The URBEMIS-2002 model and the conditions assumed in its use are described in Appendix E. The incremental daily emission increases associated with project operational trip generation are identified in Table 3.2-4 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PMto' Also shown are the emission estimates from the 1998/99 SEIR. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds of significance for these pollutants are also shown. TABLE 3.2-4: PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY Scenario ROG NOx PMIO 1998 SEIR Emissions for Phase III 46 97 92 94 104 105 Project Emissions Difference +51 +2 +1 BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 80 80 80 The 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR concluded that full build out of the Terrabay Plan would result in emissions of ozone precursors and PMI0 exceeding 150 pounds per day which, at that time, was the significance threshold. Subsequently, the BAAQMD has adopted stricter significance thresholds of 80 pounds per day for each regional pollutant, The 1998/99 SEIR found that regional pollutant emissions (based on the URBEMIS-5 program) from full buildout of the proposed Terrabay Plan would exceed 80 pounds per day for each of the pollutants. Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 3.2-4 would exceed those calculated for the 1998 SEIR, and Phase III emissions alone would exceed the thresholds of significance for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PMIO. This would constitute a significant impact to regional air quality. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.2-8 3.2 Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3.2.3 Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented, This mitigation measure addressed office and retail uses on the Phase III portion of the site and office, retail and residential on the Phase II and Phase III portions of Terra bay. The proposed Project would include residential uses as well. The following are additional mitigation measures to be applied to the retail portions of the Project: . Provide electric vehicle charging stations. . Provide sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/ or community-wide network. . Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle storage, . Provide preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles. . Implement feasible TDM measures including a ride-matching program, coordination with regional ridesharing organizations and provision of transit information. . Construct transit amenities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc. · Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent development. The above measures reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions by 5-10%. This would not provide the 24% reduction in emissions needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant, so Project impacts would remain significant after implementation of mitigation measures. Tm-ab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.2-9 Fundamentals of Noise Noise Measurements ], Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3 NOISE SETTING Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and it is commonly measured with a sound level meter, Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels, To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting f1lter is used. A weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high- frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is commonly used when the A weighted sound level is reported, Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lma.x) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a train passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to one hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a ten dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a five dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of three dBA is considered a just noticeable difference. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A ten dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness, To quantify the existing noise environment two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements and four short-term (15-minute) noise measurements were made, The locations were chosen to represent the location of noise sensitive project uses and existing noise sensitive receivers that may be affected by Project generated noise. Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of short-term and long-term noise measurements. Tmab'!J Phase III Projed Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact &port 3.3-1 >>. '''" "'>..'\. . " \", " \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ i . \ \ I j il I ! i 'I i ( 1(( < { I I -}1 i r ti i - c: ~ ~ ::) (I) co (l) :: CIl g '..l:l Cd u o ....:I ~..... I ~ ~ ClJ tf') S ~t. QJ ClJ ... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ::E ClJ CIl ..... o Z 3.3 Noise Figure 3.3-2 shows the results of the long-term noise measurements; and Table 3.3-1 shows the results of the short-term noise measurements. FIGURE 3.3-2: LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS, 10-11 MAY 2005 80 - <( !g 70 - = -.:: <7 ~ Qj 60- > Q) ...J gJ 50- '0 z 2l, 40- e! Q) ~ 30- >- ~ :::l o I ___ Location A, CNEL 76 dBA ~ ~ 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <;::l 0 0 <;::l 0 <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l 0 <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l <;::l 0 <;::l <;::l <;::l ID ,;.: cX:i en 0 ~ N CO') 0 N CO') ...r .;.; ID ..... co en 0 ~ N M ...r It) to ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ ..- ..- ..- Time of Day TABLE 3.3-1: SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Location Date/ A-weighted Sound Level, dBA Time Leq Lio L33 Lso L90 CNEU 1 On hillside at edge 5/10/05 of bench. 610 ft. 15:30 - 70 72 71 70 69 76 from centerline of 15:45 US 101. 2 South comer of site near proposed 5/10/05 office tower. 300 ft. 16:00 - 73 74 73 73 72 78 from centerline of 16:15 US 101. 3 On hillside near north end of site. S/10/0S 460 feet from 16:30 - 70 72 71 70 68 7S centerline of 16:45 US 101. 4 N ear existing S/11/05 townhomes on IS:32 - 60 62 61 60 58 66 Mandalay PI. 15:47 a L.in based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at long-term measurement location. Terrab'!Y Phose III Projett Draft Supplemental Em1ronmenlal Impact Report 3.3-3 Regulatory Framework 3.3 Noise The dominant noise source during the measurements was traffic on US 101. Other noise sources include traffic on Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard as well as aircraft. Noise from road construction was audible at times but did not contribute significandy to the CNEL. Traffic. The freeway is depressed in a cut adjacent to the site. As a result, locations close to the freeway and at the bottom of the hillside (e.g. Location A) are somewhat shielded from freeway noise by the terrain. Locations on the hillside (e.g. Location 1) have a direct view of the freeway and do not benefit from the acoustical shielding. This acoustical shielding is the reason that the CNEL at Location A is the same as Location 1 even though Location A is much closer to the freeway. The CNELs at Locations B and Location 1 differ by two dBA because Location B was setback from the edge of a level "bench" area and benefited from acoustical shielding provided by the existing terrain. Location 1 was at the edge of the bench and did not have this acoustical shielding. Aircraft. Noise from aircraft departing San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) was clearly audible at times. Based on the long term noise measurement data, the maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) from jet flyovers were up to 80 dBA. There were a total of six jets that generated an Lmax greater than 75 dBA. These overflights were likely from aircraft using either the Shoreline or Porte departure routes. Because the events are relatively infrequent, the jet noise did not significandy contribute to the measured CNEL. Yearly average noise levels from aircraft activity are quantified in noise contour maps that are published by San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Neither the existing nor the future CNEL 60 dBA contour reaches the Project site (SFIA 2001). City of South San Francisco The City's General Plan Noise Element contains Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas (General Plan Table 9.2-1). These criteria consider residential land use to be "satisfactory" when exposed to aircraft noise of CNEL 65 dBA or less. This is consistent with the criteria of the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. For addressing traffic noise the Noise Element has the following implementing policies: 9-1-4. Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. Terrabay Phase III Project Draft S upplementa! Em.ronmental Impact Report 3.3-4 3.3 Noise 9-1-5. Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design 0 f mitigation measures. 9-1-6. Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. The City of South San Francisco has Noise Regulations in its Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32). These regulations address land uses that produce noise by specifying property line noise limits and interior noise limits. The regulations also address construction noise. State of California The California Noise Insulation Standards (CBC Section 1208A.8.2) require new multi- family residential project to provide in interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA or less due to exterior sources. An acoustical report is required for new developments with in the CNEL 60 dBA contour. The report must specify what measures will be used to achieve the interior noise level requirement. If the windows need to be in the closed position to meet this requirement, then an alternate form of ventilation must be provided to maintain a habitable environment when the windows are closed for noise control. Aircraft Noise (San Mateo County ALUC and State AB 2776). The current Airport Land Use Policy Plan was adopted by the San Mateo County ALUC in 1996. The ALUC Plan also contains noise contour maps and aircraft noise/land use compatibility standards. In 2004, The California Assembly adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a residential subdivision. The disclosure documents must also include a statement regarding noise from aircraft overflights if the subdivision is located within an Airport Influence Area (AIA). According to discussion with ALUC staff (Carbone 2005), the Project site is not within the AIA which is generally the same as the FAR Part 77 outer boundary configuration and CNEL 65 dBA contour. However, Staff did note that under certain wind conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly direcdy over the site when using the Shoreline departure route. Terrabay Phase III Project Draft S IIpplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-5 3.3 Noise IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of The Project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: Significance 1. Generate construction noise levels in excess of the limits contained the City of South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (8.32.050). This regulation states that construction equipment shall not produce a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment or at any point outside the property plane. 2. Expose Project uses to noise levels greater than those considered satisfactory by the criteria of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan or expose residential uses to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA. The impact would be less-than-significant if the noise level inside Project homes does not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA due to exterior noise sources (CBC Section 1208A.8.2 and South San Francisco General Plan). 3. Expose existing noise sensitive land use to an increase in CNEL of more than five dBA; or greater than three dBA and not more than five dBA if the future noise level will be greater than considered satisfactory for the receiving land use according to South San Francisco Noise Element (Table 9.2-1). Noise level increases of 3 dBA or less in the CNEL are considered less than significant regardless of the noise level at the receiving land use. 4. Expose existing or project land uses to noise from stationary sources such as mechanical equipment in excess of the noise levels standards contained in the City of South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (Table 8.32.030). Impact Overview The noise analysis evaluates potentially significant noise impacts associated with the proposed Project. While the development program has been modified from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Project impacts would be similar. Temporary construction impacts are considered less than significant. Exposure of residential development to traffic noise is considered a significant impact. Detailed design of the commercial buildings is not available at this time, therefore, the extent of noise generated from mechanical equipment (e.g. ventilation and air conditioning) cannot be determined. Noise from the mechanical systems of commercial development is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.3.1 Construction noise would temporarily result in increases in noise. (LTS) The noisiest construction activities are typically those associated with grading and foundation work. During these phases there are heavy diesel equipment such as trucks, graders, loaders and scrapers. A rock drill and hoe-ram may be used as part of Terrab~ Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6 3.3 Noise excavation and retaining wall. Pile driving or blasting are not expected to be necessary. Figure 3.3-3 shows the expected noise levels from the various types of equipment. Hoe-ram noise levels are comparable to the rock-drill noise levels shown in Figure 3.3-3. FIGURE 3.3-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVEL. (<l6A1 AT 50 fT 7'1 0'1 90 100 $0 110 H I--- -i J-- l- COMPACT[(!!; (RO!.LERSl '" w :.: .., C; z z s: w 0 Z :l! o .:s: i= ~ '" 0:( i III ::E o u .J 0:( Z Ill: "'- ~ i - ::; 10 ~ o q' ... :r a: III ~ ! o IS 0. l- I- 0:( Z :l! "'- : t: 5 ~ g2 ~ III frcO~H 1.0ACfRS BACKllOES . TRflC10HS SCRAt>EkS. GTIIIO/iRS ---4 H I---Y t-- --i H I-- --l H ~~~ I t-- --l l--I PAveRS TI1UC1(5 CONc;nlrTli MIXCII$ CONCRElf. PUMPS CRAIIES (MOVABLel CRANES(OH1R1CKl PUMPS GENERATORS COMPRESSORS I- ...Z "Ill 0:(:E D.Q. 2- -:;) o w PNEUIMTIC WRtNCliO JACK IIAMMl:RS ANO ROCK ORILLS I t-- ----t PilE ORlVERS (PUKS) . f I--- ~ a: w % I- o VIBRATOR SAWS The nearest noise sensitive receivers are the existing single-family homes across Sister Cities Boulevard and the new townhomes that are part of Phase II of the Terrabay development. The single-family homes are at least 100 feet from the limit of grading and about 250 feet from the nearest proposed building. At these distances the grading noise levels are at least six dBA quieter, and the foundation work would be at least 14 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2. The townhomes are at least 200 feet from the limit of grading and about 300 feet from the nearest proposed building. At these distances the grading noise levels will be at least 12 dBA quieter and the foundation work would be at least 16 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S li/Jplemental Enzironmenta/ Impact Report 3.3-7 3.3 Noise Though there will be times when construction noise is clearly audible at the nearest residences, it is not expected to regularly exceed the 90 dBA limit in the City's Municipal Code. Most of the time, noise from construction activities will tend to blend in with the ambient freeway noise. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR is adequate to address any construction related noise. The mitigation that will be carried forward requires construction scheduling, mufflers and maintenance of equipment, idling prohibitions, equipment location and shielding and a "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" . Mitigation Measure 3.3.1 No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.3.2 Exposure to Aircraft Noise (LTS) The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft may fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City could consider adding a requirement that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that a disclosure statement be included in residential deeds. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. Mitigation Measure 3.3.2 No mitigation required. Impact 3.3.3 The Project residential development would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City of South San Francisco Noise Element. (S) Measured noise levels on the site range from a CNEL of 74 dBA to 78 dBA and are dominated by freeway traffic. Based on future freeway traffic volume projections, noise level could increase by up to two dBA by the year 2020. Based on the latest site plan, most of the land uses nearest the freeway are commercial including offices, retail and a multiplex cinema. The city does not have specific standards for commercial development exposed to traffic noise. According to the city's Noise Element, exposure of commercial land uses to a CNEL of 70 to 80 dBA, "requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed." Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings. This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of 65 dBA to 70 dBA. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. Tetrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S IIpplemental Emironmental Impa'1 Report 3.3-8 3.3 Noise The proposed residential tower would be about 400 feet from the centerline of US 101. The future CNEL at this residential land use would be up to 79 dBA for the upper, levels that have a full view of the freeway. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 Acoustical studies sha/1 be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with State and City of South San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies should be prepared during the architectural design of the Project. In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard should be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significan t level. Impact 3.3.4 There would be an increase in trafJic noise. (5) The expected increase in traffic noise due to Project generated traffic was calculated based on the traffic projections (Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation). The Project would increase noise by one dBA or less along Sister Cities Boulevard. In the year 2020, traffic volume increases along Sister Cities Boulevard are expected to increase traffic noise by up to three dBA. However, the contribution from Project generated traffic results in an increase of less than one dBA. Since the threshold for a significant impact is an increase of greater than three dBA, the Project and cumulative noise increases result in less-than- significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.3.4 The Project shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. (L TS) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-9 3.3 Noise Impact 3.3.5 Project Generated Mechanical Equipment Noise. (S) Since the Project involves mixed use development, there is the potential for stationary noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect the noise sensitive residential uses. The most likely sources of noise impact would be from outdoor mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. At this time not enough is known about the design of the commercial buildings to prepare estimates of mechanical equipment noise at the residences. This is a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5 Require noise control treatments to meet the Municipal Code performance standards. During the design of the commercial buildings a qualified acoustical consultant shall review the Project for conformance with the maximum permissible sound levels in the city's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night at multiple-family residential uses. (LTS) Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES SETIING This section evaluates public services and utilities related to development at the Project site, including police and flte protection services, schools, water supply, wastewater disposal and treatment, and storm drainage. As part of this analysis, individual service and utility providers were contacted and provided with information regarding the proposed Project. Police Protection The City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is at 33 Arroyo Drive, Suite C in South San Francisco. SSFPD provides crime prevention, protection, and apprehension services for the Project site. They are also responsible for enforcement of traffic safety. The SSFPD has 113 persons, including 79 sworn police officers. The sworn officer-to- population ratio is approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.16 officers per 1,000 residents involved in field activities and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents. To provide adequate service for cumulative development, SSFPD's goal is to have approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.18 officers per 1,000 residents involved in field activities, and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents. The SSFPD has an average of 40,000 calls annually, with a daytime population of about 100,000 and a nighttime population of about 67,000 (Sergeant Normandy 2005). The SSFPD has four beats. The Project site is located within Beat #4. There are three, ten-hour work shifts assigned to each beat, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The shifts overlap, with the most overlap coverage from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with six to nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units, available for back-up and overlap. The SSFPD has 31 marked police units, which includes 19 patrol units, four police service technician units, five motorcycles, two parking enforcement vehicles, and a S.W.A.T. response vehicle (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Response times depend on the type of call and the location of the officers at the time the call is dispatched. SSFPD prioritizes crimes against people over property crimes. Police officers are usually in the field at the time a call for service is received. The average response time throughout the City of South San Francisco is about five to six minutes (Sergeant Normandy 2005). The SSFPD uses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles for projects. The three CPTED Principles are Natural Access Control, Natural Surveillance, and Territorial Reinforcement, to aid in the creation of Defensible Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-1 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Space. The SSFPD utilizes an integrated Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) Philosophy and approach. The Community Relations Sergeant and COPPS Coordinator oversee programs to inform the public on safety and quality of life concerns, including Neighborhood Meetings, Homeowners Association Meetings, Neighborhood Watch Meetings, Press Releases, Neighborhood Walking Patrols, Business Owner Meetings, and Intranet and Crime Watch web sites (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Fire Protection The City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides Ere protection and emergency medical response services for the Project site. SSFFD operates five Ere stations with a Ere-fighting staff of 70, two ambulances and crew. They are operating at their limit for personnel and equipment. Station 55, at 1151 South San Francisco Drive, is the primary responder to the Project site and Station 62, at 249 Harbor Way, is the secondary responder. Estimated response time from both Station 55 and Station 62 is five minutes. Station 61 responds with the unit from Station 65 because Station 65 is understaffed. Station 61 will relocate further from the Project site at the end of 2005 and will have a response time of up to seven minutes. There is an automatic response agreement with other Ere departments in San Mateo County to provide mutual aid (Captain Niswonger 2005). The Erst arriving engine company to the Project site would be staffed with three personnel. