HomeMy WebLinkAbout249 E Grand Final FEIR
FINAL
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-042121
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
JUNE 2006
CONTENTS
Page
1. PREP ACE................................................................................................................. .............. 1-1
Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report..........................................................................................1-1
Organization of the Final EIR .................................................................... ...... .................... ........... ........... ........... 1-2
Scope of the EIR..................................................... ..................... .................. ....... ...... ...... .......................................1- 2
Public Review Process................................................................. ..................................... ....... ..................... .... .......1- 3
2. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR .......................................................................................... 2-1
3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.............................................................................................. 3-1
Introduction................................................. ................................................................. ................. ........................... 3-1
List of Letters ........................ ............ .................................................. ...................... ......... ...... .................... .............3- 2
A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ..........................................................3-3
B. California Department of Transportation ........ ................................. ......................................................... 3- 7
C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District..............................................................................................3-11
D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works ................................................................ .............3-17
E. San Francisco International Airport................. ................ ............ ...... ....................................................... 3-21
F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities....................................... ........................................ .................. .................3-25
G. California Department of Transportation............... .................................................... .............................3-29
H. California Department of Transportation...... ............ ......... ................................... .................... ..............3- 33
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ 4-1
Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis.................................................... ...... ................ ............... ............ ....................
Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output ....................................................................................................
Appendix C - Excerpts from South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transporlation Demand
Management Ordinance Drq/t Supplemental Environmental Impact Rep011..............................................................
Appendix D - City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ......................
1
PREFACE
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by
government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIR, including the Partial
Revision to the Draft EIR, for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. The EIR has been prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with
Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead
Agency for the Project, as defined by CEQA, is the City of South San Francisco.
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
Final EIR consists of the responses to comments and revisions of those portions of the Draft
EIR which have been modified in response to comments received during the public review
period on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received within
the 4S-day public review periods following the initial publication of the Draft EIR, as well as the
recirculation period for the Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those
comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft EIR, and all
such changes are reflected in this document. As required by CEQA, this document addresses
those comments received during the public review period that raise environmental issues.
The EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIR, Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, and the Final
EIR) is intended to be certified as a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts
of the proposed Project by the City of South San Francisco. Certification of the EIR as adequate
and complete must take place prior to any formal City action on the proposed Project itself, and
EIR certification does not equate to approval of the Project.
The EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead
and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their consideration of the Project. The basic
purposes of CEQA are to:
. inform governmental decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of
proposed activities;
. involve the public in the decision making process;
. identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1-1
CHAPTER 1: PREFACE
. prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of
alternatives or mitigation measures.1
The analysis in the EIR concentrates on those aspects of the Project that are likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR identifies reasonable and feasible
measures to mitigate (i.e., reduce or avoid) these effects. The CEQA Guidelines define
"significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project ...."2 The
determination of significance of potential environmental effects is based, in part, on the
discussion of environmental effects which are normally considered to be significant found in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
This EIR does not address those environmental factors and effects that have already been
determined to be "less than significant", except as necessary to establish a background for the
Project. The social or economic issues associated with the proposed Project are not evaluated in
the EIR, as these are not considered "environmental" effects. Such an analysis is beyond the
scope of this environmental review document.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR consists of the following major sections:
. Preface - outlines the objectives of the EIR and important preliminary information,
. Revisions to the Draft EIR - contains revisions to the Draft EIR text,
. Comments and Responses - contains letters of comment on the Draft EIR along with
responses to these comments. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIR
has been modified, with changes indicated as described in the previous paragraph.
This EIR has been prepared for the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) by
Lamphier-Gregory. The information in the EIR was compiled from a variety of sources,
including published studies, applicable maps and independent field investigations. Unless
otherwise noted, all background docmnents are available for inspection at the City of South San
Francisco Planning Department.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR
An initial evaluation of the proposed Project by City staff indicated that the develoPlnent of the
project site area as proposed might have several potentially significant environmental impacts
State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Califomia Environmental Quak!J Act Statutes and
Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a).
2 Ibid, Section 15382.
PAGE 1-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 1: PREFACE
(see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related
impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below:
. Aesthetics
. Air Quality
. Biological Resources
. Geology and Soils
. Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Land Use
. Noise
. Public Services
. Transportation and Circulation and
. Utilities
Each of these topic areas is addressed in the DEIR in its respective chapter.
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on April 21, 2005. It is included in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR, along with responses to comments on the Notice of Preparation.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period. During this time, the public and responsible
agencies and organizations submitted comments on the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR in
evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. Based on comments received
from the California Department of Transportation during this 45-day period, the Transportation
and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR was recirculated for an additional 45-day period as a
Partial Revision to the Draft EIR.
Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to the
Draft EIR) have been prepared, and are presented in this document. The Draft EIR, with the
responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review periods, comprise
the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco for review and certification, in accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA
Guidelines. However, certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the proposed
Project. This action only indicates that the record of potential environmental impacts and the
available means of reducing or avoiding these impacts provided in the EIR is adequate and
complete.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1-3
CHAPTER 1: PREFACE
Upon certification of the EIR, the City Council will make a separate decision on the approval,
denial or modification of the Project as proposed. Certification of the EIR as adequate and
complete does not imply that the proposed Project has to be approved. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, where there remain significant environmental effects that cannot be
reduced to a level of "less than significant", the Project may be approved only where a statement
of overriding considerations of social, economic or other benefit can be made and supported
with substantial evidence.3
3 California Public Resources Code Section 21080e e) "... substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption
predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or
economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment."
PAGE 1-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
2
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
In response to comments received on the Draft EIR and Partial Revision to the Draft EIR
during their 45-day public review periods, the following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR
have been made:
On DEIR page 5-2, the following text has been revised as follows:
In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of
the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated-cltree several times, in 1994, 1997,
2000, and 2005. with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter. industry
controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives.
On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been revised as follows:
The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been
taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan and the most
recent Clean Air Plan (Bay Area Ozone Strategy), released in early 2006~. The Project would
therefore be consistent with population projections used to develop the latest, and ha7c n8 i.mpad
on, thc Clean Air Plan. Projects should reasonably implement applicable TCMs to be considered
consistent with regional clean air planning efforts. Most of the TCMs listed in the latest clean air
plans are not directly applicable to the project.
Under the General Plan policies. the project would be required to implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TD:M) plan to reduce project trips. The City of South San Francisco
promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction
goals required per the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General
Plan. The TDM plan along with General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures identified in the
Transportation and Circulation Chapter (Mitigation Measures 13-1. 13-2. 13-3. 13-5. 13-6. and
13-9) would reasonably implement TCMs consistent with those contained in the latest approved
Clean Air Plan.
On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows:
Impact 5-1
Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high
potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would
generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
matter ermSSlons that would affect local air quality. This would be a
potentially significant impact.
On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows:
Construction activities from on-site equipment and truck deliveries would emit toxic air
contaminants and air pollutants that are not regulated by the BAAQMD. These emissions~
although temporary~ could affect nearby land uses as well as the Early Years Children's Center.
It is unlikely that significant health risks would occur due to: 1) the temporary nature of
construction activity 2) the separation distances between sensitive receptors and the project and
3) the relatively high occurrence of moderate to strong winds during the construction season. In
order to be protective of the health of nearby sensitive receptors. as well as reduce emissions
that could affect regional air quality, the project should implement additional construction
period mitigation measures. These would be measures beyond those normally recommended by
the BAAQMD to ensure air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered
less than significant.
On DEIR page 5-5, the following text has been added as follows:
Optional Measures
. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks
of all trucks and ~quipment leaving the site.
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Measures to Reduce Exhaust Emissions
The mitigation measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel particulate matter and
NOx emissions from on-site construction equipment:
. At least 50 percent of the heavy-dutv. off-road equipment used for
construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent. or
use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result
in lower emissions.
. Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or
particu~ate filters.
. Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate ermSSlOns from off-road
diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from
all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not
exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in anyone hour.
PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0)
shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired.
· The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible
to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g..
compressors) .
· Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be
turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soiL
aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could
keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site.
· Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
On DEIR page 5-6, the following revisions were made as follows:
The screening computations were made model Vv as run for each intersection for the PM Peak
Hour for existing CO concentrations, as well as CO levels in 2008 with and without the Project
and 2020 Cumulative Conditions. The following table details the results of the Calinc1 1fodel
fltftS-CO analysis.
On DEIR page 5-7, Table 5-2 was revised as follows:
TABLE 5-2
LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(parts per million)
Allerton/East Grand Oyster PoinUGateway
Model Scenario CO Concentration CO Concentration
1-Hour I 8-Hour 1-Hour I 8-Hour
Existing :3-:00 5.9 ~tl .;}..6+ 7.2 ~5.0
2008 no Project :3-+7 L1 ~5.0 ~9.6 ~6.7
2008 with Project ~L1 ~5.0 ~9.9 ~6.9
2020 Cumulative 4.9 3.4 .u 4.3
Includes backqround CO level of 5 ppm for 1-hour and 2.8 ppm for 8-hour levels
ON DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows:
In any scenario, CO emissions would not reach the thresholds established by the BAAQMD of
20 parts per million over a l-hour period, or 9 parts per million over an 8-hour period. As
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
shown in the above table, CO emissions in the area would increase by 2008 with the proposed
Project. However, because ~ CO concentrations associated with project emission~ :levels- in
the area would remain below B}J.LQ1ID ambient air quality standards, this impact would be less
than significant.
On DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows:
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially
significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be
used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts.
The DEIR used an out of date model~ URBEMIS 7G, which over estimated the emissions from
direct (area) and indirect (vehicles) emissions. The FEIR includes an updated analysis of project
emissions using the URBEMIS 2002 (version 8.7) model. The project size along with the trip
generation rate forecasted by CTG was input to the model. The modeling assumed that the
project would be fully constructed and occupied in 2008. Default assumptions for the San
Francisco Bay Area were used. The URBEMIS 2002 Based on CTC's estimate of 5,916 daily
r,;vo ~ ay trips to and from the Project site, URBE1fIS7C 1fodd calculations were performed in
order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), :Nitrous Nitrogen Oxide~ (NOJ and Carbon Monoxide (CO).
Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG and NOx and 550 pounds per day for CO
(if the project is a source of stationary emissions). The Project's total emissions are estimated at
63 pounds per day (lbs/day) for ROG, 64lbs/day for NOx. and are estimated at 51 63lbs.Jday
for PMlQ' These emissions are below the significance threshold~ established by the BAAQMD.
thus this impact would be less than significant.
On DEIR page 5-7, Impact 5-2 has been revised as follows:
Impact 5-2
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would not exceed
BAAQMD emissions thresholds standards for ROG, NOx by producing 112
lbs/day, as well as producing 712Ibs./day of CO, and PMlO. This would be a
less than significant impact. However. mitigation is proposed to further
reduce these impacts.
On DEIR page 5-7, Mitigation Measure 5-2 has been revised as follows:
Mitigation
Measure 5-2
Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management Program is required, as described in
Mitigation Measure 13-1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter. This
plan would reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site.,
but not to the extent that l'JO* and CO emissions would be reduced to
PAGE 2-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
acceptable lev cls. This ~ould remain a significant and una.oidable impact of
the project. The following components should be included in the plan to
further reduce project impacts to air quality:
· Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently
shuttles that serve employers in the area. The project could become a
sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site. providing
employees an alternative mode of commuting.
· Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicycle to the project.
Such amenities could include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient
storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees could include secure
bicycle parking. lockers. and shower facilities
· The project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe
and convenient access to the project and any shuttle or future bus stops
that serve the project.
· Impact 13-9 of the Transportation and Circulation Section discusses the
on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation incorporated into the project.
Mitigation Measure 13-9 would require an internal sidewalk to ensure
adequate pedestrian circulation.
