HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Phase III Draft SEIR 08-2005TERRABAY PHASE III
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 1997082077
~, ~,~~„
.~-
..-, ~.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x
~~
~. „~ g° ~ . ~ ~ , '~
r __
~ .-r~-
City of South San Francisco .
August 2005
Prepared by:
PEACEMAKERS
in association with
Crane Transportation Group
Don Ballanti
Rosen Goldberg & Der
TERRABAY PHASE III
Draft Supplemental Envirorunental Impact Report
SCH# 1997082077
`C~~~~^' ~ ,/ ~ I
/;%~ ,/ `.
Y.u; fi+A
,. ~~ , , ~ ~ 1 ~~y
,~
l `k~
1
r -`.
~ ..
~ ~ ---~ WY»LAY COtq~ ~
~ 1
- \ - 4 r _ 4,
n-
<t.4~,i'. .. 1
City of South San Francisco
August 2005
'~•
.•c
~,y .m
j
?.i «t 1
TERRABAY PHASE III
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Pa~~e
SUMMARY S-1
S.1 Project Overview S-1
S.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigations S-2
S.3 Alternatives to the Project S-2
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Use of this Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR) 1-3
1.3 Environmental Review Process 1-3
1.4 Contents of this Draft EIR 1-5
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 Project Sponsor's Objectives 2-1
2.2 Project Location 2-1
2.3 Project Site Characteristics 2-2
2.4 Project Characteristics 2-2
2.5 Project Approval Process 2-9
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES 3-1
Introduction 3-1
3.1 Traffic and Circulation 3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1
3.3 Noise 3.3-1
3.4 Public Services and Utilities 3.4-1
3.5 Aesthetics 3.5-1
4. ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 Alternatives Not Selected 4-1
4.2 Alternatives Comparison 4-2
4.3 No Project Alternative 4-2
4.4 Hotel Tower Alternative 4-4
4.5 Two Residential Towers Alternative 4-12
4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-21
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Sxpplementa! Environmentallmpact Report 1
Table of Contents
P~~e
5. OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 5-1
5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5-1
5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts 5-2
5.3 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 5-2
5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5-3
5.5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 5-3
6. PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT PREPARATION 6-1
7. REFERENCES 7-1
APPENDICES
A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study A-1
B. Comments Received on NOP/IS B-1
C. Project Traffic Tables C-1
D. Project Alternatives Traffic Tables D-1
E. Air Quality Model E-1
F. California Water Service Company Will Serve Letter F-1
LIST OF TABLES
S.1 Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program S-2
S.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project S-3
1.1 Phase III 1998/99 SEIR Land Use Program 1-2
1.2 2000 Addendum Land Use Program 1-2
2.1-1 Terrabay Phase III Proposed Land Use Program 2-7
3.1-1 Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project,
AM Peak Hour 3.1-12
3.1-2 Intersection Level of Service, Terrabay Phase III Proposed Project,
PM Peak Hour 3.1-13
3.1-3 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, AM Peak Hour 3.1-15
3.1-4 Freeway Operation, Terrabay Phase III Project, PM Peak Hour 3.1-15
3.1-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base and Year 2010 Base Case + Project,
Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-17
3.1-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base and Year 2020 Base Case + Project,
Freeway Ramp Operation, AM and (PM) Peak Hour 3.1-17
3.1-7 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange
(50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), AM Peak Hour 3.1-18
3.1-8 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange
(50th Percentile Average Vehicle Queue), PM Peak Hour 3.1-19
3.1-9 Trip Generation of Approved Development Within South San Francisco
East Of 101 Area Expected to Be Built and Occupied By 2010 3.1-23
3.1-10 Home Depot Trip Generation 3.1-24
3.1-11 Home Depot Site Net Change in Trip Generation, Home Depot
Minus Existing Site Use (Levitz Furniture) 3.1-24
3.1-12 Lowe's Site Trip Generation 3.1-24
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report ll
Table of Contents
Pa~~e
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
3.1-13 Lowe's Site Net Change in Trip Generation Lowe's & West Marine
Building Minus Existing Site Uses 3.1-25
3.1-14 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase III Approved Use 3.1-25
3.1-15 Trip Generation, Terrabay Phase II-Remaining Residential
Development (as of February 2005) 3.1-25
3.1-16 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research & Development 3.1-26
3.1-17 Project Passby and Diverted Linked Trips 3.1-36
3.1-18 Terrabay Phase III Change in Peak Hour Trip Generation Currently
Proposed Versus Approved Project 3.1-37
3.1-19 Proposed Parking Spaces 3.1-51
3.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.2-2
3.2-2 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood, City,
2002-2004 3.2-3
3.2-3 Predicted Curbside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, in
Parts Per Million 3.2-7
3.2-4 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day 3.2-8
3.3-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 3.3-3
3.4-1 Estimated Demand for Water and Wastewater 3.4-13
4.1 No Project Alternative -Land Use and Building Square Footage 4-3
4.2 Hotel Tower Alternative -Land Use and Building Square Footage 4-4
4.3 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Hotel Tower
Alternative (Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation) 4-5
4.4 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative,
AM Peak Hour 4-10
4.5 Intersection Level of Service, Project Hotel Tower Alternative,
PM Peak Hour 4-11
4.6 Two Residential Towers Alternative -Land Use and Building Square
Footage 4-13
4.7 Trip Generation Comparison, Proposed Project Versus, Two
Residential Towers Alternative (Terrabay Phase III Net New
External Trip Generation) 4-13
4.8 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative,
AM Peak Hour 4-18
4.9 Intersection Level of Service, Project 2 Residential Towers Alternative,
PM Peak Hour 4-19
4.10 Comparison of Impacts of Project With Alternatives 4-22
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map 2-3
2.1-2 Project Site Plan 2-4
2.1-3 Project Development Area 2-6
3.1-1 Area Map 3.1-3
3.1-2 Location of Intersection, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis 3.1-5
3.1-3 Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour 3.1-7
3.1-4 Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 3.1-8
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft 5upplementalEnvironmentallmpact Report lll
Table of Contents
Pa~~e
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
3.1-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 3.1-9
3.1-6 2010 & 2020 Base Case (Without Project) Lane Geometrics and
Intersection Control 3.1-22
3.1-7 2010 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project) 3.1-27
3.1-8 2010 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project) 3.1-28
3.1-9 2020 AM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project) 3.1-32
3.1-10 2020 PM Peak Hour Base Case Volumes (Without Proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project) 3.1-33
3.1-11 2010 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-38
3.1-12 2010 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-39
3.1-13 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-40
3.1-14 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3.1-41
3.1-15 2010 & 2020 Base Case + Project Lane Geometrics and Intersection
Control 3.1-43
3.3-1 Noise Measurement Locations 3.3-2
3.3-2 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, 10-11 May 2005 3.3-3
3.3-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 3.3-7
4.2-1 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4-6
4.2-2 2010 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4-7
4.2-3 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative AM Peak Hour Volumes 4-8
4.2-4 2020 Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative PM Peak Hour Volumes 4-9
4.3-1 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour
Volumes 4-14
4.3-2 2010 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour
Volumes 4-15
4.3-3 2020 Base- Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative AM Peak Hour
Volumes 4-16
4.3-4 2020 Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative PM Peak Hour
Volumes 4-17
Terrabay Phare III Project Draft Sxpptementa! Environmental Impact Aepart lv
SUMMARY
S.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco. The site
fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard. The site is bounded by
San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II to
the west. The Project site comprises 21.2 acres.
The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential
(moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. The residential, office and
retail would be built over five levels of parking. Access would be from three entrances
along Bayshore Boulevard and one from Sister Cities Boulevard. Project development
would conform to the Wetlands Mitigation Plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 2002 for the Terrabay development.
The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases.
Phase A consists of an amendment to the General Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan and
portions of the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District to allow mixed use on the
Terrabay Phase III site. The environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B,
following City action on the Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist
of an amendment to the Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement and potentially minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific
Plan Zoning District. Phase B, actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005
SEIR.
Table S.1 presents a breakdown of land use by type and building square footage.
Terrabay Phase III Prgect Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repore S-1
Summary
S.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND
MITIGATIONS
Table S.2 at the end of this section provides a summary of environmental impacts, the
level of significance of those impacts, identified mitigation measures and level of
significance after the implementation of mitigation measures.
TABLE S.1: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Gross Sq. Ft. ~ Land Use
Phase A
Retail 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex
Cinema, Grocery Store
Residential 475,000
Market Rate 248 Dwelling Units
Below Market Rate 103 Dwelling Units
Service Areas 70,000 Loading, Storage, Mechanical,
Restrooms, Supervised Play Area
Phase B
Office 295,500 Office
Total 1,198,000
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed
when they are significant. The Project would result in significant cumulative impacts.
The 2005 DSEIR discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 5.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Unavoidable significant impacts relating to traffic and circulation and air quality have
been identified in this DSEIR. Please see Chapter 5 for a discussion of unavoidable
adverse impacts.
S.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Alternatives analyzed in the 2005 DSEIR include: No Project Alternative (development
plan approved by the City in 2000); a Hotel Tower Alternative and a Two Residential
Towers Alternative. Based on an evaluation of each alternative compared with the
proposed Project, the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally
superior alternative. Potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative
and a comparison of each alternative with the proposed Project is presented in
Chapter 4.
Terrabay Phase III Prq'ect Draft Supplemental En:nronmentallmpact Report S-2
U
W
O
W
O
~r
W
F
O
w
W
d
W
z
0
c~
1~~1
A
U
a
w
O
W
a
F
C
~
U U
(~ VJ
N N
N
a N
a
ti ca '
v ~ ,; ~ U o ~,
~, a,
a ..d ~
-d
O +'~ v ~~~ cE ~ v N v O~ v
~
" u
a+
'~.~°" .~oNH~;~
O .
~a~~6 d
~
~ ~; y ~ .~ y ~ •p v ~ v v C C ~ o0
O v ~ Q
H ~ c~a . Q'
sa C~ v C v
~
°~
~ ~
~ cd y
~ U
i ~ °~' o ~ o
~ ~
v
~ as
~d
~
~O ~ 'd
~•~ ° ~ y O
~
v
aoo
v ~ao~ ~~ ~ v ~~
O i
'~ ~
'~~° o.~ ~b ~ o
~ ~ u ~
a°"o'b aa~ ~ ~ a
y p ~ ~ ~.
P~ o~U~ aui v
~ ~
~
.~ ~
~ ~
v
U °
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
°
N ~
1
.7
~~N~~oa~~ ~
~. N a
v tC
N ~.
n
a
~ ~1
.s." C Q v w t'' C
N cd H v
O ~ ~
C ~
`~ ~~.. O O O '
C
~ ~ w .b
i ~
q a
~ ~ +J
cd (I.i 'S~ ~i w y U p„i v
~ v
~ ~ v
~
~ O N O~ 'O D
C v C
O
u
~ U -d ~ C ° y a, N ;~ o ~~
~ '~ N ° a°o C7 `° Fi °O o ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ `~ ~ p
° ~ -o
v ~ oN
v a~oi"~ v~~~~, ~ a.~~
G v ~ cn ~
-
n° o~
~QU° ~ ~~
• v ~
r~ y
.
~
U U
o ~ u O.N ~+ N b +'Ow ;~ ~ u C
a~ _ .~
.~ ,
.~ N w ~
~ U v ~
'
c~
°'
~ ~ ~
~ q
o
~
~ °~
u~.ab
'~ ao°±I aR'
.~ ~ ~ o ° a
~ u
ti R+ is tw°
O °' 00
"3 ^o v
0 v~'~J ° vw p ~~ ~b ~
'0. ~,q~Oo ~
b ~~~ ~ ~v'N R+N ~ y °:
.
,
~, 6~ ~ o~ v~C7 ~ ~~°,~ O
~ "~ n~vi~-d ~ ~ o ~u C?? o ~~
° +~ ~ L+ ~.b C~ (~ v ~ R'' C
' ~ ~ R+ y
~ •
C d v ~+
c 0 O v 'b ~ '~ r~i, ~ ~
7
!~ s-~
CS ~•d ~ ~i ° a+ 'b ~ M \ w ~ y N
k'~~~ u~,~ ~C7oU ~ ~'~ a b r
,
y
a ~'b ~
~+~ a
pR.~ u
'J Aa ~ ~.+ ,~-, td ~ cd
~ ~ ~ B
~ o~'~
~
'J ^yJ~' ~ N ~ N S~ O
O C bA LL
~
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1
~ N ~~+ 'Q ~y C ~
C 'S G`+ C '~
'~ ~ b (y~
~ O '~ C.
n
N v N 1•--i '~J v O ~ ~-+
~ O ~ ~ vv+ ~ ~ ~ O ~
.~
„
° o u ~ 3 N
°
+~
P
" a
~
v o O
Qi p-~ u
' ~
o °
~ u ~ o
~ o o ~ v '7 v U u
U
~' ~ N u ao o
, ,
,
~
„
,
, ~
h . u
U C .. ° .~
~ .~ p, .~ NN .a L'~ ~c7 ~ ~
c~
U O v y ' c~ ''' ~ ~y cCa
C o ~ ~'~i ~ `O ~ O ~ c~e ~' . ~ ~ .O +-' ~
F, O 'd ~ ~ 'C c~a ~ ~ p
o
a~
'
' C
,
b p &o
~~ ow,ao~
~
w°0
~
~~'~ ~'~ ao'N
~a ~O ~ A o
„
~ ~ o "3w0 B
~wv
~, ~.~ ax BwW ~ B
.
.
.
.-.
i N
r-
M r!
M
.o
V
H
.--i
M
M
v
C
'~
lC $."
. ~'
b
p
'O
C
cn ~
a+ N rn
°~ ~ O ~
~
~
~
y ..~ .
~
~ cn
a~ q ~any~ p ~n A, ~ v
'b N N ~ ~--~ GJ U ~"' vi
p N
~
C
~i ~~~ C p O~ ~, j C cd ~ 0 C 'd
C~ v
v v G. ~ ~ O a~ a~ ~ ~ N ~ a~ A. C ~" ° "" c°n
~ Q. 'b o ~ a~ a ~ r" ~, o
~C oo ~ap"~ " a~ bn~ v~~~ ~ o c~'•--~ o~
O 0 y '~
'O 'C
~ y~
~"t u
'b
d
j ~
y ~
~
N
°
~~
~
]
~ O 'b a~ -d ca U '~ C vi O ~ a~ C ,~ q
~ o
~
CJ °' °; ' ~
°o v~ ~ u ao o ~ -~ ° ~ °o' ~ o o
O rn ]
U
.~ .~' gy
y O
! y
~i ~
a)
~
•Lj c~tL
U
,b
,
a-J! a)
H
~{
p
-
!
1
/
C
R
..~ --
1 N W
N 1
N QI p ~' N ~ "'~ ~ G\ G O "d
.,Cy
O" ~ O O " M ~
~ O `~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ O O C ~
+
~ v
1
~
d O 'd ~ C ~ v ~ O
O a~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ u p
~ ~
0
. ~ ,
c
~
'
~ C ~' O
~ ~ U
O
~ H ~
C
R. p
~ ~ O
v OU
. ~
GL ~ 'T~ a~
~
~
o
•~ W a h B ~ ~ 'ti 'u
~' o' ~ ~ ~ ~' a U ~
.
F
z N p
oz °w
G
CJ
~ O
~ •n
U cC
;L1
~~
cn
V
°c
W
W
H
N U
a
~ U ~
cC N r. . ~ r'
y O W N '~
~~ 00 ~ "
-»~wawa
0 0 ~b o
~CC ~O ~
~d ~ a ~ U
.~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~
~a~i ~ v ° o [i N
~ bA ~ ~ O ci ¢~
r" C-SA al GL ~ 'd
~ p Ay~ '~ O
~a~~~ B
y o y o v ~,
~ Np ~ N ~ ~ U
o sna~aa~.~
C. ~ o ~ o -d
47
.~
i-1
bA
~ .
~
r ~ •
N ~ "~
a
t°
o a o a
i o
a ~."
~a ~ ca a'"i b u
g a Y ~a
v a
D w ~ ~ .~
w v
ti ~ ~ .~ C
~~ oa~•~
~
,i
N y y
c~ ++ o ~
A 3 ~ `'
O P
~
d
C
~ ~ O c
U~
o g~ ~-d-dw
A
N~ p ~
O~ O U ~"
~
CS O O O O
`"
~a~ ~ awl
r.
~;
b
Q ._U.
cv ,n
G b
O
q
~ a
h C
a~ O
~~~~~ ~
N v C u ~ N
N ~ _v ~ ~
aa" ° y.~O
~ ~ ~~p
b
~i v ~ ~ bA O >.
`p~ V ~ ~ ~
v ? y ~ b v d0
~~~ °g ~ a~
ti ~' U.U. ~ ~ U
x v y ~ t~ o U
~ C ~ a~
" O ~ U h
q '~ ~ 'p ~ ~
0
`S C vUi .O 'N
~ O ~ U O ~' a~+ N
.~ B cw .o ~~ ~ a.~
~~; o•B~ o~~ 3
~;
v~
b
.~
>~
0
U
U
w
A
W
a
W
H
w
d'
W
H
Q
d
w
O
W
F
a
~.~
~~
u I Y
~~
~ .~, ~ 4'~ ~ 4'7
~
~ N
N ~ y
d ~
~
!
V/
~ ~
a'"i ~'
b ~ ~
y • ~ 'J v
v
~
~ H
N
~ ~ b
q
o
o
~
v N
O ~ ~ a ~ ,~
o b y B
o~ a .n ~ o
,r, o ~ o o ~
~ d ~. o ~ ~
~ W
~
b g
~
i °~
C
~ Q ~ Q x q b
~v
~ o
w p (~
~ v
a
i
U~b ~ ~~ ~ O O ~ ,
j
.
~ ~ o ~ ~ O
~
o ~
v~ a °'v ° o y
~ ~ ~ o.~ o 0 ~
o a
~
'. w Pa 'd v
'd
w L~ y ~ ~ ti ~ C
O ~ '~ ~' bA G7 ~ o
v '~ O
v pQ
v
C
o
~j
~
y U
~ o~ o o
o
~ o
,,. ~ '~
o v
v
~, B
G
~
~
• °,
~
'd v O ~ O '.O O ~ b
++ A
~ v '_" ~
~ N p ca b v
u
~ O ~ '~ c~
~~ +-., ~ `d
v'
~ C cd
O v
n
.,.., v .
u „
C ~
y
^d ~
.
O u
ao ~ o:~~ ~
C ~ 'd
vv p
~,
' o
~ O
~
•bv y~
ca O B
~ v
O C ~ y .
..
p
,.a o y,
ti FA ~ 'gib
~+
'~ ~
~
p .
,
~
~ '~~' ° ~
bA~ u
~ WQ +
- v v ~,
p,, u ~ aui
~ ~ y 'C ~
v ~, w ~ v
vn-+ v
° a Fq° ,~ y C
~ o'N~a o uv „ v o O ~ W ° ~; N ~ ,y, 'n N Q O ~
~' '~' O ~wu~a~~~ •~ aN '~~ ~
o 'NCO °~~ ~~
" ~ ~ ~ P: cCa"aki ~ cAa"C C~ cn~ ~ ~ N N •~ W •~F-' uGA ^.~al'C ~ q
O u ~
ca
O
v o
v
• y ~ ~q ~'-, I I P~ ~i
G~i
v, h I I P;
'~'
a
w °" • •
0
v'~,
cc
D'b
~
v
o,
U •~
U ~
~, ~ ~
-o
c3:.'~'
u u
~ l7
~
~
.~
~C p~ C
~ ~ a
cn
v U
.-. ' ~ ~ C
v o a
~
.~
v ~~o ~
oQOl ~
1-y
v ~
~~' y
v ~
~ ~ „ 6 ~
U
"
~ N
N N
ern'N
~,'~ ~ ao
d ~ ~ . a ~
am
a+ .~
N N C
i
a
+ ., [
y
~~ ~v~ Apo ° N ~ ~ ~ o ~N vim" ~ o ~pp
"
~
° •
~
a ~ ~ ~
'~ °
v~ r o R
i.., '~ v
o ~' a
a c
O. ~ p
~ .n
c
CO v C ca ~ ca cd ~ is
Q ~ 0
' Ia ~
o F~
c
a
~ v CJ ~ U
~ '
~
b ° ~ O~
~ • ~ ~
" a .o a . ~
b
' . v a o ~
o
d
bA ~ ~ o o r~
-' ~
C
C
?~ .
~ s~
~
y y .C
a~ ~O o ~ ~ ~~ v ca
~ ~ a.
m c
.d'~u'~~ i .
~ c~ a
i
a
~v' ° O
w
.
H c
n
~ ~c
~ p C p O C v v ~
~ ,~ ~~ ,
O b b~ v ;~ C
u O v, +~ La w
D b v
~ C ~ O~ ''' O
v~ O .~ Q~
~` av
d ~
~ ~ a ~
~ ~
~
'" ~
• O
u
~a ~ ~ ~ v C "' y ~ C ca
w
i
,~, i+
~+~ . ~
a
i
u C 0 0~ 0 O ,~._, p
~ °~Z o 6 Ba y ~ ~
-d•N c
cd u 0 0~
~ ~rAaa u ~~ cd U Q ca a
~~aa ~a~.~
M
V
~.~y
M
.may
~.
0
U_
w
w
O
W
H
w
w
z
0
c7
H
A
U
w
w
1-y
~ ~
o
o `
° '~
~ o
' ~ U o
' U •~+
U C
~ 4'7
~
N 1;
~ ~ O
~ ~
~ ~ a~ ~ ~a
Ca y Q~
~ ~
~ ~-+ ~1
~
~ 'H ~
~
H
,
~ g oo ~o~~
°
"
~
o
~ Q
~
~ y
'~
~,~ ~gv
~,~
~a
~
~~~~ ~ ~ B
O w
'd N
~w O
a O
a b
~ ,xj ~
w ~ w ~' C p~
,~ C C
h O O
v
~'~
`~
.~~ O
w
O m
~
~
'C
5
a~ ^d
O cd o
O
y
," q
a~
"
a']
O C ~~ d C~ a~ v~ ,,, ~
y O y ~ U S N
~ ~
~
~
.~ ~ y
~
O
~ ~ ~
~ u
~U ~ .•' 'O ~ ~ '
'~ .~ ~ O O
~
~
y v
~~
~
~
o
O ~
~
° ca
Q
~ a~ a~
~ O O ca ~ p. a ~ o ~ A.
w
~ ~
~'
°' °' ~'
.~
u
~ ~ ~,
'd a
a
U ~
~ C ~
~,~
~
~ H
" 7
d ~ ~'
C
O +-'
,~
U ~'' y ~ ~
C a~ O s
i
v O a+
~ 'b c
- '1: O
ed
cd 'O 'b +
~ c'Ja Q 'O v ~ O ¢~ +-~ ~ ~ ~"'
,~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ '~ Q O
~ y
~ ~ 'd ~ C ~
O ~. . '
.-. D,
u R.';~ ~ ~ v u ~ v :; ai ~. o ~ O. ca O ai '~ p '~ ~ a,U Q.
~ ~'~ ~ ~ o o a o ~~ 0
~
°
p d
~ O
•
~ W o ° ~ o ~
~ P, P, ~' G Pa ~ .
.~rA
3
~ ~ B
~
~ '
'~ q ~
~;
~
~
I
Qr N ~
%~ I
I
I
I
N °
~' h o
0
z
..
v~
~
~~ ~
M
p
'~
~~
~ ~
~
a
~
.b o
~
N ~
~
~
~ y
~
v
p
.~
. y
y
G
'+
U
+
~ ~ U
~~o~~
v aJ ~ C
~ ~.~
C u N
~ •~
~
~
~ ~
p
~ . ~ 'G-. SA w a~
~ r .~ +~ ti C
,~ ~ ~ O O v
~ ~~ozo~
y ~'
vw
w~~.~
v~
o°~y~~
w
N U v ~ ~
a> .G
~~O ~p~~b
t~ y'y'J ~
i
r
M
.~
.~
Q
O
U
U
w
O
W
w
H
x
0
rw
/~
H
A
U
w
O
W
H
Y
v
C
U .~
U ~
r
~ ~~
qv
OA
n
w
v
p 'b
,~
q
0
.~
on
.~
~~
z
O C
y '~
a". a
0
-o v
~~
a~~
~ ~'
N
rr~ Q~
.aw" .~
O a~i ~='
U '~ y
a~
b
~ o
~ i-1
a~
v ~ Gl.
-~~.~
v
v7
C~
,N~.1
i9 b
~ y
C
iii ~
a~
a~
G~
~~
C b
'O
C
fn `~
w
O
y
.~
W
ti
N
y
0
N
~
~4
O v y p p ~
a~ w ^~ a~ ~ ~ ~ '~
p
^~ p'' ~ p ~j
~ ~ '~ ~ y y~ ~ .~
O C
,O dQ
scd
cv
" °' ~
~
o ~
°" i a
i
° 0
°
,
~
~
~ o
~
•
~
o 'ti
o
~ °' ~
b a~ ,q
N ~ O ON ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ vi
.~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ .~ -~ c"a
~O ~ O,b
~ ~ -O~ b O ~'
°'
w.b
~ p L'' ~ u ob
C, C ~ o
~ C 0
~.
.°: ~ ~U o ~ o ~ H ~ ~
O v g v~ y o, h ~ „p v
~O ~~ O v O~% v.b
+ w
~ N w ~-s"i ~ O u
°~ ~
y n{ O
O h o ~ q~
G U cu o-' .?; ~ ~
~ N v~
v '-o C
0
bA
~ a~
`~
'~ ~ W
O ~" sr N ~
.~' U
R. ~."b
a ~ ~ o '~
~ •~
a 5.+~ ~
~ w~'
v
v
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ww
~~
~
~
o GU
~ .
°a~~-1
',~ O
N
.~ y a
~ ~ ~
°
~
~
~ w
~~
CS `A
FCi ~O"' ~
N ~n ca O ~
~ (~ ~ t"pj
~ N
q y u
~~
~
~~~
~
~
p
~ pa
~ Y ~
~
Q ~j
7
N 1 r~ .~
~
V
~
U
r-+ y,~
N U p
°' i
v
a U 0
y
" a c
•
~ 0 .
0 0 0
~a~ ~ aao
r.
M
,.a
bA'~
b ~ ~ V ~
h O" ~ .U
p a~ a~ o
a " a' ~ ~
a'~ ~ p ° ~
a~ y u O ai O ~N
~ ~'
v b o~ ~ ao
~ a~~~ ~,~
U
~./~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L: N
'~' U w ~ aU+ O tR
O ~ ~ ~ O N
ag ~ ~,
~°' '~ CO u 'b y .~
~ ~ ~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(V U GJ U y U
o 'o o ~~ w ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
M
C
b
O
0
z
Vl
~ ~ cd
v ~ a
C ~
O ~ .~
o ~
~ ~ °.
~ U ~
o ~ 'o
a a ~'
.~ ~~ ~ C
O
~.~. ~ 'yCj '~
.~~°o
N y~..i U
O ~ i ~
C N p
~ ~ O ;a
~ ~ N a
~ ~ U U
v N ~ ~
~ww °
Q
~ ~
C
O
~
~ c
a
c~
C
OA
V1
N
7-1
~ W v
C O °; ~ ~ v
'~ w ~ ~ u ~ ~ a Oa ~ ~ ~ ayi
u +-' y a~J cya cd b 'v '~ bA ~ ~
v "' C 't.~7y rn ~' Q O y '" C ~ ~` ~ LA
ti ~ ~ W.! OQC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VJ ~ ~ O v
v C '~' v~ v v '+ ;; v M G
~ y N
(^~y~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O u ~-I_ ~ ~
~ ~'~:v ~~ v~o~ u v ~,~ vfA
O ~ ~ v ~ ~ vUi ~ ~ 'J. ~ N yN,i '~' ~ ' ~
.~ ~ ~ V~ ~ bA O ~ a ~ v, ~ y ~ ~
•~ ~~ 'b on. N o v u a N -~ w y o
:~ ~w v v N~ v ~~ °a g
aa~~° o aN N y y~ v v „~
CC y, N Q) i-1
u .~ v .~ 'tl O O .r
.~ d0~.~ ~ ~~~ bq0 bA~~~
~ ~ v ~ o~~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~ y
~v.~~ aaa.'N ° 6 ° ~ a°
v
..
w
7J
~_
v
U
U
l:
N
W
H
8
G
U
.~
'C
~ .a: ~.
U :~ +~.+
N N
.~ U ~
O
~ ~ ~ N
.~ ~.': p d
C ~ ~ h '~q
'~ °~ ~ o C
~.~ ~ ~ O
avi ~ v O -d
U
~,N~~.o
~, ~ ~~.~
N ,~, v a
~ y ~ ~
.~ o :~ ayi ro
~~o
w~ N~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O~'SfAU
0
M
it
~1„~ v
.a
O ~ ~ ~
'Iy u O ~ ai '~ " ~ 'a~ ~ v v ~
cd v v~ U '~ ~ N «t bA ~ O y
~yy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GO .b .fir^vy~ ~ ~ '~y~•~
l,A ~ ~ Vl ~ ~i
~ ~ ~ ~ C W AV ~ ~ N ~ ~ y
G v ~ r~ N ~CC O
pp .~i
v~~ o~ ~,~~ u y ~~nv o
~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ao'~ r? ~ ~ ~ a
O ~ y~~ O '~. ~~ N N~~ O
~' O c~a ~. ~ y ~cd cad ~ pOp ~° 'd u
v~'p~ C v •N +J v .~ `~ p .~
a O ~ ,~ N~ ,~ y v~ O cv ~
O~'~ ~ b~A ~ 'O u .'.a' • i~c y
~° ~ a w O N ~, y v~~ v~ b
u y '.~7 p °' C D .d ~ ~" 'C ~ ~ w
'~ ~' ~'~ D `vr: v O ~ v ~ ^O N
O v~cV cv y bQOA~~b.Ov~~bApp~.b•L~.
ca •C w O~~ v~ C v y v O C
~v.~~ aa.a'~ ° 6 ° tea.°u
C
c~
.~
f/]
a,
O
.o
.5
Ki
v
C
C
U
U 'L"
~~
v
w
a
:c
v
J
O
w
MMy =
1~1
U ~i
V f
C
U 'I
~A
c%~
0 V
ce^^t
G
•~'
N
a O
Q, N
Uy
. "C
~
~g
p
`-~ .b
~ ~ ~
~
,
~
y
m (~
6
~•-~
~
~b~ ~ r•+
C
~ ~
v
•p
~
ti
~
~
o
a~
'~
cWn cW/J v O~~
s.i ~ ~ ~ u
'O y ~
y ~ 'h
ce ..
~ ~
O y b b
G~
G~ ~ N
~~"
~
O
~
~ U
'',
~ ~
bA
~
O u C
u ~
~ ca
o
C
~ p O 0
~ vi '
~ •
~ ~ O
u '~ O ~ ce
~ '~
C
~ ~ ~ G w b CO v v rr
t1 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ h ~ ~ o y •~ ' b ~ pp o
.~ a
o
.ao
o ~ „ ao N ~ ,~5. ~
o o
~ ~ ~ ~
.~ ,
R, a ~ B
~~
~ °~ ~ cv R+ b
~ ~ ~ O C H ~ ~
, '~
Z]
L:
U ~ '~ °~ v m
C ~ ~' ~ N
N .C
U s~ C
O cv a
i
D
~ ~
a.~ ~ y
~--~ C a~ °~
ry y
y ~
cua 'h
~+
~ -d
o
N
.b
.b
N ~ ~
.C ~
\ vi
O
'
~
~
A
~
.~
O
t
"
~
~+ id
~y y o
~ O
'
v, ~
M y N C ~
'n C 6 A v ~
U
y id ~ .b
~ is
~ p }
~
om
OA.[~
~ o ci ~
U
~ ~ W ~
y ~, ~ ~
v ~ a~ ~ ~ ca O O 1~ ~
~ C v
' a~ y v bA ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ C '~ C C h' spsa~ ++ ca ~ w w O ,~ v O C
a ~ a~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~
o •~
o~ ~
~
~ ~ °; '~ °
o v
'S b ~ o
5 . -a ~
'S `
" v.b
'S
~ ~ ~
~
a a
a o ~'
~ ~ 'd v o
o '0 ~
0 ~
, . b ~ „ .
G ~ ~
' 5
~~ ,~ ~.n u b •~ o R, C-. C ~ h ~.. C
C .~ U ~ ~ ab ~ o
~
~~ ~ ~~w ub o ~C
v
cd
!.C q a
c~
Y CC
~ ~ ~ O
^
W
~ ~ ~~
y ~
N
'G
O Q ~;
'b
~
U ~ '~
a
+
O. o ~ cd
N O
C W
~ O
~ y
~
a
~ U O U
~
~ U
p" ~d CQ
.b ti
~ b ' ca u y
~' i
~ ~ ,~ N
0
+~
~
apte
O cd a
i
b^^A' ~ ~ .
~
''' ~ w
h
U H I
,~ ~~ ~
~ ~ Q
'~ 7~-1 N ~
~ ~ 0 N
c~~,' .
BBC B~~
O ~ Lj
aui C•~ ca v
v~ u
~ ~
A C ~
q
~
y
. i
F~ ai a
bA i
i
~
d
O C R
U u.o C
p
`C o o u u
~.~'~~
.-+ N M
tV CV cV
M M M
cn
u
v.
u
C
U
N
~ O
~ C
O p
~, v
,~ 'f~ C
v
~ o
~ ~ v
.b q A.
avi ~ .
m "
~ ~ ~~
~„~ '7 H ca
u ~ C
,~O.r a~~
'i+ y N .~
CQ a ~
O .-i , y
N .
s~~
. ~ ~; a
o ~ 't'
'~ ~ o ~
,~ O ~ o
~ U U cd
O qQd GV ~I~
N .`~' .~
~.
w
v ~
Q~ p
Y .~
U M
:~
~,
(V
~ n,
w ,S
Z
M
~1 M
!q
c~
y
Q ~ w
O s+
~''!
'C1 ~( ""
w .~ ~' Lam` O q I+ ~
~ ~
O •~ v ~
~ N C u p,~
~ b
y _
~'' sNi Q ~ ~
U ~
~ u ~ u
+-~ C
y N U O ~
~
~
~ w
V'
• ~ O
°~ ' y R+ O ~
O C ~
C
b
~ ir
a
i
.
~
°
~ w
i
a
~ o ~ v ~ a
•~
` ~ o.N ~ ~
~
~
C w O O B H
O Q sue
~i ~~ U
~~~~ N
N .
a v
u
~ ~ ~ ~
~ v' ~ ,U
i~1 ~i
aui
•~ vo
o a
i ai
'~ a~i c'Ja
C 'b
~ .
~
~ a ,u, d ~ J
+~
~ ,
b +-~ O ~ ~
Q
_'
^G ~"' '
' F
' .C
aui
~ /~O^ ~~ v • ' ~
~~~O.IIIp F/
y
~ ~ ~ "~
~ m ,+~ ~0..
u
~ "
'~ cue W ~.+ ce O
~ m ca O ~ v,
v
'~ "o C./) O ~ F-~
O N
~
a
,.
d
~ ~ ~ ~ v w
R~ p
~+'~ O cCa
~ ~
~ u
O O 'F] ~~ w
~
N f'.. '~ ~ v N O A W '~ L.' N G O ~ U
P, '~ a~ ti ~
v
~ ~r ~ O ~ ~ ~
v O u ~ ~ O
u
C~~
V] ~ '
N u b~ G C
~
d
~ pU (n
~ C~ b
d ~
~ pu CL
J. 7
-I c
a (
cC .~ U
Q
u
.~
N
u
N
N
61
U
O
A+
W
b
O
'L7
'C7
N
cd
U
H
o`~i
.~
ti
.~
c.~
V
M
M
0
U J
C
b ~
u 'J
~`
cn
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~, "
~ ~° o~" o
O~•~ ~~ D
cd y
N ti a ~ Q
~ ~" ao'b v
C ~ °~
a~
7 O ~ ~ C
p w v
'~, ~ O U ~ ~
O ~ ,~ '~ v u
av '°q ~ ~
o aav ~ a~
~ ub~ h~ aCi
'ti°~~"~~
v ~,~ O~
~~ ~ ~
yw ~ a~~
v
0
w
M:J
W
v
V
C
c~
U
~« '
~~
N
W
L~
L
C
U
i-1
ai o ~
o ;~ o v ~,
~ N o R,e,o~v
v~ O v h '~ U
~ Y cYd a'_7 b
'~ C 4~ ~ O ~ y rn
~~.~ U~ ~
~~y! N
u ~+ a~ O b
LOla O id '~ ~"' O 6~1 ~
~ ~,
C oA ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ w ~ O ~
U ~ ~
i-~ V
tt a~
~ ~ H ~, ca O ~. v ~
~ v ~
w
~~
Q+'~ CC y ~ F" ~ ~ v,
A. w u p p~ 4+ ~ ~
U~ p. ~ y 0 y 0 0
'~ ~ ~ °"'b ~ a. o
p .o y u C Oti ~
f~ ~ G
A. ~. '~ ~ °u A. ~, CJ
N
U
.~
h
U
.~
N
b
'b
v
N
cd
U
C
N
d'
M
v -~ ~ ,~°'
;email °'~aa~~0 ~
HI ~ Y . a ~ p H~
O 777~~~ C N ~n `~
v y a~
~ ~ v O ~ A. ~ L'~i C
~ ~ y
O ~ aCi v ~ ~ b ~ p,
b rNi, ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ o
u ~ ~" U y
~~ y 0 U ,~; O F-+ y
~tbA~ A~p~~'~ bAVQ
o~a'ox~ ; ao +. a
~.., 'b C~ O w ~ -C
w~ d O U~ O b a~
O
-dada.-~oaaA'~
~,
~. ~~~
°a~'~°~o°v ~
Ci U s-i ~ a+ sa N ~ U
U O ~ U
~ Paw as-acn"
U
.~
a`~i
a
Q ~ o
w o
w '~C
~ v :~ id +/
"' ~ ~ -o w ~
O ~,
a~ ~ q q ~ a~i
a~
aCi~'b ~'~~~
O A. y ~ ~ ~ o UR+
O ~ ~ a~ ~ 'b ~ ,b
N ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ U
.a
b y C y o U cCa
~+ O ~ +~ s.i a~ CC
p., ~ u
C ~ ~ b
}. a~i ~ GU ~ ~ A-. O
R+ C c~a C ~ O ~, OU
P-. w
ago ~.~ °' a ~ y
U O .V ~ C ~ O
~~~`~~
u caUf-'. o~ h
N
V
.~
i%~
a~
U
~_
O
N
N
O
Q
p
.p
cd
.~ rr
U O
O ~,
'~ O
w
O ~
N
U
~ ~
A,~
~' .~U.,
~ ~
M
d;
M
r
C
.~
O
U_
W
O
W
O
w
H
-~
W
z
0
H
c7
H
Q
U
w
O
v~
W
a
H
~
++ a+
~
U ip.+
cd
U xp+
td
U
r.
O
U '~ !d ~ cd
~~
N
h
N
fA
N
N
`~ a a ~
N w ~; N
.
N ~ ~ N N
~ ~ ~
. ~ O N ~+ v
U ~ (r +~+
ca (sp
~
~ v ~.Vi Vi N O ~ ~
~
a
~ yv',~ ~ v ~ ~ 'O b Li ~..y
v . ~ ~ ca O v ~ O GL y+ ~^!- 'N CA ~ ~ Ca
~ ~ 4.'~ O "
• ~ ' ~ C ~
v c
y
ce p
L~', O
P "~ ~ ~ b!J C C +v+ i; ivy
~ `q~ cd ~ ~ sOi ~ '~ O v7 v
C O
.
C 3 ~ '~ v y v ~
~
+~.~ ;~ N ; ~ O C '~ C ~ i 'd ~ v, ~
O • c~ avi ,a+.. O O. a ~
ca C ,~.' 'T) .'~J. v'
N v r.
u ~, ~ O v ~ ~ ``''
v
'b N
P~ ~. ~ ~ W
O ~
v
C q C
~
O bA id ~ • ~ a, p p ~
w
O av. ~ '37 "d ~ ~ ~i O 0 ^
c
e a
i
x y ~ v U ~ d N ti Q
' i
n ~ y ~ ~ v v ,' J, w
C
o .
`" o~
q
a "
~
U
u a ~°
C
O
' o
b
o
~
O y ~ v 0
v ,r 'C O ~ ~~r~' `~+ '~
' ,
w b
N ,
~~ q
'L7 i W ~i ~. v b ~
.~ C ~ ~. v y
v o ~ v p
o v ,.~
C v C ~~ N 'O
'~ v v ca v ~ p
~ v w ;~ O" u w
cad '~ avi `~ N C C ~ ~G ~A . w
~
~ ~ Q O '~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ p ~
•n x o~'~ h ~ a~'~ v °
+'
~'
'
~7
'`~ ~
~ ~~ o'~F"~~'~•
.
v
~ ~ v~~Un C~°o~ a~ ~a~~
'
~ v
'
'
~ ~
~
N .b
a
~
~ ~,
Y ~ O
~
+ a.
c v +~ 40 C v
i ~ C
O
C
y ~ '"'
~ O
•N
' ~;
+~
+
v
~ i3 v
+
O
~+ ~"' N ca b}
y
~
~
v N
N ~
~
y
'
A ~
•
C ~
y
G
C ' J
.~
U ,
N v O'b C
~
v B O
'
. ~
N
~ N N O
~ b,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~'' u
u
~
U A. ++ U y .
~ ~ ~ H
.~, p" ~ ~ yy q ~ cy ca h O
O ~
O
~ "d
v
~ ~
~ sa U ~
-' O ~
v +Nr C q ~ ~ u i ~ . ~ N
'~
v
~
~
C
v ~ .~~ ~
v
.
'~ ~ ~. v
~ ~'
^~ C
17 +~ U
'~
y
U N ~ ~
.n
~ ~
C,
O" ' '~ O U
.
,
~ '3 O C
~ ~ •~ ~
'
v
.
~ 'b ~ ~ O v ^d ~ '~ Q. ~
~''
'"
~
y .
,
N
~ O O ~ N ~ ~ y O ~.
'~'
- ~
s
v
~ w .