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 requires that a minimum stafflng of four personnel respond to emergency calls (Captain Niswonger 2005). The San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center in Redwood City handles Ere unit and paramedic communications for SSFFD. Within the City of South San Francisco, some high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures designed with concrete and steel have experienced poor on-site signal strength. Portable radio devices used to contact the San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center have also experienced reception problems. During an emergency (medical, hazardous material, and Ere) it is required that communication systems be operational, for the safety of building occupants and firefighters (Captain Niswonger 2005). Schools The Brisbane School District (BSD) provides elementary and middle school services, kindergarten through 8th grade, to students in the Project area. Jefferson Union High School District OUHSD) provides high school services. The Brisbane School District (BSD) provides elementary and middle school education for students who live within the district and students outside the district, as capacity permits. Currently, more students are transferring into BSD than transferring out. The BSD operates three schools, two in the City of Brisbane and one in the City of Daly City (Waterman 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-2 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Students in the Project area attend Brisbane Elementary School, with a capacity of 240 and Lipman Middle School, with a capacity of 270 (Schoolhouse Services 2001). In 1997, when the BSD reduced kindergarten to third grade class sizes, the capacity of Brisbane Elementary School significandy decreased. During 2004 to 2005, the enrollment was 210 students at Brisbane Elementary School and 214 students at Lipman Middle School (Waterman 2005). Typically, within five years from completion of a new residential development, BSD will experience significant enrollment effects. Brisbane Elementary School is now experiencing enrollment increases as a result of the most recendy completed phase of the Terrabay Project. When students from Terrabay Phase III enroll, cumulatively the entire Terrabay development would require two additional classrooms at Brisbane Elementary School and approximately 30 new students would be accommodated at Lipman School. It will cost approximately $600,000 to add two modular classrooms to Brisbane Elementary School (Waterman 2005). The JUHSD is a "district of choice" with open enrollment. This allows students, including those living in the Terrabay Point and Commons neighborhoods, to attend any of the schools, Jefferson and Westrnoor High Schools in Daly City, and Oceana and Terra Nova High Schools in Pacifica. Students in the Terrabay Project would normally be within the traditional boundaries of Jefferson High School (Crilly 2005). The JUHSD, using proceeds from a local bond, modernized schools during the last seven years. The JUHSD converted many existing classroom spaces to computer labs, and reconfigured classrooms to accommodate lower class sizes in English and mathematics at the freshmen level, as encouraged by the State. Jefferson High School also reduced class size in literacy classes, further impacting existing space. While these configurations essentially occurred within the footprint of the schools, they reduced the capacities of the schools. As a result of class size reduction and the need for multiple computer labs at each school, the same space has the capacity to serve fewer students. Westrnoor High School is the only school that increased in capacity, the result of additional portable classrooms (Crilly 2005). As of September 2004, the JUHSD had 5,437 students including 5,245 students assigned to four high schools and 192 in continuation education, independent study or other programs based at the district office or other facilities. Jefferson High School has a capacity of 1,450 students (an enrollment of 1,295 students in the 2004 to 2005 school year), Oceana High School has a capacity of 900 students (an enrollment of 697 students), Terra Nova High School has a capacity of 1,500 students (an enrollment of 1,440 students), and Westrnoor High School has a capacity of 1,750 students (an enrollment of 1,820 students). These school capacities represent 92% of actual space Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-3 3.4 Public S enices and Utilities and assume use of classrooms for five periods per day but do not include additional special use rooms. While student population has increased in Daly City and other areas in the eastern portion of the District, coast-side schools (Terra Nova High School and Oceana High School) on the western side of the District have accommodated student growth (Crilly, 2005). Water Supply California Water Service Company (CWSC) will serve the Project. The connection is immediately in front of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) has two main transmission pipelines in Bayshore Boulevard, Crystal Springs No.1 (48-inch diameter) and Crystal Springs No.2 (60-inch diameter). CWSC has an 8-inch pipe and a 12-inch pipe from the connection point to CWSC's pump station Oocated within the Project boundary), which are part of the water supply system designed and built to serve the Terrabay Project. (Corlett 2005) CWSC provides potable water to the City of South Francisco. CWSC also serves Colma, a portion of Daly City, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, known as Broadmoor. CWSC purchases most of its water supply from the SFWD. CWSC owns and operates the storage and distribution system that conveys water from the SFWD aqueducts. Applications for new water service are processed through CWSC (Bolzowski 2005). CWSC distributes water through three principal service districts, which have separate distribution and supply connections to the San Francisco Aqueduct. In the South San Francisco Service District, CWSC normally draws water from turnouts on two of the three SFWD aqueducts that run through South San Francisco. CWSC maintains a turnout on the third aqueduct in the event of an interruption in flow on the other two connections. CWSC also has wells that supply about 10 to 15 percent of total demand. The wells are not in production due to a demonstration project with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Bolzowski 2005). CWSC's Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP) states that water demand throughout the South San Francisco Service District in 2002 was 8.55 million gallons per day (mgd). The UWMP bases growth on the amount of services within the district for five and ten years. The services had a steady growth since 1970, and projects almost 22,000 services in 2030. The UWMP used the 10-year growth rate for the service amount, multiplied by the demand per service, to estimate water demand. CWSC addresses the potential water shortages for the future in the district UWMP, the Water Supply Assessment for Land Use/Transportation Corridor Plan and Bay Meadows II Specific Plan, City of San Mateo. Water planning for cumulative development will also be addressed in the Water System and Facilities Master Plans for the three water districts (Bolzowski 2005). TerrabCfY Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-4 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Wastewater Wastewater Collection An existing lO-inch diameter sanitary sewer pipeline runs east along Sister Cities Boulevard and joins the newly constructed lO-inch sanitary sewer line that runs south in Bayshore Boulevard at the intersection of the two streets. The lO-inch diameter sanitary sewer line was sized and installed specifically for the Project as part of the Bayshore Boulevard Hook Ramps Project. The existing lO-inch line is stubbed and ready for connection to the Project at the main entrance. Further downstream, the City's sanitary sewer system was designed to accommodate wastewater flows from the entire Terrabay Project. An existing 16-inch sanitary sewer line continues south along Airport Boulevard. This line was constructed in 1991 for the sole use of the Terrabay development. This is documented in the plans, Terrabqy Development Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project, dated February 1990. CREM Engineers prepared the plans as City-required off-site improvements for the first phase of the Terrabay development. It joins the City's 27-inch trunk sewer line at North Canal Street, which runs to the San Mateo Pump Station and then to the treatment plant. The peak discharge (per City sewage generation standards) is approximately 0.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Sister Cities Boulevard and 0.7 cfs from Bayshore Boulevard (fhe Terraces), for a total of 1.3 cfs. The pipe immediately downstream of Sister Cities Boulevard is a 16-inch diameter ductile iron at a slope of 0.24%, with a capacity of approximately 3.5 cfs. Its capacity will accommodate the total peak discharge from the Terrabay development with the pipe flowing approximately half full. The pipe size and slope do not decrease downstream, so the system maintains this capacity to the City truck sewer at North Canal Street. (Corlett 2005) The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department will review the Project's wastewater system plans and the Department's requirements and standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sanitary sewer system (White 2005). Wastewater Treatment Wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (wQCP), located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The plant has a dry weather treatment capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd) and a wet weather peak capacity of 62 mgd (Chuck, 2005). The WQCP is owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Wastewater produced in both cities is treated at the plant. In addition, the WQCP treats most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion produced by the City of Daly City (Castagnola 2005). Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-5 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The discharge of treated wastewater effluent into San Francisco Bay is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a federal program authorized by the Clean Water Act. Throughout California, NPDES permits are issued and enforced by the State's Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). In addition, the permit also requires that the plant's treated effluent meet specific water quality requirements designed to protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay (Castagnola 2005). In 1994, the WQCP had a dry weather capacity of 8 mgd. An expansion program increased this capacity to 13 mgd. Of this total, approximately 4.3 mgd is reserved for San Bruno, Colma, and Daly City, leaving South San Francisco with a total allocation of 8.7 mgd. In 2004 South San Francisco's average daily flow (ADF) was roughly 6.1 mgd, which leaves approximately 2.6 mgd available for cumulative development. When this upgrade was designed in 1995, the City's wastewater consultants projected it would meet the service area's needs until 2015. However, industrial development and wastewater flow rates have increased more rapidly, so additional improvements may be needed (Castagnola 2005). The WQCP upgrade also significandy increased the plant's wet weather capacity, improving the plant's compliance with NPDES wet weather permit conditions. During major rainstorms, a combination of inflltration and inflow (1&1) causes wet weather flows to increase far beyond dry weather conditions. Capacity limitations in the pump stations that deliver wastewater to the plant restrict these instantaneous flow rates to approximately 35 mgd, with total maximum day discharges that can exceed 25 mgd. Prior to completion of the treatment plant upgrades, higher flows could have flushed out the plant, washing the bacteria that are the foundation of the secondary treatment process out of the aeration tanks. Until the bacteria reestablish, the plant cannot fully treat the incoming wastewater, resulting in partially treated effluent discharges (Castagnola 2005). The plant's hydraulic capacity was increased to 62 mgd, so phase 2 of the City's wet weather capacity enhancement program includes the upgrade of two pump stations and installation of several relief sewers west of the freeway, where 1&1 is a significant problem throughout the aging collection system, as well as reliability upgrades at an aging pump station east of the freeway. These improvements will comply with a Cease and Desist order issued by the RWQCB, which requires South San Francisco and San Bruno to stop discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater by 2007. It is expected that the increased collection system pumping capacity, combined with increased treatment and hydraulic capacity at the WQCP, will enable the City to comply with the terms of this order and reduce the occurrence of overflows of raw sewage into streams and drainage channels that drain to San Francisco Bay (Castagnola 2005). Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-6 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Treated Wastewater Disposal The final component of the City's wastewater treatment operation is discharge of the treated effluent to San Francisco Bay. This effluent is combined at the WQCP with treated effluent from the San Francisco Airport and from the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae. These public agencies comprise the North Bayside System Unit (NBSU), which operates an effluent pumping station at the WQCP. The station pumps into a 51-inch diameter force main that runs overland to Point San Bruno and then continues approximately 4,500 feet into the Bay. Discharge is through a 654-foot off-shore diffuser pipe that distributes the effluent over a wide area of open water (Castagnola 2005). During peak winter flows, the pump station and overland force main lack sufficient capacity to deliver all the effluent to the deep-water outfall. This causes overflows into Colma Creek, adjacent to the WQCP. There is not enough water exchange in Colma Creek and along the Bay shoreline to adequately dilute the treated effluent and maintain acceptable water quality in these receiving water bodies. To address this situation, the NBSU pumps were replaced to improve the station's reliability, and a holding basin was constructed to store the WQCP's treated effluent when wet weather flow rates exceed the capacity of the NBSU force main. This allows the cities to fully utilize the upgraded plant's 62 mgd wet weather capacity without contributing to overflows that could result when its discharge is combined with peak flows from other NBSU members (Castagnola 2005). Storm Drainage Hydrology is analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. The amount of surface runoff from the proposed Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. BKF Engineers prepared the storm drain study, Description rifCalculations Supporting the Update to the Storm Drainage Report for the Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (Formerly Point East and Point West dated March 13,2001. In 2001, BKF Engineers also prepared Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Monitoring Program for Terrabqy Development - The Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point Wen). The Project developer will be required to implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize potential impacts to water quality. The Project developer will be required to treat storm water runoff in conformance with NPDES C3 standards as required by the City. Detailed specification will occur later in the Project design phase (Corlett 2005). The City of South San Francisco recommends that the Project developer incorporate landscape-based treatment controls in addition to manufactured controls (such as vault-based separators and media f1lters) (prudhel200S). Terrabay Phose III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.4- 7 3.4 Public Services and Utilities As part of the Bayshore Boulevard Hook Ramps Project and Phase 1 of the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements, the City installed new public storm drain infrastructure in Bayshore Boulevard to serve the Terrabay Project. The system was designed to accommodate a Phase III development proposal with a larger footprint (an area covering the Preservation Parcel). The storm drain system is designed to accommodate a 100-year event. Actual operating levels vary by time of year or at what point during a storm a flow reading would be taken. The storm drain infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the Terrabay Phase III Project. (Corlett 2005) The existing storm drain system in Bayshore Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year runoff from the Terrabay development. It is stubbed and ready for connection at several points along the Project frontage. The system then runs under the freeway to discharge into the Bay. The downstream system is sized to accommodate the 100-year event. Additionally, storm water separators are required as a standard condition of approval. The separators are required to be designed to accommodate peak runoff. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance For the purposes of this DSEIR, development of the Project site would present a significant impact if it: . Results in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public services. . Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. . Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effect. . Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Impact Overview The Project would increase the need for public services from the City of South San Francisco Police Department and City of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Project impact to police services would be the same as analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Te"ab'!] Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-8 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The Project would increase the student population of the BSD and the JUHSD. There would be fewer students generated in the BSD and greater students in the JDHSD under the new Terrabay Phase III Project. The public utilities that would be potentially affected by the Project include water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal, and storm drainage. CWSC would be responsible for providing the Project's water supply. The Project would increase the need for sewage treatment and disposal provided by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. It would be required to comply with wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.4.1 Increased demand for police services. (S) As part of the Project, the proposed retail and commercial establishments would provide private security. The response time to the Project site would be approximately five to six minutes, depending on traffic conditions. The proposed movie theater would especially attract a large number of visitors. The increase in demand for police services has the potential to significandy impact the SSFPD (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The SSFPD estimates that an additional beat would be required with six police officers. The officers would staff the beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition, three police vehicles would be needed to serve the Project (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The Project impact to police services would be the same as analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Phase III would require 2.81 to 2.31 new officers (1.9 to 1.4 officers for residential, and 0.91 officers for commercial) and one new vehicle. The 1998/99 SEIR identified radio transmissions would be inhibited by San Bruno Mountain and within proposed structures. This condition would also exist with the proposed Project and would be a potentially significant impact. The Project would be subject to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles. Applying CPTED Principals, the following Project components will be analyzed: residential tower, office tower, parking structure, elevators, staircases, the movie theater, retail stores, and other features (Sergeant Normandy 2005). Terrab'!J Phose III Project Draft S IIpplemental Environmental Impact &port 3.4-9 3.4 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 3.4.1a The Project applicant shall compensate the City of South San Francisco for the cost of six officers and three police vehicles. It takes up to one and one-half years to hire and train a new police officer. The SSFPD shall determine the hire date of new personnel. (L TS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.1b The Project applicant shall incorporate recommendations from the SSFPD into their site design and operations that affect crime prevention, security, traffic safety and other concerns. This may include construction of a radio transmitter/repeater for City of South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments. (LTS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.1c The costs for providing additional police officers, consultants to the SSFPD regarding the provision of police protection to the Project, vehicles, equipment, and other services and items shall be determined prior to issuance of any Project specific entidements. The schedule for provision of the improvements or an in-lieu fee, to be paid by the Project applicant, shall be established prior to issuance of grading permits for any phase of the Project. The provision and timing of said services shall be as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Amended Development Agreement determined by the SSFPD. (L TS) Impact 3.4.2 Increased demand for fire services. (S) Development of the Project would increase call volumes, including rescue and medical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees and visitors to the site. The site location, construction type, occupancy type, and high concentration of occupants would severely affect the first fire unit responding to fire, medical, hazardous material, or other emergency calls. SSFFD would require one additional position (three personnel) for fire control, evacuation, medical scene management, care of injured persons, and other emergencies (Captain Niswonger 2005). The SSFFD would review the site plan to ensure that the Project meets design standards, including adequate emergency vehicle access, turnarounds, ceiling heights within parking structures, as well as road grade, capacity, and width. The Pro/ect applicant will be required to install automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other fire protection features as recommended by the SSFFD. The water supply, water pressure, fire apparatus access, air supply, smoke control, standby emergency power source, and other fire protection features shall meet standards of the California Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 The Project applicant shall fund one position (three personnel) for the first arriving engine company. The Project applicant shall incur all wage and benefit costs of three personnel for three years from the initial date of hire. Hire date of personnel may occur up to six months prior to completion of Phase One to accommodate scheduling Terrab'!J Phase III Projetl Draft Supplemental Emtironmental Impact &porl 3.4-10 3.4 Public Services and Utilities personnel for the 16-week Fire Academy. After the three-year period, wage and benefit costs shall be assumed by the City of South San Francisco. The needs and costs for providing additional personnel, vehicles, equipment, and other items shall be determined prior to issuance of any Project specific entidements. The schedule for provision of the improvements or an in-lieu fee, to be paid by the Project applicant, shall be established prior to issuance of grading permits for any phase of the Project. The provision and timing of said services shall be determined as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Amended Development Agreement. (L TS) Impact 3.4.3 Impedance of radio communication to the Project site by San Bruno Mountain. (S) The Project site is within the radio communication shadow of San Bruno Mountain. Poor signal strength and reception sites due to topography impede radio transmissions to the Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.4.3 The Project applicant shall provide a rooftop communications repeater and related equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by SSFFD. Communication equipment shall be installed during Phase A. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs of equipment for three years from the installation date. After the three-year period, the City of South San Francisco shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement. (LTS) Impact 3.4.4 Potentially poor signal strength and reception sites within proposed buildings and parking structures. (S) Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures would have dense building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal strength and reception sites. Mitigation Measure 3.4.4 The Project applicant shall conduct a radio communications study during Phase A to determine the internal radio communication issues based on individual building types. If the study ftnds internal radio communications are deficient, the Project applicant shall fund and provide wiring, a signal booster, antennae, other equipment and mitigation, as needed. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs for three years from the installation date. After three years, the building owners shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement under California Fire Code 1997, Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems. (LTS) Impact 3.4.5 The open wildland area of San Bruno Mountain presents a high risk offire exposure on the uphill and sides of the Project. (S) Terrab'!) Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-11 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The ability of the current SSFFD personnel and resources to suppress a wildland fire would be compromised by the large wildland urban interface area abutting the Project. Mitigation Measure 3.4.5 The Project applicant shall install and the Homeowners and/or property management company shall maintain a 50-foot buffer in the wildland urban interface area. The buffer would consist of a 25-foot wide greenbelt area with ftte resistive plantings identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP approved plantings and hydroseeding materials are also identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. An additional 25-foot area between the greenbelt and San Bruno Mountain shall be maintained clear of hazardous ftte growth, according to California Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4. (LTS) Impact 3.4.6 The Project would generate new students, increasing the demand on classrooms and staff in the BSD and the jUHSD. (LTS) BSD's student yield factors are 0.01 to 0.10 students per condominium and 0.05 to 0.17 students per townhouse. Based on these factors, the Project would generate 6 to 40 elementary/middle school students. This estimate was calculated as follows: [180 condominiums x (0.01 to 0.10 students) + 68 townhouses x (0.05 to 0.17 students) + 103 flats x (0.01 to 0.10 students)). As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 88 new students would be generated in the BSD. JUHSD's student yield factors are 0.08 high school students per condominium and 0.04 high school students per multi-family unit. Based on these factors, the Project would generate 26 high school students (180 condominiums x 0.08 students + 68 townhouses x 0.04 students + 103 flats x 0.08 students). As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 21 new students would be generated in the JUHSD. The Project applicant would be required to pay the mandated school impact fees applicable for building permits. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on schools would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 None required. Impact 3.4. 7 Increased demand on available water supply. (LTS) The Project would generate an estimated water demand of 256,875 gallons per day. Table 3.4-1 shows the water generation factors and calculations to estimate water demand. Water would be needed for residential, retail, restaurant, commercial, office, landscaping, and other uses. The Project applicant would install a water system with adequate water pressure, water supply lines, ftte hydrants, and other specifications in accordance with CWSC standards. Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact RiJport 3.4-12 3.4 Public 5 mices and Utilities The Project will be served by CWSC facilities and would connect immediately in front of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. The Project would be supplied water from CWSC's 8-inch and 12-inch pipes from the connection point to the on-site pump station, which was designed and built to serve the entire Terrabay project. The CWSC has indicated there is adequate water supply to serve the Project. A copy of the CWSC "will serve" letter is included in Appendix F. TABLE 3.4-1: ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER Land Use Bldg Area (sf) Units Demand Rate Estimated Average Daily Demand Water Residential Retail/Restaurant Office 351 300 gpd/unit 0.30 gpd/ sf 0.15 gpd/sf 105,300 gpd 107,250 gpd 44,325 gpd 256,875 gpd 357,500 295,500 Total Wastewater Residential Retail/Restaurant Office 351 200 gpd/ unit 0.2 gal/ sf/ day 0.1 gal/sf/day 70,200 gpd 71,500 gpd 29,550 gpd 171,250 gpd 357,500 295,500 Total Source: BKF Engineers, 2005. Mitigation Measure 3.4.7 Although the Project would not result in significant impacts to the water supply, the Project shall incorporate water conservation measures into the Project design. In consultation withCWSC, the Project applicant shall follow the CWSC's Best Management Practices in regards to incorporating water conservation measures into the design and construction of the development. Water conserving toilets, faucets, and other devices and methodology that promote water conservation shall be used for efficient water use. Use of inert materials and minimal areas of turf shall be used in landscaping. (L TS) Impact 3.4.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection system in Airport Boulevard. (5) Based on standard wastewater projection data by BKF Engineers, the Project would generate an estimated 171,250 gpd of wastewater. Table 3.4-1 shows the generation factors and calculations to estimate wastewater flows. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department would adequately provide sewage treatment and disposal for the Project. The treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the Project's wastewater (Castagnola 2005). Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-13 3.4 Public Services and Utilities The 16-inch sanitary sewer line in Airport Boulevard was constructed in 1991 for the sole use of the Terrabay development (Corlett 2005). However, other projects may have tied into the 16-inch line and the Project may generate wastewater flows to overcapacity of the existing conveyance system. (Razavi 2005). The Public Works Department would review the Project's wastewater system plans. The Project applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's requirements and standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sewer system. Mitigation Measure 3.4.8 To confIrm there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer lines, the Project applicant shall perform flow monitoring of the 16-inch sanitary sewer to determine the existing flow in the line and provide the City with a report of the fIndings. The City Engineer will approve flow-monitoring locations and supervise the work as necessary. The existing flow shall be compared with the estimated design flows of the existing Terrabay developments to determine the accuracy of design estimates. If there is insufficient capacity to serve the new Terrabay development, the developer shall replace the existing sanitary sewer lines from Sister Cities Boulevard to the North Canal Street trunk sewers. Capacity of the new lines will be sufftcient to convey existing and proposed sanitary sewer flows. The flow monitoring and report shall be completed prior to issuance of any grading permit. (LTS) Impact 3.4.9 Increased demand on Storm Drainage. (LTS) The existing 48-inch diameter storm drain system in Bayshore Blvd was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year runoff from the Terrabay development. It is stubbed and ready for connection at several points along the Project frontage. The storm drain system in Bayshore Boulevard goes to a 60-inch culvert that crosses under Highway 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete-lined channel that discharges stormwater into the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the 100-year event. (Corlett, 2005) Project runoff can adequately be accommodated in the existing storm drain system. The Project applicant will comply with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits, including Provision C.3, since the City of South San Francisco is part of the County's program. (Corlett 2005) Mitigation Measure 3.4.9 None required. Terrabcry Phose III Proje'" Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-14 Standards of Significance Impact Overview Impact 3.5.1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.5 AESTHETICS SETTING The Project site is undeveloped and there are no improvements that generate light or glare. The Project is the third development phase of Terra bay. Phase I contains single-family residences including townhomes and detached residences that are two-stories in height. Phase II includes a mix of low-rise single family detached residential and a high rise condominium tower. The low-rise development contributes night lighting from residences and street lights which merges with the night lighting in the northern portion of South San Francisco. The existing high-rise tower consists of light colored materials consisting of cement plaster with a curtain wall on the main fa<;:ade. Glass windows are metal-framed. Night-lighting from the high-rise is visible from the Project area. There is light but no glare resulting from Phases I and II. Within the Project area, development to the east of the Project site, across U.S. 101 includes high-rise office towers which contribute night-lighting to the northern portion of South San Francisco. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A significant impact is identified as one that would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area. The Project would increase night-lighting at Terrabay. Night lighting would be introduced at the Project site. (S) The Project would include two high-rise towers and a retail component which can be expected to include visible signage advertising the retail uses. Given the mix of residential, office and retail use, it is anticipated that night-lighting and glare could be potentially significant. The high-rise towers would be visible from nearby residential development and U.S. 101. Use of reflective materials could result in significant glare that could affect the visibility of drivers on U.S. 101. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 The Project shall not include reflective building materials. Windows shall be non- reflective glass. Metals shall be finished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. Street lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in compliance with the Terrabcry Specific Plan (Ciry oj South San Francisco 2000). (LTS) Terrabay Phase III Projed Draft S IIpplemental Environmental Impad Report 3.5-1 3.5 Aesthetics Impact 3.5.2 Night-lighting conflicts with on-site residential development. (S) The Project includes low- to mid-rise residential development adjacent to and above retail development. Signage for retail uses could result in intrusive lighting that would adversely affect the low- to mid-rise residential units during nighttime hours. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.5.2 A Master Sign Program shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval as provided for by the City's sign ordinance. (LTS) Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-2 ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant affects of the Project. The EIR should focus on alternatives that would eliminate significant adverse environmental effects or would reduce these effects to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would somewhat impede the attainment of Project objectives or would be more cosdy. The range of potential alternatives should include those that can feasibly accomplish most of the purposes of the Project. Sufficient information about each alternative should all be included to allow a meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed Project. If alternatives cause one or more significant effects in addition to those caused by the proposed Project, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects for the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d)). The evaluation of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" under which an EIR must consider a reasonable range of options that could accomplish the basic purpose and need for the Project. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f). 4.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED Another site for the proposed Project was not considered because: . The Project is the third and fInal phase of a planned mixed use community. The mixed-use concept of the proposed Project builds upon Phases I and II of Terra bay and integrates both phases to that of Terrabay Phase III. Terrabqy Phase III Projecl Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Rtport 4-1 4. Alternatives . There are no other vacant sites within the City of South San Francisco of sufficient size (20 acres plus) to construct a mixed-use development designed to serve the local and regional markets. . The planning and entidement process for Terrabay began in 1980 with an accompanying development agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP vests some development rights in exchange for land restoration and conveyance of land that is set aside and dedicated as permanent open space for habitat preservation. Such land dedication has transpired and continues to transpire which includes the "remainder lands", the Juncus Parcel, the Recreation Parcel and the Preservation Parcel, totaling more than 300 acres in land restoration and/or dedication and conveyance. . The construction of infrastructure and public service improvements including the Terrabay Fire Station, the Terrabay Recreation Center and the Highway 101 "Hook Ramps" (under construction) were designed to accommodate all three phases of Terrabay. The Project site was previously evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. However, changes in the 1998/99 SEIR Project description have since occurred and this 2005 SEIR will evaluate the Project changes. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Three alternatives to the proposed Project have been analyzed in this 2005 SEIR: the No Project Alternative, the Hotel Tower Alternative and the Two Residential Towers Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA (Section 15126.6(e)). Each alternative would include the Buffer Parcel as with the proposed Project. The Preservation Parcel, adjacent to the Buffer Parcel, was dedicated to the County of San Mateo on August 11, 2004 to be incorporated in San Bruno Mountain County Park as permanent open space. Each alternative is described below and their impacts summarized in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 identifies each impact of the proposed Project (described in Chapter 3) and its level of significance before and after mitigation as Significant or Less than Significant. Table 4.10 compares the level of significance of each Project impact with that of each alternative. 4.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the development plan for Phase III of Terrabay approved by the City in 2000 would be constructed. Typically, the No Project Alternative assumes no action at the Project site. If no development were to occur at the site, conditions would remain unchanged from what is described in the "Setting" sections of Chapter 3 of this 2005 DSEIR in addition to the No Project Alternative discussion contained on pages Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft S uppkmental Environmental ImptU"/ Report 4-2 4. Alternatives 306-309 of the 1998/99 SEIR. Therefore, for comparison purposes, the 2000 Specific Plan and Precise Plan entidements granted for the Project site will be described and evaluated as the No Project Alternative. With this alternative, the site would be developed with one office tower containing 657,500 square feet of office space, 7,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and no residential development. The following amenities would be provided at the site: a public art program; a 150-seat performing arts center (located within the office building) as shared use with an office conference facility; an on-site child care center with a capacity for 100 children; and a transportation demand management plan. There would be no development phasing. Thirty-two Moderate Income Below Market Rate units would be constructed off site. Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of land use and building square footage for this alternative. TABLE 4.1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE - LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Use Units Square Footage Office Retail Residential* 657,500 7,500 Total 32 32 665,000 * Moderate Income Below Market Rate units constructed off site. Traffic and Circulation Traffic impacts associated with this alternative are evaluated in Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation as the Year 2010 Base Case and Year 2020 Base Case. With this alternative, there would be approximately 160 more AM peak hour trips and 855 fewer PM vehicle trips than with the proposed Project. The level of service impacts would be similar or slighdy greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or slighdy less than the Project during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing impacts would be similar or slighdy greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or less than the Project during the PM peak hour. Freeway mainline and ramp impacts would be similar to or slighdy greater than those due to the proposed Project. Air Quality Construction impacts would be similar to those for the proposed Project. Construction impacts would remain potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. This alternative would generate fewer trips than with the Project. Impacts on local carbon monoxide levels would be less than with the proposed Project, and thus would be less significant. Terrab'!) PhaJe III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmenlal Impact Report 4-3 Noise Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics 4. Alternatives The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be less than for the Project, but would still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. Construction noise impacts would be similar as for the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would be less than with the Project due to the absence of the residential use. However, acoustical studies would continue to be necessary to determine the noise sensitivity of the office use. Impacts to public services and utilities would be less than with the proposed Project. Because there would not be a residential component, there would be no impact to the Brisbane School District and the Jefferson Union High School District. Impacts on police and fIre service would be less than with the Project. Due to the absence of households, water consumption and wastewater generation would be less than with the Project. Storm drainage impacts would be similar or less than with the proposed Project. The potential for light and glare would be less than with the proposed Project. Retail would be limited to the ground floor of the office building. The extent of retail sign age expected with the Project would not occur with this alternative. 4.4 HOTELTOWERALTERNATlVE Under this alternative, the retail and residential uses would be developed as with the proposed Project. The office tower would be replaced with a 300-room hotel tower. Development would be phased as with the proposed Project. This alternative would not include office development. Sixty-seven Moderate Income units would be constructed. Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project. Amenities would be the same as with the proposed Project. TABLE 4.2: HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE - LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Housing Hotel Use Units Rooms Square Footage Phase A Retail 357,000 Residential - Market Rate 284 Residential - Moderate Income 67 Phase B Hotel 300 Total 351 300 357,000 Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-4 4. Alternatives Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison to the proposed Project would generate about 22 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and about seven percent less traffic during the PM peak hour. Table 4.3 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM peak hour external trip generation of this alternative with the proposed Project. TABLE 4.3: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS, HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751 Hotel Tower Alternative 306 296 602 826 796 1622 Net Change Alternative 1 (-227) +54 (-173) +64 (-193) (-129) Versus Proposed Project Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D, Table D-1 presents the Hotel Tower Alternative gross trip generation, while Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-3 present this alternative's internal trip capture and net new external trip projections. The Hotel Tower Alternative traffic distribution patterns, as well as passby and diverted linked trip projections are contained in Appendix C, Table C-8. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative traffic is presented in Figures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4, while year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative intersections levels of service are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project: . Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips - This alternative would also have more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same. · Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impact remains significant. · Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. . On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant. Terrabay Pbase III Project Draft Supplemental Emironmentaf Impact Report 4-5 r ~< .- ~ z " % N t.~ N om -C- Ol ~ N N'OI" C") <0 ..J ~ __ It) C") l. N .~ PNfJ aJoqsAeg co ~ t ,. ~- ~ ,. ~- ,. 1.() J (") Ol 0 ~ 1.() <DI'-<D <0 co (") - ~~ N<D <D~ 0 N ~ION ... <0 ~~ "\.. t.!~ "t. o~ __:5 It) --'"' .~ ;~~f"~"- I -g ~ t c ... J ~ at ~ nqnQ CiS ~..-N::2_ 00 c Lt)(OlD ..- 0 .- ~ ..-- & ~~ ... I'- -m 6' o"-~ I'-~ (")..- ..Jt~ o ..... -c- ..... I'- ~- o CX) Ol ~~~ ~tl. - 0 t.t:; It) __ It) f"-:o ..- ID __ It) Ol PI1Jf1 /.Iod.J!lf f'l~ t ,. ~~lri~ ~N~ ... ~J ~- '"' ~~ N C'l ~;1; ~ ~ -g as tJ) ~ i:3 ... .II! tJ) u; t. <D <?)o-Jo ..... '00 N ;J?'0~\~ ... <0 ~ It) '"' f"N + \..,. ,. .~ t 0 ~ Ol 0 o I'- N Ji ;! ~ ~ :t " ~ ~ M " Ql S C1l :c I'll " J:: 1:: 0... 8- ~ ~ .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ili .J] 4. ClJ ? '..l:l Cd ~ ..... < gj ~ S ClJ ::l .-16'0 ~q... :> ~-~ ClJ ~ g ~ 0 ~ ~~ ..... + ~ ~ Cd ClJ ClJ CIlP-. Cd::;s ~~ CIl Cd !:X:l o ..... o N r "\ <( u ~ Z i COo> O""M <'>~It) ..Jtl.. N t..~~ ~-Lo mOM 'r"'"" ~o$ __~ 10 __..- ~ r c .~..- ; i 7.. t ~(f) ~\ ~ t,. It) J. ... el'lVen nqno ~,.. N on.J It,. iii !;;~~ ...r- ...roO - N N CO 1'-- ,S; ~....... ~ & ..... ... ..- ~ 6 to <'> --~ o t..N co -- ".. "" o o _...r co :ri- g! ,.. _ to 10 to .!;; CO tOC'lO> ~~~ pAJEl eJoqsAeg ..J t l.. ,. o _ "" N tffi ... 0 ~ t ,. 0 ,. ~- ..- - ~ ..... J ~ <'> M ..- ... OltOO ..-10 0 - ~~~ ~.. coN ~.. It) N ~. on T"" N -~ 0> t~ ~ -(') en "t:> c: '" .8 :S '" bl co ~j ;'6- "" ~. ID f)~ t ,. Pfl/g /.1odJ/\f "".......-0 O>lt'lcnlD N<') N C'lll) ,..1'-- ..-~ .,.J t ~ '" .!!! 0 (] J. co '?J\-.l ... ~<O ).00 o ~ 9?'~~CJ ~ ,...!!l co ..- ,.. (IJ . (>I . ~ ~ .~ t 0 '" 0> ~ ~ ,- tt: co ~ v. :::: i Lz/ LO ~- *i- .5 ~ $ N III ,..N(')-J co"""" .,.J+~ ~J o ""- N ~. \.. ~,.. oR: O)N -LM (') - ~ l()N .~ - IS UO!SS!W ~t~ It'l ..- It) N 0> CO NT"" a:: g. ill 0 M S Q) '.0 ~ i 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q:; l.l f- ~ J CIl + ClJ :> '..l:l Cd S ClJ ..... ...... CIl ~ S ClJ ::l ~~o C"iE-<> ~aJ~ QJ ~ 0 ~~~ ~+~ &p... d::;s ClJp... CIl Cd ~ o ,-1 o N r ""\ (z '- o 1::; ::r g N ~ ..J ~ l. ~ N l{) l{) .. t l. t.~~ "' t. oC'} _g 0 _1.0 . f"~ ;t~f"i --ioi..o( I ~ ~t r+ ..- J _ ~ at"v~nqna ili @O)re It) ~ <0 ~ <0 I ;;;~ -=: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2a::~ i ~~ o ~o '"0 c: :;:, o ! pllJe pO IV ~ !Xl '" ,ill ..", (.) ~ ~ ii5 -L~ c: .9 ~ ~ tti ~ '(;; :::; i: g- o:: e W ~ (t) ..g ~ .. (J) 1:: ~ 8. c;. j i 3 Qj ~ ~ .J(j, 4. ClJ :> '..l:l Cl:l S Q) ..... < ~ ~ ~ !>...... ~oi>O ~E-<> ~......~ QJ ClJ ;::l ~ '0 0 ~~ ~ ~+~ ~P-. ~~ CIl Cd t:Q o N o N It) -L~ co -L~ 0 0) ..... _ C'} v (l) 0 N ...r ...r l{) ...r 0 ..- -~ It) <"l + -~ M ..- ..- ..- ..J ~ f";: pille aJol/slieg ..J + l. f"l8 to ~ t ,.. ..- ~ ,.. ~- ,.. 12J f\~ t ,.. ~j <O_ N <"l <') ID~<O ~ <0 co ..- <"l (J) <"lMo to - "-It)N ~~ NCO <O~ 0 fr}- It) N~O ..... ..- .. (t):!~ ~~ co~ ~ ...r <0 to (J) It) ..J ~ r (z lO lO~C!; -L~ M (') - ~ 00...r _::6 M~m -~ lONIt) + <D COT""N N ..J ~ It) .~ ...J t ~ .~ P^lg aJoqs,{eg . 'V PAJfI pOdJ{\t 0 ~ t (*" ~ (*" ~-. aJ f\~ t (*" ...r j ~-. (*" 'V r-.. m<oo ..- ..- 0 'VNN ~It) It) ~-. ...r en~1t) It) - lil-' <oN ~i- N m co<O<D LO ~ ~ N <0 Nit) $i- r!i- <D o -';!. ..- .~ '-L~~ -La m en M 0 "'""" ~~g +-~ (") '..- M N""-or- . LOr -q- ...Jt~.g ..Jt~'~ \J ~ t ~ \ In j ~ 9t"V9n nqno ~ 1.0 <D 0) to (*" CO to~~ 00_ 1t)1t)1ll _ N N 0"- .S; :g -. ..- N & ..... ... ...... $ ~ o It) (')'V ........... ..-N ...J t ~ ii'i 0) <ll o ... It) ,?>\-10 ... '- <0 ill ;::: ~ ;)!'~~S ~ bj<ii .~ + ~- ,. .52 t 0 CIJ N ~ ~ N It en ~ :f2 :J: t( III $- ~ (*" ~i-.5 ~ ~ ~ N tll :::$~-J ...Jt~ ~j It) t-- -. N ~i- 000 'V 00 ~(') -Leo M It) _ 00 0'" .~ - IS lIO{SS!W ~t,. It) to 0 N M It) ...rN '\ g. 2 a: (j ijj 6 (') ~ Ql 1:: f/l 0 t"O p.. .l: ~ 0.. ?: >- ~ -~ t U ~ i ./<1) '- 4. ClJ > '.t:l Cd ~ ~ .& < ~ ~ S ~.E ~ 0 0 NE-t> ~Q)~ QJ .... 0 a~~ ~+~ ~p... Cd::;S ~p... CIl Cd ~ o N o N 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.4: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.lOl NB Off- A-9.11 C-32.9 C-27.1 D-44.7 C-30.3 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-99.8 E-70.0 F-I02 E-68.3 Ave./U.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-29.31 D-32.4 C-33.3 C-28.0 D-41.3 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-I0.l B-12.3 B-12.9 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.10l SB Off- B-lO.22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.lOl SB On- NA B-14.91 NA C-23.4 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- NA NA C-27.81 NA C-21.5 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.81 A-9.4 B-16,6 A-5.9 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA B-l1.63 NA B-12.9 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabqy PhaJe III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-10 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 B-18.1 C-25.8 C-30.7 D-47.3 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-129A F-133 F-267 F-257 Ave./D.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.51 C-28.0 F-293 D-45.7 F-246 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 B-I0A B-l1.0 B-14.0 B-14.9 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S,101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- and NA C-22.81 NA D-53.8 NA Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- and NA NA D-40.21 NA F-80.3 Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-20A B-14Al B-18A B-13.1 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA NA C-15.83 NA C-17.6 (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.91 A-9A B-I0.l B-l1.8 B-12.8 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2 C-31.8 D-35.3 D-36.9 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds, 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabcry Phase III Proje,.t Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-11 4. Alternatives Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to the proposed Project. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Noise Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics This alternative would generate a lower number of trips compared to the Project. Carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be somewhat less than for the Project, and would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would also be similar to or greater than for the proposed Project because a hotel use is considered more sensitive to noise than an office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. With this alternative, impacts on public schools, police and fIre services would be similar to those for the proposed Project. Water consumption and wastewater generation would be greater than with the Project because the office tower would be replaced with a hotel tower which would have a higher demand for water and wastewater facilities. Storm drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With this alternative, potential light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. 4.5 TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, there would be an increase of 180 market rate housing units contained in a second residential tower. Fifteen of the units constructed in Phase A would be income and occupancy restricted for low income households (50-80 percent median), 67 units would be income and occupancy restricted for moderate income households (120 percent median) and 21 units would be income and occupancy restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent median). Retail development would be the same as with the Project. This alternative would not include offIce or hotel development. Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project. Amenities would be the same as with the Project. Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impm:t Report 4-12 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.6: TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTRNATIVE -LAND USE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Use Housing Units Square Footage Phase A Retail Residential - Market Rate Residential- Low/Moderate Income 357,000 Residential- Low Income 248 67 21 15 Phase B Residential - Market Rate Total 180 531 357,000 Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison with the Project would generate about 38 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and about 13 percent less traffic during the PM peak hour. Table 4.7 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM hour external trip generation for this alternative in relation to the proposed Project. TABLE 4.7: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS, TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound 2-Way Inbound Outbound 2-Way Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751 Two Residential 209 272 481 786 732 1518 Towers Alternative Net Change Alternative 2 Versus Proposed (-324) +30 (-294) +24 (-257) (-233) Project Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D, Table D-4 presents the Two Residential Towers Alternative gross trip generation, while Appendix D, Tables D-5 and D-6 present this alternative's internal trip capture and net new external trip projections. The Two Residential Towers Alternative traffic distribution patterns as well as passby and diverted linked trip projections are contained in Appendix C, Table C-9. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative is presented in Figures 4.3-1 through 4.3-4, while year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative intersection levels of service are presented in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. Terrab'!J Phase III Projed Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-13 ( ""\ r- 0 -L;;; It) (') <XlN ll'l <Xl ll'l 0) - ~ ..,.J ~ t.. .~ (2 ..- N -.... <Xl 0 ..- ... -Lq; N M ~ ~ ll'l .J t.. _ll'l N i'- ~ t ,. ~J (") - en 0) <0 N "-'<I'~ <0 ~~ _b1 N .;;:. PAIS aJo~s,(es ~- ~ ,. ~- ,. '<1'<0 <Xl ~+ N<O M~ 01 \.. o ~ ~ ~~M .J+l,.. o " -" ..... ~- o <Xl gJ a;- l"') ;+ N :JI; Rli'l ..,.J + ..- ~ ~ + l,.. r- -L~ ~ iii .c: & '- .$ !2. o f)~t,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ <0 '" ~ t) ~ .~ C/) l. N ~\'-lO r-- .oe ~ .~ t ':: '" M 0 c: <D N .$ ~ Ul ..- ~ ~ ~ ~+ i'- It) (") _to 01 -c:. ~ is s 5 CI) PAIS podJl\t a: t w '-' '" 5 Ql :l III g <ll l .c lo a. ~ ~ ~ .0 E! _~ 4i u t- ~ Jon ClJ ;> '..l:l ctl S 2 ~ 4. CIl ~ ~ CIl ;> ClJ ~ ~ ca'o ~'..l:l> ~ ~ ~ ~~::l 1IJ..... 0 aID:I: ..... ~~ ~ 0 ClJ ~p... E-<::;s ~< CIl Cd U ClJ CIl Cd j:Q o ,.-\ o C'l \z f1 -~ & -.:! ~- ~ o~"- t.~ -/8 ..... fg;gOl (t')~f.ri -~ 't"""~ (<) ..i J 4.- 't" rt? ..i l 4.- P/llfJ GJOI/SAtJa 0 ~t,.. "- ,.. 12_ ~j iryj &- .., ~ ,.. ~OlO ... Nr-.. T'- ~ - 00 5?'). COO ~+ T'" ~- ,...,... N N 't" (;:;'). C::. CO N ~f:? ,... .... ..J J tl) ~- ~').5 ll> :rg f CO <a <0'"""(<)'-1 CO 't" 't" ..ill.. -~ Ol r~ ..,,. ~ i5 '" ~ (j t. 1'- 't" ~ It) (;:; ll).,!? fiB ,... 1'-0 f"' N l l.. .~ t r: ~ Ol ~ & T- ;n <0 .~ ,e1 ~ o~ OlN ~ ~j o ~- :;? t."" (<) - :s? N r~ IS UO!SS/fV "'t,.. ~o;~ C\f,... t.~j - ~- oll) 0 f"'!B!l..JJl.. ~ ~ t r~ I.l)j ~ GOl;! I.l)_ .... (<)<O't" ~ '~ C\f Ol CJ: 12"). ~ ,... ~ o '" I.l) ll) ~~ ~ ..JJl.. f)'" t ,.. l!5~o;g ~"'<>") ~ :0 ra ~ ~ ;: i.e ~~ ~S ::1 ca...... t';l:o~ ~t:::l.; '<:tf ClJ ::1 ff ~ 0 5'c~:r:: ..... t:( 7J ~~ClJ E-<~ +~ ClJ CIj e ClJ CIl ra t:Q o r-j o C\I {MIa /-.t !It i. [} 0:& ijj g <') :0 ~ t t. D >. "" .3 g I!! C:J ~ . 1 r ~ (z "' c ,,' 0 " t:! a) a) 0 M 'l.N - <'l N "t It) ...r .J + l. _...r ..r: M pille Q/o4s,(eg ..... ~ t ~ co ~ ~ N_ ~ 0> J ~- <'l '" ..- "t<O ..- co ..- - 0l0>1D ~. NID <'l. m a) ~...r~ ..... N. '\.. :'~g~ ~:):. o@ ..8 .J I I .. ~ ~\ t~ ~ t ~ ~ J ~ ewan nqna "ga)..... t~ ill lDm~ ~- ~o~ c: N M III N 't> ~ ~ ~.... 5 ~ ~ I'- ..8~ ~ ~~ o ~o 00 "t 0<-') "'r-" III N ...r .JtL.. III III 0 ;:g;: .J + L.. lIB "' ~J <D _ ~ tn. N ~~ t ~ ...r I'- <'l 0 ...r ..- I'- 0 <'l"t~ ... III om I'- It) .J t ~ 16 U) .~ a ... ~ .!(l CI) g ..... It) ...r 'l. N ~"o :)?'a) ,~~\oe g 0(.\' ,N .~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'- .n ... ~ :ii :f + l. pille podJw ~ e 0:: " [jJ 6 M ,.; ~ i ~ j ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ .J~ 4. ClJ :> '..l:l Cd E ClJ ..... < CIl I-< ClJ CIl :::: ClJ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ Cd 0 ''..l:l:> ~ ~ ~ "=" ~ ::i QJ..... 0 agJ~ .... ~~ ~ 0 Cd ::::~ E-t::;s ~< CIl Cd U (l) CIl Cd ~ o N o N r \z ",;;/;M M-c-~ .Jtl.,. ~ ~ "*) 'OI"....::r M OJ -+ '01" ~ to. -L~ -~ I() ~ &"l l2 N;:~ ...