Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Phase III Final SEIR 11-2005Attachment V TERRABAY PHASE III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 1997082077 .~ .. ~ ;~ .. ~ ... , ' ~~ '+ r a~ww ~, - ~ i $, ~~ / ~ SIR ~ / ~ - ~~ ~ ~ •~ f / s.¢ ML ~Sy i ~~ y~ A ~ LLL h Z _ ~-F. 1 ~ ~ ~,F i V ~ ~ l ,. ~ Il„:p ~ i l4 ,~ ;, -. .=~ City of-South San Francisco November 2005 .s. TERRABAY PHASE III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 1997082077 .~ ~~ ~ i ,, ,a .y ~ ~~~,~„Q L ~y ~ ~~ 1.. ' z { ,,~ ', 4 .. ~- ~. --- ~~~. "' ~ City of South San Francisco November 2005 Prepared by: PEACEMAKERS in association with Crane Transportation Group Don Ballanti Rosen Goldberg & Der '£' TERR.ABAY PHASE III FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT P~~e 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review Process 1-1 1.3 Report Organization 1-2 2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 2-1 State Agendes A.1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) 2-2 A.2 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2-5 Local Agencies B.1 Town of Colma 2-19 B.2 Pacific Gas & Electric 2-21 B.3 San Francisco International Airport 2-25 B.4 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) 2-30 B.5 County of San Mateo 2-33 Public and Citizens Grouys C.1 Lois Robin 2-36 C.2 Lou Hanhan 2-38 C.3 San Bruno Mountain Watch 2-40 Cit~of South San Francisco Public Meeting Notes D.1 Special Joint Meeting South San Francisco Council - Planning Commission 2-42 D.2 Planning Commission Public Hearing on DEIR 2-`~ 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-1 Tarabay Phase III Fiiral Srrppkmextal Enuronmentallm~act Begat 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) has been prepared in the form of an addendum to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project During the public review period (August 31, 2005 to October 14, 2005), written comments were made on the DSEIR. These written comments and responses to the comments can be found in Chapter 2 of this FSEIR. The minutes from the Special Joint Meeting of the South San Frandsco City Council and Planning Commission held on October 5, 2005 and the Planning Commission public hearing on October 6, 2005 are also included along with responses. Changes to the text of the DSEIR can be found in Chapter 3, with new text shown in underlining and deleted text shown by seems. This document together with the DSEIR will constitute the FSEIR, if the South San Francisco City Coundl certifies the FSEIR as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS According to CEQA, as the Lead Agenry, the City of South San Francisco is required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed Project, and to provide the general public and Project applicant with an opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. This FSEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the DSEIR and to clarify any errors, omissions or misinterpretations of the analysis or findings in the DSEIR. The DSEIR was made available fora 45-day public review on August 31, 2005 and distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The general public was Temibay Phan III Final Snppleman~al Exaannnuxtallmpaci Report 1-1 1. Intmductron advised of the availability of the DSEIR through public notice by mail to property owners (located within 300 feet of the project site) and interested dozens. This FSEIR will be presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for their review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the FSEIR at which time the City Coundl may take action regarding the certification of the FSEIR as full disclosure of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. Certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the Project. 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This FSEIR consists of the following chapters: • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter includes a discussion of the use and organization of the FSEIR. Chapter 2: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of letters received from the public on the DSEIR and the names of individuals and agendes commenting on the DSEIR. The comments are numbered in the margins of the comment letters and responses are keyed to the comment numbers. Where revisions to the DSEIR text are appropriate, these are summarized and the actual text changes are shown in Chapter 3. • Chapter 3: Revisions to the DSEIR. Text changes, corrections or clarifications based on comments received on the DSEIR are contained in this chapter; including language that has been added or deleted from the DSEIR. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the DSEIR; text s~ee~rt has been deleted from the DSEIR. Errata are also shown in this chapter. Temsbay Phan III FixalSxpplemental Enuronmentallmpact Report l-2 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES This chapter includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review period that addressed the DSElR Comments on the DSEIR were received from state, and local agencies and the public as follows: State Agencies Comment Number Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) A1.1 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A2.1-2.10 Local Agencies Town of Colma B1.1 Pacific Gas & Electric B2.1-2.5 San Francisco International Airport B3.1-3.4 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County B4.1-4.3 County of San Mateo B5.1 Public and Citizens Groups Lois Robin C1.1 Lou Harahan C2.1 San Bruno Mountain Watch C3.1-3.2 City of South San Francisco Public Meeting Minutes Special Joint Meeting Ciry Council and Planning Commission D1.1-1.2 Planning Commission on Public Hearing on DSEIR D2.1-2.8 Temibay Plxue III Fine! Sxpp/emanta! Enwmnmantal Impact Raport 2-1 ~=Document ~etalls :R~apait'~ ~, ~ . State ClearingucusraData Baas 2. Comment Lenerr and Iierponter RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE) Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment A1.1 Temabay Phan 771 Fins! Sxppkmental Environments! Impact Report 2_4. 10~! L 4/2005 1 A :16 5102855559 CALTRANS LETTER A2 ..._ . PAGE 02 DEPART OF TRANBPORTA~TION iii GRAND AVENUE P. O. 80S 23860 OAKLAND, CA 8+{8x8-Q98a PHOl~ (610) X86-bbOb _ FAX (b10> 8866569 rrtt (soot' ~sttssz9 October l4, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp WolIam South Sao Francisco Planning >:?ivision P.O. Box 711 South San Franc7sCp, CA 94083 Dear Ms. w~llam: ~tsyourpDiua! Be eaeray ~/jictrnd 3M101Z59 5M-101-23.39 SCH 199708207 TerraDs7 Phan III Dra$ Suppleiuetttal Envir+ontnent~I Impact Report -Draft EnviranmeatAi Impact Report (UEIR} ThanJt you for continuing to includa the California Department of Transportation (Ikpatttnent) im the environmemal revietiv process for the above-referenced project. We _ have reviewed the Draft Envirownental Impact Report and have the following comnunts to offer, • In Table S.2 wader Traffic Circulation: The nLentiorled volume percentages, both in text and figure forms, arc not correlated to each other and shvuad be corrected. • Pages 2-7 and 2-8, RESIDENTIAL CaMPONENT, paragraphs 3 and 4, indicate that 21 of the 88 flats in the north law~rise banding and all 15 units in a separstc residentiai building would be iACOrne restricted for mooderat~ income households apd low iacomn~e households respectively, should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residezttial Dower. if Phase B construction does not include a 180-unit residential tower, these 21 and 15 unto will be available at market raft and only 6? of the 88 flats would be priced amd available for moderate income households. Phase B of the project, as shows in Table 2.1-1 is iacotnpkte and only shows the construction of a 29S,S00 sq. ft. office building without any indication of a second 180-Wait residential tower and only lists 103 dwelling omits in Phase A as below market rate residential units. Please correct. • For the pu:Foses of clarity, the traffic report should welude a paragraph that clearly defines the difference between `approved' versus 'proposed' Terrabay Phase III Projects. • For consistency aioid compaitson purposes betareem Figures 3.x-4 and 3.1-3, Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes should provide existing traffic volumes for Lawndale Lane intersectioAS at Miss~io~o Street do HiUsido Boulevard. -ea~a~on. tn~pro~e. mobpt~y oeroe. eatp6-,de• A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 ' A2.4 ~ t Oct 2il 2t]05 iD:31AM CITY OF SSF rLHnnin~ Live ooa~-~~., ........ 10I1Al2805 14:16 5102865554 CALF Ma A1Won Kapp WoWaa oc~ber is, 2aos P.Se 2 PAGE 03 • On page 3.1-1~6 and Tables 3.2-? and 3.1-8. the vehicle queuing standard should be based. on a 95 percentile queue and not on a SO'u percentile queue. As such, the traffic analysis should ~be seet+aluated and addressed in the report. If the 95"' percotltile queue is used, most study intersections will have signlficar+t impacts that need to be addressed and mitigated, • Page 3.1-25, Table 3.1-14, Trip treyderation, Terrabay Phase III Approved Use,-the trip geucration of the 665,000 ~sq. ft. Office Hnikling wee. based ~ the 2000 Addendum Land Use prograat on the Tetrabay Phase III Site as an adde><dum ro the 1998199 Terrabay Supplemental E~virontnental Impact Rcpoxt mentioned on page 1-2. Slaonldn't the 10,000 sqy~ feet of retail use, as described in the footnote, be 7.500 sq. ft. as shown in Table 1.2 on page 1-2? please verify. • Pages 3.2-27, 3.1-28, 3.1-3Z and 3.1-33, the figures ace labeled for 1'bak Hour Base Case Volumes for Years ZO10 aad 2020 without Proposed Tensbay phase I7I project. It would be clcaret if chase figures did not include the traffic voluau generated by the approved Teaabay Phase III developtaent of 665,000 sq. ft. affice spaces. • On page 3.1-44, Project Impacts do Mitigation Measurts, although mitigation measures have been addsesaed, the report should state wtw will implement and fund these measures. Will the project sponsors contribute a fear-sham far an;y facility imp~rovetnents? • In Section 4.6, Environmentally Superior Alternative, clarify why the Hotel Tower AIterAative is superior to the Two Rcsidentiai Tower Ahetnacive if the cater generates less traffic trips as indicated is Table 4.7 when competed to Table 4,3. • Please identify whether or not the project will have sig~cant impacts based on the Cumulative Conditions. Should you require further-information ox have any questioAS regarding this letter, please call Alice 7aclcson of my staff at {310) 286-5988. Sincerely, • X ~ . '~'' 0'I'~ C. SABLE Diat=ict Branch Chief IGRICEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) A2.5 A2.6 A2.7 A2.8 A2.9 A2.10 'Cala+oiu fmpse~,~~ mobilUy aeros~ Co~t~6r-~io' 2. Comment Letters and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) Response to Continent noted. The percent increase in traffic due to the Project at the Dubuque Comment A2.1 Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection reported for year 2010 PM peak hour conditions should be 1.2 percent rather than the reported 1.4 percent. All other percent traffic increases due to the Project and presented in Table S.2 have been checked and are correct as reported. The change from 1.2 to 1.4 percent at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard results in no change in findings or conclusions. The following change is made to Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2: "Impact3.1.2 Year2010lntersection Level ofServrce Impacts (S) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a ±25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). ~lhile PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4{e 2 ercent due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact." Response to The Project's Phase B is proposed as an office tower. As a potential development Comment A2.2 option if market conditions do not support the construction of the office tower, a 180- unit residential tower would be proposed. This is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative. Table 2.1-1 is correct. To provide clarity, the following change is made to the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 of the DSEIR: "A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative." Terrabay Phan III Final Srrppkmental Envisonmental Impact Report 2-~ 2. Commext Letterr axcl Be.