.~
~ ~ ~ u ~ O t'i `'"' +~ ti
~
v
v
~'
~
~
,~ ~ m L
i
.~ ,a C
O O v 0
~
~
~
~
~ ~
+ ~
[-~ w
~ O w +y
C O C ~n
~
~ ~
~ C U
O
v
i
+
i ~
'O
~ `~ C C y ~ 'Cc '~ O ti v
0 0 0
-~ .'
J 'a
7 ,a C w '
cd ca ~ .n 47 x a
N Z ~.~ id ~ A. ~~
~
~O C
ca
V C
ce
U
L
~ O C C
U fd ~ ~ ~ ~
°~ ~ ~ ~
N
N N
N
a ~
C 'C
y ~
."
•N ~ .~
N c1
v
~ Q
as
~
a~ ~
~ ~~
C a
y on
,~ C
o O i ~
a
-d ' N
~
~ v
~ w
~
Y
'~ ~ ~
C ~ ~" C
u
cs v ~,
~ en `+~ y " N
~ o "C
~ ~ ~ u~
a ~ C
~~
•N .a d O
c
'b .n U ~
'C7
~ O
b
.
O ON ~ ~QO~
~ '3 O v
~~ 0 ~ '~ ~ C Q
' 'd
'v
ca p,
.~ v ~ w
o N ~ ~ ~ ~
~'
~
~
~
~ b~,
~ ~
C
r-1 nl 'a7 F
~:
M M M M
N
r
E
F-
h
b
a
a
.~
0
U
U
W
W
O
F~
W
H
O
W
~W
!-~
H
/~
v
H
H
A
~"'~
w
O
N
w
a
H
a~
~
~
o
p ~ cn
U
~~ cCa
`~ a
~ ~
a~ ~ ~ a a °A•a ~ d ~
N
,
N N
'~ •~ b Ci N ce C 'b
s..-.
~
~
N N ~y N w y y y y t,,, .
~'~'°' ~ ewo N'~ o,r~'~ °'.~ o o
~•~ ~
~~ ~ ~ a~
'b on
o
~,d
w
7C{ ~ p rbA ~' O t~ O . jy v cd
N ~ +.' ~ c~3 ~ pp
•
d
~ ~
N
O
c
. a
0 0 '~ o ~ .~. N ~ ~' on.~ ~
.~ u •~
~
~ ~
~a o N o o a~ °' av N ti ~•~ ~
cva O ~ '~ A, ~ ~ .~'~ ~ O ~ ~ a~i O w
O
~• p ~ p ~ ' ai ~ N ~ y D
~
,~ ,
.
a~~~~ ~~ ~-O,b.°.:bw N C O C
~
~
r
ca ~
~a~~ v +~ O ~ v y ~ O~ ,
-, ~
Q' d ~O ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ y~j ~ YG 7J N
~, ¢~ w ~ U O
v ~~ o ~,~ o'~ o n o
,~~~ a
~
y 6J N ~ ' ~ N 'O ~ N ~ w •~ ~ 6N1 ~ ~
O ~ b cad 'b W ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ •~~. ~ ~ Q N
~
~
N ~
N Qy U N 0 ['~ N F 4J ~
[~ ~ f-~
o
w
v
~ o
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~~
n N
C
C
•~
U
O
~
M
N ce
~
~
y Q
M
~!
G ~
CO ~ C
O
q o C
,~
~ "d
C
~ C 'd
N
Q)
i. ~~., ~
~
U
FC{ N H
W ~
M M
C ~
t7 W
•~
~ ~
N
N
a a
•~ o
a v ~ ~,
~ ~ ~.~ ~, ~
~ °~' o
N cn ~ U '"
+~ a
~ ai ~ C w p-'
.a~. `~ ~ (~ 'y 'b u
~ ~ ~~4'y G.~ cd
and A. Ll,' ~"' w
~; y N 6 ~ ~ '°'-' o0
y 17 ca ~ D, ++ bA
b a~i " }'.a ~w'N
U ~ ~ .~1 t~i N ~'' N
~ ~ ~
.~ q „ ~F UCV
Q C ~'d'7 O p •~ a~
~ ,~
y y O CO c~.~ .u c/1 .~ w
.O O ,~ ~ ~ ~ N p b
~ ~ b
~. -cs .~ a w ~ N
N v cn ~ ~ G.
~ I~
.~
U
N
O •~
~ v
~ ~
'~
'~
~
,b C
O
O
Y
•~
~ V
O q
O
U
+-' ~+
5
C
a~
~ R
:
+
~ O
V ~
~ ~
D
s bA
z O~A
zb
.-+ N
~ tfj tf'j
M M M
M
r
ci)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
~~
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The proposed Project is the third and final phase of the Terrabay Development.
Development at Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay
Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase ITerrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single-
family residences in townhome and detached configurations. The Village and Paxk was
completed in 1997 and is 100 percent occupied. Phase I also includes the construction
and furnishing of the Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and
payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for day care services. Phase II consists of Terrabay
Woods (Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family detached units; Peninsula Mandalay,
112-unit condominium; Mandalay Pointe consisting of 70 paired units (35 side-by-side
duplexes). Mandalay Heights, Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe are constructed
and fully occupied. Phase II includes the conveyance of the 26-acre "Preservation
Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno Mountain
County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004.
Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6.22-acre "Recreation
Parcel" to the City of South San Francisco. Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have
been installed and include: geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches,
hydroseeding and creation and compaction of a development pad. The conveyance of
the Recreation Parcel is anticipated to occur in 2005. Phase III, the proposed Project, is
a mixed use development.
The entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous
environmental documents beginning in 1982.
1. In 1982, the Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
certified by the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the
environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific
Plan.
Terrahay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:,rranmenta! Impact Report 1-1
7. Introduction
2. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development
Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996
SEIR a supplement to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the
development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the
Terrabay Development Agreement to February 2007.
3. In 1998/99, the Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact keport
and Final EIB (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the
City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II
and Phase III, the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard
realignment and impacts and mitigations for wetlands and cultural resources..
The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial
development including a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use. Table 1-1
shows the proposed commercial development program for Phase III.
TABLE 1.1: PHASE III 1998/99 SEIR LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Square Footage Land Use
Hotels (3) 235,000 - 280,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms
Restaurants (4) 12,000 -18, 000 450 Seats
Retail (3) 6,000 -10,000 Service Retail
Mixed Use 30,000 - 35,000 Retail, Restaurant, Office
Parking 1,760 Parking Spaces
Total 283,000 - 343,000
4. An Addendum to the 1998-99 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Deport
SEIR (2000 Addendum) resulted in the City entitling the Phase III site as shown
in Table 1-2.
TABLE 1.2: 2000 ADDENDUM LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Square Footage Land Use
Office 657,500 Office, 150-seat performing arts theatre,
100-child day care center
Retail 7,500 Ground floor support retail
Parking 1,785 Parking Spaces
Total 665,000
Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR and approval of the 2000 Addendum,
approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (Preservation Parcel) was dedicated to
San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The
conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the
Terrabay Pbare III Project Draft Supplemental En:7ronmentallmpact Report 1-2
1. Intmductiou
City of South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual
Release and Settlement Agreement.
1.2 PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (DSEIR)
This 2005 DSEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Project that could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program
from what was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The Initial Study (2005) prepared on the
proposed Project focused out environmental topics that needed no further analysis from
that in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to the current development proposal for
Phase III. This 2005 DSEIR identifies potential new or intensified effects which are
specific to the proposed Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR.
Additionally, this 2005 DSEIR identifies effects that are anticipated to be less than those
that would have resulted from the project proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR.
This DSEIR tiers off of the 1998/99 SEIR. As allowed under Section 21093 of the
CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports will avoid repetitive
discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports. Tiering is
appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each
level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous
environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports. The CEQA
Guidelines and statutes encourage tiering. The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous
environmental documents from Terrabay, in particular the 1998/99 SEIR.
The 2005 DSEIR is intended to be used as an informational document and is subject to
public review, agency review and consideration by the City of South San Francisco. The
purpose of this 2005 DSEIR is to identify potentially significant effects of the Project on
the physical environment, to determine the extent to which these effects could be
reduced or avoided and to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives to the Project. The
EIR need not be exhaustive in its analysis of a project (Section 15151 CEQA Guidelines)
but should analyze important issues to a sufficient degree that permitting and approving
agencies can make informed decisions. The EIR is an information document that in
itself does not determine whether a project will be approved.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco, as the Lead
Agency, prepared an Initial Study (2005) on the Project (Section 15063 CEQA Guidelines).
On the basis of the Initial Study, the City determined that a SEIR was required. A copy
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En~ironmentat Impact Report 1-3
1. Introduction
of the Initial Study is included in Appendix A. Effects found not to be significant in the
Initial Study and thus omitted from analysis in the SEIR addressed aesthetics (except for
light and glare); agricultural resources; biological resources; cultural resources; geology
and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and
planning; mineral resources; population and housing; and recreation.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this DSEIR was circulated to the State
Clearinghouse and Responsible Agencies on May 9, 2005 in accordance with Sections
15082 of the CEQA Guidelines and is included in Appendix A. The NOP was circulated
to local, state and federal agencies and other interested parties. The responses to the
NOP. helped to identify the major environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR. A
copy of the public comment letters in response to the NOP is included in Appendix B.
PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT SEIR
The 2005 DSEIR will be distributed for public review for 45 days, during which time
comments on its accuracy and completeness may be submitted by local, state and federal
agencies, public interest groups, and concerned individuals. Written comments should
be submitted to:
Allison Knapp Wollam
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
315 Maple Avenue
City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, California 94083
All comments on the 2005 DSEIR received during the public comment period will be
addressed in a Response to Comments document. That document and this DSEIR
combined will form the Final SEIR (FSEIR) to be considered by the City for
certification as complete and accurate.
PROJECT APPROVALS
Approval of the Project, as proposed or revised, would be accompanied by written
findings for each significant adverse environmental effect identified in the DSEIR.
Findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding
and will indicate that: 1) mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect; 2) mitigation measures within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and either have been or should be adopted by that
public agency; or 3) specific impacts are unavoidable and substantially unmitigable, but
Tarabay Phan III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 1-4
1. Introduction
are considered acceptable because overriding considerations indicate the benefits of the
project outweigh the adverse effects.
The City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (NIIvIlZP) at the
time the City makes findings to approve the Project. The MMRP identifies all the
mitigation measures required to construct, implement and operate the Project in order
to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The MMRP will be prepared in conjunction with
the FSEIR. This program is not required to be adopted until the time of approval of the
Project.
The Project would require City approval of the following:
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000
• General Plan Amendment
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning)
• Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site
• Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for
Phase III
• Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and
extended and amended in 1996 and 2001
• Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site
components
• Design review for Phase III
• Grading Permits for Phase III
Approvals, actions and permits would be needed from State agencies and regional utility
providers in addition to Ciry actions. For more information regarding Project approvals,
see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.
1.4 CONTENTS OF THIS DRAFT EIR
This DSEIR contains the following chapters:
• Summary chapter presents a Project overview including the Project description,
environmental consequences and mitigation measures, Project alternatives and
issues of public concern. A table is included which summarizes DSEIR findings.
• Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the
DSEIR and the review and certification process.
Terrabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 1-5
1. Introduction
• Chapter 2 provides a description of the Project, its location, the applicant's
objectives in proposing the Project, specific land planning features and required
approvals.
• Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the environmental effects of the Project. The
"Setting" sections of this chapter identify existing conditions relevant to each topic
(e.g. traffic, air quality, etc.). The "Impacts and Mitigation" section includes a
discussion of potential impacts. Each impact has been numbered to correspond to
the mitigation measure.
• Chapter 4 discusses alternatives to the Project.
• Chapter 5 provides CEQA-required discussions regarding cumulative impacts;
growth-inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant
irreversible environmental changes; and effects found not to be significant.
• Chapter 6 identifies persons involved in the DSEIR preparation.
• Chapter 7 lists references and persons consulted during the DSEIR preparation.
Terrabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Srtpplemental En:mm~mental Impact Ref~ort 1-6
!
;
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES
Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of Terrabay, the third
and final phase of a planned mixed use community. The Project sponsor's objectives are
to:
• Develop one of the most important and highly visible sites in South San Francisco
into a high quality gateway Project.
• Create a genuine community gathering place that promotes synergy of living,
working, shopping and playing.
• Anticipate and meet specific market demands for real estate, while being responsive
to City policy objectives.
• Derive ecological and transportation benefits and other efficiencies inherent in a
mixed use Project.
• Meet residential and employee lifestyle needs in the geographical areas served by the
Project.
• Foster a comfortable and traditional experience by creating a sense of place.
• Deliver a destination mixed-use Project that serves both local and regional needs.
• Produce a Project that is consistent with the objectives of the South San Francisco
General Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located in the northern portion of South San Francisco at the base of
San Bruno Mountain. The site fronts Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities
Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft SuppkmentalEnvironmentallmpact Report 2-1
2. Project Description
by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north and Terrabay Phases I and II
to the west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. Access to the Project site is
from Bayshore Boulevard (see Figure 2.1-1 Project Vicinity Map, and Figure 2.1-2
Project Site Plan).
2.3 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been
graded for a fire road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging
area by the City for the City's Oyster Point Flyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it
remains undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and
associated piping.
2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases.
Phase A consists of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan
to allow mixed use on the Terrabay Phase III site. The development standards
applicable to the Project will be contained in the Terrabay Specific Plan. Should the Ciry
Council adopt the Specific Plan by Ordinance, the development standards will govern
the Project and will serve to amend the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. The
environmental documentation is this 2005 SEIR. Phase B, following City action on the
Phase A legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the
Terrabay Precise Plan, the Amended and Restated. Development Agreement and any
remaining minor amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase B,
actions and entitlements, would be covered by the 2005 SEIR.
In general, in response to the Project site's topography, the development would be
stepped into the hillside. The residential, office and retail would be built over five levels
of parking. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along
Bayshore Boulevard. All vehicular entrances would access the parking garage. A fourth
vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard. Mandalay Terrace
would be accessed from two separate entrances at each end of the development.
Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way. At its north end,
Mandalay Terrace would include one traffic lane providing ingress (13 feet wide) and
three 12-foot wide traffic lanes providing one right turn, one through and one left turn
lane. As Mandalay Terrace continues to the south, it becomes a 26-foot drive aisle with
surface parking on both sides, then a 23-foot wide. drive aisle with parking on one side,
and then returns to a 26-foot wide drive aisle with parking on both sides where it then
enters the lower level parking structure. Two entrances (located south of the Mandalay
Terrace entrance) along Bayshore Boulevard provide direct access to the parking
structure. The first of these two entrances consists of two traffic lanes providing ingress
Terrabay Ahase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 2-2
® Project Site
® Terrabay
® Preservation Parcel dedicated to
County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain
County and State Park -August 11, 2004
Source: Placemakers
Figure 2.1-1
Project Vicinity Map
N
o iooo zooo
r.
Scale in Feet
:~,
{
r i-, ~ t
i ~ 1~at
t
.~, , 7 +~
6:, ~ ~ ~~' ~ .'j
_ ~ ~~, r r~
l ~ ~ ] w5~
~~~ ~ i P~I
~ ~.i
~~' ~ ~~' ~
s ~ J '.~
~, _~~:~~
r~ ~ ti
~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
ti~ z ~~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~' ~~
y
~ ~ ,.
~~
~~
~~
i
1.
r u..Y . , ~,~ ~ ~
'~~
N
H
cV +~+
~ U1
w~ o
2. Project Description
(26 six feet wide) and two traffic lanes providing egress (26 feet wide) separated by a
median. A second entrance located farther to the south consists of one traffic lane
providing ingress (13 feet wide) and one lane providing egress (13 feet wide) separated
by a median. Figure 2.1-3 Project Development Area shows Mandalay Terrace and the
vehicular entrances.
Project development would conform to the Wetlands Mitigation Plan (VUMI') for the
Terrabay development. The WMP was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
on July 3, 2001. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency with respect to
implementing the WMP. The WMP mitigates the 0.10 acre of wetlands on the Project
site that would be filled and the 0.68 acre of wetlands that was filled as a result of the
City's Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp improvement project. The wetlands are
being mitigated on the Preservation Parcel
As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters axe currently being
mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of
two drainage channels in the Preservation Parcel which was evaluated in the 1998/99
SEIR. The current site plan indicates a small area of approximately 500 square feet of
newly establishing potential wetlands could also be affected by improvements at the
Mandalay Terrace intersection with Bayshore Boulevard. This small area of potential
wetland was created following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where
surface water was diverted along the base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings
and rushes were planted in the area. Because access improvements at Mandalay Terrace
would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would be
relocated during installation of the created wetlands on the Preservation Parcel as part of
implementing the WMP. The loss of this small area of newly forming potential wetlands
is not considered significant. It is worthy of note that the plantings were to have been
placed entirely on the Preservation Parcel and while plantings were made there, some
were inadvertently planted on the Buffer Parcel, the location of the 500 square feet in
question. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR require a
wetlands mitigation plan and salvage plantings. These mitigation measures apply to the
currently proposed Project. Therefore, the plantings placed on the Buffer Parcel will, in
compliance with the mitigation measures, be placed on the Preservation Parcel as a part
of the WMP.
Table 2.1-1 presents a breakdown of land uses.
RETAIL COMPONENT
Restaurants would be located near the central plaza which includes a garden and water
feature. A multiplex cinema and a grocery store (below the cinema) are proposed south
of the central plaza and retail space is situated along anorth-south axis. Typical retail
Terrabay Phase III Projec! Drat[ Supplemental Enturonmenta! Impact Report 2-S
~ s
N
U
~~ ':.
~ ~x ~ 41ANDACAY ~
x , ~ o.
~~
1.D -----~ W ` 3
m~ ,
~ ~` ~~
+ ~
Es ~,,,,.-- " ~ ~ ~
~A 4
1
}
\~\ --+2a~-_
~~ : ~,
~,,, ~~ ~
Lk' O n
./ ~
~~_
~~
~ t ~ ,~
$~ ~ ~ ,~ r 1
~ ~~. ~ 1
V ~~ ,.
~.
~. ~ ~ `°
,r ~~',
~H
.~
0
f~
M C
~~'.
eV O
~ '-'
~n
wQ
.o
2. Project Description
TABLE 2.1-1: TERRABAY PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use
Phase A
Retail 357,500 Restaurant, Retail, Multiplex
Cinema, Grocery Store
Residential 475,000
Market Rate 248 Dwelling Units
Below Market Rate 103 Dwelling Units
Service Areas 70,000 Loading, Storage, Mechanical,
Restrooms, Supervised Play Area
Phase B
Office 295,500 Office
Total 1,198,000
spaces would be 20 feet from floor-to-floor with 24 to 28 feet of street frontage.
Sidewalk widths would vary from 20 to 25 feet and provide tenants with an opportunity
to join the streetscape with display, planting and seating. Streetscapes would be rendered
primarily in glass, fabricated metals and stone.
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT
The residential component of the Project would include a 22-story high-rise tower
containing 180 market rate condominium units. The tower would rise to a height of
about 250 feet above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of
approximately 360 feet above msl due to its hillside location. The tower would be
constructed of concrete, glass and metal. The base of the tower would include retail
space and possibly a restaurant. The residential tower would be located at the northern
portion of the site.
Two low-rise residential buildings would be located at the westerly portion of the
Project site. The south building would contain 68 market rate Townhome units. The
units would contain two and three bedrooms. The townhome units would be of a
contemporary architectural design in four, five and six-story arrangements over one-
story of retail and one level of parking. Visually, these units frame the west side of the
development and would appear as five- to six-story buildings.
The north building would contain 88 one and two bedroom flats of which 67 would be
priced and available for moderate income households. The 21 market rate units would
be income restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent) should Phase B
be constructed with a second 180 residential tower. The flats would also be a
Terrabay Phase III Projec[ Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7
2. Project Description
contemporary architectural design in one four-story building over retail. The north wing
would be adjacent to and at the heart of the town center.
A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be unrestricted
and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident parking spaces would
be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces will be available. The 15
market rate units would be income restricted for low income households (50 -80 percent
of median) should Phase B be constructed with a second 180-unit residential tower.
OFFICE COMPONENT
A 17-story high-rise building containing office space would be located at the southerly
portion of the Project site. The top of the building would be approximately 220 feet
above the Main Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 340 feet
above mean sea level (msl) due to its hillside location. The facade would be comprised
of a glass curtain wall system with metal and stone detail.
Project Phasing After Final Legislation and Entitlement Actions
Project construction would be organized into two phases after successful completion of
all legislative, entitlement and environmental requirements. Phase A would include retail
and residential. Phase A would include some parking for the future Phase B. Specifically,
below the Main Street level, four floors of parking for the office, together with the
service/loading area for the grocery store would be constructed in Phase A. Therefore,
Phase A would need to include the structural foundations supporting these Phase A
uses, as well as the subsequent Phase B
Phase A is estimated to start construction in mid 2006 with completion in the end of
2009. Phase B would start construction within one year of the completion of Phase A
with completion in 2010.
Project Amenities
Phase A
• A Public Art Program;
• Water Features and Fountains;
• An Outdoor Performance Area;
• A 150-seat Performing Arts Center shared with a cinema use;
• 67 Moderate Income (Below Market Rate) units;
• Transportation Demand Management Plan;
• Childcare fees for the retail and residential elements;
• A Valley Trail;
• Supervised play area for children;
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:uronmentallmpact Report 2-8
2. Project Description
• An emergency operations/training facility shared with the lobby of the Phase B
hotel, office building or residential building
• History markers at various vantage points within the Project site; and
• A history walk along the western boundary of the site.
Phase Bwould include one of the following amenities:
• Childcare fee associated with the Project; or,
• A childcare center developed with the office building (if desired by the office
building user).
2.5 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS
ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Phase A
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000
• General Plan Amendment
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning)
Phase B
• Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site
• Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for
Phase III
• Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and
extended and amended in 1996 and 2001
• Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site
components
• Design review for Phase III
• Grading Permits for Phase III
ACTIONS BY THE STATE
Department of Fish and Game
• Stream Alteration Agreement
Caltrans
• Encroachment Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board
• NPDES General Permit
• Approval of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Tcrrabay Pbrue III Project Draft SxpplementalEnvironmentallmpact Beport 2-9
2. Project Description
ACTIONS BY UTILITIES
California Water Service Company
• Water main and access easements
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department
Tcrmbay Phase III Project Draft SuppkmentalEnvironmentallmpact Report 2-10
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the 2005 DSEIR addresses specific topics to be evaluated in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. For
each topic discussed (e.g., Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality), the following two
subsections are included: "Setting" and Impacts and Mitigation Measures." Under
"Setting" the text provides a discussion of existing conditions. Under "Impacts and
Mitigation Measures," the text includes sections on: 1) Significance Criteria; 2) Impact
Overview; and 3) Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The
Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures section includes numbered
impacts which correspond to specific mitigation measures. Unless the impacts are noted
as significant and unavoidable (SU), the recommended mitigation measures would
reduce the identified impacts to less than significant. Thus, after each mitigation
measure, the reader will find (LTS).
The specific criteria for determining if the impacts would be significant are identified
under "Significance Criteria." These criteria are taken from-the CEQA Guidelines, City of
South San Francisco standards and responsible and trustee agencies.
Terrabay Phase III Pr jecl Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Repare 3-1
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
3.1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from development
of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It 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 on this network in
contrast to the currently approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum),
and measures required to mitigate the proposed Terrabay Phase III circulation and
parking impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section draw on the 333 Oyster Point
Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and
Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand
Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane
Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99 SEIR traffic analyses. Both the
1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have been prepared by the Crane
Transportation Group.
For the analysis of the currently proposed Terrabay Phase III Project, local
transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios:
• Existing (spring 2005)
• Year 2010 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently
proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development
on the Terrabay Phase III site)
• Year 2010 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently
proposed Project replacing the approved project)
• Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions without the currently
proposed Project, but with the approved 665,000 square foot office development
on the Terrabay Phase III site)
• Year 2020 Base Case plus the currently proposed Phase III (with the currently
proposed Project replacing the approved project)
For year 2010 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following
condition based on current development timing or specific Project development
proposals for the Terrabay site:
• Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005 to
2020 for analysis purposes unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All
specific future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after each
impact.
Terrabay Phase III Prq'ect Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-1
3.1 Trallic and Circulation
SETTING
Local Circulation The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is
System illustrated on Figure 3.1-1 and described below.
U.S. Highway 101(LJ.S.101) is the principal freeway providing access to the Project
area. U.S.101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco with auxiliary lanes
provided between some interchanges. Access to U.S.101 in the Project area is provided
by the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange and by select on- and off-ramps connecting
to Bayshore Boulevard (to the north) and Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue (to the
south). The Oyster Point interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north-
and southbound U.S.101, as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp
and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque
Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just south of the Dubuque Avenue connection
to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp extends north as the fourth leg of
the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection .Southbound
U.S.101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-ramp connecting
to Bayshore Boulevard along the Terrabay Phase III site frontage (soon to be
signalized). Northbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is stop sign controlled at this
location as is off-ramp traffic. A northbound U.S.101 off-ramp to northbound
Bayshore Boulevard is provided just north of the Project area. U-turns are prohibited
on northbound Bayshore Boulevard well into the City of Brisbane. Anew southbound
on-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at the existing off-ramp intersection is
under construction and will be open by mid 2005. There are auxiliary lanes on
northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on
southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 carries an average daily
traffic (ADT) volume of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000
vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard.
Hillside Boulevard is afour=lane roadway in the Project area along the base of San
Bruno Mountain. The roadway intersects Sister Cities Boulevard about one-third of the
distance along the Terrabay Phase I and II site boundary and then extends to the
southeast as a two-lane roadway through a residential neighborhood towards downtown
South San Francisco. It ends at an intersection with Linden Avenue which connects
directly to Airport Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard has signalized intersections with
Stonegate Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Linden Avenue. It also has an all-way-stop
intersection with Lincoln Street.
From just east of Lincoln Street to Sister Cities Boulevard, the four-lane section of
roadway with a raised median located immediately adjacent to the Terrabay Phases 1 and
2 sites is designated the "Hillside Boulevard Extension." The two-lane roadway running
just south and parallel to the extension (adjacent to the single family units on
Terrabay Pbcue III Project Draft Supplemental Enezronmental Impact Report 3.1-2
<<a
~Qo~c
a
a
A7~~ m
m~o~
S ,C
4
w
o ~ e
c
m
E- b
~ C7
U
W W a,,~,
`9 w
~ ~ a~6
P
a X40
d c
~
m
a
y
~ ~
Jc
U~~ rb
`Qi
.y d
g~~J
a~b,4a.DU
a
5~ ~~
~\~
a
a
C
~~
a
m
a
.
y
a'~binujsa
4~
~~~
~0
~y.
~\
a w
~o o°P
s ~~
? .
~.5y
~ ~ ~
° 'A) a
F
-
O m
`
o Z
z ,°
~
d
F-
~~
8
c~
0
A
z
F
r-I ~
e"~ ~
M '~
w~
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
the south side of the street) is designated Hillside Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard
Extension has signalized intersections with Jefferson Street/South San Francisco Drive
(the Terrabay Phase I site access) and Sister Cities Boulevard.
Sister Cities Boulevatd is a four-lane divided arterial roadway located along the
southern Terrabay Phase II site boundary. It extends from its signalized intersection
with Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard on the east to its
signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension/Hillside Boulevard on the
west. The one intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard (with South San Francisco
Drive) is signalized and provides access into the Terrabay Phase II site. South San
Francisco Drive extends west from this Phase II intersection into the Phase I site where
it is paved and intersects with Hillside Boulevard Extension at Jefferson Street.
Bayshore Boulevard is primarily afour-lane arterial roadway extending north from
South San Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west side of
U.S.101. South of Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as
Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of
the Terrabay Phase III site, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction,
narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-
ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are underway to make Bayshore Boulevard afour-
lane roadway adjacent to the Terrabay site.
Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is anorth-south arterial roadway located
parallel to and west of U.S.101. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area.
OystetPointBoulevardis a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore
Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the U.S.101
i
freeway and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway
overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median.
Dubuque Avenue is a frontage road running along the east side of U.S.101 from
Oyster Point Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two to three travel lanes along
its entire length except from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway
northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp, where up to eight lanes and a narrow
raised median are provided. It has signalized intersections with Grand Avenue, the
freeway ramps, and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Study Intersections In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project, the AM and/or PM peak hour
operations of seven existing or future intersections in South San Francisco and two
existing intersections in the City of Colma have been studied (see Figure 3.1-2).
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Entnronmentallmpact Report 3.1-4
~~~ g
3°i,
~ ~ a
z ~~Q .G
..
• ~,:. o
~.
0
~,.„„~~
d N
C =
0
~~
.~
~ J
d ~,
m pnra aautp~mB c
t~+ '
P•'•It7 ~'- a ,p i R
rotes ~' o ~ LLQ
~ tq T ~ >
4! O t
0 ~ L Ord
~zm~ t
v
~ b
C
'6 C
O 'o q ` o
r ~ a %
1
~
°°' E ~ m~
o`~wa q
aQ
.° ~ ~ m ~now~a ~ m
mac
ZOO a
~-~
o'
'~~
•= 3 N
by~6`~"gri'p
/
J~' 2 O
N
Q ~
~ O
~, J
tSi N
3 ~-
d N
L
~
~ pnlg aroysfe8
H PNgF+odxy LL. C
4
a r ~ ~
3m ~
h ma
a>.~ a°o°'
~ ct E ~~
v ~A
a `
o °
Nm0 j j,a~.
~ 5
c
x
° 100
1
nm0 ~'
b
a .`c ~ QI
c ~ q 'V ~
0 5 a c
ry`c O ~~gs~
20~ ~ CJ ~•3 Q
/zo'o`
o • 't ~
c
'
,~ a- r~vo
c
~m opq
E ro m
Q o4,°
>
Z.cE
~i.P `y
om~ ~pp-0
3~"' ztn
=y
o~°.WJ
v~iro0 ~na~0 44~ 4 v~OS ° o
~~g8 AM8
m
m
U
L
a
~~
~~ ~\`~ds
b = ~
G T C
-0 0 4 a t e 1
V
.=.w `m ~~~ 6
~ d
h m o I m o p^Jg aloysfeg ~~
U
F '9? N M
UU p
~ N ,d
m ~ Q t0
a , y ~' ate.
S A"~a aa!Sa'N
m
ro
~~~~~
jg UOISSIW
_T
c
d
N
C
O
N
c
~ 1
LJ
as
a
~~~
N
C
0
c :~
o eo
Chi J
i N
.4: ,N
C
Q
w
M
N'.
t6
a
~~
7
(7
0
om
R.
F
y
~ ~
~ •~
~~
O1
r, w ~
M O 0~1
d v
~. ~.'
~~w
a,
w~
w
VOA~
~i 'Lj
f~
u
O
a
T
3.1 Tra~c and Circulation
City ofS th San Francisco Intersections
Signalised
• Hillsid Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension
• Baysh re Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boule rd
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp
• Dubu ue Avenue/U.S.101 northbound off-ramp/U.S.101 southbound on-ramp
• Baysh re Boulevard/Southbound U.S.101 freeway on- and off-hook
ramps Proposed Terrabay Phase III North Access (to be signalized)1,z
• Baysh re Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III Central access (to be signalized-
propo ed)~
All-svay-.rto Controlled (About to be Signalised)
• Baysh re Boulevard/U.S.101 southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevardz
Side Street top Sign Controlled
• Baysh re Boulevard/Terrabay Phase III southern access (driveway right turn only
appro ch to Bayshore Boulevard to be stop sign controlled)
City of
i. ~ ; Signalised
~ y~ ~ ~,
!-- • Lawr
/~~ 1 y '
• T .awr
Intersections
Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard
Boulevard/Mission Road
Traffic Volumes Both AM nd PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were
conducted for this study at all existing analysis intersections within South San Francisco
in Februa 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp
from the .S.101 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
intersectio was in full operation. In addition, PM peak period counts were conducted
at the two ity of Colma intersections to be evaluated in June 2005. Only PM counts
and analys shave been conducted at the Colma intersections as the proposed Project
would onl produce a measurable change in traffic (compared to the currently approved
Phase III roject) at the Colma intersections during this time period.
Existing A peak hour counts are presented in Figure 3.1-3, while existing PM peak
hour coun s are presented in Figure 3.1-4. Figure 3.1-5 shows existing lane striping at
each analy ed intersection.
~ The prop sed Project provides for two signalized intersections with Bayshore Boulevard (the northern
and centr entrances) and a third unsignalized right-turn-in/right-turn-out entrance located farther south
on Baysh re Boulevard north of the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection.
2 Same inter ction.
Terrabay Pbaae II Project Draft Supplemental Entnranmental Impact Repor! 3.1-6
z
..- ~
r ~'~~_
~ 6~io
d
O ''0~0
cp'1 ~
'~• r-
~~
~~ ~p
N W N t- ~ O~ O ~- ~
.~ ~ 4 i' N ,~ ~ t,, t
F
a .h ~ '' ~ ~ e*y en
' ~- qnp
'm ,d ~ ~ n -~' ~ O ~
~ ~,
~ b
4
N ~ a
~~ o zo
`'-
O _~
O
C
a
O
h
O
~ -~
r » ~ ~
OD
N
T
N ~ - O
'
4
Fy
• ~ ~
r
• N
p^l8 aloias eg o~ ~ 'tl ~ (-
N _~ y N O V
m
~ `-
e~-
N
m
h
a
aLc°~ o~
~~~rN ~l
N O
Q p0 T ,, O
A^18
~~ya
\\5`ae
L
'n
~ u> ~
N
1 ~. ~
.
~
~
t
p
t
m
o
W ~
~ z
p
r~~=
•~-p
.~1~. r~
M ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ uos~a~~ar ~
O-~
M O ~
ti W
M
~ ~
~ ~
L
a
M ~ O .-.
~~x°
,~• ; ~ ~ °°
~H~~
w~~v
.'.,
~X
W
0
0
.p
~C
R.
E
d
0
v
0
`" ~ o --
M,~x°
~• ~`~~o
~~~m
w~~~
.~,
.~
W
y
G
0
d
n
p~
R.
w
O
n
G
t
~~~~~
~ ~ 1
~
a
c~ `° ~ any an ngna
~ "'.y`
o
a ~
~~JC Q -~, ti a
~ -0 W
C~~ ~ Z
O ~ ~ O
~"'~"-
,~^~ /~ c
I
p~16 a~oysfe8
!~ ~
..~'
-> ~~ ~ ~ p~i8 L !t/
-.
---1-
`m
v
y
e~'`a
,~ a~
~`~\s~
~~~'
~
as in
~~ ~ ~
m
~ °~ o
~ ~
_
.E~ ti
y II II
~~
J
~1
a
3
~
~
+~
7 ~~
~ _
W
M
~~ ;$ U015S1y~ r !.
a
}+ ,
~ .
C ''
F ',
O
U
s~
0
:p
u
a~
to ~
N ;~
_~22 M
Z~ ~ 'w 'd
~W
W v
v
0
v
C7
v
CQ7
om
R.
•~
V
O
N
3.1 Traffzc and Circulation
Existing Circulation Intersection Operation
System Operating
Conditions Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between
intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation
system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales.
The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges
from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to
Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection
approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation
(year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM]
operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more
detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the
LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix C Table C-1.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically
graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop
intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB
Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one
LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay
values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-
way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales
using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However,
unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations
only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and
delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or
individual turn and through movements. Appendix C Table C-2 provides greater
detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
Level of Service Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the
poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to
be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn
movements. The City has no standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from
private driveways. The City of Colma also considers Level of Service D to be the
poorest acceptable operation for signalized intersections.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
All intersection analysis within the Oyster Point interchange has been conducted using
the Synchro software program, which evaluates the coordinated operation of a system
of intersections. Intersection operating results (levels of service) are typically a little
poorer with Synchro analysis than would be the case if each intersection were evaluated
on a "stand alone" basis. Intersections within the City of Colma as well as at the Sister
Terrabay Phase 111 Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-10
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
Cities Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension intersection in South
San Francisco have been evaluated as individual "stand alone" locations.
Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently
operating at acceptable levels of service during both the existing AM and PM commute
peak traffic hours. All operations are either LOS A, B or C. LOS D is considered
acceptable by the City of South San Francisco.
Freeway Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Planning level lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of
2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a
2005 count of the U.S.101 freeway by Crane Transportation. Group at the Oyster Point
interchange (where peak hour factor and truck percentages were obtained), the capacity
of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San
Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour),
with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D for volumes
between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles. The
hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is
considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a
2,000-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County
CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and
intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard has been set as E in order to be
consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level
of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future
LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and
intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected
LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the
standard LOS) on aCMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly
affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be
developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway
system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other
factors), a Deficienry Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency.
Terrabay Phase III Prq'ect Draft Sxpplemental Entnranmentallmpact Report 3.1-11
3.7 Tra[~c and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY
PHASE III PROPOSED PRO ECT, AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Year 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.11 D-36.5 C-29.0 D-46.6 D-36.0
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-106.1 F-81.3 F-100.4 F-80.9
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-29.31 C-29.3 C-30.3 C-29.6 D-44.8
Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./Airport
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 ~ A-9.6 B-10.1 ~ B-12.3 B-12.8
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- ~B-10.2 ~ ~ NA NA ~ NA NA
Ramp ~__
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA
and Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA
and Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Nfiddle Project NA
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control)
1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. .
z All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay In seconds: stop sign controlled right turn.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
B-13.91 NA I C-24.1 NA
NA C-30.11 I NA C-30.0
C-24.11 A-8.8 ~ B-19.5 A-7.6
NA B-11.63 1 NA B-12.1
Terrabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-12
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, TERRABAY
PHASE III PROPOSED PRO ECT, PM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Year 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 C-23.4 C-29.8 B-46.3 D-51.5
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-137 F-137 F-269 F-264
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Y Bayshore Blvd./Sister Cities C-30.51 C-26.7 F-273 C-26.1 F-248
Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./Airport
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 A-9.6 B-10.1 B-12.3 B-12.1
(Signal)
-----Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA
Ramp
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA C-22.51 NA D-48.1 NA
and Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA D-50.81 NA F-101
and Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.71 B-13.1 B-19.9 B-13.2
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-19.23 NA C-24:9
Access
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign
Control)
Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.91 A-9.4 A-9.8 B-11.8 B-12.0
(Signal)
Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2 C-31.7 D-35.3 D-36.7
(Signal)
1 Signalized level of service~verage control delay in seconds.
z All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service~verage control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-13
3.1 Trallic and Circulation
Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by
the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic
originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based
upon Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.101
freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004
counts of the U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp
counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts.
Figure 3.1-2 shows the freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study.
Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the
2004/2005 traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane
segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below.
AM Peak Hour
Southbound: LOSE North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound: LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
LOS D North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
PM Peak Hour
Southbound: LOS D North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound:. LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
LOSE North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and
Peers, July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.101
between the San Francisco County Line and I-380 based on travel time surveys. The
2001 LOS for this segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates
that traffic congestion has lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely
due to employment reductions in San Francisco and the Peninsula.
Freeway Ramp Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway ramps have been evaluated based upon the methodology contained in the year
2000 Highway Capacity Manual, where ramp capacities have been set at 2,100 vehicles per
hour for diamond (slip) ramps and 1,900 vehicles per hour for any ramps with sharp
curves (such as the southbound buttonhook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard).
Terrabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Supplemental En:zronmentallmpact Report 3.1-14
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-3: FREEWAY OPERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT,
AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010
Existing Base Case Base Case + Project
Project Percent Total
Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS
Southbound
North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9930 F -111 -1.1% 9819 F
Bayshore Blvd./ (A)
Oyster Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (199) (196) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8860 E 11 +0.1% 8871 E
On Ramp and Grand/
Miller SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (177) (A) (177) (A)
Northbound
Between Grand Ave. 8195 D 9920 E -212 -2.1% 9708 E
On-Ramp and Oyster
Point Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7043) (C) (6893) (C)
North of Oyster Point 8065 D 8720 D 2 +0.02% 8722 D
On-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6191) (C) (6193) (C)
Yeaz 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodol ogy
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-4: FREEWAY OPERATION , TERRABAY PHASE III PROJECT,
PM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010
Existing Base Case Base Case + Project
Project Percent Total
Vol LOS Vol LOS Increment Increase Vol LOS
Southbound
North of SB Off-Ramp 6965 D 7570 D 26 +0.3% 7596 D
to Bayshore Blvd./
Oyster Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (303) (A) (304) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 9435 E -192 -2.0% 9243 E
On-Ramp and Grand/
Miller SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Onfy) (377) (A) (370) (A)
Northbound
Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 9355 E 6 +0.06% 9361 E
On-Ramp and Oyster
Point Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (8045) (D) (8050) (D)
North of Oyster Point 9060 E 10,610 F -93 -.9% 10,517 F
On-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (9125) (D) (9045) (D)
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emdronmenta7lmpact Report 3.1-15
3.1 Traffrc and Circulation
These capacities reflect LOS E operation, the same service level, which is acceptable for
freeway operation.
Existing Freeway Ramp Operation
Figure 3.1-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 3.1-5
and 3.1-6 shows that all ramps at the Oyster Point interchange currently are operating
under capacity during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
Vehicle Queuing Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the
approaches to all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange during each peak
traffic hour. Projections are provided for each turn and through lane for the
50th percentile queue.
Queuing Standards
Based upon direction from South San Francisco staff, vehicle storage should
accommodate the 50th percentile queue.
Existing Queuing Conditions
It should be noted that existing observed queuing between intersections within the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange should be improved with the opening of the new
southbound freeway on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard. This will eliminate
southbound Brisbane/San Francisco traffic on Bayshore Boulevard traveling through
the entire Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque
Avenue. The elimination of these vehicles should free up additional green time within
the interchange to provide greater accommodation of other movements.
Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that during the AM and PM peak hours, the
50th percentile queues within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available
storage. However, field observations confirm that the theoretically predicted queuing
intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain movements.
Existing Transit Local Bus Routes
Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San
Francisco. There is currently SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on
Bayshore Boulevard, but not east of the U.S.101 freeway. Local area bus service is as
follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard
and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the
study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of
about two hours.
Ternabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Beport 3.1-1 ~
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-5: EXISTING, YEAR 2010 BASE AND YEAR 2010 BASE CASE +
PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)1
PEAK HO UK
Year 2010
Existin Base Case Base Case + Project
Under/ Under/ Under/
Over Over Over
U.S.101 Ramp Capacityz Volume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity
SB Off-Ramp to 1900 300 Under 590 Under 486 Under
Ba shore 455 nder 590 nder 706 nder
SB On-Ramp 1900 NA3 NA 465 Under 468 Under
Fxom Ba shore 930 nder 82 nder
NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 945 Under 952 Under
From Oyster [2600]^ (1325) (Under) (2135) (Over) (2104) (Over)
Point
NB Off-Ramp to 2100 870 Under 2145 Over 1938 Under
Dubu ue 545 nder 880 nder 948 nder
SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Undex 770 Under 785 Under
from Dubuque [2600]4 (1710) (Under) (1855) (Under) (1856) (Under)
~ # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour.
2 Capacity m passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be
increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and
conversion to passenger car equivalents.
s NA =Not applicable.
4 [2600]=Capacity with two-lane on-ramp.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-6: EXISTING, YEAR 2020 BASE AND YEAR 2020 BASE CASE +
PROJECT, FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION, AM AND (PM)T
PEAK HOUR
Year 2020
Existin Base Case Base Case + Project
Under/ Under/ Under/
Over Over Over
U.S.101 Ramp Capacityz Volumez Capacity Volume2 Capacity Volume2 Capacity
SB Off-Ramp 1900 300 Under 725 Under 619 Under
to Ba shore 455 nder 960 nder 1077 nder
SB On-Ramp 1900 NA~3~ NA 660 Under 667 Under
Fxom Ba shore 1155 nder 1052 nder
NB On-Ramp 2100 740 Under 1230 Under 1239 Under
From Oyster [2600]~4> (1325) (Under) (2990) (Over) (2963) (Over)
Point
NB Off-Ramp 2100 870 Under 2220 Over 2011 Under
to Dubu ue 545 nder 1200 nder 1270 nder
SB On-Ramp 2100 960 Under 815 Under 815 Under
from Dubuque [2600](4 (1710) (Under) (2098) (Over) (2114) (Over)
~ # = AM peak hour; (#) = PM peak hour.
2 Capacity m passenger car equivalents. Existing, Base Case and Base Case + Project volumes should be
increased by about four percent (AM) and two percent (PM) to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and
conversion to passenger car equivalents.
s NA =Not applicable.
4 [2600]=Capacity with two-lane on-ramp.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-17
3.1 TralTrc and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-7: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE QUEUE), AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 queues Year 2020 queues
Existing (in feet) (in feet)
Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case
(in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project
Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps
WB off-ramp left turn 600 69 127 161 182
WB off-ramp left/right 600 69 129 161 186
Bayshore/Central Project Access
NB left turn 300 207 34 327 35
NB through 945 19 10 16 16
SB right turn 300 2 5 28 4
SB through 540 257 194 260 224
Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport
EB left turn 55 29
SB left turn 325 154
SB through 660 52
SB right turn 310 0
WB left tum 80 18
WB through 255 44
WB right turn 255
110 134 189 240
43 135 149 250
9 64 58 132
0 19 21 49
62 69 57 74
92 162 79 161
209 10 167 -
Oyster Point/Dubuque
EB left turn 75/255 58 87 58 132 110
EB through 255 128 402 447 467 525
EB right turn 255 70 27 46 50 136
NB left turn 135 43 257 198 273 195
NB left/through 255 46 281 215 296 211
NB right turn 210 190 633 665 575 619
Dubuque/101 Ramps
Off-ramp left turn 700 35 415 335 496 358
Off-ramp left/through 700 35 415 335 496 358
SB right turn 255 0 - - - -
SB through 255 13 100 99 187 163
* All capacities and demand are per lane
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Snppkmental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-18
3.1 Trafftc and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-8: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE, (50TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE QUEUE), PM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues
Existing (in feet) (in feet)
Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case
(in feet) (in feet) Case + Project Case + Project
Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps
WB off-ramp left turn 600 85 207 276 449
WB off-ramp left/right 600 85 213. 276 464
Bayshore/Central Project Access
NB left turn 300 53 171 48 205
NB through 945 69 10 100 36
SB right turn 300 1 - - -
SB through 540 225 68 168 81
Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport
EB left turn 55 50 91 319 101 404
SB left turn 325 154 133 213 94 247
SB through 660 115 147 200 112 343
SB right turn 310 100 113 287 80 664
WB left turn 80 33 93 59 133 160
WB through 255 151 65 482 367 657
WB right turn 255 37 57 15 112
Oyster Point/Dubuque
EB left turn 75/255 92 224 196 314 370
EB through 255 67 82 50 88 110
EB right turn 255 124 160 159 202 161
NB left turn 135 155 357 350 437 586
NB left/through 255 166 384 375 468 624
NB right turn 210 31 40 38 60 75
Dubuque/101 Ramps
Off-ramp left turn 700 37 118 171 282 262
Off-ramp left/through 700 38 118 171 282 262
SB right tum 255 19 13 32 126 116
SB through 255 13 65 74 131 126
* All capacities and demand aze per lane.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-19
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden
Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San
Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute
peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-
minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays.
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue,
Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART
station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak
headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along
Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak
headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60-
minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Route 397 (,2971: San Francisco-Palo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates
along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour
headways each direction between about 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per
week.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a
station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San
Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly
during midday.
Planned The City of South San Francisco has completed construction on the final ramp
Transportation improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps"
System Improvements project is replaces the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.101 to
Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized
intersection. Anew on-ramp is being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to
southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection. The hook ramps significantly improve
access to and from southern Brisbane, and divert additional traffic from Bayshore
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove
development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard (change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and
re-striping the westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and
Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and
re-stripe the optional through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and
Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway
Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing
eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane).
TerraGay 1'base III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Acport 3.1-20
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these
are the only improvements that were assumed in place at study intersections by 2010.
Figure 3.1-6 presents year 2010 and 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and
control.
Base Case The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation
(Without Project system due to non-project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the
Traffic Analysis years 2010 and 2020.
Year 2010 Base Case TraBlc Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Approved South San Francisco. Trip generation was estimated for approved
Development industrial/office/R&D developments in the Project area (see Table 3.1-9). Information
Trip Generation on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In
addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's home improvement stores recently
proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also
included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Tables 3.1-10, 3.1-
11, 3.1-12 and 3.1-13). It should be noted that 2010 Base Case development includes
construction of the approved 665,000-square-foot office/10,000-square-foot retail
development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant trip generation from this
approved use is presented in Table 3.1-14. Finally, trip generation projections were
developed for remaining Terrabay Phase II residential development at that time of the
new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 highrise condo units (see Table 3.1-15).
Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D/hotel development are based on the
analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April
2001). Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East
of 101 area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than
the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101
area is required to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to
reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a
moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional
9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates.
Brisbane. Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by
the year 2010 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing
South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard.
Terrabay Phase III Project Drajt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-21
z
~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
a~ ~
~~ m any an ngna
~fi~ ~ '~ ~
o
~ a
a
zo
~..
~ o
o
~ ~ e-
'~o~`rrr~~~ 0
.Q
f' ~ vi
F~
7 PnlB No !y
..; .r
`m
N
m
~
e~~a
~ de
~~~
o
h '~'~'
G
w
.E-
c n
o
uj c
T o~
~ ~
~
-'
ro rn
_ o
~ ~ ~
u u a
~
~~~ ~ w
~ N
--~' ;g uass!yy s
a
.`°a
Z'
0
~.
5
c7
v
0
.-. O
v ~
O O
~ U
a-+ O
O '~
~O ~ ~
~=1 :.i ~
M ~
~,,,, U 'd
b~A
W ~ .~
~ ~
o v
N ~,
N O
~ ~
o ~
o
N
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-9: TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA
~; l p .
f ~ '
` ~y ,
~ ~
1
` ~ l
~ C l~,
,
.
a~
~i^' ,z
EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2010
Resultant Peak Hour Trips
Project Site AM Peak Hour Pm Peak Hour
1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd.
Office/R&D 315,444 sq.ft. 445 426
(replacing light industrial) (-94,990 sq.ft.) - 46 ~- 52~
Net 399 374
2. East Jamie Court
Office/R&D 133,000 sq.ft. 188 180
3. Britannia East Grand
Office/R&D 783,530 sq.ft. 1,207 1,201
Retail 8,000 sq.ft.
Child Care 8,000 sq.ft.
Fitness Center 5,000 sq.ft.
(replacing light industrial) (-354,880 sq.ft.) (_ 170). - 191
Net 1,037 1,010
33 R&D and 37 ~ara~e 125,000 sq.ft. 61 131
5: Genentech Building 31
972 sq.ft. 234 225
6. Bay Wert Cove (part al~zady constructed)
Office 600,000 sq.ft. 1,623 1,636
Retail 10,000 sq.ft.
Restaurant 10,000 sq.ft.
Hotel 350 rooms
7. 180 Oyster Point
Office 105,000 sq.ft. 100 90
8. 200 Oyster Point
Office 155,000 sq.ft. 147 133
9. 34S East Grand
R&D 210,560 sq.ft. 124 115
(replacing warehouse uses) - 31 (- 45)
Net 93 Net 70
10. 285 East Grand Ave. /
349 Allerton Ave. 122 111
Office/R&D
(replacing existing site uses) - 38 ~28~
Net 84 Net 83
11. 249 East Grand Ave.
Office/R&D 540,000 SQ.FT. 756 729
1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office RdrD Project
Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004
Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005
2. East Jamie Court Offzce RdrD
Dra t Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002
3. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O Brien Property)
Recirculation Draft EIR (~orehouse Assoctates) February 2002
4. Genentech Site Accerr-Buildings 33 dr 37
Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Pazking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers)
December 2003
5. Genentech Building 31 Admin Draft
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005
6. Bay West Cove Commercta! Report
Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002
7., 8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Offzce Projects
Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001
9. Traffrc Imp act Report 345 East Grand Avenue
R&D O£fice Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001
10. Traffic Im act Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue
R&D O~fice Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002
11. 249 East Grand Avenue Administrative Draft EIR
(Lamphier-Gregory/Crane Transportation Group) June 2005
Terrabay Phase 171 Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-23
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
'T'ART F ~ 1_1fl• unMF. 11F.PnT TRIP GENERATION
Daily Am Peak Hour Trips Pm Peak Hour Trips
2-Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Home
Depot 125,794
sq.ft. 29.8 3750
(40) .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164
+ 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41
TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation r;ngmeers, zUUS.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-11: HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP
GENERATION, HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE
USE Levitz Furniture
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Home Depot 103 86 181 205
Existing Site Use 4 2 20 19
Net Change in Site Trip Generation 99 84 161 186
Source: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-12: LOW E'S SITE TRI P GENERAl'IUN
Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
2-way trips Inbound Outbo und Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Lowe's 148,749
sq.ft. 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193
West Marine 6,590
Bldg.-North sq.ft.
Axea 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12
Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205
+ 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51
+ Existing West Marine
Store (No Change) - NAt 2 0 14 12
GRAND TOTAL 59082 130 106 243 268
~ NA =Not surveyed for daily trip generation.
2 Does not include existing West Marine store.
Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003;
Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine
Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Te~rabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental Emnronmentullmpact Report 3.1-24
3.1 Trat~c and Circulation
TABLE 3.1-13: LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING
SITE USES
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268
Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 - 108 - 86
Net Change in Site Trip Generation +88 +69 +135 +182
Source: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-14: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAY PHASE III APPROVED
USE
Daily inbound + Am Peak Hour Trips Pm Peak Hour Trips
Outbound trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Office 665,000 11.01 7322 1.23a 818 .17a 113 .23a 153 1.12a 745
sq.ft.
a 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program. Planning level trip rates for
office development used in the above table (rather than fitted curve equation trip rates) aze projected to
also reflect the minor level of traffic associated with 10,000 square feet of office serving retail use on
ground level of building.
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
TABLE 3.1-15: TRIP GENERATION, TERRABAS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound
Use # Units Rate Vol Rate Vol
Townhomes 12 .07 1 .37 4
' PHASE II-REMAINING
SAS OF FEBRUARY 2005)
PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound
Rate Vol Rate Vol
.35 4 .17 2
Condominiums 61 .07 4 .37 23 .35 22 .17 10
TOTAL 5 27 26 12
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Regional Traffic North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not
Growth on associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a
U.S.101 Freeway straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2010.
Terrabay Pbare III Project Draft SxpplementalEn:dronmentallmf~act Report 3.1-25
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
Approved/Proposed The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D/hotel development traffic was
Development Trip based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental
Distribution
Impact Report (Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994).
The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed
according to the percentages shown in Table 3.1-16. New Terrabay Phase II residential
trip distribution was based upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution
patterns at both entrances to the existing Terrabay Phase I and II developments.
Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2010 Base Case volumes are presented in
Figures 3.1-7 and 3.1-8.
TABLE 3.1-16: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION, OFFICE/RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
South San Francisco
Direction Development
Year 2005
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 3
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Brisbane ~
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Year 2020+
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 2
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) 8
via Railroad Avenue Extension
Brisbane ~
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2
San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April
2001.
Ternabay Phase III Project Draft SuppkmentalEn:dronmental7mpact Report 3.1-26
.~ z o
z ~ z o
o
t) ~ M
f~ ~ O~ O
~~4 b .~ ~ r ~ ~ any an ngnp
? (~
~
pp °q
` u~
u'
~ ~ -~'' g O o
a
,
o~°
c
a ~
o
° -~" N
n a
3 E
p
,~
°~ ~
m ~ m
~ ~
o
.- ~ s- ~ °~' z° ° +-
m ._..~ o a ~ _.~.
~ ~
~n ,y ~ ~
~ ~ r JA^0~~~ O
'~ O
~
O to d O ~
t- N ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ • s1'
c°o ~ ~'' ~ ~,, pnl8 aiot!s ea c ~' •~.~ ~ ~- A~181ro !y
~ -~ N ~' ~ ~ M -~ ~ N ~
t
L`~
WW d=
>
°
~. I
'
N
o`° ~'
3
a ~ ~ E
a. F n.
y
_
a
a_
ti
'm
y
U
L
m
y
~JJ
t, ~ ae~
N ~~~5~
~
~ ~
,fiOO
T O
m ~ N
V
~
ly W
b ~
d
ti ~
= a
m
a
A
`m
F
u
~ .v
O
N
~ ~
RS
U ~'-~
N (~/] f~
[n
~~ ~
~^
w ~ v
~ o
a a
o
0 0
N
...
P.
t7
0
A
w
H
0
z zN z~
o~
.~ 1 4 r ~~ .~ 14 r
~~,~ a ~ ~ ~ anyan ngnp
o ~
¢
O~Y CU o
~ to V' N -~ O O
N
~
Ca o ° c °.
~ ~
m ~ ~
O
0 ~~ ^ O f- M
~~
r
~~
~
~
~!~ rn
T
n
O
0
M ~y ~
~ ~ .Z~..
~
O '~ ~
~ ~
to
~- ~
O
Oe~ p O
N ~
N ~
In
,(-_ ~O
N
ch
a°o o -r ~ (i v ~' 41 '~ (s An18 Rio i y
M
~
,
to _~
r
-~ O to
~ ~ O
~ _^~ O
~ ~ (flD
~ ~
~
~"' 'fl A M O. i-
W .
R
s~.~~-°c
~a~
a
~~a
~ N .,~e0
r ~ ~ N
~ 4 r'•
0
c °'
~ ~ r
x
rF- OOi
'` ~
v
~~
~Z~ o°v
~ ~ N
C
O
O ~ ~ d'
O ~OV' `~ ~F- N W
.~14 t
m
M ~ ~g uoiss~W a
'~ t r' ~,
{~9
N -~ N ~ ~ t
~ ~ N ~
Q~
N O
O ~
~ ~
~ ~
U~
~ ~
M ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ v
o E~
wx v
o
~ a
0
O ~
N .,~
C7
0
m
0
a
F
O
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
Year 2010 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2010 all analyzed intersections would be expected
to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours with one exception.
The Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp
intersection would be operating at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak
traffic hours.
Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Operation
Table 3.1-3 shows that during the AM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway
segments would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E),
with the exception of southbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange where
operation would be LOS F. Table 3.1-4 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour,
traffic on all analyzed freeway segments would be operating at minimum acceptable
levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of northbound flow north of the
Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F.
Year 2010 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Table 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed
freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year
2010 with two exceptions. During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off-
ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the
PM peak hour volumes on the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
would also be above theoretical capacity limits.
Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing
Table 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be producing
50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak
hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM Peak Hour
• Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airj~ort Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a
demand about two car lengths longer than available storage.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through
and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than
available storage distance (one to five car lengths longer for the left turn and
combined left turn/through movements; 17 car lengths longer than available
storage (per lane) for the right turn movement. In addition, the eastbound
through movement would have a storage demand (per lane) about six car
lengths longer than available storage.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Envlronmentallmpact Report 3.1-29
3.1 Traffic and Circutatian
PM Peak Hour
• Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a
demand about two car lengths longer than available storage.
The Oyster Point westbound approach left turn lane would have a storage
demand at most one car length longer than available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left and
combined left/through lanes would have storage demands from five to nine car
lengths greater than available storage.
Year 2020 Base Case Traffic Conditions
Traffic Volumes
The year 2020 Base Case (without Project) conditions include traffic generated by
approved development in the study area, traffic generated by projects which are
completed or under construction and not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by
proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or under-
utilized land in the study area. Appendix C Tables C-3 and C-4 present new
development in South San Francisco and Brisbane expected by 2020.
Evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon traffic projections from the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, with project
description and improvement updates based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies
conducted over the past four years (see Table 3.1-9 reference list). The proposed
Project in the 2001 DSEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of
physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic
reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM
measures is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the East of 101 Transportation
Improvements Plan (I7P).
Preliminary year 2020 Base Case volumes were obtained using AM and PM peak hour
projections from the City's East of 101 traffic model developed as part of the year 2001
Transportation Demand Management DSEIR. Year 2020 projections developed in
2001 were then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development
proposals. Specific projects include:
• 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco)
• Home Depot store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use (South
San Francisco)
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Suppkmentat En:nronmentat Impact Report 3.1-30
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
• Lowe's Home Improvement store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D
use (South San Francisco)
• Baylands Phases I and II (Brisbane)
A traffic study was prepared for the City of Brisbane in 2004 evaluating the circulation
impacts of a revised plan for the Baylands Phase I and II developments. It was
determined that South San Francisco's East of 101 model had included a land use
scenario for the entire Baylands project somewhat more intense than the current Phase I
proposal, but somewhat less than the current Phase I + potential Phase II plan. Since
Brisbane Planning staff indicated that all of Phase I would likely be built and occupied
by 2020, but that it was unknown how much, if any, of Phase II would be constructed
by that horizon, South San Francisco staff concluded that the Baylands development
proposal within the East of 101 model presented a conservative estimate of the likely
development potential of this property by 2020. Because the Brisbane model is three
years more current than the East of 101 model, Brisbane year 2020 (with Baylands
Phase I and II development) projections for Bayshore Boulevard near the
Brisbane/South San Francisco border were used as guidance to adjust future projections
along Bayshore Boulevard in the vicinity of the Terrabay project.
Year 2020 Base Case traffic projections also include development of the approved
665,000-square-foot office development on the Project site, in a manner similar to 2010
Base Case conditions. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes
are presented in Figures 3.1-9 and 3.1-10.
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected
to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with one exception.
AM Peak Hour
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
PM Peak Hour
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed
freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year
2020 with three exceptions. During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off-
ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the
PM peak hour volumes on the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard and
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Sxppkmental En:aronmental Impact Report 3.1-31
z 0
t~ t~
N ~ r °m o o ~--- ~
.~ ~ 4 t ~ ..~ j. 4 r ~
4`Q ~ ~ ~ a~H (~' ngnp
~ ~
~,~
QC '
m `n
~ ~ N ~ "~" r.(') O to
~j
°~c C
$ N ~ ~ N
^ ~ ti 4
E
r~
~°~
o ~ `
°
o
z
o ~ o
~~
~' ~,
_ "may a
o
`
~ano~~ a
~ r
O
to ~ N
N Q
~_ O
~
N ~ O
~ N ~ ~ M ~
~
f-~ O
.~ 4 '- M r~ ,~ l 4 ~
o
~ N ,~ ~ (~, Pn18 a~oys eg ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Pn191~o ?b
v
4
7 -~'
~~
N ~'
~ O
CD to
M --
~
~ ~ 00
M ~ r.
~ o Z
f '~ T~ a ^
lB
>
~ ~ r
W W
~ ~
s
c
+. p lC V1 d d
~ tq 3 c°'.°Jao ~
a~
a
b
m
h
U
h
~~a
L ^ .a6~
d m ~~~\5
~N
~ 4
~,.
~o
m N
~~.. N
a
W '" W
~_
= ~
d
a
l0
.D
m
N
H
Z~
0
.p
~.
F
v
(~
0
u
m •v,
~ O
~ ~
o b
Q~
v ~
~~
U ~
~ m c~ .
M ~ ~
y ~ ~
Fr ~
Q
wxb
~, o
C, Q"
0
~~
0 0
N
N
...i
z ~, o o t ~ ~- °o
z ~ N
N _ ~
rt-- N ~M
4- V
~~~ a ~ I
~ ~' ~ e~y an ngna
~
OC ~ ~ o
~ ~ m N ~ ~ ~
~
J '~ N ~ ~ N j 4
C
o Z°
T
~ ~ ~
~
~
r ~
~ r~ b
O
Ja^~'~ ^ Z
~
p
M W ~ n
f- ~ ~
~ N N
~- N
,f~ ~
+~ 4- O
~ ~ pnig aloysteg to
~ j ~- M
'~ ~
~u'y.
v
fl (~
v ~. *
~ I (~
pnl9 uo
ib'
t0 -~
~' (~ T
'd' ~"~ O ~~
~ ~ 0
f ~
H
W 'C >'M a,~
'
~ n
W na~_
«~
O ~ d
Q ~
a
h
,~a
'~ ~ ae0
~ ~ ~
4
0
N
~ t19 N
n
W
a
rN
~-. ~ ~
M
r QJ
ti
C
~
o
o ,~ r"
M ~
.~ ~ i. t °
N
N
~ ~
/S UO1SSlW .G
p,
N ~ t
d ~
~ ~
N
V ~ N
~ N ~
U
N
•~
~ ~
O i''~..
U
M ~A ~
~~ i~-i ~ N
O H
.,x~
w ~ o
~ ~"
0
0 0
N
O
N .,.
C7
0
.p
P.
F
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical
capacity limits.
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing
Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 shows that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing
50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak
hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM Peak Hour
• Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyrter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a
storage demand about five to six car lengths longer than available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound left, through
and right turn approach lanes would all have storage demands greater than
available storage (six car lengths longer for the left turn lane; two car lengths
longer for the through/left turn lane and 15 car lengths longer (per lane) than
available storage for the right turn lanes).
The eastbound through lanes would have a storage demand about nine car
lengths longer than available storage.
PM Peak Hour
• Bayshore BaulevardlSister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a
demand about two car lengths longer than available storage.
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a
demand about five car lengths greater (per lane) than available storage.
The Bayshore Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a
demand about two car lengths greater than available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound approach left and combined left/through lanes would have storage
demands from nine to 12 car lengths greater than available storage.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions:
Significance for
Project Impacts • The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system.
This is the trip generation threshold utilized by the City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County to determine when their Congestion
Management Program policies and guidelines must be followed for new projects.
Ternabay Phase III Project Draft Sxppkmental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-34
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
• Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E
or F and volumes would be increased by at lest two percent.
• Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A,
B, C, D or E to LOS F and volumes would be increased by at least two percent.
• Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to
meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
• The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent
or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or
F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating
at LOS F.
• The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by
two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant
criteria levels.
• The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile
queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project
would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more.
• Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway or a freeway ramp
from LOS E to LOS F, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a
freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation.
• The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety.
• The Project would not provide City code required parking.
• If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic
flow through various parts of the Project site.
• If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant safety concern would be created.
Project Trip Project trip generation was developed using a multistage process standard to the traffic
Generation engineering profession when evaluating impacts from a multiuse development. The
proposed Project will contain the following uses.
• 2,038-seat multi-screen movie theater complex
• 307,710 gross square-foot retail center
• 295,500 gross square-foot office
• 171 townhouse units
• 180 highrise condominium units (condo tower)
Project trip generation projections were developed as follows.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-35
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
Gross Trip Generation Projections
Gross trip generation was determined from each Project component using trip rates
from the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation
7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Please see Appendix C
Table C-5 for Project gross trip generation. Movie theater trip rates for a Friday rather
than a midweek evening were used in order to provide a conservative evaluation.
Internal Trip Capture
A projection was next developed of the likely number of gross trips from each project
component that would not occur as people would walk between uses rather than drive
(i.e. residents going to/from retail/movie/office uses, etc.). Elimination of some trips
due to internal capture results in net new external trip generation due to the Project.
Appendix C Tables C-6 and C-7 present the Project's AM and PM peak hour internal
trip captures estimates as well as resultant net new external trips.
Overall, after allowance for internal trips only, the proposed Project would be expected
to result in the following net new trips traveling external to the Project site.
AM Peak Hour Trigs PM Peak Hour Trigs
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
533 242 762 989
Passby and Diverted Linked Trip Capture
A certain level of traffic from some of the Project uses would likely be attracted from
traffic already on the local surface street system or the U.S.101 freeway. The amount of
capture would vary between the AM and PM peak hours. Based upon data contained in
the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Qune 2004), Table 3.1-17 shows the levels of passby and diverted linked trip
capture were used in the analysis. Passby capture would come from vehicles traveling
along either Bayshore Boulevard or Sister Cities Boulevard adjacent to the Project site,
while diverted linked trips would come from the U.S.101 freeway or other surface
streets within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange.
TABLE 3.1-17: PROTECT PASSBY AND DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
• % Diverted % Diverted
Passby Linked Trip Net %Passby Linked Trip Net
Use Capture Capture New Capture Capture New
Movie Theater 0 0 100% 3 30 67%
Retail 10 13 77% 20 35 45%
Office 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Residential 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Source: Crane Transportation Group/Trip Generation Handbook (2004)
Terrubuy Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:dranmentallmpact Report 3.1-36
3.1 Tra1TZC and Circulation
Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 show details of Project passby and diverted linked
trip estimates.
Net Change in Terrabay Phase III Net New Trip Generation: Proposed
Yersus Approved Use
Table 3.1-18 presents the change in AM and PM peak hour net new external trip
generation from the Terrabay Phase III site when comparing the currently proposed
Project to the 665,000-square-foot office development previously approved. As shown,
the currently proposed Project would result in an overall reduction of about 160 two-
way trips during the AM peak traffic, but an increase of about 855 two-way trips during
the PM peak hour.
TABLE 3.1-18: TERRABAY PHASE III CHANGE IN PEAK HOUR TRIP
GENERATION CURRENTLY PROPOSED VERSUS
APPROVED PROJECT
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound 2-Way Inbound Outbound 2-Way
Proposed Project 533 240 773 762 989 1751
Approved Project 818 113 931 153 745 898
Net Change-
Proposed Versus (-285) +127 (-158) +609 +244 +853
Approved
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Project Trip Appendix C Tables C-8 and C-9 present AM and PM peak hour distribution patterns
Distribution for each component of Project traffic. Project office traffic was distributed to the
subregional roadway network based upon East of 101 office/R&D development traffic
patterns contained in the Apri12001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General
Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 3.1-16). Project
residential trip distribution patterns were based upon current AM and PM peak hour
counts of traffic flow to/from the existing Terrabay Phase I and II residential
developments served by Sister Cities Boulevard and the Hillside Boulevard Extension.
Project commercial and movie theater traffic distribution patterns were based upon
market area projections by the Project applicant.
Resultant weekday year 2010 Base Case + Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are
presented in Figures 3.1-11 and 3.1-12, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case +
Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 3.1-13 and 3.1-14,
respectively.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Ent7ronmentallmpact Report 3.1-37
n
,~ ~ L o
` ° ~
h' ~ ° ~ '~
f- u~ p o
.~ 1 ~. r ~ ,~ 1 ~. r
a`~~ > ~ ~ ai y an ngno
.~ ~
~
_
pc DS ~ ~
~~~ r°'~' M ~ o
J~a p
~ ~
O~r~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ m
.~ rN-
~
~
~ rr,,- O
ti
Z O [O
~- or
rn
r
0
r ~
~ T
~
lT Cp -~ r
ti
~ a
~
~
N m M
~ ~ N
~~ N
[7 ~ ~
rn r
~ M (G
~_
~- ~- ~
N ~
~ `" An18 aroUsdee ~ ~ ~- ~ u°'i
M ,'
fl I ~
rn ~' ~ (~, o ----
jy vp> ~
~ I ~- PM8 fro
4
'gy
!t1
N -'~' r ~ .~- m 'i. N •-
N CO p -~ n ~ --^i
r M pp
tO ~ N ~
r
~
"y,
+ ~ ~~
i
1 F N
W W M~
N
N_ ~
~
a
ro
h
U
t~
~,a
Z
~
.
a6
~~~5~
t~ (7 r N
m ~ N d'
w
r w
~ ~
Z .o
a
T
~~
7
0
A
x
F
v
M
V
1N
7
u ~
v
~O ~
~"~ '~ O
ri +
!'I y
cM ~•.3
O
~~ x
a~
w~~',
o
0
N
°
a~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 91 b' ~- ngnp
Q-
~
°J .~
a N ~
~ n ~ "6
Q
n r~o
~ m ~ r ~
~ ~
~ ~ y o ` co
OM ~ M
I
~ N
~
f.~ ~ ~ O~ N
M N
~..~ N ~
~
n
-~' ~ c~.i ~ ~ m
N ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~
N ~ --
~ rn M °
N ~ CO
~
~ ~ N
co
W W m~
O N .J
a
U
y ~
g
N d
o ~A~S~
.- h ~•• N
l~
~
t
~ ~,
~
n
W ~
f~ N
~ ~
Q
V -~
00 ~ J ~ N
d
ro
s
M
n "r b.
~ 1~ r~N
. .
~ ,, }S uo~sslyy aL.
N -~'
W m
D
IO
M ~ N
~
N ~
v
N ~ ~
O
ri vii
'~' Aux
~ ~'
w~ v
o ~"
N G-'r
w
Q
0
V
O
z n
z~ z o
x~ ~~
'p N ~ Q
"~'~ GOO ~ O f- O
~1~ r~.~~4r~
p~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' v °! c`~o
~oa =
n°. ~ ~ -,, ~ ~
ti c a
o w
~o~r ~ ~ '~
o zo
o ~ ~ o
O ~i a
a
~e~o,{~~ ^ ,c
0
O W O ~- M O H O L
M ~
~- f-- can '` ~ PM8 aroys~teg ~ ~ ~- ~ c~
'
~1 f ('
M N '""i .tl (a- m ~ (- `~~° ~, j1 ~ ~ ~ P^18 Yo !d
~
'
M ~ N
F N
W W M
v '' 1
a
'n
`
m
y
m
U
ti
»?
y
Ja
0~0 0~\
M
~ ~ ~N
t O
y
..~ ~ N ~
..
W ~ W
a M
~
~_ y
RI
i a
ro
t9
L
~~
0
.~
F
w
'I~
v
O
++ C/1
N
M ~ ~
O
+ ~
M ~ O
~~ x
v
w~~
o~
0
N
o ~' ~ M '~ O
.. N ~ ~
~
i~ '~-
N L7
N ~ N
E'-
N
r
..~ j 4 C7
r ~ .~ ~ ~. '~
m~~ ~ 41 ~
~ ~ ,~ an y ~ ngnq
~ m
J~ c N
~ ° N a s
°~r~ ~ 00 ~ ~
e~ z°
o
r
ca ~ ~ r
o
M ~"- a
3
f0
J~O /~ ~
N w
J
M ~ ~
~ M
f- ~
N
N° ~ N
,~_ N 0
~
f-- tD
.~ 1 ~. ~'
~ °
r- M p~~ ~ous~~e ,~ 1 4 r
--- ~
~ A
cD
V -~ 1~+
~ N ~ ~ M
~ ~ N N~ N
N ~ ~ --~
tj ~ C
D cp f~0
N~
CO , N ~'
t0 ~ L
r.. ~
L~ N _~
~ N
N
a,'
`
m
U
m '~ N 0~'~d
y ~
do
`
N ~
~ 4
~.
N
~ N
w CO
'„_
~ i
~--- `l f
M~ J d' OMO
M
m
a
3
' `L w
r
O
~ J
4]
M
~_ ~ ~
W
M
~ N M
4- t
~ /g uassrH/ a
m
N -` ~ M ~ d
p ~,
V ~ N h
V ~
~ ~
M ~
~~ ~~x
w~ ~
o R-'
N
O ~
a
C~
0
om
W
0
3.1 Traffzc antl Circulation
Year 2020 Base Case + Figure 3.1-15 presents year 2020 Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and
Project Intersection control. As shown, intersection geometrics and control are projected to remain the
Geometrics and same at all locations with the exception of the three Project access driveway
Control intersections along Bayshore Boulevard and the Project inbound access intersection
along Sister Cities Boulevard.
Impact Overview The proposed Project would generate more than 100 additional vehicular trips than the
approved project. Approximately 855 + more trips would be generated during the PM
peak hour. This would exceed C/CAG thresholds and would be a significant impact.
However, this impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level through a TDM
plan acceptable to C/CAG. For year 2010 conditions, the project would degrade
operation at one intersection to unacceptable levels. This would be a significant impact,
but conditions could be mitigated to a less than significant level. At the only
intersection with Base Case LOS F operation, the project would reduce AM peak hour
volumes and result in less than a two percent increase in PM peak hour volumes. This
would be a less than significant impact. In addition, no freeway segment or ramp would
receive a significant impact due to project traffic. The Project would, however, aggravate
vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by
2010 and to produce unacceptable queuing at one location with acceptable Base Case
queuing. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation would not be possible to
reduce Project queuing impacts to a less than significant level.
For year 2020 conditions, two intersections would receive significant impacts during the
PM peak hour. Mitigation could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level at
one, but not at the other location. In addition, the Project would result in unacceptable
vehicle queuing at one location where Base Case vehicle queues would be within
acceptable limits and aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have
unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation would not be possible to reduce these
impacts to a less than significant level. The Project would not result in significant
impacts to either freeway mainline or ramp operations.
A plan for on-site circulation management has not been proposed by the Project
applicant. This could result in inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking,
which is considered a potentially significant impact. However, mitigation would reduce
this potential impact to a less than significant level. The Project would meet City
parking code requirements, but without an on-site circulation management plan, various
parking levels could have high demand and congestion while other levels would be
consistently underutilized. This would also be a significant impact that could be reduced
to a less than significant level with mitigation.
Te~rahay Phare III Project Draft Supptemen[a1 Environmental Impact Report 3.1-42
z
~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~
a
n
oh m ~ '" any an ngna
"~''~'~ -~. 'h "•c'~
o
J(~a O
~rn° ~
~° ~ C Q
~ ~~
a
o
O o z
~ ~ p
,a'~O /~
,~,,,
< ~ o
,.a. ,'~ --~ ~1'~ ~ ~ nnie uo ry
'~ '-~-
v
O
W
y `'~~~
a b ~~~
m
m
U
0~~a
~ a6
~~\`5`
may.
~~ +
c
:?
w
t,,,- v
rn
iu
J
3 C Q
tl II
~
~~~ ~
~ ~
•~~ ~
a
co
1 / m
y
w
0
~.
c7
m
O
O
~U
in ~
M U
;+ v ~ ~
~~ ~
wN.~
N ~
O ~
N
3.1 Tra~c and Circulation
Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures YEAR 2010
Impact3.Z1 Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During the PM Peak Hour (S)
The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than the approved
2000 Office Project during the PM peak hour (± 855 more trips during the PM peak
hour than the approved 2000 Office Project). This requires that the proposed project
follow C/CAG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of net new trips.
Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program
("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer
and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips)
projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measute 3.1.1 The Project applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These
programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited
for each TDM measure. Appendix C Table C-10 outlines TDM programs that can
generate trip credits to offset the ± 855 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the
Project. (LTS).
Impact3.Z2 Year2010lntersection Level of Service 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%) due to the proposed Project. This would be less than
significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation
at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airnort
Boulevard.
• Provide a second left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities approach.
Adjustments should also be provided, if needed, to the north curb line of Sister
Teerabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emnronmenta! Impact Report 3.1-44
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
Cities Boulevard near the intersection to allow safe U-turn movements, which will
be conducted by project drivers.
• Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-38.2 seconds vehicle delay (LTS)
Impact 3.1.3 Yeat 2010 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS)
The proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment changing AM or
PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F. For those segments
projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in a
net decrease in traffic.
AM Peak Hour
Southbound U.S.101 (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would
result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 1.1%.
PM Peak Hour
Northbound U.S.101 (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would
result in Base Case freeway volumes being reduced by 0.9%.
Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.3 No mitigation required.
Impact 3.1.4 Year 2010 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS)
The proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak
hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps
projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in a
net decrease in traffic.
AM Peak Hour
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes
decreased from about 2,145 down to about 1,940 vehicles per hour and operation
would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E.
PM Peak Hour
U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes
decreased from about 2,135 down to about 2,105 vehicles per hour, with operation
remaining LOS F.
Freeway ramp operation impacts would be less than significant.
Terrabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-45
3.1 Tra~c and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 3.1.4 No mitigation required.
Impact 3.1.5 Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU)
The proposed Project would not result in any unacceptable vehicle queuing at locations
where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits, with one exception.
In addition, project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected
to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010.
AM Peak Hour
• Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a
± 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM Peak Hour
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection. The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a
± 135% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition,
the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a
±6 percent increase in traffic and Base Case queuing would be extended beyond
available storage.
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.707 Northbound On-Ramp. The
Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through/left turn lanes would
receive a ± 12% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
These would be significant impacts.
It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the
AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable
Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing
reduced due to the proposed Project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing
impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.101 Northbound off-ramp
approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as the northbound Dubuque
Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard and the left turn lane on the eastbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound on-ramp.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.5 • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
vehicle, this would equal an 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 City may also desire
to add additional length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue and some
vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes. The other proposed measure to improve level
Tenabay Pha.re III Project Draft Supplemental Enadronmental Impact Beport 3.1-46
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease
westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance
on the freeway overpass. (SU)
• 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 approach to
acceptable lengths. (SU)
YEAR 2020
Impact 3.1.6 Year 2020lntersection Level of Service Impacts (SU)
All but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and
PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak
hour operation would remain LOS F but driver delay would decrease by about 20
seconds and volumes would decrease by about three percent. During the PM peak
hour, operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent
(1.1%) during this time period, resulting in aless-than-significant impact at this location.
However, Project traffic would produce significant impacts at two locations during the
PM peak hour. At Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, operation would change from Base Case LOS C to Base
Case + Project LOS F, and volumes would increase by more than two percent (10.7%).
In addition, at the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project access
intersection, operation would change from LOS D to LOS F, with volumes increasing
by more than two percent (5.6%). These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.6 • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
- Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left
turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to
the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe U-turn
movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers.
- Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay (LTS)
• Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access
Scenario 7
- Eliminate outbound Project movements at this intersection, while
maintaining inbound flow. Transfer all outbound traffic flow to the
Project's central driveway connection along Bayshore Boulevard.
Teirabay Phase 711 Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-47
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
- Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard
intersection approach, if right-of--way is available.
Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D/E-55.0 seconds vehicle delay
(LTS)
Scenario 2
- Eliminate all Project access (inbound or outbound) opposite the hook
ramps. Transfer all movements to the central Project access.
Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS D-50.9 seconds vehicle delay
(LTS)
Scenario 3
- Maintain inbound and outbound flow to/from the Project access driveway.
- Provide a third lane on the Project driveway approach to Bayshore
Boulevard.
- Provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard
approach, if right-of--way is available.
- The City of South San Francisco shall accept LOS F operation at this
location one hour each weekday afternoon. In conjunction with this
philosophy, provide actuated signal operation that will always clear the
U.S.101 southbound off-ramp traffic to preclude backups to the freeway
mainline. The added green time for the off-ramp will result in reduced
green time (and potential longer backups) for the Project driveway
intersection approach as well as the Bayshore Boulevard intersection
approaches.
Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour LOS F-90.6 seconds vehicle delay (SU)
Impact 3.1.7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts (LTS)
The proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment near the Oyster
Point interchange receiving a significant impact. No segment would receive more than a
three-tenths of one percent traffic increase, and half the freeway segments would receive
volume decreases (when comparing the proposed Project to the approved project).
Freeway mainline operation impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.7 No mitigation required.
Impact 3.1.8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramps Impacts (LTS)
The proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak
hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps
projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in
either a net decrease or no measurable change in traffic.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:nronmenta! Impact Report 3.1-48
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
AM Peak Hour
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes
decreased from about 2,220 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and
operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable
LOS E. (LTS)
PM Peak Hour
• U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have
volumes decreased from about 2,990 down to about 2,965 vehicles per hour.
Operation would remain LOS F. (LTS)
• U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes
increased less than one percent (0.7%) with the proposed Project. Operation
would remain LOS F. (LTS)
Mitigation Measute 3.1.8 No mitigation required.
Impact 3.1.9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts (SU)
The proposed Project would produce unacceptable vehicle queuing at one location
where Base Case vehicle queues would be within acceptable limits. In addition, Project
traffic would aggravate vehicle queues to significant levels at several locations expected
to have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2020.
AM Peak Hour
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection
• The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a ± 9%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM Peak Hour
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection
• The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would receive a ± 10.5%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
• The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would receive a
± 24% increase in traffic and would experience unacceptable queuing.
• The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive
a ± 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.101 Northbound On-Kamp
• The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined
left/through lanes would receive a ± 9% increase in traffic with unacceptable
Base Case queuing.
Terrabay Pbare III Project Draft Supplemental Ena7ronmentallmpact Report 3.1-49
3.1 Traffic and Circulation
It should be noted that due to the proposed Project's overall lower volumes during the
AM peak hour than those from the approved project, some locations with unacceptable
Base Case queuing during the morning commute would be expected to have queuing
reduced due to the proposed Project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing
impacts due to the proposed Project include the U.S.101 Northbound off-ramp
approach to Dubuque Avenue (for left turns) as well as left turns on the northbound
Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard.
Mitigation Measure 3.Z9 • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard same improvements as for level of service)
- Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach.