- ..JtL.. ~ CiS :c: & ... .Sl 'R o C'l <0 --~ ~~i1i ~ CO--N ,~ PAlg QJOl/s,{eg .J t L.. ~-+ ~ ~ ~-+ ~ 'r" N"""'''''- or- g. (0 ~ ~ -. N t ~ ~~ <() -~ ...- ,~ I() 18 -+ "*) r+ ..... -co N ,~ fl~ t ~ ~j g- I() r--. 0; U'),......,-Lt) S:!~$ID PAJg podJ!\t "' ~. .5 oco 'OI"lXl ..- (') .Sl {1l t:: -Len ill g. co co~ (") <O~ -- It) a: 8 \Xl jjj " r-- "" 0'" .J t l.,. r:: ,~ <'l 0 "::l Q) '" - III 1:: ~j JS UOfSS!W ro 8- ~ t ~ J: ~ It) a. r-- - :>. ~ N I() coo ro ~. N C'll{) .0 ~ "<tN 10 ... ... u Q) t- ~ '-- ../c1l ..... COCO co"- ..-N ..J .. ~ CiS gJ @ ~ <0 <o\~o U') ... ~ <0 00 (; o'~~"" ~{.\S~ N mC/) ,'" t L.. ~ ,~ t 0 V,j N ~ 0 N ~ a; ~ or;; "" :t t/ ClJ ::- '.0 Cd S OJ ..... < 4. CIl ~ ClJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ .11 0 r::~:> ~ ClJ ~ QJ:g 5 a~~ ..... ~~ ~ 0 ClJ ~P-t E-<::;s +P-t ClJ CIl Cd U OJ CIl Cd ~ o C'l o C'l 4. Alternatives TABLE 4.8: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.I01 NB Off- A-9.11 C-32,9 C-26.5 D-44.7 C-29.6 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point BlvdJDubuque C-25.81 F-99.8 E-62.6 F-I02 E-63.8 AveJU.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point BlvdJBayshore C-29.31 D-32.4 D-35.1 C-28.0 D-41.6 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities BlvdJHillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-I0.1 B-12.3 B-12.8 (Signal) Bayshore BlvdJU.S.10l SB Off- B-I0.22 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- NA B-14.91 NA C-23.4 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA C-21.41 NA C-24.9 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.81 A-5.6 B-16.6 A-5.4 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA B-12.23 NA B-13.0 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabqy Phase III PrOject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-18 4, Alternatives TABLE 4.9: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Year 2020 Base Base Case Base Base Case Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 B-18.1 C-25.5 C-30.7 D-49,6 Ramp-SB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-129.4 F-130 F-267 F-252 Ave./U.S.I0l NB On-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.51 C-28.0 F-292 D-45.7 F-403 Blvd./ Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd. (Signal) Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 B-I0.4 B-l1.0 B-14.0 B-15.5 (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.10l SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA Ramp (All-Way-Stop) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.10l SB On- NA C-22.81 NA D-53.8 NA and Off-Ramps (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./U.S.I0l SB On- NA NA D-38.41 NA E-73.9 and Off-Ramps/Project Access (Mandalay Terrace) (Signal) Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-20.41 B-13.3 B-18,4 B-13.8 Access (Signal) Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-15.63 NA C-19.7 Access (Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control) Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.91 A-9.4 B-I0.l B-ll.8 B-12.8 (Signal) Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2 C-31.6 D-35.3 D-36,7 (Signal) 1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds, 2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. 3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Terrabay Phase III Proju'l Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-19 4. Alternatives In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project: · Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips - This alternative would also have more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same. · Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. . Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impacts remain significan t. · Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant. · On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant. Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to those for the proposed Project. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but with mitigation could be reduced to a less than significant level. Noise Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics This alternative would have a trip generation less than the proposed Project. Carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the Project and would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered significant and unavoidable. With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Operational noise impacts would be greater than with the proposed Project. The office tower would be replaced with a residential tower, a use more sensitive to noise than an office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. This alternative has an additional 180 residences. This would result in greater impacts on public schools, police and fIre services than for the proposed Project. Water consumption and wastewater generation would also be greater than with the Project. Storm drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. This alternative would result in similar light and glare impacts as with the proposed Project. Although a greater number of residences are proposed Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard with this alternative, these units would be located in a high-rise tower and would not be exposed Terrabcry Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enz1ronmental Impact Report 4-20 4. Alternatives to visual intrusion resulting from retail sign age at the ground floor level. With mitigation, significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant. 4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative for a proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative would be the alternative that would have the least significant effects on the environment. If the No Project would be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR should also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives that were considered in the ErR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2). For this 2005 DSEIR, with mitigation, the Hotel Tower would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would result in less demand on public schools and a reduction in air quality impacts; with mitigation these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. Water consumption and wastewater generation would be greater with the Hotel Tower Alternative than with the Project, however, these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts for all alternatives would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental EnVIronmental Impact Report 4-21 en W ;..- .... ~ ~ w ~ :r: f-t ~ f-t U w 0' ~ j:!.,. ~ o en f-t U ~ ~ .... ~ -N .~ N I '7 E ~ .... ~ C/l C/l ,,: G G C/l G ....... ....... C/l C/l C/l G ....... C/l C/l G ....... C/l C/l G ~ o Z o ~ j:!.,. ~ o u Q ~ ..,;. W ....:l ~ f-t C/l G ....... C/l C/l G ....... C/l ~ .~ ~ ~ iJ ~ ~ <::l ~ ~ h o >- ~g", ~~- .il.o.. 1;bo~s <<l S '" E g ~ 'p .Q '~ 0 ~,~Q)(/j,.-...~.I-J 'U)',....t:l ~ E ~ ~ l? gf.s ~ 'Eo..~ I:I~Sl-'~o",,,, 0 ""~lJ") uu050~ ..... lJ")' ....... ..., Ltl ..., 0 ~ ~ 00 'Z'u t.+.t'?-4 ~ ~ en ~Q) u'-"~~o.....~ 0.; ~ +1 ,~ '" r'I 0......... '" ~O'-"O""'I--l CI)""d~ ~0'-i"'5<'),.---.c:: . M""" ;::s 0.. ~ 0 ~ '" 0 d t: 0"0 0"'... 0 .\:: g..d 0 N 0 0 il S ~~~ g ~.s~t~]" '-> ... 0.. .....,,, ......" l> ;::l 0 .~ 0 ...,. o..v 0 ;;l 0 - l> ..,,""'<<l..... l?"OUO ~ I:< p-. 0 0 ~ ,S "0 o ...d 0'" 0........ c:> ..., 0 -.:> ~'p V il '" 0 ~ E il g.~ ~ j ..., ,g-il ~ 5 ~OIlil'13 5........s ..., .s ~ OIl' ., 0 S SJ 0 ~"O ~"O ;:I",~::....-'-iOO r.I.l"3"O 0< 0..1=l iil..d "" t:otJ..d S:::~~..!<l::J .'" bo o..!<l e-'~ H. 0 '" ~ ~ PO._. C'd Q) 0.0 cu Q) . ~ tJ 8 g.@il 8 ~ 0..0Il~ ~ 'sP-. ~ (3 ~ ~ S ~ ~ 0.. '-' ... 13 P-. ....... 4=i ~ '" ~ o.E P-.l> e-"'O~::::l""..., '~"O 8.s'~ ~ S.~ <<l"O g ~~o.. u~ou~~u 1::: 0 o..~ OIl 2 ~ ~;;a ~ ~ ~ .~ 0.. <<l, ...,." c:: ""p'~;:! e'80 <<l;;l ""C. 8 ~ 0.; o..il"O ~ l? ~ ,a a o..'Uj ..... <'"i """ """ <'i C/l G ....... C/l C/l G ....... C/l ~ 0..2 P-. S~ 0 "0 p;! C/l ~0Il .J:J "O~::JIO' "O"O~ 1;l~ ~o~...:l.... ..."30 01! >- >- "OJ;::l "''''' ~ O"OBu.8~&~ g OIl 0 @..t:~..!<l~ 8~ o .S il 0 0 t! ~ ~ 0.. 0 ~;:l"".J:Jl> 0..-0.J:J o"O~ij 8~...,. ~il"O ::; ~ . 0 o..~ "'" 3 0 "3 .J:J ,~ E Z ,E SO~"O ~ ~ :::::1 ~ '0""" "0 'u ~ l> ;::l '" ~0"'0"3;::l ::::l"Ot) ..; 0..P-." 0"0"...--.. <<l ,\::O"OC/lboO ::J~o.. 1:100...... l>Os::: '9-.;0 (3::J ~ 0..-0- 0 -.:t: ,::I ~ .'S 0.. "dJ.~ tJ ~ 0 c 0 ~ 0.. 0 ;::l <<l .~'oil d ,g ';:: 0 ~ ~ ::J 0... "0 to " U ..... 0 ... o..~ U 0 " ~ 0 ~ g-P-."O ... '" "l il-"'" "OoC/lo..... ,<>--, C::...d 0 ~ ~ l> 0 0.. 0 --B-.:>;::looO...:lO- ~ .~'~ g"..d g- ~.c:: ~ ~ >-I"",.J:J..!<l"'<<l~~- t:1:<~;::l~0..01:<<<l~ '~"O 0 Q 0.. 0 il 2:: il 0 ~ "3 :.g ::tJ ...,. il "0 ",'B ~0""S"'~0~"3~0 ~ ~ ... Cl:S -..... ........d ....... ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~" 0 -.:> ~ >- ~ O'"l"3O;::l"O .J:J~.... C:>'p ;:I 0 'p ~ 0 ~"O >--< c:: ;; U 0 ~ u 'C 0 0 . '" <"l ~..d ..., ~ ~ o'~ ~ tJ J:j " .....!<l S ... C/l 0..... 0 '~';:! ~ ~ '~ . 0 ~ O.;l g. tj 8 ~ ;>:; ,S 0..P-. ,S ...:l"t:l 0 ,S P-. 'Uj "'! """ <'i C/l G C/l G ..., o ~..!<l 0 "0 <<l '" "300 oP-..,go2:: ~~ ...il~.... ..., P-. ~ ~" u c:: ~... oi:E<<l -[ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ P-. C/l'" ~ "0 ~ 0 g..S.~ o 0Il...:l 0 0 '" (3 .~ 0 ~ ~ g g-~;oC/l 1jil "'1!~Oo'" 0.. U o.....:l"O ~ Q).....~QJ....- ,.q~U"'~O l-'0<<l<<l....J:J ..;~@U<<l"O ~ 0 c:: ~.S"3 ~'" '" <<l..., 0 Ii; >-0~"3 ~ ~ ~ ... 0 ~ .J!J t: ~ ~ l> ... U "'=loo1!"O<<l t: ....~ --::1 0.. .~.... "" 0 ;;l s::: ~ ~ ~ ..... o.~ ..::;og."O~~ ~"o~...,o ~ U1 0 U ~ 'p " ::J '" '~'o ~ r~ >-<5 8 ... 0 .... c:: 0.. P-. 0.. C:>"'~"'"Oo -r1<<l""00 c:> ,:::;,.,.., c:: '" i <"l ..."" 0 0' !:i"3 ~ ~ g-. ~~.8~~s >- ~ <<") """ <'i t: oj u c;:: .~ CIi t:: oj -B '" '" lfJ ~S oj t:: ::J "'0 t:: oj t: oj u c;:: :~ C/J II ::J C/J ... u oj p.. .5 t: oj u c;:: .~ CIi II C/J '\:: ~ ,.. ~ ! -... "" '" ~ .~ ;:; 'll -... "" ~ Jj ~ '-l ~ Q ,.. '~ P... ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ t'l N "l i "" ~ "'" '<:: ~ ;=J ;=J U) U) ~ ~ ;:) C 'C c o U -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::r:: f-t ~ f-t U ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o (J) t3 ~ ~ l-I ~ o Z o (J) ~ ~ ~ o u +-' <n a::l 0..'- ~ 0 d ... 0 ... 0.. 'p "S~~llt ~ P=l ~ <n 0.. ;> '" ~ 0 0 +-,;:l~o.. uO<tl80.. .!:!.,...c:: ~ 0.. ~ 8~~Jl"" i=l.. ~.J:j '" >. "0 0.. +:I . ~ 1A~t)8~ 8..Po. ~.~ ~ 8t).dj~ e-~'E g.S ... ,d<:J3~c:<l;j r-< OI:J e-U) b ..g ~ .~ .~ 0 .S .~ \:! c:<l o..H ~.... ~...c:: c:<l ~ <n <n ~o..U~~d .~ ~ .... c:<l ..,~~Ua::l.g ~""..81A"O <n _~ l>-. C'd C'd ~ ~ R:;c:<l P=l~..... ....~"'O~d~ 1:1' ~ 1A I> c:<l..o. ~...c:<lc:<ld"'O ~ '-'-i ~...c:: ': "S ~>,uB"So I:::, ;j.9 "'0 <n ~ ~.S ~ ~ ~ !i ~+-,aa::l"'Ou h"S 3.-"S ~ ~ en """'"' 0 0 ~ ~.. ~ 0 .... b d ..... .... I> 0..;> ,::I o ...-I ..,;. ~ ...:l ~ f-t ;=J U) ;=J U) ;=J U) ~ <n +-' ~ c:<l 8 ~ ~ U "'OP=lglll1A ""~ 'Uc:<l 5tl-B:EP=l ~ ...c::"~ III ~ +-' ~ :::a ~ tn ~"' ~ ~ ._ d] c:<l 0.. 8.g ~ 8 Po.c:<l'l;'nU "'Og~!i2la ~.......o. c:<l ::l ~~S""dQJ tw ~l ~ ~ III U +-' ,d &.9 l:E "'0 [-t .sC'd2d ..; ~.~ b U t::: U t:S +oJ (l) \:!:E ~ a::l ~ t ~ ..0. '0' III ....~"O....tJ ~:a"S 0.. 0 's ~ ~ ci"p ~ fr< <n.g ~ C)l U ~:.a..9 ~~~"'OC3o .~ d :::l c:<l ........ i;::lO"'dIllO ~>.~......~N =""0 . en ~ I:::, c:<l''!:j d +-,..0. -d""'Oc:<lOl:J 1:::,.," ~.p <n ~ ~+-' o..~' \.."S1illle~ ~ <n c:<l U ::l ::l >:; ~ U ~ 0"' 0"' "1 .... <') ;=J UJ ;=J U) ;=J UJ ....0.. "0 +-' "'OBS ld "0 ,~~ .g"O "'0 ;j h;l +-' ~.g 0 "S ~ i=l.. ~ "'0 .~ g ~~~~2ote~~&~~g~<n~~ ~<:-BO~ao..;j.gU~hO~~OUJ<n dOl:J ",oUJ3o.J:j,t.Z:l""'O....<n uO~ (,j g';;:; ~Oo .....+:1 ~~Po.,--..... ~ d.u ...c:: :H' ...... 0 ' I> ::l <n ~ b III "0 I!:ln El 0 ::: H f-< ~ ...... 0 <n"'" .g.... "'"' 3'p U 0 . ~"'Oti"O'q~...c::~c:<lw c:<l~""'O~Ill+-'~ 'tl Ill...c::.;!c<l dlllOl:JI>...c:: ""Q._r,O"'- .... d._ t: d ~ 1A ,'" .- ~ ~ U I> "'0 8 >--< \0 ::l 0 0 0 .\'< <n w c:<l o. ;:;l "'0 c:<l . "O'l~Z~~&~I~",o~~~~~~~ :=l tl "'0 .... "'0 8 ~ ~"" ..." <n o. B..H d <: 0.. III O"S III Po.,," ~ III d 0 ~ ~ -c;--~ d ~ ..; 0 '" ~ 0 '" "'0 ~ I> O'p UJ ~ \'< ~ tt III 8..U{ ~ 0 Jl"S .... ~ 'P 'u'" dOt-- 0 III ~:a 8;=J d N +:I 0 "'0" 0 13 .... "E H 0 .>l <tl 0.. ~ ~ 0.. 'V' 0 !:i ~OI:J ~ .g ::r: ..9 B ~ .... c 0 ~ ~ '" 0.. III ::l t;l 0, 0 III . o'~ III a::l .... ~ d .c; .::l ~ -B 5 tl ~ El 0.. d e U) g.'0' 5 ..... .a ~ ~c:<l..<:!1>0..>.Q3~.E '-- .~~~u.J:j ~q~<:O..o. .oElc:<l~"E"E 1ll::l"'O+:I ~';! ~ III ~ 1i ~ I>'P g ~ c:<l c:<l + 0.. o"S ~ ~~"'&oc:<l8!:i,~.....~~~1A~~~o ""01 8 ::l...c:: ~ ......0. 't:1 1l 0.."S"S c:<l .c; +:I ;> S ~ s:p.g ~ ~ &~" OI:J::: ,E ~ ~ ~ ~ a .8 E ~ .~ "'0 ] Q &"0 <') UJ 'E c:<l ~ ~ t:: ~.g.... t;l OI:J ~ 1]8~~"Saq~Wuc:<lO~OP=l~Otl,9~ ,., b .... "'" 0 0...... c:<l ~ 0 ..... .... 0.. ~ ::I ~;>~=<:~~q~~~~. ....~00Ill~ ..!:; tJ 0 III d" >. >.'01 ~ ,::I So c:<l '-- U ;=J d. tJ d ~ sa ~"S sa..s:l..o. S,.-< ~ 'lil ~ "0 U) ~~ 0 ,9 13 '-' '+-,.!d 0 '.... III III '--' ... ~.... 0..... ~.p <.+:l ~ U c<l P=l u"O 1i .... +-' 13 8 <: =., 1i t) U o'E ~1AlIJ....1A....c:<l",od<.+:l::l .1IJ......c:<l...c::&ElSo \.. tl 0...9 tl ~ ~"S 8 'E "'0 ~"S & ~ '" .... 3 'lil ~....~o....'oa::lOtlSo8ooc:<lu~Bo~ >:; .S Po. i=l.. .S "tj "'0 ~ o..'lil o..~ P=l U .S P=l.S 1>..0. ~ .... <') cu ::0 '" 'U "~ '" Q ::J 'U Q '" c: '" u <J:i .~ U) II ::J (/) .... u '" 0- .s c: '" u <J:i .~ Vi II (/) 1:: ~ "tl " .! --. -'l " ~ .~ ;:; '-tl ~ " ~ l '-l ~ co c: '" u <J:i .~ Vi Q '" -B '" ..~ ~~ .,.. .~ J: :::: >-, " ~ ~ ..., ~ ~ ... ''<I" .~ N I ~ '<I" E: ~ "" '\ CJ) CJ) ~ CJ) CJ) 0 !::l !::l !::l !::l CJ) ----- ----- CJ) CJ) ~ il) = = .~ = o U - CJ) !::l CJ) !::l o CJ) CJ) !::l ----- CJ) s ----- CJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::c: f-4 ~ t) ~ 5' ~ ~ ~ o en t) ~ ~ ..... ~ o Z o en ~ ~ ~ o u Q .,-.t ~ ~ ...:l ~ f-4 CJ) !::l s '0 -g>> \:I e<l 5 ~ "0 "f ~ "3 "O"'~~ o ... "3 ~ -e.. d:: ~.s !; tl II> . . oPsOJ'Z'+-' tJp...... ~u~ .!L ~ 5 ~ ~ '5-..g e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r:! p.. >>50 e<l"O 0-. 50 "0 0 ~ tl ~"O.... tn +-' ~ QJ 00 ~ ~ 0 \:I 3 :> ~ g.-f3Z 1:l_ e..d 0'" ~ 0 O-.<=J ...~...:0-.:>g<II> O-.\:I~~~ ~ ;J d g< 8 .~ .B ~ r-< ~~,J:l..... ~ 0..0 ~ +-,O""'~""tJ 'lj~~"'"OtJ"3 ~II>u-f3"3~o i:; >>ltl \:I 0 '0' ~ .... ~'~ ~ ~ ... II> '=' po 5'.0 I (I) ~ +-' ~ ~ 'lil ~ d"O ~ .~ ~ ~..s OJ ~ 0... ~<:!.-100 F;OE O fl e<l 50 0-.' .~ ~ 0 \:I "'.-:.... ~ '" ... 0 ~'CJ) ~ >> O-.'Cl:l "'::iU-f3e<l~e<l r~ >>~ ~ ~ -f3 ~ .....d~O~OOO-. ~ Coj ff S <tl.g ~ ~ ,s..o ~ ~ e<l 1 '~ ... U :> <=J 0-. ~ ~ !1 'E ~ s. ~ ~.s ~..o 8 s t-; .-1 <'"i CJ) !::l CJ) !::l ... OJ U) ~ "0 ~ ~'o \:I U ~ ....s "O~...p..~ "3 ~ >>"0 OJ:) !;i=Q~~~ P l-j&j 0..0 +-,::JaJ~u~ ~O<tle~d .~..o ~ 0-...0 Coj e~",~~..g p.. ~ 0 -f3 ;;l'~ "0 0-. -f3 "e<l 50 ~ ~ c; 8 ~'lil o p.. ~ 'Cl:l .. \:I 0-. ... e<l 0 e<l eO.,;~\:I-f3 0-. """]'" 0-. c; II> ~,.<:i 0 II> "c:~' ~ ~~ r-< 00 e-- CJ) e<l ~ ,-; .fl '... 0 ~..o ~~~~~"O '9-...0 g< ~ "0 g .!1O-.u~tl~ .., F; ~ U \:I II> ~~O~e<ltJ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~] ~'il ,51 ~~~e<ls~ ~<.i-< ~..o. ~ r.z.;2uo13~ c:l Coj.S ~ II> ~ ~.s ~ ~ ~ ~ "l...~~"Ou ~~-'O'g~ ~~~~~tl C>C1 .-1 <'"i ;::J CJ) o CJ) \:I" ~ OJ:) ~ ,iJ ~ '@ "O~:g]~ "3~e<l"'cr o ~ \:I ~ ~ ~~>-<u~ ... P .ltlU ~ d ~ 'r:! ,~ 0] 50 ~ S 'P '..-4 ~ p.. e<l' "'i=Q "Og~.8~ ~-..o "'..0 C5~~~~ 0-.0fr'~0-. e ~ U 6- 1:l O-.OJ:)~~~ ~ ,@ ,s] !3 ~-f3~~ .;::i 6-'~ :> ~ ~~~~..o ~-u..o ~ .8 ....;E"Oe<l"O .~ ~ "3 gg ~ ~ ~ ~ e<l ~ ~I:O ","0 0-. '-'l ~ ~ "3 lj ~fr'~~'" iltl6-u15 ~ e<l ~ if .~ \:I U e<l U c:l ;j..,; tl 0 "l~~ -' c:lU~"'c;lo "l;j:>~...8 l3 -g ~'O' ~ N ,,'" ... e<l ... (; >> ,..., 0-. U p.. 11>..0 0; .-1 <'"i CJ) !::l ----- CJ) CJ) !::l ----- CJ) o OJ:) ... ]>>c; ~ ~ '(i;' 0-. ~ \:I :> 0 ]~'B <=J...~ "0 U a ~ .S:L 0 e<l 0 U . U'" ,-.. :.!:1 p.. ~ \:I "0 ~ 0 ,s :;l .f1 'B rJ)(':S'-"'Q) ..a 'S:"E g ~:E~8 u'~ 0,) ""0 ~ '" "3 \:I O-.~O;j 0-. tl i=Q 0 e<le<l~..o ... ... S U:S 0' .!Lo:j..o ~ o ;j '" \:I ... 0'>>0 p.. ~ e<l '-'" ~~i=Q"O F1..o~~ .s-f3 (; ~ ~ 'il "3 .~ rn 0 0 -l:l~"'i=Q '" '" '" ~ ;j \:I ~ i'"\ ~ 0 'Cl:l '-J ,~'+:j'."...( ..."'uU c;;:;l~~ I \-l d +-' oc88JJ o .-1 .-1 <'"i CJ) !::l ----- CJ) CJ) t1 ----- CJ) ~ .l:: i1 ~ ~ t? l:: o ..,., l:: .<> .~ ~ .-1 .-1 .-1 <'"i " ::a oS "0 '8 > oS C ;:J "0 C oS '0 oS u c;:: '~ u:i II ;:J (fJ ... u oS 0- ,g '0 oS u c;:: '~ u:i II (fJ ~ ~ '1:l " ]' ..... '" '" ~ '" ,~ " '"' ..... '" li ~ l '-J ~ Q '0 oS U c;:: '~ u:i ~ -B '" 3 ~~ '1:l '~ 0.. ~ ~ " if; ~ ~ ~ :e 4.1 ;3 I: .~ I: o U '-" .~ . en N I ~ "i- f: ~ "" '\ ~ (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) ~ (/) :::> (/) (/) tl tl tl tl tl tl --.... tl (/) tltl --.... --.... --.... --.... --.... --.... (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :I: ~ S; b ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ o en b < ~ ::g ..... ~ o z. o en ~ ~ ::g o u o ..... ..,;. ::3 ~ ~ ~ ~ --.... (/) ~ --.... (/) ~ ~ --.... (/) ~ ~ CJl .... ~ N <<i Il) u c: c: OJ OJ '3~ ~.~ ~ .~ !:l~ B'g --;;J Il) 'g 0 Il) 0.. ... OJ o Il) 0....0 Il)""c:l --S;3 ~ 0 OJ ~ ..c: en ~p o ~ ~ ~::8 '<:3 p.. 'S: ""c:l '<:3 c: u '" OJ ... c: en o ::l '<:3 ""c:l u 0 g';tj (:J ~ 8- o~ I=l U ....J:l ...... N <<"i (/) tl :::> (/) (/) tl :::> (/) (/) tl :::> (/) ""c:l ~ ;3 0 1~ ~E ~~ ~ ~ I:i, --S 0.. .g ~ ~ ~ en - Cl$ 0 ~ol ~N I:i,~ u 0 o en .S ~ ~ :E c: '+< ; F: .~ ~ en en 0 ~ g 'E-{;l ~.~ Il) Il) ...... b ~.B ~ I:i g 0 u ~ 'Eh U S I:i ~ B ol8 Oj~ b 0 ';:l o ""c:l .S 6b 00'>< ... ... ; 0 ;3 'en ~ g ~~ ""c:l S... ""c:l <Y ;3c:u ;30< 00'" < ~ ~.~ ~ >Q Uu... uQ.). ,!:!., 00; ,!:!.,--S ~ a,~ U a""c:l::8 0.. ~ ll:l 0.. 0 p.. o OJ 'E Il) o""c:l !5 ~,~ ~ ~ ~ N <') C'j N <') <<"i (/) (/) tltl (/) tl --.... (/) (/) (/) tl tl --.... --.... (/) (/) '" .::J ~ <') <<i en o en OJ QJ ... U .S .S ~ en o ... ~ ol ... o 0.. S Il) ... ""c:l ;3 ~ Il) en '0 Z c: o '<:3 U g en I:i o U ...... <<"i <<"i (/) (/) tltl (/) tl cU en '0 c: ,S (/) tl cU en '0 Z ~ ol ... U ~ o ... o ;:! en o 0.. >< ~ ... Il) I:: en 0 '0 d c: ~ B~ ""c:l Il) &'8 &z ~ 8 o en ..0 '0 ~ B o~ ~ c: ... ol I::(/) O--s S ::l 0..0 ,Q(/) ~...... QJ 0 ""c:le- --;;J.... '<:3u I:i 0 ~--S .... 00 ~~ t ~ 's ~ ... 0 p..,:a Il) 0 !5~ N <<"i <<"i <') <<"i <<i (/) tl --.... (/) (/) tl --.... (/) (/) (/) (/) tl tl tl --.... --.... --.... (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) tl tl --.... --.... (/) (/) (/) (/) tl tl --.... --.... (/) (/) cU en '0 I:i U S ol b .S QJ en ol QJ ... U .S ~ QJ ..0 ""c:l ;3 ~ ~ o !5 "<t <<"i <<i cU en '0 Z ~ QJ S 0.. ';3 c:T' ~ ...... ol U .~ ~ Il) ::8 ""c:l ~ ol ... QJ I:i o C) ... U QJ '0 ... p.. en <<"i <<"i (/) (/) (/) tl tl tl --.... --.... --.... (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) tl tl tl --.... --.... --.... (/) (/) (/) .~ ~ 5 ~ ;: I::l ..., ~ .~ '" VJ ~ ..s:, ~ "i- <<i <Ii Il) U <Ii 'E ~ ~ 'e; QJ QJ U en ~ QJ 8. J:l ... ... <8 <8 ""c:l ""c:l ~ ~ S S QJ QJ ""c:l ""c:l ""c:l ""c:l QJ QJ en en ol ol QJ QJ ... ... U U I:: I:i ...... ...... ...... N <') .,t .,t .,t <<"i <. ..0 .~ en ... U o '0 ... p.. QJ --s o ... I:: o '+=1 <<l u .~ ~ o u o ;.;3 ol ... ...... o Il) . ~.~ ol .... 13 ~ 0..0 .s~ v ~ "0 '0 ~ c:: ::J "0 c:: oS o oS u 4:i .~ i:J) 1/ ::J r/l ~ u oS p.. e ...... o oS u 4:i .~ i:J) II r/l ~ R ~ 1 -... "l ~ ~ .~ ., L.l1 ~ ~ ~ ~ '4 ~ Q " .~ "-. E2 ~ ~ c:; i;'. ..., ~ ~ o oS u 4:i .~ i:J) c:: oS -B ~ v .......1 >< II ~.....1 ....... -e q) :l ;:: O;':l ;:: o U ....., ~ '.cl N .~ I !:: "'" ~ "'" ~ U) U) U) U) U) ~ S S U) U) S U) S S S S S ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- U) U) U) U) U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::c f-t - ~ tJ ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ o en f-t U ~ ::?J - ~ o Z o ~ ::?J o u 6:) .-4 ..,j. ~ ...J ~ f-t U) S ---- U) U) S ---- U) U) S U) b U) b ---- U) U) b ---- U) s ---- U) '" .~ '" ~ o 'P 0.. 11) u ~ "0 ~ . t~ ~ u ~ B ~~ ,~j '" '" '" 0$ o 0.. 0"0 ~~ ~~~ ~. 11) 0'3 . p.. .0 :'<1: '''''' <'"i "0 11) '" o 0.. o '" 0.. ~ .~ U) S ---- U) U) S U) b ---- U) ~ '" 'ti ~ :E 0$ '" .... 5 ~ '" u ~ ,~ 0..8 .~ p.. .... 11) @-B 0..... ;:;E ~ o~ ~'<i1 P4] ~ 0$ ~] 'Og- 0$ 11) ~-B "0 ~ ~ 0 ::a ~ ~ cs ~ ~ 11) 11) 0..11) ~Jl P'O ~ o "0 ~ S 11) "0 11) -B OJ) ,Ej ~d ~U) u:r: . Ej ::J ","--. .... 11) 5-B "0"0 ~ ~ ~Q ~U) 11)P4 .... 11) t-B 5 ,Ej OJ)i::t: "0 0$ ;3t; ~"O .... ~ u '" ,~ S 8 0 p.. 8 11) ~ P..o Lt) -.:f <'"i U) b \0 -.:f <'"i U) S U) b ,i-. 0.. g- '" '" ~ ~ 11) ::a 0$ 'a t> 0$ ~ o "0 ~ 0$ S 11) "0 "0 11) '" 0$ 11) '" u ~ ,.... r--- -.:f <'"i U) b ---- U) U) b ---- U) t:: ! ,Ej s 11) .... '" >. '" ~ o 'p u ~ o u '" 11) ~ 11) .... ~ 11) -B ~ o "0 ~ S 11) "0. "0"0 11) ::; '" t> 0$ 11) ~;3 u 0 ..:lP4 <Xl -.:f <'"i U) b U) S U) b Qj OJ) 0$ .~ '" Q E o .... U) ~ o "0 ~ 0$ S 11) "0 "0 11) '" 0$ 11) '" u ~ ,.... ~ -.:f <'"i .~ ... ~ ~ ~ Lt) ~ U) U) S S ---- ---- U) U) U) ~ S U) U) U) b b ---- ---- U) U) Qj .~ '" .... u 11) '0' '" p.. 11) -B ~ ~ 11) S 0.. o "il t> 11) "0 ~ 'p ~ 11) :'E '" 11) '" .~ '" I ~ o -B .~ .... 0$ "0 11) u ;:l "0 o .t:l ,Ej 11) .0 "0 ;3 ~ OJ) .il ~ :.:l i z '" .... u tE ~ o u OJ) .il ~ ~ i z ,-1 t.ri <'"i N t.ri <'"i OJ :0 " "'" 8 > " c :J "'" C 0$ C " u L;::I .~ c;) II :J C/l t: " 0.. 8 ..... C " u L;::I .~ c;) II C/l '\:: ~ " i'l ]' -.... -'l " ~ ,~ t1 I.I.l ~ ~ ~ ~ '-0 ~ E; ~ c " u L;::I .~ c;) c " --E V> V> OJ ......1 ;;.. II ~....1 '<:: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS This chapter addresses the following: cumulative impacts; growth inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; and effects found not to be significant. 5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Traffic and Circulation Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation - Year 2020 Impacts. With mitigation, significant impacts at the Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access and vehicle queuing at Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. Air Quality As discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality, Project-related mobile source emissions would have a significant impact to regional quality. Mitigation measures recommended for the Project would reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions but not to the extent needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant. Project cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant after mitigation. Noise The Project represents the ftnal phase of development at Terrabay. Nearby planned construction projects have been completed including the Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp project and utility improvements in Bayshore Boulevard. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction are not anticipated in the Project area. Recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Noise associated with an increase in cumulative traffic would be long-term. Mitigation recommended for the Project and future cumulative projects would reduce the impact to a less than signiftcant level. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1 Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics 5. Other Statutory Considerations Development of the Project in conjunction with cumulative development would increase demand on the providers of services and utilities. The providers of services and utilities would be able to incrementally expand their services to accommodate cumulative development, provided that adequate funding is available. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to a less than significant level. The Project would contribute to the overall visual alteration of the Project vicinity. City policies and development standards protect visual resources at the Project site and within the Project area. The mitigation measures recommended for the Project would reduce the Project's contribution to such impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Projects are considered to be growth inducing if they foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either direcdy or indirecdy in the surrounding environment. The Project site is the third phase of the planned Terrabay development. The City approved a development program for the Project site in 2000. The approved project does not include residential development and includes a small amount of office-serving retail at the ground floor. The Project would be a mixed-use development that would provide housing opportunities for workers housed in the office and retail components of the development. It would also provide shopping and employment opportunities for the residents of Phase I and II of Terra bay. Existing infrastructure is in place including water and sewer line in Bayshore Boulevard to serve the Project. Increased employment and housing resulting from the Project would also increase the demand for retail goods and services, which would be provided through the retail uses on the Project site and at other retail centers in the Project area. The Project is not considered growth inducing. The Project site is planned for development, it is the third and fInal phase of Terra bay. Adequate infrastructure is in place to serve the development. Provision of housing of would help to offset the demand for housing generated by the new jobs created. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with development of the Project: Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental EnVIronmental Impact Report 5-2 5. Other Statutory Considerations . Project traffic would degrade the Bayshore/U.S. 101 Hook Ramps/Project Access Intersection from LOS D to LOS F with volumes increasing more than two percent. . Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp and is expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 and 2020. . Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMlO. 5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Irreversible commitments of resources would occur with development of the Project. The Project would commit future generations to having development on the Project site. Non-renewable resources such as natural gas and oil would be used during construction of the Project and during the Project's lifetime for heating and cooling Project facilities and other uses. Non-renewable energy resources would also be associated with transportation related to the Project. The Project is not used for agricultural purposes and is not under the Williamson Act, thus, potential loss of agricultural lands would not occur. The Project would preserve approximately 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) in perpetuity. 5.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The 2005 Initial Study identified the following environmental topics as not to be significant. Therefore, they were not discussed in this 2005 DSEIR. . Aesthetics - scenic resources . Agricultural Resources . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources . Geology and Soils . Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Hydrology and Water Quality . Land Use Planning . Mineral Resources . Population and Housing . Recreation A copy of the Initial Study is included as Appendix A. Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em'ironmental Impact Report 5-3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT PREPARATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Contract Planner EIR CONSULTANTS PLACEMAKERS Patricia Jeffery, AICP, Project Manager Aesthetics Lori Cheung, Deputy Project Manager Public Services and Utilities Ron Teitel, Graphics Lisa Laxamana, Word Processing CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mark Crane, P.E. Dave Reed, Engineer Marcia Jacobs, Production DON BALLANTI Don Ballanti ROSEN GOLDBERG & DER Alan Rosen Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft S upp/emental Environmental Impact Report 6-1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank REFERENCES INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco, 1982. Terrabqy Development Pro/ect Environmental Impact Report. City of South San Francisco, 1997. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement. City of South San Francisco, 1998. Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning City of South San Francisco, 1999. Terrabqy Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning. City of South San Francisco, 2000. Addendum to 1998-99 Terrabqy Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects. Draft Traffic Analysis Report . (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 249 East Grand Draft EIR Circulation Analysis. Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project. Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004. Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005. 1998 Terrabay SEIR Traffic Analyses. Crane Transportation Group, 1998. Bay West Cove Commercial Report. Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property). Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2002. TCfTab':Y Phase III Pro/eel Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1 7. References City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR. City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. EastJamie Court Office R&D. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37. Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003. Genentech Building 31-Adrnin Draft. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lampruer-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board. San Mateo City I County Association of Governments (CI CAG) Agency Guidelines. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report. Fehr and Peers, July 29,2003. Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue. R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001. Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue. R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002. Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004. Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. Tom Sparks, Chief Planner, Planning Department, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, So. San Francisco, CA 94083,650/877-8535 Dennis Chuck, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, So. San Francisco, CA 94083 AIR QUALITY Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 1996, revised 1999. NOISE Carone, David, San Francisco International Airport. Personal communi{;ation May 9, 2005. Terrab'!)' Pha.re III Projeel Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-2 7. References San Mateo County. 1996. San Mateo Counry Lad Use Poliry Plan. ALUC. 1996. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES BKF Engineers. 2001. Description of Calculations Supporting the Update to the Storm Drainage Report for Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point Wes~. March 13, 2001. BKF Engineers. 2001. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Monitoring Program for Tetrabqy Development- The Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (FormerlY Point East and Point West). Bolzowski, Michael. Water Resource Planning Engineer, California Water Service Company, May 2005. Castagnola, Dave. Superintendent, City of South San Francisco, Water Quality Control Plant, 2005. Chuck, Dennis. Engineer, City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, June and July 2005. Corlett, Adrian. P.E. Associate/Project Manager, BKF Engineers, June and July 2005. CREM Engineers. 1990. Terrabqy Development Off-site Sanitary Sewer Improvement Pro/eet. February 1990. Crilly, Mike. Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District, May and June 2005. McCarthy, Julie. Payroll Officer, Brisbane School District, 2005. Niswonger, Bryan. Captain, City of South San Francisco Fire Department, May 2005. Normandy, E. Alan. Sergeant, City of South San Francisco Police Department, May 2005. Prudhel, Cassie. City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator. Telephone conversation on August 18, 2005. Razavi, Ray. City Engineer, City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, July 15, 2005. Salzano, Tom. Water Resource Planning Supervisor, California Water Service Company, May 2005. Schoolhouse Services. School Facilities Study. Prepared for the Brisbane School District, January 18, 2001. Waterman, Stephen J., Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, May 2005. White, Terry. Director of Public Works, City of South San Francisco. Telephone conversation on August 25,2005. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3 7. References AESTHETICS City of South San Francisco, 2000. Pinal TerrabCfY Specific Plan. October 16, 2000. Terrab'!J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-4 APPENDICES A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP /IS C. PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC TABLES E. AIR QUALITY MODEL F. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WILL SERVELElrER Terrab'!'J Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Em.ronmental Impact Report NOTICE OF PREPARATION/ INITIAL STUDY Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A-l Notice of Preparation (NOP) TO: Affected Agencies FROM: City of South San Francisco - Lead Agency SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH: 1997082077 LEAD AGENCY; City of South San Francisco CONSULTANT: Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 650.877.8535 Contact: Allison Knapp Wollam allison.knapp@ssf.net PLACEMAKERS 1500 Park Avenue - Loft #310 Emeryville, CA 94608 510.985.1784 Contact: Patricia Jeffery, AICP placemakers@sbcglobal.net On April 21, 2005, the City of South San Francisco, Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NaP) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project. The Initial Study Project Description (under subheading ''Project Characteristics and Process - Two Entidement Phases") stated the Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative entidement phases: Phase I would consist of an amendment of the South San Francisco General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan and the environmental documentation would be a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and Phase II would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement. The Project Description incorrecdy stated that Phase II entidements would be analyzed through future project level environmental review. The SEIR is a project level environmental document and would cover both entidement phases. The Initial Study Project Description has been revised accordingly. Additionally, under subheading ''Project Phasing After Final Legislation and Entidement Actions" of the Initial Study Project Description, Phase B would consist of the construction of the office building. There is the potential there will not be a market for office space when the Project applicant is ready to begin construction of Phase B. Therefore, the 2005 SEIR. will analyze two Phase B alternatives to the proposed Project- the Hotel Alternative and the Second Residential Tower Alternative. The 2005 SEIR. alternatives evaluation will also include a Reduced Density Alternative and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The Initial Study Project Description has been revised accordingly. The revisions to the Project Description would not result in new environmental impacts. Thus, changes to the "Environmental Evaluation of Impacts" section of the Initial Study were not necessary. As a result of the changes to the Project Description, the NOP is being re-circulated for an additional30-day public review period. \ The Project Description, location and probably environmental effects are contained in the attached Initial Study. Please send your comments by June 7, 2005. Due to the time limit mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Allison Knapp Wollam at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. DATE: May 5, 2005 SIGNATIJIffi .&)2!e.L Tom Sp s, Chief Planner I~ ? Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Tide: Terrabay Phase III Project Specific Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner 650.877.8535 4. Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. (See Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map) APN: 007-650-100,007-650-110,007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Myers Development Company 101 Second Street - Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 6. General Plan Designation: Business Commercial 7. Zoning Designation: Terrabay Specific Plan District 8. Description of Project: Background The proposed Project is the third and final phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan (most recendy amended in 2000) and the / ,/, (, \, ( c.~ >t)\ """ (' \ <},:.~,__, I ~( , \,~(:.~'::~=,~""",(~~;~~)~),,~J ....'.....'-..... "l~ ............_.....L //""'- -....... / /m._-." ",j ''-_'_''. r~ ;'\ ........._"..........,,~~/ -',"' / ill' / ..1 v ) {po, ,.'-" I V I ,J ...---...,......,) ~ Project Site ~ Terrabay N ~ o 1000 2000 --- Scale in Feet .i+ Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3 Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase I Terrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single- family residences in townhome and detached configurations. The Village and Park was completed in 1997 and is 100 percent occupied. Phase I also includes the construction and furnishing of the Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for day care services. Phase II consists of Terrabay Woods (Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family detached units all of which are occupied, and Peninsula Mandalay, i12-unit condominium. Construction was completed on the condominium December 2004. Approximately 100 units of the condominium are occupied and all of the units are sold. Mandalay Point consists of 70 paired units (35 side-by-side duplexes). All 70 units are sold and occupied. Phase II includes the conveyance of the 26-acre "Preservation Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004. Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6.22-acre "Recreation Parcel" to the City of South San Francisco. Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have been installed and include: geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches and hydroseeding and creation and compaction of a development pad. The conveyance of the Recreation Parcel is scheduled to occur at the end of the 2005 wet weather season. Phase III, the proposed Project, is a mixed use development. The entirety of the Terrabay /Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. 1. In 1982, the Terrabcry Development Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the T errabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan. 2. ASupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabcry Specific Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Specific Plan and Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. In 1998/99, the Terrabcry Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Pinal EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial development including a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use. Table 1 shows the previous commercial development program for Phase III. T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 4 TABLE 1: PHASE III PREVIOUS LAND USE PROGRAM Category Square Footage Land Use Hotels (3) 235,000 - 280,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms Restaurants (4) 12,000 - 18,000 450 Seats Retail (3) 6,000 - 10,000 Service Retail Mixed Use 30,000 - 35,000 Retail, Restaurant, Office Parking 1,760 Parking Spaces Total 283,000 - 343,000 Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR, approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Setdement Agreement. The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel". The Buffer Parcel comprises about 2.7 acres, which would be used for roadways (allowed by the Mutual Release and Setdement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance). Mixed-use development would be located on the old "Office Parcel", now referred to as the "Development Parcel" which comprises approximately 18.5 acres. Figure 2 Project Site Plan shows the location of the parcels. The total acreage of the modified Phase III site is 21.2 acres. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the land areas. TABLE 2: PROJECT SITE LAND AREAS Land Area Acreage Buffer Parcel Development Parcel Open Space Building Area Total 2.7 6.3 14.9 21.2 This 2005 Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project that could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program from what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. This document builds upon the analysis contained in the 1998/99 SEIR. As applicable, information contained in the 1998/99 SEIR has been used to focus out environmental topics that were analyzed and need no further analysis from that in 1998/99 with respect to the current development proposal. This Initial Study identifies potential new or intensified effects which are specific to the proposed 2005 Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Additionally, this 2005 Initial Study and resultant 2005 Supplemental EIR (2005 SEIR) identifies effects that are anticipated to be less than those that would have resulted from the project proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. ../ /" ,,' // ~ \ < t~~~ " f ~ ~ , /> ,\\\\ \ \ \ \ i~i \l~ ill t\\ \ \ /) /'" (' \ \ \ \ \ '--.... ----- \ \ t .J ,\ , \ \ \ \ -> /" l 0- , , \ \ \ L \ \ \ ~ '" , \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ I r I I' ~ !t g - c-tP-> QJ ~ .1. a if) . e!l ti ~ .~ o H P-> e .. ~ 'So ~ ~ ~ l T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 6 As allowed under Section 21093 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports will avoid repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports. The CEQA Guidelines and statutes encourage tiering. The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous environmental documents from Terrabay, in particular the 1998/99 SEIR Prqject Site Characteristics The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a ftre road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the City's Oyster Point FIyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping. Project Characteristics and Process - Two Entitlement Phases The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entidement phases. Phase I consists of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The environmental documentation is a project level Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the subject of this Initial Study. Phase II, following City action on the Phase I legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement. The City legislative action on Phase II would be covered by the 2005 SEIR. The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. In response to the Project site's topography, the development would be stepped into the hillside. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels of parking. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along Bayshore Boulevard. All vehicular entrances would direcdy access the parking garage. A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mandalay Terrace, a loop road, would be accessed from the entrances at each end of the development. Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way. Figure 3 shows the Project Development Area. Table 3 presents a breakdown of land uses. '* "'- "'"" \ \, )\ (~~" ~~: ",i gg fl!Y /../' , "'"",/, ~\ ' /<"/'\~--';'-"v,---:---r-"\' \ '\ "y ,/{'^"\' ,i \ \' ;., ,( /''-'' \' \' ' w ," <</, \. ,\ \" \'-W^"''' /'''-' '\ \ \' \-,\.,>..,,^:\,~">-- ,/' ~ ,'.'^<~:::,.~(~'_.~;'--\" ,~_., ,j ~ ~ 8 S ! i ~ ~ -- I ~ '" I 1 I , I I I' I !if I r ! ~ ~7 /" ~~ a~ I I ~I Ii' ,., ~ t:,.:' ,", ,i", 1 .... < . _,,\ """81 " .....<:-,.. ' .- ..,<' t '\ ..,.. ^ ~ \' .., , 5 \tj "(1,1 ~ ~ t ~ !' ~ '" fl ! Ji ~ ~ cil ---- -----.I Cd ClJ ~ .... 5 Ct) S ..:. ~ n. ;::$ 0 c.oQj ~ ~ Q ..... u .ClJ 5' d:; Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 10 Phase B of the Project would include one of the following amenities: . Childcare fee associated with Project; or, . A child care center developed with the office building (if desired by the office building user). The Project would require City approval of the following: . Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000 . General Plan Amendment · Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site · Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III · Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning) · Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and amended in 1996 and 2001 · Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components . Design review for Phase III · Grading Permits for Phase III 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is located west of the Project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: · San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department · California Water Service Company - water main and access easements · State Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Permit · California Department of Fish and Game - Stream Alteration Agreement · Caltrans - Encroachment Permit Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [gI Aesthetics o Agricultural Resources [gI Air Quality o Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning [gI Noise 0 Population/Housing 0 Recreation [gI Transportation/Traffic [gI Mandatory Findings of Significance o Biological Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources [gI Public Services [gI Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation; o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required [8] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~~.6 ~~.r J:J~/)" Printed N e ft/7 ~ ~5 Date r Cl; ,y ~ cC- ~ '" S~ For Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources identified in the parentheses following each question and listed in the References section of this document. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potenrially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact 1, AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D ~ D b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? D D o ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D D ~ D d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o ~ o D Discussion: a) The development Project would not significandy affect scenic vistas. The San Bruno Mountain County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site. Project development is concentrated at the southern portion of the property, adjacent to existing residential development (Terrabay Phase II). The 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11,2004, combined with the 2.7 Buffer Parcel, which would only be used for roadways, would maintain unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Bayshore Boulevard frontage. Additionally, the higher elevations of the Development Parcel comprising 6.3 acres of open space along the parcel's westerly boundary would limit development to the lower elevations of the Development Parcel. The development Project which would result after all legislative and entidement actions are acted on would increase the expanse of unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain from the previous Phase III development analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Potential impacts to scenic vistas is considered a less than significant impact. b) The Project site is not within a State scenic highway. Project development would not damage any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13 c) As stated in Item 1a above, the development Project which would result after all legislative and entidement processes are acted on would result in less land disturbance than what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The quality of the architectural design and its relationship to the Project site and surroundings would be similar, but larger in scale, to that approved for the site in 2000, The proposed residential tower would be similar to the approved, and constructed, Phase II Terrabay tower. The City has methods in place to address visual issues which include design review and modification by the City's Design Review Board. No additional analysis of visual issues, with the exception of light and glare (see Item d below) would be required. d) The Project would introduce a mix of land uses that would result in night lighting. Building materials could generate glare, particularly with the high rise towers. The commercial and retail uses would include signage which could also generate off-site light impacts. The introduction of night lighting, reflective building materials and signage at the Project site could result in potentially significant adverse impacts and will be analyzed in this SEIR. Mitigation Measures: For items la, 1 band lc, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures to address significant light and glare impacts will be identified in the SEIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 l:8J b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 l:8J c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 l:8J Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 14 Discussion: a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) The Project site is currendy zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San Francisco 1999). Mitigation Measures: N one required. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated .Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ~ o o o b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ~ o o o c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ~ o o o d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ~ o o o e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o ~ Discussion: a) Project development may result in potential conflicts with current Bay Area Air Quality Management plans. This will be evaluated in the SEIR. b) The 1998/99 SEIR identified significant short-term construction impacts associated with dust generated during construction activities. It is likely the Project would have similar short-term air Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 15 quality impacts to those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. This is considered a short-term significant impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR determined local long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated this would be the case for the proposed Project as less development is proposed. The 2005 SEIR will identify local long-term air quality impacts and compare the results with the 1998/99 SEIR c) The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full build out of Phases I, II and III of Terrabay would result in significant cumulative impacts. While it is anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a reduction in air emissions, full buildout of Terrabay may continue to exceed air quality standards, which could interfere with the region's efforts to reduce exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMIO. This is considered a significant air quality impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. d) The Project would introduce residential development. The previous Phase III development did not include residential development which is identified as a sensitive receptor. This will be evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. e) The Project would not include land uses that would generate objectionable odors. All restaurant spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that filter air before it is released outside of the building as a standard condition of Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Mitigation Measures: For items 3e, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures to address potentially significant air quality impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact !\':O Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? o o ~ o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 16 the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? o o !:8l o c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wedands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? o o !:8l o d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 o !:8l o e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? o o !:8l o f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? o o !:8l o Discussion: The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources of the Project and re-evaluated potential impacts on sensitive resources. Section 4.3 Biology of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucfy for North Peninsula Plaza Project South San Francisco, California (Environmental Collaborative 2005). a) The Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Occurrences of the larval host plant for the federally-endangered callippe silverspot (Spryeria callippe callippe) would be avoided based on mapping prepared as part of the 1998/99 SEIR. No other special-status species are suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR would apply and would require the Project sponsor to comply with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site, and the additional provisions to further minimize potential impacts on callippe silverspot. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the current proposed Project design and the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel, containing Johnny jumpup (Viola pedunculata), to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Therefore, no Viola pedunculata would be disturbed. Installation of signage along trails and use of appropriate dust control measures would be required as a standard condition of approval, a dust mitigation measure for Air Quality in the 2005 SEIR and part of the proposed Project. The provision of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 for salvage of larval host plants for callippe silvers pot would no longer apply as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata) plants would be avoided. However, the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17 proposed Restoration Plan must still be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot, as called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. b) The proposed Project has been substantially revised to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site, which is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel. These modifications serve to provide compliance with the intent of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which called for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community types. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(b) and 4.3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR would remain applicable to the proposed Project, calling for revisions to the proposed Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. c) With regard to potential impacts on wedands, the proposed Project generally conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4.3-3(c). These include the avoidance of most of the jurisdictional wedand habitat in the northern portion of the previous Phase III site evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR (now identified as the Preservation Parcel) preparation of a detailed Wedand Mitigation Plan to address unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which would be accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. A Wedand Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wedand Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and development of the Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wedands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the Hook Ramps and anticipated ftlling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wedands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site. Necessary agency authorization was secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and components of the 'WMP have been implemented such as removal of invasive exotics and regrading of the two northern drainage channels at the Preservation Parcel. A subsequent memo by WRA in 2004 (WRA 2004) summarizes the status of the enhancement success and expanded wedand acreage adjacent to the northern portion of the site. While permit authorization from the Corps and RWQCB remain in effect, the Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG expired on December 31, 2004 and will have to be obtained again by the Project sponsor. The current site plan for the Project indicates that a small area of approximately 500 square feet of newly establishing potential wedands could also be affected by improvements at the intersection of Mandalay Terrace with Bayshore Boulevard. This small area of potential wedand was created Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 18 following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where surface water was diverted along the base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings and rushes were planted in the area. However, this potential wedand area was established through man-made planting executed during on-going maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation efforts. Because the access improvements at Mandalay Terrace would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would be relocated during installation of the created wedands on the Preservation Parcel as part of implementing the WMP, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). It should be noted that the area was to have been completely regraded to construct one of four wedand basins proposed by WRA as part of the WMP in 2000, but construction of this fourth basin was considered unnecessary during refinement of the WMP in 2004 because of the successful wedand enhancement effects on the Preservation Parcel. The loss of this small area of newly forming potential wedands is not considered significant given its man-made origin, required plant salvage efforts and net increase in created and enhanced wedands on the Preservation Parcel. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) provides an adequate framework to address potential impacts on jurisdictional waters, and requires agency authorization and replacement mitigation prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Project. The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wedand mitigation plan and appropriate authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the currendy proposed Project. This includes re- securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the Corps and RQCB before they expire, if necessary. This would also include confirmation on the adequacy of the WMP in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wedands affected by the Mandalay Terrace access improvements at Bayshore Boulevard. d) Consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR, no significant impacts on wildlife habitat are anticipated with the proposed Project. e) The Project would conform to local plans and policies. f) The Project would conform with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conseroation Plan. The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel would gready improve habitat values on this portion of the original site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 would ensure that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner! developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conseroation Plan. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19 Potentially Significant Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.5? 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those 0 interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact o o o o [gJ o o o o [gJ o o Section 4.9 Archaeology of the Terrabqy 1998/ 99Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7.3-3, 7.3-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005). a) There are no historic resources (as defmed in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) located on the Project Site. b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the Project site. CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004. Extensive study of this site has occurred since 1950. Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional integrity and research significance of the site. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is approximately 2.2 acres in size. Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates ranging from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the oldest documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area. The most abundant material present at the site was the remains of marine shellfish. Additional materials included those associated with cultural activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic artifacts and materials. The shellmound also contains human remains. While the number of human burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 20 The Project would completely avoid CA-SMaAO. The Project site plan (see Figure 2) shows the Preservation Parcel which contains CA-SMa-40, which fulfills the provision of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b). The Preservation Parcel is owned by the Trust for Public Lands and is to be conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer Parcel containing about 2.7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and is proposed as further assurance there is no disturbance to CA-SMa-40. Development on the Buffer Parcel is limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk. c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the Project Site. d) As discussed in Item 5b above, CA-SMa-40 contains Native American burials. The proposed Project specific plan and site plan would avoid CA-SMa-40. This would implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b) identified in the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIR. As a result of the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4. 9-1 (b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native American burials is reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005). Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant iVlitigation Significant !\jo Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6, GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 IZI D ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 IZI D iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 IZI D iv) Landslides? 0 0 IZI D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 IZI D Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 21 c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 [g] 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 [g] 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 0 [g] Discussion: Section 4.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 2001a). The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 inclinometers. The investigation also included 10 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units. The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001 b). Because the proposed Project differs from the project considered in 2001, additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis are required to fill data gaps and provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the proposed Project. This work will be required by the City and incorporated into the final Project design and maps as a standard condition of approval. The Project site's topography has been modified as a result of previous quarrying activity. The bedrock type is predominandy Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls. a) No known active faults are located within the Project site or the Terrabay development. Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located close to the Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1:5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west- Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 22 northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive. A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the Project site. Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the Project design: grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; install rock anchors; install subdrains; revegetate slopes; install slope monitoring instrumentation; locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-a and would reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impact to a less than significant leveL The Project will be required by the City to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) which specifies that an annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking be included in the Slope Maintenance Plan that must be prepared for the project as specified by Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires that the Project's CC&Rs establish and provide for the implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the Project's Property Owners Association. The Project Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR will reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR and the following measures were incorporated into the Project design including: place keyways for fills through soft soils; grade flatter slopes with benches, install rock anchors; install subdrains; install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 and would reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant leveL Stability analyses and geotechnical design recommendations identified in the URS reports (URS 2001 a and 2001 b) and required by the City will confirm the appropriateness of the previously adopted mitigation measures. The surficial soil deposits at the Project site consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001 b). Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the Project site. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on Project development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR specifies that the Precise Plan for Phase III identify measure to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides that include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. The Project design incorporates these measures and would thus implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) which would provide for ongoing monitoring and Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 23 maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) and (b) would reduce potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. Grading plans for Phase III propose cutting into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) (see above) would reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. b) While the proposed Project would result in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high. Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) 4.1-2(b) and 4.1-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require the Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type A - ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads,. This would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. c) Because the Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading is considered very low (URS 2001). The site contains landslides which could adversely affect Project development. See Item 6a above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls be listed in the Precise Plan for Phase III. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b), which requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association shall establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. This would reduce potential landslide impacts to a less than significant level. d) Future development would primarily be constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated setdement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which would reduce potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be incorporated into the Project design including: over-excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate setdement; postpone development of areas most sensitive to setdement for a construction season; monitor rate of setdement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and place structures on deep pier foundations. The Project would avoid the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore, two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment". Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 24 e) The Project would be connected to the city sewer system. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Poten tially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 0 ~ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 0 ~ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 ~ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 0 ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 ~ 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 ~ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 ~ g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 ~ Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25 Discussion: a) The Project site is undeveloped vacant land. The site does not contain hazardous or toxic materials (pHASE ONE, Inc 2003). Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials. b) The Project would be a mixed use development including residential, office and retail uses. It would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0.75 mile from the Project site. See Items 7a and 7b above. d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list (DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962.5. e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site. The General Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site has a height limit of 361 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco 2002). f) The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports. It would not present a safety hazard for people residing or working at the Project. g) Development of the Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a ''Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit" (City of South San Francisco 2002). Mitigation Measures: None required. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless !VIitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ~o Impact 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D o ~ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 26 production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) 0 0 ~ 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 ~ 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 ~ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 ~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 0 0 ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 ~ 0 Discussion: Section 4.2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR is hereby incorporated by reference. a) The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. This would result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the Project site. c) A portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building area would be filled as a result of the Project. Mitigation for the fill of this drainage is addressed in the WMP. However, the area of impervious surfaces would be reduced by about 55 percent resulting in a reduction in storm water runoff. Storm water runoff would be collected into a pipe system that would convey storm water to T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 27 the existing storm drain facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. A debris basin would be installed to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. This would fulfill Mitigation Measures 4.2-11 which requires a debris basin at the Phase III site. d) The amount of surface runoff from the proposed Project would be less than with the previous development plan for Phase III. The proposed Project would reduce the potential for flooding at the Project site. See Items 8c, 8g and 8h. e) The Project would result in a reduction of storm water runoff compared with the previous development plan. Project-related storm water runoff will be addressed in the 2005 SEIR under the Utilities and Services chapter. f) Future site development as a result of the Project would not degrade water quality. The Project will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) that will identify erosion control and other measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality. g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco 2002). The proposed Project would convey storm water runoff into a pipe system that will connect to the storm water facilities located in Bayshore Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in Bayshore Boulevard was a mitigation for the development of Terrabay. These facilities were designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay development. The previous design for Phase III included a system of benched concrete-lined drainage channels conveying surface drainage to a sump inlet with a proposed headwall but without a storm drain link to the adjacent street storm drain system. The proposed Project eliminates the channels and would convey storm water via a system of pipes that will connect to the City's storm water facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. The Project design eliminates the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-4. (Corlett 2005). h) The Project would not locate any structures within a laO-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect any flood flows. i) The Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. See Items 8g and 8h above. j) The Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low. Mitigation Measures: With the exception of Item 8e, No additional mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures for storm water runoff will be identified in the Utilities and Services chapter of the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 28 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 0 Discussion: a) The Project is the third and final phase of the development of Terrabay. The Project would complete this planned community. b) The Project would require amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement The Project would change the current land use program to include residential development. The proposed Project would provide 88 moderate-income dwelling units which represents 26 percent of the total number of residential units proposed by the Project. The applicant would need to, and is currendy pursuing options to, obtain an exception, pay an in-lieu fee or develop the low-income units off site. The Project would provide child care fees and a transportation demand management plan in compliance with Sections of 20.115 and 20.120 of the Municipal Code. c) The Project would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. See Section 4 Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required as part of the subdivision applicant procedure. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a Ere break and exotic weed control. :Mitigation Measures: N one required. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? D D D ~ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? D 0 D ~ Discussion: a) The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or state (City of South San Francisco 2002). b) The Project site is not delineated as an area oflocally-important mineral resources under the General Plan (City of South San Francisco 2002). Mitigation Measures: N one required. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significan t Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? ~ o o o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ~ D o o c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ~ o o D d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ~ o o D e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 30 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ~ o o o f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o o o [2;] Discussion: a) During Project construction, existing Phase I and II residential development would be exposed to temporary noise increases. Additionally, the fIrst phase of Project development would include the residential tower, which would be exposed to construction noise associated with the second phase of Project development. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. b) Project construction may include construction activities that could result in impacts associated with groundbourne vibration. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. c) The potential for substantial permanent increases in ambient noise will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. d) Project development would result in temporary noise increases as a result of Project construction. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. e) Noise exposure associated with San Francisco International Airport will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. f) The Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant noise impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigal10n Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either direcdy (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirecdy (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 [2;] 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 [2;] T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 31 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o Discussion: o o [8] a) Previously, Phase III was proposed for commercial and retail development. However, the current Project would include 336 dwelling units. The Project would not induce the extension of roads and other infrastructure. These improvements would occur with the previous development plan for Phase III. The proposed project would replace office development with residential development. b) The Project site is vacant. It would not displace any housing. c) The Project site would not displace any people. Mitigation Measures: N one required. Potentially Significant Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ~ ~ ~ o o Discussion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o IZl IZl No Impact o o o o o a) Project development may adversely affect flre protection services. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. b) Project development may adversely affect police protection services. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 32 c) Project development includes residential development which may adversely affect schools. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (Terrabay Recreation Center) The Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Phase III includes construction of a history walk and hiking trail to a sanctuary and open space plazas within the Project. Any impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignificant. e) There may be other public facilities that could be adversely affected as a result of the proposed Project. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to public services will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 [gJ 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 [gJ 0 Discussion; a) See Item 13d above. b) See Item 13d above. Mitigation Measures: N one required. T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 Potenlla!ly Significan t Potenlla!ly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significan t No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? ~ 0 0 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ~ 0 0 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 0 0 cg] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ~ 0 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? cg] 0 0 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? cg] 0 0 0 Discussion: a) Project development may result in traffic increases beyond those projected for the previous development plan. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. b) Project development may result in increases in the level of service associated with the previous development plan for Phase III. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. c) The Project would not affect air traffic levels. d) Project access and circulation design will be evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. e) Potential impacts associated with emergency access will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. f) The Project's parking adequacy and compliance with City requirements will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 34 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ;"';0 Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ~ D D 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could ~ cause significant environmental effects? D D 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 D ~ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources I or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ~ D D 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ~ D D 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ) ~ D D 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ~ D D 0 Discussion: a) With the introduction of residential development at the Project site, there would be an increase in wastewater generated at the Project site. Potential effects on RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. b) Residential development would increase water and wastewater demands at the Project site. Existing and planned capacities at water and wastewater treatment plants will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. c) The Project may have an impact on storm water facilities and this will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. d) Residential development at the Project site would increase water demand. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35 e) Residential development at the Project site would increase wastewater generation. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. f) Residential development will increase solid waste generated by the proposed Project. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. g) Project compliance with local, state and federal solid waste statutes will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to utilities and services will be identified in the 2005 SEIR. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ~ 0 0 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ~ 0 0 0 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 36 Discussion: The Project would result in the following potentially significant impacts: light and glare, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and service systems and transportation and circulation. These environmental topics will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 37 REFERENCES Corlett, Adrian. BKF. Email correspondence February 27,2005. Environmental Collaborative. 2005. Review of Biological Issues Initial Stucjy for North Peninsula Plaza Projed South San Francisco, California. March 1,2005. Holman, Miley. Holman & Associates. Personal communication January 3, 2005. PHASE ONE, Inc. 2003. Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. South San Francisco, California. Prepared for Myers Development. February 24, 2003. City of South San Francisco. 2002. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. Adopted October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002. City of South San Francisco. 1999 Terrabcry Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. January 1999. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Final Terrabcry Specific Plan. October 16, 2000. Prepared by Myers Development Company. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Terrabcry Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. July 1998. City of South San Francisco. 