~oxter Response to Comment noted. The following change is made to the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 of Comment A2.3 the DSEIR: "This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project jwhich includes 357.500 square feet of retail space 351 dwelling units. 70.000 square feet of service area and 295 500 square feet of office space as presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIRI on this network in contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) jwhich contains 657,500 square feet of office space and 7 500 square feet of retail space as presented in Table 1.2 of the DSEIRI. and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group." Response to The Lawndale Lane/Mission Street and Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane Comment A2.4 intersections in Colma were not evaluated for AM peak hour conditions because the proposed Project would be expected to contribute less than 25 new vehicles to the Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane intersection and less than 15 new vehides to the Lawndale Lane/Mission Street intersection during this time period. These volume increases would result in less than significant impacts. Project volume increases would be much greater during the PM peak hour, the time period which has been analyzed. Response to Comment noted. A 95th percentile vehicle queue evaluation has been conducted for the Comment A2.5 intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. Locations exceeding available storage lengths with Base Case AM and/or PM peak hour queues in years 2010 and 2020 are identified. Approaches or turn lanes receiving significant 95th percentile impacts due to the proposed Project are identified. Based upon the Crane Transportation Group's evaluation, there would be no additional intersections receiving a significant queuing impact using the 95th percentile criteria for ,the pear 2010 horizon. Both the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections would be expected to receive significant unavoidable impacts using either the 50th or 95th percentile queue criteria in 2010. Terrabay Pixue 111 FixalSxppkmentalExvisoxmaxta/Impact Beport 2_8 2. Comment Letierr and kerpanrer For the year 2020 horizon, one new intersection would receive a significant impact if using 95th rather than 50th percentile queue evaluation. Both the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections would be receiving significant unavoidable impacts in 2020 using either the 50th or 95th percentile queue evaluation criteria. The Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection would also be expected to receive a significant impact during PM peak hour conditions if using the 95th percentile criteria. The approaches with the potential significant Project impacts would be the southbound off-ramp, where vehicle queues would extend about four car lengths longer than available storage and the Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lanes, where vehicle queues would extend about one car length longer than available storage. Base Case conditions would have acceptable storage on both approaches. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand about nine car lengths longer than the turn pocket's 350-foot length. However, the Project would not produce a significant impact to this movement, as it would result in a reduction of southbound left toms. As discussed with Caltrans staff (Katie Yim, Senior Traffic Engineer, District 4, Division of operations, August 17, 2005) signal timing adjustments and activation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection could be set up such that off-ramp queues would be cleared and not back up to the freeway mainline. Also, in order to reduce the 95th percentile northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach queues to acceptable levels and to provide acceptable storage for southbound left turns, the existing 350-foot southbound left turn lane would need to be lengthened to 550 feet in conjunction with the adjusted signal timing. Based upon discussion with Brian Kangas Foulk, the applicant's civil engineer, lengthening this amount is feasible. The lengthening of the left turn lane by 200 feet would not result in adverse impacts to biological and archeological resources as confirmed by Jim Martin, biologist with Environmental Collaborative, and Miley Holman, archaeologist with Holman & Associates. Therefore, at this location the 95th percentile queues could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, whereas this would not be possible at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections (identified in the DSEIR) receiving significant queuing impacts in 2020. Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR: • `"I'he proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (CitX of South San Francisco criterial." Termbay Phare III Final Sxppkmental Environmental Impact Report 2-9 2. Comment I..etterr and Rerjionter Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR: • 'The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more. (Caltrans criteria" Change the following on page 3.1-29 of the DSEIR "Year 2010 Base Case Vehicle Queuing" Tomboy Phan III Final Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 2_ 1 Q 2. Comment Letters and Bespanret Add Table 3.1-7A following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18 of the DSEIR: TABLE 317A: VEHICLE QU EUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE 5TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE OUEUEI AM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues xi tin in f e in feet Stor,..aQe ueues Base Base Case Base Base case ' et in fe t Case + Project case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Rams SB left turn ~ ~ ~ 2~ NBNB through ~ 47 2Q 106 196 WB off-ratny left turn 6~Q ~Q WB off-ram~left /right §Q 1~ ~ 254 2~9 Bayshore/Central Project Access NB left turn ~Q,O_ ~ ~. 452 NB thro~h 245 27 ~ ~. 18 SB rig~t ,rn ~Qo 4~ 19 4 12 B u 4_57 , ~ 211 X43 253 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Ouster Point / ort EB left tern `,~ $1_ 1 7 SB left turn ~ 2~, (~6 170 20G 4 roueh ¢60 22 4~ 1~ 74 1~0. ~B right turn ~ 24 Q ~ 2G WB left tum $0 ~ ~4 7G 2 WB through ?55 ~1_ $$ 1~ 78 178 WB ri t turn X55 l~A 159 ~ 149 Q (~rcrrr Point/Dubuque EB left tum 7 2 124 1 C~9 101 1 1 1~ F.B through 25 ~.$5_ `,~4 5G1 594 G12 R_B u~ht turn ?~ 71 ,1.2 _1~ l 21 119 NB left turn ~ $4 ~ 364 452 361 NB left/through ?~ $2 ~` NB right turn ?1Q ~Q6_ ZZ$ $1~ 71 ZC24_ T_ ubuq~ie /101 Rams Off-ram$ left turn 100 169 79( ~ ~ 644 Cuff-rsn~ left/t_hrough 7Q0 1SL Z2Q ~ ~ 64' SB ri ght tum ?~?~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ _ B h ouQh 5~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2 * All storm and queues aze 17~ la e. Cnnrre~ crane TrariSDOrtati on coon Tevrabay Phase III Finat Sapp&mental Exvrsonmenta! Impact Report 2-11 2. Comment Letters and Iie, panrer Table 3.1-8A is added following Table 3.1-8 on page 3.1-19 of the DSEIR: TABLE 3.1-8A: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE OUEUEI, PM PEAK HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existine in feet in feet Stora~~e ueue Base Base Case Base Base Case ' ee f et ase + project Case + Project Bayshore/S B 101 Ramps SB left tum 3~Q 2~, ~ 463 61 ~ °ll 4~ ~2Q 2~,$ 462 497 WB off-ramp left turn ~ 1~,$ X53 4Q 670 WB off-ram lefr/right 6QQ 148 C~6 0~0 691 Bayshore/Central Proje ct Access 1`1B left tum ~QO 111 132 1,~ 196 NBNB throu4h 945 ~ 12 1310 SB right turn ~ 7 1 2 0 SBA 7~5 277 222 192 94 Bayshore/Sister Cities/ Ouster Point /Airpo rt EB left tum 55 ~,~, 1~2 489 224 ' 473 SB left turn ~ ~ ~ ~ 142 3 4 B o X60 1 4 171 29$ 318 4 6 SB right turn ~ ~ 74 ,I24 10 ~ 6 764 WB lefr turn $2 ~2 Z Z ~5 18Q 15~ WB through 255 205 1~ 47~ ~ 571 WB right turn 255, ~ ~6 ~ 15 103 Ouster Point/Dubuque EB lefr tum 25/255 162 ~ 192 426 EB t,ro soh 25,,~ (~7 14 71 42 124 EB right turn 2~ ?$~ ~ ~ 2CL5 17G NB left turn 1~ 251 55Q 5~1 ~g 5~ NB left/through} 255 ~Q2 ~1 56~ 7~2 leg t tum 21 Q ~ 57 ~4. 88 7~ Dubuque/10_1 Ramps Off-ramp lefr turn ~ ~5 2.29 ~3 ~ 432 Off-ramp left/through 700 55 222 ,3~3 ~4$ 432 SB rig t turn 255 (~9 1~ 221 431 325 SBA ~ ~ 142 1_~$ 22_8 226 * Al storage and queues aze p er Iane• Source: Crane Transportation Grouo Timzbay Pharr III Final Suppkmenta/ Environmental Impact Report 2-12 2. Comment Lettert and Berponses Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30 of the DSEIR: "Tables 31 7A and 3 1-8A show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM,~eak hours on the approaches presented below. AM Peak Hour • $avshore Boulevard/ A~roved Proiect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound approach left tum lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. • B_avshore Boulevard/Sister Cities BoulevardlOvster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. Ouster Paint Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuoue Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available store The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 23 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/ U S 101 Northbound O,~Ram~/Southbound O~mt~. The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths loner than available storage PM Peak Hour • B_avshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Paint Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Interrection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left tum lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubu,~ue Avenue Intersection The Ouster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage." Terrabay Plxuc 171 Fixal Sxppkmextal Enunonme~tall»rfwct Report 2-13 1. Comment Letterr and Re~ponrer Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34 of the DSEIR: "Tables 3.1-7A and 3.1-8A show that vear 2020 Base Case volumes would be t~rodudng 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available stora eg during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below AM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/A~i~roved Proiect Main Accerr The Bavshore Boulevard northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than available storaire. • Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/O~.rter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage • DubuaueAvenue/U.S. 101 Northbound O~mt~/Southbound On-Kam, Intersection The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage PM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/ U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Kam~is/Pri,~ect North Access Intersection. The Bavshore Boulevard southbound left tum lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage The Ouster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. The Ouster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage • Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound right turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths Terrabay Phare III Final Supp/ementalEnvironmentallmpact Report 2-14 2. Comment I..etterr and Rerponrer longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage. • DubuclueAvenue/US 101 Northbound O,~Bam~/Southbound On-Bam~ Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of seven car lengths loner than available storage." Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSE1R: "Impact 3.1.5a Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 50~ Percentile (SZl)" Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46 DSE1R "Impact 3.1.5b Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 95~ Percentile (SIB" The grooTos_ed PProject would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing_at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. AM Peak Hour • Ba~shore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/O~ster Paint Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound lef* tum lane would receive a 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM Peak Hour • B_avshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case clueuin~. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound night turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storagel. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 100 feet ug to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storagel. • Qyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSEIR: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.5x" • Ba~shore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airoort Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per Termbay Pbare III Final Suppknrenta! Emmvnnrentallmpact Report 2-15 2. Comment Letters and Barpanses vehicle, this would equal an additiona1325 feet of storage for the 50~ percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). . The other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5 of the DSEIR: "Mitlgation Measure 3.1.5b Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/C-yster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue) At 25 feet per vehicle_ this would equal an additiona1450 feet of storage for the 95~ percentile queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue) However it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service~striping_a second northbound left turn lanel would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeways oTverpass • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U S 101 Northbound On Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound r approach to acceptable lengths (SUS Change the following on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIR: "Impact 3.1.9a Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 50~ Percentile (SIB" Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIK: "Impact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Vehicle Oueuing Impacts - 95~ Percentile (SII)" Th_ e proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case glle~ by 2020 In addition Proiect traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing AM Peak Hour • Bavshor~ Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a Temibay Pbase III Final Sx~/emental Envrronmentalls~art Report 2-1 G 2. Cammext I..etterr and Rerpax.cer 91 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bavshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storagel. PM Peak Hour • ~a+~share Boulevard/ U S 101 Southbound Hook Bam~s/Teyrabav Access Intersection. The southbound off ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with G00 feet of storaeel. The Bavshore Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend from + 465 feet u~ to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage.l $avshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard/Airbort Boulevard Intersectiox The eastbound left tun lane on Sister Cities Boulevard_would receive a 105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bavshore Boulevar_d_ southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage. The Bavshore Boulevard southbound r~ht turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +315 u,P to 765 feet with 310 feet of storages The westbound through lanes on Ouster Point Boulevard would receive a 4 8% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • Oster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would receive a 7 6% increase with unacceptable Base Case clu_euin~ Change the following on page 3.1-50 of the DSEIR: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.9x" Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50 of the DSEIR: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.9b • Bavshore Boulevard/U S 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabav Access. Adjust sequel timing to~revent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101 southbound off-rams intersection approach and lengthen the southbound off- ramp lanes b~200 feet. (LTSI Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Aimort Boulevard Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95~ nercentile~ueue In addition lengthen the southbound Bavshore Boulevard left turn lane b,~ 25 feet However it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound Bavshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also, the other~roposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lanel would decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available store distance on the freewa~verpass. (SUI. Tambay Pixue III Fixal Suppkmextal Exumxmextal Impact Report 2-1 ~ 2. Comment I.ettert and I~ecponres • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U S 101 Northbound On Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Frandsco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to acceptable conditions. (SU) Response to That is correct. The Table 3.1-14 footnote has been changed to show 7,500 square feet Comment A2.6 of office-serving retail space. Response to Traffic from the approved Terrabay Phase III office development was included as part Comment A2.7 of all `Base Case" traffic conditions because the proposed Project could be built without any additional CEQA analysis. Ultimate operating conditions with inclusion of "proposed" rather than "approved" project traffic would be the same regardless of whether "approved" project traffic was included in the Base Case analysis. Response to All listed Project traffic/parking mitigations will be fully implemented and funded by the Comment A2.8 Project applicant. Response to Determination of which alternative is the Environmentally Superior alternative is based Comment A2.9 on all environmental topics. The Two Residential Towers alternative would result in somewhat fewer vehicular trips than the Hotel Tower alternative. However, the Hotel Tower alternative was determined to be the Environmentally Superior alternative as it would result in a significant reduction on public services and utilities impacts. Response to Project impacts to cumulative (year 2020) traffic conditions are presented on Comment A2.10 pages 3.1-47 to 3.1-50 of the DSEIR. Te~rabay Phase III Final Supplemental Enuimamentallmpaet Repwt 2-18 Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLRPII'IIPIG DIVI 650-829-6639 p.6 LETTER B1 TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: 650-985-2590 1180 EI Camino Real, Colma, CA 94014 ~ Fax B50-985-2578 September 13, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp City ofi South San Francisoo Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase tll Draft Supplemental EIR l]ear Ms. Knapp: The Tawn of Cvlma has no comment on the above referenced subject. Please updafie your files to show Ms. Andrea J. Ouse, AICP, City Planner as the contact for the B1.1 Town of Colma. Thank you. Sincerely, u anne GI min Ass' fanning Tech 2. Comment I.etterr and Berponrer RESPONSE TO LETTER B1: TOWN OF COLMA Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment B11 TemTbay Phan III Final Sufiplemental Environmental Impact Report 2_20 Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLRPIIYInG DIVI Pacific Gas aramf Electric Camparry September 16, 2005 Allison Knapp City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 650-929-6639 p-8 LETTER B2 ..... __ ,. _, . land Services 111 Almedan 8oulavard, Roam 814 Corporate Real Estate San Jose, CA 95115.0005 Wailing AdaGess P.O. Box 150D5 San Jase, CA 95115.0005 RECEIVED SEP 2 0 ~~ Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report PZAaft~11~1G Tarabay III Project, Environmental Impact Report ' Sister Cities Blvd &Bayshore Blvd., South San Francisco . Ms. Knapp: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Tarabay III Project, Environmental Impact Report at Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. in South San Francisco. PG&E owns and operates gas~and electric distribution facilities which are adjacent to the proposed project. ~'o promote the-safe and reliable maintenance,and operation of utility ' facilities, the California Public Utilities .Commission {CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities acid surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities Developezs will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long Lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encou=aged to consult with PG&E as.early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50;000 volts and above) could also rcquire formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to. complete. Proponents with development plans which could aSfect.sueh electric transmission facilities should be refen~ed to PGBcE for addi>>,Tonal,informatign:antl.assistapce;in.the development of their project schedules. • . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ - • ~ . B2.1 We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your General Plans will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require a B2.2 on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLRhN1InG DIVI 650-829-6639 P,g existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. )n addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. We would lr7ce to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City ~to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Environmental Impact Report. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electrici B2.3 homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific ons~ensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMF, please call your local PGBcE office. A package of information winch includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request. PGd~E remains committed to working with the City, to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to South San Francisco. Please contact Crystale, Service Planning Supervisor, at 650.598.7279 if ou have an B2.4 y y questions regarding our comments. We would also appreciate being copied oa future correspondence regarding~this subject as this project develops. The Califomia Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all .aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility B2.5 facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regeilated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and taziffs of the CPUC. Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLRfyfVING DIVI 650-829-6639 p. 1u Should you have any questions please call me at 408.282.7106. Sincerely, ~~~ J ~~~ Thomas J. Zlatuaich Land Agent cx: Crystale 2 Comment Letters and Bespanses RESPONSE TO LETTER B2: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Response to .Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E in the installation Comment B2.1 of applicable utilities and facilities to serve the Project. Response to Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E to determine if Comment B2.2 the expansion of existing gas or electric lines and related facilities to serve the Project is necessary. Response to Significant impacts to gas and electric facilities were not identified in the Notice of Comment B2.3 preparation/Initial Study (included in Appendix A of the DSEIR), therefore, gas and electric facilities are not evaluated in the DSEIR. Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment B2.4 Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment B2.5 Termbay Phase III FixalSuppkmentalEnvimnmentallmpact RepmT 2_24 Oct 25 2005 7:06RM CITY OF SSF PLRIYNII`IG Dlvl e5u-aea-bb.~a P•~ • • LETTER B3 .•/~ San Francisco International Airport October 14, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp Terrabay Project Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box ? 11 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RECEIVED OCT 1 41005 PtA~vNrNc P.O. Box Bd97 San Francisco,CA 94128 Te! 650,821.Sd00 Fax 65D.82 t.5dG5 www.flysfn.com AIRPORT ~oa>RIi:ION Subject: Comments on Terrabay Phase III -Draft Supplemental EIR (EIR44- CRY ANO COUNTY 0002) Of SAN FRANCIKO GAMIN MEwsOM T~ 7*~,~~,w, Dear,Y~. ~aPP' MAYOR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Terrabay Phase III Draft LARRY MAZZOU Supplemental Environmental Impact Report {DSE1R). As noted in the Airport's PAfSID[A7 comment letter, dated June 7, 2005, responding to the Notice of Preparation for this IAICHAN s. sTRUNSNY project, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is concerned with potential VICE PRE31DENr aviation related noise impacts on proposed future residents of this phase of the LINOA S.CAAYTON Terrabay project. After reviewing the DSEIIt, SFO remains concerned that the issues are still not adequately addressed in the document. CARYL RO ELEAMOR JOHNS The development of 336 new residential units in close proximity t0 Highway 101 and within two Holes of SPO will locate new residents in an area that the DSEIR indicates will have noise impacts. The DSEIR noise analysis indicates that soarces IOHN L.atARTIN from aircraft noise create less than significant impacts. However, according t0 noise A/APORr O1P.fCrOR complaint records kept by the Airport's l~ioise Abatement Office, the new residents of the Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants, including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide-body aircraft. The proposed project location is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure 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 area of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an increased noise signature for the departing aircraft. The DSEIR should more fully analyze and disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to the Airport. On page 3.3-5, the last sentence on that page states, "However, Sta,Q`'did note that under certain wind conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly directly over the site when using the Shoreline departure route. " 1n fact, depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline from Runway 28 and PORTS procedures from Runway I comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. In addition, B3.1 B3.2 Oct 25 2005 7:06RM CITY OF SSF PLHhnII`IG DIVI 650-829-6639 Ms. Allison Knapp October 14, 2005 Page 2 aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland Intemational Airport also directly overfly the proposed project site. DSEIR Impact 3.3.3 and Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 indicate that Project residential development would be exposed to noise levels that exceed City of South San Francisco Noise Element, and recommend that: acous'cal studies be prepared to ensure compliance to State and City noise standards. The impact and mitigation discussion does not note whether this mitigation measure was adopted for the earlier Terrabay Phases that have been built, and what acoustical measures were implemented in the design and constriction of those residential units. An analysis of those earlier acoustical improvements should be considered in the next acoustical study, taking into consideration the closer proximity to Highway 101, and the historical noise complaint and overflight information from the Airport's Noise , Abatement Office. The DSBIR should also require a mitigation measure for real estate disclosure. The City of South San Francisco is a signatory to the 1992 Memorandum ofAgreement between the Airport and neighboring cities who have received Noise Insulation Funds. To date, South San Francisco has received approximately $55 Million in noise insulation grant funds. In return, signatory cities of this MOU, including South San Francisco, agreed to support and promote actions to protect new purchasers of homes near the Airport, including adoption of an ordinance requiring that any reactor or person offering a home for sale to advise prospective purchaser of (a) the distance of the home from the outer perimeter of the activi of the ~°rt~ and ~) the nature and scale of h' Airport. Therefore, DSBIR Impact 3.3.2 should be changed from "tlie City could consider adding a requirement... " to "the City ...shall... add a requirement that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that a disclosure statement be included in residential deeds. The disclosure would ident fy the proximity of San Francisco International ftirport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. " This mitigation measure would be consistent with the 1992 MOU, and should be added as Mitigation Measure 3.3.2. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call Nixon Lam, Senior Environmental Planner, at (650) 821-5347. Thank you. V~Y ~Y Youss, John actin Airpo Director c: .Andy Richards, FAA ADO Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO . Dave Carbone, San Mateo County.ALUC Rich Newman, ALUC p.3 B3.3 B3.4 2. Comment I.etterc and Rerponrer RESPONSE TO LETTER B3: SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Response to The DSEIR analyzes impacts according to adopted thresholds of significance. For Comment B3.1 aircraft noise, the DSEIR uses thresholds promulgated by the City of South San Francisco and State of California. No significant impacts were identified based on these thresholds of significance as they are not exceeded at the site. Mitigation measures, however, are required to address roadway noise since it does exceed applicable standards at the site. This requirement for roadway noise mitigation will necessitate use of sound rated windows in many units in order to meet an indoor noise goal of a CNEL of 45 dBA. Therefore, in addition to reducing roadway noise, the installation of sound rated windows would further reduce aircraft noise levels (beyond that required by City or State standards) in many units. To more fully disclose the effect of aircraft noise on the site the following is added after the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4 of the DSEIR: "According to noise complaint records kept bathe Airport's Noise Abatement office residents of the existing Terraba~neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide- bod~,atrcraft The~roposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted basis visual de,.parture,procedure and is overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes rangine from 1 000 to 2 500 mean sea level using climb power settings while executin a ~ ht turn over the east of U.S. 101 area of South San Francisco." Response to Comment noted. Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on Comment B3.2 page 3.3-5 of the DSEIR: "Depending on weather conditions the Shoreline departure procedures from Runway 28 and PORTE~rocedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures Also aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating_from Oakland International Airport (OAKLdirectly overfly the proposed Project site However the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend to the Project site." Response to Comment noted. The City required the preparation of design level acoustical studies for Comment B3.3 Terrabay Phases I and II. The recommendations of the studies were incorporated into the project design as part of the building permit process. Termbay Plmre III FrnalSxppkmentalEnviromnentallmpact Report 2'27 2. Comment Letterr and Berponrer Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows: "Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (,I5 to 20 dBA). This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of F~ 50 dBA to 70 dBA depending on the location of intervening building attenuation: According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA." Change Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9 of the DSEIR as follows: `Acoustical studies sba11 be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance wrtb State and City ofSoutli San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II. for Phase III the Cit,~ requires the study to be incorporated into Project design prior to issuance of a building,. permit In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing polity 9-I-4), the City of South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project as required by the Citv. In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-I-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard s~e~~ shall be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercal development to a less than significant level. Tirrabay Phan III Final Snppkmental Environmental Impact 1~epmY 2-28 2. Commentl..etterl and Rerponter Response to Comment noted. The Terrabay development Phases I and II include Conditions, Comment B3.4 Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) includes an airport disclosure statement. The same disclosure would be required in the Phase III CC&Rs. Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows: "The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft may fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City ee~'~r' ee+~s=d~ eddhig~-r r deeds-shall require the followin,~ language in the Conditions. Covenants and Restrictions (,CC&Rs~for Terrabay Phase III: ",airport Disclosure• San Francisco International Airport which is the fifth largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh lamest by volume in the world. is located approximately three 3) miles to the southeast of the Project The City_has required that residences be designed to reduce noise and vibration levels within the residences resulting from airport operations and air LLaffic Dggendin_„g upon the cost and effectiveness of these designs. different methods or designs which m,~ be more or less effective may be used as construction of the Project,progresses The noise and vibration may increase or decrease dependingupon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns. Some owners mad find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a condominium shall include a covenant (acceptable to the City Attorney of the Cit~of South San Francisco, requiring that the grantee be furnished with a copy of a disclosure statement (acceptable to the Cirri of South San Franctscol to be recorded with the deed which warns the grantee of the noise and vibration impacts associated with airport operations The covenant shall also require the disclosure statement to be signed,~signature to be acknowledged by a notary public) byzpurchaser of a condominium before or concurrently with close of escrow for the sale of the condominium In addition. California Civil Code Section 1353(a~re~uires that the following disclosure be made in this declaration: Notice of Airport in Vicinity This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport. within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example• noise vibration odors) Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances if an„y are associated with the property before you complete your,purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The lan~uaee is the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs " Terrabay Phan III Final Sxpplemental Environmental Impact Report L-L`J Oct 20 2005 10:32RM CITY OF SSF PLRNNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p. 12 .: ~~Ah -..' _ LETTER B4 ~ . ` ~ CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS .OF-SAN MATBO COUNTY - AtleesroR • Balnro~et • Brisbmee • • Colma • Daly Cety • Eatt Pab dlm • Faster Cr:y • Kelfitfoon Bay • XlilsboroetglY • Menlo Park • Millbrae Pacjitaa • Portola Yalley • JPed»ivW1 CXty' SaR,Brrrno • Sale Cm~aQ • Sa~+Ma[ra • Smt Macao Cowity • Sontfi San Fianeboo • Waodtdda October 14, 2005: - - - - HAND DELIVERED Ms. Allison.Kaapp ' --~ ~ ~ - Terrabay Project Planner ~ ~ ~ ~ - - City of South Sats Francisco Planning:Division - - ~ - P,O.~B.ox 71.1 - . ~ .. - . - ~ - • ' South San Francisco, CA 94083 - . ~ ' -~ .' ~ - -- ~- -- • Dear Ms. Knapp: RE: C6minents~ on Terrabay Phase III - Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) (Ei~04-0002) Although the Tertabay Phase III project site. is not located within the ~curreat Ai-rport Land Use Commission (CCAG}AAirport Influence Area ~(AIA) boundary for San Francisco International - Airport, there are several key 'rportllan compatib' ' l issues tkiat further attention -in the DSEIR, as~ highlighte a letter to ' u from John ort D' or, ~ated October 14, -2005. Therefore, I offer th ~ llowing a Tonal input, o of the C Air~iort Land Use Committee (ALUC), and support omments by . Mtin,~regar ~ g the following issues: • Aircraft Ove 'Fhe pro 3 .resid s wil! be sed to aircraft overflight fro 'r . departi rancisco 'oral Aire n e Shoreline •Departure ro ~m O -national on the Sky arture route. The AirportlCommunityRourdtable, of which the City of Sou_ih San Francisco is a founding and . current~member, worked long and hard with the FAA and the Airport to establish this route as - a noise abatement departure. procedure to provide some aircraft noise relief for thousands of residents living under the Clap Departure, a route that affects portions of San Bruno, South San Francisco, Daly City, and Pacifica: The S,6oreline Departure route was established to fly . ~ ~ over non=residential areas. When this~route was created, there was no residential development, . existing or proposed,~i~n•the vicinity of San Bruno 1t4vuntain in South San.Francisco. The text ' in the DSEIR should be revised to more fully analyze and disclose the noise impacts fmm this overflight activity and identify appropriate and sufficient mitigation actions. • Acotwtica[ Stndy/Iaterior Noiae Level -The text of the DSEIR should cleazly state, as a mitigation measure, that an acoustic study shall be conducted to identify aircraft noise levels and specify the appropriate level ~f acoustic treatment to be included in the construction of • • ~ the residential units to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB CNEL, based on aircraft noise everrts. This standard is consistent with the State of California, City of South San Francisco, and the Airport Land Use Cornmissioa.(CCAG) interior noise Ievel standards for residential development, based on aircn~ft noise events. .~ iiyy q ,gig ~ .c1 _ ~ ~y •~ ~ ~,f ~•~~ ~'`7 ,~5` 55s-9 i~ ~-'~i7 .~ ~ 1 c17 ~ . 'Atj~r j .!~ a~• - 553 CoLlN7'Y CENTER, STttFLOOR, REDWOOD CrrY, CA. 94Qb3.6501599-1406.• 650/594-9980 ' ', (F,RM00341W.DOC) B4.1 B4.2 l~ ~~f Oct 20 2005 10:32RM CITY OF SSF PLRfYnInG DIVI 650-829-6639 p. 13 Letter to Allison Knapp, Terrabay Project Planner, City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Re: Comments of Torrabay Phase III -Draft Supplemental EIR {EIR04-11002) October 14, 2005 Page 2 of 2 • Real Estate Disclosure -Based on the close proximity of the project site to the Airport and the exposure of the site to frequent aircraft overflights and related noise impacts, as described above, it is only coaunon sense to re ~uPre sufficient.and appropriate disclosure of the proximity of the Airport and the presence of the frequent aircraft flyovers and related noise B4.3 impacts, as part of the real estate transaction process. History has shown us in this county and across the country that there can never be enough disclosure when it comes to real estate transactions near airports. The comments above are intended to reinforce tie comments submitted by Mr. Martin. ~The~CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) would have submitted similar comments, had the project been located within the formal project review boundary for San Francisco International Airportrt. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Carbone, ALUC staff, at 65©/363-4417. Sincerely, Richard Newman, Chair CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC} Members Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director John Martin, Airport Director, San Francisco Iatemational Airport Ivar Satero, Nixon Lam, SFO Planning 1Vlike McCarron, SFO Bureau of Community Affairs Andy Richards, Manager, FAA ADO, Burlingame Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO, Burlingame mewmaneomlet0errabayphase3dseir.doc 2. Comment I.rtterr and Rerpon.rer RESPONSE TO LETTER B4: CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (CCAG) Response to See Response to Comments B3.1 and B3.2. Comment B4.1 Response to See Response to Comment B3.3. Comment B4.2 Response to See Response to Comment B3.4. Comment B4.3 Temibay Phan III Final Sxpplementa/Enoironmentallmpact Report 2-32 Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLHIyNInG DIVI 650-829-6639 P•2 LETTER B5 Department of Public Works BQARD OF SUPERI/ISOR$ MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEIL R CULLEN DIRECTOR COUNTS OF SAN MATEO 555 COUNTY CENTER,'S^' FLOOR • REDW000 CITY • CAUFORNIA91083-1885 • PHONE (850) 383.4100 • F/1X (850> 381-8220 September 28, 2005 Ms. Allison Knapp City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Knapp: RECEIVE °Cr o 3 zoos PLANNING Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase III, Soath San Francisco Thank you for providing us with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the document. We have also obtained drainage system maps from the City of South San Francisco showing the storm water facility in Bayshore Boulevard The maps show that drainage facilities tying into the Bayshore Boulevard system will direct storm runoff to an area. outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Therefore, the District will not be commenting further on this project. Please note that correspondence for future projects whereby the City of South San Francisco is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) should be addressed to: Ann Stillman County of San Mateo Department of Public Works 555 County Center, 5`h Floor Redwood City, CA 940b3 B5.1 Oct 2U 2005 10: 31RM CITY OF SSF PLHPIiYII'1G DIVi 650-H25-t;b~5 p. Ms. Allison Knapp, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 3ubJect: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Terrabay Phase III, South San 1<Yancisco September 28, 2005 , Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mazk Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417, Very truly yours, Ann M. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:mmy . F:1U5ERS\ADMDV1Utility\Cohru Ct:ek FCD\iupplmEnvirovrnrnml.hapactRpt12003~Teirabay?imse3-DSQRReview.doc G:W58RS~UTlTaTY\Co1ma Creek FCDIWORD1Review Exteap4 Peoject1200S.Terrabay Phase 3 - DSBJR Aeview.doc FHe No: F 149 (9I~ ee: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection 2. Comment I..etterr and Berpon.re.r RESPONSE TO LETTER B5: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Response to Commented noted, no response necessary. Comment B5.1 Temxbay Pbare III F{noI SxppkmsntalEnvironmsntallmpact Dort 2-35 Oct 20 2005 10:31RM CITY OF SSF PLHNtVInG DIVI 650-B29-6639 P,7 18/13/2985 86:04 8314641184 LOIS ROBIN PAGE 01 LETTER C 1 .. . . Lois Robin 4701 Nova Dr. ' Santa Cnu, CA 95062 Attention: Allison, Plannng Depa~nerlt Re: Eft for Terra Bay f was among the many people who urged that the shell mounds on San Bruno Mountain be retained as a park or preserve, ?his bas been dose. I am grateful. The karma on dte Mountain is still good. I cringe at the thought of the development of a mull adjacent to this protected pzoperty, distracting from the importance of the site artd leading to an erosion of zespect for this historical and honored place. Thy world is too full of malls. They have ceased to bring nurntrance attd. value to our midst. They bring about a sameness from one end ofAmerica to the other. Located by the Bay, and adjacent to a protected Native American site, the land has a special prominence and value beyond the short range commercial, With a garden or even a museu;n or arboretum-or any numbs of other cultural or natural possibilities-the site undo consideration could add to the life acid culture ofthe community, The historical site-sight needs enhancement from the sites-~ig}jts surrounding it. The uses under consideration do mot accomplish that. Yours truly, . . ~~~ ~~ Gois Robin C1.1 2. Comment I..etterr and I~erponrer RESPONSE TO LETTER C1: LOIS ROBIN Response to Commented noted. The Project includes a buffer zone that would separate the Comment C1.1 residential, retail and office buildings from the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. The buffer zone would be restricted to access driveways and landscaping. Figure 2.1-1 has been corrected to include the buffer zone in the area designated as Project Site. Temabay Pharc III Final Sxppkmental Environmental Impact Report 6-~ I LETTER C2 v I would Iike to express my exciteme»t acrd enthusiasm in the priojected developments for Mandalay Terrace. 