Make each lane at least 200 feet long to accommodate the 50th percentile
queue. The City may also desire to add additional length to accommodate the
95th percentile queue and some vehicle deceleration in the turn lanes. The
other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left
turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to
the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU)
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/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)
Impact3.Z10 On-Site Circulation (S)
The Project applicant has indicated that parking for all site uses will be equally accessible
via all Project driveway connections to either Bayshore Boulevard (three connections) or
to Sister Cities Boulevard (one inbound connection). Project residents and employees
should quickly learn the easiest and most direct routes between their assigned parking
areas and the driveway connections to the local street system. However, retail
customers, movie patrons and visitors to the residential and office uses who may not be
that familiar with the multi-level parking garage will be confronted with numerous
decisions when entering the site (by any driveway) in regards to which levels of the
garage are available for parking (for their activity) as well as which level(s) of the garage
will have the most available spaces. No plan has yet been provided by the applicant in
regards to the type of "easy-to-read" and "real time information" system that will be
provided along each entrance driveway and at each garage entry location to provide
decision-making input to drivers. It is probable that a disproportionate number of
drivers may opt to initially access surface (top level) parking rather than proceed into
one of the lower garage levels. This could lead to a situation whereby the overall site
has a sufficient number of parking spaces, but inadequate distribution of drivers to
available parking may lead to pockets of congestion along certain parking aisles, while
other areas of the garage remain mostly empty. This would be a significant impact.
Tarabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enazronmenta! Impact Report 3.1-50
3.1 Tragic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 3.1.10 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will
include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information
for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the
most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels
that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be
employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet
stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras
and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable
for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most
convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS)
Impact3.Z11 Provision of On-Site Parking (S)
Table 3.1-19 shows the parking to be provided by the proposed Project, which would
meet City Municipal Code and/or Terrabay Zoning Ordinance requirements.
TABLE 3.1-19 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES
Total # of Vehicles
Total Spaces Parked With Valet
Project Use Provided Parking
Retail/Movie Theater
Office
Residential Units
TOTAL
1,440 1,870
411 570
562 650
2,413
3,090
There is no available on-street parking within easy walking distance of the Project.
Therefore, valet parking has been incorporated into the Project plan for peak use time
periods. Valet parking would be expected to increase total on-site parking supply by
about 28 percent. In addition, for times of peak parking demand, valet stations will be
in contact with each other to provide real time information about space availability. In
the rare instances when demand will exceed parking supply (even with valet parking),
the valet service shall immediately inform drivers that no parking is available on the site
(on a temporary basis) to prevent drivers from wandering from floor to floor in the
parking garage.
The different Project uses will have their peak parking demands occurring at different
times of the day and evening on weekdays and on weekends. For example, office
activities will have their peak parking demand on weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM,
with little use on weekday evenings or on weekends; retail uses will have their peak
parking demands on weekday afternoons into the early evening and on weekend
afternoons; while the movie theater will have its peak parking demand during evenings,
Terrabay Phan 111 Pr ject Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.1-51
3.1 Traffic and Circnlatian
particularly on Friday and Saturday night. This will allow shared use of the same
parking stalls for office, retail and movie activities.
As previously detailed within the "Internal Circulation" section, no plan has yet been
provided by the applicant detailing how retail and movie patron drivers will be quickly
guided to the various levels of the parking garage to find available parking. Even with
the total on-site parking supply meeting City code and Terrabay ordinance requirements,
if clear and real time parking space information is not transmitted to drivers, there is the
possibility that certain levels of the garage (particularly the surface parking) will always
have high demand and congestion (even during non-peak parking demand times), while
other areas of the parking garage will be consistently underutilized. This would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.211 The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will
include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information
for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the
most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels
that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be
employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet
stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras
and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable
for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most
convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (LTS)
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft SuppkmentalEmaronmentallmpact Report 3.1-52
3. Environmental Setting, Impactr and Mitigation Measures
3.2 AIR QUALITY
SETTING
Air Pollution The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release
Climatology and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for
photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation
of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent
and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds
are lightest on the average in fall and winter.
The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air
pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are
very light and local pollutants can build up.
Air Quality Standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These
ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that
avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air
quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other
effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents.
The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to
identify air quality standards. California has also adopted more stringent ambient air
quality standards for some pollutants. Table 3.2-1 summarizes current state and
national standards.
Ambient Air Quality The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution
sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated
under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines
for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at
several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in
South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in
San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 3.2-2 summarizes
Te~rabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:ironmental Impact Report 3.2-1
3.2 AirQuality
exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. Table 3.2-2 shows
that
TABLE 3.2-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD S
Averaging Federal Primary
Pollutant Time Standard State Standard
Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.08 PPM --
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM --
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMIO Annual Average 50 µg/m3 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 65 µg/m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 µg/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM =Parts per Million
µg/m3 =Micrograms per Cu bic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Q uality Standards (7/9/03)
http: / /www.arb.ca. gov.aos/aags2.odf
most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception
of the state standard for PMto and ozone. The federal ozone standard is also exceeded
in other parts of the Bay Area air basin.
Attainment Status The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State
Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the
state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state
standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state
legislation. The Bay is currently a nonattainment for 1-hour ozone standard. However,
in April 2004, U.S. EPA made a final finding that the Bay Area has attained the national
1-hour ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has
been reclassified as an attainment area for the 1-hour standard. The region must submit
a re-designation request to EPA in order to be reclassified as an attainment area.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Suppkmen~al Environmentallmpact Report 3.2-2
3.2 AirQuality
TABLE 3.2-2: AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO
AND REDWOOD, CITY, 2002-2004
Days Standard Exceeded
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site 2002 2003 2004
Ozone Federal 1- San Francisco 0 0 0
Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 1
Ozone Federal 8- San Francisco 0 0 0
Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
PMio Federa124- San Francisco 0 0 0
Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
PMio State 24-Hour San Francisco 4 1 1
Redwood City 1 0 1
PMz.s Federa124- San Francisco 4 0 0
Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Carbon State/Fed. San Francisco 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Manage ment (AD AM), 2005.
(http: / /www. arb. ca. gov. / adam/ cgi-bin / adamtop / d2ws tart)
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area
as anon-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PMz.s standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act San Mateo County is anon-attainment area for
ozone and particulate matter (I'Mlo and PMz.s). The county is either attainment or
unclassified for other pollutants
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996) provide the following definitions of
Significance a significant air quality impact:
• Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site
• A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the
State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact.
• A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD
annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality
impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Eraaronmenta! Impact Report 3.2-3
3.2 AirQuality
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM10. Any proposed project
that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be
considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
• Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
• Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to
substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant
impact.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PMz.s (particulate
matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for
this pollutant. For this analysis, PMz.s impacts would be considered significant if project
emissions of PM~o exceed 80 pounds per day.
The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Impact Overview p,~ qualiry impacts of the project were analyzed in Chapter 4.5 of the 1998/99 SEIR
and in the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. This chapter re-examines compliance
with applicable significance thresholds based on the current Terrabay Phase III Project
description, utilizes updated methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic
forecasts that reflect changes in roadway improvements and travel patterns that have
occurred since certification of the earlier EIRs. This supplement also accounts for
changes in the regulatory standards since certification of the previous EIRs.
The Project would generate air pollutant emissions during construction and operation.
Operational emissions would primarily be from the generation of vehicle trips. This
analysis is intended to meet the requirements of the BAAQMD's guidance for
environmental documents (BAAQMD 1996). It addresses the impacts of the project
during construction as well as operational impacts on both the local and regional scale.
Carbon monoxide concentrations would slightly increase but would not exceed
state/federal ambient air quality standards. The Project would result in regional emission
increases that are significant and unavoidable as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR.
Impact 3.2.1 Construction activities would have the potential to cause nuisance related to
dust and AMID. (S).
Construction activities would generate dust, especially during excavation and grading of
hillsides and hauling of material. This type of activity has the potential to affect local air
Teorabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enanranmentallmpact Deport 3.2-4
3.2 AirQuality
quality temporarily, as well as create a nuisance to existing and new residents. The
primary pollutant of concern is PM~o which is a component of dust. Dust emissions
would be generated prunarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed
areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movement of material (both on- and
off-site). This would be a potentially significant impact.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction
controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities
would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the
1998/99 SEIR required the implementation of the following construction mitigation
measures:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often
when conditions warrant.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks
shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved,
watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be
swept daily (with water sweepers).
• Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
• Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more)
shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
• Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily,
or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders.
• Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph)
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
• Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one
month of the disturbance).
• Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be
washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:nronmentallmpact Report 3.2-5
3.2 AirQuality
site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the
emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through
additional watering or installation of wind fences).
• Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees /vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on
windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions warrant, to prevent visible
dust clouds from extending beyond the site.
• The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be
limited at any one time.
• A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor,
shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control
measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air pollutant
emissions (primarily dust) during construction.
According the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of these mitigation
measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. (LTS)
Impact 3.2.2 The Project would change traffic volumes and congestion Levels, changing
carbon monoxide concentrations. This is aless-than-significantimpact. (LTS)
On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing
carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an
odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles.
Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. New vehicle
trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site.
Carbon monoxide concentrations under worst-case meteorological conditions have
been predicted for the two signalized intersections most impacted by project traffic.
Peak hour traffic volumes were applied to the a screening form of the CALINE-4
dispersion model to predict maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations near these
intersections for existing conditions and project conditions in the years 2010 and 2020.
Appendix E provides a description of the model and a discussion of the methodology
and assumptions used in the analysis. The model results were used to predict the
maximum 1- and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging
times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon
monoxide.
Terrabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Supplemental Enizronmentallmpact Report 3.2-6
3.2 Air~uality
Table 3.2-3 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak 1-hour and 8-
hour traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The 1-hour values are to be compared
to the federal 1-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8-
hour values in Table 3.2-3 are to be compared to the state and federal standard of 9
PPM.
TABLE 3.2-3: PREDICTED CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATIONS, IN PARTS PER MILLION
Forecast Concentration
1-Hour 8-Hour
Intersection Scenario Concentration Concentration
Sister Cities/ Existing (2005) 8.1 5.8
Bayshoxe/ Base Case (2010) 7.2 5.1
Airport/
C-yster Point Base Case + Project (2010) 7.4 5.2
Base Case + Alt 1 (2010) 7.4 5.2
Base Case + Alt 2 (2010) 7.3 5.2
Base Case (2020) 5.5 3.9
Base Case + Project (2020) 5.6 4.0
Base Case + Alt 1 (2020) 5.6 4.0
Base Case + Air 2 (2020) 5.6 3.9
Bayshoxe/ Existing (2005) 6.1 4.4
SB 101 Ramps Base Case (2010) 6.5 4.6
Base Case + Project (2010) 6.2 4.4
Base Case + Alt 1 (2010) 6.2 4.4
Base Case + Alt 2 (2010) 6.1 4.3
Base Case (2020) 5.0 3.6
Base Case + Project (2020) 5.2 3.7
Base Case + Alt 1 (2020) 5.2 3.7
Base Case + Alt 2 (2020) 5.2 3.7
Most Stringent Standard 20.0 9.0
Table 3.2-3 shows that Project traffic would increase concentrations by up to 0.2 PPM,
but concentrations would remain below the most stringent state or federal standards.
Concentrations with project would not exceed the state/federal ambient air quality
standards.
Since project traffic would not cause any new violations of the 8-hour standards for
carbon monoxide, nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation,
project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less-
Tarabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Suppkmen~a! Environmental Impart Report 3.2-7
3.2 AirQuality
than-significant, confirming the conclusions of the 1998/99 SEIR and the previous
1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR.
Mitigation Measure 3.2.2 None required.
Impact 3.2.3 The project would result in a regional emission increase that would exceed the
BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMio. (SU)
Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting
the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project
vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model. The
URBEMIS-2002 model and the conditions assumed in its use are described in
Appendix E.
The incremental daily emission increases associated with project operational trip
generation are identified in Table 3.2-4 for reactive organic gases and oxides of
nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM~o. Also shown are the emission estimates
from the 1998/99 SEIR. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds
of significance for these pollutants are also shown.
TABLE 3.2-4: PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY
Scenario ROG NOx PMIo
1998 SEIR Emissions for Phase III 46 92 104
Project Emissions 97 94 105
Difference +51 +2 +1
BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 80 80 80
The 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR concluded that full build out of the Terrabay Plan would
result in emissions of ozone precursors and PM10 exceeding 150 pounds per day which,
at that time, was the significance threshold. Subsequently, the BAAQMD has adopted
stricter significance thresholds of 80 pounds per day for each regional pollutant. The
1998/99 SEIR found that regional pollutant emissions (based on the URBEMIS-5
program) from full buildout of the proposed Terrabay Plan would exceed 80 pounds
per day for each of the pollutants.
Proposed Project emissions shown in Table 3.2-4 would exceed those calculated for
the 1998 SEIR, and Phase III emissions alone would exceed the thresholds of
significance for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PMio. This would constitute a
significant impact to regional air quality.
Te~rabuy P/~are III Project DraJl Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8
3.2 AirQuality
Mitigation Measure 3.2.3 Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. This
mitigation measure addressed office and retail uses on the Phase III portion of the site
and office, retail and residential on the Phase II and Phase III portions of Terrabay.
The proposed Project would include residential uses as well. The following are
additional mitigation measures to be applied to the retail portions of the Project:
• Provide electric vehicle charging stations.
• Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops,
and/or community-wide network.
• Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle storage.
• Provide preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles.
• Implement feasible TDM measures including aride-matching program,
coordination with regional ridesharing organizations and provision of transit
information.
• Construct transit amenities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc.
• Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit
stops and adjacent development.
The above measures reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions by 5-10%. This
would not provide the 24% reduction in emissions needed to reduce the Project's
impact to a level that is less than significant, so Project impacts would remain significant
after implementation of mitigation measures.
Terrabay Phase III Arojecl Draft Supplemental Emnronmental Impact Report 3.2-9
3. Environmental Setting, Impactr and Mitigation Measures
3.3 NOISE
SETTING
Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and it is commonly measured with a sound
of Noise level meter. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the
microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the
A-weighting filter is used. A weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-
frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is
required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g.
Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is commonly used when the
A weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors
that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does
not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more
accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level
(LI„a.~) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a train passby or
airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is
used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for
periods of 15 minutes to one hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level)
is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources
such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the Leo
which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level
(DNL or La„) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a ten dB penalty during
nighttime hours (and a five dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account
for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of three dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A ten
dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
Noise Measurements To quantify the existing noise environment two long-term (24-hour) noise
measurements and four short-term (15-minute) noise measurements were made. The
locations were chosen to represent the location of noise sensitive project uses and
existing noise sensitive receivers that may be affected by Project generated noise.
Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of short-term and long-term noise measurements.
Terrabay Phase IU Prq'ect Draft SsrpplementalEn:nronmentallmpact Report 3.3-1
~\ ~'.~', ~...~ '\,~ `'\ v ~ ti `iy``., ~~, i .~ 1 ; h~ ~ '~, ` ~; ` 1 ~y ,', ~ ~ I i j ~ j (!~ ~1 ~ ~~, 3 1 i ~) ~ 1 .
,,,` °,~ ~, ~ ~ 1 ~11,,, ' } ~ , ~ ~,. ~1, 1, `' ~ ~ !~ 1' 4 ! I ~
``~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~~ ,,~ ~ ~] } {
v 1 '~4V1 '~ 3:~•~11ii~L~~1
~~~ ~~ .~~. ~ ..', ~ <y '~ ~.. ~ l ~ i i ~ I~~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~1.
~ 1 ~ [
! ~ to ~ )~`t., 1 ~_ ~ ~1 1 ~ M ~ ~~ t .
.~ ° ° -~'` ' ~~ ~_ 11;41' ~1~?[~
} ~ ~ ~~ ~ t~ rh S ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ 1, ~
,,fir ~ i 3
"~ tom, ~ r, ~ ~ l ~ l ~ ~ l ~ }
1 ~"~ ~ m Il ~ ~ t i~~~~~~~1~~ e
~~...- . ,
~. , ~ ,
. ~~' ~ a ~
t (~3 i
,
" ' ~ ~
___ _ t
,~ _ ~ d ~ I
'" 1 4 ~
~5 f 1~ - ~ ~
r, ~ ~~ `
~Iyy~I~~~..,.~a'. r~ /ry,`/.~./'~'~iA'~ • +y ~.ny {{ V f ~ v'Y"w~~, ~.`'+
~vd'~, ~.'r~1 ~_ ~r~"'~~.. r/ _~~ ~ ~ V}~ ~ 't ,~~' t .wt~~ p~ ~ ;'.f y, y~~'~+4 ~ *\'
} Y }
H
~yz
0
0
u
O
M ~i
M ~
W ~
v
'o
z
3.3 Noire
Figure 3.3-2 shows the results of the long-term noise measurements; and Table 3.3-1
shows the results of the short-term noise measurements.
FIGURE 3.3-2: LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS,
10-11 MAY 2005
80 --
f Location A, CNEL 76 dBA
~o
so Location B, CNEL 74 dBA
a~
J
N 50
.o
z
~ 40
~°
a~
Q 30
T
t
= 20
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(D 1~ O O O N ('7 O W N (") V N O r O O O N f`7 V' ~ (D
r r r r N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Time of Day
TABLE 3.3-1: SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Date/ A-weighted Sound Level, dBA
Location Time Lev I•to I.33 Lso L9o CNELa
1 On hillside at edge 5/10/05
of bench. 610 ft. 15:30 - 70 72 71 70 69 76
from centerline of 15:45
US 101.
2 South corner of site
near proposed 5/10/05
office tower. 300 ft. 16:00 - 73 74 73 73 72 78
from centerline of 16:15
US 101.
3 On hillside near
north end of site. 5/10/05
460 feet from 16:30 - 70 72 71 70 68 75
centerline of 16:45
US 101.
4 Near existing 5/11/05
townhomes on 15:32 - 60 62 61 60 58 66
Mandalay Pl. 15:47
a I,d„ based on compazison wi th simultaneous measurement at long-term measurement location.
Terrabay Pbare III Project Draft SxpplementalEranronmentallmpact Repart 3.3-3
3.3 Noire
The dominant noise source during the measurements was traffic on US 101. Other
noise sources include traffic on Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard as well
as aircraft. Noise from road construction was audible at times but did not contribute
significantly to the CNEL.
Traffic. The freeway is depressed in a cut adjacent to the site. As a result, locations
close to the freeway and at the bottom of the hillside (e.g. Location A) are somewhat
shielded from freeway noise by the terrain. Locations on the hillside (e.g. Location 1)
have a direct view of the freeway and do not benefit from the acoustical shielding. This
acoustical shielding is the reason that the CNEL at Location A is the same as Location 1
even though Location A is much closer to the freeway.
The CNELs at Locations B and Location 1 differ by two dBA because Location B was
setback from the edge of a level "bench" area and benefited from acoustical shielding
provided by the existing terrain. Location 1 was at the edge of the bench and did not
have this acoustical shielding.
Aircraft. Noise from aircraft departing San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) was
clearly audible at times. Based on the long term noise measurement data, the maximum
instantaneous noise levels (Ln,~) from jet flyovers were up to 80 dBA. There were a
total of six jets that generated an L,,,~ greater than 75 dBA. These overflights were
likely from aircraft using either the Shoreline or Porte departure routes. Because the
events are relatively infrequent, the jet noise did not significantly contribute to the
measured CNEL.
Yearly average noise levels from aircraft activity are quantified in noise contour maps
that are published by San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Neither the existing
nor the future CNEL 60 dBA contour reaches the Project site (SFIA 2001).
Regulatory Framework City of South San Francisco
The City's General Plan Noise Element contains Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted
Areas (General Plan Table 9.2-1). These criteria consider residential land use to be
"satisfactory" when exposed to aircraft noise of CNEL 65 dBA or less. This is
consistent with the criteria of the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan.
For addressing traffic noise the Noise Element has the following implementing policies:
9-I-4. Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches,
and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by
producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation
measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Ena7mnmenta! Impact Report 3.3-4
3.3 Noire
9-I-5. Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to
noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the
services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and
design o f mitigation measures.
9-I-6. Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive
development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than
65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible
sound walls, where practical.
The City of South San Francisco has Noise Regulations in its Municipal Code
(Chapter 8.32). These regulations address land uses that produce noise by specifying
property line noise limits and interior noise limits. The regulations also address
construction noise.
State of California
The California Noise Insulation Standards (CBC Section 1208A.8.2) require new multi-
family residential project to provide in interior CNEL (or Ld„) of 45 dBA or less due to
exterior sources. An acoustical report is required for new developments with in the
CNEL 60 dBA contour. The report must specify what measures will be used to achieve
the interior noise level requirement. If the windows need to be in the closed position to
meet this requirement, then an alternate form of ventilation must be provided to
maintain a habitable environment when the windows are closed for noise control.
Aircraft Noise (San Mateo County ALUC and State AB 2776). The current Airport
Land Use Policy Plan was adopted by the San Mateo County ALUC in 1996. The
ALUC Plan also contains noise contour maps and aircraft noise/land use compatibility
standards. In 2004, The California Assembly adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires
disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a residential
subdivision.. The disclosure documents must also include a statement regarding noise
from aircraft overflights if the subdivision is located within an Airport Influence Area
(AIA).
According to discussion with ALUC staff (Carbone 2005), the Project site is not within
the AIA which is generally the same as the FAR Part 77 outer boundary configuration
and CNEL 65 dBA contour. However, Staff did note that under certain wind
conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly directly over the site when using the
Shoreline departure route.
Terrabay Phan III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.3-5
3.3 Noire
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of The Project would result in a significant noise impact if it would:
Significance
1. Generate construction noise levels in excess of the limits contained the City of
South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (8.32.050). This regulation
states that construction equipment shall not produce a noise level exceeding 90 dBA
at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment or at any point outside the property
plane.
2. Expose Project uses to noise levels greater than those considered satisfactory by the
criteria of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan or expose residential uses
to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA. The impact would be less-than-significant if the
noise level inside Project homes does not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA due to
exterior noise sources (CBC Section 1208A.8.2 and South San Francisco General
Plan).
3. .Expose existing noise sensitive land use to an increase in CNEL of more than
five dBA; or greater than three dBA and not more than five dBA if the future noise
level will be greater than considered satisfactory for the receiving land use according
to South San Francisco Noise Element (Table 9.2-1). Noise level increases of 3
dBA or less in the CNEL are considered less than significant regardless of the noise
level at the receiving land use.
4. Expose existing or project land uses to noise from stationary sources such as
mechanical equipment in excess of the noise levels standards contained in the City
of South San Francisco's Municipal Code Noise Regulation (Table 8.32.030).
Impact Overview The noise analysis evaluates potentially significant noise impacts associated with the
proposed Project. While the development program has been modified from that
analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, Project impacts would be similar. Temporary
construction impacts are considered less than significant. Exposure of residential
development to traffic noise is considered a significant impact. Detailed design of the
commercial buildings is not available at this time, therefore, the extent of noise
generated from mechanical equipment (e.g. ventilation and air conditioning) cannot be
determined. Noise from the mechanical systems of commercial development is
considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially Significant
Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.3.1 Construction noise would temporatlly result in increases in noise. (LTS)
The noisiest construction activities are typically those associated with grading and
foundation work. During these phases there are heavy diesel equipment such as trucks,
graders, loaders and scrapers. A rock drill and hoe-ram may be used as part of
TenaGay Plxue III Pr ject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6
3.3 Nai,re
excavation and retaining wall. Pile driving or blasting are not expected to be necessary.
Figure 3.3-3 shows the expected noise levels from the various types of equipment.
Hoe-ram noise levels are comparable to the rock-drill noise levels shown in
Figure 3.3-3.
FIGURE 3.3-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
NOISE LEVEL {d8A)AT 50 FT
60 70 00 90 #Op n0
COA~PACTER!,' { RO!.LERS! H
,~ PttONi I.OACER5 }r---
w
z
=
a; BACKNOE5
W O
z ~ •
o
s
~ rnRs
Tnnc
F a
'
m w SCRAt>F:HS, GrcAOE
RS
PAYERS H
J
Q
a
W Tr~uc<cs
---
~
Z CONCRETE" tJ#Y.ritS
> c . _.-._ T
_._
~ COtaCRETP. PUIdPS H
W
~ a cRn+.+es {MOVAaLC)
o ~
°' r
~ ~ CRANESiDE1:R#CK) E"{
w
a
z PUtAPS
a
W ~
a GENERATORS
w COf~IPRESSORS
F- PNEUMATIC Y:RENCNES f--'-'~
Hz
-'-"-
W
n
~ CK ORIELS
D R
t ~- -~
a
~~ JACY, ItAM
dERS AN
O
tau PILE ORIYERS {PEAKS)
~
W
s VIURATOR
H
o
SAWS
The nearest noise sensitive receivers are the existing single-family homes across Sister
Cities Boulevard and the new townhomes that are part of Phase II of the Terrabay
development. The single-family homes are at least 100 feet from the limit of grading
and about 250 feet from the nearest proposed building. At these distances the grading
noise levels are at least six dBA quieter, and the foundation work would be at least
14 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2. The townhomes are at least 200 feet
from the limit of grading and about 300 feet from the nearest proposed building. At
these distances the grading noise levels will be at least 12 dBA quieter and the
foundation work would be at least 16 dBA quieter than those shown in Figure 3.3-2.
Terrabay Plxue III Pr jei! Draft Supplemental Entnronmenta! Impact Reparl 3.3-7
3.3 Noire
Though there will be times when construction noise is clearly audible at the nearest
residences, it is not expected to regularly exceed the 90 dBA limit in the City's Municipal
Code. Most of the time, noise from construction activities will tend to blend in with the
ambient freeway noise. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR is
adequate to address any construction related noise. The mitigation that will be carried
forward requires construction scheduling, mufflers and maintenance of equipment,
idling prohibitions, equipment location and shielding and a "Noise Disturbance
Coordinator".
Mitigation Measure 3.3.1 No additional mitigation is required.
Impact 3.3.2 Exposure to Aircraft Noise (LTS)
The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within the
Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain
situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some aircraft
may fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City could consider adding a requirement
that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that a disclosure
statement be included in residential deeds. The disclosure would identify the proximity
of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.2 No mitigation required.
Impact 3.3.3 The Project residential development would be exposed to noise levels exceeding
the City ofSouth San Francisco Noise Element. (S)
Measured noise levels on the site range from a CNEL of 74 dBA to 78 dBA and are
dominated by freeway traffic. Based on future freeway traffic volume projections, noise
level could increase by up to two dBA by the year 2020.
Based on the latest site plan, most of the land uses nearest the freeway are commercial
including offices, retail and a multiplex cinema. The city does not have specific
standards for commercial development exposed to traffic noise. According to the city's
Noise Element, exposure of commercial land uses to a CNEL of 70 to 80 dBA,
"requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed."
Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed
commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical
shielding provided by the intervening buildings. This shielding would reduce the future
noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units to a
CNEL of 65 dBA to 70 dBA. According to the city's Noise Element this land use
would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA.
Terrabay Phase III Project Drafl Supplemental Enedronmentallmpact Report 3.3-8
3.3 Noire
The proposed residential tower would be about 400 feet from the centerline of US 101.
The future CNEL at this residential land use would be up to 79 dBA for the upper
levels that have a full view of the freeway. According to the city's Noise Element this
land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than
65 dBA.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 Acoustical studies shall be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with State
and City of South San Francisco noise standards.
The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family
residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study
prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of
45 dBA or less. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-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 should be
prepared during the architectural design of the Project.
In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor
use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or
less in outdoor use areas as per Noise $lement policy 9-I-6 without the use of visible
sound walls where practical.
Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The
interior noise level standard should be developed as part of the study and be based on
the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required
acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will
reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than
significant level.
Impact 3.3.4 There would be an increase in traffic noise. (S)
The expected increase in traffic noise due to Project generated traffic was calculated
based on the traffic projections (Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation). The Project would
increase noise by one dBA or less along Sister Cities Boulevard. In the year 2020, traffic
volume increases along Sister Cities Boulevard axe expected to increase traffic noise by
up to three dBA. However, the contribution from Project generated traffic results in an
increase of less than one dBA. Since the threshold for a significant impact is an increase
of greater than three dBA, the Project and cumulative noise increases result in less-than-
significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.4 The Project shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR.
(LTS)
Te~rabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental En:nronmental Impact Report 3.3-9
3.3 Naire
Impact 3.3.5 Project Generated Mechanical Equipment Noise. (S)
Since the Project involves mixed use development, there is the potential for stationary
noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect the noise sensitive
residential uses. The most likely sources of noise impact would be from outdoor
mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. At this time not
enough is known about the design of the commercial buildings to prepare estimates of
mechanical equipment noise at the residences. This is a potentially significant impact
not previously identified in the 1998/99 SEIR.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.5 Require Horse control treatments to meet the Municipal Code performance
standards.
During the design of the commercial buildings a qualified acoustical consultant shall
review the Project for conformance with the maximum permissible sound levels in the
city's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require
continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and
55 dBA during the night at multiple-family residential uses. (LTS)
Terrabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Sxpplementa! Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10
3. Environmental Setting, Impactr anti Mitigation Measures
3.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
SETTING
This section evaluates public services and utilities related to development at the Project
site, including police and fire protection services, schools, water supply, wastewater
disposal and treatment, and storm drainage. As part of this analysis, individual service
and utility providers were contacted and provided with information regarding the
proposed Project.
Police Protection The City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is at 33 Arroyo Drive,
Suite C in South San Francisco. SSFPD provides crime prevention, protection, and
apprehension services for the Project site. They are also responsible for enforcement of
traffic safety.
The SSFPD has 113 persons, including 79 sworn police officers. The sworn officer-to-
population ratio is approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.16 officers per
1,000 residents involved in field activities and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents.
To provide adequate service for cumulative development, SSFPD's goal is to have
approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents, with 1.18 officers per 1,000 residents
involved in field activities, and 0.09 traffic officers per 1,000 residents. The SSFPD has
an average of 40,000 calls annually, with a daytime population of about 100,000 and a
nighttime population of about 67,000 (Sergeant Normandy 2005).
The SSFPD has four beats. The Project site is located within Beat #4. There are three,
ten-hour work shifts assigned to each beat, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The shifts
overlap, with the most overlap coverage from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Each beat is
typically staffed by cone-officer unit with six to nine other officers consisting of traffic,
K-9, training, float, and supervisory units, available for back-up and overlap. The
SSFPD has 31 marked police units, which includes 19 patrol units, four police service
technician units, five motorrycles, two parking enforcement vehicles, and a S.W.A.T.
response vehicle (Sergeant Normandy 2005).
Response times depend on the type of call and the location of the officers at the time
the call is dispatched. SSFPD prioritizes crimes against people over property crimes.
Police officers are usually in the field at the time a call for service is received. The
average response time throughout the City of South San Francisco is about five to six
minutes (Sergeant Normandy 2005).
The SSFPD uses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Principles for projects. The three CPTED Principles are Natural Access Control,
Natural Surveillance, and Territorial Reinforcement, to aid in the creation of Defensible
Terrabay Phan III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 3.4-1
3.4 Public Senaces and Utilities
Space. The SSFPD utilizes an integrated Community Oriented Policing and Problem
Solving (COPPS) Philosophy and approach. The Community Relations Sergeant and
COPPS Coordinator oversee programs to inform the public on safety and quality of life
concerns, including Neighborhood Meetings, Homeowners Association Meetings,
Neighborhood Watch Meetings, Press Releases, Neighborhood Walking Patrols,
Business Owner Meetings, and Intranet and Crime Watch websites (Sergeant Normandy
2005).
Fire Protection The City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire protection and
emergency medical response services for the Project site. SSFFD operates five fire
stations with afire-fighting staff of 70, two ambulances and crew. They are operating at
their limit for personnel and equipment.
Station 55, at 1151 South San Francisco Drive, is the primary responder to the Project
site and Station 62, at 249 Harbor Way, is the secondary responder. Estimated response
time from both Station 55 and Station 62 is five minutes. Station 61 responds with the
unit from Station 65 because Station 65 is understaffed. Station 61 will relocate further
from the Project site at the end of 2005 and will have a response time of up to seven
minutes. There is an automatic response agreement with other fire departments in San
Mateo County to provide mutual aid (Captain Niswonger 2005).
The first arriving engine company to the Project site would be staffed with three
personnel. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 requires that a minimum
staffing of four personnel respond to emergency calls (Captain Niswonger 2005).
The San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center in Redwood City handles
fire unit and paramedic communications for SSFFD. Within the City of South San
Francisco, some high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures designed with
concrete and steel have experienced poor on-site signal strength. Portable radio devices
used to contact the San Mateo County Emergency Communications Center have also
experienced reception problems. During an emergency (medical, hazardous material,
and fire) it is required that communication systems be operational, for the safety of
building occupants and firefighters (Captain Niswonger 2005).
Schools The Brisbane School District (BSD) provides elementary and middle school services,
kindergarten through 8th grade, to students in the Project area. Jefferson Union High
School District QUHSD) provides high school services. The Brisbane School District
(BSD) provides elementary and middle school education for students who live within
the district and students outside the district, as capacity permits. Currently, more
students are transferring into BSD than transferring out. The BSD operates three
schools, two in the City of Brisbane and one in the City of Daly City (Waterman 2005).
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:aronmentat Impact Report 3.4-2
3.4 PuGlic Services and Utilities
Students in the Project area attend Brisbane Elementary School, with a capacity of 240
and Lipman Middle School, with a capacity of 270 (Schoolhouse Services 2001). In
1997, when the BSD reduced kindergarten to third grade class sizes, the capacity of
Brisbane Elementary School significantly decreased. During 2004 to 2005, the
enrollment was 210 students at Brisbane Elementary School and 214 students at Lipman
Middle School (Waterman 2005).
Typically, within five years from completion of a new residential development, BSD will
experience significant enrollment effects. Brisbane Elementary School is now
experiencing enrollment increases as a result of the most recently completed phase of
the Terrabay Project. When students from Terrabay Phase III enroll, cumulatively the
entire Terrabay development would require two additional classrooms at Brisbane
Elementary School and approximately 30 new students would be accommodated at
Lipman School. It will cost approximately $600,000 to add two modular classrooms to
Brisbane Elementary School (Waterman 2005).
The JUHSD is a "district of choice" with open enrollment. This allows students,
including those living in the Terrabay Point and Commons neighborhoods, to attend
any of the schools, Jefferson and Westmoor High Schools in Daly City, and Oceana and
Terra Nova High Schools in Pacifica. Students in the Terrabay Project would normally
be within the traditional boundaries of Jefferson High School (frilly 2005).
The JUHSD, using proceeds from a local bond, modernized schools during the last
seven years. The JUHSD converted many existing classroom spaces to computer labs,
and reconfigured classrooms to accommodate lower class sizes in English and
mathematics at the freshmen level, as encouraged by the State. Jefferson High School
also reduced class size in literacy classes, further impacting existing space. While these
configurations essentially occurred within the footprint of the schools, they reduced the
capacities of the schools. As a result of class size reduction and the need for multiple
computer labs at each school, the same space has the capacity to serve fewer students.
Westmoor High School is the only school that increased in capacity, the result of
additional portable classrooms (frilly 2005).
As of September 2004, the JUHSD had 5,437 students including 5,245 students assigned
to four high schools and 192 in continuation education, independent study or other
programs based at the district office or other facilities. Jefferson High School has a
capacity of 1,450 students (an enrollment of 1,295 students in the 2004 to 2005 school
year), Oceana High School has a capacity of 900 students (an enrollment of 697
students), Terra Nova High School has a capacity of 1,500 students (an enrollment of
1,440 students), and Westmoor High School has a capacity of 1,750 students (an
enrollment of 1,820 students). These school capacities represent 92% of actual space
Terrabay Phase 117 Pr ject Draft Suppkmen<al Enenronmentu! Impact Report 3.4-3
3.4 Public Services and Utilities
and assume use of classrooms for five periods per day but do not include additional
special use rooms. While student population has increased in Daly City and other areas
in the eastern portion of the District, coast-side schools (Terra Nova High School and
Oceana High School) on the western side of the District have accommodated student
growth (frilly, 2005).
Water Supply California Water Service Company (CWSC) will serve the Project. The connection is
immediately in front of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. San
Francisco Water Department (SFWD) has two main transmission pipelines in Bayshore
Boulevard, Crystal Springs No. 1 (48-inch diameter) and Crystal Springs No. 2 (60-inch
diameter). CWSC has an 8-inch pipe and a 12-inch pipe from the connection point to
CWSC's pump station (located within the Project boundary), which are part of the water
supply system designed and built to serve the Terrabay Project. (Corlett 2005)
CWSC provides potable water to the' City of South Francisco. CWSC also serves Co1ma,
a portion of Daly City, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, known as
Broadmoor. CWSC purchases most of its water supply from the SFWD. CWSC owns
and operates the storage and distribution system that conveys water from the SFWD
aqueducts. Applications for new water service are processed through CWSC (Bolzowski
2005).
CWSC distributes water through three principal service districts, which have separate
distribution and supply connections to the San Francisco Aqueduct. In the South San
Francisco Service District, CWSC normally draws water from turnouts on two of the
three SFWD aqueducts that run through South San Francisco. CWSC maintains a
turnout on the third aqueduct in the event of an interruption in flow on the other two
connections. CWSC also has wells that supply about 10 to 15 percent of total demand.
The wells are not in production due to a demonstration project with the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (Bolzowski 2005).
CWSC's Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP) states that water demand throughout the
South San Francisco Service District in 2002 was 8.55 million gallons per day (mgd).
The UWMP bases growth on the amount of services within the district for five and ten
years. The services had a steady growth since 1970, and projects almost 22,000 services
in 2030. The UWMP used the 10-year growth rate for the service amount, multiplied by
the demand per service, to estimate water demand. CWSC addresses the potential water
shortages for the future in the district UWMP, the Water Supply Assessment for Land
Use/Transportation Corridor Plan and Bay Meadows II Specific Plan, City of San
Mateo. Water planning for cumulative development will also be addressed in the Water
System and Facilities Master Plans for the three water districts (Bolzowski 2005).
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enatironmental Impact Report 3.4-4
3.4 Public Services and Utilities
Wastewater Wastewater Collection
An existing 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer pipeline runs east along Sister Cities
Boulevard and joins the newly constructed 10-inch sanitary sewer line that runs south in
Bayshore Boulevard at the intersection of the two streets. The 10-inch diameter sanitary
sewer line was sized and installed specifically for the Project as part of the Bayshore
Boulevard Hook Ramps Project. The existing 10-inch line is stubbed and ready for
connection to the Project at the main entrance.
Further downstream, the City's sanitary sewer system was designed to accommodate
wastewater flows from the entire Terrabay Project. An existing 16-inch sanitary sewer
line continues south along Airport Boulevard. This line was constructed in 1991 for the
sole use of the Terrabay development. This is documented in the plans, Terrabay
Development Off-.rite Sanitary Seiner Improvement Project, dated February 1990. CREM
Engineers prepared the plans as City-required off-site improvements for the first phase
of the Terrabay development. It joins the City's 27-inch trunk sewer line at North Canal
Street, which runs to the San Mateo Pump Station and then to the treatment plant.
The peak discharge (per City sewage generation standards) is approximately 0.6 cubic
feet per second (cfs) from Sister Cities Boulevard and 0.7 cfs from Bayshore Boulevard
(The Terraces), for a total of 1.3 cfs. The pipe immediately downstream of Sister Cities
Boulevard is a 16-inch diameter ductile iron at a slope of 0.24%, with a capacity of
approximately 3.5 cfs. Its capacity will accommodate the total peak discharge from the
Terrabay development with the pipe flowing approximately half full. The pipe size and
slope do not decrease downstream, so the system maintains this capacity to the City
truck sewer at North Canal Street. (Corlett 2005)
The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department will review the Project's
wastewater system plans and the Department's requirements and standards regarding
the on-site system and connection to the City's sanitary sewer system (White 2005).
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's
Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the
edge of San Francisco Bay. The plant has a dry weather treatment capacity of 13 million
gallons per day (mgd) and a wet weather peak capacity of 62 mgd (Chuck, 2005). The
WQCP is owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Wastewater
produced in both cities is treated at the plant. In addition, the WQCP treats most of the
wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion produced by the City of Daly
City (Castagnola 2005).
Terrabay Pbase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Rcport 3.4-5
3.4 Public Services and Utilities
The discharge of treated wastewater effluent into San Francisco Bay is regulated by the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a federal program
authorized by the Clean Water Act. Throughout California, NPDES permits are issued
and enforced by the State's Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). In
addition, the permit also requires that the plant's treated effluent meet specific water
quality requirements designed to protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay
(Castagnola 2005).
In 1994, the WQCP had a dry weather capacity of 8 mgd. An expansion program
increased this capacity to 13 mgd. Of this total, approximately 4.3 mgd is reserved for
San Bruno, Colma, and Daly City, leaving South San Francisco with a total allocation of
8.7 mgd. In 2004 South San Francisco's average daily flow (ADF) was roughly 6.1 mgd,
which leaves approximately 2.6 mgd available for cumulative development. When this
upgrade was designed in 1995, the City's wastewater consultants projected it would meet
the service area's needs unti12015. However, industrial development and wastewater
flow rates have increased more rapidly, so additional improvements may be needed
(Castagnola 2005).
The WQCP upgrade also significantly increased the plant's wet weather capacity,
improving the plant's compliance with NPDES wet weather permit conditions. During
major rainstorms, a combination of infiltration and inflow (I&I) causes wet weather
flows to increase far beyond dry weather conditions. Capacity limitations in the pump
stations that deliver wastewater to the plant restrict these instantaneous flow rates to
approximately 35 mgd, with total maximum day discharges that can exceed 25 mgd.
Prior to completion of the treatment plant upgrades, higher flows could have flushed
out the plant, washing the bacteria that are the foundation of the secondary treatment
process out of the aeration tanks. Until the bacteria reestablish, the plant cannot fully
treat the incoming wastewater, resulting in partially treated effluent discharges
(Castagnola 2005).
The plant's hydraulic capacity was increased to 62 mgd, so phase 2 of the City's wet
weather capacity enhancement program includes the upgrade of two pump stations and
installation of several relief sewers west of the freeway, where I&I is a significant
problem throughout the aging collection system, as well as reliability upgrades at an
aging pump station east of the freeway. These improvements will comply with a Cease
and Desist order issued by the RWQCB, which requires South San Francisco and San
Bruno to stop discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater by 2007. It is
expected that the increased collection system pumping capacity, combined with
increased treatment and hydraulic capacity at the WQCP, will enable the City to comply
with the terms of this order and reduce the occurrence of overflows of raw sewage into
streams and drainage channels that drain to San Francisco Bay (Castagnola 2005).