1996. T errabcry Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. January 1996. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1996. T errabcry Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1982. Terrabcry Development Pro/ect Draft Environmental Impad Report. August 1982. Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group. URS. 2001a. Geotechnical Exploration, Terrabcry Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California. February 12, 2001. URS. 2001b. Report Geotechnical Design Criteria Terrabcry Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California. March 16,2001. U.S. Geologic Survey. 199. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 - A Summary of Findings, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517. Wetland Research Associates. 2000. Wetland Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Francisco, California, COE File Number 23533S. September 2000. Wetland Research Associates. 2004. Letter to Mr. Ed Wylie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21, 2004. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP lIS Terrabqy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report B-1 Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.e: Document Details Report State Clearfnghouse Data Base SCffl# 1997082077 Project Title Terrabay Phase III Lead Agency South San Francisco. City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation DescrlptJOn Develop a mixed-use project that would include a 22-story residential tower and two 4-5 story residential bJJlldlngs. a 17-storj office tower and retail including restaurants. shops. multlplex dnema and grocery. This development Is the third and Dnal ph~se of Terrabay. Lead Agency Contact Name' Allison Knapp Agency S~uth San FrandsCo Planning Division PhDM 650-8n-8535 . emalf : Ad.clress 315 maple Street - City Hall Annex . City South San Francisco Fax State CA Zip' .9408'0 Project .Locatlon County San Mateo City South San Francisco Ref//on . CroBS S.....,.. Farcel No. Township Bayshore VouJevard 001-6~100.007-65o-.110.007~O-120 Range Sec:ffDn Sase Proximity to: Highways "'101. Airports SFO . Railways WatelW8)'s San Francisco Bay Schools LlndUse Vacant LandITerrabay Specific Plan Distrl~s1ness Commerical Project Issues AestheticNlsual: Jijr Quality; Archaeologlc-Hlstoric; Drainage/Absorption; GeologidSelsmlc: Noise: VegetatIon; Soil Erosion/CompactionJGrading; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; WetI.and/Riparian; Landuse Rflyiewlng Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; . AgeDcl.. Department of Fish ~ndGame. Region 3; Department of Health Seivices; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; Ca1tr:ans. District 4; Integrated Waste Management Board; .Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 Date ReceI""d 04I21J2005 St.itrt of Review 0412112005 End of Review 0512012005 Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.3 ~:. ! ~:\l. ! . . _ Iii - E;; t- ~. . . J i-in i~ j 8 fD~.1 o ~' ~ I ~ g; -- '~B."t~ ~ fi 0: -- -- :~ Ii f i !i f ~iJ ~il hil t J j ~ 'UJ~1 '-::1:] "'il"R lit] .illli .81@ 81i .0: 81~ ...Ii: "I caS :; ;;~ .'_11 € g ! g'l 8! I g i I.~ ~ E ~ ~ g II ~ ~ 81 8 ~ i~ II _ .i2.-~ l:i liD' j I~ 'Il! I~.D CJ IsO. i~ I'~ .Iei 8 .... l'~' CI .. C] 0' . LJ Ll 0 . 0 0 CJ ! 1 &: o . . -' ~ II "I I 11). .. ~ N i i -\. IJ "Ji I f I J}i 1 i~ tl. t i.~. . jl~ljlis~J'! ! It ! jl~1 hI if t II Ia: I~ )c5 i~ J ~ F~ 1i I 0 ~ 'I~ ~ i j ~ c:j ~I- of $ hUl!"jh ~ ItJ 0 ~ ~!h~ sh ~!Udl "h Cl r:J, 0 .0 D. 8 ~ 0 ' . 0 LI" CJ 0 0 ~ , ~, i . I ,ii! "j ! ~ .I~ i J' n u ~ i ,; J~ f t. i lllrli ~J :s _.~.m., I B &: ~ ,0 :a fii &: i i ~ I..! CJ 1.~ 'II) . ...." ~ol'() "0 '0 CJ(J . D. an 3 ~ . s I '8. :l ~ ,. '1 ~ ~ ;I . ~ .i '!e 'j g, ~ Q ~ - 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ae/ ii' S j I ":.! I J i." l i !i I ~ t i 'S;'~' , t i : I ~ f . g .jJ i ~ i I] ~, ~ l' ~; ! l ~ I -I !:'I~" J tj E'; II ! i · i '1 i · i · i Ii' ! ".11 n ..l~ In! ~h is h ~~ h Ii ii diD 0.0 2LDDO.OOLJ . I'.. . j I': ' ! JII en ~ I.] Ii. ji ~"Rjz filS i III it , f i 1 J t! jll i it ~ I i i"~ >-, 1: 11']151 I!: .,1.1 1:~ ~'I :i 11'~i II ! IIfIl~ i!~ ,!ii5 '0 ''8 ,e>>.5 J II.W C flo ..F ~ Hl H il~ lif H! if U lU iU . . ~o CJ LJ . .5 0 0 CJ 0 D . ~ '. ~ ! ; ~ j II ~ 1 i' .: en I =: CD.IIf!. · li ~_. i1'Mt G ..E c Cl t) . 1:: It , '1I"tl .. ~ ~ i!~ !l!~ ii_ -- ft ~. . i . h i" j j.j.. C j ~ I . ,. :'1' i. tIt Ii: . Jj J3 'J~'~. J~~ Jj~ ~Ji II i II j II (J I "I i III tl! '0 f J ~! it i81 !.!j i~lll~:I . OLJ' CJ r:J ,0 - rn ::i c .2 ~ J' 't: ... II) tIl 5 ~ 5 ~ _ III .t:, I .! !iD. I! II I ~. Ie g I&. ! ! i i .f -:. ! ~ &8 ~ I ~ ~ ~ i' i ~ ! ~0 I! 1 .I ~ !'i J.i~ i]g'~ 4~ J~ ~i:lllii !!) it~ II If~ lli Iti e li "c; ~ .s 'i ~ '0 j I- ''0' J II i 'O.c c E i :Ii c::m .-u ~ 'IS I C!) I! -ti' ;1 lii.~ -t... B i al!l'O tr5 .!IIW ~~. 'i. i ii !! ~Bw 'Bt! ~ ~B.i .&.tl ~g.:t &~w! Ie! -!Sl ~.!! &o:z . _ M,., :-t,..,' r'"'I . ,.... ,.., -, ,....... ,... - Ma~ 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.~ ..........,.. . . . . . . . . .' . . . .. .. : . ~ :. . . .... ",' . . . .' .. . .. . . ." -.' TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT . 1190 EI Camino Real- Colma, Callfomla 94014 Phone: (650) ge~259D - FAX: (650) 985-2578 ApriI27,2005 REel:" ~'Vr APR t; D 2 8 2005 PLN.iNING Susy Kalkln, Principal Planner City of South San Fran cisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 RE: Notice of Preparation of a DSEIR -: Terrabay Phase III Dear Ms. Kafkln, Thank you for allowing the Town of Colma Planning Department to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Terrabay Phase III Project. The Town of Colma would strongly suggest that the EnVironmental Impact Report address potential impacts brought about by projected Increases In traffic, specifically in the vicinity of Lawndale. Boulevard. The establishment of McLellan Drive and Lawndale Boulevard, leading from EI Camino Real east to Hillside Boulevard, provides an alternative access route to Sister Cities Boulevard and Highway 101 from Highway 280. This alternative access could see an ina-ease in use with the development of the proposed proj~. Please keep the Town of Calma informed during the environmental review process. Feel free 10 call me at (650) 985-2590 if you have any questions of wish to discuss the project. sln~.1Y' ~I' An fJ.l. D tY City Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.5 ,./ TOWN OF COlMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1190 EI Camino Real, Calma, CA 94014 Phone: 650-985-2590 Fax 650-985-2578 May 16. 2005 RECEIVED HAY 1 7 2005 PLANNING Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Terra~ay Ph~se I!I Dear Ms. Knapp: Sister Cities Boulevard, in conjunction with other arterial streets, provides an important link to Highway 280. We are requesting that you document the traffic volumes and the current and future Peak Hour Levels of Service at the following two intersections In your Supplemental ErR: . Hillside Boulevard at Lawndale Boulevard . Lawndale Boulevard at Mission Road Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely I v~ Malcolm C. Ca nter, AICP City Planner .. Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.4 /' C/CAG RECEIVED MAY 2 7 20B5 PLANNING CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Ather/oil. Belmollt . Bri9bUlle . Bl/rUngame . Cf11ma' Dtlly City. Eas/ PrIlD Alto. Foster Ciry . Half Moon Bay' Hill.rborough . Metlw Pnrlc' Alill!mle Pactfka . Par/olD Valfey . Redwood City. &In Bnmo . San Olrw.t . Sail Mateo' San Ma/eo COIUlI)i . SoUlh San PranctJco . WoodSide May 24, 2005 Allison~, Terrabay Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Knapp: SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Project Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report (EIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project. Under the Congestion Management Program, the review of the project must include the identification of the traffic impacts on the State Highway System. If that review reveals that the project will generate 100 or more peak hour trips, the C/CAG land use policy and implementation guidelines must be followed. This includes the mitigation of all of the trips through Transportation Demand Management measures. I look forward to seeing a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIR. for this project. Thank you for your continued efforts on the reduction of congestion in our COWlty. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, . /~ 4"~ Tom Madalena Planner II City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 650/363-1867 direct . tmadalena@co.sanmateo.ca.us TM:fc - TAMP0592_ WFN.DOC 455 COUNTY CENTER, 2ND FLOOR. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063. 'If 650/363-1867 · FAX: 650/363-4849 Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nrvr 650-829-6639 p.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE T1SSIER NEIL R CULLEN DIRECTOR Department of Public Works . 0\:_ ~T~ ' '~"~'~.. ~':' ,-'.%> . ~ '-.l. - -~ _1-1 ~ t--;c. ."'-::...... J:'1 ..) ';:' . ....." .' 0/ \':'~";;:?;: / COUNTY OF SAN MATEO lllll! COUNTY CENTER, 5"'" FLOOR. REDWOOD CITY. CALlFORNIA9oI01l3-11185 . PHONE (85<l) 363-4100 . FAX (650) J61-e220 May 24. 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 RtCEIVED HAY 3 1 0;;....... ~ {M'~ PlANNING Dear Ms. Wollam: Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impa.ct Report - Terrabay Phase llI, Soutb San Francisco We are in receipt of your letters dated April 21, 2005, and May 10, 2005. regarding the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator ofthe Colma Creek Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the Environmental Review - Initial Study prepared for the project and offers the following comments: . Our records show that the proposed project site is located outside ofthe Calma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). The Initial Study indicates that the surface runoff from the proposed project will be conveyed into a pipe system that connects to the City's existing stonn water facility in Eayshore Boulevard. We request that you provide us with additional informaticm as to how the storm water in the Bayshore Boulevard facility is directed. Does this stonn water facility also serve as the conveyance system for runoff from the previous Terrabay developments that are within the Zone boundary? . Since the Terrabay Phase III project site is located outside of the Zone boundaries and properties within the project site do not contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance ofthe District's facilities, storm water runoff from this site must not be directed to drain into the District's flood control channel. Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639 p.3 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Envlroomentallmpact Report - Terrabay Phase III, South San Francisco May 24, 2005 Page 2 \. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599.1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417. Very truly yours, Ann M. Stil~an, P .E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:N :nuny F:\USERS\AOMI'I\CITlES\SSf\2005\Terrabay Phase 3 - Notice of Prep. RJlvi~w.doc O:\USERS\UTIUTY\CDlma Creek FCD\WORO\Rcview External Project\2005\Terrabay Phase 3 - Notice of Prep. Review.dDc File No: F-149 (9H) . cc: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Ctilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection ..,- AI.I'ORT COM.UIIOM CITV AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO GAVIN NEWSOM MAYOR LARRY MUZOLA P/liSIOENT MICHAEL S. STRUNSKY VICE I'RE51DEWT LINDA 5. CRAYTON CARYlITO ELEANOR JOHNS JOHN L. MARTIN AIRPORT DIRECTOR 2.d SFO -- ~-- San Francisco International Airport June 7, 2005 RECEIVED JUN O' 8 2885 PlANNING P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 Tel 650.821.5000 Fax650.821.500S www.flysfo.com Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Notice of Preparation oj a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay PhtUe 111 Dear Ms. Knapp: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Terrabay Phase III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). As described in the Initial Study, Terrabay Phase III is the third and final phase of the Tenabay Development. SFO notes however, that the Initial. Study indicates that there has been a change to Phase III, from the 1998/1999 SEIR to the proposed project to be evaluated in this 2005 SEIR. Whereas Table 1 on page 4 of the Initial Study illustrates that no residential development was proposed in Phase III (1998/1999 SEIR), the current draft SEIR will consider the inclusion of 336 market and below market rate dwelling uni1s (Table 3, Initial Study, page 8). This residential component would be developed in a 22- story condominium tower and five- or six-story low-rise buildings. The Initial Study indicates on page 30 that the DSEIR will analyze the noise exposure associated with the development's proximity to San Francisco International Airport. Although SFO understand that the Terrabay development represents a significant signature development in the city, and that the earlier phases of development included residential development, SFO has concerns with the inclusion of residential development in Phase m. 6€99-628-099 I^IO ~~I~~~ld ~ss ~o A1I~ Wd6v:l 9002 80 unr M.s. Allison Knapp June 7, 20Q5 Page 20f3 The Terrabay development is located approximately two miles from the end of Runways 28UR, the primary departure runways for SFO. As such, residents of Terra bay will experience some level of noise impact from departing aircraft through the San Bruno Gap and along the Shoreline departure routes. While all three phases of the Terrabay development are located outside of the 6S CNEL noise exposure map, the SFO Noise Abatement Office has received noise complaints from South San Francisco residents at the Terrabay development area. Given the dose proximity to the Airport, there is potential for single-event noise impacts associated with the pattern of aircraft flight paths, altitudes. and airport operations. As an active member of the Airport/Community Roundtable, the City ofSoutb San Francisco should be aware of the significant research and study that the Roundtable has sponsored with respect to development of low frequency and single-event aircraft noise metrics. Inclusion of the residential component in Phase III would result in a significant new population in an area known to be subj~t to noise impacts from Highway 101 and aviation sources. Furthermore. the Initial Study notes on page 13 that the building materials, particularly with the high rise towers, could generate glare. The height of the high rise towers and the light and glare from building materials. could pose adverse impacts on aircmft operations unless these concerns are addressed during the design stage. . Therefore, it is important that the DSEIR consider .and evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts described above and include the following mitigation measures: . All project development sponsors shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical . study in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code, Title 24. Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls..and.with FAA Part ISO Noise Compatibility Program so that construction achieves an indoor noise level of 45 dBA as measured for aircraft noise events. The.cost of recommended noise insulation measures shall be borne by the development project sponsor. . All project development sponsors shall meet'FAA regulations and prepare a FAA Form 7460-1 - Notice of Proposed Construction or Alt~ration, and incorporate the findings of the F M airspace evaluation into the project plans in compliance with FAA Regqlations FAR Part77 - Projects Affecting Navigable Airspace, to establish height restrictions and protect the airspace in proximity to San Francisco International Airport. E.d 6E99-628-0S9 I^IU ~~I~~Hld ~ss ~o AIIJ Wd6?:1 S002 80 unr ....."t: Ms. Allison Knapp June 7, 2005 Page 3 of3 . All real property transfer activity sliall include appropriate Real Estate Disclosures as requirecl by the California Department of Real Estate, indicatipg new residential development is within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. an active international commercial airport. P~ease keep SFO informed on this important project. We would appreciate, receiving a copy of the DSEIR when it is available, and SFQ reserves the right 'to provide additional comments at that time. If you have any questions regarding these comments"please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 821-5347. Thank you for your attention to these issues of concern. Sincerely, Nixon Lam Senior Environmental Planner Planning, Design and Construction .od SE99-6~8-099 I^Ia ~~I~~~ld ~ss ~o A1I~ WdS.:t 9002 80 unr I - State of California-Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Services SANDRA SHEWRY Director ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER Governor June 2, 2005 RECE l'IcD JIJN 0 9 PI .. a... _ 2005 -vvNIN(} Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Attention: Scott Morgan P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Dear Mr. Scott NOTICE OF PREPARATION - TERRABAV PHASE III DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, WATER SYSTEM NO. 4110009 (SCH# 1997082077) The Department of Health Services' (Department) comments on the proposed project are as follows: The project area, as indicated in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, is within the service area of the California Water Service Company (CWSC) - South San Francisco District, a public water system under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Services (Department) It was. indicated in the NOP that residential development would increase water demand in the Project site and this would be analyzed in th~ 2005 Supiemental Environmental Impact Report (SEI R). In the event that any approved development project within the scope of Terrabay Phase III Project would require additional water facilities and capacities in order to me$t the water demands of the project, CWSC - South San Francisco District will need to apply for and obtain the necessary (amended) permits from the Department regarding any additions or changes to its system, in accordance with Section 116550 (a), Article 7, Chapter 4, California Health and Safety Code (CHSC). This section specifies that no person operating a water system shall modify, add to or change his or her source of supply or method of treatment or change his or her distribution system as authorized by a valid permit Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 458, Berkeley, CA, 94704-1011 (510) 540.2158 FAX (510) 540-2152 DHS Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.QOV Program Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.gov/oslddwem 2.d 6€99-628-099 I^IO ~~I~~~ld ~ss ~o AIIJ W~€O:ll 9002 so unr Mr. Scott Morgan June 2 2005 Page 2 issued to him or her by. the Department, unless the person first submits an application to the Department and receives an amended permit as provided in this chapter authorizing the modification, addition or change in his or her source of supply or method of treatment. If you have any questions, please caD Jose P. Lozano at (510) 540-2043 or myself at (510) 540-2413. S8:~ -e Eric Lacy, P.E. ~ District Engineer Santa Clara District Drinking Water Field Operations Branch co: SDWSRF-Environmental Coordinator 601 North -,'h Street, MS 92 P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Mr. Chet Auckly Director of Water Quality and Environmental Affairs California Water Service Company 1 720 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112-4598 South San Francisco Planning Division .315 Maple Street - City Half Annex South San Francisco, CA 94080 San Mateo County Health Department E.d 6E99-S~8-0S9 I^IO ~~I~~~ld ~ss ~o A1I~ W8EO:tt SOO~ 60 unr Jun 09 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 .. p.3 STATE OF Cj\LlFORNlA lIUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEOOER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PllO~E(510)286-5505 FAX (510) 28~6659 TrY (BOO) 735.2929 RECEIVED JUNO 9_ ~NG. @ Flex your powerl Be t!ner8Y efficumt! June 6. 2005 SMI01259 SM-10l-23.39 Sell 199708207 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Street - City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. 'Wollam :. ('" I'" __. ....~::;..}~ ~~~:.:.~ ~..:. . .:" ~. '..' . ,,;' Te~bay 'Phase In draft SlJPpl~m~~~~-E:n..yirqJm1ental I~p~c. .,Rewrt.'7 Notice of Preparation .,' .'.... '. . . Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process. for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the recirculated Notice of Preparation for the Terrabay Phase III Project draft Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer: Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have .to traffic' volume and congestion. We recommend a traffic impaCt analysis be prepared. The traffic impact analysis should include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distributio~ and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. 2. 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets, and hig)1ways. j~l~tqdjng:cr.~s1'Qads an~ controUillg, i11~ersections...An analysis should be performed specifically' on the site entranceIRoute lOr off- ramp/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. "CtdtnJns imp1"OVt!S mobility QCl'O&8 Oalifornia'" Jun 09 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-828-6638 p.It Ms. Alliaon Knapp Wollam June 6, 2006 Page 2 3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative, and 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and roadway segments in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments. both existing and future. that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated. 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the devel9pment of alternate solutions to circulation problems that do not rely on increased highwaycoristiuction. 6. AU mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed. including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. On Page 4, Table 2: Project Site Land Areas, the total acreage as shown in the table adds up to be more than the 21.2 acres mentioned in the second to last sentence. in the preceding paragraph. Please clarify which is correct. Also on Page 4 in the first paragraph on line 9. it states that the "Development Parcel" is comprised of approximately 18.5 acres. Does this parcel include the . Open Space as shown in Figure 21 Will this open space be reduced to provide more building area? Please explain. On Page 6, in the last paragraph, it states: "A fourth vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR." What is the exact location of this fourth entrance? .. "W..e eflco,w:age the C;ity of South San Francisco to coordinate pr~paration of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the following website for more information: . http://www.dot.ca.gov Ihqltraffops/developserv loperationalsystems/reportsltisguide. pdf We look forward to reviewing the tra,ffic impact analysis and draft Environmental Impact Report for this project. Please send two copies to: Alice Jackson Office of TranSit and. Coinniunity Planning Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 .CQltr41l8 inaprov., mobility a.crotlB CGlifornio. Jun 09 2005 11:14AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nlVI 650-82S-663S p.b .:" ....... Mil. Allison Knapp Wonam JUDe 6, 2005 Page 2 Should you require further infonnation or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, e~--e\UL TI~~;~. SABLE District Branch Chief IGRlCEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) MCaltronll improVllll mobility across California" CCAG CITY/CoUNTY' ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO Cm,i"NTY RECEIVED JUN 17 2005 PLANNING ..4tMrton 'B.lmonl . BrlIbmllI' BurlingtmU . Colmtl . Dilly City ~ Etut Ptilo AllO . FtNtfIT City. HdlfMoon Bay 'Hill.rborough . M/IlJ/o pnric . Millbl'lf ?aciflClJ . ?ortokt Veney' Rldwood City. &/1 BlWIo 'SQJt Carlos' San Mateo' San MGlllo Cowl9l' SOII1n San FftUlc{sco . Woodride June 16, 2005 ~. .;; Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting PJanner City of South San Francisco Planning Department . 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Allison: RE: ClCAO J\irport Land J.- ofPI1 , 'on (NOP) Terra :hase III .Jf ..~r w~. The proposed project ConsiSts of a mixed-use development as follows: 336 residential units in a hi~:-rise (180 units) and townhome (156 units) configuration, a 260,00 square-foot office/or 300 room hoteVor optional 180 unit condominium, and 357,500 square feet of retail uses. The 21-acre site at the comer'ofSister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard is oat located within the most current federal airspace protection parameters for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) nor is it within the 65 dBCNEL aircraft noise contour, as shown on the most recent federal Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. Therefore, the project does not require formal review by the Airport Land Use Conunission (C/CAG). 2. Height of Structures, Use of Airspace, and Airspace COnIpatlbUlty In my previous comments and analysis of the Terrabay project in 1998 and 2000, I noted that the proj ect site was located within the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for San Francisco International Airport (SPO). However, the configuration of those surfaces has changed since then. Based on the cmrent configuration of the FAR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for SFO (see enclosure), the project site is not located within the FAR Part 77 airspace protection boundary for SFO (see following comments). Therefore, DO formal notification of the FAA, via FAA Fonn 7460-1, is required. :! ~j ., I 'r'T ~ ." ('~ .~ .AJ '9: llili 'Ir~ ~'$i 'l"~ ~ ,if [~j;'l:i' J~ - J~ .! lI,' ,(,'" Jt ' "'~l'j~"~'t lflj:iiI .11; i''"':i !a1 ,II' jU, J!' i, ,Dr ,;r.ilI' ;;!"" iM.ll' '., ti:A ft_) l_..;i\.r p,:",.",. ii..... ,J' i..W.Ji _~ ;_',1.' (U'.f Ii: :' 1,'1 .:itlj. I~" ~ !~.r- .t.,iI> :II' ~ ........Ct 1P1l'" lit' I.., "!'!..~ .~!- SSS COUNTY CENTE.P., 5m FLOO~ REDWOOD CITY, CA- 94063 · 650/599-1406 · 6501594-9980 . (FRMOO341.DOC) l~~ [i;..t. 2"d SE9S-628-0S9 I^IU ~~I~~~ld ~SS ~o A1IJ W~E2:01 S002 12 unr Letter to Allison Knapp Wollam, CODsulting Planner, C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (AL UC) Staff Comments of a Recirculation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmentallmvact Report (DSEIR) for Terrabay Phase III " June 16, 2005 Page 2 3. Aircraft Noise Impacts The project site is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour, as shown on the most recent Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. AS noted in my previous comments (1998 and 2000), the project site may be subject to aircraft noise and overflight impacts from aircraft "using the Runways 28 Shoreline Departure Route from SFO. That route is a noise abatement " departure procedure that is designed to direct northboWld and eastbound aircraft over the industrial area east of U.S. Highway 101. However,"based on aircraft type, aircraft weight, and wind conditions, some aircraft make a "wide" Shoreline turn, that takes them over noise- sensitive areas west of U.S. Highway 101. In that situation, aircraft may fly directly over the Terrabay project site. Other aircraft noise impacts that may affect the site are from southbound aircraft on the PORTE Departure Route from Runways 1. These aircraft generally follow the shoreline along the industrial area east of U.S. Highway 10 i before making a left turn in the vidnity of Candlestick Point. These aircraft will be clearly visible from the Terrabay site. especially from the taller residential and hotel structures. " Based on the aircraft routes described above, ALUC staff strongly suggests that the project sponsor incorporate sufficient noise insulation features into all of the proposed noise sensitive land uses (residential and hotel uses) to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB in all habitable rooms. based on aircraft noi.se events. This interior noise standard is consistent. with state regulations for interior noise levels in multi-family buildings and other noise':' sensitive land uses. Tbe AL UC staff comments above are consistent with my previous comments on the 1998 and 2000 amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan and related enVironmental documents. If you have y" uestions or c ents~ please contact me at 650/363-4417. David Enclosures cc: ALUC Members. wlEnclosures Richard Napier, w! Enclosmes Joseph Rodriguez, FAA, Burlingame, w/enclosures Nixon Lam, SFO Planning, w/enclosures aluc8taffi:omlctterrabaypbsc3nop,doc: E.d 6E99-628-0S9 I^IO ~~I~~~ld ~ss ~o ALI~ W~E2:01 S002 12 unr p.d /< o U.S Department of Transportation Fecferaj Avlatlon AdmlnJstration Western-Pacific Regiotl . Airports Division San Frandsco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Suits 210 Burlingame.. CA 94010-1300 June 14, 2005 RECEIVEO JUN ~ 1 2005 . - PLANNING Ms. Allison Knapp, Te=rabay planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Knapp: RE..:-Notice- of prepcu.a.tim. of a Draft'.S"tlppl-ementa"1:. Enviroliment1rl 'Irnpac.t...'