1 ant a homeowner at The Peninsula Mandalay crud I welcome the plans to develop~and expand our community. It is mY hope that everXoree will see the berre, fits this new development will o,,~`er to not only our carrrntunity but the surrounding corrrmr<nities as well In a quiclrly changing economy it is comforting to know this developrrierrt will create Many new job openings, it will provide more available housing and existing retail businesses will prosper from the public interest this developnrerrt will generate. Arty which wayyou Look at it -the approves! and expmssion of Mandakry Terrace is a positive orie. If there is anything I can do to assist you in a "faster"city approval, please do not hesitate to call nte. 1 am conjldent a project approval is, forthcoming Hopefully, it will be sooner t~arrl~rter so that an w~xeceasary amount ojihne and money is no+t wasted Lou C2.1 L'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIQ 9NINiJd1d ASS d0 AlIO WbiZ~6 SOOZ iz ~~O iouHAlvHAly 1 Mandalay Place #701 So.San Francisco, CA 94080 415-730-7242 October 12, 2003 aE~~.lyED O~j2 ~~ p~Nl~ Gyty Hall A,urex 315 Maple Ave South San 1 Francisco Attn: A1Nson 7~ieapp Dear M~ Knapp: 2. Comment I..ettera and Responter RESPONSE TO LETTER C2: LOU HANHAN Response to Comment noted, no response necessary. Comment C2.1 Tim:bay Pram III Final Sxppkmenta/ Enaimnmental Impact Report 1' S LETTER C3 San Bruno Mountain Watch • PO Box 53 • Brisbane, CA 94005 eaabruao~monntainwatcbor~ • www.mountainwatch.or$ ' teL /fax 41'S-46T-b631 t7 October x.005 Allison Knapp Wollam City of South San Francisco planning Department R~ C E I V E p 3~5 Maple Avenue Q~r ~ n ~~ City Hall Annex ~Ni'11/NG South San Francisco, CA q~oi33 Dear Ms. Knapp Wollam, Please accept this brief comment in consideration of the DSEIR for Terrabay Phase 3. It is perhaps more applicable to the coming discussion over CC&Rs for the protect, but it also refers to an important mitigation. ' Proto ols for planting, ^ edina, and sin Hance -- A major lesson Of almost every wildland/buffer~rescape planting and weed control project on the Mountain has been that failure is very likely when suitable installation protocols are not specified (i.e. planting methods, timing, plant choice), and especially when maintenance is not planned for aY least ten years' duration. Whichever~entity is responsible for maintaining the plantings in C3.9 the interface between development and open.space and for controlling invasive species should have an ongoing responsibility to meet or exceed the level of performance Myers ~~- ~ has met on tfie Preservation Parcel: CC&Rs or other mechanisms slioutd~have effective enforcement provisions. Our goal will be to enlist local~residents in ail phases of Terrabay in an ongoing education and site stewardship program; hopefully there wllf be no need for such rules and enfiorcement. Mitigation measure 3.4.5 (P•$-12), regarding the need for a fire protection buffer, states that a i5 foot swath is to be kept free of "hazardous fire growth." We suggest that a regular mowing regimen (perhaps twice a year), timed in accordance with the flight C3.2 seasons of the rare species, should satisfy the mitigation goal, and we strongly urge that the area not be broadly treated with herbicides to eliminate vegetation altogether. Thank you, . ~ ~_ ~. Philip Batchelder Z'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAItI 9NIiJWH'ld dSS dD JllIO WdOZ~6 S00~ IZ X00 2. Comment Letters and Besponses RESPONSE TO LETTER C3: SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH Response to Comment noted. The CC&Rs for Phase III shall include the same language with respect Comment C3.1 to the fire buffer and Habitat Conservation Plan requirements as for Phases I and II. In particular, weed whacking (mowing) is required at a minimum at the start of the fire season for weed and exotics control The maintenance program also requires the selective use of herbicide treatment on individual invasive plants. Broad application of herbiddes is not permitted. Additionally, there is an approved exotics control plan for the leftover pockets of undeveloped and open space lands on the Project site that prescribes the same treatment. Response to See Response to Comment C3.2. Comment C3.2 Temsbay Phase 177 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Rajwrt 2-41 UCt ~U ~UUb 1 U : ~Gti l'I V 1 ~ T Ur aar r~.~iin a nas ar • .. a~JY'- u~., v.+..., r• LETTER D1 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING SSF City Council - Planning Conemission October- 5, 2005. In the matter of Lowe's Home Improvement Center, 600-790 Dubuque Ave Home 27epo~ 900 Dubuque Avenue . Terrabaj• Phase III What criteria were used in selecting Lrtmpluer & Crregar3- to do the DR? What distancelmileage wr71 the EIR cover? Will Sister Cities Blvd, I~2lside, Spruces Grand Ave and additional streets be included in ibis mpOrt' Is noise, light and air pollution included in this report'! Where is the `unavoidable cumutsitive' expelled traffic and customers expected to come fcnm? How will city deal with the Grand Avt onloff ramps and Oyster Pt on/off ramps with this additional traffic? How will traffic froaa Fast Grand businesses be affected/addressed? How wit l traff c be addressed with the proposed IVteyers phase III D 1.1 What impact would Lowes andlrn Haase Depot bane on our own Grand Ave Hardware or South City- Lumbar? What i$ the expected revenue to the city- and what is that time framelt? Lowes? . Home Depot _ What t}pe of alternative energy is being pla:med fen these new businesses? What is the cost to this eit3-? (EIlt, Consults, Staff Time, etc) ~ D 1.2 2. Comment Latter and Rerpanrer RESPONSE TO LETTER D1: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Response to The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and Comment DL1 Circulation of the DSEIR. Response to The Project applicant pays for the costs associated with preparation of the SEIR Comment D12 including staff and consultant time. Termbay Pbare III Frnal Snpp/emental Environmental7mpact Report 2-43 ~._T_ _ LETTER D2 '~ MINUTES _ _,... _ gym, _,, October 6, 2005 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TOORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 o.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Romero Planning Division: City Attomey: Engineering Division: Fire Prevention: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No Changes None Sue Kantor and Jack Kantor spoke in regards to 942 Linden Avenue. She noted that they have been trying to get their application before the Planning Commission for a year. She noted that they were having issues in renting the building and made minor repairs to the property. She noted that although they had interested renters after the repairs none wanted to go through Planning due to rezoning. Mr. Kantor noted that the zoning has been changed several of times and when Peninsula Battery was approved to go into the location they could not because the driveway was too narrow. He noted that when they finally were able to get a company to go into the building that was similar to the previous use they were told by the City that the building was deemed abandoned because more than one year had gone by without a use in there. Mr. Kantor pointed out that they are seeking a one year extension as explained in the abandonment clause. Chairperson Teglia noted that there was anon-conforming use and they are seeking anon-conforming use. He directed staff to look at resolving the issue. He stated that staff would get back to Mr. & Ms. Kantor in one week. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of special joint City Council and Planning Commission minutes of Approved April 20, 2005 and Planning Commission regular meeting minutes of May 19, 2005 2. BKF -Dan Schaefer/applicant Approved Gateway Center Llc/owner 601-651 Gateway Blvd. P05-0109: PM05-0003 Tentative Parcel map to resubdivide an existing 14.11 acre parcel into two lots: Parcel 1 - 7.93 acres and Parcel 2 - 6.18 acres, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19 and the State Map Act. ~~ 2 S Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005 3. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey/Applicant Continued to November 3, 3005 344 Victory Ave P05-0142: AP05-0001 (Continue to November3, 2006) Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Motion Sim /Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar with necessary modifications to the minutes of April 20, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development -Applicant /Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: EIR04-0002 No Action Necessary Pub/ic Hearing to a//ow comments on the Draft Environments/ Imaact Resort (EIR04-0001) Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the comer of Sister Oties. Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel / or an optiona1180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Public Hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Del Schembari gave the following comments on the EIR: Address light pollution and impact on wildlife (ie how lights have affected the wildlife in Yosemite) • Look at the grading and improve from how it was handled in the Point. • Revegitate the habitat with native plant species. • Green material used in development Commissioner Prouty asked that the comments by Ms. Kamala Wolf presented at the Study Session is included into the comments and Response to Comments for the EIR. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments on the EIR: • Address light • Address impact on community with regards to traffic. • Explore having controlled bum because it is necessary for the habitat. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that a bum got out of hand in Brisbane and plans were made to do another controlled bum. She noted that CDF then informed the City that they were no longer in the business of controlled burns. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the public review period ends on October 14, 2005. D2.1 D2.2 D2.3 D2.4 D2.5 D2.6 D2.7 D2.8 c:~DOCUw~.Ewts awd sett[wgs~Patricia~ef fera~t_.ocal settCwgs~rer.~.porar~ iwterv~et ~[les~o~K,sy~o-o6-asxpc rn~wutes.doc vage 2 0{ s Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005 5. ]on Bergschneider/applicant Approved Slough BTC, LLC/owner 333 Oyster Point Blvd. P03-0138: UPM05-0002 & EIR03-0001 (Previously certified) Use Permit Modification of the approved development plan to construct a three building, 315,444 sf office/R&D campus by replacing the approved 6-level parking garage with subterranean parking and adjusting the location of Building B at 333 Oyster Point Boulevard, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. 