Terrabay Phase III Pr jest Drat! Suppkmenta! Exenronmentallmpact Report 3.4-6
O ~ _~•£ 11O~atI 1av~rulloJuaruuotptug IbluausalddnS ~jttzQ laalold III arvy~ ~Cvyaua~
~utjnpagas a~spourutoaas o~ aup assrld3o not;aiduzoa o~ zoTxd srpuoux xTS o~ do
znaao ~fsut jauuosaad 3o asp az[I-I •aatq ~o asp isr~iut ar~~ utoz~ sxsa~i aaxq; zo3 tauuosxad
aastp 3o s~soa ~T~auaq pus a~sm ~s znauT ~er~s ;usatjdds ~aafozd aqs, •~usduxoa aut~ua
~utntaxs ~szg aq~ zo3 (iauuoszad aaxrl~) uot;TSOd auo pun} ~jsrls ~usaT[dds laafozd arls• Z y•£- aanssay~ rrope~i~ry~
•apo~ ~utp~tng utzo3TUn
pus apo~ azt~ sTUZO3T[s~ aq; ~o spzspus~s ~aauz ~sr~s sazn~sa3 uor~aa~oad azt} zatllo
pus `aaznos xamod ~aua~aauza ~fgpus~s `joz~uoa a~outs `~fjddns zts `ssaaas srgszsdds aat3
`axnssazd za;sm `~iiddns aa~sm arid, •Q33SS ar~~ ~q papuauzuzoaaa ss sazrusa3 uot~aa;oad
azt~ xarpo puE `s;usxp~irl azt3 `suxa~s~s zapjuTZds axt3 aT3sutoTns ~sTsuT o~ paztnbax aq ~Tm
luv~tpddn l~alo.~~j au.I. '~PTn' Pus `~Tasdsa `apsz~ psoz ss dam ss `saxnlaru~s ~uT~asd utq;rm
s~q~tar~ ~uTjTaa `spunoasuzrtil `ssaaas aiatrlan ~ua~xarua a~snbaps ~utpnpuT `spxspus~s
rt~tsap s~aacu ~aafoz~ arl~ ~Btp axnsua o~ usjd a;TS atp maTnaz pinom Q,d3SS aq.I.
•(SOOZ za~uomstN ure~ds~) saraua~zauta zaq~o pus `suosxad paznfuT3o azsa `~uauta~susus
auaas isatpauT `uor~snasna `ioz~uoa azt~ ao~ (tauuoszad aaarp) uoT~tsod jsuor~tpps
auo azTrrbax pinom Q33SS •snsa ~faua~zauta zatpo ao `jstza~srzt snopzszsq `ieatpauz
`azt3 0~ ~utpuodsax ;Tun axT} ~szt3 arp ~aa33s ~ijaaanas pinom s~usdnaao 3o uoRssauaauoa
r~atq pus `add ~Iausdnaao `ad~1 uot;aru~suoa `uor~saoj alts arid, •a~TS arl~ o~ sao~tstn
pus saa~oiduza `s;uaprsaz mau ut assazauT aq~ 30 ~insaz s ss Q,~,~SS ar~~ o~ `saaTnxas
teatpauz pus anasaa ~utpnpuT `sarunion Asa assazaut pinom;aafoz~ ar~~ ~o ;uautdoTanaQ
(S) •saarn.ras ar~.ro~ puearap pasearaul z•~•~' 7aeduq
(S.L'1) 'Qd.3SS arl; ~q pautuzzaTap
Tuaruaaz~~ ~uautdoTanaQ papuaut~* aq~ pine usi~ at3taadS ~TuO III assy~ ~fsgsaxad•
ar~~ uT ao~ papTnoad ss aq ~sr~s saatnzas pTSS ~o $utuTt~ pus uotsrnoxd aqd, •~aafozd
aq~ }o assgd bus zo} s~TUTxad ~uipsz~ ~o aausnssT o~ zotxd pagstjgs~sa aq ~srls `~usatidds
~aafoxd aq~ ~iq pred aq o~ `aa3 nark-rTT us xo s;uaruanozduzt aq~ 3o uotstnoad .xo3 ainpaq~s
aq,I, •sTuautapr~ua at3taads ;aafoz~ Pius 3o aausnssT o~ xotxd pautuua~ap aq ~sqs suta~t pus
saatnzas zarl;o pus `~uautdmba `sal~Tgan `~aafoz~ atp o; uorzaa~oad aatiod 3o uotstnozd aq;
~utpzs~ax Qd3SS ark; o~ s~us~jnsuoa `szaaT}3o aattod j~uor;Tppe ~uipinoxd ao~ s;soa arl~, al•~,•~- arnssayY uope~rlry~
(Sd,-~ •sTuaru;asdaQ axT3 pus aat(o~ oasTauszd usS r~~noS
~o ~t~ xo3 za~sadaz~za~zTrususxz oTpsz s ~o uot;acuzsuoa apnjaut ~EUx sigd, •suxaauoa
zarpo pus ~a3ss ar33sx~ `~iltzrraas `uot;uanaxd auTTZa ~aa3~s asr~~ suoT~saado pine u~tsap a~Ts
zTaq~ o;uT Qd3SS aq~ uTOZ3 suonspuautruo~aa a~sxodaoauT ~sr~s 1us~ijdds ~aaloxd ar~d• yl•~,•£- arnseay~ uous.~ury~
(S.L'~
•jauuoszad mau 3o asp aztq atp autuzza~ap ~zus QddSS aqd, •xaaTd~o aaTiod mau s uTSSa
pus axrq o~ sasa~~isrl-auo puE auo o~ do sa~js~ ~I •saiaTgan aaTiod aazu~ pus szaatd3o xts
}o ~soa ark; xo} oastausz3 usS rpnoS 30 ~t~ arp a~ssuaduTOa ~sr~s ;usatidds ~aafozd arid, el•~,•£ arnssayV uoue~iary~
ra:Jzl?~fl Yua ra~uuas nlr~n~ t•~
6-~'£ J10d~I 1~d~L 1°ruausuozuzug loJuazualddns 1(o1Q Jaa(osd !1I asnyd ,6iyauaZ
•(SOOZ ~iPueuxzoN;uea~zaS) sast~ea} zaq~o pue `sazo~s ITe;a~ `aa;eatlT aTnoux arjl
`saseazTe~s `szo~enaja `azruansas ~uT~sed `zamo~ aaT}}o `xamo; ier~uapisaz :paz~ijzu~ aq nTm
s~uauodtzTOa;aafoxd ~uTmo~o} atp `siedtauud Q~,I,d~ ~uT~iidd~ •saidTauTxd (Q~,I,d~)
tT~TSaQ ie~uauzuoztnu~ tl~no.Ttld, uot;uanazd auzu~ o~ ~aafgns aq pjnom;aafoad atls,
•~aeduzT ~ueaT}~is zi~~T;ua~od ~ aq pjnom pue ~aafoad pasodo~d
atja q~Tm ~sTxa osje pjnom uor~Tpuoa sttj,L •saztt~ans~s pasodosd uttj~Tm pue ure;unoy~
ounzg ueS ~q pa~TgttjuT aq pjnom suotssTUTSUes1 oTpez paT}rluapT ~I~S 66/8661 a~t.I.
•aiaTgan mau auo pue (jeTazauzuTOa zo} s~aaT}}O L6'0
pue `jequaptsaz zo} szaaT33o ~•I o~ 6•I) szaaT}}o mau I£•Z o; I8'Z a~Tnbaz pjnom III asztld
`2II'3S 66/8661 atp ut pazzijeue se cures atjT aq pjnom saaTnzas aaTjod or ~aedtzzT ~aafo~~
aqZ '(SOOZ `~Puetu~oj~j auea~~aS) ~aafosd atj~ anzas o~ papaau aq pjnom sataTZjan aaTjod
aa~gr `uoT~Tppe uI •~jaam ~ s~iep uanas `ziep e sznoq ~Z ~eaq atj~ }}~~s pjnom s~aaT~}o atl~,
•szaat}}o aatiod xTS tl~Tm pazTnbax aq pjnom ~~aq T~uoTlTppg u~ ~etl~ sa~eu~sa Q~,,~SS a~t,I,
•(500Z `~PuzuzzoN ~uea~zaS) Qd.3SS atj~ ;aedtzTt ~ipuzaT3~ts o~ jer~ua;od atjl sett
saaTnzas aaTjod ao} pueuzap uT aseaaauT atj1, •s~o~TStn}o ~aquznu a~.zej e;azs~~e ~jjeiaadsa
pjnom za~eatj~ arnouT pasodo~d atjd, •suoTlTpuoa aT}}ez~ uo ~utpuadap `sa;nuTUZ xTS o~ anT3
~ja~euzTxozdde aq pjnom axis ~aafo~d atp o~ auTra asuodsaa atjd, •~1TZnaas a;enizd aptnoad
pjnom sauauzgsTjge;sa jeTazatuuTOa pue jTe~az pasodo~d atj~ `~aafoz~ atj; }o ;.xed s~
(S) •sa~rn.ras a~godao~ puecuap paseai~ul t•~•~1~eduTl
sams~aj,~ uop~~uTy~
pue s;aeduxI .
;u~a~~s ~~qua;od
•janaj ~ueaT}TU~ts-uetp-ssai e o~ paanpa~ aq pjnom
s~aeduTT jetrua~od `saznseatzT uor~e~TrTUT papuauTUxoaa~ atj~ }o uoge~uauTajduTT tj~T/k1
•p~eog jozluo~ zi~Tjena za~el~ jeuoT~a~j atp }o s~uauza~Tnbaz
Tuatu~eaa~ za~ema;sem tj~Tm ~ijdusoa o~ pasTnba~ aq pjnom ~I •ruaustaedaQ s~jso~ atjgn~
oasTauezq ueS tj~noS }o ~i~ atj; ~iq papinozd jesodsTp pue ~uauT~eaz~ a~emas xo} paau
atp asea~auT pjnom ~aafoad aqL •~jddns ~a~em s~;aafozd atj; ~uTprnozd zo} ajgtsuodsaz
aq pjnom ~S/X~~ •a~euTe~p uzzo~s pue `jesodsTp pue ~uauT~eas~ .~a~ema~sem `~ijddns
za;em apnjauT;aafozd atj; ~q pa~aa}}e ~~et;ua;od aq pjnom;t;t~; saT~TjTan aTignd aq,I,
•;aafoad III aSeud ~egezxa~, mau aq~ ~apun
QSHflI atp uT sauapttrs za~eaz~ pue QSg atj; LTT pa;eaaua~ s;uaptus aama} aq pjnom
azaq,I, •QSHflj atp pue QSg atj~ }o uoT;ejndod ~uapn~s atp aseazauT pjnom ~aafozd atl,I,
razTzl:zn pua ra~mzas'z19nd b'f
8-~•£ tsoda7I z~a~I1"~uauruolurug~vtuaura~dd+zs7lnlQ~aalad III arvy~ ~faynuaZ
•2II~S 66/8661 atp ur paz~i~ue st= auras arp aq ptnom saarnzas aatjod o; ~aeduzr ~aafozd
aq,L •~uaur~zzdaQ azr3 oasrauzz,q u~S zpnoS ~o ~1i~ pue ~uau~z~daQ aar~o~ oasraut=z3
u~S rpnoS 30 ~r~ arl~ uroz3 saarnzas ar~gnd zo} paau aq~ aszazaur pinom ~aafozd aqy nsainsanp ~~~duxI
•s~uaur~runuoa ~ugsrxa s~zaptnozd
aq; or uorrrppe ur pu~uzap pa~aafozd s~~aafozd ar1~ anzas o~ ~razd~a a~Enbapeur
szq ;r 1~qr zaptnozd ~uaurr~az; za~Bma;sum arl; ~q uorreurruza~ap ~ ur s~jnsag ~
•~aa3~a It=auauzuozrnua rut:ar3ru~is
asn~a pjnoa garrlm3o uoraanzzsuoa arp `sar~rjrae3 ~ut;stxa 3o uorsuzdxa zo sar~riraz~
;uaurr$az~ za~8marst=m zo zar~m mau }o uot;aruzsuoa arp ur s~jnsaz zo sazmbag •
•pz~og ioz~uo~ ~gzna
za~z~ p;uor~a~ aiq~atjdd~ aq~ ~o sruaurazmbaz ruauz~~az~ za~t;ma~szm spaaaxg ~
•saarnzas ar~gnd zo3 sanrraafgo aauetuzo~zad zarl;o zo sauzu
asuodsaz `sor~EZ aarnzas aiq~~daaae ut~}ureuz o~ zapzo ur `s~a~duzr js;uauzuozrnua
;u~ar3irr~rs asn~a pinoa gatgm3o uor~atu~suoa at~~ `sar;rjra~3 ~uauzuzano~
pazari~ ~~~ars~tld zo mau zo3 paau `sarrr~ra~~ ~uauzuzano~ paza~i~ ~n~ars~t~d xo
mau 3o uorsrnozd atp rprnc. pa;~raossz s~aeduzr jzars~gd aszanp~ isrru~~sgns ur srinsag •
:;T }r ~aEdurr ~uEJT~TU~TS a~u~~S
E ruasazd pinom arts raafoz~ arl~ ~o ~uauzdojanap `2II'3SQ srr~r ~o sasodznd arp zo3 3~ SP~P"u'~~;5
S~2If1SV~Y~I NOI.L~'OI.LIY~I QNb' S.L~~ddY~II
•~~ouru ~~ad a~t;potuuroaa~
o~ patr~isap aq o~ pazrnbaz azr; szor~z~das aqd, •i~nozdde 3o uot;rpuoa pz~puers
~ s~ pazrnbaz asp szorezzdas za~~m tuzo~s `~f~~uor;rppy •iuana zza~i-001 acj~ a;~poururoaae
o~ pazrs sr ruars~is ru~az;sumop at~s, •~it:g arp out a~zt;rlasrp o~ ~it:maaz3 arl~ zapun
sure uaq~ ura~s~is ar1•I, •a~~~uoz~ ~aafozd atl~ ~uop; s;utod tszanas ~z uor~aauuoa zoo ~p~az
puz paggrus sr ~I •;uaurdotanap ~fzq~zza,I, arl~ uzoz} 3~ounz zza~-001 arla a~epouzuroaa~
or pa~aru~suoa pug pau~rsap ssm pzznainog azotls~f~g ur ura~s~is ur~zp uuo~s ~ur~srxa atld,
(SOOZ;;aizo~) •raafozd III aszgd ~izq~zzaZ aq~ anzas o1 ~rasdza a;enbap~
st=rl azruanz~s~z3ut urezp uuo;s ar.~ •ua~z~ aq pinom ~urpzaz mop ~ tuzo~s ~ ~urznp ;urod
r~qm ~~ zo z~a~i ~o aorta ~q ~zt:n slanai ~urr~zado i~rua~ •~uana zea~i-001 ~ a~~pouruzoaa~
oa pau~rsap sr tuars~is urezp urzoas arid, •(iaaz~d uor~t:nzasazd aqa ~urzanoa t:azt:
ut;) ~urzd;ooh za~zei e rprm i~sodozd ~uauzdoianap III aszrld z a~~poiuuroaa~ o; pau~rsap
sem uza;s~is aq,L •~aafozd ~iegezzay ariz anzas oa pzznainog azorls~i~g ur azruaruast:z~ur
utzzp urzoas ar~gnd mau pa~~asur ~ar~ aua `sauauzanozdurl a~ut:rlazaaul ~urod
zaas~p aq; ~0 1 aszrlrl put; aaafozd sduzt:g ~ooH pzt:nainog azogs~Eg aria ~o az~d s~
razlzlztn pua raavz~as7119nd b•f
~_~• £ ~soda~ »aduri lv~uauruaprug 1vJUarualddNS 1fnaQ t~alotrj 111 araq~ ~fvgnuay
'(SOOZ iatip~ci) (szatit3 ztpaux puz sxotzxzdas paszq-tinzn sz bans)
sioztuoa pazntaz3nuzut of uotttppz ut sioztuo~ tuauttzazt paszq-adzaspuzi atzzodxoaut
zadoianap taa(ozd atit tzgt spuauzuzoaax oastauzz~ uzS gtnoS 30 ~T~ arid, '(SOOZ ttaizO~)
asz~id u~tsap taafoz~ aqt ut zatzi xnaao iTTm uor~eat}taads paire~aQ •~t~ a~i~ ~Iq pazmbaz
se spzzpuzts £~ S'3QdN gttm aauzuxzo3uoa ut 33ounz zatzm uxzots tzazt of paztnbaz
aq iirm zadoianap taafox~ aq,L •~fttiznb xatzm of s~a>=duz~ ieuua~od aztuztutux o~ (d~~S)
uzid uortuanazd uortniiod zatz~ utxotS atlt tuauzaidutt of pazmbaz aq iitm zadoianap
taafoz~i aqd• •(~.ra~ ~uro~ pun ~.rng ~uro~j ~.caur.~o~ ta~tS pnv~aruruo~ pun pva~uapz.rag III a.rp9d
ayZ - luaut~oJa°aQ rfngp.,uaZ .xof run.~8o.~~j 8uuo~iuoj~ pun unj~ uoz~ua~a.~rj uoZ~nJJo~j.~a~n~ uuopS
pazzdazd osiz szaaLttdu~ ,3~IS `IOOZ uI 'LOOZ `£i ~iazzy~ Patzp ~.ra~ ~uzorj pun l.rng ~uzo~
~.~aru,~o~ .ra~zS Jnz~.~au~ruo~ pun pvz~uapz.ra~i III a.rny~ ayJ.~ofyio~ag a8nuzntQ uuo~S aye op a~trp~ll
aye ~uzyco~~nS .ruozlnJn~Jn~ fo uoz~grzr~.raQ `~ipnts utzzp uxxots aqt pazzdazd szaaut~u~ •3}Ig
'III aszq~ zo3 uzid
tuauzdoianap snotnazd aut gttm uzgt ssai aq pinom taafoz~ pasodozti aqt uxox3 33ouru
aaz3zns 3o tunoutz arid, •iaazz~ uottznzasaz~ axa>;-q•SZ alit 3o uottzatpap a~[t of anp uzid
tuauxdoianap snotnazd aqt uxoz3 tuaazad SS tnogz ~iq sa~z3xns snotnzaduxt ut uortanpax
~ ut tinsax pinom tuauzdoianap taafoz~ '2II~S 66/866L aqt uT paz~fizuz st ~oioxp~H a~zure~Q uuo;S
'(SOOZ ziou~ztsz~)
szaquxaux nSgN za~ito uxox3 smog ~izad ~?n' pautquzoa st a~zzgastp stt uagm
tinsaz pinoa tzgt smopxano of ~unngtztuoa tnogttm ~ttazdza zagtzam tam p~uz Z9 s~tuzid
papzz~dn aqt aztittn ~iin3 of sartta alit smoiiz stLiy •utzux aazo3 f1SgN a~it 30 ~ittazdza a~it
paaaxa satzz mop za~itzam tam uarim tuanp3a patzazt s~d~alkl atit azots of patanztsuoa
szm utszq ~utpioq z pine `6ttitgz~iaz s~uortzts alit anozduxt of paazidax azam sduxnd I1SgN
aqt `uottzntts shit ssazppz od, •satpoq zatzm ~utntaaaz asaLit ut ~fttiznb xatzm aigztdaaaz
utztutzuz puz tuanp3a pats=azt alit atnitp ~iatt;nbapz of autjazo~is ~it;g alit ~uoi~ pug ~aaz~
zuzio~ ut a~uzziaxa zatzm ~i~noua tou st axagd, •d~a/k~ aqt of tua~zfpz `~iaaz~ zuzio~
otut smopzano sasnz~ said, •iTz3tno xatzm-daap aqt of tuanp3a aut IIz zantiap of 6ttat=dEa
tuatat}ins ~a>;i uteut aaxo} pueizano puE uot;zts dutnd atit `smog xatutm t=ad ~utznQ
'(SOOZ
ziou~ztsz~) xatzm uado 3o zazz aptm z xano tuanp3a a~i1 satngtztstp tzar adtd zasn33tp
azo~is ~3o too3-~Sq z ~i~nozgt st a~zzgastQ '~izg aut otut taa3 OOS`~ ~iatzuttxoxddz
sanurtuoa uazit puz ounzg uzS tutor of puzizano sunx lzgt utzuz aaxo3 xatauzztp tiauT-LS
~ otut sduznd uortzts arid, •d~Zj/X1 aqt lz uottzts ~utdutnd tuanp3a uz satzxado tiatgm
`(f1Sgi~ tittn uzatsdS apTS~zg titzoN alit astzduxoa sataua~z atignd asatid, •at=xqj~
puz auzz~utizng 3o sartta aqt uxoz3 puz txodzty oastauzz,d uzS aut utox3 tuanp3a patzaxt
tittm d~alkl atit tz pautquxoa st tuanp3a said, '~zg oasTauzz•,~ uzS of tuanp3a patzaxz
aqt 3o a~zztiastp st uottzzado tuauztzazt xatzmatszm s~~ftt~ aqt 3o tuauoduxoa izur3 arid,
jesodsrQ.ra~emalse~ palsar„L
.rayrl?;!] pua .raauuaS'?l9nd t•~
3.4 Public Services and Utilities
personnel for the 16-week Fire Academy. After the three-year period, wage and benefit
costs shall be assumed by the City of South San Francisco.
The needs and costs for providing additional personnel, vehicles, equipment, and other
items shall be determined prior to issuance of any Project specific entitlements. The
schedule for provision of the improvements or an in-lieu fee, to be paid by the Project
applicant, shall be established prior to issuance of grading permits for any phase of the
Project. The provision and timing of said services shall be determined as provided for in
the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Amended Development Agreement.
(LTS)
Impact 3.4.3 Impedance ofradio communication to the Project site by San Bruno Mountain.
(S)
The Project site is within the radio communication shadow of San Bruno Mountain.
Poor signal strength and reception sites due to topography impede radio transmissions
to the Project site.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.3 The Project applicant shall provide a rooftop communications repeater and related
equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by SSFFD.
Communication equipment shall be installed during Phase A. The Project applicant shall
fund maintenance costs of equipment for three years from the installation date. After
the three-year period, the City of South San Francisco shall take over costs of
maintenance and replacement. (LTS)
Impact 3.4.4 Potentially poor signal strength and reception sites within proposed buildings
and parking structures. (S)
Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures would have dense
building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal
strength and reception sites.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.4 The Project applicant shall conduct a radio communications study during Phase A to
determine the internal radio communication issues based on individual building types. If
the study finds internal radio communications are deficient, the Project applicant shall
fund and provide wiring, a signal booster, antennae, other equipment and mitigation, as
needed. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs for three years from the
installation date. After three years, the building owners shall take over costs of
maintenance and replacement under California Fire Code 1997, Maintenance of Fire
Protection Systems. (LTS)
Impact 3.4.5 The open wildland area of San Bruno Mountain presents a high risk office
exposure on the uphill and sides of the Project. (S)
Te~rabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Entnronmental Impact Report 3.4-11
3.4 PuGlic Services and Utilities
The ability of the current SSFFD personnel and resources to suppress a wildland fire
would be compromised by the large wildland urban interface area abutting the Project.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.5 The Project applicant shall install and the Homeowners and/or property management
company shall maintain a 50-foot buffer in the wildland urban interface area. The buffer
would consist of a 25-foot wide greenbelt area with fire resistive plantings identified in
the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP approved
plantings and hydroseeding materials are also identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only
Specific Plan. An additional 25-foot area between the greenbelt and San Bruno
Mountain shall be maintained clear of hazardous fire growth, according to California
Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4. (LTS)
Impact 3.4.6 The Project would generate new students, increasing the demand on classrooms
and staffin the BSD and the JUHSD. (LTS)
BSD's student yield factors are 0.01 to 0.10 students per condominium and 0.05 to 0.17
students per townhouse. Based on these factors, the Project would generate 6 to 40
elementary/middle school students. This estimate was calculated as follows: [180
condominiums x (0.01 to 0.10 students) + 68 townhouses x (0.05 to 0.17 students) +
103 flats x (0.01 to 0.10 students)]. As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 88 new
students would be generated in the BSD.
JUHSD's student yield factors are 0.08 high school students per condominium and 0.04
high school students per multi-family unit. Based on these factors, the Project would
generate 26 high school students (180 condominiums x 0.08 students + 68 townhouses
x 0.04 students + 103 flats x 0.08 students). As analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, up to 21
new students would be generated in the JUHSD.
The Project applicant would be required to pay the mandated school impact fees
applicable for building permits. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on schools
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 None required.
Impact 3.4.7 Increased demand on available water supply. (LTS)
The Project would generate an estimated water demand of 256,875 gallons per day. Table
3.4-1 shows the water generation factors and calculations to estimate water demand. Water
would be needed for residential, retail, restaurant, commercial, office, landscaping, and
other uses.
The Project applicant would install a water system with adequate water pressure, water
supply lines, fire hydrants, and other specifications in accordance with CWSC standards.
Terrabay Phase 171 Pr ject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-12
3.4 PuGlic Services and Utilities
The Project will be served by CWSC facilities and would connect immediately in front
of the Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. The Project would be supplied
water from CWSC's 8-inch and 12-inch pipes from the connection point to the on-site
pump station, which was designed and built to serve the entire Terrabay project.
The CWSC has indicated there is adequate water supply to serve the Project. A copy of
the CWSC "will serve" letter is included in Appendix F.
TABLE 3.4-1: ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER
Estimated
Bldg Area Average Daily
Land Use (st) Units Demand Rate Demand
Water
Residential 351 300 gpd/unit 105,300 gpd
Retail/Restaurant 357,500 0.30 gpd/sf 107,250 gpd
Office 295,500 0.15 gpd/sf 44,325 gpd
Total 256,875 gpd
Wastewater
Residential 351 200 gpd/unit 70,200 gpd
Retail/Restaurant 357,500 0.2 gal/sf/day 71,SOOgpd
Office 295,500 0.1 gal/sf/day 29,550 bpd
Total 171,250 gpd
Source: BKF Engineers, 2005
Mitigation Measure 3.4.7 Although the Project would not result in significant impacts to the water supply, the
Project shall incorporate water conservation measures into the Project design. In
consultation with CWSC, the Project applicant shall follow the CWSC's Best
Management Practices in regards to incorporating water conservation measures into the
design and construction of the development. Water conserving toilets, faucets, and
other devices and methodology that promote water conservation shall be used for
efficient water use. Use of inert materials and minimal areas of turf shall be used in
landscaping. (LTS)
Impact 3.4.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection system in Airport Boulevard. (S)
Based on standard wastewater projection data by BKF' Engineers, the Project would
generate an estimated 171,250 gpd of wastewater. Table 3.4-1 shows the generation
factors and calculations to estimate wastewater flows. The City of South San Francisco
Public Works Department would adequately provide sewage treatment and disposal for
the Project. The treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the Project's wastewater
(Castagnola 2005).
Terrahay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-13
3.4 PuGlic Sennces and Utilities
The 16-inch sanitary sewer line in Airport Boulevard was constructed in 1991 for the
sole use of the Terrabay development (Corlett 2005). However, other projects may have
tied into the 16-inch line and the Project may generate wastewater flows to overcapacity
of the existing conveyance system. (Razavi 2005).
The Public Works Department would review the Project's wastewater system plans. The
Project applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's requirements and
standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sewer system.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.8 To confirm there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer lines, the Project applicant
shall perform flow monitoring of the 16-inch sanitary sewer to determine the existing
flow in the line and provide the City with a report of the findings. The City Engineer
will approve flow-monitoring locations and supervise the work as necessary. The
existing flow shall be compared with the estimated design flows of the existing Terrabay
developments to determine the accuracy of design estimates. If there is insufficient
capacity to serve the new Terrabay development, the developer shall replace the existing
sanitary sewer lines from Sister Cities Boulevard to the North Canal Street trunk sewers.
Capacity of the new lines will be sufficient to convey existing and proposed sanitary
sewer flows. The flow monitoring and report shall be completed prior to issuance of
any grading permit. (LTS)
Impact 3.4.9 Increased demand on Storm Drainage. (LTS)
The existing 48-inch diameter storm drain system in Bayshore Blvd was designed and
constructed to accommodate the 100-year runoff from the Terrabay development. It is
stubbed and ready for connection at several points along the Project frontage. The
storm drain system in Bayshore Boulevard goes to a 60-inch culvert that crosses under
Highway 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete-lined channel that discharges
stormwater into the Bay. The downstream system was sized to accommodate the
100-year event. (Corlett, 2005) Project runoff can adequately be accommodated in the
existing storm drain system.
The Project applicant will comply with the NPDES Municipal stormwater Permits,
including Provision C.3, since the City of South San Francisco is part of the County's
program. (Corlett 2005)
Mitigation Measure 3.4.9 None required.
Teerabay Phase III Prajeu Draft Sup~kmentalEnvironmentallmpac! Report 3.4-14
3. Environmental Setting, Impactr and Mitigation Measures
3.5 AESTHETICS
SETTING
The Project site is undeveloped and there are no improvements that generate light or
glare.
The Project is the third development phase of Terrabay. Phase I contains single-family
residences including townhomes and detached residences that are two-stories in height.
Phase II includes a mix of low-rise single family detached residential and a high rise
condominium tower. The low-rise development contributes night lighting from
residences and street lights which merges with the-night lighting in the northern portion
of South San Francisco. The existing high-rise tower consists of light colored materials
consisting of cement plaster with a curtain wall on the main facade. Glass windows are
metal-framed. Night-lighting from the high-rise is visible from the Project area. There is
light but no glare resulting from Phases I and II.
Within the Project area, development to the east of the Project site, across U.S. 101
includes high-rise office towers which contribute night-lighting to the northern portion
of South San Francisco.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of A significant impact is identified as one that would create a new source of substantial
Significance light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area.
Impact Overview The Project would increase night-lighting at Terrabay.
Impact 3.5.1 Nightlighting would be introduced at the Project site. (S)
The Project would include two high-rise towers and a retail component which can be
expected to include visible signage advertising the retail uses. Given the mix of
residential, office and retail use, it is anticipated that night-lighting and glare could be
potentially significant. The high-rise towers would be visible from nearby residential
development and U.S. 101. Use of reflective materials could result in significant glare
that could affect the visibility of drivers on U.S. 101. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigatlot~ Measure 3.5.1 The Project shall not include reflective building materials. Windows shall be non-
reflective glass. Metals shall be finished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. Street
lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in compliance with the Terrabay Specific
Plan (City of South San Francisco 2000). (LTS)
Terrabay Phase 111 Pr ject Draft Supplemental Eranronmenta! Impact Report 3.5-1
3.5 Aesthetics
Impact 3.5.2 Night-lighting conflicts with on-site residential development. (S)
The Project includes low- to mid-rise residential development adjacent to and above
retail development. Signage for retail uses could result in intrusive lighting that would
adversely affect the low- to mid-rise residential units during nighttime hours. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.5.2 A Master Sign Program shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the Ciry for
review and approval as provided for by the City's sign ordinance. (LTS)
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Acport 3.5-2
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider a reasonable
range of alternatives to the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
affects of the Project. The EIR should focus on alternatives that would eliminate
significant adverse environmental effects or would reduce these effects to a level of
insignificance, even if these alternatives would somewhat impede the attainment of
Project objectives or would be more costly. The range of potential alternatives should
include those that can feasibly accomplish most of the purposes of the Project.
Sufficient information about each alternative should all be included to allow a
meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed Project. If
alternatives cause one or more significant effects in addition to those caused by the
proposed Project, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less
detail than the significant effects for the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15126.6(d)).
The evaluation of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" under which an EIR
must consider a reasonable range of options that could accomplish the basic purpose
and need for the Project. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15126.60.
4.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED
Another site for the proposed Project was not considered because:
~ The Project is the third and final phase of a planned mixed use community. The
mixed-use concept of the proposed Project builds upon Phases I and II of Terrabay
and integrates both phases to that of Terrabay Phase III.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft SxpplemenlalEnvironmentallmpact Report 4-1
4. Alternatives
• There are no other vacant sites within the City of South San Francisco of sufficient
size (20 acres plus) to construct amixed-use development designed to serve the
local and regional markets.
The planning and entitlement process for Terrabay began in 1980 with an
accompanying development agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The
HCP vests some development rights in exchange for land restoration and
conveyance of land that is set aside and dedicated as permanent open space for
habitat preservation. Such land dedication has transpired and continues to transpire
which includes the "remainder lands", the Juncus Parcel, the Recreation Parcel and
the Preservation Parcel, totaling more than 300 acres in land restoration and/or
dedication and conveyance.
• The construction of infrastructure and public service improvements including the
Terrabay Fire Station, the Terrabay Recreation Center and the Highway 101 "Hook
Ramps" (under construction) were designed to accommodate all three phases of
Terrabay.
The Project site was previously evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. However, changes in
the 1998/99 SEIR Project description have since occurred and this 2005 SEIR will
evaluate the Project changes.
4.2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Three alternatives to the proposed Project have been analyzed in this 2005 SEIR: the
No Project Alternative, the Hotel Tower Alternative and the Two Residential Towers
Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA (Section 15126.6(e)).
Each alternative would include the Buffer Parcel as with the proposed Project. The
Preservation Parcel, adjacent to the Buffer Parcel, was dedicated to the County of San
Mateo on August 11, 2004 to be incorporated in San Bruno Mountain County Park as
permanent open space.
Each alternative is described below and their impacts summarized in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 identifies each impact of the proposed Project (described in Chapter 3) and
its level of significance before and after mitigation as Significant or Less than Significant.
Table 4.10 compares the level of significance of each Project impact with that of each
alternative.
4.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the development plan for Phase III of Terrabay approved by the
City in 2000 would be constructed. Typically, the No Project Alternative assumes no
action at the Project site. If no development were to occur at the site, conditions would
remain unchanged from what is described in the "Setting" sections of Chapter 3 of this
2005 DSEIR in addition to the No Project Alternative discussion contained on pages
Terrabay Phan III Prgect Draft Supplemental Environmen[allmpact Report 4-2
4. Alternatives
306-309 of the 1998/99 SEIR. Therefore, for comparison purposes, the 2000 Specific
Plan and Precise Plan entitlements granted for the Project site will be described and
evaluated as the No Project Alternative.
With this alternative, the site would be developed with one office tower containing
657,500 square feet of office space, 7,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and no
residential development. The following amenities would be provided at the site: a public
art program; a 150-seat performing arts center (located within the office building) as
shared use with an office conference facility; an on-site child care center with a capacity
for 100 children; and a transportation demand management plan. There would be no
development phasing. Thirty-two Moderate Income Below Market Rate units would be
constructed off site. Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of land use and building square
footage for this alternative.
TABLE 4.1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE -LAND USE AND BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Use Units Square Footage
Office 657,500
Retail 7,500
Residential* 32
Total 32 665,000
* Moderate Income Below Market Rate units constructed off site.
Traffic and Circulation Traffic impacts associated with this alternative are evaluated in Section 3.1 Traffic and
Circulation as the Year 2010 Base Case and Year 2020 Base Case. With this alternative,
there would be approximately 160 more AM peak hour trips and 855 fewer PM vehicle
trips than with the proposed Project. The level of service impacts would be similar or
slightly greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or slightly less
than the Project during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing impacts would be similar or
slightly greater than with the Project during the AM peak hour and similar or less than
the Project during the PM peak hour. Freeway mainline and ramp impacts would be
similar to or slightly greater than those due to the proposed Project.
Air Quality Construction impacts would be similar to those for the proposed Project. Construction
impacts would remain potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less than
significant level with mitigation.
This alternative would generate fewer trips than with the Project. Impacts on local
carbon monoxide levels would be less than with the proposed Project, and thus would
be less significant.
Terrabay Phase III PmjecY Draft Supplemental En:dronmentgllmpact Report 4-3
4. Alternatives
The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be less than for the Project, but
would still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be considered
significant and unavoidable.
Noise Construction noise impacts would be similar as for the proposed Project. Operational
noise impacts would be less than with the Project due to the absence of the residential
use. However, acoustical studies would continue to be necessary to determine the noise
sensitivity of the office use.
Public Services and Impacts to public services and utilities would be less than with the proposed Project.
Utilities Because there would not be a residential component, there would be no impact to the
Brisbane School District and the Jefferson Union High School District. Impacts on
police and fire service would be less than with the Project. Due to .the absence of
households, water consumption and wastewater generation would be less than with the
Project. Storm drainage impacts would be similar or less than with the proposed Project.
Aesthetics The potential for light and glare would be less than with the proposed Project. Retail
would be limited to the ground floor of the office building. The extent of retail signage
expected with the Project would not occur with this alternative.
4.4 HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the retail and residential uses would be developed as with the
proposed Project. The office tower would be replaced with a 300-room hotel tower.
Development would be phased as with the proposed Project. This alternative would not
include office development. Sixty-seven Moderate Income units would be constructed.
Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project. Amenities
would be the same as with the proposed Project.
TABLE 4.2: HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATIVE -LAND USE AND
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
Housing Hotel
Use Units Rooms Square Footage
Pbase A
Retail 357,000
Residential -Market Rate 284
Residential -Moderate Income 67
Pbase B
Hotel 300
Total 351 300 357,000
Terrabay Phase 171 Prq'ect Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 4-4
4. Alternatives
Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison to the proposed Project would generate about
22 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and about seven percent less traffic
during the PM peak hour. Table 4.3 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM
peak hour external trip generation of this alternative with- the proposed Project.
TABLE 4.3: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT
VERSUS, HOTEL TOWER ALTERNATNE (Terrabay Phase III
Net New External Tri Generation
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound 2-Way Inbound Outbound 2-Way
Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751
Hotel Tower Alternative 306 296 602 826 796 1622
Net Change Alternative 1 227 +54 173 +64 193 -129
Versus Proposed Project ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Appendix D, Table D-1 presents the Hotel Tower Alternative gross trip generation,
while Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-3 present this alternative's internal trip capture
and net new external trip projections. The Hotel Tower Alternative traffic distribution
patterns, as well as passby and diverted linked trip projections are contained in
Appendix C, Table C-8. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case +
Hotel Tower Alternative traffic is presented in Figures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4, while year
2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Hotel Tower Alternative
intersections levels of service are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project:
• Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips -This alternative would also have
more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same.
• Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impact remains
significant.
• Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
Terrabay Phase III Pr jecl Draft Supplemental Enenronmentallmpaet Report 4-5
c ~ ,~ ~ t °
~ ~~
m r ~.~j a
4-• LL~ ~~ p ~~ r
~ l ~. r M .~ 1 ~. r
~`'Q ~
m .~.~ ~
~ ~ .~,~ any an ngna
1 ~-
~
~
Oc ~ °
~ ~ 'Nr' ~ ---- ~ ° °o
~J~a a ~ ti ~ ~ ro
r'°
~ m ~
tY
can ~~ ° a o ~ ~
o r
-~ T
rn N~ ° o °
O
O m N
N V ~ ~ CNO N
~-- m Q~
m ~
N ~ M
~
~
- u~
1
~ ~- ~
N ~
W
N Ip~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ +tr
• pA/g 2101~S ~g
+ 1 c0
M
N -~'
~ N N
r ~
N ~ ~ ~. M
~ ~ -, ~
~ ~ N ~
m
~ ~ ~ ~-
N N
W W ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a
a
`
m
y
L
U
i
y
~a
~ ~ ae0
M ~~\~5~
1 w
~,
~ t ° ~
N N _
LtJ
M
k
W ~ ~
N
b N
~
a
~ T
N
.fl
tC
N
H
a~
~ ,"~
N O '~
F ~
+~~ ~ ~ O
~x x
~, +
~ ~
U
m
0
0
N
0
m
~.
F
0
Z
N
m
,~ ~ o
L
~,~~Q a ''~ t ,n,, ,Fl and/ en ngnQ
1
~
OCR _
LU (.. N_
M ~
M r st N _'~' ~ O ~
°~a
a N
~ ~' ~
~ a
,~ ~~
r
~ ~ ~~ ~
r ~
'V
~ -~ ~
to
ti
j M
O
~ -~
~ o
~.y Ja^O /a, ~ _
~ N O
O
r
M r. M N n
~- CO
~ ~
CO
~ N
~ N ~
'~F- V'
N
Iy
~
~ ~- ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ r
,
• ~~g a/OLfS ~EB
~1 (~ ~ `1 (~ ~ -~- (~ c ~' `~ ~ I ~ pile u0 !t/
~
O -1l' ~ N N ~ ~ CON N ~ N (p -~" O N ~ (O
~O M
U) ~' ~.. ~
W ~ N
r
~
N
a
m
a
~~
~ t
a6e
o - o `,~~~s
``
~ h V7 N
..
1
0
~
~
~ rn
~
rn
W ~
b_
'~"_ N vi
~ z
~~
~'
°v~ •~ (',
~~ ~ ~ N
v
a
~ ~ M
N M ..J
Imo. a. lt)
.~.- Q~
"' N Q'
M
.~ 1 4 r
N
~ ~ JS UOISSIW
" ~
f1 ~ (' a
N -~ N Ql fA 9
M ~ N ~
W
f-
N
cCt
~ ~
~I
N E i ~
~~22 ~ r" '~
Z+ ter ~ O
~x x
w + ~
v
~a
v ~
f~
O
~--i
O
N
7
0
.~
'r
F
-y~
V
r
z h
tr to
o .~-
?
0~ ~ ---- ~ °
~ ~ CO
m
~~a ~ M
.- ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
'O~
~r
m ti o ~
~ ~
~'~ a o 0
z
~ o
~ .y b
C
h
r
JBj~
~~ p
„~C
'
N L
W M a
~ M ~
to
O 61 h
N V' V ~
N 1....•
~ ,p~
tY p ~ e{
rf- OD
4 ~
f- ~' M
'~ *-
t ~ IM ~
~
~ '~
tO
eg
p~18 a.~oys~ -
i c
o
W -!
~ ~ N (O 00 M
~ ~' N fD ~p ~ O
~ _t ~ M C7
~ M ~ ~
W ~ ~
N F N
W W ~~
~ ~ ~
a
00
y
a~
:~
U
m
y
h
~~
o ~;`~,5~
N
~
~ r~
t~
fi
k O N
h ~
W
W `' M
~
~ a
m
a
m
w
F-
~~
Q
C7
0
.p
m
~.
~a
N
F
c7
0
m
~ ~
~r ~
v
N ~
H ~
~ O ~
x
~x~
m ~',
~ ~
0
N
O
N
..