· For all buildings. provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use
of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Also. provide electrical
outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and industrial
parking lots. Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at all loading docks and
prohibit trucks from using their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel
engines for more than 5 minutes.
· Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways in smnmer
to reduce the cooling loads on buildings.
On DEIR page 5-8, the following deletion has been made as follows:
The proposed Project could expose the Early Years Children's Center to on-site ermSSlons
during construction and operation of the Project.
On DEIR page 5-8, the following addition has been made as follows:
Issues of toxic air contaminants are discussed in Chapter 8 of this document.
The project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment that emits air pollution
(e.g.. standby emergency generators). These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air
contaminants. The BAAQMD requires permits for stationary combustion equipment and large
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-5
CHAPTER 2: REV1SIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
laboratory facilities. Small laboratories are exempt since their emissions would not likely pose an
adverse impact to the public. Stationary equipment or laboratories that subject to permitting
requirements must show that impacts to the public would be negligible (e.g.. cancer risks would
be less than 10 in one million). As a result. these facilities would pose a less-than-significant
impact.
ODORS
During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would
create odors.
On DEIR page 9-3, the following text has been deleted as follows:
Ho Qv ever, flood control impro v ements to Colma Creek since the effech v e date of the FE1U-,-
FIR1f ha7e reduced flooding along the creek channel.
On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been deleted as follows:
1) C radt'fzg, and cai.tf.}J;~,{)7"1c shalf be P1"IJ/Jibitcd dur/h";!, thc }J;'ct scaS8n (0;t8bc7" 15 thrIJttg,/~ -" 1prif 15) and
Ju"h J1/'81"/~ shaff bc st8jJpcd bif81"c pending, st81":11 c;;:cnts.
On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been added as follows, replacing the sentence
deleted on the same page as shown above:
1) The period between November 1 and May 1 is hereby determined to be the period in
which heavy rainfall normally occurs in the city.
During this period no grading work in excess of 200 cubic yards will be authorized on
any single grading site under permit where the City Engineer determines that such work
will adversely impact the public health. safety or welfare. Previously authorized grading
work. which extends into the rainy season~ shall be protected by incorporating temporary
erosion control devices. Plans of erosion control devices shall be submitted to the City
Engineer no later than September 1, and design approval obtained not later than
October 1. prior to the rainy season. The design of de silting basins which discharge into
city streets or natural water courses shall be under the control of the City Engineer.
Temporary erosion controls and devices including de silting basins shall be installed no
later than November 1.
The City Engineer. in the performance of his duties. may add:
1.
Regulations as to the use of public streets and places in the course of the work.
2.
Requirements for safe and adequate drainage of the site.
3.
A requirement that approval of the city engineer be secured before any work.
which has been commenced, may be discontinued.
PAGE 2-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EI R
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
4. A requirement that men and equipment be provided at the site during storms to
prevent incomplete work from endangering life or property.
5. Requirements for fencing of excavation or fills which would be hazardous
without such fencing.
On DEIR page 9-14, the following text has been deleted as follows:
The Project applicant shall implement ~ the following twe- mitigation measure scenarios for
Impact 9-4.
2) Enter into agreement with Colma Crecl~ Flood Control District. If it is found that
routing all storm ?v'ater to the southeast corner is infeasible, a second mitigation strateg}
shall be implemented. The Project applicant shall enter into an agreement vv'ith the San
1fateo County Department of Public\"'\'orks to be included in the Colma Crecl~ Flood
Control Zone and comply with the conditions and fees that arc associated with
participation in that zone.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project design
has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of this ef:l:e
of these mitigation measures- would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than
significant.
On DEIR page 11-6, the following text has been added as follows:
AIRPORTS
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport
noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. The
proposed project site is located about one an a half miles north of the SFO. and is subject to flights
using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis. which
depending on weather conditions can comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO
departures. However. these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA
(CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows:
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection Existing W/O Proiect + Project W/O Project + Project
AirporUMiller/95 101 S8 Off-Ramp (Signal) 8-15.2(1) C-24.7 C-25.0 C-28.0 C-28.3
Airport/Grand (Signal) C-28.8(1) 0-48.8 0-51.7 0-38.5 0-39.7
Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-5.7(1) A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3
Gateway/E. Grand/E. Grand Overcrossing C-25.4(1) C~28.1 0~37.4 C-26.9 C-33.7
(Signal)
Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) 8-13.7(1) C-29.1 O~ 50.2 0-36.5 0-41 .7
Project Oriveway@ E.Grand (Signal) 8-10.7(1) A-6.7 ~Ji: A-4.5 WM8-
17.2 14.2
Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) 8-17.4(1) F-87.2 F-106.4 Q-4M C- .Q-aM C-
28.4 30.1
S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps 8-16.2(1) 8~ 18.9 8'@ jjt.O ~C- ~C-
(Signal) 24.6 25.0
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.6(1) 0-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) 8-15.0(1) C~ 29.4 C~ 36.9 C-25.8 C-29.8
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) A-8.s1(1) ~8- G-44J Ji: 8-11.0 8-14.7
10.5 12.1
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) 8-42-:-a 84&.-+ 15.2 ~8- 8-15.8 8-15.8
14.9(1) 15.2
Gateway/S.AirporUMitchell (Signal) 8-16.4(1) C-20.0 WMC- C-34.5 0-35.6
20.f
AirporUSan Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-20.9(1) C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4
Allerton/E.Grand C-15.6(2) F-57.9 F-94.5 8-14.6 (1) 8-15.8 (1)
(Allerton Stop Sign Control)
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) 8-10.1/ 8-10.5/ 8-13.5/ 8-10.7/ 8-13.9/
A-9.9(3) 8-10.1 8-11.9 8-10.5 8-13.0
Forbes/Allerton (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8(4) C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9
TABLE 13-1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PEAK HOUR
(1) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of sel-vice-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Un signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/ Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
PAGE 2-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows:
TABLE 13-2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection Existing W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project
AirporUMiller/95 101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-17.7 (1) C-21.0 C-21.1 C-27.9 C-28.0
AirporUGrand (Signal) 0-36.5(1) 0-38.9 0-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6
Oubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-4.2(1) A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2
Gateway/E.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing B-19.7(1) C-24.8.Q C~26.7 C-28.6 C-29.4
(Signal)
Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.1(1) ~O- 0-53.4 0-40.1 0-45.5
37.0
Project Oriveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.0(1) A-8.5 Q-4M 0- A-7.e ~ O-M-J 47.8
49.4
Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-11.5(1) B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.+ 1- C-24.e .Q
S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B4M 18.3(1) C~ ill C~ ill C-24.8 ~ C-24.8 ~
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) B-17.9(1) C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) C-26.8(1) 0-54.~ Jl E-eM 61.9 E-+JA. 73.2 F~ 82.9
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) B-17.8 1(1) ~C- ~C- C-20.6 C-22.9
23.7 26.0
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) B~ 16.7(1) ~B- ~C- C-24.5 C-25.7
19.8 21.0
Gateway/S.AirporUMitchell (Signal) C-25.0(1) F-81.1 F-133.8.Q C-28.0 C-31.4
AirporUSan Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-24.6(1) 0-37.8 0-52.1 0-36.81 0-4dJf 42.1
Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.4(2) F-522 F-835 B-15.1 (1) B-19.6 (1)
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8/ A-9.9/ B-14.0/ A-10.0/ B-14.6/
B-1 0.1 (3) B-10.2 B-10.8 B-10.3 B-11.0
Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.3(4) B-14.4 C-19.J ~ C-16.6 C-24.2
(1) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/ Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EI R
PAGE 2-9
CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
On DEIR page 16-4, the following text has been revised as follows:
The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in
regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing
significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
Cumulative traffic impacts resulting from other anticipated projects in the East of 101 Area are
identified in Tables 13-5 and 13-6 of this document.
PAGE 2-10
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
3
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to the Draft
EIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. Letters received during the 45-day public review
periods are listed in Section 3.2. Each letter is marked to identify distinct comments on the
Draft EIR. Responses to these comments are provided following each letter. Throughout the
responses to comments, where a specific comment has been addressed previously, a reference to
the response in which the comment is discussed may be provided in order to reduce repetition.
As noted in the PREFACE, in several instances responding to a comment received on the
Draft EIR has resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information
provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text
was not necessary.
Responses presented ln this document focus only on those comments which bear a direct
relationship to the Draft EIR and raise environmental issues, as required under CEQA. While
other comments that are not directly related to the Draft EIR or do not raise environmental
issues are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, it is beyond the scope of
the Final EIR to 'provide responses to Project merits.
The letters received on the Draft EIR are listed below. Each letter has been marked to identify
each specific comment in the right-hand margin (i.e., A-l, B-2, etc.). Following each letter, the
response to each identified comment in that letter is presented sequentially (for example, the
first comment on the Draft EIR identified in LETTER A is identified as A-l in the right-hand
margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is
coded as RESPONSE A-l). In order to avoid repetition, where individual comments focus on
the same issues raised in a previous comment or comments, the response to those comments
may make reference to a previous response or responses.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-1
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
3.2 LIST OF LETTERS
The following comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the
Focused EIR's public review period:
A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, November 22,2005.
B. California Department of Transportation, November 22,2005.
C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22, 2005.
D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works, November 22, 2005.
E. San Francisco International Airport, November 21, 2005.
F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005.
G. California Department of Transportation, December 23,2005.
H. California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006.
PAGE 3-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
. STAT E"OF CA L I F 0. R N lA'
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
2005042121
249 East Grand Avenue Office I R&D Project
South San Francisco, City of
T}lpe EIR DraftEIR
Description Construction of a phased development consisting of four officel R&D buildings totaling approximately
534,500 sq. ft., including approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail/commercial space, surface
parking and a 4-level parking structure.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Susy Kalkin
Agency City of South San Francisco
Phone (650) 877-8535
email
Address P.O. Box 711
315 Maple Avenue
City South San Francisco
Fax
State CA Zip 94083
Project Location
County San Mateo
City South San Francisco
Region
Cross Streets East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Ave.
Parcel No. 015-050-440,015-050-450
Township Range
Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways Hwy. 101,1-380
Airports San Francisco International
Railways Union Pacific
Waterways San Francisco Bay, Colma Creek
Schools
Land Use GP: Business and Technology Park
Project Issues
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of
Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Health Services; Native
American Heritage Commission; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 2; Integrated Waste Management Board
Date Received 10107/2005
Start of Review 10107/2005
End of Review 11/21/2005
"'I~.j.~. DI........I,,..:.... 14..,+", fioll4" 1"0'" lit fl"nrn inC::llffiriAnt infnrm::ltinn nr()VirlArI bv lead aaencv.
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, Nov. 22, 2005.
Response to Comment A-l: Comment noted.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-5
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
rATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. Governor
lEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
11 GRAND AVENUE
'. O. BOX 23660
IAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
'HONE (510) 286-5505
'AX (510) 286-5559
'TY (800) 735-2929
~".,
..." ...fI... ...
. !o
an; :
.l,,. ."t"
November 22, 2005
RECEIVED
NOV 2 8 2005
PLANNING
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
SMI01408
SM-I01-22.14
SCH2005042121
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Lette r B
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
249 East Grand A venue OfficeJR&D Project - Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation
(Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project.
Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to
traffic volume and congestion. Although Section 13, Transportation and Circulation B-1
addressed most of our concerns, the Department needs to review the traffic operational
analysis input data to be more thorough in our review.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
l) , "
tlt'4' ", . J^ .,!} Ij"
-=0 ""'I ~
',!~ rrt I.t
, .. . ,,, !;. E . \l. a ~ .,.' et.
r J L1/lltfc. {L::J. i · \1/fJ bv~""~ ' t1
\~i ,. - 'J , ~"" !'J ....".. '~" ~_J
TIMOTHVc. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse)
{{Caltrans improves mobility across California"
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter B: California Department of Transportation, November 22,2005.