6. ]esus Ontiveros/applicant Ruth L. Bushman/owner 435 EI Camino Real P05-0124: DR05-0070 & UP05-0025 Use Permit allowing adrive-thru window addition to an existing restaurant situated at 435 EI Camino Real in the Retail Commercial Zoning District (C-1), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81. Design Review of an addition to an existing restaurant including adrive-thru window, revised parking lot and upgraded landscaping, situated at 435 EI Camino Real, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC AD]OURNMENT Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco TCS/bla None None None 10:00 P.M. Marc C. Teglia, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco C:\DOCUw~.CwtS Qind SCtt%wgs\PGitriciA,JCf f~r~\LoGlil SCtti.wg5\TLo-uPOrAr~ IwttrttiLt ~i.ILS\OLK59~10-O6-OSRPC Mi.H.utGS.dOe PGi9C 3 Of 3 2. Comment Letters and Ber~onses RESPONSE TO LETTER D2: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Response to Wildlife would acclimate to the night lighting generated by retail signage. Additionally, Comment D2.1 the Project site includes open space area that separates the developed portion of the Project from the HCP area. Response to Project grading and site improvements would be undertaken according to City Comment D2.2 standards. Final maps will be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any grading permits. Response to The Project landscape plan would include native plant spedes and drought tolerant Comment D2.3 plants. See also Response to Comment C3.1. Response to It is unknown if the Project developer intends to use Green Building techniques and Comment D2.4 materials in Project construction. The City does not require their use. Response to See Response to Comments D1.1 and D1.2. Comment D2.5 Response to Project lighting is addressed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 Aesthetics of the DSEIR. Comment D2.6 Response to The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and Comment D2.7 Circulation of the DSEIR Response to The Ciry has been working with the California Department of Forestry (CDF), local fire Comment D2.8 agencies, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Highway Patrol, Mountain Watch and the Trustees for San Bruno Mountain in efforts to conduct a control burn for species preservation on Terrabay lands. CDF has indicated a reluctance to conduct control burns largely due to the unfortunate experience with the Brisbane control burn. In the meantime chemical, mechanical and grazing activities continue to be used to preserve habitat and reduce fire loads on San Bruno Mountain. Temibay Phase III Finn! Supplemental Enarmnmentallmpact Report 2-47 This page intentionally left blank REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following tent identifies changes made to the DSEIR, as addressed in Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments document. The new text is shown with under~~ and deleted text is shown with see~~ Change Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2 as follows: "Impact3.1.2 Yeat2010lntetsection Level ofService Impacts (S) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a ±25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4~fe 2~ercent) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than significant However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact" Change Figure 2.1-1 as shown on the following page. Terrahay Phan III Fixal Sxpplemeatal Environmentallmprut Report 3-1 ® Project Site ® Terrabay ® Preservation Parcel dedicated to County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain County and State Park -August 11, 2004 Sourar Plao~nakers F gure 2.1-1 Project Vidnity Map N o tooa soon f~ sale in Feee 3. Revicimu to the Draft EIA Change the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 as follows: "A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential Towers alternative." Change the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 as follows: "This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development of the Terrabay Phase III Project It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay Phase III Project (which includes 357 500 square feet of retail space 351 dwelling units 70 000 square feet of service area and 295 500 square feet of office space as presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIRI on this network in contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) which contains 6~,~,00 square feet of office space and 7 500 sclµare feet of retail space as presented in Table 1.2 of the DSEIRI, and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terxabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group." Table 3.1-7A is added following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18, as shown on the following page. Terrabay Phan III Final Sxpp/emental Environmantal7mpact Report 3-3 3. Revitioxt to the Draft EIA TABLE 3.1-7A: VEHICLE Q UEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INT ERCHA NGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE O UEUEI, AM PEAS HOUR Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Exi tin in feet in feet S~ ueues se Base Case Base Base case .(• feed •(~n feed Case + ro' c case + Project Bayshore/SB 101 Ram os SB left turn ~Q 1~ 344 292 345 NB o h 47 47 90 ~ 196 WB off-ramp left tom 6QQ 1~_0_ 233 254 2~ WB off-ramm~ left/right ~QQ 110 237 254 289 Bayshore/central Pro ject Ac~eS a NB left tom ~( ~ 1 63 452 43 NB through 945 27 45 15 18 SB right tom 00 45 19 0 12 SB through 4Z 311 11 3~ 2~ Bayshore/Sister Citie s/Oyster P oint/Airport EB left tom ~ 81 177 227 ~ 4~ SB left tom X25 21~ 106 170 206 B r h ¢CQ `~7 46 127 74 1$0 SB right tom ~,IO ~ Q 64 26 $6 WB left tom ~ 24 ~ 76 2 WBWB t1LOLh ~5 ~. $$ 162 78 178 WB right tom ,~ l~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Qyster Point/Dubuque EB left tom 75/255 124 • ~ 101 151 1~8 LhTOUg~} ? 5 ?~ 34 6] X94 (~ EB ~jght tom ?~, 2~ 131 ~ 121 119 NB left tom 135 ~4 437 ~¢4 4~ X61 NB left/throurrh 5~ $9 46~ ~$¢ 478 ~0 t tom ~ ~ ZZ$ $13 718 764 Dubuque/10_1 Ramos Off-ramp left tom 7(~( 1C~9 72 614 f~22 644 Off-ramv left/through ZQQ ~8, 79~ 614 $22 SB righ 'TM' ~ ~ ~ ~( 5~ 51 thro ?~5 ~1 ~ ~ 3,~ 49 * All storaee and queues ar e per a Source• Crane Transportati on Group Te~rabay Phue III F:xalSxppkmextalExmmxmexta7lxipact Report 3_c} 3. kevi.riona to the Draft EII~ Table 3.1-8A is added following Table 3.1-8 on page 3.1-19: TABLE 3.1-8A: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHAN GE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE OUEUEI. PM PEAK HOUR Year 2 010 Queues Year 2020 Queues Existing in f e in feet t ra e u u s Base Base Case Base Base Case in( f~etl din feed ~g + ~miTct Case + Proiect Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps SB left tum ~0_ ~ ~ 4~ NB through 4Z~ 1~ 2~ 462 497 WB off-ram$ left turn COQ 148 3~ 4_OQ 6~ WB off-ramp left/right G00 148 6~i 4Q0_ 691 ~yshore/Central Prgje ct Access NB left turn ~ 111 132 X03 196 NB through 94 ~ 12 160 r.4 SB riPht tum 3~ Z I. ? ~ ~ 4Z~ 277 ~ 13 94 Bavahore/Sister Cities/ Oyster Point/Ait~Qrt EB left turn ~, ~3 18~( 4$9 224 47~ SB left tum X25 214 1~ ~ 1~ SBSB thr4ough S~4 1~4 1Z 29$ ~B right turn 31 1~ 124 ~ 1~C 764 WB left turn $4 ~ 17~ ~5 1$~ 1 3 WB through 2~5 2~` 102 474 330 71 WB~r'ght turn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ Qyster Point/Dubuque EB left turn 7 2 1~ ~ 192 4~ ,BF thtou~h ~ 107 114 71 142 124 EB right tum ~ ~ ~ ~ ?(~ 1~ NB left tum 13 NB left/through 2~ ~ 81 ~C2 l72 CL I~ght tum ~ ~ St7_ ~4 ~ ~ Z~ Dubuque/101 Ramp Off-ramp left tum 200 2 2` 4~.$ 4~? Off-ramp left/throughh Z2 2~ 229 ~3 44$ 432 SB right turn 255 C~ ~1$ 221 431 SB through ~ ~. 144 ~$ 2~$ * All storage and queues are per lie. Source• Crane Transportatio n Grouv TemJbay Pbara III Fixa! Sxpplmmatal Envannmextallm~act Resat 3-5 3. kevirionr to the Draft EIR Change the following on page 3.1-29: "Year 2010 Base Case Vehicle Queuing" Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30: "Tables 3.1-7A and 3.1-8A show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below AM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/A~i~roved Pmiect Main Accerr. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound approach left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. • Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/OwterPoint Boulevard/Air~ortBoulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three cat lengths longer than available storage. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. 'The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 23 car lengths longer than available storage • Dubu~ueAvenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Aam~/Southbound Off-Bam~i The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage PM Peak Hour Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard/Airbort Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Ouster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage." Terrabay Phase III FrnalSnjp/ementalEnvaonmentallm~act Rei»ort 3_(~ 3. Bevirianr to the Draft Ella Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34: "Tables 3 1-7A and 31-8A show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th~ercentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM,peak hours on the approaches presented below. AM Peak Hour • Bayshorr Boulevard/A ved Pmfect Main AcceS.r T'he Bavshore Boulevard northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than available storage. • B_avrhore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Ouster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersec~ian. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than available storage The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/ U S 101 Northbound O„~Bam~/Southbound On-Bam~ Intersection. 'T'he northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage. PM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/ U S 101 Southbound Hook Kam~s/Pm,~ect North Access Intersection. The Bavshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand five car lengths longer than available storage. Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point $oulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage. • ~vsterPointBoulevard/Dubu~ueAvenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oster Point Boulevard eastbound right turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths Tomboy Pharr III Fixal Suppkmextal Enuironmentat Impact Report 3-7 3. AeYirians to the Draft ElIi longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubu~ueAvenue/U.S. 101 Northbound O~mb/Southbound On-Bam~lnterrection. The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of seven car len s longer than available storage." Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35: "The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria)." Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35: • `~ he proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing between intersections was akeadv at unacceptable lengths the Project would increase queuing_volumes by two percent or more. (Caltrans criteria)," Change the following on page 3.1-46: ulmpact 3.1.5a Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 50~ Percentile (SZ~" Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46: "Im~vact 3.1.5b Yeat 2010 Vehicle Queuin~Impacts - 95~ Percentile (SIIZ' The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing;, AM Peak Hour • Bayrhore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ovrter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Interre~tion. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing, PM Peak Hour • Bawhor~ Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Ovrter Point Boulevard/Air~iort Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing, 'The Bavshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storageL Temzbay Phase 117 Final SrrppkmantalEnvrronmantalln~act Report 3_$ 3. kevuroxt to the Draft EIA The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storagel. • OvrterPointBoulevard/Dubu~ueAvenue Intersection Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case clueuin~. Change the following on page 3.1-46: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.5x" • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Aimort Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle, this would equal an additiona1325 feet of storage for the 50~ percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). . The other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5: "Mitigation Measure 3.1.5b Barshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard ~~roach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile clueuel. At 25 feet per vehicle this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95~ percentile queue Alternatively as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 250 feet longSto accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right tum lane by 200 feet. Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane would help_decrease westbound through lane storage demands but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. • Qyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no phvsiT al improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SUI. Temsbay Phase III Fixat Suppkmextat Exvrmxmextat Impact Beport 3-9 3. Bevirioxr to the Draft EIA Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5: `ltilitigation Measure 3.1.5b Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue) At 25 feet per vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95~ percentile aueue. Alternatively as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue) However it would be ~.mmpossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet Also the otherroposed measure to improve level of service (ping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane store demands. but not to_ the available storage distance on the freeway overpass • Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U S 101 Northbound On Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable length~SU~, Change the following on page 3.1-49: "Impact 3.1.9a Year 2020 Yebicle Queuing Impacts - 50~ Percentile (SIB" Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49 "Impact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Yebicle Ouevrrrg Impacts - 95~ Percentile (SIB" The proposed Protect would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2020 In addition Protect traffic would a~g+-avate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing_ AM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyrter Point Boulevard/Air~iort Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a 9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing Bavshore Boulevard southbound left tLrn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of stora e) PM Peak Hour • Bavshore Boulevard/ LT S 101 Southbound Hook Rltmbs/Terraba~~ Access Intersection The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage The B,~yshore Termbay Phan III Fixal Swpplemental Enwroxmextallmpact Report 3-10 3. Bevirioxr to the Draft EIA Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend from + 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storaee.l Bavrhore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ovrter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a 105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storagel. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from +315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storagel The westbound through lanes on Ouster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base Case gpeuin~. • Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound anuroach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would receive a 7 6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Change the following on page 3.1-50: `Mitigation Measure 3.1.9a" Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50: `21fiti~ation Measure 3.1.9b • Bayshore Boulevard/U S 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access. Adjust sequel- riming to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the south bound off-ramp lanes b~ 200 feet. (LTSI Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Provide two left lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95~ percentile queue In addition, lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left turn lane ley 25 feet. However. it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also. the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lanel would decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU). • Qyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to acceptable conditions. ~SU) Temrbay Phase III Fixa7 Sxppknnritat Exairoxxrextat Impact Dort 3-11 3. Iieviriont to the Draft EIl~ The following is added after the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4: "According_to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement office. residents of the existing_Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco noise complainants. including_resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and earl~r morning transpacific wide- l~ody aircraft. The proposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted basis, visual departure procedure and is overflown on a daily basis. at altitudes ranging from 1.000 to 2.500 mean sea level using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the east of U.S. 101 area of South San Francisco." Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.3-5: "Depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline departure procedures from Runway 28 and PORTS procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. Also, aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International Airport (O ,directly overfly the proposed Project site. However. the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend to the Project site." Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 "Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (15 to 20 dBA). This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a CNEL of ~S 50 dBA to 70 dBA depending on the location of intervening building attenuation. According to the city's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA." Change Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9: `Acoustical studies shaUbe prepared to ensure Projectis in compliance wrtb State and City ofSouth San Francisco noise standards. The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II, for Phase III. the City requires the study to be incorporated into Project designn prior to issuance of a building permit. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing polity 9-I-4), the City of Tenrrbay Pbace III Final Supplemental Envrranmental Impact Dort 3-12 3. 8evuionr to the Draft EIIi South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies sl~e~ will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project as required by the C In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-I-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard sl~ld shall be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significant level." Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8: "The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft map fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City . shall require the following language in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rsl for Terrabay Phase III: Airport Disclosure: San Francisco International Aimort, which is the fifth largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh largest by volume in the world, is located ap~roximatel, three 31 miles to the southeast of the Project. The City ha„ s required that residences be designed to reduce noise and vibration levels within the residences resulting from airf~ort operations and air traffic. Depending upon the cost and effectiveness of these designs, different methods or designs which may be more or less effective maybe used as construction of the Project progresses. The noise and vibration may increase or decrease depending upon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns Some owners may find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a condominium shall include a covenant (acceptable to the City Attorney of the City of South San Francisco, requiring that the grantee be furnished with a copy of a disclosure statement (acceptable to the City of South San Francisco) to be recorded with the deed which warns the grantee of the noise and vibration impacts associated with airport operations The covenant shall also require the Teerabay Pharc III Final SrrppkmentalEmdronmeata!Impoct Repot 3-13 3. Rev~rioru io the Draft EIK disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notarQ public) b~urchaser of a condominium before or concurrently with close of escrow for the sale of the condominium. In addition. California Civil Code Section 13530 requires that the followin,~ disclosure be made in this declaration: Notice of Airport in Vicinity: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the propertymay be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations for example• noise vibration, odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances if any are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The languagce is the same languu~e that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs." In addition to changes made to the DSEIR as a result of public comments, staff initiated changes were also made to the DSEIR and are presented below. Change Mitigation Measures 3.3.2 on page S-10 and 3.3-8: "No mitigation required. Although no mitigation measure is required the Cit~will require an airport disclosure in the CC&Rs for Phase III of Terrabay. The lan~ua~e will be the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs." Change last paragraph under Impact 3.4.6 on page 3.3-12: "The Project applicant would be required to pay the State mandated school impact fees applieal~le-€er prior to issuance of City building permits. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on schools would be less than significant." Change Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 on pages S-12 and 3.4-12: With payment of State mandated school impact fees. no additional mitigation would be I*Ferze-required. Termbay Pbare III Final Supp/cmental Enwsonmentallmpact Report 3-14