Z M O
~
~ M M
ale a ~ ~ ~ -} ~ a~if f'' nglia
J~
4 N ~ N
°n' Z b
~ E
r~
~
~~ '
~
0 z o
° ~ i~irmiiirr r `- °
'-ice 0
tD ~ O ~
M
!- ~ M
O N~
E
N p
,f~ N ~
M W ~- ~ CO C
O
~' ~ ~ ~ M P~Ie +810lfS/tB8 ~ 1
O _,~.
~ ~ N~ 0~ l0 N M N
~ M -L
~ ~ N (fl CAD
~
~ ^~, ~ N n' Z
J
W W
~~
N
r
vl
i
4
.,
a
.. b
ai
~~a
v ,~ ~
~e0
1~ h
m \
O ~,~~5
M
N
~ ~
~ ~•
~.,
0
~ N
~
m
w °'
~~ ~ h
s
r"
~.~
~i ~ ~
~ ~ "! r M
~ G1
b
~ ~ M
ti ~ d' ~ 4- M
1 r ~_
N ~
M
ct 7S" L10lSSlj/J m
~
~ o o .c
[L
d N ~ N
N
H
7~r
-~+
~ FF--ii
N ~
N H ~
~ ~
~~ i~l ~ ~
~x x
W + v
m ~
~ ~
as
0
O
N
a
.~.
C7
0
b
b
0
F
ti
`~
0
4. Alternatives
TABLE 4.4: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL
TOWER ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Year 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.1' C-32.9 C-27.1 D-44.7 C-30.3
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore
Blvd./Airport Blvd./Sister Cities
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd.
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On-
and Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On-
and Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project
Access
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control)
C-25.8' ~ F-99.8 E-70.0 ~ F-102 E-68.3
C-29.3' ~ D-32.4 C-33.3 ~ C-28.0 D-41.3
A-8.5' I A-9.6 B-10.1 I B-12.3 B-12.9
B-10.22 ~ NA NA ~ NA NA
NA ~ B-14.9' NA ~ C-23.4 NA
NA ~ NA C-27.8' ~ NA C-21.5
NA ~ C-21.8' A-9.4 ~ B-16.6 A-5.9
NA ~ NA B-11.63 ~ NA B-12.9
' Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds.
2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enenranmentallmpact Report 4-10
4. Alte»rative.r
TABLE 4.5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT HOTEL
TOWER ALTERNATIVE, P M PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Year 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./LJ.S.101 NB Off- A-9.01 B-18.1 C-25.8 C-30.7 D-47.3
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.11 F-129.4 F-133 F-267 F-257
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.51 C-28.0 F-293 D-45.7 F-246
Blvd./Airport Blvd./Sister Cities
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.71 B-10.4 B-11.0 B-14.0 B-14.9
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA
Ramp
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- and NA C-22.81 NA D-53.8 NA
Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- and NA NA D-40.21 NA F-80.3
Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Ba shore Blvd /Middle Project NA C-20.4 B-14.41 B-18.4 B-13.1
Y
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project Access NA NA
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control)
Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.91 A-9.4
(Signal)
Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.11 C-30.2
(Signal)
1 Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds.
2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
C-15.83 i NA C-17.6
B-10.1 I B-11.8 B-12.8
C-31.8 1 D-35.3 D-36.9
Terrabay Phase III Pr ject Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 4-11
4. Alternatives
Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to the proposed Project.
Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less
than significant level with mitigation.
This alternative would generate a lower number of trips compared to the Project.
Carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant.
The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be somewhat less than for the
Project, and would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Noise With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project. Operational noise impacts would also be similar to or greater than for the
proposed Project because a hotel use is considered more sensitive to noise than an
office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with
mitigation.
Public Services and With this alternative, impacts on public schools, police and fire services would be similar
Utilities to those for the proposed Project. Water consumption and wastewater generation would
be greater than with the Project because the office tower would be replaced with a hotel
tower which would have a higher demand for water and wastewater facilities. Storm
drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project.
Aesthetics With this alternative, potential light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project.
4.5 TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, there would be an increase of 180 market rate housing units
contained in a second residential tower. Fifteen of the units constructed in Phase A
would be income and occupancy restricted for low income households (50-80 percent
median), 67 units would be income and occupancy restricted for moderate income
households (120 percent median) and 21 units would be income and occupancy
restricted for moderate income households (80-120 percent median). Retail development
would be the same as with the Project. This alternative would not include office or hotel
development. Development phasing would be the same as with the proposed Project.
Amenities would be the same as with the Project.
Terrabay Pbase III Projcct Draft Supplemental En:aronmentallmpact Report 4-12
4. Alternatives
TABLE 4.6: TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTRNATIVE -LAND USE
AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
Use Housing Units Square Footage
Phase A
Retail 357,000
Residential -Market Rate 248
Residential -Low/Moderate Income 67
21
Residential -Low Income 15
Phase B
Residential -Market Rate 180
Total 531 357,000
Traffic and Circulation This alternative in comparison with the Project would generate about 38 percent less
traffic during the AM peak hour and about 13 percent less traffic during the PM peak
hour. Table 4.7 presents a comparison of the net new AM and PM hour external trip
generation for this alternative in relation to the proposed Project.
TABLE 4.7: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON, PROPOSED PROJECT
VERSUS, TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE
(Terrabay Phase III Net New External Trip Generation)
AM Peak Hour Trips
ind Outbound 2-Way
PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound 2-Way
Proposed Project 533 242 775 762 989 1751
Two Residential 209 272 481 786 732 1518
Towers Alternative
Net Change Alternative
2 Versus Proposed (-324) +30 (-294) +24 (-257) (-233)
Project
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Appendix D, Table D-4 presents the Two Residential Towers Alternative gross trip
generation, while Appendix D, Tables D-5 and D-6 present this alternative's internal
trip capture and net new external trip projections. The Two Residential Towers
Alternative traffic distribution patterns as well as passby and diverted linked trip
projections are contained in Appendix C, Table C-9. Year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM
peak hour Base Case + Two Residential Towers Alternative is presented in Figures 4.3-1
through 4.3-4, while year 2010 and 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Two
Residential Towers Alternative intersection levels of service are presented in Tables 4.8
and 4.9.
Tevrabay Phase 171 Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-13
z ti
z ~ t
z cM~~ ,~,
~ r M ''1-- ~ O H O f- ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ N
4 ~ ~ 41 any an nqn~
~ ap
p~' c'> r N 'n ~ u~ ~, o
~n ~ ~ r° m o
a ~ ~ ~ tia
m
~r n c `~
.,~ ~ .~ ~ O Z '~ ~
r
O ~ ~ ~
~
r
N p -~ C ~ -i
_p
~ ~ ~
~n .y p
.a
'- '~AilOi(/~ ~ ~
M
N M M
~~
'~"~ N
~
M N~
~ (~
~
4- d.
~~ • ~ Ii1
~ N
~ n
~ ~ ~
( ~^
7
~ al0 Si
a
~ ~ ~ --~
~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ uoi ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ A~l$uo ,y
~'
N --
~ V~ o
i
~~
N~
M ~, ~ M _i N cn to
~ N ~
(D
~
N
N ~
W ~ o ,u
'°
~
N f
f
~ i
a
a
m
ai
:~
V
a~
~,,a
~ ~ ae6
O
~~`\5`
N ~`~ ~ N
l '
~ r
t~
C M N
~ W
K
W
~ ~
d
m
ti ~
~
L
a
m
.n
m
a~
N
t~
i~
v ~
O
E"~
~ .-~
M
__22 d~ ~ ~
Z~ ~ .~ O
~~x
W O
H ~
v
0
0
N
0
C.7
0
b
~.
c7
0
° z .~ M ~ Q
N ~ ~
~ ~ N •--
'~"' ~ ptn O ~'^_ M
a~~ a '~ ~ ,n -~, .~ a~b' ~ nqn~
O~
O c
° ~ ~
--- f~D ~ O
J~a
~ o
N ~ -3,
Q
C
r~ r,~o
pr a
a? ~ ~ ~
.~ ~
O ~ ~
~ ~~
~
00 ~. ~
N ~ a ° -~
~ h ~
r M _1 Jg^ p'~ ~
N
V n ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~
m pn~g aloysfc~g ~n
~' t
O '_~'
r r r
N~
N N ~,
N _
~ M
, ~
h ~
~
~, h
m
V
W ~
mr
O ~ •~ ~
a a
,a
~ ~ N ~~\~
1~r~
0
~~
~~
.x
r- o
~ z
r"
~, --- ~
~-. ~, ~
~~ ~ OBI N
N
b
~ ~ M
tp ~ ch ~ -fr-- ~ Q
1 ~ N M
N
c}~ S JS UOl5SfJ~ L
~ ~ ~ ~` d
~ "~, N N ~
c+l
GJ
~¢
N
O
E..~ ~
N ~ O
cif ~
et+ a~ ~
~~ x
W O
h ~
+ ~
a~
U
0
0
N
7
w
C.7
0
.~
~oo
P.
C7
d
0
Z
n
n
'~~
~ N V' t^ ~ ~ O
~ 'i T ~ -!~
~ ~ ~; ~ M -,
~ ~~
n
o
n
M
~ ~ ~,
m
N
~
-- M
"~- ~
r- ~ ..,,» ---~
~ M O
e-~
~ ~o s~~e •~ l ~. ~n
'~ c~~i
•f~ ~`
r
M
"
"
0
0 -~'
~ ~ ~ °
~ ~ v co
N ~ co co
'
M ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ ++ M a
~ ch ~ ~
~
_
~ n
N ~ N
W W a °
'
~ F ~
~ `~ '' j
a
b
m
h
.~
U'
Ja
'~ aNO `ae6
~ti~~5
r~
~ a r~
t~
m ~ N
W `-
'~ o
~-- ~
m
r°
0
~ N
a
a
.$
5
b
ZO
dl
N
t9
t
a
:Gy
td
S-i
o ~„~
H~
M
M
_~22 ef+ ~ ~
Z~ ~ :~ o
~~x
w o~
3~
~~
u
O
N
O
N
0
C7
0
a
ob
O
c7
0
z N ,~ ~ ~ O
~
N
~o
+f-
.r N rye ~ ,!_ N ~M
V
~~Q ti N ~
~ ~ „~,~ any an ngno
Q`
(~~ ~ ~
10 OOD M ~ -- M tC)
~a
~J C
~? N ~ o N
rn Z C Q
~ ~
o'' Z
o
r ~ o
r
CO `y b
O
CO /gq~ /~ '~ ~ ~
N
M M p ~
Z ~ M
f- Vw ~ ~
N N V1
4-- ~
~ F- M p N
t N
+~ ~ ~ ~ cM /Jh~g 8J0L/S~Eg I
~ ~ ~ T ~
v ,, ~
~ m --
~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ v ~' ' '~ ~ I ~ P~J9 ~o iy
~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ N
O ~
~ ~ N ~ -' O N ~ ~
- ~
N ~'
t~fl
~' ~. ~
V
W W ~ W
~ cv
~ ~
a
m
Ja
v t ~
00`
8
~s
~\\ ~
N ~ ~ ~
r
~4
~
t~
O N
W ~
c!')
4fJ m
b_
~J
~ a
-
T S
-~ 1
N~ ~
M ~ M
r ~
b
3 L M
W
im
~ _~
co ,~ V
, !
- M W
M
,
(~
V
N ~
J$ UO1SS1(h( N
l0
t
a
N _~ ~ ~ ~ A
~ ~, ~ N
N
H
~~
P.
Q
(7
0
m
Y.
0
R.
0
.~
i-i
O
H .~
~ ~ ~
M ~
ef+ a~ ~+
~; :~ o
~~ x
w o '~
H~
+~
v
V)
U
O
N
O
N
4. Alternatives
TABLE 4.8: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Ye ar 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./iJ.S.101 NB Off- A-9.11 C-32.9 C-26.5 D-44.7 C-29.6
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-25.81 F-99.8 E-62.6 F-102 E-63.8
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-29.31 D-32.4 D-35.1 C-28.0 D-41.6
Blvd./Airport Blvd./Sister Cities
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.51 A-9.6 B-10.1 B-12.3 B-12.8
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-10.22 NA NA NA NA
Ramp
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA B-14.91 NA C-23.4 NA
and Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA C-21.41 NA C-24.9
and Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-21.81 A-5.6 B-16.6 A-5.4
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA B-12.23 NA B-13.0
Access
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control)
1 Signalized level of service~verage control delay in seconds.
z All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Temabay Phase III Pr jecl DraJl Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-18
4. Alternatives
TABLE 4.9: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, PROJECT 2
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ALTERNATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Year 2020
Base Base Case Base Base Case
Intersection Existing Case + Project Case + Project
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off- A-9.0' B-18.1 C-25.5 C-30.7 D-49.6
Ramp-SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque C-32.1' F-129.4 F-130 F-267 F-252
Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore C-30.5' C-28.0 F-292 D-45.7 F-403
Blvd./Airport Blvd./Sister Cities
Blvd.
(Signal)
Sister Cities Blvd./Hillside Blvd. A-8.7' B-10.4 B-11.0 B-14.0 B-15.5
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off- B-13.92 NA NA NA NA
Ramp
(All-Way-Stop)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA C-22.8' NA D-53.8 NA
and Off-Ramps
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./U.S.101 SB On- NA NA D-38.4' NA E-73.9
and Off-Ramps/Project Access
(Mandalay Terrace)
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd./Middle Project NA C-20.4' B-13.3 B-18.4 B-13.8
Access
(Signal)
Bayshore Blvd.-South Project NA NA C-15.63 NA C-19.7
Access
(Outbound R.T. Stop Sign Control)
Hillside Blvd./Lawndale Blvd. A-5.9' A-9.4 B-10.1 B-11.8 B-12.8
(Signal)
Lawndale Blvd./Mission Rd. B-17.1' C-30.2 C-31.6 D-35.3 D-36.7
(Signal)
' Signalized level of service-average control delay in seconds.
2 All-way-stop level of service-average control delay in seconds.
3 Unsignalized level of service~verage control delay in seconds: stop sign controlled right turn
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Synchro Analysis Program for Interchange Area
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
Terra~ay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Enanronmen[allmpacl Report 4-19
4. Alternatives
In comparing this alternative with the proposed Project:
• Trip generation exceeds 100 peak hour trips -This alternative would also have
more than 100 peak hour trips. No change, impact remains the same.
• Year 2010 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• Year 2020 intersection level of service impacts. No change; impacts remain
significant.
• Year 2020 vehicle queuing impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• On-site circulation impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
• On-site parking impacts - No change; impact remains significant.
Air Quality This alternative would have construction impacts similar to those for the proposed
Project. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, but with mitigation could
be reduced to a less than significant level.
This alternative would have a trip generation less than the proposed Project. Carbon
monoxide impacts would be less than significant.
The regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the
Project and would exceed the BAAQNID thresholds of significance and would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Noise With this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project. Operational noise impacts would be greater than with the proposed Project.
The office tower would be replaced with a residential tower, a use more sensitive to
noise than an office use. Significant noise impacts could be reduced to a less than
significant level with mitigation.
Public Services and This alternative has an additional 180 residences. This would result in greater impacts on
Utilities public schools, police and fire services than for the proposed Project. Water
consumption and wastewater generation would also be greater than with the Project.
Storm drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Significant impacts
could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.
Aesthetics .This alternative would result in similar light and glare impacts as with the proposed
Project. Although a greater number of residences are proposed Bayshore
Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard with this
alternative, these units would be located in a high-rise tower and would not be exposed
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental En:aronmentallmpact Report 4-20
4. Alternatives
to visual intrusion resulting from retail signage at the ground floor level. With mitigation,
significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative for a
proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative would be the alternative that
would have the least significant effects on the environment. If the No Project would be
the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR should also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives that were
considered in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2).
For this 2005 DSEIR, with mitigation, the Hotel Tower would be the environmentally
superior alternative as it would result in less demand on public schools and a reduction
in air quality impacts; with mitigation these impacts could be reduced to a less than
significant level. Water consumption and wastewater generation would be greater with
the Hotel Tower Alternative than with the Project, however, these impacts could be
mitigated to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts for all alternatives would be
similar to those of the proposed Project.
Terrabay Phase III Pnmject Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 4-21
~I
~:
w
W
x
H
U
W
w
O
U
w
z
O
0
a
H
v
~ o -. • q
~ ~¢,~ ~ .~
[ CC q
y o
a ~ ~~ .
g
~H
w ~ a
3~ ~~~
a u '~°
~~~:~
~ .~
.,.
::. ~ .~
a `'~
m ~ .°
a u..o.~
a u-~ri
o W '?~
z ~,, :;:
,.
o~
U ~~ '~
73 U ~~3
~' ~. ~
~.w
v
~r
~., .
~:
.Q
-~
a,
0
~.
~,
Qr
H
a
H
a
H
a
(n
,o
s
V
'~
H
v cd U
X70'+ ~a~++ „ ~n ter, N „ N .a
a~ ~•~~
B~~~o
~ v ,,., U U a g o ~
Q, ~~ uU ~w ~o N
,~ a~ ~
'cO 7 A.~Q^~ v ~
Q ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ° :~ O
.i,o°'aC7o~cv~i~y
O ~v. v ,~j q •~ ~ ~ ,~ v
C SMp,,~j .U v ~,~ '~J ~
~ UM • I7 ~~. O ~+ U v ~ 'b
k b 77 ~+ ?: ~ O ~v,
`~ P.. y ~
~ O ~ '~ ~ ~ }~}.~~~ C ~ v
s~. v ~ A. ~ ~ 0 m A, bA U
~•o~~U o~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~, ~ ~
E~~"a.~v:~~•u0~~u
+., bA O v ~:~ U
.~
.--i
~ ,~
M M
H
a
a
H
a
H
a
~ ~o
.~
v ~ i~0•~ '°-o ~
~a
~~~~~~~~a.~
3j ~ ~ .a
q ~~y~,a ~
o-o~•~ o ~~ v~-d
~ c ~ o A-' ~' w ~ ° o
~•xt v2.~ °AV o v 6
;°'o r. 'a'~ yy o
ti C>a'(~~ Ob~ ~~i~ cUv
O -d v~ ~ 0 v o P.
N~ p- ~.~
.~ ao a ~•o o'~ q
U GL v v sr ~w U U
q C ~ C, ~ ~ cCa q
•O b O C~ p, v ,~ avi '~ .~
.s°i. ~ o ~ ~ o c~ ~ a~
ti C v v G~~ B .a G «.
N N x' ~ vii W v ca ca U~
R. v
~.
N
M
H
a
a
H
a
I~
a
G.' ~
~° ~ p v
F. ~
,~ w
avi~`''u" pw ~
.o~~•~ y ~
~~~ v.~.
-~°a0o~;c
o•~v[~ y c~
R+ q ~ cn ~+ ~
° ~' ;° O v ti
w~ aab~
,Ur +' U v v
rY""'! ~~U ~~
`y' v . ~ ~
~~ o~ ~ ~
~ ~ C ~ ~ ~
v q
~o ~~ y'~
~,~ ~.v. ~
~ ~ U 0 o a'"i
~ a. ~ a
O .~ ~ C ~ v
~ o
~ ~ ~ ~~
~~..~Na~
M
M
v
-~
0
G
.~-
b
w
I~
r~-
w
w
I I
w
x
a
II
(~
r-a
v
b
v
.~.y
M
U_
W
H
W
x
H
U
W
O
w
O
4'
w
z
O
V
ti
W
a
H
-
~ v
w o
y ,
, Ga ~ ca
~
^~"v°
m:a ~'L'f'.~
~~ ~
H
a
~
~a ~ ~ a
~~
~ s
v~~
a
~.o
. ~, o
~.~.~
.~
a ~~~.
~
~ ~
a
.~
~
,o
'• x ~
:~:
,~
,o
;.~
vo
'~~
~•~ o~~"~
y
~ ~
a a ~
M
~
M
~,,
o
~'
;.
. 0
v
v '~ '~
~
L
~v ~~~ a ~ ~
P4 ~n
w ~
k.
~~
~~~
v
~~ ~ .~ b
C U ~ O FG C ^~ ~ rr O ' C ca ' O +a FA ~
o
•°'•~ ; R'~ y y
'o o ~ ~ v' a~i ~~
fib u~ q~C-a~ `" u ~~ ~
~
~. p., a
'~ ~ ~ `~ .
.
o
o
O
~
b y
'G
a
o ' ~
~
ca b ~ .
~ .~
o
G P. c~ v
~
i
v
o 'b
+; o ~ o o ~ o ~ ~° b a~ ~ v '~ o 'd u ~ ~ ~ ~ y o a ~ ~
~_
~: ° o ~; vu"
a Y au o °°~ O~
a'•~ ; ~ o ~ o o~ oo „v ~ ai.~'~ au',°~, o a
~,
~N~ o..d o uU•
o
°Oo~," a
„
~~ ~~~ o~ y
~
w
~ ~
~
~~ ~
~
~
~~ ~~ o ~ aog•o o ~ ~'~` ~ ~ ~
~ ° y
~
~
°
~v
i ~v _~
~ x
' ad ov,
a
q ~
~
5 p~ O U u `~ °4'~' ~ A. C C o" O v c~ C ~ • O ca °~ a~ v, ~ '.~,J
a •
~p° ~ 'b N ~ a B o ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ '~ .d ate; ~'°~ .~ Wo W Ua ~ ~ o .a y
6~w~ y ~p ~~ aoi-o ~co \d o0 v ~ o oW~o'~ ~ °-'
~ o
0
c
~
•
~
`
"
~ ,~.
~ :'
V [Li D, U O ~
O cCa • -a~' .b ~ ~ ~ ~',~ y ~
O cCa • V G7 +~ .n
~ ca ~ .`.a
U ~
~ C O N t7 p, ~,
q' ~ ~ U ~.
~ q
O .O x"' ~ O ,~ .a ~+ r+ '-" m ~, 'd c/~ ~ ~ • O . r,~- v
y
.y
u C
~
.
r ~ v !~ N N
O . ~ ~ ij ~' ,h., cd
A
O . ~ ~ jy N ~ Z
~ y
~
CV ~ O
N
O v ~ W ~ ~ y ~' ~ ~ u ~ D O ~ O ~ ~ 4
~"+
b
A
~.:;,
:~ o
a.
o
~
v
r.
,,,
,~
~
,~
.,
a~
M
~;
M
b
a
w
.~
a
a
~a
ro
v
t.^.
x
a
ii
a
M
N
S
a
O
O q
D ~ ` .n
t7
~ A
31< w O
'~ v ~ •Lt -
cn
cn
~
VJ
F
cn
H
~H
~
~
~
N
~'
~o - c
~ ~ .
~
~
o
H~ ~~ a
F,
E
~
a
a
.~ ~ a a
~~~
~„
>q
~. u ~... o
u u q n
v ~
O
~j
!~
!~
.. ~ , c
44
Fr ~ 460i OA .~
~ ~
a ~
a ~ ~
•n
~
~~
~ ~ ~
,
;
a p
~ 'uo a
ca
,s ~ .~ ~~ a a ~ a a
'~. ~' \ \
~ _ Cn V1
ti
O
•u
6J
-O
O
a"
~'
W
a
b ~
C `~ aCi ~
b a~ v
x
('~ i-I N C
~ i%>~ u yJ cd
~:+
H ~ H u
~ H C u ai .~? u
• p h v ~ ~ O t7a
~o ~~ „b•~
~~0~~~
a~2 ;yak
~a~~~aa
q ~ p u ~ v
~. w~o.~
~' 'b '~ ~
Q of U ~ '~ y O
~'~.!~d~~o3
7 ~ N N ~ N
V y N N a.+ ^d cd
. r w c~ ~ v y as
~G~ ~ ~O
o .~ cv N O C
~~ ~ v
w ~ ~ °CH' v'~ a
~ ~ G W .~ U
cd
a~
m vii aU+ U ~ G
v a~ '~ o ~~++
/'~ H • ~ 3.1 ~i U G
M
u ~, aui
O N a'~O
a~~H.~
b v H ~' a~
~ ^d bA
~ ~ v q
~ v (~ U
~ o „ yamC.
O~w P.~ u
a~~~ w
-d ~'~ ~
~ O vi aHi C
a~ ~, aH~
O O ti
~~~ w N~
~~NVv
~•~ ~O ~~
~~~v'do
~ auU G ~
N
7-1 ~ N i/ ~
~~W ~ °.
ca 'b
~~ ~~.~
~'~.~°~~
~ "
o . ~ ~ ~ .b ci
.O O
~ a6 ~
M
ca
u O ~ .~
-drab ~ ~
~~ ~ b 'r~~y~ Q.
7 ~-1 H CO N
~ ~ ~ V
a~ C
O &p
~ ~ ~ `~ L~
-d o?; °?:
o~~v~
a. o a. ~ a
O +, u C u
H ~
a~~~ ~
~•~~~~
~" ~ 'y ~
~~~~~
~ o
ti~'U ~b
~~ D O bAL'
U u
~ '3 c7
S,~ ,mob a
~ ~ ~ y
~v'~Ba
U
~ ~ ~`ra ~~
.r~' U ~cd U
_o
N a~ ~ v "~ ~
u
~ ~ N
~ O O p
M
O
H
H ~ o
R, ~ C
O
~ ~ •~pp
~ q
•u O
u O u
~~vc
.~ ~ '~
~.~";
.a 5 -d ~
y~~o
~N~~
R, a o
a ~ W o
~ ~a
~o.~
•O ~ h C
v MM~ O
~ W
~ N +' P~
`'~o•~
U .N •~ U
v as
N
}, i+ O y
O w u in
0
M
~`~.
O
0
.~
a
M
v
b
0
C
.~-
'O
C
cd
w
I I
W
u
V
~~
a
N
i
~'
b
.~
a
U
..
W
i--I
w
x
F
U
W
/~
l1
w
O
~I
w
O
~~'1
d'
H
~ ~' ,_o
v m.. Pa C ~
;;' ~ Q °~
..
~
~
H
H
H
F,
F,
E~
H
~ .~ ~ ~ a a a ~
N ~~
;~
'~;
"o a
v v ~ •a
F
~~ a a s a a a
~
~ a a ~ as
x
.
`
-
v~
•~
~
°~ ~~~'
a".`~~a~i bn~ ~"
~ `~
a a
~ HH
as a
~ a
~ s
~ a
~ a
~ a
~
O c~ 'I} ~
~ cn cn cn cn cn cn cn
z`
~ -~
' . V ~~ ~i~
~ ~~' ~~ ~" ~' a H H a a s a a a
~. `~~ ~ ~ a ~ a a
~v
_
~,W~
v
O
~
N 0
cCe N
a~ q p y.,
~ C O
C N
~ aCi
'
~
' ~ ~
~ ~
v ca
C ~
~ :;
~ Li.
• ~
y o
C ~
O W
cn
~.
C N O
~.a: v
~ p N
~
~
~' ~
u ~
d0 h
.
u O
.~ ..
.
aZ
u
N .~ O .~C y o N a
i
O
C O
u
~" 'd ~
`~ ~ 'd '~ -up ~ v
b Z
~
.,
O ~
R+~ ~
y C
,~ y O
~ ~
u y y
~+
~. ~
"~ ~+
OO fJ, a~
"
C ~+
C
°~ v
,~
O
' 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ cd
v U R w 'J
~ ~ .,
a +
..C y ~ O ~ u a~ p" O " '~ N ~ u
U
Q~
' Cd ~
~~" ~ ~+
~ vU•i N W
O ~~ U
' ^~.
y
1 U h
G
J
o pp
b
q O .
:~ ' N ~
O
~ O
Z Q/
'd ~' ca
aUa E
C
u ~,, ~
R+ s
~
W
v
~~ L'~ ~ C
v O ~
is ~
m ,~
~ ~ (j
~ v u
.~ a~
~"~ . e~
;~ ~
~ sa
,~ ~
.~ -~
b ~ ~
-~ a
.o
~
; ~
~
-~
~
b
b O
:~
q C ~ ~
~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ b Q ~ a~ v O
a+
U
~ O b
~
U O .
U U y.
N
.O M ~ U y
N o
.O .~ ~
~ N
s~
N ~
U y
•U U
O ~
O N
~ 5
.v b
"d "d
"d N
U
~ .
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ N
G, ~ C a ¢, v~~
p a~ ~ .b
p O k v v
D a~ p
~
~ u v n"'
L
O
~
~ ~
:'. ~
~„
N .--i
cV N
CV M
CV
M ~
M N
c+l M
cM rF
M ~
r'i
~ .-~
d' N
~ M
~
CL M M M N'1 M M M M M M M M M M
A
c~
'O
O
C
.~-
b
ro
w
.~
ii
4+
~n
N
a
~n
N
~t
y
j
.b
.~
U
.~
~i
W
d
x
H
W
O
w
O
U
w
z
r°-,~
W
a
.-y ~
~• ~ ~ 0
,;~ a ~,
v G ~
F
H
~'
~~ ~•~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
3 ~ ~
H
cA
v
`° p
v v ~;.n°'
' a a
o ~~ { ~
v~ ~
cn a ~
v~ cry cn
o t
~ ~
x •~ ' ~.
c`'
0
u ~.~
~ ~ .
~
.v ~ OY•O
n cn cn ~ N ~ cn ~, cn
z .r
~.~:
o p'
~ ~ ~ ,;~ '~ F F ~ ~ ~, cn
a ~, E~
a; ~~~ ~ ~ a a ~
~
~
~
v
CA ~:
'Ly h O
N
0 ~
~ b
~
OO"
a '~ ,b d ~C,
N .~ ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' o
Y ..~ .
a o
'~ N
y N
~ y
~
a
U o o
~ ti ~ nr'",
y o ,~ b
H
i~-I
C O ^d
~ y ~~
'~ .~C~
~ ed W
c~v U
FI
cYa ~
• q Cad
'd 1~-I
+-~"
~
~ ~
q~
y (~ ~ ~
~ U
O ~
C
.xJ
~ ~ a ~q y
.n h
c~ Q o ° ~
v ~
~ w f~+ ~ °~
~ ~ y ~ . ~
~ ~
~
tw ~ v
~+ ~ q
~ • ~ ~
C ~
C i~
C ~
' ~
~
^ C
bA ~ c~ oq w O O O O '~
: ~~
~ ~ ~
~ ,3 ~] ~
'b ~
b ~
'b bA
~ OA
~
y
u
. ~
~ ~
a ~ N
'
o
v ~
v
~
°
°
o ~ ~ o ~ :
~
(4 ~ a~+ ~ N W
~ v~
~ U u ~
~ u
C ~
"~ ~ ~~
~
'L-~ .a O U ~ C~ r
-~ ~' Z -.
~
O m
~
a
° ~
~ N
~ V
~ ~
~ a0
~ G1
~
~ .-+
Sri N
u•i
i1+ M M M M M M M M M
v
'°
b
0
C
'O
w
q
W
n
w
x
~~
a
OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter addresses the following: cumulative impacts; growth inducing impacts;
significant unavoidable environmental impacts; significant irreversible environmental
changes; and effects found not to be significant.
5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Traffic and Circulation Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in Section 3.1 Traffic and
Circulation -Year 2020 Impacts. With mitigation, significant impacts at the Bayshore
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access and vehicle queuing at
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality As discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality, Project-related mobile source emissions would
have a significant impact to regional quality. Mitigation measures recommended for the
Project would reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions but not to the extent
needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant. Project
cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant after mitigation.
Noise The Project represents the final phase of development at Terrabay. Nearby planned
construction projects have been completed including the Oyster Point Flyover and
Hook Ramp project and utility improvements in Bayshore Boulevard. Therefore,
cumulative noise impacts associated with construction are not anticipated in the Project
area. Recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project would reduce
construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Noise associated with an
increase in cumulative traffic would be long-term. Mitigation recommended for the
Project and future cumulative projects would reduce the impact to a less than significant
level.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 5-1
S. Other Statutory Con.ciderationr
Public Services Development of the Project in conjunction with cumulative development would
and Utilities increase demand on the providers of services and utilities. The providers of services and
utilities would be able to incrementally expand their services to accommodate
cumulative development, provided that adequate funding is available. The recommended
mitigation measures would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to a less than
significant level.
Aesthetics The Project would contribute to the overall visual alteration of the Project vicinity. City
policies and development standards protect visual resources at the Project site and
within the Project area. The mitigation measures recommended for the Project would
reduce the Project's contribution to such impacts to aless-than-significant level.
5.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Projects are considered to be growth inducing if they foster economic or population
growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly in the
surrounding environment. The Project site is the third phase of the planned Terrabay
development. The City approved a development program for the Project site in 2000.
The approved project does not include residential development and includes a small
amount of office-serving retail at the ground floor. The Project would be a mixed-use
development that would provide housing opportunities for workers housed in the office
and retail components of the development. It would also provide shopping and
employment opportunities for the residents of Phase I and II of Terrabay. Existing
infrastructure is in place including water and sewer line in Bayshore Boulevard to serve
the Project.
Increased employment and housing resulting from the Project would also increase the
demand for retail goods and services, which would be provided through the retail uses
on the Project site and at other retail centers in the Project area.
The Project is not considered growth inducing. The Project site is planned for
development, it is the third and final phase of Terrabay. Adequate infrastructure is in
place to serve the development. Provision of housing of would help to offset the
demand for housing generated by the new jobs created.
5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The following impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with development
of the Project:
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Emnronmenta! Impact Report 5-2
S. Other Statutory Con,rirlerationr
• Project traffic would degrade the Bayshore/U.S. 101 Hook Ramps/Project Access
Intersection from LOS D to LOS F with volumes increasing more than two
percent.
• Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp and is expected to
have unacceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 and 2020.
• Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds
for ozone precursors and PMIO•
5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
Irreversible commitments of resources would occur with development of the Project.
The Project would commit future generations to having development on the Project
site. Non-renewable resources such as natural gas and oil would be used during
construction of the Project and during the Project's lifetime for heating and cooling
Project facilities and other uses. Non-renewable energy resources would also be
associated with transportation related to the Project. The Project is not used for
agricultural purposes and is not under the Williamson Act, thus, potential loss of
agricultural lands would not occur. The Project would preserve approximately 26 acres
(the Preservation Parcel) in perpetuity.
5.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The 2005 Initial Study identified the following environmental topics as not to be
significant. Therefore, they were not discussed in this 2005 DSEIR.
• Aesthetics -scenic resources
• Agricultural Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Recreation
A copy of the Initial Study is included as Appendix A.
Terrabay Phase III Project Drat! Supplemental Entnranmental Impact Report 5-3
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PERSONS INVOLVED IN REPORT
PREPARATION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Tom Sparks, Chief Planner
Allison Knapp Wollam, Contract Planner
EIR CONSULTANTS
PEACEMAKERS
Patricia Jeffery, AICP, Project Manager
Aesthetics
Lori Cheung, Deputy Project Manager
Public Services and Utilities
Ron Teitel, Graphics
Lisa Laxamana, Word Processing
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Mark Crane, P.E.
Dave Reed, Engineer
Marcia Jacobs, Production
DON BALLANTI
Don Ballanti
ROSEN GOLDBERG & DER
Alan Rosen
Terrabay Phase III Pr jeel Draft Supplemental Environmental Impac[ Report 6-1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
'.
a,
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco; 1982. Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report
City of South San Francisco, 1997. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay
Specific Plan and Development Agreement.
City of South San Francisco, 1998. Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental
Environmentallmpact Report. Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning
City of South San Francisco, 1999. Terrabay Phase II and III Final Supplemental
Environmentallmpact Report. Prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning.
City of South San Francisco, 2000. Addendum to 1998-99 Terrabay Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects. Draft Traffic Analysis Report
(Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001
249 East Grand Draft EIR Circulation Analysis. Lamphier-Gregory and Crane
Transportation Group, June 2005
333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project. Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates)
September 2004. Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005.
1998 Terrabay SEIR Traffic Analyses. Crane Transportation Group, 1998.
Bay West Cove Commercial Report. Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates)
October 2002.
Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property). Recirculation Draft EIR
(Morehouse Associates) February 2002.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report 7-1
7. keference.r
City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR.
City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. South
San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance, Apri12001.
East Jamie Court Office R&D. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Morehouse Associates) September 2002.
Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37. Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus
Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003.
Genentech Building 31-Admin Draft. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board.
San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines.
San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report. Fehr
and Peers, July 29, 2003.
Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue. R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use
(Crane Transportation Group) November 2001.
Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue. R&D Office
Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002.
Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Tra~c Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004. Trip Generation Handbook, Second
Edition.
Tom Sparks, Chief Planner, Planning Department, City of South San Francisco, P.O.
Box 711, So. San Francisco, CA 94083, 650/877-8535
Dennis Chuck, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department, City of South San
Francisco, P.O. Box 711, So. San Francisco, CA 94083
AIR QUALITY
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 1996,
revised 1999.
NOISE
Carone, David, San Francisco International Airport. Personal communication May 9,
2005.
Terrabay Pbace III Prq'ect Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-2
7. Be, ference,r
San Mateo County. 1996. San Mateo County IQd Use Policy Plan. ALUC. 1996.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
BKF Engineers. 2001. Description of Calculations Supporting the Update to the Storm Drainage
Report for Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (Formerly Point East and Point West).
March 13, 2001.
BKF Engineers. 2001. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Monitoring Program for
Terrabay Development -The Phase III Residential and Commercial Sites (Formerly Point East and
Point West).
Bolzowski, Michael. Water Resource Planning Engineer, California Water Service
Company, May 2005.
Castagnola, Dave. Superintendent, City of South San Francisco, Water Quality Control
Plant, 2005.
Chuck, Dennis. Engineer, Ciry of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, June and
July 2005.
Corlett, Adrian. P.E. Associate/Project Manager, BKF Engineers, June and July 2005.
CREM Engineers. 1990. Terrabay Development Off-site Sanitary Server Improvement Project.
February 1990.
Crilly, Mike. Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District, May and June 2005.
McCarthy, Julie. Payroll Officer, Brisbane School District, 2005.
Niswonger, Bryan. Captain, City of South San Francisco Fire Department, May 2005.
Normandy, E. Alan. Sergeant, City of South San Francisco Police Department, May
2005.
Prudhel, Cassie. City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator. Telephone
conversation on August 18, 2005.
Razavi, Ray. City Engineer, City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division, July 15,
2005.
Salzano, Tom. Water Resource Planning Supervisor, California Water Service Company,
May 2005.
Schoolhouse Services. School Facilities Study. Prepared for the Brisbane School District,
January 18, 2001.
Waterman, Stephen J., Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, May 2005.
White, Terry. Director of Public Works, City of South San Francisco. Telephone
conversation on August 25, 2005.
Terrabay Phase III Pr jert Draft Sxppkmentat Eranronmentat Impact Report 7-3
7. Beferencet
AESTHETICS
City of South San Francisco, 2000. Final Terrabay Specific Plan. October 16, 2000.
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Deport ~-4
A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP/IS
C. PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES
D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC TABLES
E. AIR QUALITY MODEL
F. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WILL SERVE LETTER
Terrabay Pbare III Project Draft Supplemental Entaronmental Impact Report
NOTICE OF PREPARATION/
INITIAL STUDY
Te~rabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Entttronmental Impact Report l~-1
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
TO: Affected Agencies
FROM: City of South San Frandsco -Lead Agenry
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH: 1997082077
LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco CONSULTANT: PEACEMAKERS
Planning Department 1500 Park Avenue -Loft #310
315 Maple Avenue Emeryville, CA 94608
City Hall Annex 510.985.1784
South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Patricia Jeffery, AICP
650.877.8535 placemakers@sbcglobal.net
Contact: Allison Knapp Wollam
allison.knapp@ssfnet
On Apri121, 2005, the City of South San Frandsco, Lead Agenry, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project. The Initial Study
Project Description (under subheading "Project Characteristics and Process -Two Entitlement Phases") stated the
Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative entitlement phases: Phase I would consist of an amendment
of the South San Francisco General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan and the environmental documentation would
be a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and Phase II would consist of an amendment to the Terrabay
Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement. The Project Description incorrectly stated
that Phase II entitlements would be analyzed through future project level environmental review. The SEIR is a project
level environmental document and would cover both entitlement phases. The Initial Study Project Description has
been revised accordingly. Additionally, under subheading "Project Phasing After Final Legislation and Entitlement
Actions" of the Initial Study Project Description, Phase B would consist of the construction of the office building.
There is the potential there will not be a market for office space when the Project applicant is ready to begin
construction of Phase B. Therefore, the 2005 SEIR will analyze two Phase B alternatives to the proposed Project -
the Hotel Alternative and the Second Residential Tower Alternative. The 2005 SEIR alternatives evaluation will also
include a Reduced Density Alternative and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The Initial Study Project
Description has been revised accordingly. The revisions to the Project Description would not result in new
environmental impacts. Thus, changes to the "Environmental Evaluation of Impacts" section of the Initial Study were
not necessary.
As a result of the changes to the Project Description, the NOP is being re-circulated for an additiona130-day
public review period.
The Project Desuiption, location and probably environmental effects are contained in the attached Initial Study.
Please send your comments by June 7, 2005. Due to the time limit mandated by State law, pour response must be sent
at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Allison Knapp Wollam at the address shown above. We will need the name for a
contact person m your agency.
Project Title: Terrabay Phase III
Project Location: Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard
and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to
the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Tercabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is
located 150 feet east of the site.
DATE: May 5, 2005 SIGNATURE: `
Tom Sp s, Chief Planner
Terrabay Phase III Project
Initial Studv - 1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Project Specific Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Ciry of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, California 94080
Contact Person and Phone Numbet:
Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner
Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner
650. 877.8535
4. Project Location:
Approximately 21 vacant acres fronting Bayshore Boulevard beginning at Sister
Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is
bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which
includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101
is located 150 feet east of the site. (See Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map)
APN: 007-650-100, 007-650-110, 007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Myers Development Company
101 Second Street -Suite 555
San Francisco, California 94105
6. General Plan Designation:
Business Commercial
7. Zoning Designation:
Terrabay Specific Plan District
8. Description of Project:
Background
The proposed Project is the third and final phase of the Terrabay Development. Development at
Terrabay is governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan (most recently amended in 2000) and the
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
N
® Project Site
® Terrabay o taoo 2000
r.
Scale in Feet
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3
Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District. Phase ITerrabay-Village and Park consists of 426 single-
family residences in townhome and detached configurations. The Village and Park was completed in
1997 and is 100 percent occupied. Phase I also includes the construction and furnishing of the
Terrabay Fire Station and the Terrabay Recreation Center, and payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee for
day care services. Phase II consists of Terrabay Woods (Mandalay Heights), 135 single-family
detached units all of which are occupied, and Peninsula Mandalay, 112-unit condominium.