Response to Comment B-1: The data requested by the California Department of
Transportation was submitted to the Department upon receipt of their comment letter.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EI R
PAGE 3-9
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-10
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
BAyAREA
AIR QuALITY
MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
4.J
<:<
..p :0
'l..y <;;,..:)"-
1-'''1 LTH It.\l-
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Roberta Cooper
Scott Haggerty
Nate Miley
Shelia Young
aNTRA COSTA COUNTY
Mark DeSaulnier
Mark Ross
(Secretary)
Michael Shimansky
Gayle B. Uilkema
(Vice-Chairpers()n)
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
t\N FRANCISCO COUNTY
Chris Daly
Jake McGoldrick
Gavin Newsom
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Jerry Hill
Marland Townsend
(Chairperson)
iANTA CLARA COUNTY
Erin Garner
Liz Kniss
Patrick Kwok
Julia Miller
SOLANO COUNTY
John F. Silva
SONOMA COUNTY
Tim Smith
Pamela Torliatt
Jack P. Broadbent
ECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO
November 22,2005
Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division L tt C
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083. e e r
RECEIVED
NOli 2 3 2005
PLANNING
Subj ect:
249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Proj ect
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staffhave reviewed
YOlU' agency's Draft Envirolllnental Impact Repoli (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand
Avenue Office/R&D Project(project). The project consists of approximately
534,500 square feet of cOlnmercial space for business and technology park use, as
well as approxunately 5,500 square feet of ancillary retaiVcolnmercial space.
District staff recolmnend that the Final Enviromnentall1npact Repoli
(FEIR) include additional.u1fonnation'and analysis to provide a clearer
understanding of the project's potential impacts. For eXalllple, the FEIR should C-1
include the URBEMIS assumptions that were used to quantify the. emission
estunates provided in the DEIR and to detelmine the air qualityilnpacts of this
proj ect. We also recoll11nend that the FEIR provide the estil11ate of area source
emissions that theURBEMIS Inodelca1c1.11ated.forthis project.. FinaHy,the DEIR
states on page 5-8. in regardtotoxic :aircontalllinant~: (T ACs) tl1~t "thebistIict
estilnates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific
location." We would like to clarify that allTACs nlaynot be accounted for in our
analyses of a permit application. A comprehensive analysis should be cOl11pleted as
pali of this envirolllnental review process that takes into consideration those C-2
SOlu'ces not subject to Distlict pennit regulations. For instance, the District's
pennit review and toxics analysis does not look at the enlissions from diesel trucks
from the project area alld has no auth01ity to regulate these l110bile sources of
TACs. We reconullend that the FEIR include all analysis of the cumulative
ilnpacts frOl11 T ACs, including diesel elnissions, in the proj ect area.
Based on the analysis contained in the DEIR, the proposed project will
result in significant air quality impacts fr01n the project uldividually and
cunlulatively. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure 13-1 that proposes
iinple111enting a transpoliation demand Inanagenlent (TDM) plan to reduce single
occupant vehicle trips bypronlotiilg non-auto travel to elllployees. We suppoli C-3
requiring the applicant to implelnent a TDM plan and also recolnmend including
additional feasible mitigation Ineasures to fuliher reduce the project's significant au'
quality ilnpacts. These include, but are not Jimited to: requuingelnployers to
p aliicip ate in Caltrain'sGoPass progralnthatprovidesall elllployees with a transit
pass; providing employees with a parking cash-put incentive to reduce the
9 3 9 E L LI S S T R E E T r:; SAN F RA N CIS C 0 CALI F 0 RN I A 941 0 9 IiJ 41 5 . 771. 6 0 0 0 E! WWW. BAA Q1A. D . G 0 V
Ms. Susy Kalkin
November 22, 2005
-2-
likelihood of driving alone; and charging employees to park on site. In addition to such trip
reduction Ineasures, additional mitigation Ineasures that can reduce operational emissions from
the project include: utilizing only electric forklifts and landscaping equipment in the project
operations and the operations of tenants; providing 110 and 220 volt outlets at a1110ading docks
and requiring all trucks to connect with these outlets to power their auxiliary equipment; and
posting signs at all loading zones and loading docks limiting the idling of trucks in these
locations to three minutes. These measures are readily available, cost-effective, and reduce
criteria pollutants and T ACs. We recommend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of
the recolnmended Ineasures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible) to determine if
the project's air quality iInpacts are reduced below the District's significance thresholds. Any
mitigation Ineasures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the
justification for that deternnnation.
We recolnmend that the FEIR address the project's potential to increase the demand for
energy and generate area source emissions fronl project operations. Increasing the delnand for
electricity, natural gas, and gasoline Inay result in an increase of criteria air pollutant emissions
from generation of energy, as well as an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which can impact
regional air quality. We recolmnend that the FEIR discuss energy demand of the project at
build-out, including any cUInu1ative illlpacts on energy use froln this project and other planned
proj ects in the area, such as the need to build "peaker power plants" to provide power during
peak delnand. We recollllllend including all feasible strategies that will reduce energy
consumption and the severity of air quality impacts, including but not 1ilnited to the use of:
super-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (RV AC) systems; light-colored and
reflective roofing nlateria1s, pavelnent treatnlents and other energy efficient building materials;
the most Inature, viable shade trees adjacent to buildillgs and in parking lots; photovo1taic panels
on buildings; and natural light and energy-efficient lighting.
We cOImnend the City for ilnplementing all feasible control'measures in Mitigation
Measure 5-1 for fugitive dust ennssions froln grading and construction. The District does not
typically recormnend quantification of constnlction elnissions associated with construction
activities, but instead bases its threshold of significance for fugitive dust on imp1elnentation of
all feasible contro11neasures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
kinds of construction equipnlent cOIDInonly used in development projects are primarily diesel-
powered, and with continuous use, can lead to significant diesel pmiiculate Inatter and ozone
precursor elnissions. The Califonna Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified diesel engine
particulate Inatter as a toxic air contmninant and known carcino gen.' Diesel einissions have also
been shown to cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Acrolein, an air pollutant
found ill diesel exhaust, has been shown to cause irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs,
thereby exacerbating astlmla symptolns. Diesel particulate matter could therefore have acute
Sholi-tenn iInpacts mld a disproportionate effect on sensitive receptors (such as the elderly,
children, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air
pollutants). hnpacts froln diesel exhaust are of particular concern because the project is located
approxilnately 400 feet west of the Early Years Children's Center.
C-3
C-4
C-5
Ms. Susy Kalkin
-3-
November 22,2005
To IniniInize exposure to TACs from dieselemissions on adjacent sensitive receptors
dluing construction, we recommend that the projeCt implement the following measures: ensure
construction equipInent engines are tuned to manufacturer's specifications; minimize the idling
time of diesel powered construction equipment to 'three minutes; use alternative fueled
construction equipInent (CNG, biodiesel, water eInulsion fuel, electric); use add-on control
devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; use diesel construction equipment
that Ineets the ARB's 2000 or newer ceIiification standard for off-road heavy~duty diesel
engines; phase the construction of the proj ect; and limit the hours of operation of heavy duty
equipment. We reCOIllillend that the applicant stipulate the required control measures in
construction contracts. We also recormnend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of
the recoImnended Ineasures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible). Any
Initigation Ineasures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the
justification for that detennination.
C-5
For more details on our agency's guidance regarding enviromnental review, we
recormnend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This document provides
infonnation on best practices for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects
and plans, including constnlction eInissions, land use/design measures, project operations, Inotor
vehicles, and nuisance inlpacts. If you do not already have a copy of our BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, we reconlIDend that you obtaina copy by calling our Public Infonnation Division at
(415) 749-4900 or downloading the online version'froIn the District's web site at
http://wwvv. baaqInd. gov/oln/ceq a/index. asp.
If you have any questions regarding these cOImnents, please contact Douglas Kolozsvari,
EnviroIUllental Plmuler, at (415) 749-4602.
'Sincerely,
IJ-J ~/f -l /0/ ~ ~
t; r$"~ /cf'{)4?~
S, u..c- J ean)ioggenkamp .
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
JR:DK
cc: BAAQMD Director Jerry Hill
BAAQMD Director Marland Townsend
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-14
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter C: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22,2005.
Response to Comment C-l: The Final EIR includes a more comprehensive analysis that
shows consistency with Clean Air Plan assumptions, a discussion of TCM implementation at the
project level, updated carbon monoxide analysis that included background levels, updated
URBEMIS 2002 modeling (using Version 8.7), and additional discussion of construction exhaust
emissions along with identification of additional mitigation measures to ensure less than
significant impact. The CO screening analysis and URBEMIS 2002 modeling output are
provided in the Appendices.
Response to Comment C-2: The Final EIR discusses the impacts of toxic air contaminants
(TACs) in more detail than the Draft EIR. It should be noted that sources of the project TAC
emissions cannot be fully identified at this time, because the exact nature of the site use is
unknown. It is unlikely that the project would generate an amount of truck traffic that would
significantly impact sensitive receptors in the area. Truck traffic related to construction activities
would be of a limited duration.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Bay
Area, and mobile sources are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. The guidelines also
indicate that regulatory actions needed to address diesel exhaust are largely handled by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), which first identified particulate matter from diesel~
fueled engines as a TAC in 1998. CARB (2005) recommends a setback for sensitive receptors of
500 feet for freeways or arterials with large volumes of Huck traffic. These are conservative
recommendations that do not take into account substantially reduced emission rates of future
truck fleets. It is unlikely that project construction or operation activities would generate truck
volumes that even approach 1/10th of the volumes on freeways or large arterials, and therefore,
one could conclude that the project traffic generation would not cause a significant impact with
respect to T AC emissions. As construction diesel emissions are both temporary and transient in
nature, their impacts would be limited.
The Draft EIR identified the closest sensitive receptor as the Early Years Children's Center,
located on Allerton Avenue. Truck traffic accessing the site during construction or operation is
unlikely to pass by this school. A significant impact would occur if the projects' effects caused
an increase in the chance of contracting cancer of lOin one million or greater. The Final EIR,
without conducting a detailed health risk assessment of the relatively low truck volumes that the
project would cause, predicts a risk of less than 10 in one million.
Response to Comment C-3: As noted on Page 2~4 of this Final EIR, revisions to the project's
direct and indirect emissions modeling found that the impacts would actually be below
BAAQMD thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR used to judge the projects impacts in
terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is non-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this change, but continues to include the
mitigation measure requiring implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan. It should be noted that the City requires the TDM plan, and components of the TDM
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-15
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
plan are also identified as mitigation for transportation and circulation impacts. The mitigation
measures specifically identify the components of the plan that would further reduce impacts to
local and regional air quality. These include supporting employer-sponsored shutde services to
BART and Caltrain. Additional measures were added in response to the BAAQMD's comment.
It should be noted that the City requires a reduction in parking capacity as described under
Impact 13-8, Onsite Parking. The project impact to air quality with or without these measures
would be less than significant.
Response to Comment C-4: Because electrical generating facilities for the San Francisco Bay
Area are located either outside the region or are offset through the use of pollution credits,
pollution from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of
project significance. The URBEMIS 2002 modeling includes air pollutant emissions associated
with natural gas usage for a land use of the type - Office Park. The exact nature of the project use
has not been identified, and therefore, the energy usage is unknown. A project that includes
large laboratories could use considerably more energy, but unlikely enough more energy to
change the impact finding from less than significant to significant.
Response to Comment C-5: Page 2-2 of the Final EIR includes additional mitigation
measures to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and criteria air pollutants during
construction. These measures should ensure that impacts would be less than significant,
especially for the Early Years Children Center.
PAGE 3-16
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
)epartment of Public Works
RECE\VED
NOV 2 8 2005
. PLANN\NG
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE TISSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
COD
TY OF SAN M-ATEO
555 COUNTY CENTER. 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY. CALIFORNIA 94063-1665 . PHONE (650) 363-4100' FAX (650) 361-8220
Novenlber 22, 2005
Ms. Susy I(alkin, Principal Planner
Planning Division .