- Repor~ - Terrabay Phase III I Our oJfice r~ceived a copy of the June 7, 2005 letter from Mr. Nixon Lam, ~enior Environmental Planner for the San Francisco International AirpoJt regarding the subject project. _ We concur with all of the commeI.ts and mitigation measures listed. in Mr. Lam's letter. The FE.deral Aviation Administration (FAA) has providec. the City of South San Francisco grant funding for home insulation projects. The fed~rcl grants contain a list of Assurancee for the noise compatibility projects tbat-were completed within the 63 CNEL noise sensitive area of the sin Francisco International Airport ("SFO) Noise B.xposure Map (NEM). The m:M must be used as a reference document to demonstrate compliance with 1he a:.rport gran>: agreement assurances. The C.tty must take appropriate action to adop-t zoning to restrict non- compa1ible residential development or other building code requirements to acl.ieve an appropriate interior noise reduction level to mitigate _ for a: .rport: noise. New residential development wi 11 not be eligible for f.deral funding fo( noise. insulation. - We enc:ourage the City planners to conti,nue to work with the SFONoise Abat~lent and Planning Departments regarding future changes for. .residential land use within the limi.ts of the FAA approved NEM. To aSsure consistency with established polices and practices of the San Francisco International Airport Community Roundtable we recommend that your office work closely with the City.'s Community Roundtable representative. It is advisable to consider the.use of the criteria contained in the State of California, Airports Land Use Handbook, to finalize dwelling unit densities and floor area ratios for future development. We recommend the use of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise compatibility.Planning, Appendix A Table 1 ~s a guide for determining local code requirements for noise level reduction INLR) thresholds.for future building code enforcement. Future avigation easements should consider building height limitations based on the civil airport surfaces described in FAR Part 77, Objects Effecting Navigable Airspace. SE99-628-D9S I^IO ~~I~~~ld 3SS 30 A1I~ W~E2:01 9002 12 unr If you have any questions ple~se contact me at (650) 876-2778, extension 610 or ~y electronic mail at joe.rodriguez@faa.gov. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JOSEPH R. RODRIGUEZ Joseph ~. Rodriguez Supervisor, Environmental Planning and Compliance Section cc: Nixon Lam, SFO Pl~ner ~ Dave Carbone. ALue & Airport Community Roundtable Sandy Hesnard, Caltrans S.d 6ES9-6Z8-0S9 I^Ia ~~I~~~ld ~SS ~O AII~ W~EZ:Ol SOOZ lZ unr PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES Terrabay Phase JJJ Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact &port C-l Appendix C Table C-l LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 10 B > 10 - 20 C > 20 - 35 D > 35 - 55 E > 55 - 80 F > 80 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix C Table C-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delav Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 0-10 B > 10 - 15 C > 15 - 25 D > 25 - 35 E > 35 - 50 F > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to fIrst in line at the intersection, stopped delay as fIrst car in queue, and fInal acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix C Table C-3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION EAST OF 101 FREEWAY (2000-2020) I PROJECT I Gateway NE !I STATUS Potential Existing Potential Potential Potential Existing Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Existing Trammel Crow Oyster Point Marina Pt. Grand Pt. Grand Harbor Way 3l5,710SF -140,760 SF 273,580 SF 11,400 SF 65 Rooms -94,990 SF 3,250 SF 78,090 SF 20 Rooms 2,110SF l5 Rooms 400,000 SF 23,750 SF 135 Rooms -197880 SF Office Lt. Industrial Office Commercial Hotel Lt. Industrial Commercial Office Hotel Commercial Hotel Office Commercial Hotel Lt Industrial 0.95 0.48 0.95 0.93 0.27 0.48 0.93 0.95 0.27 0.93 0.27 0.95 0.93 0.27 048 300 -67 260 10 18 -46 3 74 5 2 4 380 23 36 -95 0.86 0.54 0.86 3.39 0.19 0.54 3.39 0.86 0.19 3.39 0.19 0.86 3.39 0.19 054 S 27l -76 235 39 13 -52 11 67 4 7 3 344 81 26 -l07 , Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0.95 713 0.86 645 Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0.59 165 I 0.54 151 Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36 I Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11 Existing -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -l76 0.54 -198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 0.86 1874 Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308 Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99 Existing -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432 MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19 Existing -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9 Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371 I Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Office 0.95 701 0.86 634 I Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 l04 Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34 Existing -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0.95 755 0.86 683 Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existing -2l,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 I 0.54 -ll SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0 Potential 6341 6215 Existing -944 -1063 TOTAL 5397 5152 Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April 2001). Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. Appendix C Table C-4 BRISBANE PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION (2000-2020) 2. Southeast Bayshore l,646,990 SF 1,100 Rooms 8,000 SF N/A I 8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5 3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15 120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 l17 1.24 149 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.0l 88 268 Units Townhouse 0.44 ll8 0.55 147 214 Units Condo/ Apts. 0.67 143 0.82 176 lO. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Corom. 0.98 224 1.24 283 I 11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 12. Baylands\') 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680 500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660 I. 690,000 SF R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 I 0.94 649 75,000 SF Restaurant I 3.32 250 4.78 359 2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 l,340 0.76 l,520 " (app. 1 mil. SF) 'I SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868 I 13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 I TOTALS 8,964 14,739 2,500 SF Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102 Office l.40 5 1.32 5 Trade Corom. t!:= 65 1.24 82 SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213 SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140 Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF 3,500 SF 66,500 SF 210 Units 4. Brisbane Acres 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units 16 Units N/A 6. Owl/Buckeye Canyons 7. Quarry N/A N/A = No net additional development planned. (1) Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF oflow traffic generating uses. Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. UV) ~ I :aU = ~ Cl,j- ~,Q ~= <E-- ;;; < ~ ~ ~ '-' z o ~~ ~~ oo~ <~ =z ~~ ~" <~ =~ ~~ ~oo ~o ~ " ~ u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ - - so 00 C'\ M V) 0'1 V) ~> \0 00 M C'\ C'\ :' 000___ ~ ~ ---- ~S~ s ~o~ c ~ Sl ~ ~ o ==-------- ~ o~ C'\ 00 M 0 ~ ~~> ~ Sl \0 ~ \0 ~ fo------- ~~ ZE-l .... ~ c \0 o ::!. M C'"'! V) '"'l ~ C'"'! ~ ~o g \0 0 0 M ~> _ V) V) \0 000__ ~~ ----- ~S~ E-lO~ R ~ ~ ~ 0__ == ------ ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ 000 \0 \0 - N ~ ~~> _ M - - V) ~O------- ~~ ~ ~ 0'1 00 N M o ~ ::!. r-- - 00 C'"'! r-- M M o ~ "" M C'"'! r-- ~ \0 ~ ~ ~~ 0 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 V) N ~ ~> :f ~ ~ ~ S ;:";;;l ~O '< + - ------ ~~~ r--;; 00 \0 ~~~ C'"'!;:::;:;; .... ~ .... 00 ~ cY C/) o - r-- r-:' o M ~ 00 ;;;l ... .s I:l a b/} .S p. g. ,J:l C/) \0 0'1 \0, - N .e3 o:s cu '" 00 M o N" r-: ""' cY C/) o o V) V)' 0'1 N cu ~ :::: ..9 Cd cu ... r.S cu e,......, -...:l cu <El t;g. E-l U ~! r-< o:s 00 S cu C/)d 0.:::1 p:: ... Clt8 .~ o 00 - .~ - r-- - s cu I:l iJ ~ cu -a 'a ;; ::E ~ '" 'S ~ ~.~ ~ 8 ,J:l'"d ~ S .~ 8 ~ o ::C:U E-l ~ 5h o ... p. ::E ~ '"d Q) - o:s '"d I:l E ~Z'o -s ~5" u o 0 "<f2.'#.~ O'IN~ MV)'"d 1l:S~ ~'#.1 :><::><::><:o:s 'tr 'tr ';;'.S ~ .S ...:l...:l.....:l 8...:l .~ V) 0 \0 'a ...... '" ~~~U~ t) oOO~.c",d) II II II 13 ~ .!3-"5' ...-.....-.....-..~~~~ r-<r-<r-<~"r-<p.. 'tr 'tr 'tr ~ I::i II II .....:l...:l.....:lo\.....:lr-<:><: ,....... ---. -- -- ,:::, C!, c ~ ~ ~ cY C/) o o 0, 0..; ~ ~ "l ~ <:\) <:\) II:: 'So ~ II:: .g .s:! ... <:;) ~ II:: ~ ~ "0> ~ :~ .;::: '"' .::; <:\) ;s ..s II:: .~ '- 9.. ~ ::! ....... l2 ;Sc.J f'... II:: II:: <:;) <:;) .- ".t: ~ ~ 1:: <:\) <:;) II:: ~ r~ >:: 'V <::i .9-~ ~ <:\) >:: '. <::i <:\) r~ ~'V ::! '. c55..s <:\)~ ~~ ,<:;'9.- .9- 1:: ~c3 Appendix C Table C-6 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION AM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE I IN OUT IN I OUT 187 Gross Trips 120 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -8 Project Residential -4 0 0 -10 Project Office -20 169 Net New Trips 96 6 All Net New Trips 6 OFFICE RESIDENTIAL IN OUT IN OUT 364 Gross Trips 50 23 Gross Trips 113 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -5 Project Residential 0 -4 Project Shopping -8 -20 Project Shopping -10 0 Project Office -5 339 Net new trips 40 I 19 Net new trips 100 I PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 533 242 Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix C Table C-7 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE IN OUT IN OUT 631 Gross Trips 684 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -17 Project Residential -15 -5 Project Residential 0 -45 Project Office -5 -10 Project Office 0 -30 Movie -30 -30 Shopping -30 539 Net New Trips 634 77 All Net New Trips 52 OFFICE RESIDENTIAL IN OUT IN OUT 68 Gross Trips 331 103 Gross Trips 54 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential -5 -15 Project Shopping -17 -5 Project Shopping -45 -5 Project Office 0 0 Movie -10 0 Movie -5 63 Net New trips 271 83 Net New trips 32 PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS IN OUT 762 989 Source: Crane Transportation Group ,-... u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MZ ~ QO~~~ UOOZ~ Q.l<'-'O ::C=Z~ ~~O~ U~~~ ~<.,< ....= ~ ~ -g~=~ ~~~:E <~~< ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ;:J o ~ ~ !-< ~ ;:J ...:l0 ~ !-<- O~ =z ;:J o ~ z .... ~ z ;:J o ~ - !-< ~ ;;J ~O s: 0- ~~ z ;:J o ~ ~ ~ z S ~ - !-< ~ ;;J =0 ~- ~~ z S ~ ~ -- ~ z ;;J o ~ - !-< ~ ;;J t)0 ... ~- ~ O~ Z ;:J o ~ ~ . ~ z ;:J ;::c 0 ~ ~ ...:l!-< ~;:J zO ~- S~ ~~ o ~ ~ l/") <'l o <'l l/") - l/") - I o - ('<1 - 0\ <'l 0\ <'l o <'l ('<1 - V1 ~ !-< ~ ~ Z !-< ~ Z , "€ -g o iii ~ (I) o a - ..<::..<:: v5 ~1:: ;:j 03 ~ l/") o - l/") l/") I"- I"- I"- I"- 00 o o ('<1 l/") N l/") - l/") - N - l/") - - l/") l/") l"- N ('<1 - ..<:: "S o '1 o - v5 ::> o - l/") - l/") - l/") - I"- I"- ('<1 ('<1 l/") 0\ . !ii ..<:: -g ~SE:i .... 0 ;:l CZl '" a 8 .~ Oil .~ U ~ ~ u~ o - l/") N o l/") o l/") 0\ ('<1 ('<1 ('<1 00 00 ('<1 r'1 00 ~ ~1i.i tl (I) (jj~ o N l/") o o . N N <'l N I"- I"- , -d > o:i 15 '0 ~ ..... (I) ~~ ow o o o ~ f;l;1 !-< ~V1 ~~ ~~ I o o 0 o o o o r'1 - r'1 - o o o o CZl ~ ,~ ....:lCl ~w ~~ gl~ CZlCl o o - o o - o o - -d > o:i '" .~ u !l '" (jj 01) ~ o Oil 15 (I) . 80 0..0 ON ~'E (I) 0.. "O~ 3 (I)" .... u ~ a ] .5 e"E 01)0 .S ~ .~ Cl ><f- (1)"0 =: ~ ]c :: E 1;l] o:l (I) f~o.. >. ;:l o:l a 0 ~-o t::~ l:: ~ e.8 o l1.l ti$ .... ~ 1:: :a C) 8- u 0 '" !ii u l:: b'~ e ~ U f- (I) a (I) 13~~ .S !ii u S CZl" o.s~ U ;:l ~~ ~~ t::- o:l W g. e-~ e S~C) ~ 5 .~ EQ.~ (I) 0.. 1:: 5&38- > <l:: '" S e ~ ~ eClf- ~ 2~~~ s'(3 u.g o a.." ~ .....s::: .... s:: - ~~(I)~ (l)a2.~ >. 0.. CI) 0 :: r::~..<::4l~ o~"S~e;;:; -~c55Cl~ ~<~~E '~l/") ~ ~v E ~.t:: ~ ~ ~<'lU""; ~ ~ ;:l *::;-N'~ c5j o o o o o 0 o o - . o o - o o - o o - o o - o o - o o - ....:l ~ f- o f- @ ~ o o - o o o - o l"- I"- o - l"- I"- o - o o o o o - o o o - o o o - o f- W ~ ....:l ~ o f-~ glw CZlZ ~ . o....:l ~eo j ~gz ~>-~o Oeo ::I: f-CZl CZl gl~~~ CZl~Ueo o o 0 o o 0 r'1 l/") l/") r'1 l/") l/") o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 eo Z ~ :E .~.s ~ :a ~ a -.......<:: .~ B g v5 ii ~~ ::> > 0 ..s eo en - o - o CZl ;:j -. u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ff")Z ~~~~ UOO7~ ~< VO :c == Z ~~O== U>E:~ ~ < ..... < .....= ~~ -g~=~ ~~ ~ ~ <~~~ ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o =:I ~ E-o :t ;;;l ...:l0 iool E-o- O~ =~ o =:I ~ ~ :z ;;;l o =:I - E-o Co ;;;l ioolO > 0- ~~ z ;;;l o =:I ~ ~ ~ o =:I - E-o Co ;;;l =0 < E-o- ~~ Z ;;;l o =:I ~ ~ ~ o =:I - E-o !:;!, ;;;l tjO ..... r.- r. O~ Z ;;;l o =:I ~. ~ z ;;;l = 0 - =:I ~E-o E-o;;;l zO iool_ S~ rJ:l~ ~O =:I ~ rJ:l ~ ;; E-o ~ iool :z E-o iool Z V) N V) ~ <0 <0 V) V) 0\ N 0\ N N N ~ o ~ <0 uS ;::i <0 - V) V) V) V) V) r-- r-- N ~ '" I -g as ~ o ..c..c ~t:: d 0 CQZ V) N <0 N <0 ~ <0 ~ V) V) - V) - V) - ~ '" N ..c E o Vl , - <0 ~ uS ;::i <0 - V) V) V) V) V) '"" '"" V) '<1" @..c~ Vl....._ ..c:lCQ =s ~ ~ o ' '>=J en 8 .~ <a.!!l U ,buk)t;j s:: @ rn ~ c3~Vi;s V) N V) - r-- '"" r-- '"" '"" N '"" N 00 00 00 V) V) '"" V) V) - <0 <0 N N N '"" r-- , -d > as ,s o ~ .... Il.l ~"i o~ <0 <0 - 00 V) r-- <0 r-- '" '"" r-- '" '"" V) '<1" <0 N V) '<1" 00 N <0 <0 - <0 <0 <0 - 00 <0 <0 - 00 <0 <0 - 00 E- ~ ~ .....l < E- o E-;S @3w VlZ ::E . o.....l ~~ ~ ~~ ;::~~O o~ :I: E-Vl Vl @3~~~ Vl~U~ ~ iool E-< ~oo ~~ ~~ 00 <0 00 <0 ~ <0 <0 <0 00 ~ 00 00 - ~ 00 V) 00 ~ - 00 ~ V) 00 ~ - <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 00 00 00 00 <0 00 00 ~ ~ :E ~ .-==: E Il.l Vl ~.- OJ: - ~ ~ @ <O-......c - .~ ~ ~ uS ~ ~2 ;::i > o.s - <0 - uS ;::i V) 00 - Vl p.. ,~ .....lo ;::w o~ F-<.~ @3~ VlO 00 V) N 00 "'" 00 "'" V) "'" V) "'" <0 <0 00 00 00 <0 - 00 <0 - 00 00 - -d > as <Il .~ u B <Il Vi 0Cl s:: o <a E Il.l . So 0.00 .9N ~1: Il.l 0. "0<( 3 (1)r. ..... U 5 a ] .5 1l.l"E ~O .5 ::E .~~ 1l.l"O :=: @ "0'" @ 5 ...... S 1l.l"O <Il s:: d Il.l ~ ~ 0. id'@5 ~~o t::~ s:: ~ ~ ,9 o (1) ~ ..... 5 t:: ~C18. u 0 <Il @ ~ @ ~ '0 f:: Il.l @ Il.l 1l~@ ,5 @ U "E IZl ~ o.s~ U :l 1ar55 ~J :g iil 0. ~5 e S5C1 g 5,~ "E~~ ~ 0. t:: 5058. g'E~f} .. 0 f:: l2 E 0 Il.l Cj .a ~ a l:: 5'0 u.~ o c ';:l ~ ..c~s::t: ~~Il.lC) ~a[~ ;>. 0. IZl 0 l:: -::E..c0i~ S~E[;~ - 00 '" ~ IZl l:t > Cot-t ~ E ".;:l 0 Il.l U d~~[;'. E <0'- '<::' 'Ii l:lNU",:;~ < ;:; *SEc c55 <0 <0 - <0 <0 - <0 <0 - <0 <0 - <0 <0 - I o o - o o - .....l < E- ~ !i@ ~ C1 Appendix C Table C-IO MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS TDM MEASURE Bicycle lockers and racks Showers and changing rooms Operation of a shuttle service to rail stations Charge employees for parking Subsidize transit tickets for employees Preferential parking for car and vanpoolers Implement a vanpool program Operate commute assistance center Installation of high band width connections to employees' homes Install a video conference center Provision of on-site amenities Coordinate TDM programs with existing developments/ employers Provision of childcare services as part of the development Combine 10 elements NUMBER OF TRIPS CREDITED 1/3 per bike locker/rack 2 trips per facility 1 trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2 trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride Home program. 5 trips will be credited if shuttle stops at a childcare facility en route to/from the worksite. 1 trip for each parking spot charged at $20 per month 1 trip per transit pass subsidized at $20 per month. 1 additional trip if subsidy increased to $75 for parents using transit to take a child to childcare en route to work. 2 trips per reserved parking spot for carpools; 7 trips per parking spot for vanpools. 7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with Guaranteed Ride Home program 1 trip per features, plus 1 trip per hour staffed 1 trip per connection 20 trips per center RECOMMENDED QUANTITY 18 (1 per 50 parking spaces) Install 3 shower/locker facilities (1 per building) Implement Guaranteed Ride Home. Implement new shuttles or fund expansion of existing shuttles to provide 80 additional round trip seats. Subsidizes 79 monthly transit passes (10% of790 employees) 26 carpool parking places (3% of 882 total); 9 vanpool parking places (1% of882) Implement Guaranteed Ride Home. Implement 2 vanpools. Install information kiosks in each of 3 buildings with links to transit and rideshare information Coordinated with tenants to install connections for 5% of 90 employees Install one video conference center TOTAL TRIP CREDITS 6 6 160 o 79 115 20 3 40 20 1 trip per on-site feature o 5 trips 5 Coordinate with nearby buildings 1 trip for every 2 childcare slots; increasing to 1 trip for each slot if multiple age groups are selected (infants=0-2 yrs, preschool=3-4 yrs, school age=5-13 yrs). 5 trips TOTAL Source: City of South San Francisco o 5 459 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC TABLES Terrabqy Phase III Project Drcift Supplemental Environmental Impact Report D-1 ~~ ~ I .... ~ ~ <I.l =- <I.l~ l:l.~ l:l.E-< < ~ Q ~ ~ '-" z o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ooZ -<~ =~ ~~ ~~ =00 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ ..:l""," 00 00 QO 00 N 0 V) 0\ N ~;>- '" 00 _ N N 0\ ~O------- S~~ ~~~ ~ 0 ~ S o =:-------- ~..:l_ N N M 000 ~Q~ ~ ~ S ""'" '" ~ ~~------- ~O ~ ~ C QcS g '" ~ ~;>- - o ~~------- S~~ ~ 0 ~ "" ~ ~ ~ 0________ =: ~..:lr- r- _ N ~Q~ ~ '" ::: - - ~~ ~O------- ~ Z~ ....~ ~ ~ ""'" ~ '" ~ t"<) o ~ t"<) o ~ '" C'<1 ""'" - r- - V) C'<1 t"<) '" t"<) N t"<) ""'" C'<1 ""'" C"'! r- C'<1 t"<) t"<) t"<) r- ~ ~I O..:l g ~ ;e N ~ ~ ~ 0 ;. on. '" V) O. _ ~;>- _ N N r- - N ;>;~ ~~------- QQ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... r.n ~ r.n ~ r- C"'! - ~ ~ o CI) o - r- r-: o t"<) '" - o:s Q) '" 00 t"<) o N I-< Q) i:l Q) u OJ) .S 0. 0. .8 CI) s Q) .S u ~ Q) P.. ',j:l "i) ~ ~ o V) 00 C"'! 00 N 0\ C'<1 '" ~ N 0\ 00 00 - .,f 8 o 8 o o t"<) .~ .~ o - 00 r- - - ~ '" '13 ~ ~.~ ~ ~ -g i .... 0 0 ::r: u t-< '" 00 V) """' Q) Q) ij I-< g. ..s u Q) e.ft ~- t-< S 02 t-< . S ~.8 t-< Q) u CI) = CI) o:s o ~ ~.9 ooa I """'~ "';j ~ o 0 "::f2.'t( g.,~ ]:8 "::f2.'t( o 00 \O~ t"<)~o ooN-.:t: v1C'it"<) + + + """'''''"'Q' ~ ~ '-' OJ) .S jjj~ Q) ,..... .~ V) 0 \0......-01 r.f) "'''''''~ u ooo~",Q) 1\ 1\ 1\ Z'@-'8' ~~~I\t-<A.. IS' IS' IS' = 1\ II HHHHt-<~ _8:6: ~ .... c:Y Cf.l o o o. .....; o o "'l ~ ~ ~ ::: 'tiQ ~ l:: .9 .... S lo.. c:> ~ l:: ~ ~ 'c- ~ ::! .-::: .... '" .:; ~ '5 .s l:: c:> :.;;: ~ ~ ::! -.. e '5Cj t'-. l:: l:: c:> c:> .- '';:: ~ E 't ~ c:> l:: ~ ~ l:: Cj ~ .9-~ ~ ~ l:: ~ r~ l::'-' ::! '. c55.s ~"'t:l ~~ ~ .~ .9- E ~8 Appendix D Table D-2 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE IN OUT IN OUT 187 Gross Trips 120 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -8 Project Residential -4 0 0 -10 Proj ect Hotel -5 169 Net New Trips 111 6 All Net New Trips 6 HOTEL RESIDENTIAL IN OUT IN OUT 117 Gross Trips 84 23 Gross Trips 113 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential 0 -4 Project Shopping -8 -5 Proj ect Shopping -16 0 Project Hotel 112 Net New trips 68 19 Net New trips 105 ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 306 296 Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D Table D-3 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE IN OUT IN OUT 631 Gross Trips 684 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -17 Project Residential -15 -5 Project Residential 0 -20 Project Hotel -10 -5 Project Hotel 0 -30 Movie -30 -30 Shopping -30 564 Net New Trips 629 82 All Net New Trips 52 HOTEL RESIDENTIAL IN OUT IN OUT 102 Gross Trips 108 103 Gross Trips 54 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE 0 Project Residential 0 -15 Proj ect Shopping -17 -10 Proj ect Shopping -20 0 Project Hotel 0 0 Movie -5 0 Movie -5 92 Net New trips 83 88 Net New Trips 32 ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 826 796 Source: Crane Transportation Group ~~ ~ I .- ~ 't:l ~ =- ~.c c..~ c..E-; < ~ -< ~ ~ ~ -- z o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ooZ -<~ =~ ~~ ~~ =~ ~~ ~~ ~~ N ~ > ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ...:l "<t N 0 0\ ~~ ~ 00 V) N ~~-- ~Eo-<~ Eo-< ~ Eo-< ~ @5O~ c o __ == ---- ~...:l_ N \0 0 ~~O a:l ~ 00 \0 ~~> --~-- ~O =~ ~ ~ C V) "<t 00 "<t ~ "<t - r--- - 0\ 0\ 00 \0 ~ "<t f'! V) "'1 ...:l 0 - M ~O N \0 S \0 ~ > - o ___ 00=-__ ~Eo-< ~~~ MOOr--- ~O~ E ~ -=--=-_ ~---- ~ S~ \0 ~ ~ ~ t:~> - ___ ~O--- ~~ >-;Eo-< ~ ~ o 0\ N M o ~ \0 ~ r--- ~ . ~...:l 8 00 - ~ > ;i ;;...~ ~~-- ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 0\ - \0 o Irl. N o 0" - 00 00 V) N" 0\ - r--- f'! 00 - \0 "'! V) "<t ti 0 .eJ en g 6 t<l .eJ ..... ~ ~ 0 .~ .~ CIl en ..9 >-; 0 00 0 - ~ 00 - M \0 r--- r--- 0 M - ~ r---" N" c.S 0 0 M .D - ,-., ~i t<l o t<l .... S Eo-< u 0 ~ A i:l ~ en ~~ 0 U 0 u ~ :; en Eo-< t<l 01) ~ ;:::S CIl ~ .S 0 i -a CIlS A '';:: -so] o. ~ A "5 ~ .... 0 0 00 ..s::: ..... 0 Clc.S ~ 00 ::::s ::r:U Eo-< ,-., ,-., ..... ~ g o 0 ;:Ra=::: ~~ ~:a ;:R~ o 00 ~::!, - <"'")0\0 OON"": triNM + + ~ ,-.,,-.,x CC- 01) .S i=l f:l f:l 0 0 ....l....l....l....l .~ l.() 0 \0.....-4 --'~ \O\O\Ot<l U 6 6 6 .a en.~ II II II Z'S" 8 ,-.,,-.,,-., E-<t:l-. CCCII II II jjjjE-<X ~ ~ ~ ~ C! e ~ ~ 6 CIl o o 0" 0.) ~ ~ "-l ~- ~ ~ :;::: .~ ~ :;::: .~ .... -S! :... o t} :;::: ~ N ~ ~ .... ::t :::;: .... '" ~ ~ 'S .s :;::: .~ ~ ~ ~ e 'SC,) t'-. :;::: :;::: 0 ~ ".:: "-t: .s ~ :... ~ 0 :;::: t} ~ :;::: C,) ~ . e, et; et; ~ '. ~ ~\j ::t '. r55.s ~"l::l .... ~ l:3~ ~~ .e, ~ et;u Appendix D Table D-S TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE IN OUT IN OUT 187 Gross Trips 120 6 Gross Trips 6 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -12 Project Residential -6 0 0 175 Net New Trips 114 6 All Net New Trips 6 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 34 Gross Trips 164 INTERNAL CAPTURE -6 Project Shopping -12 28 Net New Trips 152 ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 209 272 Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix D Table D-6 TERRABA Y PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE PM PEAK HOUR SHOPPING MOVIE IN OUT IN OUT 631 Gross Trips 684 122 Gross Trips 82 INTERNAL CAPTURE INTERNAL CAPTURE -24 Project Residential -22 -7 Project Residential 0 -30 Movie -30 -30 Shopping -30 577 Net New Trips 632 85 All Net New Trips 52 RESIDENTIAL IN OUT 146 Gross Trips 79 INTERNAL CAPTURE -22 Proj ect Shopping -24 0 Movie -7 124 Net New Trips 48 ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION IN OUT 786 732 Source: Crane Transportation Group AIR QUALITY MODEL Terrabqy Phase JJJ PrOJcct Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report E-l URBEMIS-2002 Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called URBEMIS-2002.1 URBEMIS-2002 is a program that estimates the emissions that result from various land use development projects. Land use project can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial parks. URBEMIS-2002 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be used when it is available. Inputs to the URBEMIS-2002 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. Trip generation rates for project land uses were provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and vehicle mixes for the Bay Area were used. Average speed for all types of trips was assumed to be 30 MPH. The URBEMIS-2002 run assumed summertime conditions with an ambient temperature of 85 degrees F. The analysis was carried out assuming project build-out would occur by the year 2010. CALlNE-4 MODELING The CALlNE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALlNE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc. A screening-level form of the CALlNE-4 program was used to predict concentrations? Normalized concentrations for each roadway size (2 lanes, 4 lanes, etc.) are adjusted for the two-way traffic volume and emission factor. Calculations were made for a receptor at a corner of the intersection, located at the curb. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC7-2002 computer program based on a Bay Area vehicle mix. The screening form of the CALlNE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level 1 Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 8.7, April 2005. 2 B3y fir ea Pi r ClJaI i t Y MI1agene1t 0 5t r i ct, B6IOl> c:EO\ GJi del i res, 1999. attributed to more distant traffic. The 1-hour background level in 2005 was taken as 4.4 PPM and the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 3.2 PPM. The 1-hour background level in 2010 and 2020 was taken as 3.9 PPM and the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 2.9 PPM. These backgrounds were estimated using isopleth maps and correction factors developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Eight-hour concentrations were obtained from the 1-hour output of the CALlNE-4 model using a persistence factor of 0.7. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WILL SERVE LETTER Terrabqy Phase JJJ Projed Draft Supplemental Emironmental Impact Report F-1 e CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 341 NORTH DELAWARE STREET. SAN MATEO, CA 94401-1727 (6501343-1808 . FAX (650) 342-6865 BAYSHORE DISTRICT July 13, 2005 Mr. Adrian Corlett, PE BKF 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Re: The Mandalay Terrace, South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Corlett, California Water Service Company is prepared to provide water service to "The Mandalay Terrace" project located adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and the newly constructed Route 101 Hook Ramps in South San Francisco in accordance with all rules and regulations in effect and on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Those rules may be modified from time to time by the commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An extension of our facilities will be necessary to serve this project. The specific water requirements for the proposed site can not be determined until fire department requirements, domestic requirements, and utility plans are submitted to California Water Company. If! can be of further assistance, please call me at (650) 558-7862. ;;~p:t~ Leighton Low Construction Superintendent DISTRICT O"ICES: ANTELOPE VALLEY. 8AKERSFIELD . BAVSHORE . BEAR GULCH. CHiCO. DIXON. EAST LOS ANGElES. KERN I(IVER VALLEY. KING CITY. lIVfI.MORf. LOS ALTOS. MARYSVlLlf . GROVlllE . RANCHO DOMINGUEZ. REDWOOD VALLEY. SALINAS. SElMA. STOCKtON. VISAUA . WESTlAKE. WillOWS