Construction was completed on the condominium December 2004. Approximately 100 units of the
condominium are occupied and all of the units are sold. Mandalay Point consists of 70 paired units
(35 side-by-side duplexes). All 70 units are sold and occupied. Phase II includes the conveyance of
the 26-acre "Preservation Parcel" to the County of San Mateo for incorporation into San Bruno
Mountain County/State Park. Conveyance of the Preservation Parcel was completed August 2004.
Phase II also includes the improvement and conveyance of the 6.22-acre "Recreation Parcel" to the
City of South San Francisco. Improvements to the Recreation Parcel have been installed and include:
geotechnical mitigations, a sediment basin, v-ditches and hydroseeding and creation and compaction
of a development pad. The conveyance of the Recreation Parcel is scheduled to occur at the end of
the 2005 wet weather season. Phase III, the proposed Project, is a mixed use development.
The entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental
documents beginning in 1982.
1. In 1982, the Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by
the City of South San Francisco (City). The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the
Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Specific Plan.
2. ASupplemental Environmentallmpact Report for the Terrabay Speczfic Plan and Development Agreement
(1996 SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR
studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed
ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Specific Plan and Development Agreement
to February 2007.
3. In 1998/99, the Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report and Final
EIR (1998/99 SEIR) were prepared and the document was certified by the City in 1999. The
1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the
construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment.
The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed development of the Project site for commercial development including
a mix of a hotel, restaurants, retail and office use. Table 1 shows the previous commercial
development program for Phase III.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 4
TABLE 1: PHASE III PREVIOUS LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Square Footage Land Use
Hotels (3) 235,000 - 280,000 380 - 600 Hotel Rooms
Restaurants (4) 12,000 - 18, 000 450 Seats
Retail (3) 6,000 - 10,000 Service Retail
Mixed Use 30,000 - 35,000 Retail, Restaurant, Office
Parking 1,760 Parking Spaces
Total 283,000 - 343,000
Since certification of the 1998/99 SEIR, approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (Preservation
Parcel) was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park.
The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of
South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement
Agreement. The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel". The
Buffer Parcel comprises about 2.7 acres, which would be used for roadways (allowed by the Mutual
Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning
Ordinance). Mined-use development would be located on the old "Office Parcel", now referred to as
the "Development Parcel" which comprises approximately 18.5 acres. Figure 2 Project Site Plan
shows the location of the parcels. The total acreage of the modified Phase III site is 21.2 acres. Table
2 presents a breakdown of the land areas.
TABLE 2: PROJECT SITE LAND AREAS
Land Area Acreage
Buffer Parcel 2.7
Development Parcel
Open Space 6.3
Building Area 14.9
Total 21.2
This 2005 Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project that
could occur as a result of changes in the Phase III development program from what was analyzed in
the 1998/99 SEIR. This document builds upon the analysis contained in the 1998/99 SEIR. As
applicable, information contained in the 1998/99 SEIR has been used to focus out environmental
topics that were analyzed and need no further analysis from that in 1998/99 with respect to the
current development proposal. This Initial Study identifies potential new or intensified effects which
are specific to the proposed 2005 Project and as such were not addressed in the 1998/99 SEIR.
Additionally, this 2005 Initial Study and resultant 2005 Supplemental EIR (2005 SEIR) identifies
effects that are anticipated to be less than those that would have resulted from the project proposed
and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR.
___ __ /~
t g
~.
. -'~
,~ ~~~~ _ w
~ ~~~~ ~ 5
+ ~ `
~- ~ - ~ ~
~ 1
~ ~
~ ~ o,
~ 1
l
~~
i y
v ti
1
\\ t ~ S
1 , ` .~~,
1~ ~ ! ~{~
~ `~ r~
,..
/~ ~ ~ ~ '`~
m ~ ~. ~ ~.
N
~ r ~
~."
~ti, ~~-r
,~ '~ r j
r ~~ . , ~;
~~~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ti~tit `~~..-~"
~. ~. ~~I
......r-~..~..... ~~~ .,
r
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~e
V P .~1
r c ~\~ ~
~';~
i `• ' .
~ ~ ~ s
a Y5 `1 ~; .
~ "y \ ..
r V_ ~ ,
r
~( ~/~
~ ~~
~ ~.
~ ~~~
:~
•~9
CC
W
Y.
0
CCS
N ~''
v
~ ~
~ ~
wo
Terrabay Phase III
Initial Study - 6
As allowed under Section 21093 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental impact reports
will avoid repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports.
Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon issues ripe for decision at each
level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of previous environmental
effects examined in previous environmental impact reports. The CEQA Guidelines and statutes
encourage tiering. The 2005 SEIR will tier off the previous environmental documents from Terrabay,
in particular the 1998/99 SEIR
Project Site Characterzrticr
The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Portions of the site have been graded for a fire
road and drainage facilities. The site was used for a construction staging area by the City for the
City's Oyster Point Flyover Interchange Project. Otherwise, it remains undeveloped except for
California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping.
Project Characteristics and Process - Tivo Entitlement Phases
The Project is proposed to be orchestrated in two legislative and entitlement phases. Phase I consists
of an amendment of the General Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan to allow mixed use on the
Terrabay Phase III site. The environmental documentation is a project level Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the subject of this Initial Study. Phase II, following City
action on the Phase I legislative and environmental actions would consist of an amendment to the
Terrabay Zoning Ordinance, Terrabay Precise Plan and Development Agreement. The City
legislative action on Phase II would be covered by the 2005 SEIR.
The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate
and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. In response to the Project site's topography, the
development would be stepped into the hillside. The residential, office and retail would be built over
five levels of parking. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from three entrances along
Bayshore Boulevard. All vehicular entrances would directly access the parking garage. A fourth
vehicular entrance may be located along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR. Mandalay Terrace, a loop road, would be accessed from the entrances at each end of the
development. Mandalay Terrace would also function as the primary pedestrian way. Figure 3 shows
the Project Development Area. Table 3 presents a breakdown of land uses.
1 g
~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ , R
W
~ a
AUt~ALAY" ~,
~ ,~ J'- TERRACE „ "` ,~
M ~ tK
t 41
,.
,~ ~ _,.~
~/ / ~ ~
3 ~t ` v t
g ~ ~,~-'%.~ ~ •, ~
~"~,~. ~- , t + ,~. ~ ~ , 4
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~,,~ ~~ M~~-,, ~~,
r
.~ _~, ~
~,•*~ I - ~ ~ ~~ t ~~.//
t
,~ ~,, }
~ r
/r,~/~ .r' ~ ~ t .YI i 1
J Y ' ~ ~~
+~ ~ ~:~~ ~ ;:~ ti' `' ~
` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
i ~ yy.~
1
~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ L. ' ~ t~ ~j
x/x ~ ~ ~il i ~~ d!
/ .- ~ w
I ~ ~ it,ij~ ~~,1 j ! ~1.
t
"'r e 3 ~ i
,/ '~
~~ ~ '~
q*~ ~~
~~
.~.
5a
.6a
v
`~
0
v
d
G
M
a
e~io ~
wQ
.a..
U
.v
0
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 8
TABLE 3: PHASE III PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM
Category Gross Sq. Ft. Land Use
Office 295,500 Office
Retail 357,500
Residential
Market Rate 343,000
Below Market Rate 73,000
Restauant, Retail,
Multiplex Cinema,
Grocery Store
248 Dwelling Units
88 Dwelling Units
Police Substation 250
Service Areas 63,650
Loading, Storage,
Mechanical, Restrooms,
Supervised Play Area
Total 1,132,900
Office Component
A 17-story high-rise building containing office space would be located at the southerly portion of the
Project site. The top of the building would be approximately 220 feet above the Main Street level and
would reach an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level (msl) due to its hillside
location. The fa4ade would be comprised of a glass curtain wall system with metal and stone detail.
Retail Component
Restaurants would be located near the central plaza which includes a garden and water feature. A
multiplex cinema and a grocery store (below the cinema) are proposed south of the central plaza and
retail space is situated along anorth-south axis. Typical retail spaces would be 20 feet from floor-to-
floor with 24 to 28 feet of street frontage. Sidewalk widths would vary from 20 to 25 feet and
provide tenants with an opportunity to join the streetscape with display, planting and seating.
Streetscapes would be rendered primarily in glass, fabricated metals and stone.
Residential Component
The residential component of the Project would include a 22-story high-rise tower containing 180
market rate condominium units. The tower would rise to a height of about 250 feet above the Main
Street level and would reach an elevation of approximately 360 feet above msl due to its hillside
location. The tower would be constructed of concrete, glass and metal. The base of the tower would
include retail space and possibly a restaurant. The residential tower would be located at the northern
portion of the site.
Two low-rise residential buildings would be located at the westerly portion of the Project site. The
south wing would contain 68 market rate Townhome units. The units would contain two and three
bedrooms. The townhome units would be of a contemporary architectural design in three- and four-
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 9
story arrangements over one-story of retail and one level of parking. Visually, these units frame the
west side of the development and would appear as five- to six-story buildings.
The north wing would contain 88 one and two bedroom flats and would be priced and available for
moderate income households. The flats would also be a contemporary architectural design in one
four-story building over retail. The north wing would be adjacent to and at the heart of the town
center.
Project Phasing After Final Legislation and Entitlement Actions
Project construction, after successful completion of all legislative, entitlement and environmental
requirements, would include all land uses except for the office building (Phase A). Phase A would
most likely include some parking for the future Phase B. Specifically, below the Main Street level, it is
likely that four floors of parking for the office, together with the service/loading area for the grocery
store would be constructed in Phase A. Therefore, Phase A would need to include the structural
foundations supporting these Phase A uses, as well as the subsequent Phase B uses. Phase B would
comprise the office building. Phase A is estimated to start construction in mid 2006 with completion
in the end of 2009. Phase B would start construction within one year of the completion of Phase A
with completion in 2010. There is the potential there will not be a market for office space when the
Project applicant is ready to begin construction of Phase B. Therefore, the 2005 SEIR will analyze
two Phase B alternatives to the proposed Project -the Hotel Alternative and the Second Residential
Tower Alternative. The 2005 SEIR alternatives evaluation will also include a Reduced Density
Alternative and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative.
Amenities
The original Office Development approved in 2000 included the following amenities:
• A Public Art Program;
• A 150-seat Performing Arts Center (shared with office conference room);
• A Child Care Center with a capacity for 100 children;
• 32 Moderate Income Below Market Rate units; and
• Transportation Demand Management Plan.
Phase A of the Project would include the following amenities:
• A Public Art Program;
• Water Features and Fountains;
• An Outdoor Performance Area;
• A 150-seat Performing Arts Center;
• 88 Moderate Income (Below Market Rate) units;
• Transportation Demand Management Plan;
• Childcare fees for the retail and residential elements;
• A Valley Trail;
• Supervised play area for children;
• History markers at various vantage points within the Project site; and
• A history walk along the western boundary of the site.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 10
Phase B of the Project would include one of the following amenities:
• Childcare fee associated with Project; or,
• A childcare center developed with the office building (if desired by the office building user).
The Project would require City approval of the following:
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 2000
• General Plan Amendment
• Approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase III Terrabay site
• Approval of vesting tentative, final subdivision maps and condominium maps for Phase III
• Amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District in the Municipal Code (Zoning)
• Amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in 1988 and extended and
amended in 1996 and 2001
• Approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all Phase III site components
• Design review for Phase III
• Grading Permits for Phase III
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of
Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is
located west of the Project site.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Department
• California Water Service Company -water main and access easements
• State Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Permit
• California Department of Fish and Game -Stream Alteration Agreement
• Caltrans -Encroachment Permit
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 11
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one
impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
® Aesthetics
^ Biological Resources
^ Hazards/Hazardous Materials
^ Mineral Resources
® Public Services
® Utilities/Service Systems
^ Agricultural Resources
^ Cultural Resources
^ Hydrology/Water Quality
® Noise
^ Recreation
® Mandatory Findings of Significance
® Air Quality
^ Geology/Soils
^ Land Use/Planning
^ Population/Housing
® Transportation/Traffic
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
® I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signiftcant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed N e
L' e S~-p
Fox
~ Z~ ~
Date
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources identified in the parentheses following each question and listed in the References
section of this document.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpaa Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway? ^ ^ ^
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? ^ ^ ® ^
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ® ^ ^
glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion:
a) The development Project would not significantly affect scenic vistas. The San Bruno Mountain
County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site. Project development is concentrated at
the southern portion of the property, adjacent to existing residential development (Terrabay Phase
II). The 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to
San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11, 2004,
combined with the 2.7 Buffer Parcel, which would only be used for roadways, would maintain
unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Bayshore
Boulevard frontage. Additionally, the higher elevations of the Development Parcel comprising 6.3
acres of open space along the parcel's westerly boundary would limit development to the lower
elevations of the Development Parcel.
The development Project which would result after all legislative and entitlement actions are acted
on would increase the expanse of unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain from the previous
Phase III development analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Potential impacts to scenic vistas is
considered a less than significant impact.
b) The Project site is not within a State scenic highway. Project development would not damage any
scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13
c) As stated in Item 1a above, the development Project which would result after all legislative and
entitlement processes are acted on would result in less land disturbance than what was analyzed in
the 1998/99 SEIR. The quality of the architectural design and its relationship to the Project site
and surroundings would be similar, but larger in scale, to that approved for the site in 2000. The
proposed residential tower would be similar to the approved, and constructed, Phase II Terrabay
tower. The City has methods in place to address visual issues which include design review and
modification by the City's Design Review Board. No additional analysis of visual issues, with the
exception of light and glare (see Item d below) would be required.
d) The Project would introduce a mix of land uses that would result in night lighting. Building
materials could generate glare, particularly with the high rise towers. The commercial and retail uses
would include signage which could also generate off-site light impacts. The introduction of night
lighting, reflective building materials and signage at the Project site could result in potentially
significant adverse impacts and will be analyzed in this SEIR.
Mitigation Measures:
For items 1a, 1b and 1c, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures to address significant
light and glare impacts will be identified in the SEIR.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significatu Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Flapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ^ ^ ^
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? ^ ^ ^
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which due to their location or nature could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ^ ^ ^
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 14
Discussion:
a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance.
b) The Project site is currently zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a
Williamson Act contract.
c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San
Francisco 1999).
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ® ^ ^ ^
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ® ^ ^ ^
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant fox which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? ® ^ ^ ^
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ® ^ ^ ^
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) Project development may result in potential conflicts with current Bay Area Air Quality
Management plans. This will be evaluated in the SEIR.
b) The 1998/99 SEIR identified significant short-term construction impacts associated with dust
generated during construction activities. It is likely the Project would have similar short-term air
Terrabay Phase III
Initial Study - 15
quality impacts to those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. This is considered ashort-term significant
impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR determined local long-term air
quality impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated this would be the case for the
proposed Project as less development is proposed. The 2005 SEIR will identify local long-term air
quality impacts and compare the results with the 1998/99 SEIR
c) The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full buildout of Phases I, II
and III of Terrabay would result in significant cumulative impacts. While it is anticipated that the
proposed Project would result in a reduction in air emissions, full buildout of Terrabay may
continue to exceed air quality standards, which could interfere with the region's efforts to reduce
exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMIO. This is considered a significant
air quality impact and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
d) The Project would introduce residential development. The previous Phase III development did not
include residential development which is identified as a sensitive receptor. This will be evaluated in
the 2005 SEIR.
e) The Project would not include land uses that would generate objectionable odors. All restaurant
spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that filter air before it is released outside of the
building as a standard condition of Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant
to the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Mitigation Measures:
For items 3e, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures to address potentially significant
air quality impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant ~'o
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 16
the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service? ^ ^ ® ^
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ^ ^ ® ^
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species ox with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? ^ ^ ® ^
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? ^ ^ ® ^
~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? ^ ^ ® ^
Discussion:
The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources of the Project and re-evaluated
potential impacts on sensitive resources. Section 4.3 Biology of the Terrabay 1998/99 Phase II and III
Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the Terrabay 1998/99 Phase II and III Final
Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a
Review of Biological Issues Initial Study for North Peninsula Playa Project South San Francisco, California
(Environmental Collaborative 2005).
a) The Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the
1998/99 SEIR. Occurrences of the larval host plant for the federally-endangered callippe silverspot
(Speyeria callippe callippe) would be avoided based on mapping prepared as part of the 1998/99 SEIR.
No other special-status species are suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR would apply and would require the Project sponsor
to comply with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat
Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site, and the additional provisions to further
minimize potential impacts on callippe silverspot. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for
under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the current
proposed Project design and the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel, containing Johnny jumpup
(Viola pedunculata), to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park.
Therefore, no Viola pedunculata would be disturbed. Installation of signage along trails and use of
appropriate dust control measures would be required as a standard condition of approval, a dust
mitigation measure for Air Quality in the 2005 SEIR and part of the proposed Project. The
provision of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 for salvage of larval host plants fox callippe silverspot would
no longer apply as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata) plants would be avoided. However, the
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17
proposed Restoration Plan must still be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant
other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) that may be used for nectaring by adult
callippe silverspot, as called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2.
b) The proposed Project has been substantially revised to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian
habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site, which is now referred to as the Preservation
Parcel. These modifications serve to provide compliance with the intent of Mitigation Measures
4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which called for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian
habitat to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community
types. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(b) and 4.3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR would remain applicable
to the proposed Project, calling for revisions to the proposed Restoration Plan to include a salvage
component for native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails
linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain.
c) ~`(lith regard to potential impacts on wetlands, the proposed Project generally conforms with the
provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4.3-3(c). These include the avoidance of
most of the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of the previous Phase III site
evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR (now identified as the Preservation Parcel) preparation of a detailed
Wetland Mitigation Plan to address unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and implementation of
a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which would be accomplished as part of the
required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared
by Wetland Research Associates (VURA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the Ciry's
Oyster Point Hook Ramp project and development of the Project site. The WMP serves to address
the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Bayshore Boulevard at the
Hook Ramps and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate
development of the Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters
were to be mitigated by creating; restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of
two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site.
Necessary agenry authorization was secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and components of the WMP have been implemented such as removal of invasive exotics
and regrading of the two northern drainage channels at the Preservation Parcel. A subsequent
memo by WRA in 2004 (WR.A 2004) summarizes the status of the enhancement success and
expanded wetland acreage adjacent to the northern portion of the site. While permit authorization
from the Corps and RWQCB remain in effect, the Streambed Alteration Agreement with the
CDFG expired on December 31, 2004 and will have to be obtained again by the Project sponsor.
The current site plan for the Project indicates that a small area of approximately 500 square feet of
newly establishing potential wetlands could also be affected by improvements at the intersection of
Mandalay Terrace with Bayshore Boulevard. This small area of potential wetland was created
Terrabay Phase III Project
Initial Study - 18
following installation of the Hook Ramp improvements where surface water was diverted along the
base of the new retaining wall and willow cuttings and rushes were planted in the area. However,
this potential wetland area was established through man-made planting executed during on-going
maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation efforts. Because the access improvements at
Mandalay Terrace would extend into about 500 square feet of the planted area, the plantings would
be relocated during installation of the created wetlands on the Preservation Parcel as part of
implementing the WMl', consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). It should be noted that the
area was to have been completely regraded to construct one of four wetland basins proposed by
WRA as part of the WMI' in 2000, but construction of this fourth basin was considered
unnecessary during refinement of the WMP in 2004 because of the successful wetland
enhancement effects on the Preservation Parcel. The loss of this small area of newly forming
potential wetlands is not considered significant given its man-made origin, required plant salvage
efforts and net increase in created and enhanced wetlands on the Preservation Parcel. Mitigation
Measure 4.3-3(b) provides an adequate framework to address potential impacts on jurisdictional
waters, and requires agency authorization and replacement mitigation prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit for the Project.
The WMP fulfills the provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) to prepare a detailed wetland
mitigation plan and appropriate authorization from jurisdictional agencies is still required prior to
issuance of any grading or building permit for the currently proposed Project. This includes re-
securing authorization from CDFG and ensuring appropriate extensions are obtained from the
Corps and RQCB before they expire, if necessary. This would also include confirmation on the
adequacy of the WNII' in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential
wetlands affected by the Mandalay Terrace access improvements at Bayshore Boulevard.
d) Consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR, no significant impacts on wildlife habitat
are anticipated with the proposed Project.
e) The Project would conform to local plans and policies.
f) The Project would conform with the provisions of the San Brctno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan.
The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel would greatly improve habitat
values on this portion of the original site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 would ensure that the Project
sponsor fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation is required.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incotpotated Impact Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in X15064.5? ^ ^ ^
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to X15064.5? ^ ^ ® ^
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site ox unique geologic feature? ^ ^ ^
d) Disturb any human remains, including those ^ ^ ® ^
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
Section 4.9 Archaeology of the Terrabay 1998199Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIB and Master
Responses 7.3-3, 7.3-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabay 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental
EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the
Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005).
a) There are no historic resources (as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) located on
the Project Site.
b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the Project
site. CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the
County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004. Extensive study of
this site has occurred since 1950. Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface
archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose
of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional
integrity and research significance of the site. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is
approximately 2.2 acres in size. Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates
ranging from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the
oldest documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area. The most abundant material present at the
site was the remains of marine shellfish. Additional materials included those associated with cultural
activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains
other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic
artifacts and materials. The shellmound also contains human remains. While the number of human
burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native
American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman &
Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 20
The Project would completely avoid CA-SMa-40. The Project site plan (see Figure 2) shows the
Preservation Parcel which contains CA-SMa-40, which fulfills the provision of Mitigation Measure
4.9-1(b). The Preservation Parcel is owned by the Trust for Public Lands and is to be conveyed to
San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer
Parcel containing about 2.7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and is proposed as
further assurance there is no disturbance to CA-SMa-40. Development on the Buffer Parcel is
limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk.
c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the
Project Site.
d) As discussed in Item 5b above, CA-SMa-40 contains Native American burials. The proposed
Project specific plan and site plan would avoid CA-SMa-40. This would implement Mitigation
Measure 4.9-1(b) identified in the Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIK. As a result of the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native
American burials is reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005).
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation is required.
Potrntially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant do
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. ^ ^ ® ^
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ® ^
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ^ ^ ® ^
iv) Landslides? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ^ ^ ® ^
Terrabay~Phase III Project Initial Study - 21
c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? ^ ^ ® ^
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property? ^ ^ ® ^
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks ox alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available fox the
disposal of wastewater? ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
Section 4.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabay 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR
are hereby incorporated by reference. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation
program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 2001 a). The
geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic
units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test
borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7
inclinometers. The investigation also included 10 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through
representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing
program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units. The field investigation and
laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were
submitted in a second geotechnical report (LJRS 2001b). Because the proposed Project differs from the
project considered in 2001, additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis are
required to fill data gaps and provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the proposed
Project. This work will be required by the City and incorporated into the final Project design and maps
as a standard condition of approval.
The Project site's topography has been modified as a result of previous quarrying activity. The bedrock
type is predominantly Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial
deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls.
a) No known active faults are located within the Project site or the Terrabay development. Four active
faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San
Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the
Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of
an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San
Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S.
Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located close to the Project site include the San Bruno
fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west-
Terrabay Phase III
Initial Study - 22
northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Bayshore
Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive.
A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure
4.1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the Project site. Based on the
rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the Project design: grade
flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; install rock anchors; install
subdrains; revegetate slopes; install slope monitoring instrumentation; locate fences below rock
outcrops and above cut slopes; and scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation
Measure 4.1-a and would reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impact to a less than significant
level. The Project will be required by the City to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) which
specifies that an annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic
shaking be included in the Slope Maintenance Plan that must be prepared for the project as
specified by Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires that the Project's
CC&Rs establish and provide for the implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the Project's
Property Owners Association. The Project Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(a) and
4.1-4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR will reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result
of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation
Measure 4.1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project
seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the Project as
envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR and the following measures were incorporated into the Project
design including: place keyways for fills through soft soils; grade flatter slopes with benches, install
rock anchors; install subdrains; install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; design
buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; remove rockfalls or encapsulate or
fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 and would reduce potential
impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level.
Stability analyses and geotechnical design recommendations identified in the URS reports (LJRS
2001a and 2001b) and required by the City will confirm the appropriateness of the previously
adopted mitigation measures.
The surficial soil deposits at the Project site consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan
deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to
liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b).
Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the Project site. Without mitigation,
continued movement would have significant impacts on Project development. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR specifies that the Precise Plan for Phase III
identify measure to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides that include removing
material, buttressing and building retaining walls. The Project design incorporates these measures
and would thus implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) requires a
Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) which would provide for ongoing monitoring and
Texrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 23
maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection
structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) and (b) would reduce potential impacts
from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. Grading plans for Phase III
propose cutting into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain.
Additionally, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if
triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) (see above)
would reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level.
b) While the proposed Project would result in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III
development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high. Mitigation
Measures 4.1-2(a) 4.1-2(b) and 4.1-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR would require the Project grading plan
to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type A -
ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1),
install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize
exposed slopes and graded pads,. This would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level.
c) Because the Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading is
considered very low (LTRS 2001). The site contains landslides which could adversely affect Project
development. See Item 6a above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99
SEIR will require that measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides
include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls be listed in the Precise Plan for
Phase III. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b), which requires that the
CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association shall establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan
which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage,
debris slide retention and deflection structures. This would reduce potential landslide impacts to a
less than significant level.
d) Future development would primarily be constructed on rock except for small areas where
foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense.
Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99
SEIR would require design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which would reduce
potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation
Measure 4.1-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be incorporated into the Project design
including: over-excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; surcharge fill with excess material to
accelerate settlement; postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction
season; monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within
acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and place structures on deep pier foundations. The
Project would avoid the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore,
two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the
archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on
the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment".
Texrabay Phase III Project
e) The Project would be connected to the city sewer system.
Mitigation Measures:
No additional mitigation is required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
the project involve:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials? ^
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment? ^
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, ox waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? ^
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? ^
e) Fox a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? ^
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? ^
fl Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ^
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ^
Initial Studv - 24
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incotpocated Impact Impact
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ® ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
Terxabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25
Discussion:
a) The Project site is undeveloped vacant land. The site does not contain hazardous or toxic materials
(PHASE ONE, Inc 2003). Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring
various types of fuel, the Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials.
b) The Project would be a mixed use development including residential, office and retail uses. It
would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment
c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0.75 mile from the Project site. See Items 7a
and 7b above.
d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list
(DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site. The General
Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land
Use Plan. The Project site has a height limit of 361 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be
granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco 2002).
f) The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports. It would not present a
safety hazard for people residing or working at the Project.
g) Development of the Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans.
h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a "Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit"
(City of South San Francisco 2002).
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant bfitigation Significant do
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? ^ ^ ^
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 26
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted?) ^ ^ ® ^
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site ox area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ^ ^ ® ^
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, ox substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
i
?
ff
^ ^ ® ^
te
-s
which would result in flooding on- or o
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
f?
^ ^ ® ^
sources of polluted runof
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ ® ^
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary ox
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
^ ^ ^
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
?
d fl
^ ^ ^
ows
which would impede or redirect floo
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as
?
d
^ ^ ^
am
a result of the failure of a levee or
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ® ^
Discussion:
Section 4.2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR is hereby incorporated by reference.
a) The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
b) Project development would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from
the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. This
would result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the Project site.
c) A portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building area would be filled as a result of the
Project. Mitigation for the fill of this drainage is addressed in the WMP. However, the area of
impervious surfaces would be reduced by about 55 percent resulting in a reduction in storm water
runoff. Storm water runoff would be collected into a pipe system that would convey storm water to
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 27
the existing storm drain facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. A debris basin would be installed to
accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. This would fulfill Mitigation Measures 4.2-11
which requires a debris basin at the Phase III site.
d) The amount of surface runoff from the proposed Project would be less than with the previous
development plan for Phase III. The proposed Project would reduce the potential for flooding at
the Project site. See Items 8c, 8g and 8h.
e) The Project would result in a reduction of storm water runoff compared with the previous
development plan. Project-related storm water runoff will be addressed in the 2005 SEIR under the
Utilities and Services chapter.
f) Future site development as a result of the Project would not degrade water quality. The Project will
be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) that will identify
erosion control and other measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality.
g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco 2002). The
proposed Project would convey storm water runoff into a pipe system that will connect to the storm
water facilities located in Bayshore Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in
Bayshore Boulevard was a mitigation for the development of Terrabay. These facilities were
designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay development. The previous design for Phase III
included a system of benched concrete-lined drainage channels conveying surface drainage to a
sump inlet with a proposed headwall but without a storm drain link to the adjacent street storm
drain system. The proposed Project eliminates the channels and would convey storm water via a
system of pipes that will connect to the City's storm water facilities in Bayshore Boulevard. The
Project design eliminates the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation
Measure 4.2-4. (Corlett 2005).
h) The Project would not locate any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not
impede or redirect any flood flows.
i) The Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. See Items 8g and 8h above.
j) The Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from
San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is
considered low.
Mitigation Measures:
With the exception of Item 8e, No additional mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures for
storm water runoff will be identified in the Utilities and Services chapter of the 2005 SEIR.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 28
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Phan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? ^ ^ ® ^
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan? ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) The Project is the third and final phase of the development of Terrabay. The Project would
complete this planned community.
b) The Project would require amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific
Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the Terrabay Development Agreement. The
Project would change the current land use program to include residential development. The
proposed Project would provide 88 moderate-income dwelling units which represents 26 percent of
the total number of residential units proposed by the Project. The applicant would need to, and is
currently pursuing options to, obtain an exception, pay an in-lieu fee or develop the low-income
units off site. The Project would provide child care fees and a transportation demand management
plan in compliance with Sections of 20.115 and 20.120 of the Municipal Code.
c) The Project would be consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Con.reruation Plan. See Section 4
Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required as part of the subdivision applicant
procedure. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the
payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fire break and
exotic weed control.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
T
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less 'Chan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? ^ ^ ^
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region
or state (City of South San Francisco 2002).
b) The Project site is not delineated as an area oflocally-important mineral resources under the
General Plan (City of South San Francisco 2002).
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Phase III Project Initial Study - 29
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
® ^ ^ ^
® ^ ^ ^
® ^ ^ ^
® ^ ^ ^
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 30
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? ® ^ ^ ^
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) During Project construction, existing Phase I and II residential development would be exposed to
temporary noise increases. Additionally, the first phase of Project development would include the
residential tower, which would be exposed to construction noise associated with the second phase
of Project development. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
b) Project construction may include construction activities that could result in impacts associated with
groundbourne vibration. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
c) The potential for substantial permanent increases in ambient noise will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR.
d) Project development would result in temporary noise increases as a result of Project construction.
This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
e) Noise exposure associated with San Francisco International Airport will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR.
f) The Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures to address potentially significant noise impacts will be identified in the 2005 SEIR.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incotpotated Impact Impact
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and business) or indirectly (fox example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? ^ ^ ^
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 31
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) Previously, Phase III was proposed for commercial and retail development. However, the current
Project would include 336 dwelling units. The Project would not induce the extension of roads and
other infrastructure. These improvements would occur with the previous development plan for
Phase III. The proposed project would replace office development with residential development.
b) The Project site is vacant. It would not displace any housing.
c) The Project site would not displace any people.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incotpomted Impact Impact
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ® ^ ^ ^
b) Police protection? ® ^ ^ ^
c) Schools? ® ^ ^ ^
d) Parks? ^ ^ ® ^
e) Other public facilities? ^ ^ ® ^
Discussion:
a) Project development may adversely affect fire protection services. This will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR.
b) Project development may adversely affect police protection services. This will be analyzed in the
2005 SEIR.
Terrabay Phase III
Initial Study - 32
c) Project development includes residential development which may adversely affect schools. This will
be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (Terrabay Recreation Center) The
Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and
recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and
Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). Phase III includes construction of a history walk
and hiking trail to a sanctuary and open space plazas within the Project. Any impacts to existing
parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignificant.
e) There may be other public facilities that could be adversely affected as a result of the proposed
Project. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to public services will be identified in the
2005 SEIR.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Does the project include recreational facilities ox
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? ^ ^ ® ^
Discussion:
a) See Item 13d above.
b) See Item 13d above.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Terrabay Phase III Project
Initial Study - 33
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incotporated impact Impact
15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? ® ^ ^ ^
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways? ® ^ ^ ^
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks? ^ ^ ^
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ® ^ ^ ^
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ^ ^ ^
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? ® ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) Project development may result in traffic increases beyond those projected for the previous
development plan. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
b) Project development may result in increases in the level of service associated with the previous
development plan for Phase III. This will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
c) The Project would not affect air traffic levels.
d) Project access and circulation design will be evaluated in the 2005 SEIR.
e) Potential impacts associated with emergency access will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
The Project's parking adequacy and compliance with City requirements will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures to address potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts will be identified in
the 2005 SEIR.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 34
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less 'Ihan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incotponted Impact Impact
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proj ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ® ^ ^ ^
b) Require ox result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? ® ^ ^ ^
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities ox expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? ^ ^ ® ^
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? ® ^ ^ ^
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments? ® ^ ^ ^
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?) ® ^ ^ ^
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? ® ^ ^ ^
Discussion:
a) With the introduction of residential development at the Project site, there would be an increase in
wastewater generated at the Project site. Potential effects on RWQCB wastewater treatment
requirements will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
b) Residential development would increase water and wastewater demands at the Project site. Existing
and planned capacities at water and wastewater treatment plants will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
c) The Project may have an impact on storm water facilities and this will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
d) Residential development at the Project site would increase water demand. This will be analyzed in
the 2005 SEIR.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 35
e) Residential development at the Project site would increase wastewater generation. This will be
analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
~ Residential development will increase solid waste generated by the proposed Project. This will be
analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
g) Project compliance with local, state and federal solid waste statutes will be analyzed in the 2005
SEIR.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts to utilities and services will be identified in
the 2005 SEIR.
Potentially
Sign~cant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Signi£can[ Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ox
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eluninate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project axe considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ® ^ ^ ^
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? ® ^ ^ ^
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 36
Discussion:
The Project would result in the following potentially significant impacts: light and glare, air quality,
noise, public services, utilities and service systems and transportation and circulation. These
environmental topics will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 37
REFERENCES
Corlett, Adrian. BKF'. Email correspondence February 27, 2005.
Environmental Collaborative. 2005. Review of Biologicallssues Initial Study for North Peninsula Playa Project South
San Francisco, California. March 1, 2005.
Holman, Miley. Holman & Associates. Personal communication January 3, 2005.
PHASE ONE, Inc. 2003. Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. South
San Francisco, California. Prepared for Myers Development. February 24, 2003.
City of South San Francisco. 2002. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. Adopted
October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002.
City of South San Francisco. 1999 Terrabay Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report.
January 1999.
City of South San Francisco. 1998. Final Terrabay Specific Plan. October 16, 2000. Prepared by Myers
Development Company.
City of South San Francisco. 1998. Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. July
1998.
City of South San Francisco. 1996. Terrabay Specific Plan and DevelopmentA~reement Extension Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report. January 1996. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates.
City of South San Francisco. 1996. Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental
Environmentallmpact Report. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates.
City of South San Francisco. 1982. Terrabay Development Project Draft Environmentallmpact Report. August 1982.
Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group.
URS. 2001 a. Geotechnical Exploration, Terrabay Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California. February 12,
2001.
URS. 2001 b. Report Geotechnical Design Criteria Terrabay Phase III Development, Sauth San Francisco, California.
March 16, 2001.
U.S. Geologic Survey. 199. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 - A
Summary of Findings, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517
Wetland Research Associates. 2000. Wetland Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Francisco,
California, COE File Number 23533S. September 2000.
Weiland Research Associates. 2004. Letter to Mr. Ed Wylie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21, 2004.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP/IS
Terrabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report B-1
May 05 2005 11:40RM CITY OF SSF PLAI'1fiIMG DIVI 650-829-6639 p•~
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
St:Hf1 1997082077
Pr%ct 77t1e Terrabay Phase tit
Lead Agency South San Francisco. City of
Type NOP Notice of Preparation
Description Develop amixed-use project that would include a 22-story residential tower and two 4-5 story
• residential buildings, a 17-story office tower and retail including restaurants. shops, multiplex cinema
and grocery. This development is the third and final phase of Terrabay.
Lead Agency Confect
Name Allison Knapp
Aseney South San Francisco Planning Division
Phorw 850-877-8535 Fax
emal! ~ .
Address 313 maple Street -City Hall Annex
City South San Francisco State CA Zip- 94080
Project Location
Courtly San Mateo •
City Soutl~ San Francisco
Rayion
Cross Sb+~ls i3ayshora Vaulevard
Parcel No. DO7-650-100, 007-650-] 10, 007-650-t20
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
H18hways 6101•
Alrporis SFO
Raffln+ays
Waterways San Francsco Bay
Schools
Land t/3e Vacant Land/Terrabay SpeciTic Plan DistrictlBrrstness Commericar
Protect/slues AestheticlVisual;Air Cluatity; Archaeologio-Hlstoric; DrainagelAbsorption; GeobgicJSeismlc; Noise;
Vegetation; Soil ErosioNCompactioNGradng; Traffic/Cir+culatlon; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian;
I.anduse
Reriew/nQ Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources;
Agencies Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Health Services; Native American Heritage
Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans. District 4; Integrated Waste Management Board;
Regional Water Quality Control t3oard, Region 2
Date Received Q4/21f2005 Start of Review 04!27/2005 End ofRQView 05120/2005
May
'~~ ..
['! •
Q ~,
~ ~
• ~_,•
O ~ m~.
ti ~~
A ~•,~-
~~
05 2005 11:40RM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
' N ~ tH ~ •
_ ~ _ Y V ~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ m ~~ ~ ~~
~ LL ~' v ~ ~~ ~ o ~r a ~~ ~
~ ~
D ~ DD• ~D D DDCr ~D
m ~ T
r !~ r,
p
G~ C
O~ ~Q°
Cp
~
a
~ ~ .
~:~
~~~~ ~~
n
~• ~ ~ v
,~` s ..'~
'~ ~ . ~
c° ~~ ~ ~~$~~
~~L ~ V~ ~ ~ ~iU
.D.DDDD
P
~ ~~ ~~
3 .~
~•~
r ~~
~~ ~ ~ p
~~ ~~
~~~ a~~
~ D
g ~~ ~
o ~ sr ~ 6
~G ~
~ a ~ ~ a od~ a
e a $ g'
.m ~ ~~~~ ~
mD D ^ D
M ~f ~ N to D. O
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ M
,,• S
~~ ~ M ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~DD~D D .~.D
~' ~ ..
J
gL' ~
.n 8' a
~ ~ ~•
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~a
_ m _:. n
• - ~. ~ ~ ~
s
~ ~
~. ~~ ~ . ~ ~
~ ~ _~ .
~ ~ ~ i .
~~~~~
a ~ ~uur
o r
~ ~ a #=o c o
C
,~ ~ ~~ as ~
m ~ a ~,~,s ~~ o
D ~• D D D
_~
r H 'W ~F W 10 -r.
~~_~ ~~~~
' ~ D O O G~ O ~
w ~ -i
~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~_DOD~DDD
~ ~~ ~
Nv~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ q
~~~
m
D D D ^
p.3
_E
~ ~
~•
~~ ~ d
'~ ~ ~ • .
~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~.. o .
.o
E ~ o~ ~~ t~w~ z~~
~~DDDD~~^
~ ~
~ °yy ~yy ~ ~C s ~
C ',~~ nn C 3~3 E r LV
G ~ O t7 ~ C
O ~ off' r ~+ CJ
w° ~ E ~ m O '~ ~ ~e W ~ ~ 3 ~ ~` ~ y
.~ E a~
~~` .o a ~a~e '~ ~ ~ m`Zc~ '~m e~r3 ~3~ ~ ~ a € M A~
w ~~ 8 C~t~w S~a ~d3 ocoww tg ~+
8 "oSvd oc~$an ~crz ~rXW ~~ w~
May 05 2005 11:40AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
TOWN OF COLMA 4190 Ei Camino Real • C~olma, California 940'14
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (850) 885-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-2578
April 27, 2005
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisoa
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
RE: Notice of Preparation of a D$EIR - Tetrabay Phase II I
Dear Ms. Kalkin,
~~
~P~- ~ 8 ~Q05
P~,yN~~
Thank you far allowing the Town of Colma Planning Department to comment on the Notice of
Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Tercabay Phase III Project.
The Town of Colma would strongy suggest that the Environmental Impact Report address potential
impacts brought about by projected Increases in traffic, spec~cally in the vicinity of Lawndale
Boulevard. The establishment of McLellan Drive and Lawndale Boulevard, leading from EI Camino
Real east to Hillside Boulevard, provides an altematjve access route to Sister Cities Boulevard and
Highway 104 from Hfghway 280. This altemafive access could see an increase in use with the
development of the proposed project.
Please keep the Town of Colma informed during the envlronmeMal review process. Feef free to calf
me at (650) 985-259fl if you have any questjons of wish to discuss the project.
CE f ~~~
p.4
Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.5
TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1190 EI Camino Real, Colma, CA 94014
May 16. 20Q5
Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner
Soutfi San Francisco Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RE: Terrabay Phase III
Dear Ms. Knapp:
Phone: 650-985-2590
Fax 650-985-2578
~EcElvEp
MAf~ t 7 ?Q05
Ptq)yNIAIG
Sister Cities Boulevard, in conjunction with other arterial streets, provides an
important link to Highway 280. We are requesting that you document the traffic
volumes and the current and future Peak Hour !Levels of Service at the following two
intersections in your Supplemental EIR:
• Hillside Boulevard at Lawndale Boulevard
• I_awndale Boulevard at Mission Road
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Malcolm C. Ca nter, AICP
City Planner
Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLRIYIVIMG DIVI 650-829-6639 p.4
C~C1~Ci RECEIVED
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNIVIBNT$ SAY 2 7 ~aa5
OF SAN MATED COUNTY
PLANNING
Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane - Burlingame • Colma • Daly Ciry • Eaat Palo Alto • Foster City • HaljMoon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • dfilt3rae
Pacifica • Portola Va!!ey • Redwood Ciry • San Bruno • San Carton • San Mateo • San Mateo Counry• • South Snn Pronctsca • fYoodside
May 24, 2005
Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Knapp:
SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Terrabay Phase III Project. Under the Congestion
Management Program, the review of the project must include the identification of the traffic
impacts on the State Highway System. If that review reveals that the project will generate 100 or
more peak hour trips, the C/CAG land use policy and implementation guidelines must be
followed. This includes the mitigation of all of the trips through Transportation Demand
Management measures.