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Letter D
Dear Ms. I(alkin:
Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 249 East Grand
Avenue (APN 015-050-440) in South San Francisco (SCH #2005042121)
We have reviewed the Draft Focused EnvirOlUllental lI11pact Report for the redevelopn1611t of
249 East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco and offer the follo.wing conlnlents:
The District is reiterating its position that the project site is located outside the Colnla Creek
Flood Control Zone and as such st01111 water runoff fronl the site should not be directed to the
Zone's Flood Control ChaIulel, nanlely Colnla Creek. We are aware that a portion of the project
site cunently drains to a st01111 drain systenl that flows to Colnla Creek. It is the District's belief
that existing drainage patterns nlust be reconfigured during redevelopl11ent such that they are
consistent with the Zone boundary.
1. Mitigation Measure 9-4 (Pg 9-14) of this report offers two proposed n1itigation
scenarios for Inlpact 9-4: "Site Drains to Colnla Creek Flood Control Chmu1el."
Mitigation Scenario 1 proposes to route all st01111 \vaters out of the Coln1a Creek
Watm"shed.
Mitigation Scenario 2 proposes that in lieu of rerouting all flows to the southeastern
COll1er of the project site out of the Colnla Creek Watershed, the project applicant
could enter into an agreenlent with the Colnla Creek Flood Control District to be
included in the Colnla Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone).
Ms. Susy K.alkin, Principal Plmuler, City of South San Francisco
Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 249 East Grand
Avenue (APN 015-050-440) in Soutb San Francisco (SCH #2005042121)
Novenlber 22, 2005 .
Page 2
District Comment:
The Zone boundary is based on the Colnla Creek watershed and cmulot be nlodified
to nleet the needs of proposed projects. Mitigation Scenario 2 is not available to 0-1
tbe project. Mitigation Scenario 1 is an appropriate nlitigation nleasure as it is
consistent with the ColIna Creek Flood Control Zone.
2. The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph on Page 9-3 (Flooding) states that flood control
inlprovelnents to ColIna Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have
reduced flooding along the Co1111a Creek Chmulel. This clainl is based upon a
telephone conversation with K.elvin Munar of the City of South San Frmlcisco on
June 21,2005, according to footnote #5.
District Comment:
We believe it is nlore appropriate to state that there is a reduced potential for
upstreanl flooding caused by stOrIl1water leaving the chmulel due to upstremn channel
inlprovenlents. We do not believe hydrologic studies have been conducted to support
Mr. Munar's claim. The clailn should be renloved or it should be noted in the body
of the text that the observation is not based upon rigorous engineering study.
0-2
I can be reached at (650) 599-1417 should you have any questions or need additional
inforIllati on.
Very truly yours,
~~
fuUl M. Stillnlan, P .E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC:CS:sdd
F:\USERS\ADMIN\CITIES\SSF\2005\249 E. Grand Ave - Draft EIR.doc
G:\USERS\UTILlTY\Co]llla Creek FCD\WORD\Review Extel11al Project\2005\249 E. Grand Ave - Draft EIR.doc
F-149 (9;H)
cc: Mr. Terry White, Director of Public Work, City of South San Francisco
Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter D: County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, November 22,2005.
Response to Comment D-l: The DEIR has been revised to eliminate Mitigation Measure 9-4
Scenario 2, as shown on page 2-7 of this Final EIR.
Response to Comment D-2: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as
also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR.
Ho~eyer, flood control improvements to Colma Creek since the effective date of the FENL\
FIR11 have reduced flooding along the creek channel.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-19
CHAPTER 3: COMME-NTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-20
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
AIRPORT
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
GAVIN NEWSOM
MAYOR
LARRY MAZZOLA
PRESIDENT
MICHAEL S. STRUNSKY
VICE PRESIDENT
LINDA S. CRAYTON
CARYL ITO
ELEANOR JOHNS
RECEIVED
NOV 2 2 2005
PLANNING
San Francisco International Airport
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco, CA 94128
Tel 650.821.5000
Fax 650.821.5005
www.flysfo.com
November 21, 2005
Ms. Susie Kalkin
Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Latta r E
Subject: . Comments on 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D Project-
Draft Focused EIR (SCH#2005052121)
Dear Ms. I(alkin:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D
Project - Draft Focused EIR (DFEIR). San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
has reviewed the potential environmental iInpacts identified in the DFEIR and
believes there are potential aviation related noise impacts on the proposed project that
should receive further discussion in the Noise Chapter. Furthermore, the Cumulative
Projects (Chapter 16.5) does not include an evaluation of recent projects undergoing
review in the East of 101 Plan area. Our specific comments are as follows:
JOHN L. MARTIN The DFEIR noise analysis indicates that the project site is located outside of the 65-
AIRPORT DIRECTOR CNEL noise contour, and therefore, aircraft noise will have no adverse impacts.
However, the proposed project site is located about one and a half miles north of
SFO. The proposed proj ect location is subj ect to flights using the Shoreline chmied
visual depmiure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes ranging from
1,000 to 2,500 MSL using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the
East of 101 m'ea of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an
increased noise signature for the departing aircraft. The DFEIR should more fully
analyze and disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to
the AirpOIi.
E-1
In fact, depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline froln Runway 28 and PORTE
procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO
depmiures. In addition, aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from
Oaldand International Airport also directly overfly the proposed project site.
Ms. Susie Kallan
November 21, 2005
Page 2
SFO also concurs with ALUC comments with respect to Height of
Stluctures/ Airspace Protection and Aircraft Noise/Overflights, as stated in their staff
comment letter on the Notice of Preparation dated May 23,2005. In particular, we
concur that the City of South San Francisco shall require the project sponsor to file a
FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" with the FAA
Western-Pacific Regional.Office. In addition, to mitigate overflight noise impacts, E-2
"the proposed inhabited structures should be designed and built to achieve an
interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on aircraft noise events. That level
should en (sic) easily achievable with standard building constructionfor office/R&D
buildings ~.. the City of South San Francisco carefully review the building plans for
the proposed project to assure itself that the 45 dB interior noise level wiil be
achieved, via the proposed construction design and selected building materials. "
Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed
project should also have identified and discussed the other developlnent projects in
the East of 101 area. SFO is aware of the following proposed projects:
. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Building and Related Garden Center E-3
at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue;
. Home Depot Home Improvement Warehouse Building and related Parking
Structure at 900 Dubuque; and
. Genentech Building 31 Proj ect at 1631 Grandview Drive
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call me at
(650) 821-5347. Thank you.
Nixon Lam
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning, Design & Construction
c: Ivar Satero
Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO
Dave Carbone, San Mateo County ALUC
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter E: San Francisco International Airport, November 21,2005.
Response to Comment E-1: Comment noted. However, as discussed in Section 9.2- Single
Event Flyover Noise of the City of South San Francisco General Plan, "Noise contours are
based on average noise levels. Single event noises such as aircraft flyovers need to occur
frequently and at very high volumes in order to bring average noise levels to 65 dB CNEL".
The City of South San Francisco uses the ALUC's 1995 SFO Land Use Plan to establish this 65
dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO. According to ALUC standards,
commercial and industrial uses would be acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL FAA-approved
contour without any noise insulation mitigation measures.
Chapter 11 of the DEIR has been revised to include comments noted in this letter pertaining to
noise impacts from SFO. These additions, included on Page 2-7 of this Final EIR, are as
follows:
AIRPORTS
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport
noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. . The
proposed project site is located about one an a half miles north of the SFO. and is subject to flights
using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis which
depending on weather conditions can comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO
departures. However. these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA
(CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours.
Response to Comment E-2: Comment noted. Because the project site is located within the
Federal Aviations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface airspace protection area for SFO, the project
sponsor is already required to file FAA Form 7460-1 with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional
Office.
In regards to achieving an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, Policies NO-2 and NO-3
of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Area Plan are consistent with these
requirements, in requiring that office developments, as well as noise sensitive portions of
industrial buildings within the East of 101 Area, be designed so that calculated hourly average
noise levels during the daytime do not exceed and Leg of 45 dBA. These levels are easily
achievable with standard building construction for office/R&D buildings.
Response to Comment E-3: In regards to cUlTIulative impacts of the proposed project,
Chapter 16.5 of the Draft EIR notes that "the development of the Project site as proposed
would contribute to a permanent increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced
freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts".
Cumulative air quality impacts were identified on Page 5-7 of the Draft EIR as being significant
impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even following mitigation. However, as
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-23
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
detailed in Response to Comment C-3 in this Final EIR, and revised on Page 2-4 of this Final
EIR, the Final EIR revised the project's direct and indirect emissions modeling and found that
the impacts would actually be below BAAQMD thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR
used to judge the projects impacts in terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this
change, and as such the Project will not have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts
related to air quality.
In regards to cumulative traffic impacts, the three projects referenced in this letter- Lowe's,
Home Depot, and Genentech Building 31- are all included in Table 3-5 on Page 13-21 of the
Draft EIR, which details the peak hour trip contribution of projects within the East of 101 Area
expected to be completed and occupied by 2008. For clarification purposes, reference to this
table, and the discussion of cumulative traffic impacts in the Transportation and Circulation
chapter of the Draft EIR, has been included on Page 2-10 of this Final EIR.
In addition, Page 13-48 of the Draft EIR notes that "The City may take action on the 249 East
Grand project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City
Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At that time,
the lead agency determined that the City could not implement feasible mitigation measures for
cumulative impacts on the U.S.101 freeway." The City of South San Francisco has already
determined that new projects in the East of 101 Area will have cumulative significant and
unavoidable impacts on US 101, and has addressed these via the aforementioned statement of
overriding considerations.
PAGE 3-24
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
ALE X ,A N D R I A
RECEIVED
NOV 2 1 2005
PLANNING
2929 CAMPUS DRIVE
SUITE 400A
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
TEL: 650-286-1200
FAX: 650-286-1256
18 November 2005
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
Planning Division
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Lette rF
RE: 249 East Grand Avenue
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report
Dear Susy:
We are writing in regards to Impact 9-2 Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater, and the
subsequent Mitigation Measure 9-2 Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP.
The first paragraph of the Mitigation measure reads as follows:
F-1
I) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season (October 15 through
April 15) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events.
We propose that the dates and language of this Mitigation Measure be revised to match the
requirements of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170 Restriction of Work During
-' Rainy Season.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
T1~~
Robert Kain
Vice President of Construction
Alexandria Real Estate Equities
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-26
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter F: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005.
Response to Comment F-l: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as
also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR. The deleted sentence has been replaced with text that
matches South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170.
1) Cradif7;g and ;;ai'1!Jn/(Jr/c shd! ls;;pm8ibit;;d dNrr'fzg tE;; n'd s;;as(J:f (Od(Jls;;r 15 t/31"(JNgE -<1pri! 15) and
stich u/(Jr/~ sl~a!! Is;; sf8pp;;d Isifarc p;;Jzding st(JJ7Jf ;;t';;fztS.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-27
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-28
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY (800) 735-2929
.....
...... .....It '"
: ~
E"; 0
~ ~~ ~.\~
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
December 23, 2005
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 _ 2COVJ
PLANNiNG
SMI01408
SM-I01-22.14
SCH200504212
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Lette r G
Dear Ms. Kalkin:,
249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project - Traffic Operational Analysis
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation
(Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project.
We have reviewed the Traffic Operational Analysis in conjunction with the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, dated October 2005 . We have found that several pages of
the calculation sheets are missing from the package. Please provide us with a complete
package for our review and comment. A 95% queue analysis for intersections #1 and 4
through 10 should be included. G-1
The trips generated by this project will produce significant impacts to segments ofDS
101. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts should be provided. All
mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling,
implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
T~~2~
District Branch Chief
I GRICE QA
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-30
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter G: California Department of Transportation, December 23, 2005.
Response to Comment G-l: Following several discussions between the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of South San Francisco, evaluation to determine 95th
percentile vehicle queuing was completed for the approaches to three study intersections,
including an off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway. The results of this analysis were included in
the revised Transportation chapter as part of the Partial Revision to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the project, which was available for state and public review between March
28, 2006 and May 12, 2006. Caltrans' main concern was that off-ramp traffic does not queue
back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most
accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject
intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. Thus, updated
levels of service using the new software were also incorporated into the revised circulation
section. This resulted in the identification of one new intersection impact during the AM peak
hour (Impact 13-4).
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-31
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-32
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY (800) 735-2929
...
..... ........
: ~
: ,. :
. . IIiI " .11\"
RECEI'l.ED
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
-1.. f.b
V :J
May 11,2006
PLAriJ\IIf\J (;, J}r!"~.p?lr"
SMI01408
SCH#2005042121
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco Planning Division
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Letter H
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE ~ PARTIAL REVISION OF THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTALIMFACTREPORT
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
environmental review process for the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The following comments
are based on the Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RevisedDEIR..);
additional comments may be forthcoming pending fmal review of the Revised DEIR. As lead
agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project nlitigation, including any
needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, fmancing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully
discussed for all proposed Initigation measures. The project's specific traffic mitigation fee
should be identified in the Traffic Impact Study and the environmental document. Any required
roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. H -1
Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the State Right of Way (ROW), and the
Department will not issue a permit until our COnCelTIS are adequately addressed, we strongly
recommend that the lead agency work with both the applicant and the Department to ensure that
our concerns are resolved during the CEQA process, and in any case prior to sublnittal of a
permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process;
. see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment pennits.
Travel Demand Forecasting
1. Please provide the trip generation rates applied to the project, the total number of project trips
and supporting materials explaining how these estimates were developed. Page 13-21. This
information is typically required for review. The Revised DEIR states that, "The traffic
generation rates for approved developlnent are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft H - 2 .
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance", and that "Traffic counts
were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. However,
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Ms. Susy Kalldn
May 11, 2006
Page 2
project trip generation rates are not provided, nor IS the total number of project trips
identified.
2. Comprehensive supporting documentation and analysis should be provided to verify the
Revised DEIR's assumption that Traffic Demand Management will reduce project trips by a
sizable 9.5 percent. Please include a copy of the City's Traffic Demand Management policy.
3. Supporting documentation regarding the methodology and fmdings of the 1994 employee
survey, as well as the survey itself, should be provided, as proj ect trip distribution was based
on the survey.
4. How was the two percent growth rate for traffic accessing South San Francisco from
Brisbane developed? Similarly, how was the one percent growth rate that was assumed for
background traffic growth along US 101 developed?
Highway Operations
Mitigation should be recommended for the project's impacts to the US 101 Northbound Off-
ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Additional storage capacity
should be provided to accommodate the Year 2008 AM Peak queue lengths at both the west- and
eastbound left-turns on Oyster Point Boulevard.
Cultural Resources
Should project-related construction in State ROW result in an inadvertent archaeological or
burial discovery, compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 5024.5 (for state-
owned historic resources) and Chapter 2 of Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference (SER)
requires that all consuuction within 50 feet of the fmd shall cease. Caltrans District 4 Cultural
Resources Study Office should then be immediately contacted at (510) 622-5458 or -286-5618.
A Caltrans staff archaeologist will evaluate the fmds within one business day after contact. More
information on the SER is available at the following website linle
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/index/htm
Encroachment Permit
Work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroacmnent pennit that is issued by the
Departlnent. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental
documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW nlust be submitted to the
address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction
plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information.
http://www.dot.ca.gov /hq/traffops/ developserv /permits/
Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief
Office of Permits
California DOT, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6.
H-7
H-8
Ms. Susy Kalkin
May 11,2006
Page 3
Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or
patricia [email protected] with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
[~S~~
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse
"Callrans improves mobility across California"
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-36
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter H: California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006.
Response to Comment H-1: Comment noted.
Response to Comment H-2: Project trip generation rates and total generation are clearly
presented in Table 13-12 of the traffic section. Peak hour trip rates and resultant generation
reflect trip reductions due to mandated City of South San Francisco and C/ CAG TDM
programs. There is no TDM reduction in the daily rates or trip generation. The trip generation
rates and resultant trip generation associated with manufacturing uses recently eliminated from
the project site are presented in Table 13-13 (with no TDM reduction for the previous
manufacturing uses as none were required). The net change in project site trip generation due to
replacing manufacturing with office uses is then presented in Table 13-14.
Response to Comment H-3: Comment noted. The Revised DEIR's assumption that TDM
will reduce project trips by a sizable 9.5 percent are based on Alternative D: Moderate TDM
Program with Physical Improvements discussed in the South San Francisco General Plan Ammdment
and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Drcift Supplemmtal Environmental Impact Report (April
2001). A copy of the discussion of the alternatives considered, and the assumptions made for
Alternative D (ultimately adopted by the South San Francisco City Council), are included in
Appendix C of this Final EIR.
In accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance (Appendix D), the developer will be required to implement a TDM Program
designed to achieve a 320/0 mode shift. Ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements and
potential financial penalties for noncompliance are included to ensure compliance with City
requirements over the life of the project.
Response to Comment H-4: Comment noted. Results of the 1994 employee survey are
included in the 2001 Supplemental DEIR referenced in Response to Comment H-3, which is
available for review at the City of South San Francisco. It should be noted that Caltrans was
previously given the opportunity to review and comment on the TDM assumptions included in
the 2001 Supplemental DEIR, but did not do so at the time of the document's adoption.
Response to Comment H-5: Projections of 2 percent per year growth in traffic from Brisbane
development (from 2005 to 2008) and 1 percent growth in traffic on the U.S.l0l freeway not
associated with South San Francisco development (from 2005 to 2008) were projected by the
EIR consultant to conservatively project growth over this three-year horizon. Evaluation of
U .S.l 01 traffic counts from available sources indicated a decrease in volumes on 101 in the
South San Francisco area from 2003 to 2005. The City of Brisbane had no significant projects
scheduled for completion in the immediate future that would add a measurable amount of traffic
to the intersections in South San Francisco evaluated in this study. The growth rates were
utilized to project a reasonably conservative level of traffic growth over this three-year horizon.
Year 2020 traffic projections utilized in the analysis reflect a specific list of South San Francisco
and Brisbane projects.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EI R
PAGE 3-37
CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Response to Comment H-6: Based on the description of both west- and eastbound left-turns
on Oyster Point Boulevard, it appears that reference is being made to the Southbound Off-
Ramp / Oyster Point/Gateway Boulevard intersection. The 249 East Grand project would not
be expected to add any traffic to either the east or westbound left turn movements on the
Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approaches in either 2008 or 2020. Therefore, there would
be no significant impact and no required mitigation due to the project.
In addition, both Oyster Point Boulevard approaches to this intersection are City of South San
Francisco controlled roadways. The year 2008 50th percentile AM peak hour queues in both left
turn pockets, (the requirement used by the City of South San Francisco) would be within
acceptable limits.
Response to Comment H-7: Comment noted.
Response to Comment H-8: Comment noted.
PAGE 3-38
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
ApPENDICES
Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis
Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output
Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Appendix D - City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis
! I
I jf. ia l!
,
I
, ! !
1 1
I i I i
,
1" }g I ~
I i
J
j j
,
~ ]
1 ~
o:Ji
.!!:;
~ ;.
Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output
Page: 1
05/05/2006 3:28 PM
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
8.7.0
File Name: C:\program Files\URBEMIS 2002 version 8.7\Projects2k2\249 E Grand SSF.urb
Project Name: 249 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran.
Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 55.49 60.45 628.01 0.41 62.69
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 63.36 64.02 631.78 0.41 62.69
Page: 2
05/05/2006 3:28 PM
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
8.7.0
File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\249 E Grand SSF.urb
Project Name: 249 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran.
Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ( Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated)
Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
Natural Gas 0.26 3.56 2.99 0 0.01
Hearth - No summer emissions
Landscaping 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00
Consumer Prdcts 0.00
Architectural Coatings 7.49
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01
Page: 3
05/05/2006 3:28 PM
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Office park
ROG
55.49
TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
55.49
CO
628.01
NOx
60.45
60.45
628.01
S02
0.41
0.41
Includes correction for passby trips.
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
Analysis Year: 2008 Temperature (F): 85
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002)
Summary of Land Uses:
Unit Type
Acreage
Office park
Season: Summer
Trip Rate
11.12 trips/1000 sq. ft.
PM10
62.69
62.69
534.50 5,943.64
No.
Units
Total
Trips
Sum of Total Trips
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck
Light Truck
Med Truck
Lite-Heavy
Lite-Heavy
Med-Heavy
Heavy-Heavy
Line Haul >
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Percent Type
55.00
15.00
16.20
7.20
1.10
0.40
1. 00
0.90
0.00
0.20
1. 70
0.10
1.20
< 3,750 Ibs
3,751- 5,750
5,751- 8,500
8,501-10,000
10,001-14,000
14,001-33,000
33,001-60,000
60,000 Ibs
Travel Conditions
Non-Catalyst
1. 60
2.70
1. 20
1. 40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.50
0.00
8.30
Catalyst
98.00
95.30
97.50
95.80
81.80
50.00
20.00
11.10
0.00
50.00
23.50
0.00
83.30
5,943.64
41,161.09
Diesel
0.40
2.00
1.30
2.80
18.20
50.00
80.00
88.90
100.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
8.40
Residential Commercial
Home- Home- Home-
Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0
Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0
Trip Speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
% of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park
48.0
24.0
28.0
Page: 4
05/05/2006 3:28 PM
Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages
Changes made to the default values for Area
Changes made to the default values for Operations
The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2008.
Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Chapter 2: Execurive Summary
2.3 AL TERNATJVES
CEQA requires EIRs to consider alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or
minimize at least one of the impacts associated with the project. The alternatives must represent a
reasonable range of different planning options. Each alternative and its associated impacts,
relative to the proposed project, are briefly summarized in this section. A more detailed analysis is
in Chapter 6.
ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN (NO PROJECT)
In the absence of the proposed projectJ the existing 1999 General Plan and the East of 101 Area
Plan would continue to guide the East of 101 area. This alternative provides a baseline
comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would allow implementation of the physical
improvements considered in the General Plan and would implement already committed projects.
The City would still be guided by a TDM program required by C/CAGJ however no additional
TDM measures would be required. In the absence of the additional physical improvements
provided in the General Plan Amendment and the new TDM program, the levels of service and
delays worsen. The No Project alternative would impact both transportation and air quality to a
greater extent than the proposed project. The Citis goal as stated in the General Plan is to achieve
a LOS D or better for all intersections. With the No Project alternative, 14 of the 38 intersections
analyzed in the East of 101 area are at LOS E or F. The impact on air quality would be increased
emissions of ozone precursors because of the poor LOS and increased delay times.
ALTERNATIVE B: INITIALLY PROPOSED PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Alternative focuses on a set of improvements that
were initially considered adequate for the East of 101 area. This alternative represents the first
attempt at supplementing the physical improvements in the General Plan and the physical
improvements that are already a part of committed projects. The only TDM program that would
apply in this alternative is C/CAG's program. The LOS and delay times are not improved to
adequate levels) resulting in transportation and air quality impacts. Fourteen of the 38
intersections analyzed in the East of 101 are. at an LOS E or F. This alternative shows only minor
improvement over the No Project Alternative for delay times.
ALTERNATIVE C: MODERATE TDM
This alternative builds on previolls alternatives and supplements those alternatives by
implementing a moderate TDM program, achieving a 35 percent alternative mode usage (25
percent SOY trip elimination). All physical improvements discllssed in Altemative Bare
implemented, excluding one intersection improvement. Implementing a TDM program achieves
a much better LOS and improves delay times as compared to Alternatives A and B. The levels of
service and delay times were improved in many of the intersections that were analyzed. However,
2-7
t.