I look forward to seeing a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIR for this project. Thank you for
your continued efforts on the reduction of congestion in our County.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
•-------
~~ e
Tom Madalena
Planner II
CitylCounty Association of Governments of San Mateo County
650/363-1867 direct
tm adalena@co. sanmat eo. ca.us
TM:fc - TAMP0592 WFN.DOC
455 CovNTY CENreR, 2ND FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 •'~' 650/363-1867 • FAX: 6501363-4849
Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLANfYInG DIVI 650-829-6639 p.2
Department of Pubiic Works
BOARD OF $UPERV180R8
MARK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDQN
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBBON
ADRIENNE TISSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
COUNTY O F SAN MATE O
SSS COUNTY CENTER, 5T" FLOOR -REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94068-1665 • PHONE (850) 383-4100 • FAX (650) 361-8220
May 24, 200
Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94083
R~~F~yf~
~-AY 3 1 r .n.
l~s: t.:
~INN/NG
Dear Ms. Wollam;
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplements] Environmental Impact
Report -Terrabay Pl>tase III, South San Francisco
We are in receipt of your letters dated Apri121, 2005, and May 10, 2005, regarding the
subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as
the Administrator of the Colma Creek Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the
Environmental Review -Initial Study prepared for the project and offers the following
comments:
Our records show that the proposed project. site is located outside of the Colma
Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). The Initial Study indicates that the stuface
nuioff from the proposed project will be conveyed into a pipe system that
connects to the City's existing storm water facility in Bayshore Boulevard. We
request that you provide us with additional information as to how the storm water
in the Bayshore Boulevard facility is directed. Does this storm water facility also
serve as the conveyance system for runoff from the previous Terrabay
developments that are within the Zone boundary?
• Since the Terrabay Phase III project site is located outside of the Zone boundaries
and properties within the project site do not contribute financially to the Zone's
revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, storm water runoff from this
site must not be directed to drain into the District's flood control channel.
Jun 08 2005 1:19PM CITY OF SSF PLRMNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.3
Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report -Terrabay Phase III, South San Francisco
May 24, 2005
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at
(650} 599-1417.
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Stillman, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC:JY:rnmy
F:1US8RS\ADMIV\CITIESVSSF12005\Terrabay Phase 3 -Notice of Prep. Review.doc
G:IUSERS1UTlLiTYiColnta Creek FCDIWORDUteview External Project120051Terrabsy Phase 3 - Notice of Prep. Review.doe
File No: F-149 (9H)
cc: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
,/"_
aIR-oeT
conenlssloN
CITV AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
June 7, 2005
Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
_SFO
San Francisco International Airport
RECEIVED
JAN 0 82005
PLANNIWG
P,O. Box 8097
San Francisco,CA 94128
Tel 650.821.5000
Fax 650.821.5005
www.flysfo.com
GAVIN NEWSOM SubJeCt: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environm
t
l
"'"Y0A en
a
Impact Report - Terrabay~ Phase Ill
Lanar naauou
PRESJDENT
Dear Ms,. Knapp:
MICHAEL S. STRU NSNY
V/CE PRfSJOENT
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of
LINDA 5. CRAYroN Preparation and Initial Study for the Terrabay Phase III Draft Supplemental
CARYL ITO Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR).
ELEANOR JOHNS
JOHN L. MARTIN
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
As described in the Initial Study, Ten-abay Phase Ii[ is the third and final phase
of the Terrabay Development. SFO notes however, that the Initial Study
indicates that there has been a change to Phase III, from the 199$/1999 SEIR to
the proposed project to be evaluated in this 2005 SEIR. Whereas Table 1 on
page 4 of the Initial Study illustrates that no residential development was
proposed in Phase III (199811999 SEIR), the current draft SEIR will consider
the inclusion of 336 market and below market rate dwelling units (Table 3,
Initial Study, page 8). This residential component would be developed in a 22-
story condominium tower and five- or six-story low-rise buildings.
The Initial Study indicates on page 30 that the DSEIR will analyze the noise
exposure associated with the development's proximity to San Francisco
International Airport. Although SFO understand that the Terrabay development
represents a significant signature development in the city, and that the earlier
phases of development included residential development, SFO has concerns
with the inclusion of residential development in Phase III.
Z ' d 6E99-6ZB-OS9 I A I Q 9N I iJNdld ASS ~0 1.1 I 0 Wd6~ ~ T SOOZ BO u~t'
Ms. Aliison Knapp
June 7, 2 005
Page 2 of 3
The Terrabay development is located approximately two miles from the end of Runways
28L/R, the primary departure runways for SFO. As such, residents of Terrabay will
experience some level of noise impact from departing aircraft through the San Bruno Gap
and along the Shoreline departure routes. While all three phases of the Terrabay
development ate located outside of the 65 CNEL noise exposure map, the SFO Noise
Abatement Office has received noise complaints from South San Francisco residents at
the Terrabay development area. Given the -close proximity to the Airport, there is
potential for single-event noise impacts associated with the pattern of aircraft flight paths,
altitudes, and airport operations.
As an active member of the Airport/Community Roundtable, the City of South San
Francisco should be aware of the significant research and study that the Roundtable has
sponsored with respect to development of low frequency and single-event aircraft noise
metrics. Inclusion of the residential component in Phase III would result in a significant
new population in an azea known to be subject to noise impacts from Highway 101 and
aviation sources.
Furthermore, the Initial Study notes on page 13 that the building materials, particularly
with the high rise towers, could generate glare. The height of the high rise towers and the
light and glaze from building materials, could pose adverse impacts on aircraft operations
unless these concerns are addressed during the design stage.
Therefore, it is important that the DSEIR consider and evaluate the potential adverse
environmental impacts described above and include the following mitigation measures:
All project development sponsors shall retain a qualified acoustical
engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical
study in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical
study shall identify methods of desiga and construction to comply with
the applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code, Title 24,
Appendix 35, Sound.Transmission Controls,~and-with FAA Pari 154
Noise Compatibility Program so that construction achieves an indoor
noise level of 45 dBA as measured for aircraft noise events. The.cost of
recommended noise insulation measures shall be borne by the
development project sponsor.
• All project development sponsors shall meet FAA regulations and
prepare a FAA Form 74b0-1 -Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration, and incorporate the findings of the FAA airspace evaluation
into the project plans iri compliance with FAA Regulations FAR Part77
-Pro}ects Affecting Navigable Airspace, to establish height restrictions
and protect the airspace in proximity to San Francisco International
Airport.
g •d 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIQ JNIIJtJd1d dSS d0 JIlIO Wd6b ~ T SOOZ BO UDC
Ms. Allison Knapp
June 7, 2005
Page 3 of 3
• All real property transfer activity shall include appropriate Real Estate
Disclosures as required by the California Department of Real Estate,
indicating new residential development is within two miles of San
Francisco International Airport, an active international commercial
airport.
Please keep SFO informed on this important project. We would appreciate.
receiving a copy of the DSEIR when it is available, and SFO reserves the right
to provide additional comments at that time.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to
call me at (650) 82I-5347. Thank you for your attention to these issues of
concern.
Sincerely,
Nixon Lam
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning, Design and Construction
b'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 InIQ 9NINNki1d dSS d0 AlIO Wd6b~T SOOZ BO ~~C
f
CaIIlamla
Department or
Ha~Mh 9eMcn
SANDRA SHEW RY
Director
State of California-Health and Human Services Agency
Department of Health Services
J
ARNOLD SCHWAAZENSR(iER
Governor
R~C~I QED
June 2, Zoos JAN 0 9 ?~~
_ ~~
Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Attention: Scott Morgan
P. O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 '
Dear Mr. Scott:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION -TERRABAY PHASE III DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY -SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT,
WATER SYSTEM N0.4110009 (SCH# 1997082077)
The Department of Health Services' (Department) comments on the proposed project
are as follows:
The project area, as indicated in .the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, is within the service area of the California Water
Service Company (CWSC) -South San Francisco District, a public water system
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Services (Department)
It was indicated in the NOP that residential development would increase water
demand in the Project site and this would be analyzed in the 2005 Suplemental
Environmental impact Report (SEIR). In the event that any approved development
project within the scope of Terrabay Phase III Project would require additional water
facilities and capacities in order to meet the water demands of the project, CWSC -
South San Francisco District will need to apply for and obtain the necessary
(amended) permits from the Department regarding any additions or changes to its
system, in accordance with Section 116550 (a), Article 7, Chapter 4, California
Health and Safety Code (CHSC). This section specifies that no person operating a
water system shall modify, add to or change his or her source of supply or method of
treatment or change his or her distribution system as authorized by a valid permit
__-_
Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 458, Berkeley, CA, 947041011
(510) 540-2158 FAX (510) 540-2152
DHS Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.gov Program Internet Address: www.dhs.ca.govlpsJddwem
Z'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIO 91JIIJiJH1d ASS ~0 l~lIO WdEO~TT SOOZ 60 ~~C
Mr. Scott Morgan
June 2 2005
Page 2
issued to him or her by .the Department, unless the person first submits an
application to the Department and receives an amended permit as provided in this
chapter authorizing the modification, addition or change in his or her source of
supply or method of treatment.
If you have any questions, please call Jose P. Lozano at (510) 540-2043 or myself at
(510) 540-2413.
Sincerely,
Eric I_a,cy, P.E.
District Engineer
Santa Clara District
Drinking Water Field Operations Branch
cc: SDWSRF-Environmental Coordinator
601 North 7~' Street, MS 92
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Mr. Chet Auckly
Director of Water Quality and Environmental Affairs
California Water Service Company
1720 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112-4598
South San Francisco Planning Division
315 Maple Street -City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94080
San Mateo County Health Department
E •d 6E99-6ZB-OS9 I/1IQ 9NINNFi1d dSS d0 Jll I0 WFiEO ~ t T SOOZ 60 ~~c
Jun 09 2005 11:14RM CITY OF SSF PLRNNING DIVI 650-829-6639 p.3
STATE OFCALIFORNIA-HLTS -- c T NRPOR'I`ATION AND HOLING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEOC3ER. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
lI l GRAND AVENUE
P. O, BOX 23660
OAHI~AND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 288-6506
FAX (610) 286-6bb9
7TY (800) 735-2929
R~~
V ~ O Flex your power!
J/~~ 0 ~ ~~ Be energy e/~ecient?
~~` ~~a,,,•_
June 6, 2005
SM1U1259
SM-101-23.39
SCH 199708207
Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam
South San Prancisco Planning Division
315 Maple Street -City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Ms. Wollam •
Terxsbay Phase III draft. Supple~•nental Prnvi~~onrnental~ Impac~.Report..-Notice of
Preparation ~... _. _ . ~ . ..
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Depaztment) in the
environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the
recirculated Notice of Preparation for the Terrabay Phase III Project draft Environmental
Impact Report and have the following comments to offer:
Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have.to
traffic volume an:d congestion. We recommend a traffic impact aralysis be prepared. The
traffic impact analysis should include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution,
and assignment, The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this
information should be addressed.
2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly
affected streets: and highways~:in~ltlding:crpssroads and cantrolling~ intersections..•An
analysis should be performed specifically on the site entrancelRoute 101 off-
• ramp/Bayshore Boulevard intersection.
"Caltrans improves mobility ocroas California"
Jun 09 2005 11:14f1M CITY OF SSF PLRI`IfYIIYG DIVI 650-829-6639 p.4
Doe. Allison Knapp Wollam
June 6, 2005
Page 2
3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project,
3} cumulative, and 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and roadway
segments in the project area.
4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating
developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities
being evaluated.
5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and
services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to
circulation problems that do not rely on increased higliii~ay-colistruction.
6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
On Page 4, Table 2: Project Site Land Areas, the total acreage as shown in the table adds
up to be more than the 21.2 acres mentioned in the second to last sentence ~ in the
preceding paragraph. Please clarify which is correct:
Also on Page 4 in the first paragraph on line 9, it states that the "Development Parcel" is
comprised of approximately 18.5 acres. Does this parcel include the :Open Space as
shown in Figure 2? Will this open space be reduced to provide more building area?
Please explain.
On Page 6, in the last paragraph, it states: "A fourth vehicular entrance may be located
along Sister Cities Boulevard and will be analyzed in the 2005 SEIR." What is the exact
location of this fourth entrance?
We encourage the City of South San Francisco to coordinate preparation of the study with
our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see
the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of T'rafj~lc Impact Studies" at the following
website for more information:
http://www.dot.ca. gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystemsJreports/tisguide.pdf
We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact analysis and draft Environmental Impact
Report for this project. Please send two copies to:
Alice Jackson
Office of Transit and' Community Planning
Department of Transportation, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
`Caitrans improves mobility across California'
Jun 09 2005 11:14RM CITY OF SSF PLRNhInG DIVI 650-829-6639 p.5
Ma. Allison Knapp Wollam
June 6, 2005
Page 2
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
c.
TIMOT .SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse.)
"Caltrnns improves mobility across Cali/6rnia"
CCAG - ~~c~rvEn
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF Go.VERNME23TS ~ U ~ ~ 7 2QUrJ
OF SAN MA'I'EO COUNTY
pl.ANA1lNG
.ttherrort • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly GFry • Frtst Pala Alto • Foster Ciry • XalfMoon Bay •Hillsborough • Menlo Perk • llftlibru
Pacifica • Portokt Vnliey • Rctlwood Ciry • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mnteo • San Mmeo Coanry • Soueh San Fiiancisco • if'oo~dsirie
June 16, 2005
~.
Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Department .
315 Maple Avenue
City Hali Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94083 •
Desr Allison:
RE: CCAG ~rport Land
of Pr ~~ 'on (NOP)
Terral~ ' -hose III
Thank yo ~'o "" • ' opportuni t ` convnent on
ALUC s~ . ' ants, re: rtlland use
1. :~" Airaa~i7~aad Use
of a Re~j~~~~~,',pn of a Notice
,~.~-,. .
ipaborf • ~ SEIR) for
:. The following are
the proposed project.
The proposed project consists of a mixed-use development as follows: 336 residential units in
a high-rise (180 units) and townhome (156 units) configuration, a 260,00 square-foot office/or
300 room hotel/or optional 180 unit condominium, and 357,500 square feet of retail uses. The
21-acre site at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard is not located
within the most current federal airspace protection parameters for San Francisco International
Airport (SFO) nor is it within the 65 dB CNEL aircraS noise contour, as shown on the most
recent federal Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. Therefore, the project does not require
formal review by the Airport Land Use Commission {C/CAG).
2. Height of Structures, Use of Airspace, and Airspace Compatibility
In my previous comments and analysis of the Terrabay project in 1998 and 2000, I noted that
the proj act site was located within the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 airspace
protection surfaces for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). However, the
configuration of those surfaces has changed since then. Based on the current configuration of
the FAR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for SFO (see enclosure), the project site is not
located within the FAR Part 77 airspace protection boundary for SFO (sea following
comments). Therefore, no formal notification of the FAA, via FAA Form ?460-1, is required.
it ~~ ~.~ ~- ~~ k~~
.r?" 'tf ~.k't~~{ •~'sa':~ix^ k ~'tt ~F~I.' E~~' +k • ~~J_~T7 ~gl.i~a~'~.~,~r° ~ *~~.•` €`,g
-'~ ~~. ~~~~.~~F~ .:~,+oi~ ~i`v~~~: ~7 is"~ ~l.a ~ ~~. -`~• ~.:F Fi~,a h~,mrr' ,:y _r pi ~F ~~-.C' x.:`~ i,sj~;~p,,,:~'(,,Pf.
,3 ~:ttk ~~ ~~ ,ter - -
~~-
555 Cotn~r5r CbNTER, STH FLOOR, REDWar3D C1TY, CA 94063 • 650/599-1406. 6501594-9980
Z'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIQ 9NINNd1d ASS ~0 ~llIO WdEZtOi SOOZ IZ unr
Letter to Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner, C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee
(ALUG~ Staff Comments of a Recirculation of a Nodce of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for Terrabay Phase III
June 16, 2005
Page 2
3. Aircraft Noise Impacts
The project site is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour, as shown on the
most recent Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for SFO. AS noted in rY-y previous comments (1998
and 2000), the project site may be subject to aircraft noise and overflight impacts from aircraft
using the Runways 28 Shoreline Departure Route from SFO. That route is a noise abatement
departure procedure that is designed to direct northbound and eastbound aircraft over the
industrial area east of U.S. Highway 101. However,-based on aircra$ type, aircraft weight,
and wind conditions, some aircraft make a "wide" Shoreline turn, that takes them over noise-
sensitive areas west of U. S. Highway 101. In that situation, aircraft may fly directly over the
Terrabay project site.
Other aircraft noise impacts that may affect the site are from southbound aircraft on the
PORTE Departure Route from Runways 1. These aircraft generally follow the shoreline
along the industrial area east of U.S. Highway 101 before making a left turn in the vicinity of
Candlestick Point. These aircraft will be cleazly visible from the Terrabay site, especially
from the taller residential and hotel structures.
Based on the aircraft routes described above, ALUC staff strongly suggests that the project
sponsor incorporate sufficient noise insulation features into all of the proposed noise sensitive
land uses (residential and hotel uses) to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB
in all habitable rooms, based on aircraft noise events. This interior noise standard is consistent
with state regulations for interior noise levels in multi-family buildings and other noise=
sensitive land uses..
The ALUC staff comments above are consistent with my previous comments on the 1998 and
2000 amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan and related environmental documents. If you
have y uestions or c cuts, please contact me at 650/353-4417.
Sincerely
David arbone, AL C Staf
Enclosures
cc: ALUC Members, w/Enclosures Joseph Rodriguez, FAA, Burlingame, w/enclosures
Richazd Napier, w! Enclosures Nixon Larn, SFO Planning, w/enclosures
alucataffcomldtemlxiyp6so3nop,doc
E'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIQ 9NINNd1d ASS ~O ~llIO WdEZ~OT SOOZ TZ unC
.. ' ~•
U.S Department
of Transportation
Federal AYlatloa
Administration
Western-Pacific Region
Airports Division
San Frandsco Airports District Office
83.1 Mitten Road, Sulta 210
Burlingama,.CA 94010-1300
June 14, 2005
Ms. Allison Knapp, Terrabay Planner
City of South Ban Francisco
Planning Division '
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Knapp:
RFC~ry,~~
SUN 1 ~ 2d05
PANNING
-- - R~:- `Nvtice• of Prep Draft- 9npplementah EnvironmerFtai fmpacta-~~-
Repoitt - Terrabay Phase III
Our o fice received a copy of the June 7, 2005 letter from Mr. Nixon
Lam, enior Environmental Planner for the San Francisco International
Airpo t regarding the subject project.. We concur with all of the
comme is and mitigation measures listed in Mr. Lam's letter.
The F decal Aviation Administration (FAA) has provided the City of
South San Francisco grant funding for home insulation projects. The
feder 1 grants contain a list of Assurances for the noise compatibility
proje is that-were completed within the 6b CNfiL noise sensitive area of
the S n Francisco International Airport (S FO) Noise S.xposure Map (NEM).
The M must be used as a reference document to demonstrate compliance
with tFhe a'_rport grant agreement assurances.
The C ty must take appropriate action to adopt zoning to restrict non-
compa ibis residential development or other building code requirements
to ac ieve an appropriate interior noise reduction level to mitigate.
for a rport noise. New residential development will not be eligible
for f decal funding fox noise insulation.
We en~ourage the City planners to continue to work with the SFO.Noise
Abate ent and Planning Departments regarding future changes for .
residential land use within the limits of the FAA agproved NEM. To
assure consistency with established polices and practices of the San
Francisco International Airport Community Roundtable we recommend that
your office work closely with the City's Community Roundtable
representative.
It is advisable to consider the•use of the criteria contained in the
State of California, Airports Land Use Handbook, to finalize dwelling
unit densities and floor area ratios for future development. We
recommend the use of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150,
Airport Noise Compatirbility Planning, Appendix A Table 1 as a guide for
determining local code requirements for noise level reduction (NLR)
thresholds for future building code enforcement. Future avigation
easements should consider building height limitations based on the.
civil airport surfaces described in FAR Part 77, Objects Effecting
Navigable Airspace. •
~'d 6E99-6zB-OS9 IAIQ 9NINNd~d dSS d0 JllIO WdEZ~Oi SOOZ iZ unr
If you have any questions please contact me at (650) 876-2778,
extension 610 or by electronic mail at joe.rodriguez~^faa.gov.
Sincerely,
QRIGINAL SIGNED BY _
JOSEPH R. RODRIGUEZ
Joseph R. Rodriguez '
Supervisor, Environmental Planning and Compliance Section .
CC: Nixon Lam, SFO Planner
Dave Carbone, ALUC & Airport Community Roundtable
Sandy Hesnard, Caltrans
S'd 6E99-6Z8-OS9 IAIQ 9NIWNd~d ASS ~0 AlIO WdEZ~OT SOOZ TZ unC
PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLES
Terrabay Phare III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report C-1
Appendix C
Table C-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP
FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A 10
B > 10-20
C > 20-35
D > 35 - 55
E > 55 - 80
p > 80
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final .acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
Appendix C
Table C-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A 0- 10
B > 10 - 15
C > 15 - 25
D > 25 - 35
E > 35 - 50
F > 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
Appendix C
Table C-3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND TRIP GENERATION
EAST OF 101 FREEWAY (2000-2020)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT STATUS SIZE LAND USE RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS
Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0.95 300 0.86 271
Existin -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0.54 -76
Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office 0.95 260 0.86 235
Potential 11,400 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 39
Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0.27 18 0.19 13
Existin -94,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52
Oyster Point Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0.93 3 3.39 11
Potential 78,090 SF Office 0.95 74 0.86 67
Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0.27 5 0.19 4
Pt. Grand Potential 2,110 SF Commercial 0.93 2 3.39 7
Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0.27 4 0.19 3
Pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0.95 380 0.86 344
Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 23 3.39 81
Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26
Existin -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107
Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0.95 713 0.86 645
Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0.59 165 0.54 151
Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36
Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11
Existin -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0.54 -198
Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 0.86 1874
Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308
Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99
Existin -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432
MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19
Existin -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9
Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371
Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Office 0.95 701 0.86 634
Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 104
Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34
Existin -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178
Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0.95 755 0.86 683
Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123
Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26
Existin -21,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11
SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0
Potential 6341 6215
Existin -944 -1063
TOTAL 5397 5152
Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as
presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (Apri12001).
Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Apri12001.
Appendix C
Table C-4
BRISBANE
PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND TRIP GENERATION
(2000-2020)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
PLANNING SUBAREA SIZE LAND USE RATE TRIPS .RATE TRIPS
1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123
1,646,990 SF Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454
1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836
8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39
2. Southeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102
3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5
66,500 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 65 1.24 82
4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213
5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140
16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9
6. Owl/Buckeye Canyons N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
7. Quarry N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5
2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5
3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15
120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149
9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88
268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147
214 Units Condo/A ts. 0.67 143 0.82 176
10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283
11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
12. Baylands 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680
500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660
690,000 SF R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 0.94 649
75,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359
2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520
a . 1 mil. SF
SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868
13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
TOTALS 8,964 14,739
N/A = No net additional development planned.
~1~ Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan
EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of
high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF of low traffic generating uses.
Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
U ,r,
;~ U
~~
a `~
M
w
a
E"~
A
`~
0
I~
E"{
a
~/
V
h
F^~
I'1
a
~
00
M
N
N
~":.
.-.
~ Q
a ~
O
x
a
a
~ o
~
O
r~
~"~
"'
O
<'`~
N
M
~ N
~ ~ O O ~ N
~ O
a ~
~
F
M
N O ~ OO
N
M
O
x
QI ^
~ o
~
~
M
~
Q
as
W
M
~~-'
~
~
FI N O
O M
N
.--i p
O l
O
A
~
O
O
O
oo
~
V
N
N
N
O
~
rn
~ , ~ N M ~ ~ N
A +
O F
~ ~
N
~--~ o
'-'
.-r °O
r-+
d' ~O
00
~n
[~
r~ E-~
~7y U
~
N a A
~ a a~+
~ ~a~.+
~
~ o oMO
o oo ~ ~
O
M N O~
N
~
•~ ~
N
H
o~
~ ~ ~~
U
~ U
°~ ~
a~
" ~~ ~
~
o
(~ ~
~'
W .
a
o ,~ ~
w i~
~ b
an ~ ~
O .~
~ ~ ~ O x U H C~7 ~°
M
0
0
N
.~
w
O
.
~
~ o
a
Cti
Q O
~
b
N '
'
.b `"'~
`~ °'
~
i +~'' : ~' +
..
~?,
~ U
O ~ p ,
~
o \° '''
M ~ b f~ O
~ ~
~~~
`"
F" ~ ~
~~
°~ ~
~- k
,, ~ o
.~
OMO N ~ ~ ~ ~ O
vl N M ~ O ~ ~
~. ~-. ^ > .--~ C7 es
~ ~ ~
aaa oa .
~ ~'
~o~~~
b ~ ~ U ~ .
N
U ~;
~ V
0 0 0 ~ ~
II II II ~z
...-..-. ~, a~
.~~o
'
'
~o~?,
I
a ~
a
~
~~ ~~
~
aaa~a E~~ ~
~
..~vv trU
Appendix C
Table C-6
TERRABAY PHASE 3
PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND
NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
AM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
187 Gross Tri s 120
-8
-10 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Office
-4
-20
169 Net New Trips 96
OFFICE
IN OUT
364 Gross Trips 50
-5
-20 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Shopping
0
-10
339 Net new trips 40
MOVIE
IN OUT
6 Gross Tri s 6
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
0
6 All Net New Trips 6
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
23 Gross Tri s 113
-4
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Shopping
Project Office
-8
-5
19 Net new trips 100
PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS
IN OUT
533 242
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Appendix C
Table C-7
TERRABAY PHASE 3
PROJECT INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE AND
NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
PM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
631 Gross Tri s 684
-17
-45
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Office
Movie
-15
-5
-30
539 Net New Trips 634
OFFICE
IN OUT
68 Gross Tri s 331
0
-5
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Shopping
Movie
-5
-45
-10
63 Net New trips 271
MOVIE
IN OUT
122 Gross Tri s 82
-5
-10
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Office
Sho pin
0
0
-30
77 All Net New Trips 52
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
103 Gross Tri s 54
-15
-5
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Shopping
Project Office
Movie
-17
0
-5
83 Net New trips 32
PROJECT NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS
IN OUT
762 989
Source: Crane Transportation Group
M
U ~
C~ F~1
H
U
~ ~
a
W
~1
rHrT~
1r'~~1~
F'~'1
,~
H
W
N
w
O
r~-
A
E-+
U
h
~/
W
W
V
a
A
O~Q N ~ O O O N
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
°. -~7
a O
w
H
O
x ~
O O O N ~ N
vi O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
Qa
A
~ O O O O O O O O
V
w H
o
O
~ z
~
O
~
~
~
~
~
p p
o
p
p
p
p
p p
o
Qa
A
O
as O ~ .N. ~ M N ~ ~ M h ~ .M. O
V
''~ F
O
F
O ~ ~ ~ M
M N ~
~ O
M
vl
vl ~ O
O
A
A
z
Oo~ N [~ ,~ M oo N O O O O O O O
--
w F
U o
w
O A
O N ~ vi M oo N O O O O O O O
z
A
z
_
a -'7
~
N
~
N
~
M
~ c
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
F
F ~
z °
w
~ A
z
~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o p p p p p o
0. ~
~ b
? 'd W ~ ,.j
O a' ,-~
"
~
?
~ ~n
'~ o
~
~,
~
z
a a7
x
a w ~
A G
y
7
H
p
W 2 ~ ~ c° ~ ~ H H~ O
~ F Z ~ 3a ~ F"A
Z
W
O o
N ~
o ~,
~ . ~ ~
Y
y o
E" ~x
o~,
E~ V] p., ~
aQ a~
~ ~Oyy
ti o
~ _o
~ .= ,..~
~ P; U
~ ox
E"' [7a
~~
~ cy o ~ a~i ~ ~ °~ Tc~ ~W ~Q >,~
z ~ pa2 ~ Uw v~3 OW ~2 cnaUCQ AE-~ ~ ~ >0..~ v~A c7
Q
Q
A-
Q
.b
~Q
4:
N
y
bq
O
~~
aS
O N
> ~G
'b Q
.~ ti
~ U
N
b q
in :b
~ w.
,~ [O~
.x F~
a~ .b
C O
~~
a
~ ~
~~
~~
~ ~ ~°
a~
O ~
N ~ o
a~ q
U O (n
~ ~
r..
~ ~ F
a~
~w
~ ~ U
p ~
O ~~
U ~
~~
~~
a
a ~ o
w ~~
cd ~" G
~ „ .o
a~i Pa. ~
~~ a
~ ` o
~A ~~
vUi cGC ~
~ ~v,o
~ w ~ ~
ae w ~ o
;,a~o~
c~~ >t~
O~ ~ „
~° A e
> o ~U
~ N Lam' a'~i
U ~ c°',
~. ~, .. ~
M
o~ ~
a~
~ ~
~ a
b
r ,
~1
r~rT~
Ir~~
F~1
~E--{
I Y
W
~-+
w L~
O
~ ~
W
r~
H
A
a
F
W
a
V
Q+
A
G
~ N O N O N
vl O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
e
W O
E..,
.--.
~
A
O O ~ O ~ M O ~ to O O O O ~
W E"
]
S ~
O
~ z
O O ~ O ~ M O ~ M O O O O 00
P~
A
O
~c v'i v1 v~ vi N .-. ~ O O ~ O M O
~
F O
~ z
O V1 v'1 V'1 Vl N N ~ O O .~.. O M O
~ N ~ ~ M oO N O O O O O O O
«_
w
U o
w
w
O A
O N t~ ~ M oo N O O O O O O O
Q~
H
Z
.. ~ ~ vl ~ M O O O O O O O
z °
w
~ z
r~
a
O N ~ N ~ M ~ O O O O O O O
Qa
~ ~ ~'Y ' ' w OA ~ ~
~
F o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ '-~ '~ w ~ A y
~ a~ '~
Q O
3
w z ~ ~' ~n ~ " a° H H O
~ Ew.. ~ ~ 3~o
a ~ Hw
E" F
o ~ U O O
q x
p
a~
;
O A
A
~ ~3 ~ a ~
Z ~ o]Z Uw Ow ~z v~aUCG AF >O ~Q U
'r1
a~'i
0
~•
~o
O ON
> ~ r=.
a~ it
'b Q
ti
~ U
~ ~
b ~
.N
~ F.
~O
~~
.~
v
~~
b~
~~
.-. ~
~ ~
p"' ~ CL
p ~ ti
Q.
~ ~ O
O C ~
~ O
~ ~ GL
~ 'N ~
~~F
~~
~w ~
~~U
.a ~
~ a
O ^~ ...
U ~
~ O
cad W L1
0
Q' ~ o
k; N O
~~
~~ a
~~
~Q~o
O ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~U,o
.~ ~ ~ n
,,~w~o
aq
j, cL cn o a
o~ ~ ~h
~ Q ~
~ ~n ° ~ U
~o~~ .
yNU~ c°1i
Qv C ~.
Appendix C Table C-10
MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND
C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS
NUMBER OF TRIPS RECOMMENDED TOTAL TRIP
TDM MEASURE CREDITED QUANTITY CREDITS
Bicycle lockers and racks 1/3 per bike locker/rack 18 (1 per 50 parking 6
s aces
Showers and changing 2 trips per facility Install 3 shower/locker 6
rooms facilities (1 per building)
Operation of a shuttle 1 trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2 Implement Guaranteed 160
service to rail stations trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride Ride Home. Implement
Home program. 5 trips will be new shuttles or fund
credited if shuttle stops at a expansion of existing
childcare facility en route to/from shuttles to provide 80
the worksite. additional round tri seats.
Charge employees for 1 trip for each parking spot 0
parking charged at $20 per month
Subsidize transit tickets for 1 trip per transit pass subsidized at Subsidizes 79 monthly 79
employees $20 per month. 1 additional trip if transit passes (10% of 790
subsidy increased to $75 for employees)
parents using transit to take a child
to childcare en route to work.
Preferential parking for car 2 trips per reserved parking spot 26 carpool parking places 115
and vanpoolers for carpools; 7 trips per parking (3% of 882 total); 9
spot for vanpools. vanpool parking places
(1% of 882)
Implement a vanpool 7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with Implement Guaranteed 20
program Guaranteed Ride Home program Ride Home. Implement 2
van ools.
Operate commute 1 trip per features, plus 1 trip per Install information kiosks 3
assistance center hour staffed in each of 3 buildings with
links to transit and
rideshare information
Installation of highband 1 trip per connection Coordinated with tenants to 40
width connections to install connections for 5%
em to ees' homes of 90 em to ees
Install a video conference 20 trips per center Install one video 20
center conference center
Provision of on-site 1 trip per on-site feature 0
amenities
Coordinate TDM programs 5 trips Coordinate with nearby 5
with existing buildings
develo ments/ em loyers
Provision of childcare 1 trip for every 2 childcare slots; 0
services as part of the increasing to 1 trip for each slot if
development multiple age groups are selected
(infants=0-2 yrs, preschool=3-4
s, school a e=5-13 s .
Combine 10 elements 5 trips 5
TOTAL 459
Source: City of South San Francisco
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
TRAFFIC TABLES
Temabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport D-1
A ^,
YE '
;ti A
^~~
i~
M
w
W
H
A
w
O
E~
w
Z
T^
O
W
H
W
0 ~ oN0 ~ N N ~
~ O
a ~
F
O ~ `^ O M
.-.
~
.-~
~
O
x
w
A a
o
~ ~
~ N
~ N
°
~
a 0
F
v O M N M
~
O O ~ ~ O ~ M
~ O
~~Qyayy: ~,
,
~' O F N
v O
O N N M
O
W
a
~
~ a
0
''
00
.--i
~
"'-~
.--i
•--~
~
M
M
O
~ F N O
O` M O O
.a °o
N ~
^'
~ ~ ~ N N "' N
O
O
A +
F N
~ ~
~ ~
~ oho
~
o ~
w ,
~,
O
~ ~
o
'~
V1 ~''~ O
O O .--~ ~
O ,~0 ,~
a
~
~
o
H .~
~ a ~
~ ~, a, o
~ w
~ ~ .~ ~
~~
~ U
~ a
~ '~
~ a~
o ~ 'd
ao 0 ~
0 O 3
~ o
~ v~ ~ x x U F~ C7 ~
M
0
0
N
.~
W
0
a
h
O
+~
,
,+~,~,
ti
N
+~' ~ ,dam
O ~ ~
o ~ O
M ~ w Q
~'
~~ ~
,
a~ ~
~~
.~ °O w ~ o
o ~~.
~-
oMO N ~ o,
~
~ O
.
+ -F + G °~ ~
X ~ .a
,
•~ ~
.D~°o~ ~
~ ~ c°'iU
~
O O O
,,
^^^ z rn N
.~ .o ~
~~
,
~a
~ aa
a..~aa E~~C ~
~
Appendix D
Table D-2
TERRABAY PHASE 3
ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE
AM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
187 Gross Tri s 120
-8
-10 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Hotel
-4
-5
169 Net New Trips 111
HOTEL
IN OUT
117 Gross. Trips 84
0
-5 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Shopping
0
-16
112 Net New trips 68
MOVIE
IN OUT
6 Gross Tri s 6
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
0
6 All Net New Trips 6
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
23 Gross Trips 113
-4
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Shopping
Project Hotel
-8
19 Net New trips 105
ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
IN OUT
306 296
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Appendix D
Table D-3
TERRABAY PHASE 3
ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE
PM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
631 Gross Tri s 684
-17
-20
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Hotel
Movie
-15
-10
-30
564 Net New Trips 629
HOTEL
IN OUT
102 Gross Tri s 108
0
-10
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Shopping
Movie
0
-20
-5
92 Net New trips 83
MOVIE
IN OUT
122 Gross Tri s 82
-5
-5
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Project Hotel
Shopping
0
0
-30
82 All Net New Trips 52
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
103 Gross Tri s 54
-15
0
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Shopping
Project Hotel
Movie
-17
0
-5
88 Net New Trips 32
ALTERNATIVE 1 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
IN OUT
826 796
Source: Crane Transportation Group
A .~
~A
"d
~ .-r
~ ~
M
w
a
l '
A
w
~/
O
E-~
w
T~~/~
V1
O
N
r~r,
1~1
F
a
\p
~
O
N
O~0
~ Q
F" D w
E
dd.
C4 ~
v o v
.~ ~
r.
x
w
A a
~
~
'"
~
~
°°
a
a O
~ w
~
N
M
' O
Q
~
-
jC c
,
N
~O ~
O
~ o
N
r
-+
a H
E
O
N M
O
~
N
M
O
x
~
a
A a
~
~
~
N
~
N
~
O
p Fw-~ _
N M
O
O
' O ~ ~ o O~
F ' ~ ~.j .-i .--i ~
~
O
A +
O
M
- N
~ ~
N
r+ ~
•--~
'ch ~
00
vl
~ ~
Ly
w
N O'
`n ~
~' ~ ~ 3
o
,
,, O
~ oo
o
~.,.,
.~
a~
N ~
M y
N
o
U
U
a '~
~
.~
~ .~
~ ~,
w a
o 'a ~~
~o ~ O~
~
,'~ ~ ~ 'x U H C
.7 ~°
0
0
N
N
.~
W
Q
R,
C
h
0
°~
;~
N
O ~ ~
a ~ O
M ~ w ~
?~
o ~
H ~
., oo
~° ~, ~ o
oMON~ a
~ ~~
~ O
+ -~ +
~ O
•--~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ r
i
/ti ~ ~
. ~' ~'
aaaa ~
~no~o~
~~~ ~
0 0 0 ~
~, a"i vU
~
ii ii ii z ~ ~ ,~?,
HHh ii a ~'~
aaaa h~c ~
~
..~" [~U
Appendix D
Table D-5
TERRABAY PHASE 3
ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE
AM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
187 Gross Tri s 120
-12 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Pro~ect Residential
-6
175 Net New Trips 114
MOVIE
IN OUT
6 Gross Tri s 6
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
0
6 All Net New Trips 6
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
34 Gross Tri s 164
-6 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Sho ping
-12
28 Net New Trips 152
ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
IN OUT
209 272
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Appendix D
Table D-6
TERRABAY PHASE 3
ALTERNATIVE 2 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE
PM PEAK HOUR
SHOPPING
IN OUT
631 Gross Tri s 684
-24
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Movie
-22
-30
577 Net New Trips 632
MOVIE
IN OUT
122 Gross Tri s 82
-7
-30 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Residential
Shopping
0
-30
85 All Net New Trips 52
RESIDENTIAL
IN OUT
146 Gross Tri s 79
-22
0 INTERNAL CAPTURE
Project Shopping
Movie
-24
-7
124 Net New Trips 48
ALTERNATIVE 2 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
IN OUT
786 732
Source: Crane Transportation Group
AIR QUALITY MODEL
Teerabay Phase III Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report E-1
URBEMIS-2002
Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program
called URBEMIS-2002.' URBEMIS-2002 is a program that estimates the emissions that
result from various land use development projects. Land use project can include
residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums,
and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial parks.
URBEMIS-2002 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate
emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be used when
it is available.
Inputs to the URBEMIS-2002 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix,
average trip length by trip type and average speed. Trip generation rates for project
land uses were provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths
and vehicle mixes for the Bay Area were used. Average speed for all types of trips was
assumed to be 30 MPH. The URBEMIS-2002 run assumed summertime conditions
with an ambient temperature of 85 degrees F.
The analysis was carried out assuming project build-out would occur by the year 2010.
CALINE-4 MODELING
The CALINE-4 model is afourth-generation line source air quality model that is based
on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize
pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source strength, meteorology, site
geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for
receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALINE-4 model allows
roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates,
height, width, etc.
A screening-level form of the CALINE-4 program was used to predict concentrations.2
Normalized concentrations for each roadway size (2 lanes, 4 lanes, etc.) are adjusted
for the two-way traffic volume and emission factor. Calculations were made for a
receptor at a corner of the intersection, located at the curb. Emission factors were
derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC7-2002 computer program
based on a Bay Area vehicle mix.
The screening form of the CALINE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby
roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level
' Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows
with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 8.7, April 2005.
z ~Y Pr ~ pi r Oral i t y I~r~agerr~nt D st r i ct , B ~ Ci.~i del i ryes, 1999.
attributed to more distant traffic. The 1-hour background level in 2005 was taken as 4.4
PPM and the 8-hour background concentration was taken as 3.2 PPM. The 1-hour
background level in 2010 and 2020 was taken as 3.9 PPM and the 8-hour background
concentration was taken as 2.9 PPM. These backgrounds were estimated using
isopleth maps and correction factors developed by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
Eight-hour concentrations were obtained from the 1-hour output of the CALINE-4 model
using a persistence factor of 0.7.
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
WILL SERVE LETTER
Terrabay Phase III Pr jert Draft Sufij~lementu! Enanronmenta! Impact Report F-1
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY BAYSHCIRE DISTRICT
341 NORTH DELAWARE STREET • SAN MATED, CA 94401-1727
(650) 343-1 808 • fAX (650) 342-6865
July 13, 2005
Mr. Adrian Corlett, PE
BKF
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
Re: The Mandalay Terrace, South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Corlett,
California Water Service Company is prepared to provide water service to "The
Mandalay Terrace" project located adjacent to Bayshore Boulevard between Sister Cities
Boulevard and the newly constructed Route 101 Hook Ramps in South San Francisco in
accordance with all rules and regulations in effect and on file with the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California. Those rules maybe modified from time to time
by the commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
An extension of our facilities will be necessary to serve this project. The specific water
requirements for the proposed site can not be determined until fire department
requirements, domestic requirements, and utility plans are submitted to California Water
Company.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me at (650) 558-7862.
Sincerely,
,~~~
Leighton Low
Construction Superintendent
DISTRICT OFFICES: ANTELOPE VALLEY RAKERSFIELD BAY SHORE BEAR GULCH CHICO DIXON EAST LOS ANGELES KERN RIVER VALLEY KING CITY
LIV ERMORE • LOS ALTOS • MARYSVILLE OROVIILE RANCHO DOMINGUEZ • REDWOOD VALLEY SAUNAS SELMA STOCKFON VISALIA WESTIAKE WILLOWS