Draft Supplememal Envlronmentollmpac! Report for South San Francisco
12 of the 38 intersections analyzed are still at LOS ofE or F, which is far from the City's goal of
achieving LOS of D or better for all intersections.
ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
This alternative builds on Alternative C by implementing all of the impr~vements and the same
TDM program. This Alternative also supplements the physical improvements in Alternative C
with additional improvements. With alternative D, five of the study intersections are improved to
LOS D or better.
ALTERNATIVE E:INTENSE TOM
Alternative E also builds on previous alternatives by implementing the same physical
improvements in Alternative C-however this Alternative focuses on implementing an aggressive
TDM program with a 45 percent alternative mode usage (35 percent SOy trip elimination). lYrost
of the intersections analyzed in this alternative are at a worse LOS than was achieved in the
lvIoderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative. With Alternative E, ten of the study
intersections analyzed are at LOS E or F.
ENVlRONMENTALL Y SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative. With the proposed project, an
intense TDM program and intersection improvements will improve all but four of the 38
intersections analyzed to LOS D or better. This will mean that both transportation and air quality
will improve significantly over the No Project Alternative. While biological resources have the
potential to be impacted by the physical improvements in all of the alternatives, these
improvements are unlikely to have a significant impact, if any, on the special status species and
ecologically sensitive habitats in the East of 101 area.
2..8
'.
I
Draft Supplemental Environmenwllmpacr Re.porr (or South San Francisco
I
I
6.5 ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TOM PROGRAM WITH
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
I
Alternative C would supplement C/CAG's TDM program using the same TDM program as
described in Alternative B. HOY'lever, this alternative would also use physical improvements to
reduce congestion. These physical improvements are the same improvements that are included in
the proposed project. The only difference between this alternative and the preferred project is
that this Alternative implements a Moderate TD1vI program "'With a 24.5. percent SOy trip
elimination] 35 percent alternative mode use and the proposed project implements a TDM
program with a 34 percent SOy trip elimination, 45percent alternative mode llse for all new
developments. In addition to the committed projects listed under Alternative A, Table 6.3-1
describes the physical improvements that are included in this alternative. Figure 6.5-1 depicts the
intersection improvements and peak period traffic volumes. "Traffic operations levels ot"service for
this alternative are also included in Table 6.7-2.
I
I
I
I
Table 6.5-1: Physical Improvements
Intersection Intersection and Roadway Improvements
Number
I
Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 5B Hook Ramp. Re~stTipe the off-ramp right rurn lane 'to be an
optionallefrJ right rurn lane.
2 Bayshore JAirport Boulevard & Sist:er Cities/Oysr:er Point Boulevard. Widen EB Sister Cities
Boulevard to add I addirionalleft rum lane.
3 Dubuque Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Re-stripe and shift: median of WB OYSLer Point
Bou [evard to add I right n.J rn lane making it a total of two 650' right-w m lanes lane 'tD N B I 0 I
on-ramp. Re-scripe EB oyster Point Boulevard 1:0 change one of the through lanes to a shared
through-right lane.
S Eccles Avenue & Oyscer Point Boulevard. Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue
to add an additional left UJ rn lane making it a total of TWO lerr-ru rn lanes for the N B approach.
9 Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen NB Gull Drive to provide wo left-Ulrn lanes and
one through/right shared lane.
12 Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue! US 10 I 5B off-ramp. Widen S8 tol off-ramp and
reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2nd left turn lane. Re-srripe to change the existing 101
SB off-ramp optional mrough/lefr: lane into a through only lane.
13 Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue. Re-srripe existing 5B Airport Boulevard, right rum fane to
a shared through-right lane and S8 shared through/left lane to a left rum lane. Widen EB Grand
Ave to add 2 left rum lanes; resrripe the EB t:hroughlleft shared lane to a through lane and EB
right nJ rn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3nl Ieft-tl.! rn lane in the WB approach
andrestria: truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue.
14 Dubuque Avenue & East Grand Avenue. Widen Grand Avenue to improve the ruming radius
from WB Grand Avenue 1:0 N B Dubuque Avenue to accommodate "trucks.
15 Ga"teway Bou levard & East Grand Avenu e. R e-stripe existing WB Grand Avenu e 1:0 add an
additional I en: rum lam: making it: a t:otal of twO left-turn lanes.
16 Forbes B'oulevard/East Grand Avenue & Harbor Boulevard. Widen WB Grand Avenue to add I
additional through lane and I additionalleii: turn lane. Widen SB Forbes Boulevard to add I
through lane and change the e.xisdng shared through-righr lane to a right turn only lane. Widen
6-16
Chapter 6: A/ternar.ives
Table 6.5-1: Physical Improvements
Intersection Intersection and Roadway Improvements
Nu mber
NB Harbor Way to add I through lane, I right Win lane and change the existing shared
through-right tu rn Jane to a through lane.
17 Grandview Drive & East Grand Avenu e. Signalize intersection. Add I 58 Grandview Avenu e
right wrn fane; restripe EB East Grand Avenue to provide I left rurnlane and I shared
left:lthrough lane.
18 AirpOrt Boulevard & San Mateo Ave.nue Widen WB Airpon: Boulevard to add one additional
refr:-t1.Irn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-rurn lane to make it a
total of three left-wrn lanes. Modify N B Produce Ave to bring the 58 101 to EB Airport
Bou levard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflictS on
EB Airport Boulevard.
/9 South AirpOrt Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard. Widen EB Airport Boulevard
to add one additional right-tlJ rn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through
lane. Widen Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and a right-tUrn lane. Widen
SB Gateway to add one right 'OJrn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to
another right-'OJrn lane.
20 South AirpOrt Bow levard & Utah Avenu e. Widen AirpOrt Bou levard to add one 58 lefc tu rn
lane: rsstripe one of t:h e exisdng N B AirpOrt Bou levard through lanes to a shared throu gh/right
lane.
Railroad Avenue. ConS'i:ru a: a 4 lanes, 2 ways roadway within the existing U PRR right of way
between Linden Ave and Gateway Boulevard
Harbor Way. Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand
Avenue and Mitchell Avenue.
Mitchelf Avenue. Widen Mitchell Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway with parking prohibh:lon
between Gateway Bou levard and Harbor Way.
With the additional improvements, four of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS
(E or F) during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General
Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable operations (LOS D or better)
in the AM and/or PM peak hours:
· Airport Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM)
· Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS B in PM)
· Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS C in PM)
· Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from LOS F to LOS Din Al\f)
· Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM)
· Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM)
· Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to
LOS D in PM)o
6-/7
'-
--
D raft Supplemental Envlronment.a/lmpact Report for South San Francisco
. Grandview AVenUE & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F
to LOS C in PM)
. Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM~
. South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM)
. South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in AM)
6-18
MOEil
<aN CO
::. ~ t:.
......q- ...
..- La l'-
..-.... N
Ji t '""~~
Jt i ~~
...... (Lalco,
:= (Z61r)Oi:E
r(W)i:C
'J1.IIII l~mlJlV
Inm:)z9!a ~ { ~ (f
(fit!'l!i!i!' ~-+ '\1'~i t l\r
(Ll!t}LZZ~l4.~ M N:q
~ ~ NeD
...... ., ~~iij'
..-, c CO..... 10
l:J Iri ~
':, ....
ii
'~.~'.; . ~
i~jfll:i ~~:,;j&,
.:..:~'~.: Y (?:HJes
~~ ~
ON...
ar ~ ~ ../S- ~("CZ}eL!f
:J tl V6 +-+-(08~)ZQC
~'fl'l' r r(IIj1I,hn
Jlt H ~ 'p^m ~P!.\~lUD
Csg)6~H ~ ~ tt 'k
{l:61:)BU -to- t1 ~ t tt f
(~9,)~9 V ~ 0' i<l ill
111 ~ ~~~
_ u.l ::!~':!:
, .,.t")
. 'l'1
.;......-111
~~.
l'-CO
~-+t
UCS}!Z1,9 -I>- lIn JIV ?AV ~n qna ~ ttt
(f" (9 It)l".........
h.1JLO~ (ZC~}!it~ ~ CO~
oJ 0' Ifl m
> ~ l ~!!!.
< ~ ~
N ,g ~ q- I:J l'1
- ~ - u.l C'l
:::@B
II
In ii) ED
~E~
m!;;::;J ~ CI:"t}t6Z~
,).'? I~ ~I. ~ (~G"l}Dj1
....... l' 'f ~ ~ r (LEll.kog
; -:. ~l... ';I^V~l\bncll\rJ
UP ON 101!iCl ~ ")") tt r'"
] ")') t ~f
J: :;;:- roO'
~ :g ~t!!.
en o.rr~lii
r<l iii" 6i' "Ii
djBNS
~ ~~ ~ ~("t>i':)W;
'"\t' N...... p..
d I I ~ :; ...- (~9c)m:z
l' 'V 5 r (gm)oc
-1~ l...~ 1'^JlI1Jtl~JlV
""Ill ~JCll~'~ . ~ tft
(~9E:)6D8::if ~ 7(
(OZS)lv9'-+ r: \1i~ttt!
(!izL) m: ~ -+ 0 E" ~ 13
""),.t !;!':!.ii3
~ .E li'l j'jiCll
Ln N:::
hH10}L6ItJl
(\>'IlI))91:E~ =t
-
~:rii~~~~F~~r~ .
'>I
6i'"
01
Ifl
~~s
... l'- ID
~tt ~
(sli:
.(010
{l9~htl:
....g
~e
~Ill
~~
1~
'Ja M~I^rUI:.lD -,t t
. '\:1. ~A
16~hz~~ 11<\
Ig~Wm ~~~ Sf:;
"1:1 11 Cl ~
I:! ... In
:;l ~lil
t-...
-
-~~
tQ~El
~':in~
MnN
Jog t "'ll.\
j<H~
t>_ (DtilOSI
...t!t-~ (BL!:]!iB~1
r r{91Z1w
'.lh\ JDq,uH
"l'1 t f.t
l)~ Hf>r
ffii
~W~
NIO
:1\ '1"1 i
'g Q) EE
u.~ -ro=2
L.ro-
I:: Qlc<i
~ '"'0 0
0.-
=5 ~:g
o '"'0
UJ <I:
~
~ i j ~ }(fiU~)DE9
N ~;:J ~
r;; ~ @ -of- +- (Slif;)i:lli:
~ ~ l... } r(g~)o~ .'
{ltt9)mZ~ ..;(
(IiLSILtl:~-+
o (SIB:ot~1
"'" Q
. 'P^1Il1JIl JIV:S'
"~.':(" ,
rrr ;:-' lD
;::"wiE"
Ul
~
~
a ;i!
1:JJ~ ~ -;';i
~ ..!l "'-o~&:
.!:; g>~ il: B :E
~;lE&.n.~
~~8.tl3~
oti'f~~
I'-
I!!
::l
Ol
u::
..,
f
~
t
11
5
i
E'
E
il
!l.!!
,g@
.......
I
LD
cD
~.
~:
z.
ij.
tiJ..
e.
tJ) :t.
U~:
U~:
Jllb
,fF
'!.ii>I1'%~i<{";':";i~~;&;'YM::yrikl>":"'~";tb~_~ijj.;~_l\~J{_It.;fili.t_Fj~u-_lijtill!_l~:i;_~}jGj;..f1;;ii;_ilii~~il_~.....~i,';&__~fuj
'ru ou'm~A -g .M:l^!lO
(t1~)L1....4ia ")'f) t~
lolD~ .s COi<JS
{!lGt)ZlI:J. ""),..e ~ gJ ~
l.i 0 ~iOfg
iijN
lti'i'?~~ (o}o
;::'00 ~ {i:(;l>'1I:0~
jtl~ r (w:}t:1l
t ?hV ~l1bl1lln[]
(S)~~
(6r;~}OSl:-+ ~
(uzg~lOE:L~ I:!
~~
qo
") -..t f
rM'";::"
ao~
~ or
... ~
'" 01 'f"
::l ~
c
'"
'0
J:
E
..su..
::t j:;
l:J l;:\
CI) CI)
F:"
to
Ill....
... to
m ~ lL It.. (m:)IlL
t~~ r~Cl.96)Z~Z
~ t ~ "'^V~P:l3
~ CON
... m ~
11 ;::~
5 ~ C1
~
~
~~
~t
A'~\~^Jla ~ ~ tt
hc~J!l~l:l .s 8f
.e !?:!.
11 ~
~ 5~
fmiii
0' ~ ~ ~(E6 ~)698
~ ~ m ~(lU}LLC
d H t ~ }= (\I?;9)!lBv
/fJ, "" 'P411111Dlh[V'5
1'" III ""'1'0 ~ 1l.- t'"
hvl!M..Jf -If-g A'
(m)ov~~ ~ I {l(f"
(lvUJm:l:~ 'It"li ffi ~ Iii
~ ~;:j ~%~
......,.
..,.0 ~ 1
;J;!,'f N III It..
~1€ Sf ~ (sl:i:hsv
r l'l IU ~ :::Cl.~i':}EB~
J2 t ~l~tl;;j r(!;E:nOB~
JI ~~ ':I^V~JIIPOld
'P^ID 110 'IV ~ l
191H)YLZ~ ~ ~ f
16110~)Zllli:t< ~ t'"
(CH}m~~ wt: iO
co -- _N1::I
... ~ f[~~
~
l'1
ID ~
~~
"'l'1
~t~
~(f:)Z
Jf:" (Hn)Sg
o
-g 1'^11I vlqJUf'l
~tf
~ ~]g
~;;;:;;
O;Z~
~~
~~~
;ttt ~
lL .J.t (ala\:
(E)L
4;: IT (9ZB}9SE
tF
~M~^pa '!Ill !Ill!)
{I:H ~ ~ t ('
(9)1:+.9 ID lD rn
(~Dc:}~g ~ *" ~ E!
0'1 ~ ~!e~
o
Appendix D - City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
20.120.010
Chapter 20.120
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Sections:
20. 120.010
20.120.020
20. 120.030
20. 120.040
20. 120.050
20.120.060
20.120.070
20.120.080
20.120.090
20.120.100
20.120.110
Purpose.
Applicability.
Program requirements and
standards.
Required measures.
Additional measures.
Submittal requirements.
Review and approval process.
Waivers and minor deviations.
Amendments.
Monitoring and enforcement.
Appeals.
20. 120.010 Purpose.
The specific purposes of this chapter are the
following:
(a) Implement a program designed to reduce the
amount of traffic generated by new non-res'idential
.development, and the expansion of existing non-
residential development, pursuant to the city's police
power and necessary in order to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
(b) Ensure that expected increases in traffic
resulting from growth in employment opportunities
in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately
mitigated.
(c) Reduce drive-alone commute trips during
peak traffic periods by using a combination of
services, incentives, and facilities.
(d) Promote the more efficient utilization of
existing transportation facilities and ensure that new
. developments are designed in ways to maximize the
potential for alternative transportation usage.
(e) Establish minimum TDM requirements for
all new non-residential development.
(South San Francisco 5-02)
(f) Allow reduced parking requirements for
projects implementing the requirements of this
chapter.
(g) Establish. an ongoing monitoring and
enforcement program to ensure that the measures are
implemented. (Ord. 1300 S 1 (part), 2001)
20.120.020 Applicability.
(a) Area. The requirements of this chapter shall
apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city.
(b) Projects. The requirements of this chapter
apply to all nonresidential development expected to
generate one hundred or more average daily trips,
based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip
generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio
(FAR) bonus. (Ord. 1300 S 1 (part), 2001)
20. 120.030 Program requirements and
standards.
Table 20.120.030-A establishes the specific
program requirements for a project generating one
hundred or more trips or a project seeking a floor
area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative
mode use for all projects is twent-y-eight percent and
applicants who propose projects with increased FAR
would be required to increase their alternative mode
use accordingly. The requirements are described in
the subsections below. (Ord. 1300 9 1 (part), 2001)
758-14
Table 20.120.030-A: Applicability of TOM Requirements
Trips Generated by Required Percent Annual Survey
Project or Project Measures Alternative
Requesting an FAR Mode Use
Bonus Required
Proj ect with > than Yes 28 Yes
100 average daily trip
Project requesting an Yes See Table Yes
FAR bonus* 20.120.020-C
* Refer to Table 20.120.30-C for FAR bonus requirements.
(a) Required and Additional Measures. All
projects generating one hundred or more trips shall
prepare and submit a preliminary TDM plan that
includes all required measures and additional
measures necessary to achieve a minimum twenty-
eight percent alternative mode use, as prescribed in
Table 20.120.030-B. Refer to Section 20.120.040:
Required Measures and 20.120.050: Additipnal
Measures, for a description of the measures.
20.120.030
Triennial
Report
Financial
Penalty for
Non-
compliance
No
No
Yes
Yes
Table 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements
Required l\1easures ror all Projects Generating 100 or
.More Trips
A. Bicycle Parking, Long-Term
B. Bicycle Parking, Short-Term
C. Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service
D. Designated Employer Contact
E. Direct Route to Transit
F. Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools
G. Guaranteed Ride Home
H. Information BoardslKiosks
1. Passenger Loading Zones
J. Pedestrian Connections
K. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking
L. Promotional Programs
M. Showers/Clothes Lockers
N. Shuttle Program
O. Transportation Management Association
Participation
Additionallvfeasures Chosen by Applicant to IvIeetthe
Required Alternative Mode Use (at least one measure
required of all proj ects)
A. Alternative Commute Subsidies/Parking cash out
B. Bicycle Connections
C. Compressed Work Week
D. Flextime
E. Land Dedication for Transit FacilitiesIBus Shelter
F. Onsite Amenities
G. Paid parking at Prevalent Market Rates
H. Telecommuting
1. Reduced Parking
J. Other measures as determined by the Chief
Planner consistent with (B) below
758-15
(South San Francisco 5-02)
20.120.030
(b) Projects Seeking an FAR Bonus. Projects
seeking an FAR bonus shall prepare and submit a
preliminary TDM plan that includes all required
measures, any combination of additional measures, and
any other measures that have a demonstrable effect of
reducing the number of trips generated as determined
by the chief planner and as approved by the planning
commission. Table 20.l20.030-C prescribes the
maximum allowable FAR under these intensity
provisions and Table 20.120.030-D prescribes the
required alternative mode use based on the FAR.
Table 20.120.030-C: Maximum Allowable FAR
General Plan Land Use Base FAR
Classification
Maximum FAR with
TDM Plan*
Maximum Permitted
FAR in the General
Plan *
Office 1.0 2.3 2.5
Business Commercial 0.5 0.9 1.0
Hotels 1.2 1.8 2.0
Business and Technology 0.5 0.9 1.0
Park
Coastal Commercial 0.5 0.9 1.0
Hotels 1.2 1.8 2.0
* The general plan establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (Table 2.2-1 in the South San Francisco
General Plan). Column two indicates the maximum floor area ratio permitted with the TDM bonus. Column
three indicates the maximum permitted floor area ratio with the combined TDM bonus and design bonuses.
(c) Alternative Mode UseRequired for an
FAR Bonus. The alternative mode use required for
bonus FAR under these intensity provisions is
prescribed in Table 20.120.030-D.
(South San Francisco 5-02)
758-16
Table 20.120.030-D: Alternative Mode Use Requirements for an FAR Bonus
General Plan Land Use Requested FAR Alternative Mode Use
Classification Required (Percent)
Office 1.10-1.59 30.0
1.60-1.99 36.5
2.00-2.30 45,0
Business COilllnerciallCoastal 0.51-0.69 30,0
Commercial or Business
Technology Park
0.70-0.80 32,0
0.81-0.90 35.0
Hotel (In either Business 1.21-1.49 30.0
Cormnercial or Coastal
Commercial)
1.50-1.69 32.0
1. 70-1.80 35.0
(d) TDM Plans Required. Pursuant to Section
20.120.060 and Section 20.120.070, all projects shall
submit a preliminary and fmal TDM plan. Said plans
must demonstrate that, upon implementation, they
will achieve the required alternative mode use.
e e) Guidelines. TDM guidelines regarding the
range of alternative mode use achievable from each
additional measure are available from the planning
division.
(f) Monitoring and Enforcement. Projects will
be monitored pursuant to Section 20.120.100 to en-
sure the alternative mode use is achieved. Applicant
shall be required, as a condition of approval, to reim-
burse the city for costs incurred in maintaining and
enforcing the TDM program for the approved pro-
:---'- ""'_03 1 "lnn [\ , (---'-' ....no')
J\;;!;l. ~ vru. l.JVV S 1 pan),...:.v 1
20.120.040 Required measures.
All non-residential development shall implement
the following measures:
(a) Bicycle Parking, Long-Term. The appli-
cant shall determine the appropriate number ofbicy-
cle spaces based on the required alternative mode use
and subj ect to review and approval by the chief plan-
ner. Bicycle parking shall be located within seventy-
five feet of a main entrance to the. building and all
long-term spaces must be covered. Long-term bicycle
parking shall be achieved by providing one or more
of the following measures:
(1) Parking in a locked, controlled access room
or area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate;
(2) Lockers;
(3) Parking within view or within one hundred
feet of an attendant or security guard;
(4) Parking in an area that is monitored by a se-
curity camera;
(5) Providing fIXed stationary objects that allow
the bicycle frame and both wheels to be locked with
a bicycle-locking device or the bicyclist supplying
only a lock and six-foot cable.
(b) Bicycle Parking, Short-Term. The appli-
cant shall determine the appropriate number ofbicy-
cle spaces based on the required alternative mode use
and subject to review and approval by the chiefplan-
nero Ifmore than ten short-term spaces arerequ:ired at
least fIfty percent must be covered. Bicycle parking
shall be located within one hundred feet of a main
entrance to the building. Security shall be achieved
by using one or more of the same methods used for
securing long-term bicycle parking.
(c) Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Ser-
vices. The designated employer contact shall be re-
sponsible for matching potential carpoolers and van-
poolers by administering a carpooVvanpool matching
758-17
(South San Francisco Supp. No.4, 7.03)
application, The application shall match employees
who may be able to carpool or vanpool.
(d) Designated Employer Contact. Each appli-
cant shall designate or require tenants to designate an
employee as the official contact for the TDM pro-
gram. The city shall be provided with a current name
and phone number of the designated employer con-
tact. The designated employer contact shall adminis-
ter carpool and vanpool ridematching services, the
prOlnotional programs, update information on the
information boards/kiosks, and be the official contact
for the administration of the mmual survey and trien-
nial report.
(e) Direct Route to Transit. A well-lighted path
or sidewalk shall be provided utilizing the most di-
rect route to the nearest transit or shuttle stop from
the building. Refer to Figure 20.120.040.
(f) Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools.
The preferential parking spaces shall be provided free
of charge.
(g) Guaranteed Ride Home. Carpool, vanpool
and transit riders shall be provided with guaranteed
rides home in emergency situations, Rides shall be
provided either by a transportation service provider
(taxi or rental car) or an informal policy using com-
pany vehicles/ai'1d or designated employees.
(h) Information Boards/Kiosks. The desig-
nated employer contact shall display in a permanent
location the following information: transit routes and
schedules; carpooling and vanpooling information;
bicycle lanes, routes and paths and facility informa-
tion; and alternative commute subsidy information.
(i) Passenger Loading Zones. Passenger load-
ing zones for cfupool and vanpool drop-off shall be
located near the main building entrance.
G) Pedestrian Connections. Safe, convenient
pe~estrian connections shall be provided from the
prgject to surrounding external streets and, if appli-
cable, trails. Lighting, landscaping and building ori-
entation should be designed to enhance pedestrian
safety .
(k) Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Park-
ing. Ten percent of vehicle spaces shall be reserved
for carpools or vanpools, with a minimum of one
(South San Francisco Supp. No.4, 7-03)
space required. Such spaces shall be provided in
prelnium and convenient locations,
(1) Promotional Programs. The following
promotional programs shall be promoted and organ-
ized by the designated employer contact: new tenant
and employee orientation packets on transportation
alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on
commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Spare the
Air (June - October); Rideshare Week (October);
trip planning assistmlce-routes and maps.
(m) Showers/Clothes Lockers. . Shower and
clothes locker facilities shall be provided free of
charge.
(n) Shuttle Program. Establish a shuttle pro-
gram or participate in an existing program approved
by the chief planner and subject to any fees for the
existing program.
(0) Transportation Management Association
(TMA). The applicant shall participate or require
tenant to participate in a local TMA, the Peninsula
Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) or a similar
organization approved by the chief planner, that pro-
vides ongoing support for alternative commute pro-
grams. (Ord. 1300 ~ (part), 2001)
758-18
I:
j !
a.
'.
". ..P
.,.,.,. .,'
/'~
EB
.~
s!!
:$.
li
~~
J::; =-
ie
~ s
A\~
I ;
1
. ;
:::: ti
.! :;
~ i oS
~~~
3 ; ~
i!=
It ,
L.V .1.i.V. v'"tv
o &t1
~ ..~
0.:'5
~ -~
r.:S~
N
m Q)
..... v
.~ ~
u: u
en
i
...
i
t
!:
!
a_
I
758-19
No. 4, 7-03)
S 'Francisco Supp.
(South an -
"':"V.l"'-V.V.JV
20.120.050 Additional measures.
The chief planner and the planning commission
shall detennine the appropriateness of each addi-
tional measure chosen by the applicant. See also Sec-
tion 20.120.070: Review and Approval Process.
(a) Alternative Commute SubsideslParking
Cash Out. Employees shall be provided with a sub-
sidy, determined by the applicant and subject to re-
view by the chief planner if they use transit or com-
mute by other alternative modes,
(b) Bicycle Connections. If a site is abutting a
bicycle path, lane or route according to Figure
20.120.040, a bicycle connection shall be provided
close to an entrance to the building on the site.
(c) Compressed Work Week. The applicant
shall allow employees or require their tenants to al-
lo.w employees to adjust their work schedule in order
to complete the basic work requirement offive eight-
hour workdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce
vehicle trips to the worksite,
(d) Flextime. The applicant shall provide or re-
quire their tenants to provide employees with stag-
gered work hours involving a shift in the set work
hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible
work bours involving individually determined work
hours.
e e) Land Dedication for Transit/Bus Shelter.
Where appropriate, land shall be dedicated for transit
or a bus shelter shall be provided based on the prox-
imity to a transit route shown on Figure 20.120.050.
(f) Onsite Amenities. One or more of the fol-
lowing amenities shall be implemented: ATM, day
:;are, cafeteria, limited food service establishment,
:lry cleaners, exercise facilities, convenience retail,
post office, on-site transit pass sales.
(g) Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates.
Parking shall be provided at a cost equal to the preva-
lent market rate, as determined by the city based on a
:mrvey of parking in North San Mateo County.
(h) Telecommuting. The applicant shall provide
Jr require tenants to provide opportunities and the
lbility to work off-site.
(i) Reduced Parking. In accordance with Gen-
~ral Plan Policy 4.3-1-8, reduced parking, consistent
with proj ected trip reduction identified in the pre-
:South San Francisco Supp. No.4, 7-03)
liminary TDM plan; may be pennitted subject to ap-
proval by the planning commission.
G) Other Measures. Additional measures not
listed in this chapter, such as childcare facilities and
an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a develop-
ment agreement with the city, may be implemented
as determined by tbe chief planner and approved by
the planning commission. Once the planning com-
mission approves the preliminary TDM plan, tbe
chief planner may recommend additional measures
either as part oftbe fmal TDM plan or as part of the
triennial review process. (Ord. 1323 Exh. B (part),
2003; Drd, 1300 S 1 (part), 2001)
758-20
!lS
it
!
l
.
..
i
'(
EB
~ I
E
758-21
L.U.l~V.VJV
~~5
o m "'S;
~ E ;
dG)Vl
N ~ CD
es.-g
~ B-e-.. :2
it -1:
- V).
."
~~
a<C
.5: 1:0
-0-0
r: C
tU ,res
fh C,
B ft;.
::J b
0-
C::lJ
.w
-Vi
~
~
U
JS.
J: C
o Cl
0,:::":1
1: 1!. .:!
!ii
~ ~~.
III
~ ILh _
U~.g.
c:
.. 1 I j
Iii i 1
"B ~ i ~~, J-
'S~&di i
i nil i
I U I I 1
!
l
i
(South San Francisco Supp. No.4, 7-03)
20.120.060 Submittal requirements.
All proj ects generating one hundred or more trips
shall submit the following information in conjunction
with the development application:
(a) Preliminary TDM Plan.
(l) A completed checklist of the required meas-
ures pursuant to Section 20.120.040.
(2) A completed checldist of the additional
measures chosen by the applicant pursuant to Section
20.120.050.
(3) A description of how the applicable alterna-
tive mode use will be achieved and maintained over '
the life of the project, including, but not limited to,
the trip reduction goals targeted for the various TDM
measures.
(4) TDM Site Plan. All applicants shall submit a
site plan that designates, if applicable, TDM design
elements including:
(A) Eh.-'iernal: preferential parking areas, paid
parking areas, bicycle connections, bicycle parking
long- and short-term, location of onsite amenities,
passenger loading areas, land dedicated for transit
facilities and bus shelters, direct route to transit, and
pedestrian connections.
(B) Internal: showers/lockers, information
boards/kiosks, ATM, dry cleaners, day care, conven-
ience retail, post office, cafeteria, . limited food ser-
vice establishment, exercise facilities, onsite transit
pass sales.
(b) Program Costs. All projects shall be re-
quired to reimburse the city for program costs associ-
ated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM pro-
grfuu for the project. (Ord. 1300 S 1 (plli-t), 2001)
20.120.070 Review and approval process.
The review and approval process fortlls chapter is
set forth below.
(a) All Projects. Approval of a conditional use
permit is requITed for all non-residential develop-
ments subject to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Required Findings. In addition to the re-
quirements of Chapter 20.81: Use Permit Procedure,
the planning commission shall make the following
:fmdings:
(South San Francisco Supp. No.4, 7-03)
(1) The proposed TDM measures are feasible
and appropriate for the proj ect, considering the pro-
posed use or mix of uses and the project's location,
size~ and hours of operation; and
(2) Whether the proposed performance guaran-
tees will ensure that the target alternative mode use
established for the project by this chapter will be
achieved and maintained.
(c) Actions By Planning Commission. Prior to
approval of a use permit, the planning commission
may:
(1) Reject the prelilninary TDM plan based on
the fmdings in subsection C and require applicant to
resubmit preliminary TDM plan; .
(2) Approve a lower FAR bonus based on the
findings in subsection C; or
(3) Impose conditions that are necessary to
achieve and maintain the target alternative mode use.
(d) Final TDMPlan. The applicant shall modify
the preliminary TDM plan and submit the final TDM
plan including additional conditions imposed by the
planning commission as part of the building permit
process.. Prior to receiving a building permit, the final
TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
chief planner to ensure all conditions imposed by the
planning colllinissionhave been addressed. (Ord.
13009.1 (part), 2001)
20.120.080 Waivers and minor deviations.
An applicant may request a waiver or minor devia-
tion from the requirements of this chapter. The chief
planner shall review such requests and determine
whether a plli-ticular requirement is not applicable to
a par-ncular non-residential development or whether
it may be reduced, or an alternative and equivalent
measure substituted, Prior to approval of a use permit
the planning commission shall impose conditions that
are necessary to achieve and maintain the target al-
ternative mode use. (Ord. 1300 9 1 (part), 2001)
20.120.090 Amendments.
A use permit modification shall be required when
a major change-a change is the addition often per-
cent of the building area or a change in use classes
758-22
that triggers a ten percent or greater :increase in
trips-occurs. (Ord.:l300'9 1 (part), 2001)
20.120.100 Monitoring and.enforcement.
All projects dare subject to ,an .annu3:l isurvey.
Applicants seeking an FAR bonus 'are ,also subject to
a triennial report and penalties for noncompliance.
.(a) 'Annual Surveys for All Projects.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of the annual survey is
to reportDn the compliance ofa project with the final
TDM plan.
(2) Survey Preparation. The. city or the city's
designated representative - 'Bhall ,prepare and
administer the annual survey of participants in .the
TDM program.
(3) Survey Specifications. The survey shall :be
used to monitor all projects. The survey administrator
shall use 'statistical: sampling techniques that will
create,a'ninety-five percent ...confidence in the
findings.
{4) Survey Report. A -report .ofthe 'survey
fmdings shall be presented annually to the planning
commission and the city council.
(b ) Triennual Reports for ~pplicantsSeeldng
an FAR Bonus.
(1) 'Purpose. The purpose of the triennial report is
to encourage alternative mode use. and to.document
. the effectiveness of the fmalTDM plan in achieving
the required alternative mode use.
(2) Triennial :Report Preparation~ The triennial
report will be prepared by-an independent consultant,
retained by city and paid for.by applicant, who will
work in concert with the designated employer
contact.
(3) Submittal. The trienriial report shall ,be
submitted every three years on the anniversary date
of the granting of the certificate of occupancy for a
building or facility.
(4) Response Rate. The 'information for the
triennial report shall be obtained from all employees
working in the buildings. All nonresponses will be
counted as a drive alone trip.
(5) Required Alternative Mode Use. The triennial
report shall state whether the nonresidential
development has or has not achieved its required
20.120.090
percent alternative mode use. If the development has
not achieved the required alternative mode use, the
applicant sballprovide an explanation of how and
why' the goal has not been reached and a detailed
description of additional measures that will be
adopted in the coming year to attain the required
alternative mode 'use. 'Any and . all , additional
measures must include an' implementation schedule
by month.
( 6) Historical Comparison. The triennial report
Shall include a comparison- to historical re~ponses on
the survey and .if a . mode share ..has.changed
significantly, a detailed description as to why the
mode share has ,changed.
(7) City Review. Thechiefplanner shall review
. all triennial reports..Ifatanytime the reports indicate
failure to achieve the.stated-policy goals, those
reports will be submittedt9 the city council.
(8) Penalty fo{Noncompliance. If after the initial
triennial Teport,thesubsequent triennial report
indicates that, 'in spite of the changes in the final
TDM plan, the required alternative mode use is still
not being achieved, or if an applicant fails to submit a
trienrihll report at the times described above, the city
may assess applicant a penalty. The penalty shall be
establisheci by city council resolution on the basis of
project size and.actual percentage altemativemode
use as compared tothepetcentaltemative mode use
established in the TDM,plan.
(9) Application of . the Penalty. In determining
whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the city
may consider whether the applicant has made a good
faith effort to achieve the required'alternative mode
'use. Ifa penalty Is:imposed, such penalty sums shall
be used by the city toward the implementation of the
fm?-l TDMplan; (Ord. 1300 9 1 (part), 2001)
20.120~110 .Appeals.
In accordance with 'Chapter '20.90: Appeal
Procedure, an applicant may appeal an administrative
decision to ..the . planning commission, and if the
'applicant is not'satisfied with the decision of the
planning commission,. the applicant may appeal the
decision to the city council.
758-23
.(South San Francisco Supp_ No.9, 10-04)